Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 with funding from Duke University Libraries http://www.archive.org/details/resurrectiondefe01anne THE Resurrection Defenders Stript of all Defence. Wherein is fhewiij That alJ the Predictions of it were unkfiown — That Chrift*s miracles were not believed — That his Rifing again was not expe<5led — That the Story of the Watch is incredible— That the Defenders, Mr. Sylvester^ the Clearer, Mr, Chandler, and Mr. Jackson, difagree in underftanding the Appearances, as much as the Evangelifts in relating them — More Proofs of Evangelical Difcord — The Authority of the Gofpels of St. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and the Acts of the Apostles, exa- mined and difcovered. Audi alteram partem^ Ex "ueritate caufa pendciur : Sola bona qiia honefta. CQme noiVy and let us re a fan together. Ifai. i. 1 8. TJjcu art weighed in the balance, and fsioid wanting. Dan. V. 27. L N D O N : Printed for the Author j and Sold at the Pumphkt Shopi in London and Jf^cjltninjler, THE P,,„ CONTENTS. '^'^^ Sect, i.nf*^ HE introduction. P^ge 3 2. Of Chrift's foretelling his own refurre6l:ion. 4 3. Whether the predictions were all delivered in private. 5 4. Whether fecrecy was enjoin'd the apoftles, — • 6 5. Objeftions anfwer'd. — — 7 6. Of Jefus enjoining his difclples to fecrete his charac- ter. — — — 9 7. Whether the difciples or Judas divulg'd the predi£liou of Chrift's refurredtion. — - — 10 8. Whether the Jew rulers believed thepredidion of Chrift's refurredion. — 13 g. Whether the gofpel hiftory be a proof that the Jews be- lieved the miracles of Jefus. — — 15 10. Whether the Jews believ'd Chrift's miracles. 17 11. The Clearer' s arguments to prove Chrift's miracles believ'd, prove the contrary. 18 12. Miracles,without correfpondent effeCls, improbable. 21 13. Of the Jews afcribing Chrift's miracles to the devil. 24 14. Remarks on fome particulars in the Clearer, 27 15. Of the predictions of the refurreClion. 28 16. The defenders charaCteriz'd. — — 31 17. Of the fpicing the body of Jefus, and other circum- ftances. — — 32 18. Of the women difciples that attended the fepulchre. 35 19. Of the effect the apparition made to the watch, had on them and the priefts. — ~— 3^ 20. Remarks on Mr. Chandler^ aftertions. 38 21. Whether the watch were credible evidence In favour of the refurrecSlion. — — 40 22. Of the fufficiency of gofpel-evidence, and my Errors. 41 23. Of the defenders attempts to reconcile the appearan- ces of Chrift. — — 42 24. Mr. Syhejier^s account of the appearances of Jcfos compared with the evangelifts. 43 25. The manner of the firft appearance to Mary Magda- lene^ according to the Clearer. — — - 45 A 2, 26. The •^/^ The CONTENTS. 26. The hlftory of Ch rift's appearance to Mary Magda- lene^ according to Mr. Chandler. 46 27* Mr. Jackfanh relation of the appearance of Jefus td Mary Magdalene, — — 47 28. Remarks on the cxpgfitions of thefe,gofpel-defenders. 47 29. The harmony of the gofpel defenders. 50 30. Remarks on attempting to reconcile irreeoncileable hi/!ory. — — — 52 31. Of the next appearance, and other clrcumftances. 54 32. Of unintelligible hiftory, and the manner of defend- ing it* — ^ ^ 5g 33. On the harmony of the other appearance ot appear- ances. — -— — 59 34. Of the other appearance of Jefus, according to the defenders. -— -^ — 61 35. Of the miracles performed when Jefus was appre- hended. -^-^ • — — 68 36. Obfervations on the hiftory of Judas, 69 37. Obfervations on fome circumftances at the crucifixion. 76 38. Reflections on the rriiraculous gift of tongues. 73 39. Remarks on Jefus being thefon of God. 74 40. Obfervations on St. Johnh gofpel. — — 75 41. On the authority of the gofpels. — — 79 42. Of St. Matthew's gofpel. — — 8 1 43. On St. Mark's gofpel. — ^-83 44. On St. Luke's gofpel. — - — 85 45. Of St. John's gofpel. ^ — . 86 46. Of the Ms of the apoftles. • 86 47. Of Chriftian herefies. — — 88 48. Mr. Jones's rules to judge of canonical books. 91 49. Condufive qmcfies. — > -^ 93 THE THE Resurrection Defenders Stript of all Defence. In a Letter to a Friend. §. I. ne Introduction* SIR, AS a traveller on a joiirney, to make the bed of his way, waits not for company^ fo I Ihall not for your converlation to finifh our diicourfe on the iubjea: we had begun -, that I may difpatch it in fewer words. Having fufficiently vindicated myfelf in the firft part, called the Refurre^ion Recon/idered, which tule I now think was a mifnomen, I purpofe to pafs over all reflexions, regard nothing but the argu- ment, and to handle it in as ferious a mariner, as I can, to gratify fuch icuous enquirers as youffelf. You have been acquainted, that the Clearer'^ infmuations againft me are falfe, 1 hope to your fatisfadion ; and I don't doubt to make it appt^ar, that all his arguments, with thofe of Mr. Svlves- T£R*s, Mr. Chandler's, and Mr. Jackso!^\s ^f'^ B 9i [ 4 ] of the fame kind ; if common fenfe may be al- lowed to determine the controverfy ; for I lay claim to nothing uncommon, tho' Mr. Syhefler charges me with fo doing-, nor does the argument on my fide need it •, and that which does, fhows a weak caufe : for plain truth is eafily defended, and is my defence. She is the Minerva that covers me with her invifible fhield, and gives good courage to a good confcience. But the eafy credulity of the vulgar is that bubble of imagination, which is broke with the leaft blaft of good fenfe. §.2. Of Chrift foretelling his own Refurreolion, I am now to begin with Chrift's foretelling his own refurre6lion : I fhewed, that what is faid to be delivered in public, that of the temple and of Jonah^ were parables, and not underftood ; this is not de- nied. So that what was public, was not plain, and what was plain, was not public ; and thofe predic- tions that were plain and private, *tis faid, were not underdood. This is well faid, becaufe the circum- itances attending the fa6t contradict the predic- tions : therefore, as the difciples fore-knew nothing of their Mafter's rifing from the dead, the Jew lulers muft have been ignorant of any fuch predic- tion ; and if fo, the ftory of fetting a watch, and the private predicflions, muft have been interpo- lations. Againft this 'tis urged, i/?. That the five predic- tions to the difciples were ijot all delivered in pri- vate, idly^ That they were not enjoined fecrecy in the cafe. 3^/y, That fome difciples might ac- quaint the Jew rulers with it. And, /\.thly, that they liftencd to the prophecy, becaufe they were con- vinced, that Jefus wrought miracles. I Ihall anfv/er ail thele objedtions to my argu- ments. §■3- Is] §.3. IVh ether the fredi£iions were all delivered in private, Obj. That the five predidlions of Jcfus to his difciplcs were not all delivered in private. The Clearer fays, (p. 45.) to take them as I have rang'd them, ' The firft and third were made to the difci- * pies: Is there not reafon then to fuppofe they * were made to more than to the twelve, for he * had feventy difciples,^ Anf. There is no reafon to fuppofe this the cafe the firft time; ^ox St, Luke (ix. 18.) fays. When he was alone prayings his difciples were with him. Could he be alone, when feventy perfons were with him ? I think it fignifies, that lefs than the twelve, rather than more, were with him \ for his being alone ar- gues privacy, and that at moft it can mean no more, than that he was with the twelve alone, mentioned a little before, ver. 10. 12. Befides, this was at a time when he enquired of them privately. What perfon the people took him to be ? Tho', by the way, if Jefus knew mens thoughts, as the evan- gelifts fay, what need had he to afk his difciples, what men faid of him ? for in that cafe he mutt have known before-hand, what men faid, and what they would anfwer. The third time was, when he pajjed thro* Galilee^ and would not that any man Jhould know it^ (Mark ix. 30.) therefore he had not the multitude of the dif- ciples, nor the 70 with him j for then he muft have been known. Befides, at this third time, they that heard, did not underdaiid what he faid, nor afk'd what he meant, (ver. 32.) Therefore, 'tis more likely they were not feven, than that they were 70, unlefs all the difciples were without un- derftanding. B 2 So [6] So that every one of the five predications to the difciples were private to the apoftks only. §.4. Whether fecrecy was e^ijoined the apoftks ? Ohj, * But they were not enjoined fecrecy in ' the affairs only in this point, that Jefus was the ' Chrift.' Afif. The reafr-n why Jcfus defired privacy was, according to Mark^ (ix. 31.) for this very caufe, that he taught bis difciples^ and /aid unto them^ the fin of man muft he killed, and rifi again •, and this the difci- ples kept private, fays Mark^ ver. 10. After the transfiguration he charged them they fhould tell no man what things they had feen, till the fon of; man was rifen from the dead ; A'nd they kept that faying with themfelves, quefiioning one with another^ what the r'fmg from the dead fioould mean. But St. Luke^ (ix. 44.) has it only, that he Jloculd he delivered inta the hands of men^ without a word of his rifing again, the moft effential point ^ fo that either the one feems to have ftretch'd, or the other to have forgot himfeir, and wrote without the guidance of the Holy Spirit ; for that St. John (xiv. 26.) was to bring all things to their remembrance^ that Chrift had faid unto them. St. hiike (ix. 45.) writes, that they underftood not this faying^ and it was hid from them ', that they perceived it not^ and they feared to ijfk him of that faying.- Surely he kept them in a very awful fjbjedlion ! But what did they not un- derhand ^ 'Tis very plain they did not underftand what he meant, that he fliould be delivered into the hands of men, and rife from the dead. The fourth time, when Jcfus is faid to deliver this fecret to the twelve, apart from the reft, it was fccret enough, for they knew not the things that were fpoken^ that is, they knew not what he laid ; there^ fore they could not difcover it. Fit receptacles thcfQ [7 3 thefe for the fecrets of divine wifdom ! There was no fear of their difclofing the divine fecrets. 'Tis no wonder they are not yet difclofed ; and that the myrteries of the kingdom are always explaining, and never explained. If they underftood not their Mailer, how fhould we^ who have our lefTons from them. Obj. Bat fays the Clearer^ ' Tho' the difciples * did not underftand the meaning of the prophecy, * they underftcod the language or import of the * words, or elfe what did St. Peter reprove our * Lord for ? ' Anf, How they underftood not the meaning, but the import of the words, pafles my underftand- ing : St. Peter underftood what he faid about his fufferings and death, but not what he faid about his rifing again ; and 'tis moll trifling to fay, ' If * they underftood the literal fenfe of the words ' fpoken to them, they might report them, and * others underftand the meaning, tho' they did * not ', and thus at leaft the chief priefts might * come to know that Jefus had foretold his refur- * reftion.' If they knew the literal meaning of the words, they knew all the meaning the words had ; for 'tis not pretended they had any other. But I fhould never have done, if I was to take no- tice of all their weak arguments. §. 5. Ohje^fions anfwered, Ohj. ' But the thing they did not underftand * was, how the Mefliah, who (according to their * notions) was to live for ever, was to die and rife * again.' Anf. But if they underftood what he faid, they had the more reafon to believe he would live for ever, if he was to rife to life again, after he was dead, Obj. [8] Ohj. * The Apoflles were enjoln'd fecrecy, not * with refpedt to the death and rerurre(5lion of Je- ' fus', but with refpecl exprefsJy to this point only, * that he was the Chrifl.' Anf. But I have proved the former part of this aflertion to be wrong. The Clearer himfelf tells us of another fecrecy enjoined the difcipjes, befides his being the Chriil, which is the vifion of the tranf- figuration. Therefore the Injundion was not with refpeLt to that ' one point only/ as the Clearer fiys, p. 50. That fuch a fine fliow fhould be made only to three men, and kept private till after the refurredlion, is as dark a ftory as the vifion is faid to be bright. Ohj. The Clearer argues (p. 50.) ' That thepro- * hibilion to divulge it, was enjoined the difciples, *^ that they fhould not from hence raife falfe no- * tions of Chrift's power.' Anf. Did their keeping it a fecret prevent what falfe notions they might receive from it ? But how could they raife falfe notions of his power, if he was God as well as man ? And why was the voice of God fecreted from the people's knowledge ? Jefus was declared to be the fon of God to a very few : and they too that already believed it. 'Twas z (lillfmall voice. John the Baptifl and Jefus only heard it before, and thefe three his familiars now. Had the voice fpoke to the fcribes, phari fees, and infidels, they, perhaps if they had heard the fon declared, would have wanted to know the father; but this voice was not fit for priefts to hear ; for they that keep others in ignorance ought to be kept in ignorance. Yet, as I wifh their converfion, I would they had heard; for perhaps the father might have converted them, tho' the fon could not. §.6. [9] §.6. Of Jefus enjoining his difcifks to fecrete bis cbaraSfer, But wherefore did Jefus charge his difclples to tell no man that he was the Chrift ? The Ckar.r fays (p, 47, 48.) to prevent the ill cffcds of it ; * for fuch declaration to the people, according to * their notion of Chrift, would have amounted to * a claim of temporal power, which our Lord (he * fays) took all proper occafions to difclaim.' ^nf. Had he done fo, in all probability he had faved his life. But if he wrought Miracles, he had more than temporal power ; and therefore had no need to fear any thing, when he was in- verted with a power divine. Does he mean that the fears of death were fo ftrong in him, that he forbad his difciples while he was living to own him ^theChrift; but commanded them, after he was dead and gone, to conflrain all men to believe and own it by the terrors of damnation ? If fay- ing he was the Chrift amounted to a claim of tem- poral power, according to the peoples notion, fliould not his firfl and chief bufinefs have been to fet his difciples and the people rig:u in their no- tions, what the expected Meffiah really was, be- fore he declared himfelf that perfon ? Had he convinced them of the former, the way had been pav'd to the latter. What fignined referring the people to fearcb the Scriptures, and telling them that they teftified of him, when they did not un- derlhnd its Teftimony : For while their notion re- mained of a temporal redeemer, they could not fee the fcriptures tertined of him. To what end were they to fearch the fcriptures, which reprefented the Meffiah to them in a wrong charafter, as a prince poireffing, and not difclaiming temporal power ? That the Father fhould deceive his own p.ople by 1 )m% [ 10 ] his prophets, and they thro' faith in that word fhould be fo bigotted to the deception, that the Son could not undeceive them, is fo very unac- countable, that it can pafs with none but a tho- K)ugh-pac'd believer. To what end did he make them his apoftles ? How could the world believe in him, if he prevented himfelf from being known to the world ? How could they believe in him on whom they had not heard ? And how could they hear with- out a preacher ?* And how could they preach if they were not fent^ but forbidden ? If Jefus did not come to make himfelf known as the Chrift, wherefore came he ? If he did, why did he forbid his difciples to make him known ? And why were they fent to preach that his kingdom was at hand ? If his com- ing was to be made public, why was fecrecy en- join'd ? If the old teftament gave the Meffiah a charader the new does not, 'tis plain they differ as widely as flefh and fpirir, things temporal and fpi- ritual. 'Tis probable, Jefus finding his difciples rude and ignorant, knew that their manner of di- vulging his pretenfions would do him more injury than advantage, therefore he forbad their telling it, and cautioufly delivered it himfelf to proper perfons, for he knew fome too well to commit him- felf to them. John ii. 24. §. 7. Whether the difciples or Judas divulged the predi^ion of Cbrifl's refurre£fion, 'Tis obje6ted, that fome difciples, or at lead Ju- das^ might acquaint the fcribes and pharifees with the private prediction of Jefus concerning his dy- ing and rifing again. And yet the Clearer (liys (p. 71.) that ' There ' is not the lead intimation in the gofpel, that the * chief priefls knew the opinion of the difciples in * this cafe, or that they would have confidered it * of C " ] * of any weight or moment at all.* For as he * fays, ' The rulers had them in contempt,* how- then did they believe their ftory if they heard it t But this they could not do ; for 'tis not at all pro- bable the difciples fhould difcover what they knew not, for they own that they did not underftand Jefus was to rife again from the dead j this the fcripture and the Clearer confefTes, p. 49. and whal men do not underftand they don't know. But that fome of the difciples Ihould blab the fecrer, and fur- prize the fcribes and pharifees with the difcovery, or that Judas, who betrayed his mafter, might be- tray his fecrets ; as it is not at all likely, for the reafon already given, fo 'tis probable the Jew ru- lers gave no manner of regard to it, if any of them did. 'Tis very unlikely they fhould credit (o idle a ftory told them by his credulous difciples^ at lead what Judas faid, who in their opinion muft needs pafs for a deluded fool, and a treacherous villain. Befides, Judas making a fale of his mailer, (hews he did not believe a word of it, unlefs he was in hopes after his refurrection to fell him again. But had the fcribes and pharifees been told of it, why lliould they fear left he fhould be as good as his word, when at the fame time not one of thofe who believed in him, believed one word about it : For if ever they heard the prediction, they regarded it fo little, that they forgot it, though it was of the laft importance to them to remember it -, and how Ihould they do otherwife, if they did not under- ftand what was fliid about ir, St. John delivers it by way of excufe, that as yet they knew not the fcrip^ tures that he was to rife again fror/i the dead. But if they knew not what the fcripcures or old prophe- cies faid, they knew what their mailer had pr9phe- fled, if he faid what is reported, which was enough to inform therii of it. The words as yet^ the defenders fay, is a kind of proof that they kneW C ifi [ 12 ] it afterwards : Bat none of them know it yet out of the old prophets. Thofe enigmatical expreffions of the temple and Jonah^ which the apoftles did not underftand when fpoken, they might know, but as yet had not given them the force of prophecies. Words not underftood, as they raife no expeda- tions of any thing to come in the hearers, fo they foretell nothing, and are no prophecies. Mr. Syl- vejler has found the prophecy only in types, and Mr. Chandler in ftrain'd inferences. This ihews they are fo diftrefs'd to find any of this fort, that they are obliged to make them ; for he that makes the fcripture to fpeak what it don't, makes fcrip- lure to ferve his turn. The Clearer objedls. * Suppofe now the difci- * pies want of underllanding to be true, it ihews * their honelly and fincerity in reporting it fairly ; * and afks what purpofe could beferv'd by it.' I anfwer, viri vera /implicit ate honi ! Are we then to depend on the fincerity and honefty of men that want underftand ing ? Alas, how eafijy are fuch men deceived! But this purpofe it might ferve, fup- pofing them not altogether fo honeft as the Clearer prefumes. When they faid their mafterwas rifen, Ibme Jews might ' put this queftion to them, which * they could not anfwer:' You fay your mafter rofe from the dead, and that he knew all things ; how came it then to pafs that he did not foretel his own refurre6lion ? To which they, ' to prevent the * fame queftion being afked again,' told of fome pre- dictions of this fort delivered in a private manner ; and the reafon they never divulged them before his refurredion, nor expedted it themfelves, was, be- caufe they never rightly knew what the words meant, but took them for parables. Pleading their Incapacity to underftand them, is the beft excufe they could give for not divulging them. - §. JVhether i '3 ] §. 8. Whether the Jew rulers believed thepredMon of Chrifi's refurreSiion P The Clearer queries, « What then is to be faid * for the chief priefts, why did they fear his re- * furredion ? ' And anfwers, * Becaufe he had * foretold it, that they took him for a great pro- * phet, and had been witnelTes' to his miracles ; * therefore they Jiflened to a prophecy in this ' cafe, which in any other they would have de- ' fpifed ; for had the Jews been perfuaded that * he performed no wonders in this iife, they * would not have been afraid of feeing any done * by him after his death/ J^f. Nor does it appear they were. This is, Sir, putting it upon a different footing than what Sr. Matthew does ; but let us try the cafe in this hghr. That Jefus had foretold his refurredlion, at Jeaft to the fcribes and pharifees, is not proved ; and that he did it at all, wants confident proof ; for had the difcipJes known it, they muft have fore- known his rifing again ; but that none of them foreknew this, is confefTed by words and deeds. If they did not fufped him to rife again, who believed in him, and (as 'tis reported) heard him foretel it plainly, and frequently, how could they expefl it who believed him nor, nor the flying reports that were told of him ; nor, as far as we can find, ever heard of any fuch predidion from himfelf or others? But waving the advantage, fup- pofe the chief priefts heard of this prophecy, would they regard it from the mouth of one whom they put to death as a deceiver? Or, fuppofe they thought him to be a great prophet, could they pol- fibly put him to death, to luch a kind of death as an impoftor, and wilh his blood might be on them and their children ? Or believing him to be a great C 2 prophet. [ H ] prophet, did they therefore fufpefl he might po fibly rile again ? Were great prophets ufed to rife again ? Or is it poflible for them to do fo ? No certainly ; prophets once dead lay as quiet as other men. But ' The wonders he had wrought in his ^ life made them liften to a prophecy in this cafe.* Did they on this account fufpeifl he would do wonders when he was dead ? It cannot be : The Clearer fays (p. 39.) when they faw him on the crofs, ' They thought they had found the extent * of his power, and that he could not fave himfelf.' But fuppofe all that has or can be fuppofed, (p. 61.) that ' They feared he would come from the grave, ^ armed with power to take vengeance of their * wicked and cruel treatment of him.' Did they for this fet a guard of foldiers to kill him again, as Mr. Chandler i.ifinuares, p. 56, 57. ' Had he ' appeared as hi mfelf, who knows what the watch * might have done, in afling the fame bloody * fcene over again, were it not for the angels ' that defended him ? ' Or did the chief priefts fet a warch to give them warning to run away, if he fhould rife again ? Nay, but they fet a watch to be certainly inform'd of the truth. How could they doubt but the truth would difcover iifelf, by his perfonal appearance, if he fhould rife-, or by his non-appearance, if he fhould not ? The cafe was of fuch a nature, there was no reafon to believe it could be concealed ; fieri aliter noil pot eft , light cannot be hid ; and no man lights a candle to put it under a bujhel^ hut on a candleftick. Sir, they muft na- turally corclude, as we fhould have done in the lame cafe, that there was nothing in it, if they faw nothins; of it. §. Whether [ 15] §•9. Whether the gcfpelhiftory be a proof that the Jews believed the miracles of Jefus ? But tho% to give their argument full fcope, I have fuppofed the fcribes, prieils, and pharifees, had fome apprehenfions from miracles ; yet now I in- tend to enter into the merits of the caufe, and ex- amine what influence the miracles of Jefus, as re- corded in the gofpel, had upon them. The Clearer has recourfe to the gofpels, to prove that the icribes and pharifees believ'd the miracles of Chrift : No doubt but thofe writers would have it thought fo, and unthinking Chriftians believe it; but what argument is this with Deifts, with whom his engagement is, and whom he fliould attempt to convince? How is this evidence a proof to thofe that doubt the evidence by which arguments are found for both fides ? And if for what makes againfl itfelf, thofe will be looked upon as the moil credible : For not fo much heed is given to what an evidence affirms on the fide he efpoufes, as to what probabable fads he inadvertently confefles on the contrary fide. For what can that evidence prove to the fatisfadtion of the enquirer, who finds reafon by his enquiry to be diffatisfied about the evi- dence ? Witnefles that difagree, prove nothing in their own favour -, for their difagreemnts deftroy their own authority, and make void what they in- finuate by what they confefs. The confiflency and validity of the writings out of which the proofs are taken, and the probability of every thing they re- late, fhould firfi be clear'd up, before the proofs out of it in their favour are to be taken for granted. For deiils think it reafonable, that as thefe h (dories relate more improbable, and much more incredible things than other hiftories, they ought to bring with them fome more fubilantial proof than others to [ i6 ] to confirm the truth of fuch prodigies as they relate; or elk that every relation in them which is not as probable as other true hiflory fhould ftand for nought ; that what is to pafs for the current coin of C^far fhould have C^fa'/s image and fuperfcriprion on it. Stories that are not miraculous may pafs for truth, and ofcen do, though they are not fo. All the difference that I know of between a believer and an unbeliever, is this ; one can believe what has the face of romance, and the other cannot. In common things they both believe, and may be im- pos'd on alike. For inftance, fhould it be reported that the archbifhop of Ca:2terhury with his coach and horfes went over the Thames ^ m the ferry, from Lambeth to Palace -yard^ on a certain day j it might be credible, and Deifts and Chriflians might believe it alike, though the report be falfe : But fhould it be affirm'd, that his grace's horfes flew over the Thames, with the coach after them, even by theafTiflance of angels, I fear it would be incre- dible to thofe who are flow of heart to believe all that is written or reported, even tho' the bench of bifhops had no more grace than to fwear it, with reverence to them be it fpoken, was it pofTible that they could report any thing fo incredible : And why mud we needs believe, on the bare report of unknown reporters, things feemingly as impof- fible or unlikely, becaufe they are generally be- ]iev'd by thofe that never made a particular enqui- ry. Many believers have not time, fome have no difpofuion, others no capacity to examine rightly. Befides, when principles are fixed by authority as only right, it difcountenances all examination j and in all fuch cafes it is done for that end, left men fhould fee different than their feers would have them. For my own part, Sir, I am determin'd to believe what appears to me to be right, and to examine into the appearances of things. Truth is the [ 17] the touchftone of the gofpel, not the gofpel of truth; and the rule of truth is the reafon and nature of things. No book can prove it klf^ but by its own internal marks ; and muft perifh with the au- thority by which it is fupported, unlefs it have this eternal charader. But I muft cut fhort this co- pious fubjed, bccaufe I have many articles to run thro'. §. 10. Whether the Jew rulers believed Chrift's mi- racles ? The Clearer endeavours to prove the book by the book, viz, that the priefls, fcribes, and phan- fees believed the miracles of Chrift ; but the inftan- ces he brings, are no more a proof, than that tell- ing a ftory is a proof of it. Such proofs may do for believers; but not for thofe he has to do with. If the effeds don't agree with the caufcs, thofe caufes are confequently difproved : as the tree is known by its fruits, fo are the premifes by their confequences. That the rulers did not believe them is plain, from what is there objeded, Have any of the rulers of the people believed in him ? And had they been fatisfied with the reality of his miracles, they would not have defined others. Why does Jefus call upon them to believe his works, John x. 25, 26. 38. but becaufe they didn't believe them, can any thing be more plain ? They accufe him, John vni. 13. of bearing record of himfelf, without other fufficient teftimony, and therefore that it was not true ; to provoke him perhaps to work fome miracle publickly in their fight. They call'd for figns and wonders, that they might believe, yet he gave them none, when they called for them : tho' all the wonders he is faid to work, was for this end, that they might believe, yet this end they never effected. A bare declaration that he was the Chrift, did [in did not convince them ; nor did his prophecies, that he fhould rife again, convince even his difciples, which renders both doubtful. And 'tis own'd, that he obtain'd lead credit among thofe who fliould have known him bed, his own countrymen, and his own houfe. An evident miracle for the proof of his miffion feems all along to be the contcft be- tween the unbelieving Jews, and him. The great Author of the 'Trial feems to allow it, by faying, that Jefus put the proof of his miffion on the truth of the refurredlion before predidted: but this pre- didion, as well as the refurre6lion, appear to want that clear and proper evidence, which 'tis reafona- ble to expe<5l in fo important and extraordinary a cafe. §. 1 1 . The Clear er*s arguments to proveChrift'^s miracles believedy prove the contrary. Sir, If * the Jews believed his miracles, and ' had a jealoufy, that he might poflibly be the * Chrift,' as the Clearer infmuates, (p. 39.) would they have ufed him as they did ? The high prieft putting the queftion to him in a folemn manner. Whether he was the Chrift, does not prove than they lufpe6led it ; it only proves his pretenfions to that charadter, not fo Barabbas^ or any other com- mon malefador. They had put that queftion to him before, John x. 24. and probably often •, for had they been fufpicious of it, and for that reafon made a folemn enquiry, they would have been bet- ter fatisfied with his anfwer, than it appears they were. He told them he was the Chrift, and what was the confequence? The high prieft rent his clothes, and cried out blafphemy for his affuming that character : and perhaps the high prieft^ afk'd him with no other view, but to condemn him out of T 19 ] ef -his own mouth, whether ^he denied, or aHirmed it. Had he denied it, they had proof of his pre- tenfions ; and he affirming it, they condemned it for blafphemy : this might perhaps be to provoke him to work a miracle then, to prove ir; for Jefus told them they fhould liee one hereafter, but chat would not fatisfy them ; and the high prieft feem'd obliged to make the demand in that folemn man- ner, that he might give him an anfvver, becaufe he anfwered nothing to queftions that were afk'd him. Again. When P//^/^' was willing to acquit him, led: he fhould not be crucified, all the people^ as well as well as the priefis, the fcribes and pharilees, cried out earneRly, Crucify him^ crucify him^ his blood be on us and on our children ♦, which fhews, that what was the fenfe of the rulers, was the fenfe of all the people, except thofe that were his difciples \ therefore his miracles were not generally believed. Obj. ' But St. Mark fays the people were influ- ' enc'd by their priefts to make this clamorous de- * mand.' Anf. With ^i, Mark's leave. If the people had been well acquainted with his miraculous cures, as 'tis at other places infinuated, they could not have been thus unanimous with loud voices in making fuch demand ; and 1 think, that ' He fhews himfelf to be * litde acquainted with the fentimen ts of human nature* who thinks they could believe his miracles, believe him a prophet, and yet be infiuenc'd to fpeak and a^l in fuch a manner. Again. Herod v/as glad when he had him in his cuflody, becaufe he expedled to fee him do fomc miracle to fave his life : but when he found nothing of that power difplay'd by him, he concluded it was not in him, thereupon he and his men of war defpifed him, 2.nd fet him at nought^ concluding cer- tainly that the extraordinary power of God was D moft [ 20] mofl neceflary to be difplayed, on the mofl: extraor- dinary and necefiary occafions •, and therefore they mockt him on the crofs, faying, He faved others^ himfelf be cannot fave. And, Ah / thou that favedft ethers^ fave thyfelfy come down from the crof^ and we will believe thee ; i. e. We will believe thou canil fave others, if now thou canft fave thyfelf. The Clearer fuppofing this to be mockery, argues that the mockery lies only in the laft words, himfelf he cannot fave^ but that in the former, he faved others^ they fpake as they meant, and 'acknowledge hismi- * racles by which others are faved.' But then thefe are words of pity, and from them no mockery can be drawn : but if the words, himfelf he cannot fave^ are not fuch as betoken pity, the v^hole is mockery, and fignify, they believed nothing Icfs than the former words exprefs, that he faved others-, thefe therefore are irony, if the others are drollery. As if they had faid. See the proofs of his faving others, when he cannot fave himfelf. It.feems naturally impoinble, they fhould believe he faved others, con- fefs It, and droll upon it, or make it the fubjedl of mockery, from which none can be drawn. ' They go on with their mockery, fays the Clearer, * If he be the king of Ifrael, let him now ' come down from the crofs : Why all this triumph ' in being delivered from the king of Ifrael, had ^ they never fufpeded he might probably prove fo ' indeed? What occafion for this fudden joy and * exultation ^ ' Certainly none, had they fafpeded he might have proved fo, what advantage was it to them, to crucify one whom they fufpedled might one day be their king, and deliver them from their fubjeciion to a foreign yoke? Had this gentleman quoted the whole text, it had fet him right. Jf he be the king of Ifrael, let him come down from the crofs, and we will believe in him, which fhews they (did not believe his miraculous power, nor that he was [ 21 ] was the Chrift. As if they had faid, If he be Chrift the King of Ifi'-ael^ as he would be elleem'd, let him deliver himfclf now from the Roman power, without which he cannot deliver us, nor be our king, and then we will believe his power and cha- rafler. St. Matthew and St. Mark fay, They that paffed hy railed on him^ and reviledhm^ wagging their heads ^ and faying^ "thou that deftroyeft the temple^ and huildeft it in three days^ fave thyfeif^ if^ thou be the fon ofGod^ come down from the crofs : this is mockery both in v;^ords and geilure. He faid^ He is the fon of God^ if he be, let God deliver him now^ if he will have him, i. e, for his fon -, kt God fhew it by a fignal deliverance ; which Ihews they had no fuch extraor- dinary opinion of him, and alfo the fmall credit and confidence they put in him, or his miraculous works. §. 12. Miracles^ without correfpondent efe^fSy im* probable. The Clearer fays, (p. 40.) ' Their mirth did not ' laft long : when Chrift died, nature feem'd to die ' with him ; the fun was darkened, the veil of the * temple was rent in the midft, the graves open- ' ed, the rocks rent, ^c' And yet the nature of the Jews remain'd the fame 5 their hearts were not rent, tho' the rocks rent ; nor quaked, tho' the earth quaked ; and tho* the graves opened, their underftandings appear nor to be opened ! What a ftrange thing is infidelity, that no miracle can work upon it. The only per- fons thefe miracles were wrought to affed, were un- affedlcd by any, v/hich is itfelf another miracle! unlefs they were wrought only for fliow, and to be gaz'd at, to affed mens eyes, and not their hearts ; or were they defi^n'd not to do it ? or could the ^ D2 devil's [22] devirs power prevent God's from taking ef^(5l!p Indeed the evangel ids bring in the Roman centu- rion, faying, this was a righteous man^ and the people imiting their breads. But though' all were Imitten, none were wounded, none are faid to be converted. The Clearer fays, ' Probably the fcribes ' and pharifees withdrew filendy, unwilling to dif- * cover any fear or apprehenfion before the people.* And 'tis^ as probable they faw none of thefe fights, yince we read of no effedt thefe miracles had upon them. If we may iudge by probabilities, is it pro- bable that God, or Chrifl, fliould work wonders in vain, fo that an uncommon power fhould be ex- erted, and produce no common effedl ! or that mi- racles fliould be wrought to contradidl miracles ! as thofe muft be that have a contrary effed to their natural tendency, and the defign of the Great Au- thor. For according to the Clearer^ concerning Chriil's miracles, ' The queftion now is (faith he * p. 38.) what cffed: this had upon the fcribes and * chief priefts ? That they were extremely alarm'd, * appears plainly ; and that they fought his life, as * the cniy method to flop the influence he gain'd ' over the people, is notorious. But were they clear ' of all doubts themfelves ? Had they no mifgiv- * ings of mind that he might pofTibiy be what he * pretended to be ? ' I fay. Sir, to m-;^ it feems impof- fible, that they fhould feek his life to flop the in- fluence he gain'd over the people by miraculous works, or that they fought his life, and brought a- bout his death in a judicial way, and yet had mif- givings or doubts in their minds, that he might pOiTibly be v/hat he pretended to be. ' Whoever can ' fuppofeir, fiiewshimfclf to be but litde acquainted * with the fentiments of human nature.' \{ x.\\^ Romans had adled thus towards him, for fear of his be- coming a king, and' breaking their power, it had been more rcafonable \ but that the Jews believing his [23 ] his miracles, fhould crucify him, for fear of his delivering them from the Romans^ is altogether ab- furd. Had they believed he wrought many mi- racles, they had the lefs reafon to fear the Roman pov/er, and the more to let him alone, and let the Romans deal with him. But the cafe is, while fome believed him to be a good man^ it was the opi- nion of others, that he deceived the people -, and the great men objedled, that only the ignorant believed in him. If probability may be allowed, we may judge of effeds by their caufes, and of caufes by their effedls; /*. e. wonderful caufes will produce wonderful efFed:s ; and where no wonderful effedls are produced, 'tis probable there were no wonderful producing caufes : Or otherwife they are of no con- fequence or fignilication ; they proceed from no natural caufe ; therefore, they being not a link of the great chain of nature, have no natural effe6ls ; they appear to be works in vain ; extraordinary- power difplayed to no purpofe ♦, being out of na- ture, nature is not affeded by them •, they go no farther than themfelves. A tryal of fkill one may call it, that leaves every thing as it found them ; him that is unjuft, to be unjutt ftill; he that is filthy, to be filthy ftill ; he that is righteous, to be righteous ftill ; and he that is a fool, a deceiver, or a believer, a wife or an honefl man, or an in- fidel, to be the fame iliil : So it was if the rulers and men of learning among the Jews had been witncfTes of his power to work miracles, as 'tis infinuated, and yet behaved in fo violent and outrageous a man- ner againft him. That they fhould confpire to put Jefus to death becaufe he wrought miracles, is to out-do miracles. If it be objedled, that this was the will of God, ^hat they feeing might fee^ and not perceive ; ami hearing tnight hear^ and not underftaiid ; left they Jhoiild fee with their eyes^ and hear Zi;ith their ears^ and [ 24 ] and underfiand with their hearts^ and fhould he con- verted and ja-ved ; and that the Lord gave them eyes that they might not fee^ ears that they might not hear^ and hearts that they might not underfiand. Then one would be apt to think it had been more gra- cious to have given them neither eyes, ears, or hearts ; and that the Lord had better concealed his wifdom, by faying nothiug. This either made them rebellious, or hardened them in their rebel- lion ; without which, 'tis confefTed, they might have been converted. But this is throwing all the odium on God, to make the (lory good \ and ra- ther than that may be falfe, he mufl be rendered cruel and unjuft. This way of accounting for fuch unaccountable things, may account for any thing, be it ever lo abfurd. Nor will a judicial hardning falve the fore, and be the confident pra6lice of him that delights not in the death of a finner^ but rather that he turn and live^ of him whofe tender mercies are ever all his works^ of him in whom mercy rejoices againfi judgment^ and of him who came to call fin- ners to repentance^ and to feek and to fave the lofi Jheep of the houfe of Ifrael. Sir, I muft own I think in this cafe, as 'tis reprefented, nothing could pre- vent nature from yielding, but a fupernatural hardening power, an inflexible (lubborneis mira- culoufly infafed in the leading Jews, or they muft have fhudder*d, and recoil'd, if they had feen fuch amazing power difplayed by the mighty Jews. §. 13. Of the Jews afcribing Chriji^s miracles to the Devil. Ohj, * But the Jews, who could not deny his ' miracles, afcribed them to the power of the de- * vil/ Anf 'Tis wonderful llrange, that the Lord Jefus never cafb this devil out of their hearts, and yetcaft out [ 25 ] out all devils every where elfe ! Or that the devil of infidelity fhould be an invincible devil ! If the devil can work miracles as well as God, and they are not eafy to diflingiiifh, and miracles are the proofs of a divine miffion, thefe proofs are not cafily known i and then we are little the better for having it figned and fealed with miracles. Mr. Hardy ^ a reverend, grave pate, that wrote a- gainft Mr. Chubb, fays they are diftinguilhed by fu- perior power ; if fo, good and evil are not crite- rea, but power gives right \ and the devil is right, when he is not contradidled, or confounded by fu- perior power : But if Mr. Chubb had held fuch doc- trine, what a devil would they make of him, for his powerful dulnefs. Suppofmg God and the de- vil both work miracles, I apprehend that natural reafon can inform men how to diftinguifh the one from the other \ viz, by their nature, tendency, and efFedls. The devil's miracles muft difcover them- felves by doing mifchief to the bodies and proper- ties of men, and ads of violence tending to fome ill end, as the fetting up another Deity, teaching immoral a6ls for religious duties, or do6lrines de- fl"ru<5live of reafon and mankind, by introducing wars, tyranny, ignorance, perfecution, and all mif- chiefs injurious to civil fociety. But Hippofe the miracles wrought are a mixture of good and evil, to whom then may they be afcribed .? If a man can- not ferve God and Mammon, and there be no com* munion of light with darknefs, if alfo God be ab- folutely good, they cannot be from him. And if the devil could fpeak truth for an ill end, as in Job ; or if he can transform himfelf into an an- gel of light, why may he not do good that evil may come ? Since we believe Jefus was fent from God, and ac^ed by his Authority in all he did for the good of men, that he did no fin, neither was guil'e found in his mouth -, that he zvent about doing 2 good^ [ 26 ] good^ to feek and to fave thofe that were loft : If any works are faid to be done by him, which are inftances of power, but not of goodnefs, thofe llories muft be look'd upon as forgery ; therefore the gofpel of our Saviour's infancy is rejedted, in which are many wonders reported to be done by him in his infancy, and fome things mifchievous : But, Sir, feeing the miraculous works of the bleffed Jefus were all divinely good, thofe that were witnefTes of them could not afcribe them to the devil. The tree is known by its fruit. If on this account his fame went thro^ all Syria for the great and good works that he wrought ; if ' all the * country was alarmed with his miracles, fo that * the chief priefts could not be unacquainted with * them, if many of his miracles were perform'd ' in public places of refort, in prefence of the * fcribes and pharifees,' as the Clearer fays, p. o^j. How could they defire of him a fign from hea- ven, when they had fo many, and fuch glaring wonders had been done before them ? And why did he anfwer that no fign Jhould be given them, if he gave them fo many .^ What need had they to ffar any thing, either as to his not being the per- fon they expected, or being unable to perform what they dc fired? And how could fome of them fay he deceived the people, call him a deceiver, and put him to death, and in the manner they did, had his miracles in doing good been fo well known ; neither priefl nor infidel would cry cru^ cify him^ crUcify him^ (which is the fame as hang him, hang him,) in this age, nor any other age ; for men are in general the fame in all ages •, they mufl needs think it weak, as v/ell as wicked, to attempt to put to death one whom they knew had power to raife the dead. Sir, if the enemies of Jefus doubted the reality of his miracles, or believing them, were foolifh enough [ 27 ] eno'jgh to think they could be wrought by any other than the power of God ; they might ima- gine if they had him in their cuftody they Iliould have a proof of his ability, and fo be convinc'd ; or by putting him to death, put an end to their own fears of mutiny, and contentions on that fcore. This only will account for their adlions towards him, and for defpifing his pretenfions, as well as difmiffing all their apprehenfions concerning him, or what his weak, difpers'd, and terrified parry, after his death, were able to do with his dead body. If the Jews faw his miracles, and fometimes fufpe6led they might be from God, at other times from the devil -, thofe miracles were not of that fort rs could certainly convince them l^y what authority he did thofe things^ but left them in as much fufpenfe as if he had not done any, and then all the great works he wrought were to no purpofe, nor any true fign of his mifTion. Sir, if the (lory was then reported, that Jefus had been in private conference with the devil forty days, and fome had feen them on the pinacle of the temple, it might give them a great deal of fufpicion that he had to do with the devil, and was entered into contracl with him to cure difeafes and caft out de- vils by Beelzebub; not to divide, but to ellablifh his kingdpm in the v/orld. But the (lory that gives colour to fuch an infinuation is fo infamous, that ic ought with fcorn to be torn out of the gofpek> and excommunicated as apocryphal and heretical. §. 14. Remarks on feme particulars in the Clearer, As to my examination of St. John^ concerning Chrifl's foretelling his refurrevflion, the Clearer is by no means willing to rely on it, and begs leave to examine for himfclf. Very well. To examine E for [ 28 ] for one's felf is right. Bat has he found me in a» error ? No^: Then he confirms my fearch. What the Clearer finds in St. John which he fuppofes predicted Chrill's death, I pafs over, that being no part of this argument. He imagines the refurrcdion indicated in John xiv. i. 2. i6. 18. XV. 16. 22. which he fays were far from being deH- vered as fecrets. Tho' the meaning of thofe words muft needs have been a fecret then, if they are not fo yet. He owns (p. c,^.) tliat ' The difciples * themfelves little apprehended what Chrift's dy- * ing and rifing again meant, thought it myfte- * rioiis, and a parable :. They had been long accuf- * tomed to this fort of langurge, and had frequently ' been puzzled with it.' And eiiewhere, ' When * he was crucified, ail their hopes died with him ; * and when he was lifen again, they cculd fcarce ' credit it.' The Clearer^ method of finding out the fenfe of exprefllons, by applying one to another uttered at different times and occafions, fliews him to be in the iitmofl diftrefs. He thinks that prophecies may not be under- fcood, till the thing prophefied comes to pafs ; but a prophecy not underftood, is underftood to be no prophecy. The Clearer and the other defenders fuppofe tooi, that the evangelifts were great grammarians, and had a critical knowledge of the Greek tongue,, or why do they reafon fo grammatically in feveral pla- ces, A thourand fuppofitions not to be proved are not to the purpofe. §.15. Of the precli5lions of the refurrc5lion. In my Refurre^ion of Jefus covfiderd^ it was ob- ferved, that it does not appear to be foretold, nor expected, for reafons which I fliall now corroborate. I. Be- [ 29 ] 1. Becaufe what was faid to be given in publiG, was not underrtood to relate to it, nor fulfili'd, ift. As to time ; tho' much pains has been taken to make out the time from Friday evening to Sun- day morning, anfwer to three days and three nights, the Jittle I have laid wjl! not convince them, and the great deal they have liiid will not convince me. Mr. IVhifton lays on this fubjedl, ' I cannot ' pretend, that two nights alone are three nights;' and tiiereforehethinks the three days and three nights in Matthew xii. 40. a later interpolation : and I think Chrift cannot be faid to rife on the third day, if he rofe before the third day came. Re laid in the grave no part of the third day, nor the third night : this difficuky has no doubt been a thoufand times repeated, but never confuted, neither in the TRIAL^ the Evidence clenr''d^ nor any other, nor can be ; therefore it would be loft time to take notice of what has been faid, or fay any more about it. But, idly. The predi6lion fays no fign ihould be given to that evil generation, but that of Jonah -, and yet .neither the fign, nor the thing fignified, was ever given to that evil generation, who required it: but ihefe gentlemen can fee no promife of a refurredlion to them in this fign, only of lying a certain time in the grave. But, fays the Clearer, ' that Chrift * would appear to them in perfon after his refurrec- ' tion, there is not a word about it.' Then it was no [\gn ac all to them ; it fignilied only, that he fhould, when dead, lie three days in the grave, and who doubted it : well then, what did they ex- pedl, that he would afterwards rife again ; ' there ' is not a word about it,' fays he : what then were they afraid of? and why did they watch ? Q,dly. The Jews were told no fign fhould be given them, but that of the prophet Jonas \ whereas the Clearer fays, he gave then) many other iigns or E 2 miracles. tifliracles, which if he did, this fentence is not true, and if this fentence be true, he gave them no fign, but difclaimed all miraculous powers tho' if any fign was given, why iliould they demand another; and why did he nor then refer them to thofe figns and wonders he had given them ? Or why not tell them of the refurreclion of Lazarus^ that was to be? If he intended to give them a fign, why was not Lazarus rather given for a fign to that genera- tion than jonas^ whom they knew nothing of, but by tjadition? U Lazarus was fairly dead, and rais'd again to life by divine- power, it could not have been prevented by their fore-knowing it : to have given them notice of it at fuch time, when they call'd upon him for a fign from heaven, muii have been a full and fatisfadory anfwer. All my anta- gonifts have pafied over in fiknce the remarks I made on what followed the raifing of Lazarus^ in the RepirrcBiOn conftdered^ third edition, page 28. That affair is let in (b true and converting a light, that it dazzles their interefted optics. The predidion in John ii. 20. was not underftood by any, therefore no prediction ; and when fpoken, conveyed no fuch meaning to the hearers, as his re- furredion from the dead. II. The predictions faid to be given in private were not underfiood to have any fignihcaiion of a real refurredion, but only as parables, and dark enigma's, therefore no predictions. ift, Bccaufe 'tis confefled. the difciples did not underftahd the words that were fpoken, what rifing from the dead meant ; therefore they could not blab it to the high prieft and pharifees, nor alarm them with what they were not alarm'd of, nor expeded. And thofe that heard not his prophecies, nor bc- liev'd his miracles, but were ever and anon call- ing for a miracle, could not exped the rifing again of Jefus after his death. But [ 31 ]. Bat if a fraudulent refurreflion was apprehended, as St. IWallbew relates, and Mr. Chandler fuppofes, of the difciples making, and therefore they fat a watch, and a true one une^pedledJy happened, 'tis not probable. i/?. Becaufe 'tis not credible that the watchmen fhould be almoft killed by miracles, and deny thofe miracles that had fuch an effedl upon them. 2dly^ Becaufe 'tis not credible that the Jew ru- lers fliould believe them, and hire the foldiers to deny that truth which they themfelvcs believed. '^dl)\ Becaufe 'tis not credible that the rulers and loldiers fhould by fo doing think to conceal the confequence of a true refurre6lion. 4.thly^ Becaufe 'tis confefTed that Jefus never ap- peared inpublic to any, but to his diiciples only. 5/^/y, Becaufe the accounts of the appearances of jelus, even to his difciples, do not agree, nor can they make them agree, tho' they have rack'd their inventions all manner of ways, and would have their unauthoriz'd explanations pafs for gofpel au- thority. 6thly^ Ihave to add, that the miraculous cir- cumliances of the refurredion as related, and the miracles faid to be done afterwards to prove it, do all want equal proof as the refurredlion itfelf. §. 16. ^he defenders chara5feri^d. I wifh, Sir, I could find any fair Arguments a- gainfl thefe, in the writings of any of my reve- rend opponents, who 'tis likely may imagine they have faid fomething which deferves regard : I wifh I could with an honefb heart pay them a compli- ment that I find any of them produce better than the great Clearer himfelf, who has the art of mak- ing aflertions and fuppofitions look like reafon and argument. 2 As [ 32 ] As for Mr. Chandler^ I declare without flattery or envy, maugre all his fnarling, (tho' if he fnarl'd lefs, he would write better) he is next to a bifhop in his way, greater than St. Paul for learning, and almoft like him, fcarce behind the very chiefcli of the apoflles ; with this difference, St. Paul had a thorn in the flefh, but he has a thorn in the fpirit. Refpecling Mr. ^//i/y/?^, lamforry that any honeft man fhould not fee that truth and honefty are nearly related : However, as he is churchman, and what he has wrote is for the church, 'tis excufable. He but modeftly fuppofes things, and hopes his fuppo- fitions will be admitted to pafs for authentic: But Mr. Jackfon does more ; he aflerts many things, which would be labour lod for me to repeat, and himfelf to attempt to prove; it is much the fhorter method toafTert all, than to prove any thing. I expected better things of fo good an author, but men cannot make bricks without clay, whatever they may do without llraw. However, he afierts fo boldly, one would almoil think he had been one of the witncfles. When men are in palpable diftrefs, what can they do? Thefe brave defendants do all that men in their circumftances can. 'Tis not therefore the fault of the pleaders that the caufe is not clear'd up ; but the inexplicable darknefs that invelopes it. They want neither underftanding to brighten their own fide nor blacken the other. §.17. Of fpicing the body of Jefus^ and other cir- cujnftances. The Clearer thinks, p. 70, 71. that the difciples fpicing their mafter's body, is no argument of their believing or not believing his refurredlion. But were the Ckarer's friends to offer to give him the extreme un(ftion at going to bed, fuppofing his re- ligion [33 ] llgron allowed of that ceremony, he would think either that they did not expert him to rife again, or that their fenfes were not fo found as his body. The Clearer feems hardly to believe thofe he calls the wicnefles who tell him the difciples did not expedt the refurredion of their mafter. But had they expeded it, what need was there of this coft and ceremony? Dead bodies were fpiced topreferve them from (linking ^ I think there was no fear of that in two days, had they expeded him to rife the third. Or would the power of the refurre6lion not have fweetened it ? Martha faid her brother La- zarus had been dead four days, and by this time he ftinketh •, yet I fuppofe he rofe fweet enough. Why was not he fpiced, but becaufe probably 'twas expeded he fhould rife again. And why was the body of Jefus fpiced, but becaufe the difciples con- feffed they had no expedation of it. This plainly enouc^h betrays their want of faith and foi-eknow- ledge of the refurredion of Jefus. If Nicodejjmsy who was a ruler and a difciple, interr'd the body with an hundred pound weight of fpices, it's evident neither the rulers nor difciples had any notice of his rifing again from the dead, and knew not any prophecy concerning it; and plainly that they thought him dead to ail intents and purpofes, fince they were fo officious,, when they had fo little time to do it, the fabbath draw- ing on. It appears. Sir, then, that the chief priefts hav- ing never had any information that Jefus was to rife again, nor feen any wonderful thing done by him, tho' they defired to fee fomething of that fort which had been reported to them, they could have no anxiety about his dead body to occafion them to fet a watch. As for the difciples, 'tis own'd they had them in contempt, and therefore co'jld be un- der no aprehenfion of thtir power^ or plotting to ^ ileal [ 34 ] (lea) away the body, and pretend it was riTen, or of making any hand of it if they did ; for could the people believe he wasrifen from the grave, if they faw him nor afterwards, who to them fcem*d not able to deliver himfelf from the pains of death, of the public ignominious death of a criminal. No wonder this was to the Jews aftumhling block. Why could not the Jew rulers {^t a, watch at the fepulchre without asking leave of Pilate ? Or why fhould they defire him to do that for them, which they were capable of doing for themfelves ? fince it appears to me that any private perfon might have done this, or hired another, or fome others to do it, unlefs they were afraid the perfons fo doing might be murdered in the night, and therefore it: was neceffary for them to watch armed. If this was the cafe, it is plain they were afraid of dark villany, not of the appearance of Jefus and hone- fty, and then a flrong gtiard w^as neceflary ; then the more public, the more wonderful the women did not hear of it, as the Clearer fuggefts, and then the greater wonder the guard fhould all agree to fpread about a falfe report, contrary to their know- ledge •, and the Jefs reafon to fuppofe their fleepy (lo- ry could be credited, or that one or two angels in winding (heets (hould frighten all and convert none. Not to mention the angels going away when the light came, as if they were afraid or afliam'd of being feen : Why was this done in the dark? and why did Jefus rife before the fun ? Why did the an- gels and the foldiers run away at the approach of day ? I wiflo, if true, they had not a fellow-feeling, for there was no feeing in the cafe. The (lory is as dark as the night it was done in. ' You fee, * Sir, how this demonRration foy the gofpel-evi- * dence turns out.' §. i8. [35] §. 1 8. Of the women difciples that attended the fe- pulchre. To expofe fome things is a fufficient anfwer. The Clearer infinuarcs that the women who follow- ed the body from the crofs to the fepulchre, knew nothing what was done to it, for Jofeph and Nicode^ mus wrapt it in linen, nor diJ they nor any one elfe voLichfafe to tell the women, though they were thofe who had fubfifted and attended Jefus in his preaching and travels : Yet, as they never left the corps till they faw it depofited, they might un- doubtedly have fmelt an hundred pound weight of ipices. The Clearer, Sir, queries whether it was fuf- ficient, and fuppofes, that ' the funeral ceremonies * were referved to be performed after the fabbath ' with more fpices, had not providence prevented * it by a more wonderful event,' by the unbe- lieving women difciples, who had buried their faith with their mafl-er, while the faith of infidel priells grew out of his grave, and would have had no other evidence of his refurredlion than what the apoftles gave them, if they had not watch'd the fepulchre. ' This more wonderful event' nei- ther the men nor women difciples cxpe6led j and though it is faid to be known to, and believed by the unbelieving Jev/ rulers, Nicodemus the only be- liever among the rulers, did not believe it ; for fpi- cing the body was a fign of his infidelity or igno- rance, not of his faith or knowledge. As for the women, poor creatures, the Clearer argues they were ignorant of every thing, knew nothing of the prcdidion, nor of Nkcdewus's fpicing th^ body, or that a watch had been leen fer, 'twas done ' while * they were confined at home,' and reflrcd devoutly on tnt fabbath, ' v\'ithont flirrinG; abroad/ or gof- fipping, or afl^ing or hcariig any news all that F live- [ 36 ] live-long day ; for neither ' the Roman governor ' nor the chief priefts thought it neceflary to in- form thefe poor women -, ' nor could any one elfe, for they fet a pubhc watch privately, the wo- men therefore could not know, for they were no witches, nor were any of the difciples conjurers enough to inform them of it ; and being the fab- bath, no body came near them, nor ftirr'd out of doors, but the Jew rulers to beg the body might be watch'd, and the watchmen. Thefe things be- ing granted, ' I cannot apprehend how it was pof- *- fibie they fhould know what was done at the *• fepulchre ; therefore they went early in the morn- ing after the fabbath was paif, to pay their lall re- Ipecls to it, by anointing and perfuming it, and confulted about rolling away the flone froga the fe- pulcre. And therefore ' where is the inconfiftency of all this ? Or how are thefe different ftories ?' 'Tis faid,Sir,that the women at the fepulchre mourn- ed and wept. Why fhould they weep if they knew he was to rife again, and in fo Ihort a time ? Had they known this, certainly they would have watch'd the grave with eager expedlation and joy. But they had forgot his words {Luke xxiv. 6, 7, 8.) till put in mind of it by two fhining men at the fepulchre. A likely flory ! How could they forget at fo re- markable a time, fuch repeated afTu ranees of the moil amazing adlion that ever was, and they his nioft intimate friends, acquaintance, and believers in him ? §, 19. Of the effe5l the apparition made to the watch ^ bad on them and the priejis. The Clearer lays, ' that the chief priefls well knew ' what cfFed: the report of the watch would natu- ' rally have on the minds of the peopL% if fairly made.' How could they know it, if it made none on [ .17 ] on them nor the watch ? And if It had an effect on both the watch and them, why does he only in contradi6lion to what I argued about ir, endea- vour to prove it had not ? If it h^d an effect, how could they think to prevent it by means of thofe very men that had found it irrefiflable. But tufii, he infinuates that was but ' a fright,' (p. ^j^ 88.) ' There is not the lead reafon to fufpccS they were * acquainted with the chara(5ler and pretenfions of * the perfon lying in the grave,' tho all Jerufalem knew it. * They did not exped to be dillurb'd by ' invifible powers.' True ; but if they were, and the invifible powers appeared vifible, it mufl: have been the more furprizing. But after they had been fo greatly difturbed, that they became as dead men, and had told it to the high prieft and rulers, it affeded them no more. Why ? They were com- mon foldiers, and therefore not common men ; thty were feared and terrified by a furprizing fight, but unaffected with the confequences -, and the chief priefts too, though they were alarm'd at it The foldiers, bribed by them with ready money, re- ported what the priefts invented •, who, though they admitted his miracles, and were witneffcs to fome of them, fo that (p. 6i.) ' Whether they * thought him to be the Chrift or no, could not * but fufped him to be a great prophet at lead ;' yet they afcribed his miracles to the power of Beel- zebub •, and tho' they fufpe6led ' He might pof- ' fibly come from the grave arm'd with power to ' take vengeance for their wicked and cruel treat- * ment of him,' yet ' Might afcribe all the guards * reported to be done at the fepulchre to the power * of the devil : ' Supra quam cuique credibile eft, Priefts and infidels, or infidel piiefts have gene- rally more fcnfe than to believe fo much iu the devil. F 2 The [ 38 ] The Clearer thinks it proper that neither the watch, the angels, nor the priells fhould be vvit- nelTes of the refurredion, p. 91. but fuch chofen witnefTes to convince the world, as the world would not chufe of all men, interefted in the cafe, whofe honefty was fufpeded, and judg'd to require a firifl watch, left tliey fhould be guilty of foul play. But tho' the high prieft and rulers knew the difci- ples, and we no:, we can confide in the integrity of the difciples, tho' they could not, whereby our faith is approved : thus we being fpiritually begot- ten, and their ofispring thro' faith by a lineal de- icent, we go to heaven in a right line. §. 20. Rcynarh on Mr, Chandler'j aj^er lions. Mr. Chandler (p. 8, and 9.) afTjres us, that the ' predictions of Chrift to his difciples of his fufFer- ' ings and refurreclion, as to the {ciSa and meaning * of them, were too clear to be mifunderftood •, ' and p. 10. ' they underftood the meaning of thefe ' expreiTions perfe6lly well ; ' tho' the evangelifts * fay the difciples did not underftand them, Mark ix. 10. 32. as alfo appears by their adlions : but he prefumes, that they did not underftand how the MefTiah was to fufter and rife again, and yet they underftood Jefus to be the MefTiah, and the fenfe of what he told them about ir, very well. If they did underftand his words, why did they not believe, and expect the fulfilling them ? If they did not underftand how the MaTiah was to fufFer, why did he not open thtir underftandings ? without which, whatever he taught them, they learnt no- thing. Why did he, who was called the light of the zi'orM, find and leave them in the dark. He calls them the light of the world, M^Jt. v. 14. and yet they groped in darknefs, Jefus faid, All that ever [39 ] ever came before me were thieves and rohhers^ John x. 8. fo are all that have been after him, for they have dole away our light. Their prejudices, fay thefe pleaders, darkened their minds ; ftrange ! that the light of God which came down from heaven being wirh them, could not, or did not remove thole prejudices ! That God fhould not enlighten his own people, nor Chrift his difciples is a very dark llory. Mr. C. adds, that ' if they were not fatisfied, ' 'twas becaufe they demanded unreafonable fatif- * fadion : ' this is an unreafonable afTertion ; for what is more reafonable, than fuch proof of the truth of a fact, as the nature of it could and ought to give; and p. 19. ' Suppofing they were an evil, ' adulterous, profligate, hypocritical, perfecucing, * bigotted generation, how was it pofTible to fatisfy ' them ? ' fays he. Were they too bad to be made good ? Or were they to have the lefs motives to make them fo, in proportion as they were the more wicked .? Or, fuppofe men are unreafonably bad, are not reafonable methods therefore to be ufed to make ^them better ? You know. Sir, hi men be ever fo bad, they neverchelefs believe their own eyes. Had Jefus perfonally and publickly appeared to them after his refurredion, as before, the trouble of after miracles m,ight have been fpared, and the the Koly Ghoft might have ftaid in heaven. If a miracle be necefTary at all to confirm it, 'tis now j but then it required no other than a perfonal mani- felfation. It would be loft time. Sir, particularly to fhew how greatly Mr. C. aSrms and fijggefts, and how little he proves, like the other gentlemen in this unbloody war; they make defperate attacks, but fliameful retreats. Arguments founded merely on imagination, are but imaginary arguments : fuppo- fitions [4o] fitions are fit anfwers to fuppofitions ; and afltrtions to afiertions , which may be done without end. §. 21. Whether the watch were credible evidence in favour of the refurre5iion. Sir, If the Jew rulers found it neceflary policy to bribe the foldiers to report a lye, and did it; if they could bribe them to deny what they had af- firm'd, the rulers had little reafon to believe their former affirmations •, but might reafonably conclude, that thofe mercenary rogues had been before-hand hired by the difciples to lye to them, as they had hired them to lye to the people. If they did not fcruple lying for a bribe in one cafe, they would do the fame in the other ; for either fide was equal to them. They that can aflert any thing for a bribe, and thofc who fay and unfay, prove nothing : what is an equal proof to both fides, is a proof to nei- ther. If they could be bribed to lye at all ; there is the lefs reafon to believe any thing they reported j they are a perjured evidence, and not to be credited in any refped, or for any party. Thus, fuppofing there was a watch as pretended, they prove nothing in favour of the refurreflion ; becaufe if they were liable to be corrupted by the priefts, they might have been alfo corrupted by the difciples. Or, who knows but the hundred pound weight of fpices might allure them to remove the body in the dark ; if that was not enough, an angd a-piece might in- duce them to run away, and let the difciples do what they pleas'd with it. What certainty have we, fuppofing there was a watch, that it was not fo ? or that countenance and encouragement was not given to this angelic flory by Pilate? §, 22. [41 ] §.22. Of the fufficiency of gofpel evidence^ and my errors. I afked, Why do the evangelifts tell different (lo- ries ? ' What do you mean ? fays the Clearer, St. * Matthew alone tells the ftory of guarding the * fepulchre, the reft are quite filent in that point, * bui^ fay nothing that is inconfiftent with it.' The inconfiflency I have already fhewn. ' St. Matthew ' alone tells the ftory of watching the fepulchre, * the reft are quite filent about it;' what, not one word by the others, but offadls that cannot at all ftand with it ? Why did not Matthew mention what the women came for to roll away the ftone, and jpice the body? No; 'twas not agreeable to the ftory of the watch. That the gofpel evidence may be as remarkable as the gofpel fads, one witnefs unknown and abfent, muft be fufiicicnt in uncom- mon cafes; but common cafes in law require at leaft two living witnefles prefent to jsftablifh the truth ; for the gofpel is founded on faith, but the law on reafon. All the CGnfiderer^s reafons are to be efteem'd of no weight: why? becaufe, fays Mr. Jackfin, he blunders, and miftakes one man for another, and one woman for another. VvMl, I am convinc'd of thefe two errors, and make a public recantation : i/, I mentioned that Agrippa, which ftiould have been Feftus, loX^Fad he was mad, p. 71. of the 2d edition, line 30. *tis eafily mended, for he read Fejiits\ but what is this to the argument ? and p. 35, for Mary the mother of Jefus, read Jofes-, and p. 36, for Jefus's own mother, read the mother of Jofes\ for 'tis a queftion, whether we may not reckon the mother of Jefus among his brethren. Matt. xii. 47, 48, 49. Johri vii/3, 4, 5. and one of [ 42 ] of his own kindred, and his own houfe, Mark v. 4. for it fcems he had little to do with his own mo- ther, Joh7t ii. 4. §.23. Of the defenders attempts to reconcile the ap- pearances of Chriji, All the four gentlemen agree to affirm, tliat there is no inconfiflency at all in the relation of the appearances of Chrifl: in the four gofpels ; yet, Sir, there is no agreement among them and the gofpels, nor among one another in making them confi- dent. Mr. Chandler fays, fp. 7 9.) that "- Grotius d^ndi moft other interpreters make this appearance of Chrifl to Mary Magdalene^ mentioned by St. John^ the fame with that to the women mentioned by St. Matthew^ and think, that the appearance of the angel men- tioned by Matthew^ Mark^ and Luke^ which was made to the women in common, was alfo the fame as that which St. John mentions as made to M Magdalene, But Mr. C. being full of himfeJf, thinks there is ihtfuUeft evidence to the contrary ; if fo, 'tis furprizing that others could not, as well as h\m(t\f,, diftinguilli by ih^ ftdlefi evidence: but if he means, that in fuch light there is the fullell evi- dence, that the ilory does not harmonize, it may be true. ' What then is to be done in this diftrefs,' but to fuppofe them two diftind appearances, to reconcile the inconfiftencies that attend their being one appearance. It is to be obferved, Sir, i/. That they have no authority for doing this, but the neceflity they are under to reconcile the differences, that arife from their being conlidercd as one appearance. 2dly^ That confidering them as two diflincfl ap- pearances does not reconcile the differences. [43 ] ^ S^fyy That tho' they affirm nothing more than that they are con Men t in every parr, they prove nothing Ms, But the greaf Clearer has endeavoured to recon- cile the differences in one appearance, (if I under- fland him aright) tho' his great patron fuppofed two to M, Magdalene, §. 24. Mr. SylveflerV account of the appearances of Jeftts compared with the emngelifis, I /hall mention Mr. Sylvepr next, becaufe the others feem to have followed him, with feme varia- tion where they are crampt, to make it, as they think, more confiftenr, they fall under a neceaity, as men jQiipwrackt, each to fhift for himfclf. Mr! T. S. from Lucas Briigenfis^ delivers it thus, p. 63,64. 1. ' When the w'omen faw the body was gone, ' and had feen the vifion of angels, who fail? that ' he was alive, and communicated it to the difci- * pies ; 2. ' Then ran Peter and John quickly to the ' fepulchre, and not finding rhe body of Jefu?, re- ' turned home aflonifhed, Luke xxiv. 12. lohn ' XX. 3. 3. ' Mary Magdalene returning to the fepulchre, * and continuing there weeping, had the honour of ' the firft appearance from our Lord, Mark x. 9. ' John XX, II. 4. ' When fhe had communicated this to the ' other women, and was going together with thera ' to the apoftles, to fignify what had happened, ' Jefus met them, appearing to theni all. Matt, ' xxviii. 9. 5. ' During this sf^e^ the appearance of the angels co the folJiers, who were appointed for d)e ' watch, being bribed, they went' inro the citv, ' and reporreJ, that the difciples can^.e by night. [44] * and ftole the body of Jefus away, Ma(t. ^ xxviii. 4. II. 6. ' The women giving teftimony that Jefus was * alive, and the apoftles being incredulous, he ap- *^ peared then to Peter^ Luke xxiv. 34. 7. ' Afterwards he appeared to the two difciples ' going to EmmauSy Luke xxiv. 13. Mark xvi. 12. 8. ' And then on the evening of the firft day of * the week, that is, the Lord's day, he appeared * to all the apoflles together, Thomas alone being ' abfent, Mark xvi. 14. Luke xxiv. 36. John ' XX. 19. 9. ' Thomas remaining incredulous to the report * of the difciples, Jefus prefented himfelf before ' them all, to be feen and felt on the eighth day ' after, John xx. 24. 10. ' Afterwards the difciples repairing to Gali- ' lee, as they were commanded, they faw Jefus at * the fea of Tiberias^ and there he dined with ' them, John xxi. i. 11. 'And afterwards he was feen by a great num- ' ber on the mount, Matt, xxviii. 16. 12. ' So then after the completion of forty days, * in which he converfed with his difciples, fpeaking * to them the things that concern the kingdom of ^ God, on the fortieth day, while they beheld he * afccnded into heaven, Mark xvi. 19. Luke xxiv. ' 50. A5fs i. 3.' Againft this, Sir, I have thefe objedtions. That the women went and found the body was gone, came and told Peter and Johny and went again with them, and (aw Jefus in their fecond re- turn, is not agreeable to any evangelical ac- count. Matthew fays, in their return from thence the firft time, they met Jefus by the way. It muft be the firil time, bccaule they carried fpices with ihcm. If [ 45 ] If they went twice to the fcpulchre, and law angels at the firft time, who told them, that Jefus was ahve, why did they not tell it to Peter and John ? and if they did, why does not John mention it? but on the contrary, that they faid, they have taken the Lord out of the fepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. This, fays Mr. C. is only a rehearfal of what Ihe faid to the angel ; but no angel told him fo : and why did fhe or John tell one part of the flory, and not the other ? If the foldiers were but going into the city, when the women were the lad time going to tell the dif- ciples, certainly they muft have feen them at the fepulchre the fird time-, but that they could not do, for the foldiers fled at the opening the fepulchre, and M, Magdalene with the women came the firft time after it was opened. Where was Jefus gone, that he did not appear to Peter and John at the fepulchre, yet muft of ne- cefTity be there but a little before, and was there af- terwards ? So were the angels, yet Peter and John faw them not, neither in the fepulchre nor out of it. §. 25. Thefmnner of the firft appearance to Mary Magdalene^ according to the Clearer. The Clearer differs from Lucas Brugenfis, in that he conceives thefe two appearances are one, and fays Mary Magdalene was only mention'd as being the principal, and that fhe faw Jefus after going the fecondtimeto the fepulchre with the women, (which Matthew fays was in their firft return.) By this accommodation of the appearance, /^;z^/;7^' and ^^- ing^ at the fepulchre, and at a d: fiance from ir, are the fame thing. The Clearer fays Jefus for- bad them to touch his body, after they had touch'd him. ' If Mary had not laid hold of Jefas's i^^i^ G 2 he [ 46 ] * he could have no occafion to fay, touch me not* Thus he alone attempts to reconcile the accounts. in one appearance. To do him juflice, as after all,, he does not conceal his diffidence of the truth ac- cording to his explanation •, fo I will not conceal his modefty. ' Upon the whole (fays he) I think the * account here given feems to me to be the moft ' probable, which I would be underftood to fay * without prejudice to other interpretations, which ' many worthy and learned writers have followed.' §. 16, 7'he hiftory of Chrift's appearance to Mary Magdalene according to Mr. Chandler. But Mr. Chandler will have it, that M. Magd, in one journey to the fepulchre law Jefus twice, once alone, according to St. John^ and once with her com- panions, according to St. Matthew. And (p. 83, 84.) that ' They afterwards came to Peter and John^ * and that M. Magd. told them Ihe had a meflage * from Chrilt to them all : That the two apoftles * gathered the rell together, with M. Magd, and * the other women -, fhe related to them the fe- * veral appearances as they happened in order, who * had a greater command of her fpirits, and was * able calmly to give them the important relation, ' who heard all without believing any thing, k * does not appear (adds he) from this account, that * M. Magd. ran back and told the difciples what. * Ihe had feen at the fepulchre, and then returned * to it and faw Jefus. (p. 84.) ' 'Tis abfolutely * improbable.' (p. 86,87.) Mark and John ip^^ik ' of the firft appearance of Chrift to Mary and the * reft of her companions, as they were at a diftancc ' from the fepulchre, and haftening home to make * their report to the apoftles.' (p. 79.) ' Either * M. Magd. did not flee at all from it, (/. e. the * fepulchre) or immediately returned to it,' [47] (p. 88.) * Though St. John mentions M, Magda- lene running to Teter immediately after the ac- count that fhe faw the flone taken from the fe- pulchre, yet St. John never gives the leaft inti- mation that M. Magd. returned back to the fe- pulchre ; but after the feries of the hiftory had been interrupted by the relation of Peter and John\ running to the fepulchre, he refumes it again, and connects it by a word that plainly fhews it to be a continuance of the foregoing nar- ration.' Thus by interpolations thefe holy writ- ngs are defended againit any interpolations, and the ftory is juftified from being a blunder by mak- ing the ftory-tellers blunderers. §. 27. Mr, Jackfon's relation of the appearance of Jefiis to M, Magdalen, Mr. Jackfon^s gofpel of the refurreftion, p. 124, 125, 126, differs from Mr. Syhefters and the refl, of which this is the fubftance : M, Magd. with the other women go to the fepulchre, and find not the body ; Mary Magdalene leaves them, and runs to tell Peter 2ixA John ; the other women ftay and lee Angels ; they go to tell the difciples ; when they are gone, come Peter and John ; M. Magd. follows ; the men ex- amine the fepulchre, and go home *, M. Magdalen Hays, fees angels and Jefus -, Ihe runs to tell the dif- ciples of it ; after this Jefus appeared to the other women alfo by the way, that were gone before, and fuffered them to lay hold of his feet, though he would not permit M. Magdalene to touch him. §.28. Remarks on the expo/a ions of thefe go fpel-de* fenders. Thus, Sir, thefe gentlemen have tryed all man- ner of ways to make the ftory confident, though every [ 48 3 every one of them aflert there is no inconfiftency in the feveral accounts of the evangelifts ; yet in endeavouring to make them agree, the gofpels of the refurredlion of the Clearer, of Mr. Sylvefter, of Mr. Chandler, 2Lnd of Mr. Jackfon^difftr as much as Mal- tbew, Mar ky Luke 2Lnd John. Nulliduoconcinnunt, Their underftanding it fo differently fhews it is above their underftanding as well as mine *, yet every one feems fure his own is right ; and if it be, I am fure no man knows which to take, or refufe. But above all that arc fure, as Mr. Jackfon exprefles it, p. 139, that ' There is no contradidtion nor inconfiftencies * in the feveral accounts of Chriil's refurredtion, nor * any other difference but one evangelift omits fome * circumflances which are related in others : ' I fay above all the reft I recommend you. Sir, to Mr. Chandler, if pofitivenefs be a proof of being in the right, he is pofitively the man. And to com- pleat the jeft he pretends to fcrape acquaintance "with honefty, whom you may believe him acquainted with, if he is fo weak in judgment as to be flrong in faith. He fays, p. ZG, ' Upon the whole, as * the feveral accounts are fairly capable of being * reconciled without any unnatural fuppofitions and * forced conftrudlions upon the plain letter of the * words, and the intimations droptby one or other * of the hiftorians themfelves ; I am forced as an * honeft man, and a lover of juftice, to bring in my * verdi6t in favour of thefe witneffes, and declare ' them fully confiftent.' p. 80. ' So thatcompar- * ing thefe feveral accounts, we have the whole hif- * tory of this important event compleat, and every ' part of it is a confirmation of the whole.' p. 82. * So that the teftimony of the evangelifts in * theirdifferent narrations is perfeflly confiftent.' p. 92. ' 'Tis not neceffity, any other than that * irrefillable necefilty of fact, and the ftrongeft cir- ' cumftanccs, that drives us to aflert two appear- 'ances, [49] * ances, which removes all abfurdity from the ac- * count, and juftifies the whole, without receding * one tittle from the letter of the hiftory, &c* To affirm at this rate, after fuch tranfpofuions, in- terpolations, and conftructions, which he is forced to make ufe of, to make it in any tolerable man- ner hang together, and accord, is intollerable, and Ihews that modejly is an utter ftranger to him. I wifli he had better acquaintance with that polite lady, and was more in favour with her grace. If fuch dividing and tacking of the evangelifts together, as all thefe gentlemen are forc'd to contrive to make difcord look like concord, was done to make them difagree, what would chri- ftian preachers and believers think and fay, or ra- ther what would they not fay to expofeand reproach fuch male pradlice. Tho' the Clearer fays, ' All * the evidence is on the fide of the refurre6lion,' 'tis evident they find it very difficult to bring them all on one fide, and that the methods they are o- blig'd to take, (hews them reduc'd to the greateft diftrefs. What does all thefe contrivances demon- ftrate, but the palpable patchwork of an ill con- neaed flory, to make the beft of it. They tell us St. John wrote his gofpel to correft the defers of the others : Certainly they were very defedive, and his corredlion very incorred. 'Tis confefTmg the evangelifts told their ftory by halves, and fo badly, that if they had not the Holy Ghoft to direA them, no body flood in more need of it •, nor is there Icfs need of him now to inform us what they mean, than was at firft to teach them what he meant. If they had learn'd their Icffon right, they certainly would have taught us better; but their blundering fhews their honelly : Though the Holy Ghoft may pardon an honeft blunderer, yet fure he would never chufe to fend fuch of an errand. Tomake up their defecls, thefe gentlemen give us for 1 gcfpel { so ] gofpel their own conjedlures, for which there is no authority, the pure offspring of invention and ne- cefTity to make the accounts correfpond, which yet fail in doing. But fuch mangling and cobling of the text (hews manifeft confufion and egregious blunders not eafy to make on the fide of truth and underftanding, nor eafy to reconcile with it. And it feems very unreafonable that the word ftory-tel- lers fhould demand the beft credit, and that on the fevered penalties. This, Sir, to me is a demonftra- tion of the badnefs of the ftory, that it needs fuch penalties to make it pafs ; for the mod fhining truth is always attended with the cleared evidence, and virtue is wholly without compulfion, 'tis the bed natured thing in the world. Truth and virtue go hand in hand, always attended by freedom ; but error dwells with confufion, vice and compulfion. Tho' every one knows, that dories which do not agree, cannot be all true, yet they do not confider, that 'cis more likely they may be all falfe; and that many that do agree, are alfo falfe ; therefore the agreement of dories is no proof of the truth of them ; and if probability be abfent, it diews proof is wanting. Improbable hidories that righdy tally, prove the fa6l no more, than a falfe dory often re- peated by one perfon, or told by feveral, prove it to be true. ' §. 29. The harmony of the gofpel defenders. Having (hewn. Sir, how each of thefe gentlemen endeavour to date the account of Chrid's fird ap- pearance, to make the evidence agree, and what agreement is between them and the evidence, I now come to (hew, how in endeavouring to remove all difagreements they agree one with another. I hope. Sir, that you now clearly fee, that there is fuch agreement in the gofpel, and gofpel ex- pounders [ 5' ] pounders and defenders, that whether the firfl: ap- pearance of Chri ft after his refurredion was to Maty alone, according to St. Job^^^ Mr. Sylvefter^ p. 6^. Mr. Chandlery p. 78, yg. and Mr. ^jackfon^ p. 126. or to her in company with other women, as Sr, Matthew and the Clearer fay, in contradidion to Sr, John and the reft ; both are confiftenr, and agreea- ble to them and the text. Whether Mary toucht not Jefus's feet at firft, but embrac'd them after- wards, as Mr. Sylvejier has it ; or whether flie and the women embrac'd them, and were forbidden at the fame time, as the Clearer fays, p. 114. or that Mary was not forbad at all, and that ' thtre is no * reafon to think it,' as Mr. C. p. 89, fays ; and tliat fhe was forbid, and did not touch him at all, as Mr. Jackfon fays, p. 126. Is either way inrirely confiftent? Whether M. M, went with other wo- men to the fepulchre, and afterwards came and told Teter and John^ and left the other women behind, as Mr. Jackfon fays,-, or whether they went away, and left her behind, or went a litde way with them, and then returned alone, and afterwards join'd them, as Mr. Chandler fays ; or whether they all went to- gether, as {^Y Mr. Sihejler and the Clearer, is all concordant and confiftent ? Whether M. M. with the women, reported to the apoftles they had feen angels and Jefiis Chrift, as St. Matthew and Mr. C. fays, (p. 85.) or that they reported not a word about it, only that the body was gone, as St. John and the Clearer rejate, (p. 105.) is perfedlly natural and harmonious? So, whether Mary faw Chrift af- ter Peter and John went to the fepulchre, as Sr. John and the Clearer and Mr. Jackfon relate ? Or whether ftie (aw him at the fepulchre before Peter and John went there, as Mr. C. places it, ' I am ' forc'd, as an honeft man, and a lover of juftice, * to bring in my verdi(5l in favour of thefe jury- ^ men, and declare them fully confiftent.' That St. H Mark [ 52 ] Mark and St, John (peak of one appearance to_Af. Magd. alone, (landing by the fepulchre, and Mat- thew of another to her and her connpanions, going away, and at a diftance from it, as they were ha- ftening home, as Mr. C. has it, (p. 86, 87.) or that it was but one appearance in all to M. M, and her companions, as the Clearer fuppofes y and therefore Handing or running, being at the fepulchre or at a dillance from it, by herfelf or in company, to make Matthew and John agree, is all one ; nor is there any manner of contradidion in it, nor in their contradiclions, which iaft is as true as all the reft. §. 30. Remarks on attempting to reconcile irrecon* cileable hijiory. Is it, Sir, a proof of the hidory and its confi- ftency, that every interpreter differs about the ienfe of it, and to bring it out of confufion con- founds if, and is confounded ? Is it, Sir, a fair re- prefentation of the fenfe and critereon of the vera- city of ir, that not two of thofe who fwear to the truth of it, can agree about the meaning, nor in what fenfe to reprefent it ? If the evangelifls don't agree in what they tell, I Ice no reafon^ that men fliould therefore fugged, they tell what they don't, What would, or might be laid to thofe, that fhould thus mangle and dillort a hiftory, to make it con- tradid itlelf, I think may be faid to thofe, that by fuch means endeavour to take away thefe contradic- lions that are in it. Sir, I do not fee, that truth indulges believers to new coin the face of faith, to preferve its currency, more than it does others to falfify it ; nor to ftrain the fenfe of Greek words, or Engltjh fentences, to a fenfe unthought of before, to help thern out at a dead life. Have the evange- lifls exprefTed their own knk clear and right, how 2 can [ 53 ] Gin the expofitors do it better ? Have the gofpel hiitorians expreffed themfelves in fuch manner, that men cannot agree what their fenfe is ? 'tis not in their power to clear it up : this one thing is clear from hence, that the behevers and defenders are greatly in the dark, and nothing difcovers it more, than their affirming that to be true, which they know nothing of, and aflferting thofe things to be right, which their own ignorance of is a demon- ftration, that fuch afTcrtions are manifeftly wrong. If it cannot be known, let it remain doubtful, or a thing indifferent : if it be not right, why fhould men endeavour to make it appear fo ? If the ho- nefty of the hiftorians in relating, was equal to their underftanding in expreffmg, what men can't agree about, I leave it to their defenders to confider, what credit they deferve. If they had the Holy Ghoft to bring all things to their remembrance, and the gift of tongues to exprefs them, 'tis very flrange, they knew not how to agree together to tell a confilfent ilory : if they fay they had thefe helps, and there appears plainly their want of them, they can obtain credit with none but the credulous. Sir, it is my opinion, that the apofHes on whom thefe things are fither'd, were innocent of the mat- ter -, but others have done it'in their names. What mended their hearts and tongues mud have mended their intelledls, and better direded their pens: if there is no proof of the latter, there is no reaion to believe the former •, for the more of the one is afcribed to them, and the lefs appearance there is of the other, the more (tinker like) in mending, ir mars the metal. Hz §.31. I 54 1 §.-31. Of the nest appearance, and other circum-^ fiances. The Clearer thinks Chrift had no pccafion ta mention his intention to fee them that night in Je- rufakm^ (p. 122.) but I cannot help thinking, it had been better for him to have mentioned this iirft, and in chac vifit, he had an opportunity to tell them of his pleafure to fee them in Galilee -, for if the laft was iiril:, and only mentioned, without doubt it would have fet t-he difciples on making the beft of tb^ir way thither immediately, by which means they would have loft the pleafure and oppor- tunity of feeing him injerufalem^ fo his mofc faith- ful difciples would have been v/orft treated, as being by their faith and obedience moft likely to be moft difappointed of the advantage given to others,- who unexpectedly faw him at Jerufalem. But notwith- Handing the mefTage pretended to be given by the angels and himfelf, they were in no hafle to go there : And why fhould he trudge them there and back again, when it don't appear, he went or came v/ith them. He could have fkim'd thro* the air to fee his difciples there, when they, 'tis likely, were forc'd to trudge it all the way on foot. According to St. Luke, he never werit to Galilee, but afcended the evening of the day he arofe : to get off from tffis dilemma, they fay nothing but what is mon- ftroufiy abfurd. Mr. Chandler has it, p. 112. ' That ' the account of the appearance to the apoftles, * and what belongs to it, ends at ver, 43. and the ' 44th verfe, And he faid unto them, or as he renders ' ir, ' moreover he faid unto them, relate to an ' appearance forty days after,' to reconcile it with Acts i. 4. which nothing but a fpirit of divina- tion could have found out : A notable difcovery \ This [55] This is a revelation indeed! Alas, Sir, what doe5 not necefTity drive men to ! The Clearer fays, p. 132. * The orders to go to G alike ^ and continue at Je- *" rufalem^ were given at different times; yes, the order in the morning bade them go to Galileey but in the evening of the fame day, if St. Ltike writes like honed men that are no faints, they were (ver. 49.) ordered to tarry at Jerujalem, by that time Jefus had chang'd iiis mind, and inilead of going to Galilee^ took the open road thro' the air, from mount Olivet to heaven. The gentlemen take much pains to explain the meaning of thofe words concerning the appearance of Jefus to the two difciples travelling to EmmauSy he appeared in another forniy their eyes were holdert that they Jhould not know him^ and he vanijhed out ^f fight \ in doing which they do not well agree r but by what they fay, 'tis plain, all the interpreta- tion which can be given it, is but guefling at the meaning, and endeavouring to account for it, as well as they can. And to follow their pattern, he that guefies what is mofi: probable, and fa.rtheft off from miracle, feems to come nearefl: the mark. So that miracles are only to be allowed in cafes of ne- cefTity 5 but he does bed, who can do v/ithout them. The gentlemen are very careful to convince me of my error, that Simon Peter was not the other difciple that went with Cleopas to Emmaus\ but this care is of no moment ; 'twas but a mere fuppofitioa or conjcflure of mine, and delivered as fuch, at the overthrow of which they feem to glory, as if they had obtained fome fort of vidlory : but what, pray, does it fignify to the argument, whether it was 6"/- mon Peter with Cleopas, that knew Chrift very well, or fomebody, that nobody knows not fo much as his bare name ; and who perhaps, as Mr. C. fup- pofes, (p. 97.) was not fo v/eli acquainted v/ith his manner. [ 56 ] manner, perfon, and voice, and might, for aught we know, as little know Chrift, as wc know him, or Cieopas^ of whom we know no more than the name of one of them. If the Cleopas here men- tioned, be that Cleopas which Mary is called the wife of, John xix. 25. who faw Jefus crucified, and was with M. Magdalene^ we know nothing more of him •, therefore 'tis to Jittle purpofe to tell us of this appearance : for if thefe two were thofe that knew Jefus very well, the account is the more un- accountable, that they fliould not know him, when rifen ; but if they had litde knowledge of him, or we of them, their evidence is of fo much the lefs weight. But whether they were both worth naming br not, (as it feems one of them was not) 'tis not to be accounted for by me, that Jefus fhould fpend his time in a private appearance with thofe on the public road, when the eleven principals had not yet feen him, nor knew whether he was moved off aHve or dead, all the day long, and wanted to have their underflandings opened by the refurredion, which were not opened by the predi6lion of it, fave only 'tis faid, he appeared to Peter ; but of this ap- pearance 'tis very remarkable, that there is nothing remarkable in it, not fo much as when, where, in what manner, or on what account this private ap- pearance to Peter was made, and what makes it more fo, tho' he had appeared to Peter, one of the eleven, and two of the peripatetic difciples came to the apoftles, and heard them talking about it, and faying the Lord is rifen indeed, and has appeared to Simon, (which my gentlemen fay is Peter) and tho' they told the eleven themfelves, what they knew of his appearance to them, yet, fays St. Mark, they did not believe them, (ver. 13.) nay, they could hardly believe Chrift himfelf. Si. Luke fays, (ver. 41.) So that either thefe are bad accounts of his appearance, or the dilciples were bad fort of ^ believers. [57] believers. If it was fo hard to maliC believers be- lieve, they were not far from unbelievers 5 and therefore v/e may hope for the more grace hereafter, who have here no evidence of Chrifl's refurredion, nor of his appearance, lit to convince a rcafonable man. The appearance of Jefus upon the day of his re- fiirredlion was to one woman alone, then to two or three or more, for a minute or two, in the morn- ing early, or to them altogether. He fupp'd and din'd with none that we read of. At fome time of the day afterwards fomewhere he appear'd to fome Simon or other, and either before or after two men incog, one unknown, who knew fo Yiix.\q whe- ther it was him or no, and told their ftory fo evan- gelically, that they could not convince the other difciples of the truth of ic j nor could Mary^ nor the reft of the women, nor this Simon, fo that Je- fus was forc'd to come himfelf, and ventured to flip in among them at candle-light, which was fo dim, that they were forc'd partly to feel him our. Luke V, ^g. One would have thought it more na- tural and reafonable, firft to appear to them altoge- ther, by appointment, in or near Jerujalem^ where he and they are defcribed to have been, at noon day, and fac'd the fun itfelf. Why had none but his difciples the gift of feeing him ? This objedtion alone, raifed from v/hat the evidence confefs, that he was never ittw in public afterwards, though he rofe again for a public good, is fufficient to over- balance all that can poflibly be urg'd in favour of it. Some want to know what Jefus faid to thefe two difciples, when he opened their underftandings that they might underhand the fcriptures, and think the fecret fhould have been revealed, not confider- ing that the men who get their livings by the fe- crets of their fundlion muft not blab them ; if they did, the myftery would be at an end, and their gain [ 58 ] gain be gone. The magi uiderftand magic better ; if he opened their underftandings, they never open ours, nor ever will, no, they Hve by confounding them ; for when that lock is opened, we ourfelves fhall keep the keys of the kingdom. §.32. Of unintelligihk hiftor}\ and the manner of defendmg it. They objedl:, that I don^t underftand the Icrip- tures. Sir, I own it •, therefore I propofe my ob- jections, that I may be taught to underftand it: But I find thofe that pretend to teach others know as little, fmce they don't agree how it is to be under- flood ; 'tis plain they do but gaefs at it, and others may guefs at it as well as they. I don't know. Sir, whether the manner of apprehending the true know- ledge of it be by the language of Canaan^ or of Greece. I fee plainly that 'tis no infallible rule in itfelf in any language •, for none that make it their diredlor, whether they ^xpound it by the help of the fpirit or the letter, agree in their expofitions. As the fenfe is not infalHbly clear, there is alfo no infallible way to know it -, therefore difbelief and mifbelief are the certain confequents of reading ho- ly writ, (for there is no certainty of true belief, be- caufe neither party do, nor can underftand it.) Unbelievers are ignorant of the truth of it, and if believers had fenffi fufiicient to underftand it, they would agree in the fenfe of it. It is not to be faid the fault is in the gofpel, therefore it is in all that read it, whether they are unbelievers or be- lievers. Thefe defenders, if they cunningly anfwer an ob- jeftion, that the words of the text, or the nature of the ftory occafions, in fuch manner as to cover the imperfedions of it, though by a different fenfe than *tis probable the writers ever meant or defigned, and [59] and of which themfelves are certain they but guefs, if they make it paiTviblc, how they vaunt, exuh^, and crow, as if they were mafters of the field, whereas 'tis only like fkinning over an old ulcer that after a while breaks out a-frefh, and difcovers the latent corruption, though they afHrm ftoutly to the in- fenfible patient that the cure is good, and the flefh is found, when it is plainly tending to a morti- fication. Differences in prophane hiflory not eafy to re- concile, impofed on mankind to aggrandize heathen gods or heroes, they freely call evident marks of fraud or folly ; but in what is called facred hiflory (though I think truth only makes hiftory facred, and falfhood renders it prophane) thefe to them are plain proofs of the fimplicity and integrity of the writers, ' without the leaft defign of impo- * fition on the weak and credulous part of man- * kind,' (as Mr. C. fays, p. yy.) and the leafb agreement in any part of thefe proves the truth of the whole; but in thofe, the difagreement of the parts is apt to make men queftion the whole, or at leafl to read it with caution, and receive it with diffidence. Such is the marvellous pre-eminence of gofpel hiflory. §.33. On the harmony of the other appearance or appearances. 'Twould be endlefs, Sir, to trace the wildnefs of their Imaginations, and fhew how boldly they guefs, how weakly they prove, and what necefiities they are reduc'd to. Mr. C. p. 125. tartly afTures us, he will not allow any thing againft him without evidence ; but by what evidence does he prove any thing, but by that of the names of perfons of whom 'tis unknown whether they ever wTote or read, whofe books when or where penn'd God only I knowsj [ 6o ] knows, have no authority but their own, though their ftories are fufRcient to amaze the world, yet no proof remains (befides thefe books) that the world knew any thing of them. EvangeHcal har- mony no numbers can confound. The eleven Mark xvi.. 14, Luke xxiv. ^'^^ are ten to make it tally with John xx. 24, and the eleven at another time, M^/. xxviii. 16, are twelve to make it agree with I Cor. XV. 5. as Mr. C. will have it, p. 119, or the eleven are 500 with Mr. Sylvefter^ p. 64, and Mr. Jackfon, p. 127. With the Clearer^ p. 1-^3, ten, eleven, and twelve mean the fame ; but he is care- ful in what appearance to account: for the 500, therefore accounts for it no where, or in none that he mentions, p. 125, Mr. C. not knowing how to charge this account to any in the gofpel, fets it by itfelf next to that of Matthew xxwxn. 16. Mr. C makes Markxv'i. 14, and johnxx. 16, to be the iame appearance, becaufe they both intimate that 'Chri ft appeared to the eleven, p. no, iii. But the Clearer fuppofes the appearance mentioned by Si, Mark )iv\. 14, is the fame as that o^ Sx. Luke xxiv. 36, and Si. JohnxK. ig^ becaufe St. Mark fays at that appearance our Saviour upbraided the eleven for not believing them which had feen him after he was rifen, which he well fays fhews it was the firft time he appeared to them himfelf, and for the fame reafon that of Matthew was the firft time that he appeared to the eleven, becaufe fome doubt- ed^ which mud be fome of the eleven, becaufe they are exprcQy mentioned, and no more : But thefcene of this being placed on a mountain in Galilee^ and that of Mark and Luke at Jerufalem., becaufe they cannot make Galilee and Jerufaleni the fime place, they vv'iil have it that it was a different appearance ; but [hey have no other reafon to make it fo, but the difcrcfs the diflerent accounts reduce them to, to [ 6i ] to make them agree. As to this appearance, for which you have three evidences, they do not agree ; that to M. Magd. for which they have four eviden- ces, they agree worfe, fo that the more evidence we have, the worfe is they proof : And as for the other appearances, for which you have only fingle eviden- ces, and extreme fliort ones, they cannot difagree, except they had faid a little more to difagree with themfelves. Lo thefe are the proofs of the har- mony of the gqfpel ! . , §.34. Of the other appearances of Jefus^ accord- 'ing to the defenders, . Sir, I now purpofe to give you at one view in what order the defenders range the appearances of Chrift, after he appear'd to the two difciples going toEmmaus', whereby, Sir, you will fee, that though they are all certain that I am wrong in laying ac- cording to Matt hew y Mark, and Lukey ihxt Jefus made but one appearance to his difciples, yet that that they cannot agree how certainly to underfland t'lem as different appearances ; and though they fay I confound one appearance with another, ybt it appears themfelves are confpunded in what order^ to take them. I have feparared every- appearance by a line, according ro their different definitions of the text. I 2 Mr^ vo 1 Kl CO ^^Q ON X is [62 1 > X > . hi ^ ^Ti c^ O ON X X .„• . , ^ xh ON ts . 1 ^ . CO ON ►H VO «—( 'x X '^ d X X ^^ "" ^> ss ^ s; "^ -"^ ^ ^ ^A X X s; -^ o I I I > X X »o vd t^ , J> t> > X >< X J . i^ 5^ J^ ^ «a «2> ^ M H4 M ^ M H4 I M M X .^ 4^' . 1-1 ^^ On ^ 'x X X X X 2S. X X ^ 0\ ^ ^> *-» a 8 >, ^^ .S G . ^ > a X u co^ X is. ' ^ •5 "^ ^c^ 4 HH X . HH r>i X > 'x X X* 'x §■■5 X X X X •^ " <^ 5* s; 5* ^ ON [63 ] Thefe texts are eafily feen ia thofe affixed to my Refurreolion confidered. If the appearances of Jefus in the evangelifls can be reconciled, they thinic all is proved, tho* this they attempt in vain , and tho' there is not the leaft intimation they are fo to be underftood, in order to be reconcil'd, therefore, a new revela- tion is necefifary that we may underftand the old. They reconcile as many as they can, as well as they can, and the others they call different ap- pearances. If Jefus's difciples followed him before his death to Jerufalem^ why fhould he afterwards order them to go to meet him in Galilee^ then trudge them back again to Jerufalem ? It feems by St. John as if the difciples after their mafter's refurredion v/ent to Galilee^ and followed their occupation, and only faw Jefus there by accident, as a vifitor that eat a bit with them and went his way. St. Matthew fays, the angel and Jefus too, gave orders for the difciples to meet him in Galilee^ there- fore, he fays, they went and faw him there. St. Mark tells us, the young man, (/. e. a young angel) bade the women tell the difciples they fhould fee Jefus in Galilee ; but of the appearance of Jefus that he gives us, he forgot to mention the time and place, therefore we may fuppofe it ro be where we pleafe ; but he gives, not the lead intimation of any other appearance. According to St. Luke^ two men in fliining gar- ments (angels becaufe of their heavenly apparel) reminded the women what Jefus faid in Galilee^ that he fhould rife again, but nor a word that the dif- ciples fhould meet him there ; therefore he tells us nothing of the difciples going into Galilee^ but makes his appearance at Jerufalem, St. Matthew^ 'Mark, and Luke deliver it as plain as they tell any ftory, for the firft as well as the laft time, for they give l;s noi: [ 64 ] nor the leafl intimation of any before to the eleven, nor Matthew of any after. Sc. Luke is plainly one conne6ted ftory, all frotn firft to Jaft on the day of the refiirrc(5tion. There is, not the leafl: appearance in St. Matthew^ Mark^ or Luke^ that either of them dream'd or thought of any other than that which each of them mention. But thefe in after- times not being thought fiiflicienr, St. John^ Jike one newly rifen to make new revelations, telJs of more, and gives liberty to others to flretch after him ; ac- cordingly, the author of the A'^s tells us he was forty days before he afcended ; and St. Paul^ that he appeared to more than 500 at one time, but un- luckily for infidels, for they were every one brethren, nor does it appear he either faw or was feen by any other all the while. 'Tis a jefuitical way of reafoning, that becaufe one evangelift does not abfokitely deny in totidem verbis what another fays, therefore 'tis allowed to be true, and fo both are right. Is all then that may be faid of Chrifl true, if not contradided by the evange- liiis? Is the gofpel of the infancy of Jefus true, becaufe none of ourgofpels flatly deny it ? Does not the romifh clergy make this the plea for all their un- fcriptural tradition, that they are not forbidden ? Tho' *twas promifed the Holy Ghoftfhould bring all things to their remembrance, if this promife was made good to them, it was to fo little purpofe, that never were men better qualified for their bufinefs, and did ic worfe \ their memory was very little, or their negligence very great, or their capacities ex- ceeding bad, not to give us a better account of what Jefus did during the 40 days he abode with them, which ought to have been journalized ; the appear- ing of Jefus after his refurredlion was the moil: ef- fential part of his life. This was done, as the Au- thor OF THE TRTAh allows, to convince the world of his charader j yet we don't find he ap- peared [ 65 ] peared to convince any but his difciples, or to make one convert more than he had done before ; fo that either he rofe from the dead to a very little pur- pofe, or we have a very wretched account of ir. One would imagine, if a man is raifed from the dead, it is to fome great end, not merely to catch fifh, eat and drink, and vifit his friends. If 500 faw Jefus after he was rifen, where and when was it? And why do none of the evangelifts mention it, but becaufe they knew nothing of it; for had they known it, it had been an inexcufable neglect to be filent about ir ; as alfo not to mention the other pubHc appearances of Jefus after his refurrec- tion, if they knew of any. Three gofpel writers are very careful to acquaint us of what mighty power the devil had, how he carried Jelus about from the top of an exceeding high mountain to the top of the temple, as one has it, or from the tem- ple to a mountain, as another relates it, and perfe- cuted him 40 days; fo that he could not eat a bit of bread all that while, becaufe he would yield to no temptation : How devils poflefTed many per- fons, and particularly the man they kept day and. night in the tombs, and made him (b (Irong, that no fetters could bind him, that he had an army of devils within him.^ What fhould induce them to pofiefs that poor fellow in fuch crouds, as if there were no more men in the world to give them a lodging, I cannot imagine. What execution might thefe 5000 devils have done, if they had feparated themfelves, and taken every devil his man. Then, that Jefus, to gratify the devils, fnould fuffer them to ruin the Gadarenes^ by deftroying 2000 of their fwine, is furprizing : Thefe, and fuch like ilories, which in any other book it would be no crime to call them romantic, they tell us, as it were, after one another ; but the perfonal appearances of Jefus after his refurredion are fo mifcrabiy related, as if they [ 66 ] they thought thofe relations of no importance, or of not fo much as thofe, concerning which I dare not be diverting, becaufe you. Sir, are fo very grave. St. John^ who is allowed to write after all the reft, and unluckily contradi6ts them all, tells us fto- ries of the appearances of Jefus in Jerufalem and Galilee \ but then he talks nothing of his difciples going back again to Jerufalem^ but that Jefus parted with him in Galilee^ going indeed fome where, and ordering John to ftay till his return, but when that return was, we want another gofpel to inform us. The draining the fenfe of St. Matthew^ Mark and huke^ to take in the (lories of St. John^ the A^s^ and St. FauU is what would not be done to reconcile any other hiftorians in the world, efpecially in rela- ting uncommon and unaccountable things : we fhould fay of them, that they were not fit to be cre- dited. 'Tis quite abfurd, that Matthew fhould mention only Jefus meeting his difciples in Galilee^ if he knew or thought of their meeting any where elfe, and at that time, that fome who faw him fhould doubt, if they had feen him before zi Jerufalem-^ therefore this apparition of Sr. Matthew's relating at Galilee^ appears, according to him, to be the firtt •and laft time he appeared to the eleven, as he had appointed, which appointment cuts off all expeda- tion of their feeing him in Jerufalem^ and all reafon for believing that appearance. 'Tis quite abfurd to fuppofe, that St, Mark and Luke fhould mention only the lall appearance, with- out giving the leall hint of any former, if they knew or thought of any other at the time of wri- ting ', and if this was not defigned by them, as the only one. It is abfurd-^ and looks like an interpola- tion in St. Mark,, that the angels fliould order the difciples to meet Jefus in Galilee, yet not mention one word of his meeting them there. And St. Luke\ [ 67 ] Luke's account cuts off all rcafon for .believing that meeting. And 'tis quite abfurd, that Jefus fliould be forty days prefent with his difciples after his refurredlion, and be feen by above 500 brethren at once, and none of the evangelifts in the leail mention eicher the one or the other. Permit me. Sir, to remark the deep diftrefs the defenders are reduced to, to anfwer my objedlions, and make the different accounts agree, (yet all in vain) tho' they tranflate and tranfpofe words and fentences as they picafe, add fenfe, and take away at pleafure, (intolerable in any but orthodox belie- vers). From forced conflrnclions and diftorted parts they repeatedly affert, that all is natural, plain and confident; whereas nothing is more evident, than that a fenfe fo remote from the natural meaning of the words, and fuch diQocation of parts which they make, prove the hiftory to be very contrary to rhefe aflertions. This diftrefs makes them fpit their fpleen freely, which would have choak'd them ^{q, the poifon of afps is under their lips ; I pafs over and defpife the many inftances of it, which are no proofs of the goodnefs of their nature, nor their arguments. As I promifed you, Sir, at firft to re- gard the fubjed alone ; fo I have kept my promife. Truth is the plaineft, and virtue the beft natured thing in the world ; but error and falfehood being blots in nature, (if I may fo call them) and mazes of per- plexity, plunge men into thofe torments, in which they gnaw their tongues for pain^ and where there is gnafhing^ of teeth. I do not expefl them to quit the darknefs they are involv*d in ; but having anfwered all their feeming arguments, I now bid them good night. I proceed to make fome remarks on the hiftorical [ 68] §. c?5- Of the miracles performed when Jefus was apprehended. When Jefus was feized by the ofFicers, and foU diers fent to take him, 'fis laid, they were {truck down backwards by his word, and that he healed Malchiish ear, which Peter had cut off-, but he might as wcli have done nothing : for iho' they fell to the ground by a miraculous power, without any miraculous power they feized him afterwards. And tho' Malchiis\ car was cut off, and immediately healed, we read not a word of its being mentioned at his trial : and tho' St. Mark^^o. St. John fay, that one of the difciples cut off the high prieft's fervant's car, yet they don't fay Jefus cured it, which is very furprizing. They muil: be bleifed hifiorians, than omic giving an account of the beft and principal part of a Itory. Sir, they tell us there was bloody work in the taking of Jefus, and not the wonderful cure that was immediately wrought. A little more,, and Peter had cleav'd Malchus's head, for I fuppofe he mifb'd his aim in cutting off his ear ; tho' that might have been as eafily cured as this : for the power of working miracles being once granted, 'tis not to be limited •, and exceeding all human reafon, can as eafily cure a cleft fkull as a cut finger, and laife a dead man, as cure a paralitic. That the high piiefl's fcrvant iliould lofe his ear in taking Jefus, if it was not cured, as two evangelifts feem to know nothing of, and one of thefe two was pre- fent at the action, the orher, fome fay, had it from Pcter\ own mouth, ic muft have exceedingly irri- tated the high priefl:. If it was cured, furely St. Mirk and St. John are inexcufable to omit fo re- markable an action of him, whofe life they wrote •, ;ind 'tis as wonderful, that 'twas not mentioned at the trill), ncr miiigued the refentment of the high prieft [ 69 ] priefl: againfl: Jefus: but of this there is not a word, nor of any perfons appearing to witnefs any of his other cures. §. 36. Ohfervations on the hifiory 0/ Judas, Another obfervation, Sir, I have made out of thefe hiftorians, is concerning Judas^ who St. Mat- thew xxvii. fays, repented^ brought again the thirty pieces of ftlver^ and went and hang'd him [elf \ and that the chief priefts bought a field with the money to bury firangers in^ which being the price of bloody that field was called the field of blood. Bat in Acts i. 18. we are told, that Judas pur chafed a field with the re- ward of iniquity^ and falling headlong^ he burfl afun^ der in the midfi, and all his boweh gufhed out \ then- fore that field was called the field of blood. Now here are two different flories, not cafy for me to recon- cile, therefore I defire they would try their parts, who have the knack of it, and are men of fubtil invention. How the falling down of Judas^ and burfting his guts, agrees with his hanging himfelf, I cannot tell : and 1 would be jnform'd, how Judas bought a field with his thirty pieces of filver, and afterwards died in that field, agrees with his return- ing the filver to the chief priefts, and went and hang'd himfelf, and they afterwards bought a field with the money to bury ftrangers in ; and whether it was call'd the field of blood for the one realbn or the other before-mentioned. I don't prefume to call thefe contradictions or inconfiftencies ; no, in profane hiftory it would be fo, but being fancli- fied by the word of God^ the contradiction va- niflies. K 2 §. 37^ I 70] §. 37. Ohfervations on fome circumjiances at the cru* cijixion. Permit me. Sir, to remark how little thefc hifto- rians regarded exadtnefs in their narrations: I ob- ferve they don^c agree exadlly in the words of the title over the crofs, that all Jerufakm might read s for *tis, according to St. Matthew^ "This is J ejus the kin^ of the Jews, St. Mark^ ^he king of the Jews, St, Luke^ This is the ki7ig of the Jews, S t. John^ J^fiis of Nazareth the king ofthejews. St. Mark XV. 25. fays, it was the third hour, when they crucified Jefus ; but St. John xix. 14. tells us, 'twas the fixth hour, when Jefus flood before Pilate^ before he delivered him to be crucified. 1 obferve concerning the thieves that were cruci- fied with Jefus, that St. Matthew tells us, they cap the fame (reproaches) in his teeth ^ as the people did. Sr. Mark^ they that were crucified with him, reviled him. St. Luke^ that one only railed on him, and that the other rebuked the railer, 'Tis obfervable. Sir, that the hiflorians do not agree in their reports of the miraculous ftories at the crucifixion, but I do not fay they difagree, only that fome of them fee m to write what the others knew nothing of, or had forgot, miracles being at that time fo common, they were not regarded. St. Matthew relates that the vail of the temple was rent in twain, the earth quaked, and the rocks rent, the graves were opened, and many bodies of the faints which flept arofe, and came out of their graves after Chrift*s refurredion, and went into the holy cicy, and appeared unto many. St. Mark only tells us of the rending of the vail of the temple in twain *, Sr.Luke that there was darknefs over all the earth three hours, and the vail of the temple was 2 rent [71 } rent in the midft. St. John relates no wonders at the death of Jefus, but that he feem'd to take no- tice of his mother. Strange hillorians thefe, to omit the principal parts of the hiftory they wrote, for fuch they were, if they were any parts of it ; but 'tis very excufable in the writers, for in a cen- tury or two men are apt to forget. And 'tis to be fear'd fome of the gofpels made a very lare appear- ance, even our St. Matthew the very firfl: of them ; the ftory of the dead faints arifing at the refurrec- tion of Jefus, feems to fhew it was wrote after the do6lrine of purgatory took place, or that ftory looks as if it was then lugg'd in, which is faid to be about the latter part of the fecond century. This ftory is very remarkable, and the more fo, becaufe none of rhe others make any remark of it, I know my ad- verfaries tell me 'tis neverthelefs true. It may be fb in their opinion ; I am fure there is fo much the Jefs proof of it, and the lefs proof there is of a fhing, the lefs reafon there is to believe it, and the more to fufped it. Is the proof of God's truth lefs than that of man's ? lefs reafonable ? lefs probable ? and lefs pofTible? Is God's truth darker than man's truth } or of lefs confequence, that it is fo carelefsly tranfmitted to us ? This ftory of the faints refur- redion deferves a particular confideration and en- quiry. It feems, Sir, by the account, that the crucifixion of Jefus gave fuch difturbance to many fleeping faints, that their bodies could not reft in their graves, nor their fouls in heaven, if they were there, orelfe there muft have been a jail-delivery from purgatory, for the fouls of faints do not go to hell. Thefe graves, 'tis faid, opened at the crucifixion of Chrift, and the bodies came out after his refurredion, whence I fuppofe they ftood gaping open all that time, which made it rhe more known, therefore the more remarkable, when many^ that is, not a few. [ 72 ] lodics^ not fouls only, of the famts which flept arofe. Whether this was written to fupport the golpel of Nicodemus^ or this ftory gave occafion to that, I know not. This refurredionof the faints was more miraculous than the re fur reft ion of Jefus, for God knows how long fome of them had flept ; howe- ver they were bodies^ not fl^eletons, and they might as well have new cloaths given them as new flefli,and nev/ bones as either. Befides, in the winter-time to go bare would make all the city flare at them -, but faints would not go into the holy city in an unholy manner, as void of fhame •, therefore 'tis fit to con- clude they had clothes on, and news cloaths too, for where fhoiild they find their old ones, which had new pofleflbrs, or were new modell'd, or worn our. They went into the holy city ; where elfe fhould faints walk ? But, was that the Newjerufakm or the Old ? The Old it could not be, for that was called Sodom and Egypt, where cur Lord 'was crucified^ and which he himfelf laid was worfe than ^odom and Gomorrah, Is the Newjerufakm the holy city.? No doubt of it ♦, but no body ever yet faw that, therefore no body could fee the faints there ; then the flints appear'd no where. 'Tis faid they ap- peared unto many ; but unlefs they vifited their late acquaintance, other people might not know they had been dead. But though they appear'd, they only appear'd. I do not read that they faid a word to any, nor any one to them, or gave them any en- tertainment. Tho' thefe new raifed faints had got their tongues with them as well as their legs, and fo might have ufed one as well as the other, yet they were mute as ghofts •, they might as well have flept ilill in their graves, for when they came out, no bo- dy knew nor regarded them but St. Matthew \ but fure he did not ralfe them, for he was an apoitle, and we are well aflur'd the apoftles were no con- jurers. Did no one afk any of thefetravelling faints, what [73] what news from Hades ? Did they only ftare and look about them ? Or, being fleepy^ did they walk in their flcep ? Had they tefxified the refurredioa of their great deliverer, this had been a proper er- rand. Never was the like heard of. The divi mi- noresy or lelTer gods, fent from one world to make their public entrance in another, to fay and do no- thing ! Well, but how long did they ftay ? and what beame of them ? Where did they go, to hea- ven or to Heep again ? As this refurreclion was in the dark, we are left in the dark about it. §. 38. Refle^iions on the miraculous gift of tongues: Indulge me, kind Sir, to tell you, that the pre- tended miraculous proofs faid to be given by the apoftles to confirm the refurredion want proofs of their own veracity. 'Tis no wonder one miracle is faid to be wrought to prove another ; miracles are defended by nothing but miracles •, for if they could be proved by any thing elfe, that proof would be a miracle. Be quibus nutrimur^ ex iis exjfiimus : Homiogeneous things nourifh and fupport each other ; fiefh is fupported by fielh, life by life, truth by truth, lies by lies, fraud by fraud, and force by force. It is altogether as improbable as it is unac- countable, that Peter^ with the rell of the apoilles and a firong gale of wind, fliouid bring three tiiOU- fand converts into the haven of faith in one cay. Whether thefe came in fpontaneoufly as free agents, or drove in by a mighty wind, and compell'd by llrefs of weather, is a query ? For I don't lee any thing fo wonderfully convincing in Peter's Sermon to produce it, and lefs reafon to behe^e th^ir re- ceiving the gift of tongues, for after thib chey were ftill ignorant and unlearned^ Jits iv. 13. ard St. huu'^ who we never read had- that gift by inlpirauon, but knew no more than what he had been taugiu, >ys, 2 1 Cor. [74] I Ccr. XIV. 1 8. / thank God I fpeak with tongues more than they alL If fo, all of them did not fpeak many tongues, though we are told that all the hearers of every nation under heaven heard every man fpeak in his own language ; and therefore won- dering (as well they might) faid, how hear we every man fpeak in our own tongue ; infinuating, as I fiippofe. Sir, that ev^ery apoftle fpoke every lan- guage. But if this was the cafe, how could fome of them afcribe it to drankennefs? Wine is fo far from inlpiring men with the gift of tongues, that it oft-times deprives the tongue of its gift. Or did the apoftles only fpeak one tongue, and the Holy .Ghoft, the interpreter, made each hearer believe that what each fpeaker faid was fpoken in his own tongue? If fo, did the Holy Ghoft fpeak in theif ears, and the devil in their hearts at the fame time to fay they were drunk ^ If the gofpel was then preached to erery nation under heaven in this won- derful manner, 'tis wonderful that no nation under heaven fhould mention it but this namelefs author. 'Tis faid, cloven tongues of fire fat upon each of them. Was the Holy Ghoft divided then, or how many Holy Ghofts were there ; And who faw, beHdesthe difciples, thei'e cloven tongues ? If they alone faw for ail the reft, their eyes faw double. §. 39. Remarks cnjefusbeing the fan of God. Matthew and Luke reprefent Jefus to be the fon of God, by the Holy Ghoft over-lhadowing the Bo- dy of the virgin Mary., (which would be thought a blafphemous notion, and heathen invention, if not fupported by gofpel authority ; ) yet in the A^s (xiii. 32, 33.) Paul being diftrels'd for a prophecy of the refurreftion of Jefus, applies thereto his be- ing begotten of God, in thefe words \ And now we declare unto you glad tidings^ how that the promife which [ 75] which was made unto the fathers^ God hath fulfilled the fame unto us their children^ in that he hath raifed tip Jefus agaiiu cis it is written in the fecond pfalm^ Thou art my fon^ this day have I begotten thee. If by this means Jefus was the begotten fon of God, he could not be his only begotten fon, if Lazarus was raifed from the dead before •, for then Lazarus was the firfi begotten of the dead^ and fo Chrifi's elder brother. If Jefus was begotten of God, and brought forth by Mary^ how was he the feed of David according to the flefh ? Had Mary not been above three or feven years old, the miracle had cer- tainly been the greater; but thus it pleafed the Lord to efpoufe himfelf to the church who, I fear, is no virgin. §. 40. Obfervations on St. John'j gofpel. Permit me, SW, to add a few obfervations on St. John's gofpel, becaufe the Clearer tells us, that it was wrote, ' not with defign of repeating what * the other evangelifls had fully delivered, but * chiefly to preferve the memory of what they had * omitted.' Yet St. John tells the fame {lory as St. Matthew and St. Luke^ of ChrilVs walking on the water in bad weather, and in the night, when he might have gone by fnipping; a journey that fcarce any one would have chofe, befides himfelf, had ic been in his power. St. Matthew indeed fiys, St. Peter had a fancy to do the fame, but had Hke to have been fopt for it, and glad he was to get aboard again with wet feet, the floor gave way ; he feems to have been over llioes and boots, if he had any ; Peter began to fink -, it was his ftony heart that weighed him down : they had flich natural hard hearts, that a fupernatural power could not keep them foft. But St. Mark and St, John omit that L part [76] part of the ftory ; yet St. John is fuppofed to be prefent. Bur, Cui bono? whcre's the goodnefs of this adtion ? St. John alfo tells the fame fiory as St. Matthew and St. Mark do, of Chrifc's feeding tlie multitude with five loaves and two fifhes; and to this St. John adds fomething fo very remarkable, that 'tis worth notice. The people whom Jefus had fed in the wildernefs with bread and fifh, as much as they could eat, took fhipping, 500c of them, befides women and children, which no doubt made as many more ; (How they found tranfports ready for fuch a number, we are not to enquire j) and when they had found him on the other fide, and he ad- monifhed them to believe in him, thofe very peo- ple faid to him. What fignfljeiveft thou^ that we may fee and believe thee ? What doft thou work ? as if they believed nothing of yefterday's miracle, of which they had had a belly full. Our fathers^ fay they, did eat manna in the wildernefs^ as it is written^ he gave them bread from heaven to eat. A furprizing objec- tion, when Jefus had given them bread and fifh too both from heaven, (tho' he found the feed of them on earth.) Nay, the very difciples themfelves did not confider, or had already forgot the miracle of the loaves, as if the miracle was eafier of di- geflion than their food. Poor creatures, their hearts were hardened ! Never did mafter take fo much care, and exert fo much power, to teach his fcho- lars and the people in fo extraordinary a manner, to fo little purpofe I Jefus did not fatisfy their car- nal minds, as he had done their carnal maws, with a fign from heaven, he was above being tempted. They faid, Our fathers did eat manna in the defer t^ he (Mofes) gave them bread from heaven to eat^ Jefus told them, that he himfelf was bread from heaven, and they were to eat him ; but fuch fort of bread they could not relifh: befides, that eating flefh 2 with .f 77 ]. with the blood in it was forbidden by the Mofaic law. The eating his fltfh and drinking his blood was fo ill digeftcd by them, that mmiy even of his difcipks went back^ and vsalked 7io more with him^ thinking no doubt, as his brethren did, that he was befide himfelf, and conceived a very mean opinion of him from fuch unintelligible difcourfe. St. John writes, that Jefus came up to Jerufakm at a feaft of the pafTover, foon after his beginning to make himfelf public, John\\, 13, i^c. and that then it was he drove the buyers and fellers out of the temple, when the Jews required him, fince he aded in that manner, to fhew his authority by fome fign or miracle ; he anfwered. If they would defiroy ' that temple, he would build it up in three days ; but he very well knew, according to their underftand- ing of his words, they neither could nor would try him. And as St. John has it, he went into and re- turned from his own country three times after- wards. But the other evangelifts tell us of his coming to Jerufakm but a little before he fuffered, and then it was according to them that he drove the buyers and fellers out of the temple. As it was the bufinefs of this evangelift to kt forth Jefus as God, it behoved him more than the reft to give us a narration of his divine excradlion ; HOIV the word was madejlefh. He might fuppofe with reafon that all Chriftians did not fee all gof- pels, and that his might be feen by thofe who ne- ver faw any others •, befides, fo wonderful a ftory, if true, could not be too well attefted and confirm- ed •, it is furely of more importance than that which the other hiftorians were alhamed of, viz. the drunken marriage feaft. St. John acquaints us, that Jefus went into Sa- maria, and made difciples there. But St. Matthew (XV.) that when he fenc his miflionaries to difciple ihe Jews, he exprefly forbad them going into any L 2 city [ 78 ] city of the Samaritans^ and declared, he wasfent only to the hft fbeep of the hoiife of Ifrael. Permit me. Sir, to remark, there is no rule in reafon to judge of miraculous reports but by the ability and honefty of the reporters, nor of their fagacity and fidelity, but by tlie ability and honefty of all thofe that tranfmit their accounts and cha- radlers to us, and how certain this rule is, I leave. Sir, to your confideration, and whether the hillory of uncommon, fupernatural, and unaccountable things are as credible as common and natural hiftory. If that of Julius Cafar was mix'd with fable and romance, the romantic parts, at leaft, would not find eafy credit with confiderate readers. Were men eafily to believe fuch flories, they would be liable to be everlaftingly deceived by falfities, frauds, and fic- tions : 'Tis not reafonable, therefore, to credit unrea- fonable accounts, that are no better attefled than holy writings, which were f own in weaknefs^ but are raifed in power. The ftrangeft ftories in the world fliould carry with them the mod convincing proofs, to render them credible ; and this is the more rea- fonable, as the matters that demand our belief are faid to be of the greater importance, or may be produdlive of the greater fraud and impofition ; yet fcarce were ever any hiilories received in the v/orld as authentic on fo dark celtimonies, and fo uncertain foundation, as thofe that are with us com- monly efreem'd the mod bright and certain of all hiftorical fads in the world. I know that credu- lity is a folly that governs the weak minds that cannot, and the idle that will not examine for them- felves, and ever will govern an ignorant world ; but the wife will endeavour to judge of fterling truths by the touchilone of pure reafon, which only can difcover them ; and all faith which cannot bear this tell is folly and Cupidity. In anfwer therefore 10 Mr. Jackfon\ Addrefs to the deijis^ 'tis not im- pofTible [79] poiTible to prove the impoflibillty of fupernatural revelation. §.41. On the authority of the gofpels. I believe. Sir, upon the flrideft enquiry it will be found impofiible to us to know for certain who were the writers of the gofpels, and the adls of the apoflles, or when, or where they were firft written, or that they are the fame as at firft without corrup- tion or innovation ; and one would think a deficien- cy in any of thefe points, in their defence as the uncorrupted word of God, is fufficient to filence a modeft author, and put his affurance out of coun- tenance : Though tL-e Clearer delivers it as if it was a thing not to be doubted, that St. Matthew wrote his gofpel for the ufe of the Hebrews^ when thou- fands were living in Judea who knew the circum- ftances he reported. And Mr. Sylvefter fays it was wrote eight years after Ch rift's afcenfion •, but nei- ther of them know any thing of the matter. Mr. Jeremiah Jones has fhewn much care and learning in endeavouring to find out on what au- thorities the gofpels ftand, in two volumes to that end, and was far enough from favouring infidelity : But he is obliged to confefs, 1. That 'tis impofiible to afiign any certain time when the canonical books were colledled. That there is no proof they were fixed in the firfi, nor beginning of the fecond century. 2. That they have been all or moft of them re- jeded by feme Chriftians in the firft ages, even by fome that did not go under the name of heretics, as well as by thofe that did. And feveral of them have had their authority difputed by learned men in later times. [8o] 3. Fauftus Mankhaus^ and his followers, are faid to have rejtcled all the new teftamenr, as not written by the apoftles. 4. The Allogians rejefled the gofpel of St. John. 5. Severus and his fedt rejedled the A^s of the apoftles, and all Paul's epiftles. Certain it is, that Chriftianity was no fooner pro- pagated than it was divided into feds and parties, and each pretended to be right, and have Chrift and the apoftles on his fide ; and therefore forged books under the name of fome apoflle or difciple ; and each fed have ever condemned the other of for- gery, herefy, ignorance, or mifconftrudion. * The learned Caufauhon^ than whom no one * was either more acquainted with, or more judi- * cious in chriftian antiquities, in his differtation * againft Baronius fays, I cannot but much refent * the pradice of many in the earlieft ages of the * church, who reckoned it an adion very merito- * rious to make additions of their own to the truths * of the gofpel, with this view, that chriftianity * might meet with the better reception among the * Gentiles. They called thefe officious lies, con- ' trived for a pious end. This produced innu- * merable books in thofe ages, wrote by men, not ' bad, under the name of our Saviour, his apoftles * and followers.* If what Puppus in his Synodicon fays be true, it fhews what an inextricable dilemma the church was involv'd in, to diftinguifh what fcripture was proper for them to take and refufe, fince they de- fired the Lord to chufe for them, and his miracu- lous kindnefs in determining their choice as direded by them. That the bifliops aflembled at the coun- cil of Nice having put together all the books that pretended to infpiration in a church under the com- munion table, they prayed to God that thofe which which were of divine infpiration might be found upon [8i ] upon the table, and thofe which were apocryphal under it, and accordingly as they prayed it came to pafs. This action is not altogether incredible, for fome angel of the church is always at the church's fervice. St. Paul, or fome one in his name, was fo fanguia as to advife the Gaktians to receive no gofpel but his, though it fhould come from heaven, and evea to curfe die angel that brings it. The gofpels were kept private more than a cen- tury, at leaft to infidels, if they were wrote before. And lince 'tis owned that the firft ages of chriftia- nity which produced gofpels abounded with more forged than true, how can we be infalhbly certain of the truth of any. No fuch objedlions lie againft profane or hea- then as holy hiftory. How can the incredible accounts, delivered we know not by whom, when, where, or how, be fet on a level with probable fads, whofe authors and writings have been generally allowed • what advances the credit of thefe, and leflens thofc is, the liberty always allowed to be taken with the one, but the danger there is in fcrutinizing the other. §. Of St, Matthew's gofpel Sandius fays, it is impoflible to determine any thing about its true author. — And fo many names it has had, or is thought to have had, as Ihew the doubtfulnefs of its original. — It is alfo thought to be in many places altered and interpolated. The Nazarines are accufed of corrupting it almoll as foon as they had it. Ireneus of France^ who lived about the middle of the fecond century, is the firft father of the church that writes of the time, tells us, that Matthew pub- lifhed his gofpel when Feter and Paul were at Rome. But [ 82] But fome learned men have much queflioned whe- ther thofe apoftles were ever there. Ecclefiaftic wri- ters place this in the year 64, or later, about 30 years after Chrift's death or afcenfion. A fine time, if it was fo, to begin to write his life and refurredion, .to be depended upon, for authentic. 'Tis ffrange, that of him who was fo famous, as the evangelifts report, no body began it fooner, and that none wrote it but his negligent fervants, who omitted fo long, fo efTential a point, on the faith of which the falvation of the world depended. Perhaps fome fuch objedion made Eufehius^ who lived in the beginning of the fourth century, fay Matthew*^ gofpel was wrote eight years after Chrift's afcenfion. And what carries it on his fide againft Irenaus is, that to the end of the old Arabic verfion there is affixed the following tefliimony : ' The end * of the holy gofpel of the preaching of St. Mat- ' tbezt\ which h^^ preached in Hebrew^ in the land ' of Paleftine^ by the influence of the holy fpirit, ' eight years after our Lord Chrifl: afcended in his * flefli to heaven, and the firft year of the Roman ' emperor Claudius.'' And tobefure the teftimony was not interpolated, though the gofpel was, nor would believers father a lie on the Holy Ghofl. But this Irenaus never faw, or he would not have faid it was written twenty years later : but Eufebius^ who came 150 years after, knew exadljy the time of the old revelation by fome new one made to him then, or to his works fince his death by the infal- lible church. As for Eiifebius^ 'tis owned he was a credulous man, and none was guilty of more mif- takes : befides, 'tis fuppofed things have been foifted into his works of which he was not the author. Notv/ithflanding the preceding teftimony, it is not agreed in what language St. Mailbew^s gofpel was wrote, the original tex*: being loft, nor can the copies of the original be determined. Some fathers of [ 83 ] of the church would have it believed it was wrote in Hebrew ; but many of our firfl reformers by their learned criticilms have endeavoured to prove, that the gofpel we now have according to Sr. Matthew is from fome Greek original. Epiphanius^ bifhop of Salami s in Cyprus^ anno 370, or thereabouts, fays, the gofpel of Sr. M?/- thew^ ufed by the Ebionites^ fwho it's thought were the firft Chriilians) and the Cerinthians was altered and corrupted, having not the genealogy nor the two firft chapters. 'Tis much to be queftioned,. whether thofe chapters have not been added fince that gofpel was firft written. The marvellous catchts the croud ; and he that affirms with moft alTurance is moft firmly believed. The German anabaptifts of the laft preceding century, and Dr. ServetuSy who was burnt for a he- retic, by that heretical pope Calvin at Geneva^ de- nied the credit and authority of this gofpel. §. 43. On St. Mark' J gofpel. Concerning St. Mark's gofpel there is fcarce any thing to be found in ecclefiaftical hiftory, which can be depended on : " One Mark is mentioned in the Acls of the apoftles, in St. Paulh epiuies, and by St. Peter-, and 'tis fuppofed, that Mark was the author of this gofpel : but Grotius, Crotelerius^ Dr. Cave^ Dupin, Mr. Echard^ and other moderns, are of a contrary opinion." Eufehius tells us, th'xi Clemens Alexandrinus in one place teftifies St. Peter'*s approbation of the church of Rome's requeft to Mark to write thofe occurren- ces of the life of Chrift, which he had h.^ard of St. Peter, which we now call the gofpel of Sr. Mark, and that St. Peter approved of it. In ano- ther place the fame author fays, that St. Peter nei- M ther [84] ther encouraged nor obflruded Mark in his under- taking. This Clemens lived about the middle of the fecond century, and 'tis therefore very likely he knew very little of the matter; nor might Eufebkis be well in- formed of what he faid ; yet fuch is church autho-. rity. There is but little credit to be given to eccle- fiaftical hiilory ♦, ihe hiiforians affirm'd what they thought befh tended to the good of the church, and the church confirmed it ; and have condemn'd and deftroyed all other. Irenaus^ who lived in the fecond century, liiys, that Mark^ St. Petcr\ interpreter, wrote his gofpel after the death of Veter^ what he had heard him preach j but Origen^ who lived in the third century, writes, that Mark wrote his gofpel according to the direcftions of St. Peter \ and Jtrom^ who lived in the fourth century, tells us, that Peter publifiied it in the churches, and commanded the reading of it by his own authority: thus the later the hilforian, the greater the confirmation. Fama volans au- getur, ^Tis urged, that the Syriac^ Arabic^ and Perfic verfions afHrm St. Mark to have wrote in Latin \ to which Mr. Jones anfwers. That thefe epitaphs or poftfcripts at the end of thefe verfions are of very uncertain authority •, and that as to the time when Sr. Mark wrote his gofpel, 'tis exceeding difficult to come to any clear determination, tho' 'cis pretended 10 be wrote in Nerd*% reign. So that 'cis not knowable for certain, when, where, in what language, or by whom this gofpel was wrote ; for 'tis faid, he wrote what he had heard from St. Peter at Rome^ and 'tis much quef- tioned, whether ever St. Peter was there. It is thought by lome, to be only an abridgment of St. Matthciv\ gofpel, with an additional fe(5lion con- cerning Chriil's rcfurrcction after the end of the 8ch verfe, [ 85] verfe, which St. Jerom fays mofi: of the Greek co- pies Iiavc not; fo hys Gregory Nyjiene \ hwi Groiius luppofes it was left out with delign, becaufe it feem'd to contradi(5l St. Matthew^ that Porphiryy Julian^ and fuch others, might not take occafion from thence to ridicule the gofpel; as Mr. Fahricius alfo obferves, and adds, that 'tis a cafe like what hap- pened to thofe words Mark xiii. 32. to avoid the force of the Arian objections. It is confelTed by Mr. J ones ^ vol. I. p. 564, that the lafl chapter of St. Mark^s gofpel has fuffered many alterations : This fliews how our gofpels have been moulded ; but it cannot be fhewn, how they were firft caft. Aaron\ calf was, no doubt, a type of this lamb. §. 44. On SL Luke'j go/pel, St. Luke is fuppofed to be the perfon mentioned in St. Paulas epiftles. The accounts which we have from antiquity concerning this evangeliil, are very fhort and imperfe6t : 'tis fuppofed he was no Jew : the place where, and time when this gofpel was wrote, is very uncertain : 'tis fuppofed to be origi- nally written in Greek, becaufe 'tis the pureft Greek of all the evangelifts. Marcion and his followers had a different gofpel of St. Luke^ than what we now receive: That he- retic (as the heretical orthodox fay) inferted and left out what he thought convenient, to ferve his own purpofes. Alas! 'tis too common for people to ac- cufe others of the crime they are guilty of them- felves ; and fe<5ls that differ in their fentiments have equal honefty. What was called the gofpel of Marcion, was no other than that of St. Luke^s altered and interpo- lated : He left out the two firft chapters, and many other parts, and inferted many things of his own, M 2 iay [ 86] fay Ireneus^ fertullian and Epiphanius. Or perhaps others have added what they are accufed of leaving out, and Marcion might never find in ; and alfo in- terpolated what they thought a gofpel benefit. No- thing is more certain, than that the truth of thefe things is moft uncertain. §. 45. Of SL John's gofpel 'Tis faid, Sr. John wrote his gofpel to fupply the defeds of the other gofpels : 'tis certain, the other writers were very defective or negligent, and his fupply weakens the force of his allies. 'Tis alfo faid, that it v/as written to confute the Ebionites, Nicolaitans, Marcionites, and others, who denied the divinity of Chrift; by v/hich it appears, the primitive ChriRians w^ere not idolaters, nor worfhip- pers of a compound deity. This gofpel is confefs'd to have been written al- moft an hundred years after the birth of Chrift, or between 60 and 70 years after his death. Epipha- nius fays, St. John wrote it in the 90th year of his age : and this gofpel is faid to be written in Greek originally ; tho' St. Joh?i was an unlearned Hebrew^ into which tongue it is faid to be afterwards tranfla- ted. With tlieie incredible circumftances it pafies with the church for St. John's gofpel: whoever wrote it, 'tis certain it has fuffered alterations ; for the chapter of the adulterous woman is not in the old Syriac copy, nor ancient Greek manufcript. §.46. Of the Afls of the apofiles. The authority we have, that St. Luke is the au- thor of the A5ls^ is from a conjedure of Irenaus, tho' 'tis not known, who this Luke was, a difciple of Jefus or not; for he calls him the difciple and follower of the apoltles : this conjedture of Irenaus is [87] is founded on 2 'Tim. iv. 11. applied to A5fs xvi. 10, I [, 12. 16, 17. where the writer fpeaks not in the name of Paul in the firit perfon fingular, but as a companion of Paul in the firfl: perfon plural. But in my opinion, this gives more reafon to believe it was Silas than Luke ; for the plural perfon we is us'd by the writer after Paul ha.d chofe Silas for his com- panion, and not before. Befides, the^^s of the apo- itles could not be wrote by St. Luke, becaufe of the difagreement in the time of Chrilt's abode on earth after his refurre6lion, which, according to St. Luke was but one day, but according to the J^s is forty days. All the fucceeding fathers of the church afcribe the A^s of the apoftles to St. Luke^ being fo di- reded by Irenaus ; for they follow one another in a tracl : what one fays or conjedlures, which makes for the good of the caufe, the others take for gran- ted, and affirm. St. Chryfoftom confeffes, that it was not known by whom this book was written. It is alfo confeffed, that fome of the firfl Chri- ilians, the Cerinthians, Manicheans and Marcionites rejedled this book as falfe and fpurious. That the tranfcribers made alterations in this book i9«»evident from the confeOion of Erafmui, who faid he found more curious readings in the manufcripts of this, than any other of the facred books. There was another A5fs of the apoftles receiv'd by the Manicheans : the different fe6ls of Chriftians could never agree in receiving the fame gofpels, and -therefore each forg'd or alter'd a gofpel to their own minds, according to the principles they had imbib'd. Thofe whofe faith did not correfpond with the gofpel, made gofpds to correfpond with their faith, as every believer now does, in explaining thofe they have. The prevailing fed were always orthodox, and accufed the others of being ignorant heretics, of adding and taking away from the gof- pels [ 88 ] pels according to their own fancies ; and were the accufcd to anfwer for themfelves, they would fay the fame of their accufers. §.47. Of Chriftian herefies, 'Tis certain, that no fooner did Chriftianity ap- pear, but fadions, parties and heretics immediately fprung up, and have ever remained, and are ever likely to do fo, as long as it exifts. What's the meaning of this ? Truth is clear and plain, uniform and harmonious; but error is obfcure and intricate, everlaftingly dividing and fubdividing itfelf, an in- exhauftible fund of difagreement and contention. When truth is exprefTed to look like error, that is not to be underftood ; it may be produdive of the fame ill confequences as error is, but then error is the occaGon of it, that is, the error of expreffion ; and if truth puts on the garb and appearances of error, no wonder if it be miftaken for it, and have the fame influence. One would think, that the truth of God would appear like him, good, bright and lovely ; for truth delights not to put on the garb of error, nor does wifdom love to wear the mafk of folly, nor is it the property of real goodnefs to fculk in the fhades of darknefs, and hide itfelf in obfcurity. It is not the nature of love and piety to produce contentions, envyings, herefies and perfecutions ; its nature is to fend peace on earth, not fire and fword ; nor is it difpofed to kindle the one, nor does it advife to fell one's gar- ment to buy the other. A religion founded on bare authority, not con- duced by the choice of reafon, will admit of in- numerable pretenfions and impoftures. Hence arifes the exceeding difficulties of diftinguilliing right from wrong, truth from falfhood : But if we take reafon 2 and [89] and nature for our guide the diftindion will be clear and eafy. Ever fince the revelation of ChriRianity, diffe- rent feds have rifen up among them : the weeds of herefies have plentifully fprouted out of this ground, but the true plant among ehridians is hard to be found ; they had ever more credulity than v?ifdom, and more zeal than virtue. Each fed have always thought it right to do wrong, i. e. to advance the gofpel or their party, by forging falfhoods or con- cealing truth. Nothing is plainer than that the new teftament books rcceiv'd their fandion from the authority of the church only, for none but the church ever re- ceived them at all. And what makes any dodrines be called orthodox, but the fuccefs the mainrainers have had, who call themfelves the catholic church, by fupprefTing all other. And why are others deem'd or damn'd for heretics by the triumphant party, but becaufe the fuffering party cannot help themfelves. The armour of faith, without the car- nal fword, does not compleat the wedding gar- ment of the church militant. Nothing but fuccefs can diftinguifh orthodoxy from herefy j for where both fides are pofitive they are right, and the proof is on no fide, power only can determine the con- troverfy. There can be no other right to ortho- doxy where there is none in the reafon and nature of things, and neither fide can find a proof there : they cannot fubmit to be tried by that court, whofe authority is condemned by them all, becaufe it fa- vours none : for pofitive precepts and dodrines pre- tended to be given by that court above, /. e. a fu- pernatural court, refufe all trial by the inferior court of nature. This is the prefumptive authority of all herefy. That party which rifes as by the for- tune of war, and vanquifhes the reft, calls itfelf orthodox, which is but another word for conqueror, and [90] and the vanqiilfli'd party is confequently declared heretical. Orthodoxy therefore is only triumphant herefy ; and the authority of the fathers which are on their fide, are no more right, than the ufurpa- tion of mother church is, fo that nothing can be proved true from that (quarter. Had the vanquifh'd heretics prevailed, their ancient teachers had been fathers of the church, their doclrines had been or- thodox, and their gofpels, epiftles, a6ls, and reve- lations would have had the fandlion of the infpira- tion of the fpirit ; fince the defenders of every an- cient herefy efpoufed feme books peculiar to them- felves, that were fo called. Every feet received fuch books for canonical, as were for their purpofe, or made them fo; and the vidtorious party burnt and deRroyed, as far as they were able, alJ that they difliked. Cyril of Jerufahn advifes his catechumen to rejefl all facred books not contained in his cata- logue, and not to read them. The fame the coun- cil of Laodicea, in the middle of the fourth century. The earlieft Chriftians, viz, the Nazarines, Ebio- nites, Cerinthians, Nicolaitans, Valencinians, Me- nandrians, Carpocratians, Montanifts, Gnoftics, Manicheans, Cerdonites, Marcionites, Tatianites, ^c. are all condemn'd for heretics by the other fe^ls, and thofe that lived after them, and fo were almoft all of the firft century, except Chrift and the apoftles, by the rifing orthodox of fucceeding cen- turies. The fathers of the church from whofe credit the canonical books are received lived about the beginning of the third century ; a dark time to depend upon for light •, and darker followed, which clouded that, and all that went before it. If books are to be received as God's word by his pofitive command, we ought to be pofitively fure of them, or no impofition and deceit is more eafy. If the canon of the fcripture depends upon tradi- tion, then it depends upon human authority ; but that [ 91 ] that of its divine, miift reft upon its own intrinfic worth : this is the only rule of judging its truth and: purity, ^ for doing which the Jearned Mr. Jeremiah Jones gives us the following rules. §. 48. Mr, Jones's rules to judge of canonical books. Mr. Jeremiah Jones lays down thefe rules, among others, to judge of the canonical authority of any book, by which the impartial may try if ours will bear the teft. 1. That book is certainly apocryphal in which are found any contradidions; for as both fides of a contrary propofition cannot be true, fuch book muft neceflarily contain fomewhat that is falfe, and con^ fequently cannot have God for its author, nor be to us a rule of dodlrineand manners. 2. That book is certainly apocryphal which either contains any hiftories, or propofes any docflrines contrary to thofe which are certainly known to be true. To impute fuch a book to the Holy Ghoft, is to make God the author of a lie-, and *tis not fit to take that for our guide in matters of the laft confequence, which we know to be not only fallible but falfe. 3. That book is apocryphal in which are con- tained things ludicrous or trifling, fabulous or filly relations. God, a Being of infinite wifdom and knowledge, cannot give us fuch books as argue him guilty of weaknefs and folly, and impoling on his creatures things to be believed contrary to their moft improved reafon ; nor can men of ho- nefty and wifdom be the authors of fuch fort of books; for if they wrote what they did not believe, they were notorious impoftors -, if they did believe, they were perfons of fhallow capacities and foolifh credulity ; the former deferve our hatred, and the laft our pity. Thefe are no fit guides to mankind. N This [ 92] " This obfervation (fays he) is not only evidently true, but of the greaieft neceflity in the bufinefs we are now about ; for 'tis certain, that a very great number of the apocryphal books of the new teftament are filled with the mod idle and trifling Hories, the moft ridiculous and extravagant foo- leries imaginable. The romantic accounts of the virgin Mary's nativity, being bred by angels, and fed hy them in her infancy, &c. the childifh relations of our Saviour's infancy and education, his learning the alphabet, his Jlature, appearing fome times as a child, fometimes as a man, fometimes fo tall that his head would reach the clouds, the length of his hair, beard, &c. the fpirit's taking him up to fnount Thabor by one of his hairs, &c. the filly miracles attributed to the apoftles, with all the ridiculous circumftances that attended their feveral martyrdoms, ^c, are .each, v/ith all the other ftories like them, unqueftionable arguments to prove the books which contain them apocryphal ; and to be no other than either the works of the weakefb of men, who were fondly credulous of every report, and had not difcretion enough to diftinguifh between fenfe and nonfenfe, between that which was credible and that which was not fo ; or t\{z the artful contrivance of fome who were more zealous than honed, who thought by thefe flrange ftories to gain credit to their new religion." Mr. Jones very juftly argues, vol. i. p. ii. that the receiving books for infpired, which are not fo, the confequences are evidently very bad. 1. We thereby offer a notorious affront to our Maker, by impofing forgeries, ^c. to the infpira- tion of the Holy Spirit. 2. We thereby alfent to the mod grofs and no- torious errors as indubitable truths, and fo very pften fhall be like to oblige ourfelves to many bur- denfome [ 93 ] denfome imaginary duties, not only not required 6f God, but contrary to his will. p. 13. How careful then. Sir, ftiould men be to enquire and aflure themfelves indubitably what the infpired books are. And how can we give our alTent, where we have not full and clear evidence ? and how can lefs evidence be fatisfadory ? for our af- fent to any propofition can only be in proportion to its evidences. §. 49. Concluftve queries, I purpofe to conclude with propofing a few que- ries refulting from the preceding enquiry. Though each interpreter of fcripture and gofpel- preacher conceits himfelf (if he is honed) to be right in his judgment, and therefore requires the affent of others to his own notions as the truth of the' gofpel ; yet as they cannot agree among themfelves what the truth of the gofpel is, to whom, or upon what fcore Ihould we give our ai^ fent ? If to him that has the greateft reafon and probability on his fide, whether it be not juft and neceflary to enquire into,_ and judge of things by their reafon and probability ? How is the gofpel the revelation of God, if men cannot underftand it who honeftly endeavour to do it ? Why (hould men be fo bitter (as thefe gentlemen are) in vindicating what is out of their power to underftand, explain, or defend ? Whether 'tis not an evident mark of great weak- nefs and folly in men, (to fay no worfe) not to agree in the circumftances of an extraordinary fad, ^or not to be able to tell an important ftory (which 'tis faid, was well known to the relaters) in a confident and intelligent manner ? ° N 2 Whether [94] Whether 'tis fit, that the ill-connefted tales of credulous and ignorant men Ihould be attributed to the diredion of a divine, unerring fpirit, or be called gofpe], or God's word ? Whether credulous and ignorant men are proper judges of truth ; that we fhould receive it arbitra- rily from them? How is it agreeable to the wifdom of God, to chufe the moft ignorant and unlearned (if not foolifh and wicked men) for the meflengers of his will, and the difclofers of his council and wifdom ? Whether the Holy Ghofl is not given to believers now, as well as in the apoftles time ? if not, what reafon have we, but that of the blind authority erf uncertain tradition, that it was ever given ? If the Holy Ghoft be given to believers now, what are the evident proofs of it, (beiides believing) whereby it may be diftinguifhM from nature ? And whether that can be known to be an infallible fpirit, which cannot be infallibly known ? Whether 'tis confiftent with the goodnefs and in- fallibility of God, that the falvation of mens fouls fhould in any meafiire depend upon their believing the precarious and uncertain accounts of weak and fallible men? And whether any authority not founded in the nature and reafon of things, is to be received as the facrcd injunclions of divine truth ? Where is the goodnefs or virtue of taking things upon trulf, believing without evidence, and the reafonable means of convidlion, as the credulous, "unthinking herd do, whofe creed, like clock-work, goes as it is direded by others, without being them- felves fenfible, whether they are right or wrong? Since mankind have been grofsly impofed on in fuch cafes, to their very great injury and deftruc- tion, and a right judgment of things has a manifefl advantage [95] advantage to their benefit, where is the crime of making an honeft enquiry ? Or rather, is not a rea- fonable infpecflion and fcrutiny convenient and ne- ceflary ? Be pleafed. Sir, to bear in mind, that the defign of this enquiry is to Ihew, that the evidence given is not Sufficient to fupport the credit of Jo extraordinary en events and to demonftrate, that true religion or righteoufnefs is not founded on an hiftorical faith, and the credit of mighty adions that have weak proofs; but on plain philofophy, on the conftant and certain difference, nature and reafon of things, in which confifts the knowledge of whatever is ne- ceffary to difcover and promote human happinefs ; and that Chrijiianity as old as the creation is the only true religion in it. Tour real and faithful Friend^ And humble Servant^ Moral Philosopher, Lately Puhlijhed, and id he had at the Pamphlet Shops. The RESURRECTION considered, in anfwer to the I'rial of the Witneffes ; in which are particularly confidered. The Reafonablenefs of confidering this Subje(5l, Chrift's Kingdom, Infpiration, the Prophecies of Chrift's Refurrec- tion by the Prophets not found, and by himfelf public and private in order as related by the E- vangelifts not underflood, no Refurredion ex- peded, the Effedls of the Watch being fet dif- prove the Story, the Confequences of the Refur- redion of Lazarus^ the Evangelifts Difagree- ments concerning Chrift's Appearances, his Af- cenfion, his not appearing in public, the Infuffi- ciency of the Evidence, the ImpofTibility of Mi- racles, with all the Gofpel Texts of the Refurrec- tions annext. The RESURRECTION reconsidered, in anfwer to the Clearer and others. — The Intro- dudion begins with a pathetic Call to Enquiry, declares the Nature, Confequence, Importance, and Excellency of Truth ; Remarks on Mr. SyU vefter\ the Author's Dodrine proved by Mr. Chandler^ Sermon, fhews Belief to be no Part of Religion •, obferves the Arts of thofe that argue againft Truth. I^his Treatife difcourfes of the man- ner of treating the Subje6l, vindicates the Author's underftanding ir, clears him of many falfe Char- ges •, Remarks on explaining Scripture, on Gofpel Morals, and feveral Particulars j fhews how the Re- furredlion firft gained credit, treats of the Evidence ofProphecy, proves the Corruptions of theGofpels, fhews Celfu5^s Objedlions againft: the Truth of ir, and how vindicated by Origen ; obferves the Dis- agreement of Chriftians, and the Gofpels, and whatChriftianConverfion is ; difcovers howChrift's Kingdom was underftood, and that temporal Feli- were cities promifed, with many other Obfervations.