lull

i' :,,'¦ "'ZsiivetArfe Books
far. tbefonndaig, if p. College- in. i^CftpiyV

0

•YAiuE-^MVEKSinnr-

1877

T H E
RESURRECTION O F
JESUS Confidered; I N
ANSWER T O T H E
TRYAL of the WITNESSES.

Job xxxiv. 4.
jUt us chufe to our/elves judgment: Let us Immu among
ourfilves what is good.
ArSls xvii. 11.
fThey fiarched the fcriptures daily, whether thefe- -thfags were fi.
j— r-- Ah ! fi fat (licere, , fid fas. Y&R0;i "Sat. I.
-.  Somewhat 1 would fay,
But fear,  « Let fear, for once, to truth give way.
Drydek.
The Third EDITION with great Amendments.
"Bya MORAL PHILOSOPHER,^
N. B. The Second Edition is fpurious and erroneous.

L O N D O N:
Prints "or M. Cooper, at the Glole, in Pater-noftir-row.
M,DCC,XLIV.

THE
INTRODUCTION.
In this t dition t haiie endeavoured to cor reft thofe ex-
preffions in the former which gave offence, by ' re*
moving fome, and mending others wherever it ap
peared neceffary. Some things that were in the for-.
mer Introduction are tranfpofed to more proper places,
hut nothing material is omitted -, and here are fome
additions of confequence. What is called the fecond
edition is a pirated and faulty piece. To difiingiiijh this
from that, 'tis called the third i For thefe reafons I
tmly defire the favour of my opponents to refer to this.
AMONG all the ingenious Gentlemen who have en
tered the Lifts againft Mr. Woolflon in favour of tha
gofpel miracles ; the author of the Tryal ofthe Wit-
nejfes ofthe refurreftion of Jefus ftands foremoft on the records
of fame. The conqueft he has gain'd has fpread it felf far and
wide, and reach'd even the remotefl corners of infidelity ;
none having hitherto replied to fo triumphant a piece. Tha
tenth edition had publiflied its praife before it fell into my
hands by the recommendation of friends. After reading it,
an ardent love to truth animated my attempt to anfwer. I
faid withElihu," Great men are not always wife, neither do the
.reverend under/land judgment. Therefore faid I, Hearken to met
I will alfo fhew you mine opinion. hMy words Jhall he the
uprightnefs of my heart. Let me not, I pray you, accept any
man's perfon, nor give flattering titles to man,c for it is not
good to have refpeft of perfons in judgment.
I prefume that worthy Gentleman, who is the Author of
the Tryal, might expect it to meet with oppofition, as well
as approbation ; and that, where all reafonable liberty is
efpoufed by all parties, it will be denied to none : By this
means truth will be cultivated, and flourifh. As there can
A 2 no
Job, xxxii. 9. 10. b Job. xxxiii. 3. « Prov. xxiv. 23. t

(4)
no honour accrue to aB_ Author that:mav- not be anfweredj,
fe a generous Antagonift can feek no other fatisfaftion than
what the Laws of fair difputants allow. The perfon, that
fupprefles argument by authority, brings as much fcandal to
the caufe, as to himfelf. He cannot be a good man that
•commits fuch opprelJion ; nor can that be a good caufe
winch requires it. T" < ' )
' 'What 'is riot 'fit to be enq'rrire*d into, is not fit to be
known. If it be juft and lawful to feek truth, I hope it
will not- be criminal to find it on any -fide. But if it be
not proper to enquire after it,, left it be found on the fide
of unbelievers, and infidelity .fliould. reign among us ; is it
then fit, that fraud,, and falflioOd, and tyranny* and perfe-
cution, and flavery, and violent perverting of juftice and
judgment fliould reign in a nartbn, arid a form of godlinefs,
without the power thereof, fliould form the manners of a
people. Thefe muft be the confluences of fuppreffing
truth, and liberty, for fear infidelity fliould flourifli.
"Wherefore fliould it be thought more heinous to examine
why, than what we fliould believe? If faith be founded
6n 'facl, let the truth of -the fael appear j if on reafon/ let
reafon difcover the/otindation; if. oil neither of thefe, but
faith be founded on faith, that is, the faith 'of one on the
feith of another, then let' thofe, that (a ) hold fafi the tradi
tions as they have been taught, (b) contend earnefily for the faith
'which was once delivered unto the Sdirits. If it be criminal
to examine into the grounds Of our faith, it is equally cri
minal to know whether we believe right or wrOng, or to
think about it. If fo, it is no wonder that thofe, who enl
quire leaft into the reafons pf their faith, have the greateft';
and that thofe, who think moft freely, have the leaft ifbare
of it : Or that, in proportion as our iinderftaridings are im
proved, faith diminifhes. He thatfearclses fbr truth has it
at heart, and I think, lie is juftified by his fincerity, and
Utmoft endeavour, whether be find it or no. It is poffible
he may not reach the mark he aims at, tho' his intentions-
and labours are laudable. 'Tis not in.moria'ls io command Fuv
cefs, but 'tis more noble to deferve it : for fincerity acquits
a nian of guilt, but not of fallibility.
' The refurreciioh of Jefus, being .made an important arti
cle of faith, becomesan affair of importance; therefore the
examination thereof with much care, and caution, feems
highly neceffary. If it bealledg'd tbat-it is not proper to
bs
2 Theff. ii. 15. -* Jude 3.

m
be fearched irito, becaufe it isa myftery, then it is fo, either
of.godlinefsi or of iniquity, for according to fcripture there
are myfteries in both ; a and how can we know which of
thofe it is without examining? * He that doeth truth
cometh to the light, that his deeds may he tHariifeJi. Let us
bring this deed to the light of reafon, that theiruth of it
may appear. The gold that will not bear the fire is coun
terfeit. That fact or doctrine, which cannot endure this
probation, cannot be true 5 for it flies the face of reafon,
which is truth's defender ; and trembles at examination,
which truth delights in.
Can that be efteemed a fair Tryal, where the evidences are
only on one fide of the queftion, and what they fay muft;
be admitted for fact or truth to both parties ; where the
defendants, to try their own caufe, admit none but their
own witnefles. It was intimated by Mr. Wooljlon, (p. 15.)
That 'tis happy for us, that the very account, given by the pre
tended •Untnefies of this fait, is fufficient to. defiroy the credit of
it. If fo, thofe. books muft be notorioufly bad indeed that
deftroy their own authority. A hiftory may be very falfe,
and not do that. Fa£te reported may be poffible, may be
probable, nay more, may harmonife, and yet not be true.
And in fuch cafe, how can the falfity thereof be found out
without other evidence? 'Tis not in fuch cafe a fign of
a bad caufe to have great fiar-iity of proof, or not to bring
proof but to uui/h for it. 'Tis certain, books have been
wrote by Porphyry, Celfus, and others, which contained
what the Chriftians thought were beft anfwered by (lining,
and burning. It is well known from fome fragments of
them in Origen, that they . contradicted what is related by
the Evangelifts; and that thofe writings died no natural
death. If they were anfwerab'le, why were they deftroyed?
If unanfwerable, we have the more reafon to wifh for
them ; and lament the martyrdom they have fuffered. The
damning books and men, for the fake of opinions, proves
their's to be very bad that do it. If Chriftians were re
quired to prove the truth of gofpel hiftory, by the writ
ings of thofe that were not Chriftians, would they not be
glad to find them, and have reafon to wifti for them?
Thofe, who would examine the truth of things, fhould hear
both parties. Why not as well in this, as in other cafes ?
Unlefs the accounts thefe pretended witnefles have given
defiroy their own credit, who can detect their evidence, be
* 1 fim. iii. 16. z Their, ii. 7. J> John iii. 21.

(6)
it ever fo falfbj unlefs it exceeds the bounds of all probabi
lity, or poffibility? Since the books wrote againft them*
which might confront their's, are anfwered by fire, and
made a burnt -offering, of fweet favour to holy mother
church and the Chriftian priefthood. To find the truth of a
cafe by the bare teftimony of partial evidence combined
againft it, muft be owned a very difficult tafk : For in fuch
cafe we have no other way to inveftigate it, but by finding
a fufficient flaw in the evidence; and by the difagreements
and abfurdities to invalidate the teftimony. Can it be ex
pected that an equitable iflue fhould be obtained, from
what may be fairly reafoned out of their own reports ?
Such a cafe no body in a fuit of law would care to ftand
the trial of, where it is well known before-hand, that the
witneffes are all agreed to caft the plaintiff; and, tho' his
caufe be good, he can have no other. ,Any One, that is
obliged to have his affairs determined by fuch proceedings,
would exclaim againft it to the laft degree. What Chrif
tians would care to have the truth of the gofpel hiftory
tried by the books of their adverfaries, if any fuch exifted ?
If they were allowed no other way to prove the refur
reftion of Jefus, but by fuch books, what would they fay,
or rather what would they not fay againft fuch manifeft in-
juftice, and partiality. But what muft men think, if with
out fuch reafonable helps, the fadls afferted may be detect-.
ed ? If upon enquiry it be found, that tho' in other cafes the
evidence fupports the credit of the hi/lory, yet here the evidence
itfelf is pre fumed only upon the credit which the fiory has gained,
and this very credit is that which creates in mofi minds a pre
emption that it was founded on good evidence ; the credit of
fuch hiftory mufl: fink.
Some have objected, tho' it may not be what the Gen
tleman intended, that the Tryal artfully cafts a fhade on one
fide of the argument, and a glofs on the other, by calling
the plaintiff's council the council for Mr. Woolflon, and that
for the defendants, the council for the Apofiles ; by which
an educational prejudice is ftirred up againft any man that
{ball anfwer it ; as if fuch anfwer muft be to vindicate
that bold unfortunate man, who, as he fingly combated the
whole priefthood, on him the weight of the whole priefthood
fell. But my defign is not to regard the perfons of the
difputants, but the fubje£t. In order to trace out truth, I
fhall confider the objections made,, without regard to the
objeflors, and hope that other arguments may be admitted than

I?)
than what are produced in the Tryal. Reafon is my only
rule, and the difplaying truth my only aim.
I fhall mention here what is alledg'd in the Tryal, {p. 23)
That Jefus interpreted the prophecies to another finfi and meaning
than his countrymen did, and by his expofitions took away all hopes
of their ever feeing the viStorious deliverer fo much wanted and
expefted. And (p. 8p) That Chrift was fi far from falling in
with thefe notions, that it was his main point to correft thefe
prejudices, and to oppofe thefe fuperfiitions, and by thefe very
means he fell into difgrace with his countrymen, and fuffered as
one who in their opinion defrayed the law and the prophets'.
I believe it cannot be proved that Jefus fuffered for this
caufe. And (p. 24) That when Chrift oppofed this conceit at
the manifeft hazard of his life, as he certainly had truth on his
fide, fo the prefumption is, that it was for the fake of truth
"that he expofid himfelf: I wifh for the fake of truth this
could be proved. Again (p, 25) The people expefted a vifio- ,
rious Prince, he told them they were miftaken. I believe they
were ; but I want to know where he told them fo. (P. 27)
He told the people there was no foundation to expeft a temporal
deliverer, warn'd them againft all who Jhould fit up thofe
pretenfions ; he declared there was no ground from the ancient
prophecits to expeft fuch a Prince. But why then was (p. 28)
The Government alarm'd and Jefus look'd on as a perfon dan
gerous to the fiate ; who, if this be true, was the beft friend
to it ; and he had difcernment enough to fie that his death was
determined and inevitable. But what if it Jhould appear,
that after the foretelling of his death (thro' defpair of his for
tunes as it is faid) he had it in his power, to fit up for King
once more, and once more refund the opportunity ? But the
former is not yet made good. Men in defpair lay hold on
the leaft help, and never refufe the "greatefi. If this was his
greateft help, 'twas very little. Now the cafe was really fo ;
after he had foretold his crucifixion, he came to Jerufalem in a
triumphant manner ; the people firewed his way with boughs
and flowers, and were all at bis devotion; the Jewifh Go
vernors lay fill for fear of the people. IVhy -was not this
opportunity laid hold on tofiize the kingdom, or at leaft to ficure
himfelf from the ignominious death he expefted? An unarmed
mob could not enable him to do this : A miraculous power
might ; but that was wanting ; becaufe the people wanted
faith. Jefus could not be their vi&orious Redeemer, unlefs
% Jiey believed in him. But the nation of the Jews could not
believe,

1*1
believe i becaufe God* foe- their fins had blinded their eyeit
that they did not know, Jefus to be the Chriftj and har?
denedJbeir hearts to put Kim to death. And in cutting him
off, who was the Meffiah, they cut off all the prqmifes of
his kingly government ; and their profperity under it. But,
ibe this myftically or conditionally true, it concerns not the
refurfedtion. Yet let not truth be denied. The Evange,
lifts fty, that 'twas prophefied Jefus fliould be the King of
Ifrael : For. St. Luke fays a the, Angel Gabrjel.de«jared, the
Lord God fhall give unto him the throne of his father David,
and he fhall reign over the houfiof Jacob for ever;- St. Matthew
tells u*b the wife men enquired, Where is bi. that is born
king of the Jews? Nathaniel- called him q ' the. King tf
ifrael, fb A did the multitude. Jefus was fo far from re
buking them for it, that hejuftified theminiti. And it
appears, he was commonly called e the Kiiig of the Jews,
only he had not the kingdoitr; therefore, when he was about
to fuffer for it, f he found it was not of this world. This
confeffion he prudigntly rnade. at a proper : time s, tho' it had
not the effect to fave his life. But how. does it appear by
this, or by any thing elfe recorded, thai jefus explain'd
away the kingly office of the Meffiah, or that the Meffialj
was not to be King of Ifrael, which, becaufe it never
happened in a natural fenfe^ it muft be niad& good in a fpir
ritual, to fulfil the fcriptures; Fox the fame reafon Chrift
was a Prieft and a Prophet, tho' each in a different fenfe.
And why fo ? This not ; choice but. neceffity drives
them td. It is mens explaining the fcriptures, to ferve
their purpofes, reduces them to thefe difficulties.'.'-. Divines
never expound them myftically or artfully, .but when the
natural fenfe is againft them,' nor deny plain rreafon as long
as it ferves their turn. When the clear, and obvious fenfe
of fcripture and reafon /fails to .do that, they deny reafon
and 'fcripture, or make fad work with fend), \.as if they
wanted', either underftanding dr honefty. Then it is, they
puzzle themfelves arid others, and feek ariy ib^.t of refuge
in. figures, iropes, allegories, and myftical t'Wiftirig the fa
cred ,wax, to make it take the impreffion df any feal that
js put.upori.it. I think it is plain, that, becaufe Jefus wa|
not King before the report of his refurrexSHon; andafeenfion,
the Apoftles faid he would come again and be their victo* rious
a Lukei. 32, 33. b MatriJ. 2. cJohni. 49. ,d Johnxii.13.
.Luke xix. 3% 39, 40. Mat. xxi. 16. ' Mark xv. iz.
i John xviii. 30.

\9l
*%us Redeemer, even before that generation was dead. But
the time then mentioned for the literal accomplifhment be
ing long elapfed: It is now high time to underftand it
•fpiritually ; that is, to give it fome myftical interpretation,
that the credit of the fcripture prophecies, tho' fhipwreck'd
in the letter, may be. fayed in the fpirit.
It haVing been obferved, that all falfe religions in the
world have pretended to infpimlion, Mr. B. fays (p. ti) This
only Jhews that revelation is, by the common confint of mankind,
the very befi foundation of religion, and therefore every im-
.poftor pretends to it.
I conceive, that which is the foundation of any, much
-lefs of every falfe religion cannot be the foundation of the
true. The common content of deluded mankind is no
-argument for it. Infpiration is the only foundation any
falfe religion can lay claim to, and be fupported by. The
true religion has no need of it. 'Tis founded on the eter
nal attributes of the Deity, and the invariable nature, rea
fon, and fitnefs of things. No impoftor can build upon
this bafis, which is certain conftant and unchangeable.
It can produce nothing' but truth. It is bright as the hea
venly light, and free from all ambiguities. Religion flow
ing from this principle produces univerfal benevolence, and
-is univerfally extended to all that feek the knowledge of it.
It makes all men happy that embrace it. It perfectly fatis-
"fies all doubts, and gives every troubled foul unfhaken reft.
Every man's ftation in life, and the common underftand
ing inherent in man's nature, is fufficient, without fkill
in books and languages, to lead him to the neceffary know
ledge of his faith and obedience. But pretended infpiration,
•diftindt from this, fubjects man's conduct to arbitrary will,
.not known till revealed, nor even then : And ever liable
¦to alteration at pleafure, yet never to be queftion'd. 'Tis
•capable of as many deceptions as any impoftor pleafes. 'Tis
the only .plaufible pretence, that is able to thruft out truth
and introduce falfhood in its room. It has fanctified the
..greateft enormities, and' eftablifhed the greateft nonfenfe,
for the will and wifdom of God.* It is capable of doing
any mifchief, and of fetting up any impofitions ; of de-
ftroying the liberties of mankind, of demolifhing virtue,
of dethroning reafon, of advancing tyranny, of fetting up
the moft brutal idolatry, and the moft unnnatural barba
rity, for the worfhip of Deity. And all this it has done.
B It

C 10 )
It has been the parent of all fanctified villany, of all relw
gious lyes and lying wonders, of every thing that is impious
and falfe, in the name of God, of every thing that is
fcandalous of God, and pernicious to man. "And can fuch
a foundation as this, be the beft to build a religion upon?
Reafon anfwers, No.
Having difpatched thefe preliminaries, I come now
to examine the grand point, concerning what is faid in
the Tryal of the Witnefles, of the refurrection of Jefus,
and by the Witnefles themfelves.
In difcuffing this point, it will be found that the con-
queft the Tryal feems to have over Mr. W. was occafioned
by his granting too much. And that the Author falls
under the fame dilemma, by taking things faid, for
granted ; and by endeavouring to prove the truth of a
fact, by other facts which equally want proof. And it
will be alfo found, that what we call faith, what we value
our felves for, is meer credulity. We take reports upon
truft without examining the truth of them ; or knowing
that what is reported of them whofe name they bear, is
their report ; or that their judgment and veracity were
equal if it be. Nor do we enquire how this faft gained cre^
dit in the world at firfi. Credit it has gained without doubt
(p. 20) Yet we dp not confider on what foundation it ftands,
nor that it is neither the more or lefs true, whether the be
lievers follow the example of their. forefathers or not. The
merits of the caufe is not hereby known nor can be with
out an impartial examination. As my Reader ought not
to take my word for the truth of my opinion, left he fliould
be deceived for the fame reafon, the word of any other
fhould not implicitly be taken, for tho' he may charitably
think mefincere, yet my fincerity is not fufficient to con
vince his judgment that I do not err. He therefore wifely
judgeth for himfelf whether my reafons are fufficient tq
prove that what I write is fit to be believed.

CHRIST'S

L Ir J

THE
Resurrection of JESUS
Considered*
Fora/much as many have taken in hand, to fet
forth a Declaration and Vindication of thofe
things which are mofi furely beheved among
us 3 it feemed good to me, alfo to examine
into the certainty of thofe things wherein we
have been inflruiled*
CONCERNING the refurretlion of
Jefus, Mr. B. the Councjl for the defen
dants in the Tryal, (p. 9) waves all ad
vantage from the mere antiquity of the re-
furreElion, for f p: 10) if the evidence was not good at firft,
it cannot be good now. This is true : If poffeflion then
does not give a juft right, it is juft to examine what
right it gives. But, if right comes by poffeflion,
then whatfoever poffeflion any man has, he has a
right to that poffeflion ; then power only makes
right, for other natural and legal right there is
none -, but, if this fort of right be wrong, a fair
tryal and a free examination of facts and allegations
muft be granted.
Mr. B. fays, (p. 11) Nothing can he more material
than to fhew a fraud of this kind, that prevailed uni-
verfally in the world.
J Ba The

( M J
The belief of this fact, whetfier it be a fraud or
not, has not yet, nor is ever, likely to prevail univer-
fally in the world ; and wherever it has prevailed,
happy had it been, if fraud and force had been
wanting to make it prevail.
And (page 12) Mahomet's ftory of going to-
heaven, and coming to earth again, it is faid,
has gained great credit, and been received by many
nations. Very well : How was it received -? fVas not
every man converted to this faith with the fword at his.
throat. In our cafe, every witnefs to the refurrelliotr,
and every believer of it, was hourly ,expofid to death,..
In the other cafe, whoever refufed to believe, died ; or,.
what was as lad, lived a wretched conquered Jlave.
And will you pretend thefe cafes to be alike ? One cafe-
indeed there was-within our own memory,, which, in
fome circumftances, came near to the cafe now before
us: The French Prophets •put the credit of their-
miffion upon the refurreftion of Br. Emmes, and
gave public notice of it. - If the Gentleman pleafes tot^
make ufe of this inftance, it is at hisftrvice.
It is certain, That violence exercifed to make
converts to religion ' is a credit to no party. But
have the Chriftians been innocent ? The promul
gators of Chriftianity did not eftabliih.itby force,,
till they had the power. But, when Chriftians were
poffeffed of the kingdom, the fen tence was, Thofe
mine enemies, who would not that I fhould reign over
them, bring them- hither, and fiay them before me. If
the precepts and practice of Jefus and his Apoftles
can juftify the Chriftian's conduct in religious af
fairs, it is well ;. they cannot be juftified by their
own righteoufnefs.. It does not appear to me, that
that every witnefs, of the refurrection of Jefus., and
every believer of it, was hourly expofed to death j
or that it v/as therefore true, if they were. But the;
promulgation arid eftabliihment, of Chriftian faith
of one fort or other has expofed millions to death, and

^ 13 ;
and in moft lands where it has come, if it was not
planted with blood, it has been watered with it.
Mr. B. comparing the cafe of Chrifi's refurrec-
tion with that of Dr. Emmes, fays further (p. 13,)
In one ca/e every thing happened that was proper to
convince the world of the truth of it, in the other the
event manifefted the cheat.
If every thing happened that was proper to con
vince the world of the refurreftion of Jefus, there
would be little room left for argument againft it,
Yet the world is fo far from being convinced of it,
that the Jews in particular, among whom this was
done, or faid to be done, were not convinced of it
then, nor are they yet, for it was commonly re
ported among them, that the Difciples ftole himt
away by night ; and gave out he was rifen.
But every thing did not happen that was proper to
convince the world, becaufe the one thing neceffary
was wanting, that is, the public appearance of Je
fus among the Jews afterwards as before. Should
we have faid of Dr. Emmes, if his body had been
gone in the night, and fome of his Difciples had'
afterwards attefted he was rifen from the dead, and
they had feen him alive, that every thing happened
which was proper to convince the world of the
truth of it ? but here is the difference. The event
of Dr. Emmes's predicted refurreftion was known
by day-light, but the other was covered with dark*
nefs. '
Mr. B. fays (p. 11; That Chrift Jefus declared
himfelf a Prophet, and put the proof of his miffion on
this, that he Jhould die openly and publicly, and rife again
the third day, and (p. 30) that tho* J ejus referred to
the authority of the ancient prophecies, to prove that
the Meffias was to die and rife again-, and that tho' the
ancient booh referred to are extant, and no fuch pro^
phecies are to he found, Whether the prophecies can be
found or no, it is not material to the prefent queftion j
J becaufe*

(14)
becaufe* adds he, difprove the refurreSion, and we
fhall have no. farther occafion for prophecy.
This, I think, ought not to be fo haftily paffed
over. I am not fure, that Jefus did foretel his own
death and refurreftion ; nor that he referred to the
authority of the ancient prophecies to prove that
the Meffias was to die and rife again ; only that I
am told fo. If Jefus had this prediction from the
Prophets, it was they, not he, that foretold it, any
otherwife, than by his expounding what they faid.
If the proofs fhould fail, that Jefus foretold his own
refurreftion, then fure he is to be difcharged of ha
ving a hand or head in the fraud. It is granted,
the Gofpel hiftorians fuggeft there are prophecies,
which are riot to be found in the books they refer to ;
but this is faid to be not material. Strange ! Is it
not material whether what thefe Evangelifis fay, is
true or falfe ? Whether this is a true or falfe infinu-
tion to countenance the hiftory ? Whether thro' ig
norance they imagined there were prophecies, which
were not, and fo were deluded ? Or, Whether, thro'
defign they fuggefted there were, to delude others ?
Or, Whether there are not forged interpolations
crept into their teftimony, to fet the better glofs on
what is inlinuated ? Might not the writers, whoe
ver they were, who could report prophecies which
were never delivered by the prophets, report others
which were never uttered by Chrift ? And write
what they pleafed of him, long after his departure ;
and much more eafijy and boldly, if their own words
were to be the only proof of it ? If there be not
fufficient reafon to believe them in one thing, may
there not be juft' reafon to queftion them in other
things ? If they are found guilty of afferting what
there is no proof for ; what reafon is thereto believe
their affertions, or to take them for proof ? As there is
little probability, that thefe writings of the four E-
vangelifts have been handed down to us, uncorrupt
ed, through fo many languages, tranfcriptions,-and bad

(i5)
bad hands, as they have paffed, there is great pror
bability, that they are not free from corruption and
forgery. If therefore, i t»is poffible, to prove therh
pure, it is highly neceffary.
Mr. B. adds, That Chrift, by foretelling the refurrec-
tion, certainly put the proof of his miffion On the truth
of the event (p. 30.) If, fo, Why was not that truth
proved to the fatisfaftion of thofe people to whom he
was fent ? They had good reafon to expeft and de
mand his appearance to them, after his refurreftion,
as the true fign and proof of his miffion ; and might
juftly queftion the truth of his Meffiahfhip, if it
wanted that very proof he promifed them. If they
ought to have had. this proof, why does the Gentler
man fay (p. 77) That after his death no farther creden
tials of Chrift' s commiffion to the Jews could be demanded,
or expeSted? And why did he publickly foretel his own
refurreftion, if he never intended to appear in public
after his death ? For Mr. 'Q. fays (p. 30) One would
naturally think, that Chrift' 's foretelling his refurretlion,
and giving fuch public notice to expecl it, that his keeneft
enemies were fully apprifed of it, carried' with it the
greateft mark of fincere dealing -, and (p. 37) that the
prediction of Chrift, concerning his own refurreclion, was
a thing publickly known in all Jerufalem : For it gave
cccafion for all the care that was taken to prevent
fraud. Now, let us examine this affair of Chrift's fore-
teling his own refurreftion, fo that his keeneft ene
mies were fully apprifed of it ; and, that it was a
thing publicly known to all Jerufalem. We have
no other way of proving it, but by the evidence of
the Evangelifis, which, I fuppofe, no believers will
except againft.
St. Matthew fays% That the chief Priefts and Phari
fees came together unto Pilate, faying, Sir, We remem
ber that this Deceiver faid, while he was yet alive, Af ter
* Matth. xxvii. 63.

( i6)
4er three days I will rife again. Now the words, Wb
remember, fignify, that they heard him fay fo. But
I find no account where,j*or when, fuch public pro
phecy was delivered before the Priefts and Pharifees,
in any of the four Evangelifis. St. Matthew, who
>alone tells the ftory of Watching the fepulchre, and
fealing the ftone, fliould have given us a particular
account of this public prophecy, but mentions no
more than this % Certain of the Scribes and Pharifees
faid, Mafter, we would fie dfignfrom thee. But he an-
fwered, An evil and adulterous generation feeketh after
afign, and there fhall nofign be given to it, but the
fign of Jonas the prophet. For, as Jonas was three
days and three nights in the whale's belly, fo fhall the
Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart
ef the earth. That, becaufe they were an evil gene
ration, no fign fhould be given them, feems ftrange.
One would naturally think, for this very reafon,
they ought to have had a fign ; efpecially, fince b
Jefus came not to call the righteous, but finners to
repentance. Concerning which I have to obferve, lft, That
thefe feem not to be the words referred to by the
chief Priefts and Pharifees : After three days I will
rife again.
idly, That I cannot find any plainer, nor other
public prediftion of a refurreftion, or that pofllbly
can be underftood, or conceived to be fuch, than
that from St. Matthew before cited.
%dly, That what St. Luke fays of this, feems to be
delivered at the fame time, and on the fame occafi
on : And all that Jefus faid to the people, according
to St.Luke, is thus c, This is an evil generation, they feek
afign, and there fhall no fign he given it, but the fign
of Jonas the Prophet ; for as Jonas was afign unto the
Ninevites, fo fhall alfo the Son of man be to this gene-
ration. The expounder, that would make this to
prophefy a refurreftion, muft be more a Prophet, than
a Mat. xii. %%, 59, 40. b Mat. ix. 1 j. c Lukexi'. 29, 30,

( n )
thai? he that fpoke it, if he fpake thefe wprds, and
no more. Hence it may be queftioned, whether
St. Luke delivered the whole truth, or St. Matthew
nothing but the truth.
„ %thly, The words, even as they are in St. Mat
thew, are ambiguous, and do not plainly indicate a
refurreftion. The rulers could not certainly know
by this, xhzt Jefus was to die and rife again, and be
fo much alarmed about it, who believed his mira
cles no more than his Meffiahfhip, and confequently
gave no credit to his prediftion. Thefe words,
being of a myftical nature, , are capable of more
than one iignification ; which may equally be pro
ved true, as falfe •, an advantage that all myfteries
have. Therefore fome other expofition may be gi
ven them,, fince he did not tell the Jews what he
really meant by them ; for thefe words no more pre-'
dift a refurreftion from the. dead, than that Jonah
was dead the three days and three nights he was in
the belly of the fifh.
§lhly, The writers might as eafily make this ex-
"preffion to be a prediftion of the refurreftion, as St.
John does another, ...which is as unintelligible ; and,
when uttered, feemed neither to be fo intended,, nor
underftood. He tells us a that the Jews faid to
Jefus, What fign Jheweft thou unto us, feeing^ that
fhoudoeft thefe things? Jefus dnfwer ed and faid untp
them, Defiroy this temple, and in three days, I will
rdife it up : Then faid the Jews, Forty and fix years
was this temple in building, and wilt thou raife it up
in three days ? When, therefore, he was rifen from
the dead, his Difciples remembered, that he had faid this
unto them, and they believed the fcripture, and the
word that Jefus had faid. Before they had occafion
to make a prophecy of thefe words, and apply them
to what they affirmed had happened, they knew not
the meaning of them, nor remembered them. How
C then
•John ii. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.

(i8 )
then coula the Priefts and Pharifees give fuch ex
planation to fo myftical an expreffion ? '
6thly, Jefus is alfo faid to have given the fame
fign to the Jews at another time, iri anfwer to the
fame demand as before, without explaining it at all,,
or fhewing what he meant by it : Which feems to
be an evafion to the queftion, and no ways fatisfaftory.
For, if he meant any thing elfe, the Jews which then
heard the anfwer, and a reader now ignorant of the
fenfe commonly put upon it, and ferioufly defirous to
know the true meaning, cannot find, that the words
point put a refurreftion. * The Pharifees alfo with
the Sadducees came, and tempting him, defired him, that
he would fhew them afign from heaven ? He anfwer ed,
A wicked and adulterous generation feeketh after a
fign, but there fhall no fign'be given it, but tbe fign of
the prophet Jonas, and he left them and departed. The
fame Story, according' to St. Mark, runs thus'6,
And the Pharifees came forth, and began to queftion
with hm, feeking of him a fign from heaven, tempting
him ; and he fighed deeply in his fpirit, and faith,
Why doth this generation feek after a fign ? Verily, I
fay' unto you, there fhall no fisn be given to this ge
neration. And he left them. Here is1 not fo much as
the 'fign of the Prophet Jonah given them". In St.
'Matthew, Jefus is reported to give them' that fign
which they could make nothing of, and in St. Mar\
to givethem no fign at all.
ylhly, This demand of a fign from heaven, which
the Scribes, Pharifees, and Sadducees made, fhews,
that they wanted Jefus to give them an evident
miracle, fuch as their fenfes might be judges of, to
convince them, that he was the Meffiah whom they
expefted, and whom he would have them believe
him to be : Which intimates, that they were not
fatisfied, that he had done any miracle, nor does
his anfwer refer them to any. Sthly,
<a) Matthew xvi. i. (b) Mark viii. n, 12.

I 19 )
tsthly; None of the Evangelifis ; give the. leaft
hint, that .Jefus,,ever publickly declared to the
Priefts, Scribes, Pharifees, or Sadducees, that' After
three days he would rife again ; nor when, or where,
he made fuch declaration,, or any thing like.it, that
plainly predifted his refurreftion to them. So that
this, report wants confirmation, even amdng the
Evangelifis themfelves. And none pf thefe men
tion ,the explanation annexed to the parable of Jonah,
but St. Matthew once, which I firft mentioned. And
as he had more occafion for a prophecy of this na
ture. than the others had, to confirm nis ftory of the
Watch and {eal ; which none of the others fay any
¦thing of; fo, he adds fomething more than they
do, to this, which is called a prophecy, but is ra-
.ther a prophetic riddle. Which yet is falfe iri faft,
in two refpefts.
iff, As to time, this tells us, The Son of man was
tp lie Th,ree days and three nights in ttie
heart of the earth -, as Jonah did three days and three
nights in the -whale's belly. Whereas, Jefus lay but
the time of one day and an half, that is, 'two nights
and a day, if he did that, for 'tis not known when
the body was gone; only, it could not be found at
the; end of the; fecond night. So that he laid but
half the time of three days and three nights at moft.:
For he was buried the evening of the preparatioh-
dayj and was not in the fepulchre, at the 'dawning
of the day which fbllowed the preparation.1 And,
according tp common computation and common
fenfe, two nights and one day can never be three
nights and three days ; nor can any man make them
fo, though he preach three days and three nights
about it. But thofe, who can work miracles' in words,
can as eafily do. it numbers. Nor is it to be Won
dered at,' if fucn myftical accountants, who can
make three to be one, and one to be three, without
confounding the one, or dividing the other, fliould
C 2 make
. a Matt, xxvii. K7} and.xxYJiL I .

( 20 )
make" ope and an .half to be three, which comes
nearer the mark. They, that are fo well {killed in
cafting a figure, can' ealily prbye, that in the fecond
night is the fame as 'after .'the third day, and that
within ,and after "three days are equivalent.
idly, This prediction was bot fulfilled : Becaufe
the fign, promifed to be given, was not given to
thofe it was promifed to. For if no fign was to be
'given fo that evtl and adulterous generation,
but the fign of Jonas the Prophet, the only proof of
Jefus being the Meffiah 'depended upon that fign
being given, or that prophecy being fulfilled, to
the fatisfaftion of that evil and adulterous generation.
But how could Jotiah, who was a falfe Prophet to
Nineveh, and. had fretted himfelf to death for it fe
veral generations before, be a true fign to that gene
ration ? And unlefs Jefus appear'd after his refurreftion
to them (not to his Difciples only) then that prophecy
was not fulfill'd in faft.' Yet, 'tis not fo much as
faid that he did this, or that any faw him, but his
Pif-iples and friends, who were not that evil genera
tion,, being a not of the world, but chofen out of //,
For' that wicked generation faw him not: This fign
was not given', nor the thing fignified, fulfilled to
that adulterous 'generation. Therefore 'tis probable
that this is forgery, and falfely father'd on Jefus
Chrift, by thofe' whp found it neceflary, and had
opportunity fo to do, or is mifreprefented by tran-
fcribers, But, according to three Evangelifis, I find that
Jefus had foretold his death and refurreftion no lefs
than five times to his Difciples only.
The 'firtl1 was after he had examined what
men thought of him, and who they themfelves
took him to be, before his transfiguration, when
St. Peter rebuked him for it. St. Matthew fays b,
From that time forth, began Jefus to fhew unto his
difciples, how that he muft go unto Jerufalem and fuffer many
(&) John xv. 19. (b) Matthew xvi. 21.

(21) .
many things of -the Elders, and chief Priefts, and
Scribes,, and, be killed and be. raifed ag^M the third
day. St. Mark tells us V Thar, he began to teach
them, that the Son of man muft fuffer many- things,
and be rejeffed '.of the.Elder^, and- of the chief Pfjefts,
and Scribes, and be killed, a.^d- after three-, days rife
pgqin. . And fee fpqke that faying openly. -Yet this
word, openly, means only plainly, for that, faying
was not fpoken openly tp the people^ but to his Dif
ciples, of, whom he afked, Who men faid he was?
But St. Luke put this put qf all dQwbt, for he fays.,
that, as He was alone praying, the Difciples were
with him, and - to them he laid, TheSon of man muft
fuffer many things, and be rejected of the Elders, and
chief Priefts, and Scribes, and be ftain, and be raifed
the third day.. This I fuppofe the writers intended
for the firft publication of this prediftipri.
The fecond time Jefus is faid to have foretold
his refurreftion to his Difciples, was after his trans
figuration, by St. Matthew thus c, And as they
went down from the mountain, Jefus charged them,
faying, Tell the vifion to no man, till the Son of man
be rifen from the dead. By St. Mark thus'1, And as
they came down from the mountain, he charged them,
that they fhould tell no man, what things they hadfeen,
till the Son of man was rifen from the dead. And
they kept that faying, with themfelves, queftionhg one
with another, what the rifing from the dead fhould
mean, tho' he himfelf had told them that plajn
enough, but a little before, according to the fame
Evangelift. •The third time was, when Jefus was in Galilee,
he foretpld his refurreftion to his Difciples. Ac
cording to St. Matthew ', While they abode in Galilee,
Jefus faid unto them, the Son of man Jhall be betrayed
into the hands of men ;. and they Jhall kill hj-m, and
the third day he Jhall rife again ; and they were ex
ceeding
. * Mark viii. 27, 31. b Lukeix. 18, 22. 'Mat. xvii. 9.
f Markix. 9>10- ' c Mat. xvii. 22, 23,

( « )..
eeeding forry. According to St: Mark thus *, And
he paffed thro' Galilee, and would not that any man
fhould know it : For he taught his Difciples dnd faid
iinto Iherh, The Son of ntan is delivered into the hands
of men, and after that he is killed, he Jhall rife the
third day. But they underftood not that faying, and
and wer e afraid to afk him. 'Tis equally ftrange,
that they fhould be forry for what they did not
underftand; as* that' they fliould not underftand
what they were forry for ; except they were forry
they did not underftand it. Obferve what goes
before, the reafon why Jefus defired privacy was,
becaufe he told this to his Difciples, and would
have no body elfe kqoW it. According to St.
Luke Mi' runs thus: Jefus faid unto his Difciples,
Let thefe fay ings fink down into your ears, for the Son
ef man jhall be delivered into the hands of men. But
they Underftood not this faying^ and it was hid from
them, and' they perceived it riot $ and they feared to
afk him of that faying. If he faid no more, I don*t
wonder at it, for here's no death nor refurreftion
hinted at. Yet if Jefus then foretold it, as St. Mat
thew arid St. Mark fay, I wonder St. Luke did not
mention it. This, like a ray of light, difcovers that
fome. enemy to truth, in the night, has f own tares
among the wheat.
The fourth time feems to be, when Jefus and
his Difciples Were in the coafts of Judcea nigh unto
Jericho', as they were travelling to Jerufalem. St.
Matthew faysd, And Jefus going up to Jerufalem took
the twelve Difciples apart in the way, and faid unto
them : Behold we go up to Jerufalem, and the Son of
fnan fhall be betrayed unto the chief Priefts, and unto
the Scribes, and they Jhall condemn him to death. And
Jhall deliver him to the Gentiles, to mock, and to
fiourge, and io crucify him, and the third day he Jhall
rife again,. St. Mark tells use,.rhat, as they were going up
(a) MaYkix. 30, 31, 32. (b) Lukeix. 43, 44, 45. (c) Mat
xix. 1. (d) Mat. xx. ijj 18; 19. (e) Mark x. 32,33,

,(s3f)
Mp to Jerufalem, Jefus went before them, and they
were amazed,-, and as they followed they were afraid.
And he took again Jhe twelve, and began to tell them,
what things Jhould happen unto him; faying, Behold
we go up to Jerufalem, and the Son of man Jhall be
delivered unto the chief Priefts, and unfo the Scribes,
and they Jhall condemn him to death, and Jhall deliver
him to the Gentiles ; and they fhall mock him, and Jhall
fiourge him, and Jhall fpit upon him, and fhall kill
him : And the third day he Jhall rife again. St. Luke
informs us a, That he took unto him the twelve, and
faid unto them, Behold w.e go up . to Jerufalem, and all
things that are written by the Prophets, concerning the
Son of man, fhall be accomplijhed: For he Jhall be de
livered unto tbe Gentiles, and Jhall be mocked, and
fpitefully intreated, . and Jpitted on ; and they Jhall
fcourge him, and put him to death ; and the third day
he Jhall rife again : And they underftood none of thefe
things, and this faying was hid from them, neither
knew they the 'things which were fpoken. I am jea
lous of fome fraudulent defign, by this unaccountable
confeffion. " Sure this is as furprifing as any thing
in the gofpels, that twelve men together fhould not
underftand, fuch plain expreffions. For their under
ftanding, or this paffage is to be queftion'd.
, A fifth, and laft prediction of the refurreftion of
Jefus, was fpoken at his laft fupper. Jefus faid
then, according to St. Matthew'", After I am rifen
again, I will go b'ej ore you into Galilee. And St. Mark"
agrees with him : Which fignifies he had made them
very well acquainted with it.
As I have not mentioned what St. John fays of
Chrift's foretelling his refurreftion to his Difciples,
left it (houid be thought I ftifie his evidence, I have
examined him, and find that he fays not a word of
it, but denies it all : And tells the moft probable
truth, that the Difciples knew not any prophecy, that
- * Luke xvii. n. xviii. 31, 3*. 33» 34> 35- \ Matt- xxvi«
32. c Mark xiv. 28.

(H),
that Chrift was to rife again. J What elfe do thefe
words mean % They knew not the firiptures, that he
muft rife Again from the dead? If St. John means the
fcriptures of the Prophets, how fhould they ? For
none fuch are to be found. If Jefus himfelf fore
told them of it, that was enough to fatisfy them ;
if there were no fuch fcriptures. \ But the plain
truth is confeffed to be, that the Difciples neither
foreknew nor expefted the refurreftion of their
Matter; and if fo, there is reafon to fufpeft all the
prediftions of ir, inferred in St. Matthew, St. Mark,
and St. Luke, to be forgery.
/ come now to the fecond period of time, which reaches
from the death of Chrift, to the refufreHtion in which
it will more evidently appear.
What judgment are we now to form of the
Watch ? Can any man of commen fenfe think it
probable, that the Priefts and Pharifees fhould be
alarmed about the refurreftion of Jefus, if they ne
ver heard aby thing more of it thjn what has been
mentioned ; and that the Difciples, to whom it is
faid to have been plainly and repeatedly foretold,
fhould know nothing of the matter ? Does this look
as if (p. 30, 37) the keeneft- enemies of Jefus were
fully apprized, of it, and that 'twas a thing publickly
known to all jerufalem ? 'Tis ftrange that Jefus
fliould fo exprefsly foretel his refurreftion to his
Difciples, and fay nothing plainly of it to the
Scribes and Pharifees, yet that thefe fhould be fo
alarm'd with the words of a man they did not be
lieve, as to watch for it, and the Difciples riot un
derftand, nor expeft it. If the prophecies were
utter'd as has been fhewn, what could be the con
fequence, but that the Priefts and Pharifees fhould
be ignorant of the meaning of the enigmatical pre
diction, and not give themfelves the leaft concern about
» John xx. 9,

( 25 )
-about it ; and that the Difciples fliould be in full
expeftation of it f Alas ! nothing lefs happened,
-according to the hiftory, but the very reverfe.
Norte expefted to be attack'd by a real or feign'd
refurreftion more than the Priefts or Pharifees -, but
¦none lefs expefted and believed it than the Difci
ples. Thofe fent out their fcouts to prevent a fur-
prize ; thefe were furpriz'd with the news of a re
furreftion they- had no expeftation of. The Priefts
and Pharifees guarded him when dead, tho' they
never regarded him living, as the Meffiah, but to
put him to death for affuming that charafter; which
'tis furprifing they fhould do, if they believed he
wrought miracles, and that he would rife again.
Thefe prediftions are not evidene'd by fuitable
confequences, they produced no natural effects •, and
a tree is known hy Us fruit. But that the Priefts and
Pharifees fet no Watch, and that even the Difciples
themfelves were not forewarned of their Mailer's
rifing again, will more fully appear by the fafts
which the Evangelifis themfelves relate.
'.'.'¦ When Jofifb pf Arimdthea took the body of Je-
¦fus from the crofs to interr it, -which all the four
Writers agree to, St. Jahnndds, a That there came alfo
Nicodemus, and' brought a mixture of myrrh and
aloes, about an hundred pound weight ; then took they
the body of Jefias, and wound it in linnen clothes with
'¦the Jpices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury, and
•faidlnm in tbe fepulchre.
' i Suppofe now the Priefts and Pharifees went the
next day to fet the Watch, as St. Matthew reports,
did they not look into, the fepulchre to fee if the
body was there? The Gentleman fays (p. 37)
Without doubt, when the Jews fealed the ftone, they
took care to fie that the body was there; otherwife their
precaution was ufilefs. And, if they faw the body,
they muft needs fee how it. was fpiced, or preferved
for keeping, if it was done; they could not fee one
D with*
2 John xix. 39, 40.

( 26 )
without the other. And would they not then, bev
ing witnefles of that, have taken the foldiers . back
again with them, refting contented that the Difci
ples knew nothing of any prophecy of his riling
again, and therefore could have no defign, under
-that pretence to fteal away the body, and report he
was rifen i Or did the Priefts believe him more than
the Difciples ? Or did fhofe know of a prophecy
which thefe knew not ? Or would they expofe
themfelves to ridicule by fetting a Watch, and feal-
ing the fepulchre ?
But to fhew what dependence there is on the truth
of gofpel-hiftory, St. Matthew fays, » when the body
was buried, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary fat
over againft the fepulchre. NSt. Mark idh us, b That
Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Jefus be
held where he was laid. St. Luke agrees with them^
and informs us, 5 That 'the women alfo which came
with him from Galilee follow' d after, and beheld the
fepulchre, and how the body was laid. Therefore they
knew to be fure that Nicodemus had laid it in fpicej.
Yet St. Luke fays, That thefe very women return'd
from the fepulchre, and prepared fpices and ointments,
and refted the fabbath-day. And St. Mark, d That
they had bought fweet fpices, that they might come and
anoint him, and came very early in the morning,
when the fabbath was paft to do it. St. Luke alio
acquaints us, "That on the firft day of the week very
early in the morning they came unto the fepulchre, bring*
ing the fpices they had prepared. I cannot reconcile
this with St. John's account, for, if the body was
laid in the fepulchre with an hundred pound weight of
fpices, what need had it of more, or to be done
again ? But tho' thefe relations diirer, it fhews the
Difciples knew nothing of the . prophecy of his
rifing again. They, Who put that in, fhould have
ftruck this out, as it is in St. Matthew, where, what the
Mat. xxvii. <fi. b Mark xv. 47. c Luke xxiii. 55, 56*
d Mark xvi. 1. e Luke xxiv. 1.

(27)
the women went to the fepulchre for, is concealed.
If Chrift's moft intimate acquaintance, his own mo
ther, Mary Magdalene, and the beloved Difciple
knew not that he was to rife again from the dead,
as St. John confeffes, how fliould the Priefts and
Pharifees know and expeft it ? It appears, they
were under no apprehertfion of any hindrance or
moleftation from the Watchmen. They confulted
together as they went, » Who 'fhall roll us away the
ftone from the door of the fepulchre ? Which they
would not have faid, if they had known it was fealed.;
nor would they have gone to anoint the body, if
they had known there had been a Watch fet. And
if thefe things had been done, how is it poffible but
they muft have known them. So public an aftion,
done about him, on whom all their thoughts and
affections were at that time employ'd, could not
be private to them. Befides, nothing could he hid
from the Difciples, for St. Matthew knew b what
the chief Priefts and Rulers faid in their privy-coun
cil ! They had free egrefs and regrefs ; the women
went and came without fear of being taken up by
the Watchmen, and at the dawn of the day. There
fore, if they went to anoint the body, there was no
expeftation of a refurreftion, confequently no pre
diction of one, nor Watch, nor feal fet to prevent
a fraudulent one.
But why do thefe Evangelifis tell different ftories ?
St. Matthew, one about guarding and. fealing the
fepulchre ; St. Mark and St. Luke another, which
fhews it was neither guarded nor fealed ; St. John
to the fame purpofe, but different from both ? Who
can know the truth from thefe difagreeing hifto-
rians ? Why did not they, that followed St. Matthew^
make his ftory good ? Why not fo much as mention
a word of it, but fly from that, and tell another
which contradicted it? Will not fome imagine that
St. Matthew's had been detefted, therefore St. Mark
D 2 and
a Mark xvi, 3. * Mat. xxviii. i2r

\ 28 )
and St. Luke tell another ; and that, theirs haying
been alfo confuted, St. John comes and tells one dif
ferent from all the reft ? If they had not been routed
out of their intrenchments, why did they quit them*
and throw up others ?
Becaufe 'tis abfurd, (p. 33.) and allowed to be
fo, (p. 37, 38.) That the Jew rulers, not believing
in Jefus, fhould regard his prediftion if they heard
it ; Mr. W. fuppofes the refufcitation of Laza
rus, which fome had told them was a fraud1, induced
them to beware of another ; left bad confequences
might attend it. St.- John's hiftory (c. xi.) relates,
that Jefus. went from Galilee to Bethany* and, after
the railing of Lazarus there, fome of them that
were prefent told the Pharifees what had been. done ;
whereupon they and the Priefts, far from being ter-?
rifled by his miraculous power, confulted to put
him to death ; and Jefus with his Difciples, as far
from being animated by having fuch power, went
from thence to Ephraim, a city near the wildernefs,
and walked no more openly among the Jews. So
wonderful was the effeft of fuch a wonderful
work ! Except that afterwards, within five days of
the paffover, Jefus made his public entry into Jeru* .
falem, and then taught in the temple, attended by
the multitude, which, in the Tryal, is fuppofed was
formidable enough to have made him King, and af-.
ter that he hid himfelf. Why then fhould the Jew
rulers fear the Difciples when their mafter was dead,
who with him when living, notwithftanding all his
miraculous power, were afraid of them. But St.
Matthew (xxi.) St. Mark (xi.) and St. Luke (xix.)
give a different account. They agree that Jefus
came from Galilee, and entered Jerufalem in a tri
umphant manner, taught daily in the temple, and
lodged at Bethany where Lazarus lived ; but conceal
the ftory of his raifing Lazarus, if it was done ; for
what caufe themfelves beft knew. But if it was not
done ; Wl»0 was the 'plater -of this part of evange lic

( 29 )
iic hiftory ? or Whence came it ? neither that, nor-
its author, like Chrift, came down from heaven.*
There is no fraud nor forgery can be committed by
the facred Penmen of the holy gofpel. The my-
fleries whereof no carnal mind can reconcile. But
to proceed.
If we take the opinion of the chief Priefts and
Pharifees from their own words, as delivered by
St. Matthew, they believed Jefus was a deceiver ;
and appear afraid not of his rifing in the day, but
of the Difciples flealing him away in the night.
There is no reafon then to fuppofe, they were afraid
of a true refurreftion, or that they were convinced
of any miracles faid to be done by him. But (p. 38.J
they, being perfuaded he perform' d no wonders in his
life, were not afraid of feeing any done by him after his-
death. Therefore (p. 39.) that tbey Jhould kill him,
that his death might put an end to all pretentions ; yet
think him not fafe when he was dead,, is, I muft own,
a needlefs and prepofterous fear, and a moft fingular
cafe, as the Gentleman rightly expreffes it. What'
reafon is there then to believe, they fealed and
watched the fepulchre ? Surely, none. Why fliould
they fear ? 'Tis anfwered (p. 93.^ Becaufe, if once
the people believe him rifen from the dead, the laft er
ror will be worfe than the firft, (i. e.) The Jews will
be more inclined and encouraged to rebel againft the
Romans than ever. One would think, that, without
a perfonal proof, there would be but fmall induce
ment for belief or rebellion. Suppofe the rulers-
fear'd not force but ftratagem : Plotting without
power cannot avail. I think the magiftrates had as
little reafon to fear the Difciples flealing the body
could give any disturbance to the State, as the Dif
ciples could have hopes, or profpeft of fuccefs by
doing it. For (p. 43, 44.) Confider now their cafe \
their Mafter was dead, and they are to contrive to
fteal away his body : For what ? Did they expeft to
make a King of the dead body, if they could get it in
their

( 3° I
their power ? Or did they think, if they had it, they.
could raife it to life again ? Or if they trufted fo far to
their1 Mafter' s prediction as to expect his refurreSiom,
(which I think 'lis evident they did not) could they think
the refurrefilion depended on their having. the dead body?
It is in all views abfurd. Are not thefe reafons as
ftrong againft the Priefts and Pharifees fetting a
Watch to prevent the Difciples flealing the body ;
as it is, that the Difciples fhould attempt it ? Could
not thofe think and reafon thus as well as thefe ?
Why then fhould they take thefe unneceflary pre<-
cautions ? Here the abfurdity of guarding againft a
fraudulent refurreftion is well fhewn. But Mr. B.
fuppofes, they were afraid of a true one : (p. 38.}
That is not warranted in the text : But they con-<
cealed their fears. Well then, fuppofe, for argu
ment fake, they feai^d a real refurreftion : Did thejr
for that reafon feal the ftone, and fet a Watch to
prevent it ? Prepofterous contrivance I Could not
they think (p. 44,7 45.) What are guards and
eentinels againft the power of God ! Or could tbe feal
fut Gad under covenant I Or could if preferibe to him a
method of performing this great work ! Or were tbe
guards placed to maintain the fieals in oppofition to the
power of God! Therefore, that the Priefts and Pha
rifees fhould guard againft a refurreftion, fraudulent
or real, is in all views abfurd.
-. If Jefus never attempted to be the temporal King.
of the Jews, but explained away all fuch notions of
a Mefiiah, the Rulers had the lefs reafon to fear his
real or feigned refurreftion : For fure there was no
need for them to fear the Difciples- making him a
fpiritual King, and to guard againft it.
BU T now to try the evidence itfelf, as it is
found in St. Matthew, concerning the occafion
ot watching the fepulchre ; his words are, a Now the
next day tba{ followed the day of the preparation, tbe
chief
* Mat. xxvii. 62, 63, 64, 65, 66.

(3i)
ibief Priefts and Pharifees came together unto Pilate,
faying, Sir, We remember that that Deceiver faid,
while he was yet alive, After three days I will rife
agaih. Command therefore .that .the fepulchre be made
fure, until the third day, left his Difciples come by night,
and fteal him away, and fay unto the people he is rifen
from the dead; fo the-laftt error fhall be worfe than the
firft. Pilate faid unto them, Te have a Watch, go
your way, make it as fure as you can. So they went
and made the fepulchre fure, fealing the ftone and fel
ting a Watch.
I think I have fhewn plainly* 17?; That the chief
Priefts and Pharifees had.no reafon to be under fuch
confternation, and therefore there is no ground to
believe they were. That it was fo little to the
purpofe to guard againft either a real or fraudulent
refurreftion, that they could not poffibly be guilty
tof fo weak a conduft.
zdly, That We Remember that Deceiver faid,
¦fignifies, the words were fpoken in their hearing,
but no account of fuch public prediftion is to be
> found in all the Evangelifis. That St. John not
pnly gives no account of any fuch prophecy, but
flatly fays, the Difciples did not know he was to rife
again from the dead, to whom the others fay, that
Jefus told it plainly, and often. Therefore, it may
be reafonably concluded, that the Priefts and Pha
rifees were ftrangers to fuch a prophecy, and could
not expeft a refurreftion ; confequently could not
guard againft what they knew nothing of.
3<#y, There are two abfurdities in the foregoing
relation. jft, They tell J?ilate that Jefus faid, after three
days he would rife again ; yet defire the fepulchre
may be made fure but till the third day. They fhould
have defir'd leave to watch it till the fourth day, or
till the third was paft ; or,- by their own confeffion,
they might watch in vain -, for the Difciples might
have ftolen him away within the time, unlefs till the
third

I 32 ,
third day, and after three days, have thefarrie figrii-
fication. Thefe words applied to other cafes have
a different meaning,, but, if in this they have not,
divinity-arithmetic arid vulgar are very different
things. idly, The caufe for watching the dead body was,
left the Difciples fteal him away by night, and fity
ten to the people he is rifen again from the dead. What
if they did, if they had no proof for that affertion i
If the people could never fee him afterwards, would
they be fuch credulous fools to believe them ? For
fuch they muft be to believe fuch a miracle on bare
report ; when the event thereof could- prove itfelf.
It looks as if the opinion of the Scribes and Phari
fees was, that the Difciples had been ufed to deceive
the people by reporting falfe miracles, and that the
people had been carried away by fuch reports. Why
elfe fhould they be afraid they fhould be fo now ?
But why all this fear of the Difciples who, Mr: B.
fays, (p. 40.) fled and hid themfelves for fear of tbe
•Jews, out of a juft apprehenfion, that tbey.Jhould, if
apprehended,, be facrificed with their Mafter ? '.
It is obfervable, that tho* this ftory of the fealing
and guarding the fepulchre is of great confequence,
being written to prove, that the Difciples did not fteal
the body away by night ; and was a public aftion, U
is received only on the report of a fingle teftimony.
In other writers this would look like an interpolationi
independent of the main hiftory, becaufe thofe, that
wrote after, are quite filent about it, fo far are they
from giving us any corroborating inftances for. connr?
' mation fake, toconfound infidels.and comfort believers.
For, if this was as publicly done, as is pretended, ic
muft have been publicly known, and could not efcapf
their notice, or been unworthy their regard. There*
fore, here might be a fufpicion of forgery in the re«
lation, but that we are well fatisfied of the honefty
of thefe facred hiftorians ; for every thing they
wrote is as true as the gofpel. Tho' it may bs
hard

r 33 )
hard to prove, that it was not in their power, who
ever they were, to write what they pleafed of JefuS
fo long after his death as the gofpels were written,
nor has been in the power of the poffeffors, nor
tranfcribers, to corrupt what was before written.
How confiftent this ftory of the Watch is with
the other fafts related, has been fhewn ; and
how credible it is the event will fhew. To cpn--
fider rightly of it, 'tis neceffary to take" it in
the words of the text. St. Matthew fays, a That
in the end of the fabbath, as it began to dawn, came
two women to the fepulchre, and they not finding
the body, returned furprized. Now as they were go
ing back, came fome of the Watch into the city, and
Jhewed unto the chief Priefts all the things that were
done, viz. That an angel of the Lord had defended
from heaven, and came and rolled back the ftone from
the door, and fat upon it ; That his countenance was
like lightening, and his raiment white as fnow, and
"that for fear of him the keepers did tremble, and be
came as dead men. Whereupon, when the chief
Priefts and Pharifees were affembled with the Elders,
and had taken counfil, they gave large money to the
foidiers, faying, Say ye his difciples came by night,
and ftole him away while we flept ; and if this
come to the Governours ears, we will perfuade him,
and fecure you. So they took the money, and did as
they were taught. And this faying is commonly reported
among the Jews to this day.
If the Jew Rulers placed a Watch at the fepulchre
and fealed it, having heard that he faid he would
rife again, it was, no doubt, to fatisfy themfelves,
by their report, of what happened ; therefore, that
report muft needs fatisfy them, and the hiftory
fuppofes it did ; becaufe they hired the Watchmen
to conceal it, and report what they would have be
lieved, rather than what they themfelves did believe ;
arid promis'd to fecure them for fo doing. Could
E the
* "M*K' xxviii.

(34)
the Jew Rulers fo readily believe,, and fo foolifhly
think to conceal it, by this means ? Why did not the
Watch rather report, that a banditti of the Difciples
came in the night, fome with clubs, fwords, and
dark lanthorns, others in white fheets, 6?<r. and drove
and frightened them away, being few in number,
in order, as they fuppofed, to carry off the body. ;
for they could not be many, becaufe it is fuggefted
they might be all afleep, and to conceal the truth,
all be' bribed in oppofition to confcience and
common fenfe, and in room thereof to report
a falfity, fcandalous to themfelves. But, if the fol-
diers were many, the ¦ Priefts and Rulers had the
more reafon to believe, and the lefs reafon to aft as
they are faid to do. For if the fpldiers faw and told
the miracles that have been mentioned, \ which, for
the time, had fo great an effeft upon them, that
they became as dead men -, how could they take bribes
to lie in fb impudent a manner ? They who faw this
dreadful fight inijthe night, or at the approach of
day, muft have acted like men, muft have had fome
remaining terrors to reftrain them ! furely, Gentle^
rrien of the red cloth have fome honour and truth
in them, as well as the Gentlemen in black or white:
But here, it feems, both agreed together to damn
their confcience againft all convictions of fenfe. For
what ? Why, to prevent that from being known,
which, if true, they had all the reafon in the worlq
to believe could not be kept fecret. And that they
would by fuch means render themfelves the objefts
pf merited vengeance. 'Tis ftrange, unaccountably
ftrange ! that thofe foldiers, who were juft now
almoft ftruck dead with terror, fhpuld lofe the im-
preffions fo eafily, and fo foon, which it had made'
upon them, whiph but juft before fcarce left them
power to fly from the deadly fright that an earth
quake and an angel had pur them in ! That the
(hock it made, in their minds and members,'
fhould difappear with day-light! That for money they

(35)
they fhould all agree together to lift themfelves in
the Priefts fervice to fight againft God, when by fo
doing they might expeft fome heavy judgment to
fall upon them ; but by affirming the truth boldly,
conceive reafonable hopes of* being captains in the
Meffiah's victorious army, which was to conquer
all nations. For every one of the Apoftles believing
their, Mafter^.. or what's reported of him, expefted.
to be made a Judge when he fhould be made a King.
What confcience, indeed, Priefts have, them
felves beft. know. Sure it is a flur upon the facred
funftion, to affert that any of thofe who ftile them-,
felves the fervants of God, and think themfelves
peculiarly fo, fhould fet God at defiance. The
Jew Priefts and Rulers, bad as they were, were
men, and.bad men have the fame paffions, and are
as fubjeft to their government as good men, if not
more ;' and as. miracles certainly work more upon
the paffions- than the reafon of men; (for they wind
up the one,- but confound the other;) fo they muft
have, made at leaft the fame impreffion on them as
on others. They were as willing to have a Meffiah
and Deliverer as their countrymen, though thro*.
ignorance1 they did not think Jefus that perfon,
nor care to run. the hazard of their lives in efpou-
fjng his caufe ; but chofe rather to give him up to
death, than that the Romans fhould, under that pre-'
tence, deprive them of their religion, and the re
mains of power and liberty which they were then
poffeffed of. I fay, tho' they did all this, yet the
Priefts, as well as. the people, were credulous of
miracles, being nurs'd .up in the belief of them,
which. when attefied by .their own-party, perfons
whofe veracity they could depend upon, as in this
cafe (not the frying reports of a giddy mob) muft
have prevented them from doing what 'tis here
pretended they did. If miracles can be fuppofed to
have no effeft on human minds, why are they,
E 2 wrought &
Afts iii. \-\.

G'3<? )
wrought? Such, reports are not to be credited.
When effefts do not correfpond as confequences of
the pretended caufe, that caufe is to be queftidn'd.
Such miracles deftroy themfelves. Wonders, wrought?
in vain, refteft upon the wifdom of the operator ;
'tis exerting an extraordinary power to no purpofe,
and therefore fhews a want of forefight. To fup
pofe thofe miracles that were told the Priefts and
Pharifees, had no effeft on them, tho' they be
lieved them, is to fuppofe, fupernatural power is
too weak to work upon the natural powers of man.
If they believed Jefus was rifen from the dead to
be their King, (for it is evident he could not be
the Mefiiah they expefted without being fo;)
it feems more probable, infiead of hiring men,
to conceal it by a falfe report,, they would" have
lifted foldiers in. his fervice, and fet up his banner
at the temple gates, or at leaft would have filently
and cautioufly waited the event, left they fhould be
found guilty of fighting againft God. For they
muft needs know, that a work fo miraculpus muft
fee of God, and- that therefore they could not over
throw it. What reafon have we then to believe
that they hired the foldiers to report a lye, and" that
they reported it ?
Concerning the Sepulchre's being fealed, fuppo-r
ling it was fo, 'tis probable the defign of the Rulers
was, when 'they came to difcharge the Watch, to
feewhether the body' was there, or not. If there,
whether alive, or dead ? If the body was. gone, and'
the feals broken, the Watch was placed to obferve.
and inform them, whether it was done by Jefus from
within, or by the Difciples from without. If, upon,
examining, they found the feals untouched and the
body gone, they would then have had reafon to
believe that Jefus was rifen ; for if, as reported;
He could appear and difappear, like a ghoft, yet
(which is fomething more) was capable of being:
examin'd by. tangible proof: I fay, if his real body
" • could

C 37 )
could do this, after, hi$ refurreftion, there was no
occafion for the help of an angel for opening the
tomb, or unfealing the ftone. If Jefus had thus
come out of the. , fepulchre, the Rulers, when
they went to difcharge the Watch, might have
probably believed his refurreftfon, tho' they had,
never feen either that, or him." It feems frprri
the ftories, we haye pf Chrift's appearance, that
a notion of bodies raifed again, being, capable;
of going thro' flones, walls, and doors, without.
injuring the paffing or pafflve body, was then cur
rent among the Jews. For, tho' this be impoffible
tc? nature, yet 'tis an article of gofpel faith, That,
with God all things are poffible ; therefore fome believe!
that abfurdlties and contradictions are poffible to the,
power of God ;, that hq can raife up children from
the loins, of Abraham out of the flones of the ftreets !
Toffurn the matter up, here are feveral parts-
apiazingly acted', and. worthy of remark.
. ift, That the, Difciples of Jefus fhould hear him,,
five times, tell them plainly, he would rife again,
from, the dead the third day, or after the third day;
yet not underftanda, remember, know, believe,-, nor-,
expeft, it! •
The prophecy of Jefus concerning his rifing
again, was fo far from being, publicly known to all
ferujale'm, that the Difciples did not know it. For
all the Evangelifis fhew, that a refurreftion was,
what, they did not expeft : Then, how fhould any
body elfe know it? And, if fuch prophecy was not.
known, how fhould the fepulchre be feafd arid
watch'df 'Tis ftrange, that it fliould be 'fever'al"
times plainly foretold, to the Difciples alone, yet
none, expefted it but thofe who never heard of it,
whilft they that did had no expeftation of it !
2d, That the body of Jefus fhould be laid in the
grave, with fpices as the manner, of the Jews is to
bury their dead, yet that the Jew Rulers who faw
tkis, being terrified by. a prophecy they had never
heard,

( 38 )
heard, fhould order the grave to be watch'd left the"
body fhould rife again, or the Difciples of Jefus
frighten them, by telling the people he was rifen !
3 d, That the women, who faw the body of Jefus1
laid in the fepulchre with fpices, fhould go two days
after, to do that which they faw had been done
before !
4th, That an angel fhould impoliticly frighten
away the Watch before Jefus came out of the fe
pulchre, fo that they could be no witnefles of his
refurreftion, who would have been the moft proper
perfons. A refurreftion in the dark, feen by nei-_*
ther friends, foes, nor indifferent fpeftators! For
the watchmen went away before, and the women
came after all was over.
¦'~gth, That the guard at the fepulchre fhould. be
terrified almoft to death, with aftonifhing wonders,*
and the high Priefts and 'Rulers believe them, yet
thefe things fhould have no more effeft upon them
than ' if they had not believ'd them, or as if no
thing wonderfulhad happened.
6th, That St. Mathew (p. 42) fhould be admitted as
an evidence in a court, to prove a faft where he was ab-
fent. That he fhould know what the. Watch felt,
and faw, before th6fe that went to the fepulchre
faw the watch; and what the rulers did in their
privy council! For if they brib'd the foldiers to
fpread a falfe report, and they fpread it ; no doubt,
they brib'd them to keep counfel . too, and they .
kept it.

I .Now proceed to fhew how thofe that are called
Witneffes agree in their evidence. Which falls under
The third period of time (p. 88) where the evi
dence the Evangelifis gave the world for this faft is
the- main confideration. If thefe will not hold good,-
'twill be in vain to plead the proofs the Apoftles gave
befides. It one miracle requires to be fnpported by
another,

( 39 )
another, there is always a reafon for miracles ; and
if the credit depends on this fupport, when fuch
fupport falls, the credit, muft fall with it.
The four Evangelifis are called Witneffes of the
refurreftion, and the other New Teftament Writers
are efteemed of equal credit ; their teftimony of his
appearances, after he is faid to be rifen, is to be con
fider'd and compared ; whereby the truth of the faft
will appear, as their teftimonies of it agree. But
as ideas, when compounded, are generally per-
plex?d : I will therefore diftinguifh the accounts pf
thefe hiftorians into feparate articles ; and as they
mention in general but three appearances of Jefus,
I fhall confider thefe particularly in order, afterwards
all the reft.
The appearances of Jefus after his reported re
furreftion, are,
ift, To Mary Magdalene, mention'd by three
Evangelifis. idly, To Simon and Cleopas, mention'd by St. ,
Mark and St. Luke.,
%dly, To the eleven Apoftles, mention'd by all
four. \thly, The other appearances, mention'd by St.
John and St. Paul.
Sthly, I fhall examine concerning Jefus's afcenfion.
I. Of the firft appearance of Jefus Chrift which was
to Mary Magdalene. Here are to be confidered,
i. The Perfons.
St. Matthew fays (v. i ftf 9) Jefus appeared to
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.
St. Mark {v. 9) and St. John (v. 10 £? 14)
mention1 Mary Magdalene only.
2. The Place and Time.
St. Matthew fays (v. 9) after the two Marys had
been at the fepulchre, and 'were returning to tellthe

( 4° )
the Difeiples the news, Jefus met them by the
way.
St. John fays (v. 2; 10, 11) after Mary Magda
lene had been at the fepulchre, and had ran and told
the Difciples the news there, and came again to the
fepulchre, fhe then faw Jefus and the angels there.
3. The Manner.
St. Matthew fays (v. 9) the Marys held Jefus by
the feet.
^Stxjobn fays (v. 17) Jefus forbad Mary to touch
him. 4. The Meffage.
St. Matthew fays (v. 10) that Jefus bade the
Marys tell the 'Difciples he was going to Galilee.
St. John fays (v. 17) that Jefus bade Mary tell
the Difciples he was going to his father.
So that thefe Wiineffes do not agree whether Jefus
appear'd to one woman only, or to two. Whether
it was in their way, as they were going to tell the
Difciples ; or at the fepulchre after the Difciples
had been told what had been there difcovered.
Whether Jefus was held by the feet, or whether he
would not fuffer himfelf to be touch'd. Whether
he fent word to his Difciples, that he was going to
Galilee, or going to heaven.
St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John, only agree,
that Mary Magdalene faid fhe faw Jefus ; but in no
other circumftance. Nor do any of thefe Witnefles
infinuate two appearances of Jefus to Mary Magda
lene. There is therefore no authority to>make them
two; yet, to avoid thefe difagreements, neceffity^
may drive fome to endeavour it, as the Gentleman
does, (p. 66,) that thereby, if it be poffible, they
may reconcile thefe abfurdities which prove the
ftory wrong. However it will not prove theirs
right, if they recede from the text. St.

( 4i )
St. Jjtke-i who gives a particular account of the.
women, arte} what paffed between them and the'
angelsy fays (v. 23.) that his body they found not;
but, if they had feen him alive or dead, they muft
have found or feeri his body ; therefore, according.
to St. Luke, they faw him not. What confirms"
this to be St. Luke's meaning, They found not his
body dead nor alive, is plain by what follows;
Concerning St. Peter and St. John*
Whofe going to the fepulchre is related by St.
Luke and St. John. St. Luke fays, (v. 12, ) tha'tiV
ter, and peradventure John, went to the fepul
chre, but Him, that is, Jefus, they faw not. And
by what St. John himfelf relates, (v. 24,) they nei-< ,
ther faw Jefus nor angels. By St. Luke it appears,
that , the men were at the fepulchre after the angels
were gone : But by St. John, that they were there
before the angels came. If it fhould be affirm'd
that St. Luke means by {v. 24J that the men faw
the angels, there is nothing in St. John can bear
that meaning ; therefore either the men did not fee
the angels, or the Witneffes do not agree in their
evidence about it. As the angels meffage in St,
Mark, (v. 7.) particularly and exprefsly mentioned
Peter, would they not have delivered that meffage
to him perfonal ly, if they had been the^ when he
came? If Jefus,- and the angel, or angels, were
at the fepulchre as well after as before Peter and
John were there, why then did they withdraw upon
their coming, who ran where Jefus muft needs firft
be, as foon as they heard that either his body was
not found, or that he was-'rifen again ? Why did
the angels tell the women to tell the Difciples,
to meet Jefus in Galilee,, and not tell Peter and John
themfelves, if they were at the fepulchre before the
angels went away ?
T3ut there is as little harmony among the Witnef
fes about the angels at the fepulchre, as there is
F among

( 42 )
among them about the appearances of Jefus; For
St. Matthew mentions only one angel, (v. 2, 3 , 4, 5.)
St. Mark calls him a young man, {v. 5.)
St. Luke fays, two men, (v. 4.) but the women
call'd them angels, (v. 23.)
St. John calls them two angels, (v. 12.)
This appearance of Jefus to Mary Magdalene, de
livered in Our gofpels, the Difciples themfelves did
not believe, ([Mark, v. 1 1 ..) nor indeed that they
faw angels, (Luke, v.. n.) and confefs that Mary
herfelf did not know whether it was Jefus or the
Gardiner, (John, v. 14J
Mr. B. fays, (pag. 66, 6<j,) that the words, touch
me not, do not infer, that Chriffs body was not
fuch an one as would bear the touch ; and that, /
am not yet afi ended to my Father, fignifies, i" go not
yet to my Father, although he grants there is a diffi
culty in thefe words, and it may be hard to give the true
fenfe of them ; but that there is no difficulty in feeing that
they have no relation to the nature of Chrift 's body, for
cf his body nothing is faid. If the words, touch me.
not, did not fignify, touch not my body, what did they
fignify ? For the word, me, muft mean his perfon ; if
his body had now no relation to his perfon, it was a
fpirit. I need not give any forc'd conftruftions to
fcripture to make differences appear, as others do to
reconcile them." Whether Jefus could not,, or would'.
not be touch'd, I'll not pretend to fay ; one it muft
be : If he could not,, it was no real body ;: if he
would not be touched, he would not permit her to
have a proof that it was.
II. Of Chrift 's fecond appearance, which was- to two-
~", , Difciples.
Concerning this appearance. The ftory goes,
That Jefus met two of his Difciples upon the road,
walk'd, and talk'd with them a long time ; and, &%.
fo'on as they apprehended they knew him, he va-
nifhed. Their names were Cleopas and Simon, who,
I fuppofe, was Simon Peter ; becaufe St. Paul fays, he
appear'd:

( 43 )
appear'd firft to Cephas, then to. the twelve, befides
to another Simon of lefs note ; the gofpel-writers al
ways added fome mark of diftinftion, as Simon the
Canaariite: ,Now, that Simon Peter, Who feems to
be one of the two, who knew him perfeftly weft
before his death, fhould not know him as well af
terwards, is ftrange. 'Tis very improbable, that
he, who well knew his perfon and voice, having
been fo conftantly converfant with him, and who
had no longer than three days before eat, drank, and
prayed with him, and fought for him', fhould now
Walk with him a confiderable way, and hear hjm
difeourfe a confiderable time, and not know him 5
that Jefus fhould thus appear to two Difciples, and
not be known, is all one as to appear and not ap
pear at the fame time.
Objeft. But he appeared to them in another form,
[Mark, v. 12.) f
Anf. Whatever form that was, if it was his real
perfon that appear'd, the form of that perfon was
the fame ; and cloaths could not fo far difguife hint
to one that was fo intimately acquainted with him.
If his countenance was alter'd, 'tis very ftrange,
that the power which rais'd him from the dead,
that, he might be known, fhould alter the form of
his face or perfon fo much, that he could not be
known : Or that the power, which rais'd him again
to life, fhould not reftore his complexion, that
thofe might know him to whom he appeared to
be khown, If Jefus was refiored to life, but they
not to the knowledge of him, he was rais'd again
to no purpofe. n
Objeft. But their eyes were holden that they fhould
not know him, {Luke, v. 16.)
Anfw. Then fome myfterious'power had fpoil'd
their eye-fight, and he came to make -himfelf known
to them in' fuch a manner, that they fhould not
know him. One imagines, the caufe that thefe two
Difciples knew him not, was in the objeft; he ap-
F 2 pear'd

r(44)
pear'd to them in another form than ufual : Ano
ther cpnceives it was in their eyes, and done onpur-
pofe : Their eyes were holden, that they fhould not
know him.
Qbjeft. But they knew him afterwards.
Anfw. How can we be fure they did not miftake
at laft, and thought it was Jefus, when it was not ?
What proof had they, or do they give us of it?
When they thought it was Chrift, he difappear'd,
Is it proper to call thefe eye-witneffes, (p. 68.) that
could not fee dearly by day-light ? Why did not
Jefus flay long enough tp make them fufficiently
fenfible by fuch demonftration, that their report of
it might convince the other Difciples ? If it was a
ftranger that put a trick upon them, he took his
opportunity to leave them when he found ,they
were deceived in thinking him to be Jefus ; left,
by ~. flaying longer than was neceffary, they fhould
be. undeceived,
Can any good reafon be given, why Jefus did
not difcover himfelf to them by the way, and give
them the jpy which fuch difcovery would have
made ? This is fuch an appearance, as gave them
fgrprize, perplexity, and pain, rather than certain
proof, real evidence, pleafure, and joy.
They reported, that the Lord is rifen indeed,
and hath appear'd to Simon. This feems as if it
did not appear to be the Lord to Cleopas, but to Si
mon only ; for they relate np other appearance, but
what had juft before happened, the relation pf which
St. Matthew and St.' John make no mention of; the
reafon may be, that they either knew nothing of it,
or did not believe it; for St. Mark fays, (v. 13,)
that, when it was told to the other Difciples, they
did not believe it. Why fhould Jefus thus appear
to thefe two Difciples ? Why did he thus play at
iff ide-andrfeek with them ? What end did it anfwer?
Or what good did it produce ? A wife or good be?
ing always propofes forne wife or good end »o be
s anfwered 3,

( 45 ) ,
anfwered ; but what wifdom or goodnefs appeared
in this, or was it productive of ?
Mr. B. in defence of this appearance, afks
(p. 67, 68,) What is there unnatural or uncommon in
tjois account ? Two Men, fays He, met an acquaintance
whom they thought dead ; they converfe with him for
fome time without fufpefting Who he was, Sec. tho' he
was the perfon their whole difeourfe was about; and
he talked about himfelf all the way, yet they had
no fufpicion who he was. He adds, The very per-
fuafion they were under, that he was dead, contributed
greatly to their not knowing him. What notion had
they then of his predifting his refurreftion ? 'Tis
ftrange that they who knew him fo well; and
converfed with him fo familiarly but a few days ago,
fhould be fo much at a lofs to know him now when
he was walking and talking with them. Befides, fays
Mr. B, he appeared to them on a journey, and walked
with them fide by fide, in which fituatiozn no one of the
company has a full view of the other. Afterwards
when they were at fupper together, and lights brought
in, they plainly difcern'd who he was. How can we
know, that, in walking along the road, they did
not look him in the face ? Or that lights were
brought into the room where they were eating?
If they were, are complexions beft diftinguifh'd by
candle-light? So that it ftill remains a queftion, viz.
What fort of Witneffes are thefe ; eye-witneffes? No :
Before fupper they were eye-witneffes that the perfon
whom they faw was not Chrift ; what reafon then is
there for our rejefting the evidence of their fenfe when
they fay they did not know Chrift, and of infifting on
it when they fay they did? If thefe two Difciples
were fo incurious as not to look in his face in the
open road and day-light, did they not know his
voice? Did Jefus counterfeit that too? If he ap
peared purpofely to be known, why did he appear
fo as they fhould not know him ? If he appeared not
tp fee known, why did he take away thecloud from their

(46)
their eyes, and let them know him at all ?- If they
law thro' a falfe medium at firft, how do we know
bat they did the fame at laft ? Are thefe perfons fit
to be depended on as eye-witneffes, whofe eyes
could be deceived ? Their eyes were holden that they
fhould not know him. All the knowledge, they pre
tend to of him, was but little, and flaid but a lit
tle while ; a little matter confounded it ; as foon
as they knew, or thought they knew him, he gave
them the flip, and they loft him again. Jefus was
gone, and they knew not how, nor where. Is this
a real proof? Or a proof of a real body ?
Mr; B. then relates a ftory as a parallel cafe, (p. 68)
of a traveller that had been fome years abroad,
and in his return to England, thro' Paris, happened
to meet hisfifter there, that they, not expefting to fee each
other, convers'd together with other company, at a
public houfe, for a great part of the day before fhe dif-
cover'd who he was. But this is no more a parallel
cafe, than fbme years are to two or three days.
III. Of the third appearance of Jefus which was to
all the Apoftles.
When Simon and Cleopas conceived, that the per*
fon who had been talking to them was Jefus, and
immediately loft fight of him, they rofe up the
fame hour ("fays St. Luke) " return'd to Jerufialemi
found the other Difciples together in a room, and
told them of it. And that, while they were telling
them, Jefus himfelf, to convince them of the truth
of it, appeared among them, and flood in the
midft. He got to Jerufalem as foon as they, and it
feems was not far off from them when they firft
enter'd, and might have been there before, if their
eyes were holden that they fhould not fee him, or
if he appeared among them in another form. » ,
» Luke, v. 33, 34, 35, 36.
The

(47)
The evidence of this appearance of Jefus to the
Apoftles, on which the faith of the world is to reft,
is worthy of our regard,
St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke agree,
that when the Difciples were made acquainted with
the refurreftion of Jefus, they met him for the firft
and laft time. But this, St. John, the Author of
the Afts, and St. Paid contradift j for they tell us
of other appearances afterwards.
St. Matthew (v.j £s? io,) and St. Mark (v. 7,)
fay, the Difciples had orders to meet Jefus at Gali'leei
but St. Luke (v. 49,) and the Author of the Aftst
(v. 4,) fay, the Difciples had orders not to depart
from Jerufalem. St. Luke tells us (v. 6,. 7, 8,) that
the men, or angels, only reminded the women of
what Jefus faid when he was in Galilee, that he there
foretold his death and refurreftion ;. and that whe»
they were thus put in mind of it, they remembered
his words. Whatever it was that Jefus faid to his
Difciples in Galilee, St. Mark and St. Luke both con
fefs that the Difciples did not underftand him, how
then fhould they remember ? If it was a plain pro
phecy, as St. Matthew (xvii. 22, 23,) and St. Mark
(\x. 31.) have it, I think, 'tis fcarce probable or
poffible they fhould forget. If it was myfterious,
as St. Luke (ix. 44,) has it, they could not under
ftand it. A cnyfterious prediction, which is not
underftood tiU the thing predicted comes to pafs, is
the fame as no prediftion, and fuch an one is that
in St. John (ii. 19, 20, 21, 22,} underftood neither
by the Apoftles nor the Jews, to whom it was
fpoken. Such prophecy liesnot in the words fpoken,
but in the interpretation. The expounder, not the
fpeaker, makes the prophecy.
As to this laft appearance of Jefus, St. Matthew
difagrees with St. Luke, both as to time and; place ;
fir St. Matthew fays, it was at a mountain in Galilee,
where Jefus had appointed them ; therefore the Dif
ciples could not be there on the evening of the day he

(48)
he arofe, the neareft Part of Galilee being, if I
miftake not, not above threefcore miles from Jeru
falem, where this appearance was, according to St.
Luke, who fays, he afcended on the evening of the re
furreftion day. For (v. i.) on the firft day of the
week, early in the morning, the women went to
the fepulchre, when they returned, (v. 12,) Peter
went thither ; the fame day, (v. 1 3,) two of them
went to Emmaus ; towards the evening, (v. 28, 29,)
they got thither ; they turned back the fame hour
they got there, (v. 33,) and went to Jerufalem,
where they found the Apoftles together, to whom
Jefus appeared as they were telling what had hap-
peh'd, led them out to Bethany, and from thence
afcended to heaven. If St. Matthew had told us of
Jefus's afcenfipn, and St. Luke not, it might have
been luckily reconcil'd ; but the contrary has un
fortunately happened. The author of the Afts fays,
that Jefus was with the Apoftles forty days, St. Luke
only ane day. Now, could this author be St. Luke,
which fo contradicts St. Luke ? If it be not, the Au
thor of the Afts of the Apoftles is not known ; and
'tis well if the authors of the four Gofpels are
better known.
St. John agrees with St. Luke, that Jefus appeared
to his Difciples on the evening of the firft day of
the week ; and, by the circumftances, this appear
ance was at Jerufalem, tho' he does not mention
the place; but St. John difagrees with the other
three, in not making it the laft, and the only one to
the Apoftles ; they fay the eleven were gathered to
gether ; he fays Thomas one of the eleven was abfent,
fp that there were but ten of them. That Thomas^
being afterwards told of it, declared (v. 25,) he"
woujd not_ believe, except he faw the print of the
nails in his hands, and felt the wound in his fide,.
Tho' this is what none of the others mention, and
contradicts their evidence. St. John acquaints us,
(v. 26,) that, after eight days, the Difciples were
together,

( 49 )
together, and Thomas was with them, when Jefus
appeared to gratify this infidel, bade him feel of his
hands and his fide, and believe ; which we do not
read he did, but believed upon fight. Concerning
which fome things occur worthy of remark.
ift. St. Thomas's infidelity and faith were very ex
traordinary. He would not believe that Jefus was
rifen from the dead, except he faw and felt the
wounds that caufed his death. Is it to be fuppofed,
that the power which raifed him to life did not
cure thofe wounds ? Or was not Jefus to be known
without them by his own Difciples? Had they for
got the idea of his perfon and the found of his voice
in fo fliorta time ? If thefe marks were only prints or
fears of wounds in his hands and fide, could not ano
ther perfon, who might have a mind to deceive, make
fears in thofe places, or the appearance of fuch
wounds ? Were thefe prints better to be known
than the form of his perfon, which they had fo
often feen?
2dly, One of thefe marks was that of the wound
in his fide, by which, I fuppofe, St. John a re
fers to the wound given him by a foldier with a
fpear before he was taken down from the crofs,
which none of the other Evangelifis mention ; yet,
if St. Thomas and the other Apoftles did not know
it as Well as St. John, it was no proof to them that
it was the perfon of Jefus. But, if they did, why
do none of them neither tell us of the faft, nor of
thefe words that refer to it ? St. Luke has it, (v. 4.0.)
Behold my hands and my feet -, not a word of his
fide. But, becaufe no other Evangelift reports this
but St. John, you have his word for the truth of it.
(p. 12.) Left it fhould be doubted of, he fays b ,
And he that faw it bare record, and his record is true,
and he knoweth that he faith true, that ye might
believe. Befides,, St. John makes this to fulfil a
fcripture prophecy, c They fhall look on him whom
they have pierced. Therefore it muft be true. Yet,
? Xix. 34, * xix. 35. f *>¦ 37:

( 5° )
if this fingle aftion be doubted of, it may be a
doubt whether he was dead when he was taken
down from the crofs ; for, when Jofeph begg'd his
body, Pilate marvelled if he were already dead ;*
his legs were not broken tp haften or complete his
death as the others were, b and he was taken down
by Jofeph himfelf. If it be doubted whether Jefus
was really dead when he was put into the fepul
chre, which was a cave hewn out of a rock ; it will
be matter of lefs doubt, whether he rofe again ? And
why he arofe in the night ? Why his countenance
was fo much alter'd, that his Difciples fcarce knew
him but by his wounds ? Why he did not appear
afterwards in public, but to his Difciples only, &c.
Add to this, that a healthful fober young man,
with vigorous fpirits, does not eafily part with life,
by wounds in the extreme parts.
idly, As the fatisfaftion, that St. Thomas re
quired to cure him of his infidelity, was extraordir
nary ; fp was his faith. When Jefus appeared in
the midft of them the fecond time, when the doors
were fhut, and fhewed to Thomas his hands and his
fide, fcff. Thomas cried cut, My Lord and my God!
If this be a confeffion of that faith, which is truth,
then the human perfon of Jefus was Lord and God,
as the Muggletonians fay; and then they are right,
who fay, God was born, God died, and God rofe 1 '¦ '¦ '¦
again from the dead. Tho' St. Thomas be con
demned for not believing, 'tis not faid that he
had the proof of the identity of his Mailer's real
perfon, but rather feems to have believed without.
A true faith in the refurreftion, rejects the evidence'
of fenfe : c Bleffed are they that have net feen, and yet
have believed.
ifhly, I obferved before, that, according to St.
John, this was the fecond time Jefus had appeared in
the midft of his Difciples when the doors were fhut ;
where it is fuggefted, that one folid or material bo- dy
s Mark xv. 44. b John xix. 3?, 33. « xx. 29.

(5i)
dy paffed thro* another folid or material body, With
out injuring the form of either, both the paffing
and paffive body remaining the fame, contrary to
all the laws of nature. As for what explanation
Mr. B. has given to this, (p. yo.) that, perhaps,
Jefus open'd the door, and took his opportunity to
come upon them unfeen,.or in the dark ; and tread
foftly too, he fhould have faid, or while they were
afleep. This is only a palliating expofition, and not
warranted by the text, which naturally feems to
fuggeft the contrary : Therefore there is no proof
that fuch is the true intent and meaning of the E^
vangelifts, concerning the hidden appearing and dis
appearing of Jefus. The manner of which was fo
uncommon and furprizing, s that the Difciples them
felves thought they faw a fpirit, and were affright
ed with it. This ideal appearance feems to have
been raifed by the ftory of Simon and Cleopas. But
whether 'twas real or imaginary, it refts upon the
evidence only of St. John, one of the Difciples pre
fent ; for St. Matthew's account pf the meeting of
Jefus, and the Difciples, does not agree with it.
St. Mark and Luke were none of the eleven, there
fore not prefent : It may be a queftion, whether the
other nine out of the eleven fancied they faw this
, apparition. But hefhewed them his hands and his fide,
or his feet ; Were the wounds in them a more real
proof than his real prefence ? Yet all thefe could
fcarce induce them to believe. For, b while they be
lieved not for joy and wondered, he faid unto them, Have
you here any meat ? He was forced to convince them,
that his body was real, by eating. Why might not
their eyes be holden here too, and he feem to eat
before them, whenhe did not ? In common cafes, men
may be allowed to be eye-witneffes, and to fee what
they fee ; but, in uncommon and miraculous cafes,
this hardly can be allowed : For when I have to do
with one who has the power of working miracles,
" G 2 my
» Luke xxiv. 37. I Luke v. 41.

i 52 ;
my fenfes may be miraculoufly wrought upon. In
'uch cafe, I may and ought to queftion, as much the
truth of my fenfes, as the objeft, that I am neither
deceived in the one, nor the other. Common jug-
ers, by the art of legerdemain, ¦who cannot change the
Inature of things, can deceive my fight ; which it is
eafier to do, than to work a real change in things.
The evidence of any eye-witneffes then, befides our
Own, cannot be depended upon, for fcarcely can we
depend upon our own ; fince fuch a power may
deceive us in fpite of our eyes. He, that can alter
nature, can deftroy all rules of truth and certainty.
Well, but has the Gentleman, by all that he has
faid, proved the reality of Chrift's body after his
refurreftion ? No, that's impoffible, unlefs he could
fhew, that there was nothing miraculous in the greateft
miracle that ever was, and every real miracle is an.
abfurdity to common fenfe and underftanding, and
contrary to the attributes of God, notwithftanding
all that is faid in favour of the poffibility of them,
from page 60 to 65, becaufe it breaks down the
boundaries and laws of nature, which are the only
rules of truth and certainty to mankind.
In favour of the reality of Chrrft's body in thefe
appearances, fays Mr. B. p. 71. 1 wonder the Gentle-
, man did not carry his argument a little further, and
prove that Chrift, before his death, had no real body ;
for we read that, when the multitude would have thrown
him down a precipice, he went through the midft of
them unfeen. The word unfeen is hot in the text,
but he, paffing through the midft of them, went bis
way3- ; where only a little removal. of his body in
the crowd might fecure him among his friends ;
yet, he fays, that nothing happened after his refur
reftion more unaccountable than this that happened be
fore it, and that difference there is none. Whereas
this, as it is worded in the text, carries with it great
probability, and nothing wonderful ; but the other, an
» Luke iv. 29, 30.

(53)
an utter impoffibility, that one folid body fhould
pafs through another, yet neither the form nor
fubftance of either be altered. It is not in that,
as in this, faid, he vanifhed out of their fight, or
ceafid to be fieen of them, or that their eyes were holden
that they fhould not know him, or that he appeared to
them in another form, or appeared in the midft of a
room when the doors were fhut.
Let us now confider, ^.thly, of the other appear
ances mentioned by St. John and St. Paul.
St. John tell us of more appearances of Jefus to
his Difciples, than the other Evangelifis do, and
after they fay he afcended, or took his laft leave pf
them ; it is fufficient therefore to fay of St. John's
evidence, that his deftroys theirs, or theirs deftroy
his. St. Paul writes by hearfay ; he only delivered
what he received ; therefore he who was as one born
out of due time, can be no proper evidence to tefti
fy of things done before he was born. After Chrjft's
appearance to Cephas, (I fuppofe it may be that to
Simon and Cleopas) St. Paul fays, he was feen of the
twelve ; query, Was Judas there to make up the
number ? The particular vifit paid to St. James we
have no account of ; for thefe, therefore, we ought
to have St. Peter and St. James's own evidence;
thefe may be wifh'd for, St. Paul's being of little
account ; for, as St. Paul faw Jefus only in a vifion,
he feems to be in his vifions about his relation of
Jefus's appearances. He agrees with the reft, as the
reft agree with one another. The 500 brethren^ he
fays, Chrift appear'd to, are all lumped together,
and might as eafily have been made 5000, and as
hard to prove or difprove the one as the other.
Therefore, fome evidence being neceffary to cor
roborate it, what he fays, Gal. i. 20, fliould follow
here. Where and when was this public appearance ?
And how long did it continue ? Since St. Paul
favs, fome of the witneffes were fallen afleep, he
1 fhould

( 54 ;
fhould have told us who, ahd how many of therrf
were then broad awake ; for Prophets were fubjedl '.'
to dream, and fometimes to dream waking.
I come now, $tbly, to my laft point propos'dj
To confider of the afcenfion of Jefus, concerning '
which, they alfo difagree.
St. Mark and St. Luke acquaint us, that after
Jefus had appeared to the eleven as they fat at meat,
and had fpoken unto them, he afcended into heaven.
St Luke fays, he led them out as far as Bethany, lift
up his hands and bleffed them, and, while he was fo
doing, he was parted from them, and carried up in
to heaven. The author of the Afts fays, that when
Jefus had done fpeaking to the Difciples, while they
beheld, he was taken up ; and they returning after
ward from mount Olivet to Jerufalem, it is to be fup
pofed, he intimates, that Jefus afcended from thence,
-which either belonged to Bethany; or was very near •
it. As to the place of his afcenfion, if St. Mark
means Galilee, he contradicts thefe. If he means
the fame place as thefe do, he contradicts himfelf;
for he fays, (v. 7,) the angel, or young man, told
them Jefus was gone before the Difciples into Gali
lee, and there they fhould fee him. The author of
the Afts fays, he was taken up while they beheld, and
a cloud received him out of their fight : But Mark, as
if heaven itfelf was open to his view, without any
intercepting cloud, that, he was received up into
heaven, and fat on the right hand of God ; as if he
had look'd into heaven itfelf, and feen him feated.
St. Matthew and St. John, who were two of the
Apoftles, and therefore mould be thofe that faw, his
afcenfion, feem to fay, that he never afcended ; at
leaft, they mention nothing of it. And, according
to them, it is a queftion, whether he is gone yet.
The laft words of Jefus in St. Matthew are,, (v. 20,)
Lo, I am with you always unto the end of the world.
John leaves us at all uncertainties, and fays, that Je
fus went, like a wandering Jew, without bidding them

( 55 )
them farewel, the Lord knows where » ! as if they in
tended, whenever they pleafed, to bring him on the
flage again. Some are infidels enough to infinuate
that the laft verfe of St. John's gofpel fhews, that
he loved romancing fo well, as to give all room and
encouragement imaginable to others to praftife it,
(viz.) And there are many other things that Jefus did,
¦the which, if they Jhould be written every one, I fup
pofe, that- even the world itfelf could not contain the
hooks that fhould be written. Amen. As if it were
an everlafting fund for romance.
Obferve the agreement of the witneffes on this
appearance to all the apoftles, which was doubted of
by the apoftles themfelves, b upon which depends
all the proof we have of the refurreftion of Jefus.
St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke mention
this appearance as the firft and laft ti^ne; St. John
and St. Paul fay, it was not the laft; St. Matthew
and St. Mark fay, the Difciples were order'd to
go to Galilee ; St. Luke and the author of the
Afts fay, that they were order'd to flay at Jeru
falem. St. Matthew fays, Jefus met the Difciples for the
firft and laft time at a mountain in Galilee ; St. Luke,
that it was at Jerufalem.
St. Luke intimates, that this laft meeting was on
the evening of the day he arofe.- But this could
not be if it was at Galilee : St. John fays, he appear
ed afterwards : The author of the Afts, that Jefus
was with them forty days.
St. Luke acquaints us, that this appearance was to
the eleven Apoftles ; St. John, that 'twas only to
ten of them ; St. Paul fays, 'twas to the twelve ;
perhaps, he had forgot that one of them was fallen
afleep. St. Mark, St. Luke, and the author of the Afts
fay, that Jefus afcended ; St. John does not fay,
that he ever afcended at all ; St. Matthew fays', he
* John xxi. 19, zo,zi, 22. b See Matt. •». 17.

{ 5<> )
he promifed to be with them to the end of the
world. St. Matthew and St. Luke mention but two ap
pearances of Jefus, and in both thefe they differ.
St. Mark tells us of three ; St. John of four ; St. Paul
of fix ; the author of the Afts, I think, fhould
mean forty, by the words being feen of them
forty days, unlefs Jefus was any of thofe days in-
vifible. The Evangelifis tell us of but a very few that
faw Jefus after his refurreftion ; the author of the
Afts fays, as the Gentleman fuppofes, that 120
-were witneffes of his appearance. St Paul tells us,
that he was feen of above 500 brethren at one time.
Thus the faints agree, and fuch agreement is com
mon among faints. Their miracles, morals, doc
trines, and praftices are alike harmonious.
Now permit me to query, Whether the author
of the Tryal, or any man who has read thus far,
fp. 4.) confidering the nature of the evidence, and its
proper weight, would be willing to determine a property
of Jive Jhillings upon fuch evidence as this, which is
thought material enough to fupport the refurreftion
of Chrift ? For the witneffes, as they are call'd, do
not all agree, in any one circumftance ; but palpably
contradift one another in every particular. I won
der what harmony all the Evangelifis would make
that were in the firft ages of the church, compar'd
with one another, feeing the four we have are fo
harmonious? And whether (p. 14.) the general and
conftant belief of the refurreftion is not that only which
creates in moft minds a prefumption, that it was found
ed on good evidence ? And whether (p. 15.) the very
account, given by the pretended witneffes of this faft, is
not fufficient to deftroy the credit of it ?
The four Evangelifis, together with the au
thor of the Afts, and St. Paul are all authors of
equal credit, therefore are all call'd in for witneffes.
In carnal cafes men are not allowed to be witneffes of

> (57)
of feeing an objeft without carnal eyes, and natu
ral conviftion ; but this being a fpiritual cafe, in
which men walk by faith, and not by fight, fpiritual
imagination is to go for ocular demonftration, and
the proof of the fpirit is an infallible proof! The
many infallible proofs, by which Jefus Jhewed himfelf
alive after his paffion, have been fhewn. In other
cafes, if the witneffes do not agree, their evidence
proves nothing ; but, in matters of faith, men have
the witnefs in • themfelves ; for faith is the evidence of
things not feen. Therefore nothing which has here
been faid ought to be conftrued to oyerturn or
affeft the faith of the gpfpel, but to fhew the mi
raculous nature and wonderful power of faith ; that
it can remove all- thefe mountains, and fwallow
them up, as if they were caft into the fea. Since
the Chriftian faith is fo powerful, what needs it any
human fupport from the civil magiftrate. If it be
of God, man cannot overthrow it. - The faith, which
requires human power to fupport it, difcovers much
of human weaknefs in its compofition.
'Tis true, indeed, that the evidence ofthe three
appearances of Jefus fheWs, that there is no agree
ment in the firft, no certainty in the fecond, and
no harmony in the third : What then! Such incon-
fiftencies, improbabilities, abfurdities, and contra
dictions, would deftroy the credit of other hiftory,
but the faith of this is founded on a rock ; the rock
of education, which reafon cannot penetrate ; the
faithful following the example of their fpiritual
patterns, to offer up their own fons, or themfelves,
that is, all their natural endowments and human
wifdom on the altar of faith.
Wife infidels will exclaim againft thefe Arcana of
a religion, to introduce and maintain which, fo
much blood and treafure has been every where fpilt
and fpent in abundance 5 and they will imagine,
that 'till thefe things are reconciled and cleared up,
tbe evidence will be thought inefficient to fupport the
H credit

( 58 )
credit of fuch extraordinary events : But let them ex
claim : For it is written, I will deftroy the wijdom of
the wife, and bring to nothing the underftanding of the
prudent. Where is the wife ? where is the fcribe ?
Where is the difputer of this World? Hath not God-
made foottjh the wifdom of this world by tbe foolijhnefs
of preaching the- gofpel ? FoV the Jews require afign\
and the Greeks feek after fwif dom; but we, faith St.
Paul, preach Chrift crucified, and rifen again ; to
the Jews a fumbling block, and to the Greeks foolijh
nefs. i Cor. i.
' Aving examin'd the evidence of the witneffes,
fo called, I now proceed to the reft of the tryal.
To the queftion, (p. 74, J Why did not Chrift ap
pear publicly to all the people, efpecially to the Magi-
fir ates ? Why were fome witneffes cull'd and chofen- out,
and othes excluded? Mr. B. anfwers, 7/ may be fuffi
cient to fay, where there are witneffes enow,' no judge,
no jury, complains for want of more ; and therefore, if
the witneffos we have are fufficient, 'tis no objeftion that
we have not others and more. But can thefe be fuffi
cient witneffes, when their evidence is not fufficient
to prove the faft? Then he compares it to a will,
which requires but three witneffes, cull'd out that,
they may be good ones ; and adds, How comes it to
pafs then that the very thing which fimls out all fujpi-
cion, in other cafes, fhould, in this cafe, be of all others
the moft fufpicious thing in itfelf? It is becaufe this
cafe, of all others is, the moft uncommon. If it
were of no more confequence than any ordinary
affair, why do they make fuch a fiir about it ? Is
the proof of a relation's will, and the proof ofthe
will of God, a parallel cafe ? Or a legacy in this
world, and eternal life, of the fame value ? Should
not the proof be as clear as the importance of the
cafe requires ? Is it not very abfurd, that the mean-
eft witneffes fhould be pick'd and cull'd out for the
beft, in the greateft affairs ? That matters of the
higheft.

(59 )
higheft concern, and of the moft extraordinary na
ture, fhould be, or faid to be, fufficiently attefied by
the moft doubtful evidence! That thofe who are
principally interefted in a will, the very executors
and legatees, fliould be allowed to be the beft and
only witneffes of the laid will : This wou'd not be
pleaded for, or granted in any court in Chriftendom,
nor pafs in any tryal, but in this.
The following improbabilities and abfurdities,
fhew, what reafon there is of complaint, That Jefus
fhould be faid publicly to predift his own refurrec-
tion, and not fulfil it in public. That he fhould
promife it to be the fign of his miffion to that evil
generation, yet never fhew them the fign. That
he fhould inform the people that he would rife
again the third day, yet difappoint all their expecta
tions in feeing him. That he fhould put the proof
of his miffion on the reality of his riling again ; yet
never difcover that faft to them; by rifing before
them, nor by appearing to them afterwards. Had it
been publicly known to all Jerufalem that Jefus would
rife again the third day, all Jerufalem, that believed
it, would have expefted to fee him. If they were
difappointed in their expectations, what was it but
deceiving them in that ver/ point, in which, of all
others, he fhould have fatisfied them. Not tp ap
pear to them, if he promis'd it, and put the truth
of his miffion on it, was denying the truth of his
miffion, and falflfying his word. They faid, a Let
him come down from the crofs, and we will believe in
him : And would they not have believed in him, if
he had come up from the dead ? Is it probable,
that an extraordinary aftion, done for an extraordi
nary end, and highly neceffary to be known to man
kind, fhould be fo fecretly done, that no man faw
it ! That fo great an aftion fhould be done fo im
proper a way ! That Jefus fhould require men to
believe his Difciples, rather than their own fenfes, in
an affair where reafon can be of no affiftance ! That
H 2 foch
J Matt, xxvii. 42,

(6o)
fuch a furprizing method fhould be taken to fave
all men in fuch a manner, that fcarce any man,
that examines it, can believe it ! That a miracle
fhould be wrought'in fecret to convince men, and
never manifeft itfelf to the fatisfaftion of mankind ;
nor leave any footfteps, or marks on earth of its
having ever been, yet abfolutely neceffary to be'be-r
lieved ! That he appeared in fuch a manner to his
Difciples, which fcarce convinced themfelves -, yet
fent them to convince the world ! That he was
with them forty days, yet appeared but four times,
or but now and then ; and that he fliould not abide
conftant as before, nor be feen by others !
The witneffes give us no account where he fpent
the. reft of his time, and to what end. Whether
the fpirit of God drove a or led him into the wilder
nefs to the devil again, for 'tis faid b, he only de
parted from him for a feafon ; where, and with
whom, he ftaid forty days before to no purpofe -f-.
Choice company for the Son of God.! Since Jefus
might do and fay all that is related of him, after
his refurreftion, in lefs than forty hours ; and of all
the forty 'nights, he never, that we hear of, lodged
one night with any of his Difciples. Thefe things
are as furprizing as his refurreftion. That Jefus
rafe again from the dead, ftaid forty days afterwards,
no body knows where, and purpofely avoided the
moft right and rational method of its being certain
ly known to the world, viz. by avoiding to appear
to the world ! That after the Watch had fpread
lyes about, he did not fhew himfelf to the Rulers,
nor the people, to convince them of the contrary !
That he, who. was the meffenger of truth, fhould
Countenance lyes by his filence and abfence ! They
could not have put him to death again, if they would, for

» Marki. \z, 13. b Luke iv. 15. -j- This ftory, if elfe-
where, would fe?m blafphemou; and fabulous.

(6i.)
for he could appear and difappear at pleafure. No
doubt but the fight of Jefus would have ftruck them
with fufficient awe and terror, from attempting it.
Why did he not, after his refurreftion, undeceive his
Difciples jn their notions of temporal viftory and
grandeur, when they afk'd him about iti Or take
poffieffionof the kingdom of Ifrael, fulfil the fcriptures
of the Prophets, and prove himfelf the Meffiah ?
Why not appear in public for the public good^
maintain the public caufe of his nation and people?
And why did he, at the very laft, leave his Difciples"
in expeftation of it, and baulk all their expectations :
Promife to come again prefently % and is not come
yet? Thefe difappointments give too much reafon to
cry out, Why is his chariot fo long in coming? Why tarry
the wheels of his chariot ? Is lie not rifen ? Did he
not afcend ? Has he not triumph'd over death and
the grave, and led captivity captive ?
Mr. B. pleads, (p. 75.) That every foldier who guard
ed the fepulchre was to the Jews a witnefs of the refur
reftion, of their own chufing: But it does not appear
'there were any ; and if there were, how could they
be witneffes who faw no refurreftion, and reported
there was none ; but that the-Difciples ftole the bo
dy of Jefus away ? A proper proof agreeable to the
reafon and fitnefs of the thing is wanting. Affer
tions ought not to be credited, without proper evi
dence, fuch as in the nature of the thing is juft and
reafonable. He that believes on any other evidence,
mayhaveaprefumptive faith, butcannothaveareafon-
able one. If they had not the proof of Jefus's refur
reftion from his own perfonal appearing, of all things
the moft eafy to him, if he rofe again, and the moft
convincing to them : Why fhould they depend on
the credit of others, rather than their own fenfes ?
Or why fhould any other miracle be given them to
prove the thing, than whafe the nature of the thing
r 5 itfelf
* Matt. x. 23.

( 62 )
itfelf was capable of giving, moft reafonable for
them to require, and moft juft and fit for Jefus to
grant. Mr. B. infinuates, (p. y6, yy.) That according
to Matthew xxiii. Chrift folemnly took his leave of the
the Jews, and clofed his commiffion to them at his
death ; and as to appearing to them after his : '-irrec-
he -could not do it confiftently with his own j-.-.-diftion.
Ye fhall fee me no more till ye fhall fay, Bluffed is
he that cometh in the name of the Lord. That the
Jews were not in this difipofition after the refurreftion,
nor are they in it yet. The reafon of that is, becaufe
he did not appear to them after his refurreftion.
According to St. Luke*, he himfelf, after that, ful-'
filled his own prophecy \ and found them then in
that difpofition before his death, which the Gentle
man complains they were not in after his refurrc-
tion, nor are yet : And, after that, taught daily in
the Temple ; and Jefus was obliged to appear to
, them again after his refurreftion, confiftently with
his own prediction, if it was his own, the fign of
the prophet Jonah, if it meant a refurreftion.
Mr. B- remarks, (p. 78.J That fince all men have
an equal right to demand a fpecial and particular evi
dence, why may not the fame be demanded for every
country and every age ? I know not why every coun
try and age fliould not have it, fince they have an
equal right to demand it. , A fpecial and particular
action requires a fpecial and particular proof, to eve
ry country and age, that are efpecially and particu
larly concerned in the cafe. If it needs a miracu
lous one, becaufe it admits of no natural proof, mi
raculous proof fhould be given : For the proof of an
aftion, which muft be credited, ought to be fuch as
is fufficient and fit to prove the aftion.
If miracles are once neceffary to prove a faft,'
they are always neceffary .; becaufe the fame proof,
or an edequate one, is always neceffary to prove the
fame
a Luke xiii. 34, 35. b Chap. xix. 38.

( 63 )
fame operation. The diftance of time and place
makes them not lefs, but rather more neceffary.
A hiftory of an extraordinary uncommon kind
fliould have more 'than common proof. That is,
The proofs given fhould be equal to the things to
be proved. And the more momentous the affair is,
or is efteem'd, fo much the more plain, and certain,
fhould be the evidence.
Mr. B. fays, (p. 78.) There is, in my apprehevfion,
nothing more unreafonable, than to negleft and defpife
plain and fufficient evidence before us, and to fit down
to imagine what kind of evidence would have pleafed
us, and then to make the want of fuch evidence an ob
jection to the truth, which yet, if well confider ed, would
be found to be well eftablifh'd.
The cafe is not here rightly ftated. The evidence
is objefted againft, becaufe it is not plain, fufficient,
nor well eftablifh'd : For, the more thoroughly it is
confider'd, the more infufficient it appears. And
there is, in my apprehenfion, nothing more reafon
able, than to rejeft infufficient evidence, and con
fider what means of conviftion the nature ofthe thing
recjuires, and to make the want of fuch proof an
objeftion to that faft, which, if well confider'd,
cannot be well eftablifh'd without it. There is as
much reafon now for fome fuitable miracle to prove
the refurreftion, as there was then ; for there is no
plain and certain evidence before us, the want of
which is a fufficient objeftion, and ever will be, to
invalidate the truth of a faft fo ill eftablifh'd.
Mr. B. obferves, (p. y^.) That the Apoftles were
chofen to be witneffes of the refurreftion, becaufe they
were chofen to bear teftimony of it to the world, not be
caufe they only were admitted to fee Chrift after his re
furreftion ; for the faft is otherwife. The gofpel, in
deed, concern 'd to fhew the evidence on which the faith
of the world was to reft, is very particular in fetting
forth the ocular denionftrations which the Apofiles had of
the
« Mark xvi. 17, 18. ix. 23. John xiv. 12.

( 64 )
the refurreftion ; and mentions others who faw Chrift.
after his -refurreftion, only accidentally, as the thread of
the hiftory led to it.
It had been better to have chofen any other for
witneffes than thefe ; they were the moft improper
' perfons to convince the world, becaufe they were
moft interefted in the affair : Half a dozen Watch
men would have been better than a dozen Apoftles ;
Men interefted in no party. But if they had been
enemies, converted by a miraculous refurreftion, it
would have been better ftill. One Apoftle Paul did
more execution than the other eleven. But among
all that faw Jefus, none fuch faw him, and of all
thofe who faw him, the Apoftles only attefied it,
and were chofen to that end, and for that end .were
admitted to fee him. Othets faw him, but they
were not requir'd to witnefs it. Tho' when men
relate a ftory, and are willing to be credited, (as all
men are who think they fpeak truth, and are con-
cern'd that it fhould be received as fuch ;) they
are willing to inform their auditors, what perfons
befides themfelves, know of it, and all convincing
particulars. This is a fupport to the credit of it.
Every witnefs to truth is an aid in its favour. The
lefs concern the relater has in it, his relation has
the greater credit ; and the credit of others dimi-
nifhes in proportion as the relaters are interefted in
the cafe. None but Enthufiafts dare to conceive,
that an implicit faith is to be given to their dog
matical affertions that their bare word ought to be
taken,, exclufive of all other proof; that all other
men's words are to be dilVegarded in comparilbn of
theirs, be the facts they relate ever fo miraculous
or romantic ; becaufe, difbelieving them, in their
notion and bold affertion, is not believing the Spirit
of God. But with the greater affuranee any one
tells a lye, or romance, for facred truth, tho' he
fanftifies it with the name of God Almighty, the
lefs credit fhould be given him, not only in that, but

(65)
but in all things elfe. God never requires men to
believe things contrary to evidence, nature, and
common fenfe ; for his government of all creatures
is by the fenfe he has given them, never by what
contradicts it. 'Tis the mark .of impofture to do
this. Why fhould the Apoftles, of all men, -re
quire the whole world, to credit the greateft miracle
that ever was on the leaft foundation ? And why
fhould the credit of this depend on them alone ? If
1 20 or 500 faw him befides, could they not atteft/
it as well ? Did the Apoftles require a faith as, mira
culous as the faft ? Why could not other men fpeak
truth, and atteft what they faw, as well as the Apoftles?
Is truth ever the worfe for being well attefied ? Or
is that faith moft true which has the leaft evidence ?
And why muft other people's words be of fo little
account as not to be worth the notice, but as the
thread of the hiftory led to it accidentally ? 'Tis no
thing to the purpofe to tell me, that 120, or 500
men, knew it befides, when not one of them is
named, nor the credit of one of, them known if
they were. St. Paul, who fays 500 faw Chrift after
his refurreftion, knew nothing of the matter him
felf ; he was none of the number, unlefs vifionally,
which is no real proof. The proof of thefe 500,
attefied by St. Paid, depends but upon his fingle
teftimony, or of fome other in his name, or of the
, greateft lyar in the world, the church of Rome : Such
evidence as we have is not eafy for any to credit,
but thofe in whom it was planted by education, and
grew up in them before their reafon, by which
means, the belief of witches, apparitions, and fai
ries, are as credible as this. The gofpel is very
particular in fetting forth, that the Apoftles had no
ocular demonftration of the refurreftion at all, and,
the appearances of Jefus afterwards are- fuch, as de-
mohftrate them to be no demonftration : Whoever
examines them with ferioufnefs, muft be concern'd,
that the evidence on which the faith of the world was
I *'

(66)
to reft, fhould have no better foundation to reft on !
In all other cafes, of the greater concern the mat
ter is, and the more are interefted in it, the more
certain, full, . and fatisfaftory, the evidence or proof
ought to be. But in this cafe, it feems it muft be
the lefs, that the faith of the world may \ be the
greater ! As if it was meritorious to believe the
moft incredible ftory that could be told, upon the
worft evidence that could be given ; which, indeed,
would be proper, if the faith required was to be as
miraculous, as the fact to be believed.
Mr. B. fays, (p. 80.) Will the Gentleman pretend
to prove that they (the angels) were improperly em
ployed in this great and wonderful work, the refurreftion
of Chrift? Undoubtedly they were very improperly.
jft, Becaufe, they frightened away the Watch from
feeing it, and being witneffes^ idly, Becaufe Chrift
had no need of them, for, undoubtedly, he could
have rifen as well without them. Had Jefus need
of an angel to roll away the ftone, or to defend him
againft the Watch ? Did he need their affiftance ? If
not, what bufinefs had they 'there ? Or had he need
of angels in white to lighten him, becaufe he rofe
in the dark ? %dly, They were unneceffary, becaufe
they look'd like men, and made the matter look
like fraud. If they were neceffary witneffes of the
refurreftion, why did they depart at the approach
of day-light ?
Mr. B. afferts, (p. 81.) That it is not upon the crer
dit of the poor filly women, that we believe angels were
concern' d, but upon the report of thofe who wrote the
gofpels, who deliver'd it as a truth known to themfelves),
and not meerly as a report taken from the women.
This is a miftake : It is upon the credit of the
women meerly, that 'tis believed angels were
concerned a. Thofe that wrote the gofpels knew
nothing of it themfelves, for none of them pretend
to have feen the angels. St. Matthew, St. Mark,
and Sc. Luke do not fo much as fay, that any of
them
* Luke xxiv. z\.

( 67 )
them went to the fepulchre, and the beloved Difcipje,
who fays, he went with Peter, faw no angel.
'Tis faid, That the women report, that the body
was not in the fepulchre, but fo far from reporting the
refurreftion., that .they did not believe it. This is con
trary to the report given by all the Evangelifis v But
'tis too common for men to believe they are certain
ly right, when they are apparently wrong. There
fore, fince the beft may err, we fhould beware of cen-
fprioufnefs and perfecution for fpeculative points.
The tryal boafts, That, if men only muft be admit
ted Witneffes, of them we have enow to eftablijh this
truth. How many are they ? Why, St. Paul fays,
500. Was St, Paul one ? No. How did St. Paul
know ? He was told fo. Who, and what were
thofe 500 ? Are five of them mention'd, befides
what are named by the Evangelifis ? No. But, fays
Mr. B. the author of the Afts tells us, there was 1 20.
Who was that author? 'Tis' thought to be St.
Luke, but 'tis not known. When was it written ?
Or where ? Nor that neither. Upon what autho
rity was it received at firft, artd communicated to
us ? Upon the authority of the church of Rome,
that mother of lyes and abominations. Well, but
14 or 15 faw Jefus after his refurreftion ; the eleven,
Difciples, and Mary Magdalene, and, perhaps, the
other Mary and Cleopas. Have you the evidence of
thefe 15 ? No. But we have two of them, that were
eye-witneffes, that faw him, St. Matthew and St.John.
Are you infallibly fure the two gofpels of St. Mat
thew and St. John were written by themfelves ; and
if ib, that nothing is in their gofpels but what they
wrote? That thefe gofpels were written without
error at firft ? And that none has crept into them
fince ? That no abfurdity or contradiftion can be
proved out of the Evangelifis writings compared
together ? No ; this is to be believed, but the con
trary may be proved. Here's a bleffed reduftion,
I 2 from
» Matt, xxviii, 8. Mark xvi. 10. Luke xxiv. 9. John xx. 18.

( 68 )
. from- 500 witnefles to two, and they contradict one
another. Yet thefe fallible accounts are infallibly
believed, and believed to be infallible. The work
of faith is a wonderful work ! A work of wonders f
If none but men muft be admitted, we have enow to
efidblijh this truth. What's become of them ? Not '
one remains that can be depended on. The appear
ance was of fuch fort, that the witneffes themfelves
did not believe it \
Mr B. goes on, (p. 81. ) If you queftion their fin*
cerity, they lived miferably, and died miferably for the
fake of truth. The truth of this may be juftly
- queftioned, unlefs we had better proof. And whe-^
ther they lived better at their trade of fifhing, than
of preaching ? When the believers fold what they
had, made one common flock to carry on the caufe,"
and fet up the Apoftles with cafh, all was at their
difpofai ; therefore, that they made a good living
of it, may be reafonably concluded. I believe
it will he hard to prove, that they all died mar*
tyrs for truth. Multitudes every where run all
hazards for the fake of living well. But they died
for afferting a faft they were eye-witneffes to, therefore
the faft was truth. But, as the truth of this faft
wants proof, fo does their dying for it. There is
no proving a faft true, by other fafts which equally
want proof.
Says Mr. B. (p. 49.) The chief Priefts try .to mur
der the Apoftles, enter into combinations to affaffinate
them, prevail with Herod to put one of them to death,
but not fo much as a charge againft them of any fraud
in the refurreftion. How is this known ? Becaufe
they themfelves have not mentioned it. 'T would
prove them to be the verieft fimpletons in nature,
jf they had. Yet, (p. .104.) the Gentleman fays,
the, thing, for which they fuffered, was the truth ofthe
refurreftion. So then the chief Prkils never fo much as
a Mat. xxviii. 17. Mark xvi. n, 13. Luke xxiv. 11,41.
,Jciin xx. 14.

(6o)
as charged the Apoftles with any fraud in the refur
reftion ; but they put them to death, becaufe they
knew it was true.
/ beg leave to lay before you another evidence, fays
the advocate for the defendants, fp. 82 J pafs'daver
in filence by the Gentleman on the other fide. That is,
The evidence ofthe Spirit, Afts v. 22. Indeed, that's
the only evidence that can be produced ; but we, in
this age, have almoft loft that, except among the
Difciples of the infpir'd Mr. Whitfield, . who has
blown up a new light of it, which now again de
clines ; and the flame of the Spirit has much to do
to keep burning ; notwithftanding it is fo power
fully ventilated by his bellows. Yet this evidence,
great as it is, and, no doi*bt, the greateft, is what
every one thinks it-to be ; and every one fays of it
what he pleafes ; therefore 'tis none at all,, but to
him that has it, and that is fuch as his faith makes
it. 'Tis granted, that believers need no other evi
dence ; but what is this to thofe that have it not,
who call for a fign from heaven, or a certain proof
that the fign, already faid to be given, was ever.
given, no footfteps of it remaining : 'Tis certain,
that, if this miracle be difproved, all fubfequent mi
racles to prove it are no proof. If the thing can
not ftand by itfelf, nothing elfe can fupport it. If
it be a fraud, or falfity, all pretenfions to prove it are
frauds, or falfities. Suggefted proofs, (p. 84.) are
no proofs. Therefore the inferences, drawn from
fuch, are of no force. Things not known cannot
be proved by things equally unknown. •
'Tis alledg'd, (p. 103.) That, becaufe the Apoftles
were chofen to bear teftimony to the rejurreftion, they
bad the fulleft evidence of the truth. If their evidence
was the fulleft, what fad evidence muft the others
haye ! not meerly by feeing Chrift once or twice after his
death. The Evangelifis fay, they faw him but two
or three times •, tho' the Gentleman adds, but by,
frequent eonverfations with him for forty days together before

17° /
before his afcenfion. Now, fays he, (p. 104.) if you
allow the fufferings of the Apoftles to prove their fincerity ;
and confider that they dy'd for the truth of a matter of faft.
buffering for afferting a fact is no more a proof of it,
than of the truth of doftrines ; nor is it any more
the proof of fincerity, than of obftinacy ; nor of|
real knowledge, than of ftrong imagination. When
a Man reports lo me, fays the Gentleman, an uncom- .
mon faft, yet fuch an one as; in its own nature, is a
plain objeft of fenfe ; if I believe him not, it is not be
caufe I fufpeft his eyes, or his fenfe of feeling, but
meerly, becaufe I fufpeft his fincerity. If a man re
ports fuch an uncommon faft, that, before I can be
lieve it, I muft be very well affured, my own fenfes
were not deceived, had I jmagin'd I faw it, certain
ly I may doubt the evidence of the reporter's fenfes,
yet not fufpeft his fincerity. How many have con
fidently reported incredible fafts, with ftrong per
flation of the truth of them ? Yet all the reality of
the fafts confifted in the reality of their imagina
tions. My fufpicion, therefore, may arife from
doubting of the affirmator's feeing invifible things,
or miftaking one thing for another, and not his fin
cerity -, but, that his eafy credulity makes his fenfes
liable to deception. There have not been wanting
thofe, that, at the hazard of their lives, have affert
ed falfe ftories for true, only becaufe they believed
them to be fo : For thofe, who have the warmeft
fincerity, have, in the things they believe, generally,
the greateft obftinacy. And a ftrong imagination
has not lefs effeft on the temper and conduft of fuch
as are fincere and credulous, than evident and fen
fible conviftion has on thofe of cooler tempers, more
courteoufly infincere.
There remain but two arguments more, which I
fhall juft mention.
One is, a Could Gamaliel poffibly have given this
advice, If this work be of men it will come to
nought ;
* Pag. 51, Afts v.

(7* )
nought ; but if it be of God ye cannot overthrow
it, left haply ye be found to fight againft God ; and
fuppofed the hand of God might be with the Apoftles,
if he had known that there was a cheat difcover ed in
the refurreftion of Jefus ? Could the whole fenate have
followed this advice, had they believed the difcovery of
the cheat ? Allowing the fubftance of the ftory true,
the particulars may be very well queftion'd, efpeci
ally the truth of Gamaliel's uttering thefe words;
for whatever he faid, was delivered in private coun
cil, when the Apoftles were fecluded, by the ftory-
teller's own confeffion. How then fhould they
know what was there faid ? Gamaliel might be fo
much of a philofopher as well as a fcholar, to dif-
fuade them from rigid perfecution, and his argu
ment prevail'd : For, whatever his counfel was, can
only be conjeftur'd from the confequence.
The other argument is, a That, had Agrippa fuf-
pefted the refurreftion a cheat, he would not have
faid to Paul, almoft thou perfuadeft me to be a Chriftian.
Let us examine the force of this argument. Paul
faid to Agrippa, King Agrippa, believeft thou the Pro
phets, and, without waiting for an anfwer, Paul per-
fiiaded him that he believed them : / know that thou.
believeft, faid he. Then 'twas natural for Agrippa
to make fuch an anfwer ; which means no more
than you'd fain perfuade me that I am almoft a
Chriftian ; or, that I believe the Prophets as the
Chriftians do ; or, that I am almoft as mad as you ;
for he had before told Paul he was a madman.
Thus I have run thro' all the arguments in the
tryal. On which fide truth lies I with the reader to
perceive. Perhaps, when I can fee no more, fome
bitter and malignant adverfary, to difplay his talents,
may level all his artillery of wit, learning, and
fpleen, againft me, infiead of anfwering, as the re
verend prieft Mr. Chandler has done againft the mo ra]
» Pag. 50, Afts xxiv.

(72 )
ral philofopher Dr. Morgan, who has fir'd off twenty
fheets to fhoot one of his, and mifs'd the mark.
Should any enquire, what is my end and aim in
all this ? I anfwer, to fhew mankind the ftupid
nature of bigotry, and the wickednefs of perfe-*
curing men for opinions, which will not bear the
enquiry. To convince the world that an hiftorical
faith is no part of true and pure religion, which
is founded only on truth and purity. That it does
not confift in the belief of any hiftory, which,
whether true or falfe, makes no man wifer nor
better. My end is to hold forth the acceptable
light of truth, which makes men free, enables them
to break the bands of creed-makers and impofers
in funde'r, and to caft their cords from us ; and to
fet at liberty captives bruifed with their chains ; to
convince thofe that believe they fee, or that fee only
thro' faith's optics, that their blindnefs remaineth.
My defign is to recover the dignity of virtue, to
promote that veneration for wifdom and truth,
which has been debafed and degraded by faith ; by
a faith which has not fent peace on earth, but afword?
and fit the world on fire ; which has fit a man at va
riance againft his father, and the daughter againft her
mother, and has made a man's foes thofe of his own
houfhold ; a faith which has made men mad, excited
the deareft relations to Hate, b perfecute, deftroy,-
and burn one another, the confequence of hatred:
Where this foolifh faith bears fway, the tree of
knowledge produces damning fruit, while ignorance
is the mother of devotion : Bat under the benign
influence of George our king, in this glorious
time of light and liberty, this divine hag and her
pious witchcrafts, which were brought forth in
darknefs, and nourifh'd by obfcurity, faint at the
approach of day, and vanifh' upon fight.
NOW
• Matt. x. 24, 35, 36. b Luke xiv. 26.

(71 )
NOW having gone thro' the whole affair, with
as much clearnefs and brevity as I am able ; I
proceed to confider what was before pafs'd over of
Mr. B's arguments in favour of the natural poffi
bility of miracles in general f.
To prove the poffibility of things improbable to
reafoh, the Gentleman argues (p. So) That what
nature produces in one country, may be incredible
to people in another ; as cold congealing waters to
ice may be to a man that lives in a hot climate,
who never faw any fuch thing. Be it fo. In this
cafe here's all the evidence of fenfe to prove the
thing where it is ; and of this there are places and
witneffes enow. He that cannot believe, may go
and have fenfible conviftion. And, // an hundred
fuch inftances might be named, 'tis needlefs. For tho'
nothing is more apparently abfurd, than to make one
man's ability in difcerning, and his veracity in report'
ing plain fafts, depend -upon the fkill or ignorance of
the hearer ; yet if fomething be reported to me, or
impofed on me for truth, which appears the lefs to
be fo, the more I examine it : Muft I deny my dif
cerning faculties, and my own veracity in examin
ing ; and depend upon the art or authority of the
reporter or impoftor ? If (as 'tis called) the plain
faft reported be a plain abfurdity to my fenfe and
„ underftanding, and contradictory to the conftant
courfe of nature, fliould I renounce the evidence of
what fenfes are alone capable of trying it, and of
men's common and conftant experience of the
known laws thereof; to depend on the reporters cr
impofers judgment and veracity ; one or both of
which may be to me as queftionable as the report.
If the plain faft pretended to have no other evidence
K but

•f It would fwell this traft too large to recite the words.of the
author. I muft therefore refer to the tryal itfelf, beginning
at p. j9, which is doing ,that Gentleman and the' Reader juftice.-

(74)
but the bare report, and fuch as is inconfiftent
with itfelf, as well as with the reafon of man,' and
the nature of things ; let all impartial men- judge,
whether it is my pre-conceived opinion, or the want
of good evidence, that outweighs the credit of the
reporters, and makes their veracity to be called in quer
ftion. What no man's fenfes ever difcern?d, was
never the objeft of any man's fenfe. If (p. 61)
a ftone appeared to roll up a hill of its own accord
to my fight, I fhould think I had reafon to doubt
the veracity of my eye-fight, or of the object,
Therefore I cannot admit the like faft on the evi
dence of others : Becaufe pretended fafts, which are
contrary to nature, can have no natural evidence,
tho* they may be called pofitive ; that is, they are
pofitively afferted, and muft be as pofitively be
lieved ; for evidence there is none. What concepr
tions any man . frames to himfelf of the courfe of
nature, from his own experience and obfervation, are
not prejudices and imaginations ; but what -fenfe and
reafon are concern'd about. This is the very foun
dation of that right reafon, which can never contra
dift the truth of things.
Any romantic ftory faid to be feen, and heard,
may be called a plain manifeft cafe, difcernible by the
fenfes of men ; of which they are therefore qualified to
be good Witneffes. Things afferted, which are con
trary to the experience., and reafon of all man
kind ; and to what they know of the law and ufual ,
courfe of nature, are, to the common fenfe and un
derftanding of men, utterly impoffible ; becaufe
ftich affertions contradift all men's notions of thofe
laws, that are known by common experience.
Therefore they cannot admit the fafts afferted on
any evidence ; becaufe they in their own nature exclude
all evidence ; as all impoffibilities muft confequently
do. Every miraculous faft then fhould be moft
exaftly fcrutiniz'd in every part, to attain a full
affuranee ..of the poffibility of it. If in any one
point

(75 )
point it efcapes examination, therein the fallacy
may confift; which not being difcern'd, it may pafs
for a real miracle,- tho' a notorious fraud. Nothing
is therefore more apparently abfurd, than to make
fome men's pofitive affertions, without being ever
able to know their veracity, or the truth of the
faft, to be the ftandard of other men's faith.
If our fenfes inform us rightly *¦ what the ufual
courfe of things is, and we conclude that it may be
otherwife, without proper and infallible proof ; we
outrun the information of our fenfes, and the con-
clufion ftands upon prefumption, not upon fenfe
and reafon. Yet fuch conclufions do men form,
who recede from that general courfe, and entertain
miftakes and prejudices. As we know by expe
rience that all men die, and rife no more, there
fore we conclude, for a dead man to rife to life
again, is contrary to the uniform and fettled courfe
of nature. Yet if we argue, that it is not conr
trary nor repugnant to the real laws thereof, as the
Gentleman infinuates, we make the uniform and
fettled courfe, and the real laws of nature, two dif
ferent things. Thus, we argue without any foun
dation, either from fenfe or reafon ; all which in
form us, that it is impoffible for a dead body to
live again : To believe it poffible contradifts this
maxim, That nature is fteady and uniform in ber ope
rations : For one miracle or aftion, done contrary to
her laws, contradifts all her fteady uniform fprings
and movements ; and all that mankind call truth
and reafon. Therefore, I cannot but believe, till
the courfe of nature is changed, ' that it is infinitely
a greater thing to give life to a body once dead,
than to give life and being, in a natural way, to
ten thoufand bodies that never had it ; for the
latter is done daily, the former never. I fee no
K 2 reafon,
s Compare this with Pag; 64. in the tryal.

( 76 J
reafon to allow that poffible to be done, whichV
admits of no poffible proof: For then a way is
opened to allow of any impoffibility. It is very
eafy for any one to bejieve what is commonly done;-
but what is never done, or never can be proved,
may. be called faith, but has no foundation. Be
caufe I cannot account for whatever is demanded,
muft I believe whatever is propofed ? He. that is
perfuaded to believe any thing contrary to the
known laws of nature, becaufe there are things he
does not know,, is feduced to renounce his under
ftanding ; and, becaufe he knows not all poffible
things, is perfuaded to believe that all things are
poffible. Pofitive and prefumptive evidence is of no
weight againft the reafon and nature of things.
Such evidence fhould be rejefted, rather than the
nature of things fhould be fubverted to fupport.
fuch evidence.
It may be objected, That God can. do things
contrary to nature. But what proof is there that
God ever did, or will, if tradition he fet afide, and
men may fufpend their belief, till rationally convin
ced, and the rod of damnation removed from them
for doubting, which drives faith into the timorous,
as a mallet does a wedge into a block ; and in like
manner divides, rends, and weakens the under
ftanding. Where is the proof of it even in any one
miracle, which tradition informs us of- If the
evidence given be infufficient, what method of
conviftion remains ? Were we to go to the place
where report fays it was done, there are no figns of
it left. If we enquire of thofe among whom it was
faid to be done, they know nothing of the matter,
nor can we be fure they ever did. The Apoftles
are faid to have proved the refurreftion by miracles,
biit not one believer can prove it by any now, if
the falvation of all mankind depended on it ; tho*
the power of working miracles was promifed to
all believers, yet none have it. If the true way of •
proving.

I 77 )
proving. the faith is loft, there can be no proof,
that the true faith itfelf is not loft.
Truth requires no man's affent without convic
tion. Therefore (p. 60) the teftimony of others
ought not to be admitted, but. in fuch matters as appear
probable, or at leaft poffible to our conceptions ; or we
may admit any thing. Such things as may be
probable or poffible in nature, but npt to our con
ceptions, require better proof, in proportion as they
appear improbable or impoffible to < our apprehen-
ons. It cannot then be criminal in any man to
vsrith-hold his affent to a propofition, or ftory
related, till he is fully convinced of the truth of
it ; but it-may not be fafe for "a man to yield his
affent tp what he is not fully convinced of j for
this precludes further examination, and eftablifhes
error, with all its confequences.
It is knavery for one man knowingly to miflead
another, folly to deceive ourfelves, and weaknefs
to ' fuffer ourfelves to be deceived. If we err, we
may lead others into error. If we would not be
guile ourfelves, we fhould not encourage others to
do it, but be ftriftly upon our guard againft deceit ;
for fincerity, which is alfo called fidelity and ho
nefty, is the life and foul of true religion ; decep
tion and hypocrify the bane of it. Wicked and
defigning men, who have trumped up a power
fuperior to nature and reafon, to deftroy both,
have depreciated the true born daughter of God,
faithfytlnefs, and anointed the baftard faith in her
room. Thofe, who found religion on extraordina
ry pretentions, fay, that nature, which is the offs
pring of God, is degenerate and deficient ; but it is
their extraordinary art that makes it appear fo.
Miraculpus caufes muft have miraculous effefts;
but it cannot be proved that the latter have never ap
peared, therefore the former want proof.
Natural powers are fit to anfwer all the ends of
virtue and religion ; therefore fupernatural powers are

( 78 )
are needlefs. A man of honefty and underflandrng
needs no fupernatural endowments, to inftrud
mankind in unfpotted fanftity of heart and man
ners, fuch as may render them acceptable to God,
and ufeful to one another ; and confequently make
them as happy as they can be. No extraordinary
or uncommon infpiration is neceffary to teach the
moft excellent morals that were ever taught, with
the reafonable belief of one God, and providence*;
witnefs Confucius, the great Philofopher of China,
who was inferior to none, yet neither a God, nor a
Prophet. He was the reviver of a religion of
which nature was the author, which is as old as their
race, and their country ; which their wife men ftill
efteem and enjoy ; and which God never abolifh'd'-,
tho' he has permitted fools, that difiike it, to chufe .
¦another. I never read, that it was either given, or
confirm'd by miracles ; but truth has no need of
them ; and that which has, hath reafon to be fut
pefted ; for they may be pretended to, to glofs .,
over error, and eftablifh iniquity, but cannot make
that true and good, which is in its own nature
otherwife. A power to work miracles is a power fuperior
to the univerfal laws,' by which the fyftems of things
are govern'd. This is the power of imagination
only ; and contrary to the attributes of God ; to
' that which is the moft clear of all others, his un-
changeablenefs. The fame, caufes muft always pro
duce the fame effefts. But miracles are urged to
prove a change in the will of God ; that is, impof
fible things are pretended, to prove an impoffibility,
or the truth of a falfhood. As this cannot be proved,
fo no fuch proofs were ever given ; and 'tis impoffible
they fhould be. As the will of God cannot change,
neitner can the execution of his power ; which is di
rected by his will. If no fuch change can be, no fuch
changecanbemanifefted. If God can alter his will, or
if the difplaying his eternal wifdom is not equally as
conftant

(79)
conftant and uniform as that wifdom is, he is then
changeable, and may ceafe to be wife and good.
The power of God is ' under the direftion of his
wifdom and goodnefs, and limited thereby, A
Eower to dowhatever js confident with thefe attri-
. utes, denotes abfolute perfeftion. The whole pro
duction, then of this wifdom, goodnefs, and power,
muft be a perfeft work, thereto/ e cannot, be better.
There is no room here for any fuperior or other
power to interfere. God therefore made, and go
verns the world in the beft manner, or it would be
an imperfeft work, and not fhew forth the perfec
tions, but the defeft of the operator ; and, if beft
already, it cannot be made better. If God is a
perfeft being, his works are perfeft, and cannot be
mended ; becaufe he could not limit his wifdom,
goodnefs, or power,' in producing if, without being
guilty of folly, evil, or weaknefs. And, if God
has in creation difplayed his attributes, then all
things, at leaft, collectively taken, and rightly un
derftood, witnefs the perfeftion of his nature. And
if fo, God need not, or cannot exhibit any fuperior
power, and proof of his perfeftion, than what is
commonly known, and conftantly manifeft. If the
power of God is always directed by perfeft wifdom,
no greater can be difplayed, for perfeftion cannot be
mended. The works of a wife operator fhew forth
his fkill in the beft manner poffible ; fo that the
performance may not bring a refleftion on the artift,
' by its want of extraordinary repairs afterwards. If
God be then perfeftly wife, his work is a perfect
work, and wants no miraculous mending power,
nor can admit of it ; it may marr, but cannot mend
that which is beft already. As the work is, fuch is
the workman. As the feed is, fo will be the produce.
From hence it appears, that, as there is no need of
fuch power, fo the impoffibility of it is evident.
But if miracles were ever neceffary, whether the
divine and human nature, or the nature of things be

(8o>
be changeable or unchangeable, they muft be alwaysf
neceffary. For, if God ever wrought miracles, as
the proof of the revelation of his will, he will al
ways purfue the fame method; if he is an unchange
able being-. If the nature of things are unchange
able, the method of attaining the knowledge of
God's will muft be always the fame : And, if hu
man nature be ever the fame, it will ever require the"
fame method of conviftion, or of attaining the
knowledge of the will of God.
If God's will be changeable, then there is a ne-
ceffity for his conftant working miracles, to difcoveg
fuch a change of his will to man ; for fo extraor
dinary a will can never be known to us, without an
extraordinary revelation or difcovery of it, that
we may be certain we are not deceived. But this.
fuppofes God's will arbitrary, and not correfpon-
dent to the apparent reafon, and natural fitnefs of
things. In this cafe, the means, neceffary to know
it by once, are neceffary to know it by always. If
then miracles were once given, there is the fame rea»
fon they fhould' ever be given. But if God acts
agreeable to the natural reafon, and fitnefs of things,
whether the divine, human, and mundane nature
be mutable or immutable, there is no occafion fbr
the interpofition of any miraculous power ; becaufe,
if they change, they all change together, If hu?
man nature changes, then miracles, that were evir
dences of truth at one time, are not fo at another ;«
for different natures require different evidences of
truth ; ahd, in that cafe, what is truth at one time
to a man, will not be fo to him at another. If the
nature of things changes, truth muft change with it,
if they are one ; but, if they are not, then there is
no rule whereby to know what is right ; and then
miracles are always neceffary. But if human nature,
and the fitnefs of things change, contrary to the will
of God, they do not depend thereon ; "or if God's
will changes, and the nature of things do not, it is
not

(St )
not the produftion of his will. Miracles* in thefe
cafes, muft always be neceffary to man, whereby to
know the will of God. So that there muff be great
confufion in nature* if a miraculous power is need
ful to reftify it. But, if there be rectitude in it,
then a miraculous power muft pervert it. If truth
and nature agree, natural powers alone are capable
of difcovering truth, and a fupernatural, or fuperior
power, can only confound it. If men*s natural fa
culties are too weak, or perverfe, to direft them
right, as long as they are naturally fo, a miraculous
power, which was once neceffary rightly to direct
them, will be always fo. For, if man is in common
the fame, he muft have one common way of being
dealt with.
If truth is incapable of difcovering itfelf, it has
no natural nor proper evidence ; and is confequently
unknowable without a miracle ; which unlefs it be
of fuch fort, as is the proper. evidence of the truth
it is wrought to prove, it is improperly done, and
no proof at all. If truth has no proper evidence
of its own nature, it cannot be proved by any evi
dence foreign to itfelf. If then it cannot be known
without fuch miracle, it cannot be known with it.
Power cannot prove a truth it has no relation to. If
fome men's heads and tongues fhould be miracu-
loufly all on fire, it is no proof that a dead man is
rifen again -, for the proof of that depends on their .
report, not on the miracle, that being of a different
nature, and proves nothing lefs, or may prove any
thing elfe, as much as it does the truth of fuch re
port. But if truth be capable of difcovering itfelf;
if natural and proper evidences neceflarily attend it,
it is fufficiently knowable, without the intrufion of
any fupernal power. In both thefe cafes then,
whether truth be capable or incapable of difcovering
itfelf by natural intelligence, powers, and percep
tions, miracles either are always, or never ne-
*»*• • L We

('82)
We are told, that God has wrought wonders for|
the fatisfaftion of one generation, and not for another;;
tho' they are equally neceffary and ufeful to all peo
ple ; but the juftice, mercy, goodnefs, and wifdom.
of G.odj is degraded hereby ; becaufe, by this, God
is reprefented to us as a partial being. Therefore,
the belief of paft miracles is deftruftive to the mo
ral, charafter ofthe Deity. The wonders, which are
faid to be wrought in one age, can never convince a
fober thinker in the next, unlefs there be fuch Jaft-i
ing monuments of them, and they are fo clearly and!
fully evidenced, that they appear to be true againft|
all contradiftion ; nor is it fit they fhould ; for to|
believe miracles were performed in a certain mannerJ
time, and place, of which no fhadow of proof re-*
mains more than in the bare report, is putting faith*?
in the reporters, not in the operators : Thus I may.
be always amufed by fabulous tales, as often as fin>l
pie or bad men pleafe to relate them ; unlefs I can
be fure that no man will lye to ferve a turn, nor can
be impos'd upon to believe a falfe ftory.
But if God afts towards mankind, as the moral'
fitnefs of things requires, there is no occafion for
miracles ; for if reafonable exhortations to virtue,?
and dehortations from vice ; if prudent perfuafion,
and juft laws, will not make people virtuous, no
thing can. But miracles rather force the paffions by
violent, than guide them by gentle means, and drive.
men on without fenfe, than drive fenfe into them.
The furprize feizes the imagination, the perfon no
longer hefitates concerning truth, or deliberates of
virtue ; but is carried away in the full gale of his
paffions, by the rapid torrent of an aftonifhingj
power, that bears down all before it. *
The more men are amufed with miraculous tales,i
they will be diverted from employing their reafon.^
But, when truth is valued, the rational faculties will
be exercifed, enthufiafm finks of courfe, and fuper-
ftition its offspring. The more refpeft is paid to
any

("83 )
any thing fubftituted in the room of truth, and
moral righteoufnefs ; the lefs are thefe regard
ed. The refurreftion of thefe is death to the falfe
righteoufnefs of faith and formality. When men
know they are to have nothing but what they work
for, when they are affured they are not born to an
eftate in the kingdom of heaven of another's pur-
chafing, they will not idly live on the faith of it,
but go to work, and endeavour their utmoft to work
out their own falvation with care and diligence.
To conclude, I am therefore not without hopes,
that, whether this treatife be anfwered or not, it will,
prove of real fervice to religion, and make men's
praftices better ; when they fhall find they have
nothing elfe to depend on for happinefs here and
hereafter, but their own perfonal righteoufnefs,
with their love of wifdom, and Truth. For,
if it be anfwered, Deifts will be filenced, and
infidelity fhall flop her mouth. But if thofe learn-
ed Gentlemen, who are the directors of others,
will not think fit to do it, but chufe to give up fpe-
culative principles, and an hiftorical faith, rather
than contend about them, and to infift only on that
praftice which will recommend men in every reli
gion to the favour of God, the good-will of men,
and the peace of their own confciences, and own,
that the whole of the Chriftian religion, which is
worth contending for, are all relative and fecial
virtues, then the contention between the Chriftian
and Deift will drop. Cenforioufnefs, and reviling,
and flander, and perfecution, and all uncharitable-
nefs, for the fake of religion, fhall ceafe among us.
Thep faithfulnefs fhall be the girdle of our bins. The
bloflbms of wifdom, and fruit of righteoufnefs, will
be the glory of our ifle, and the Lord alone Jhall be
exalted in that day: We fhall give glory to that
unchangeable God, whofe power forms, and whofe
wifdom governs all ; who has no partner in the
L 2 one,

(H)
One, nor direftor in . the other ; whofe goodnefs
and mercy is not purchafed with the blood of a
viftim. His laws, which are plain, univerfal, and
eternal, the Logos, or Reafon only reveals. This.;
is that true divine light, which enlightens all men
• that come into the world who have any degree of un*;
derftanding. It is the gift of the grace of God that'.
appears to all men, and 'tis reafonable they fhould be
accountable for the ufe of it. Let believers think
pf this.
If thefe things CAN be refuted, let them, for
the Truth's fake. Whenever violence is ufed for
argument, 'tis for want of better againft 1NVIN-
, CIBLE' TRUTH. But the wrath of man worked^
not the righteoufnefs of God ; as St. James faith, But
if ye have bitter envyings andftrife in your hearts \ glory
not, and LJE not againft the truth. This wifdom de-
fimdeth not from above-, but is earthly, fenfiial, anddevil-
fjh. For where envying andftrife is,. there is confa-,
fion, and every evil work. But tbe wifdom that is from
'above is firft pure, then peaceable, gentle, and eafy to
be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without
Partiality and without hypomfy.

( §5)

To fave the reader much trouble in turning over the
leaves of his teftament in comparing texts, to note
whether my obfervations on them are juft, I have here
placed together what the gofpel hiftorians fay on the
. fubjeft of the refurreftion in their own words.
I. Ofthe appearance of Jefus Chrift to Mary Magdalene.
St. Matthew, Chap. XXVIII.

I In the end of the fabbath,
as it began to dawn towards the
firft day of the week, came Mary
Magdalene, and the other Mary,
to fee the fepulchre.
z And behold there was a
great earthquake j for the an
gel of the Lord defcended from
heaven, and came and rolled
back the ftone from the door,
and fat upon it.
3 His countenance was like
lightning, and his raiment white
as fnow.
4 And for fear of him the
keepers did fhake, and became
as dead men.
c And the angel anfwered
and faid unto the women, Fear
not ye, for I know that ye feek
Jefus, which was crucified.
6 He is not .here : for he is

rifen, as he faid : come, fee the
place where the Lord.lay.
7 And go quick, and tell his
difciples, that he is rifen from
the dead; and behold, he goeth
before you into Galilee, there
fhall ye fee him, lo, I have
told you.
8 And they departed quickly
from the fepulchre, with fear
and great joy, and did run to
bring his difciples word.
9 And as they went to tell
his difciples, behold, Jefus met
them, faying, All hail. And
they came, and held him by the
feet, and worfhipped him.
i o Then faid Jefus unto them,
Be not afraid : go tell my bre
thren, that they go into Ga
lilee, and there fhall they fee

t And when the fabbath was
paft, Mary Magdalene, and Mary
the mother of James and Salome,
had 'bought fweetfpices, that they
might come and anoint him,
z And very early in the morn
ing,, the firft day of the week,
they came unto the fepulchre at
the riling of the fun.

St. Mark, Chap. XVI.
3 And they faid among them

felves, Who fhall roll us away
the ftone from the door of the
fepulchre ?
4 And when they looked,
they faw that the ftone was rolled
away, for it was very great.
5 And entering into the fe
pulchre, they faw a young man
fitting

( 86 )

fitting on the right fide, clothed
in a long white garment, asd
they were affrighted.
6 And he faith unto them,
Be not affrighted : ye feek Je
fus of Nazareth, which was cru
cified, he is not here : behold
the place where they laid him.
7 But go your way, tell his
difciples and Peter, that he go
eth before you into Galilee:
there fhall ye fee him, as he
faid unto you.
8 And they went out quick
ly, and fled from the fepulchre j

for they trembled, and were
amazed: neither faid they any
thing to any man: for they(
were afraid.
9 Now when Jefus was rifen
early, the firft day of the week,
he appeared firft to Mary Mag
dalene, out of .whom he had
caft feven devils.
io And fhe went and told
them that had been with him,
as they mourned and wept.
1 1 And they, when they had
heard that he was alive, and had
been feen of her, beheved not.

St. John, Chap. XX.

i The firft day of the week
cometh Mary Magdalene early,
when it was yet dark, unto the
fepulchre, and feeth the ftone
taken away from the fepulchre.
z Then fhe runneth, and
cOmeth to Simon Peter, and to
the other difciple whom Jefus
loved, and faith unto them,
They have taken away the Lord
out of the fepulchre, and we
know not where they have laid
him. 3 Peter therefore went forth,
and that other difciple, and came
to the fepulchre.
4 So they run both together:
and the other difciple did out
run Peter, and came firft to the
fepulchre. 5 And he Hooping down,
and looking in, faw the linen
clothes lying, yet went he not
in. 6 Then cometh Simon Peter
following him, and went into
the fepulchre, and feeth the linen
clothes lie.
7 And the napkin that was
about his head, not lying witk
the linen clothes, but wrapped
together in a place by itfeu.

8 Then went in alfo that
other difciple which came firft
to the fepulchre, and he faw,
and beheved.
9 For as yet they knew not
the fcripture, that he muft rife
again from the dead.
io Then the difciples went
away again unto their own
home. 1 1 But Mary flood without
at the fepulchre, weeping : and
as fhe wept, fhe ftooped down,
and looked into the fepulchre.
1 2 And feeth two angels in
white, fitting the one at the
head, and the other at the feet,
where the body of Jefus had
lain. 13 And they fay unto her,
Woman, why weepeft thou?
She faith unto them, Becaufe
they have taken away my Lord,
and I know not where they
have laid him.
14 And when fhe had thus
faid, fhe turned herfelf back,
and faw Jefus Handing, and
knew not that it was Jefus.
1 5 Jefus faith unto her, Wo
man, why weepeft thou ? whom
feekeft thou ? She fuppofing him '
to

(§7;

to be the gardener, faith unto
him, Sir, if thou haft born him
hence, tell me where thou haft
laid him, and I will take him
away. 1 6 Jefus faith unto her, Mary.
She turned herfelf and faith un
to him, Rabboni, that is to fay,
Mafter. 17 Jefus faith unto her,
Touch me not: for I am not

yet afcended to my Father : but
go to my brethren, and fay un
to them, I afcend unto my Fa-'
ther and your Father, and to
my God and your God.
18 Mary Magdalene came
and told the difciples, that fhe
had feen the Lord, and that he
had fpoken thefe thingi untj>
her.

St. Luke, Chap. XXIV.

1 Now upon the firft day of
the week, very early in the
morning, they came unto the
fepulchre, bringing the fpices
which they had prepared, and
certain others with them.
2 And they found the » ftone
rolled away from the fepulchre.
3 And they entered in, and
found not the body of the Lord
Jefus. 4 And it came to pafs, as
they were much perplexed there
about, behold two men flood by
them in fhining garments.
5 And as they were afraid,
and bowed down their faces to
the earth, they faid unto them,
Why feek ye the living among
the dead ?
6 He is not here, he is rifen:
remember how he fpake unto
you when he was yet in Ga
lilee, 7 Saying, The Son of man

muft be delivered into the hand*
of finful men, and be crucified,
and the third day rife again.
8 And they remembered his
words. 9 And returned from the fe
pulchre, and told all thefe things
unto the eleven, and to all the
reft. 10 It was Mary Magdalene,
and Joanna, and Mary the mo
ther of James, and other wo
men that were with them,
which told thefe things unto
the Apoftles.
1 1 And their words feemed
to them as idle tales, and they
beheved them not.
1 z Then arofe Peter, and ran
unto the fepulchre, and ftooping
down, he beheld the linen
clothes laid by themfelves, and
departed, wondering in himfelf
at that which was come to
pafs.

II. Of Chrift's fecond appearance,
two Difciples.

which was to

1 3 And behold two of them
went that fame day to a village
called Emmaus, which was from
Jerufalem about threefcore fur
longs.

14 And they talked together
of all thefe things which had
happened. 1
1 5 And it came to pafs, that
while they communed together and

( 88
and reafoned, Jefus himfelf drew
nigh, and went with them.
16 But their eyes were hold
en, that they fhould not know
him. 1 7 And he faid unto them,
What manner of communica
tions are thefe that ye have one
to another, as ye walk and are
fad? 1 8 And one of them, whofe
name was Cleopas, anfwering,
faid unto him, Art thou only
a ftranger in Jerufalem, and
haft not known the things which
are come to pafs there in thefe
days? 19 And he faid unto them,
What things ? And they faid
unto him concerning Jefus of
Nazareth, which was a pro
phet mighty in deed and word

before God, and all the people
20 And how the chief priefts
and our rulers delivered him to
be condemned to death, and
have crucified him.
2 1 But we trufted that it had
been he which fhould have re
deemed Ifrael: and befide all
this, to-day is the third day
fince thefe things were done.
22 Yea, and certain women
alfo of our company made us,
aftonifhed, which were early at
the fepulchre :
23 And when they found
not his body, they came, fay
ing, th?t they had alfo feen a
vifion of angels, which faid that
ie was alive.
24 And certain of them
which were with us, went to
the fepulchre, and found it even
fo as the women had faid ; but
him they faw not.

) 25 Then he faid unto them;
O ye fools, and flow of heart
to believe all that the prophets
have fpoken !
26 Ought not Chrift to have
fuffered thefe things, and to en
ter into his glory ?
27 And beginning at Mofes
and all the prophets, he ex
pounded unto them in all the
fcriptures^ the things concerning
himfelf. 28 And they drew nigh unto
the village, whither they went :
and he made as though he would
have gone further.
29 But they conftrained him,
faying, Abide with us, for it is
towards evening, and the day is
far fperit : and he went in to
tarry with them.
30 And it came to pafs, as

he fat at meat with them, he
took bread and blefled it, and
brake, and gave to them.
3 1 And their eyes were open
ed, and they knew him, and he
vanifhed out of their fight.
32 And they faid one to an
other, Did not our heart burn
within us, while he talked with
us by the way, and while he
opened to us the fcriptures ?
33 And they rofe up the fame
hour, and returned to Jerufalem;
and found the eleven gathered
together, and them that were
with them,
34 Saying, The Lord is ri
fen indeed, and hath appeared
to Simon. 3 5 And they told what things
were done in the way, and how
he was known of them in break
ing of bread.

St. Mark,

<*9)

St. Mark, Chap. XVl.

i 2 After that he appeared in
another form to two of them,
as they walkedj and went into
. the country.
III. Of the appearande of Jefus,
the Apoftles.

1 3 And they went and told
it to the refidue: neither be*.
lieved they them.

which- was to dl

St. Matthew, Chap. XXVIII.

1 6 Then the eleven difciples
Went away into Galilee, into a
mountain, where Jefus had ap-
pointed'them; 17 And when they raw him,
they worfhipped him j but fome
doubted. •' •'
18 And Jefus came!, and ¦
fpake unto them, faying, All
power is given unto me in hea
ven and in earth.

19 Go yej therefore, and
teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Hdly
Ghoft. 20 Teaching them to obferve
all things whatfoever I have
commanded you ; and lo, I am
with yOu always even to the end
of the world.

St. Mark, Chap. XVI.
14 Afterward he appeared they fhall fpeak
unto the eleven, as they fat at

meat, and upbraided them with
their unbelief* and hardnefs of
heart, becaufe they believed not
th«m which had feen him after
he was rifen.
15 And he faid unto them,
Go ye into all the world, and
preach the gofpel to every crea
ture. 16 He that believeth, and is
baptized, fhall be faved; but
he that believeth not fhall be
. damned. 1 7 And thefe figns fhall fol
low them that believe; ia.my
Hame they fhall caft out devils,

with neW
tongues. 18 They fhall take up f«r-
pents, and if they drink any1
deadly thing, it fhall not hurt
them ; they fhall lay hands on
the fick, and they fhall re
cover. 19 So then after the Lord
had fpoken unto them, he was
received up into heaven, and
fat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth and
preached every where, the Lord
working with them* and con
firming the word wkh figns fol
lowing. Amen.

M

St. Luke,

( 9° )

St. Luke, Chap. XXIV.

36'*Attd"-a6 they thus fpake,
Jems himfelf flood in the midtt
of them, arid faith unto them,
Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified
and affrighted, and fuppofed
that they had feen a fpirit.
38 And he faid unto them,
Why are ye troubled? And'
why do thoughts rife in your
hearts ?
39 Behold my hands and my
feet, that it is I myfelf: handle
me, and fee, for a fpirit -hath
not flefh and bones, as ye fee
me have.
40 And when he had thus
fpoken, he fhewed them his
hands and his feet.
4 1 And while they yet be
lieved not for joy, and won
dered, he faid unto them. Have
ye here any meat ?
42 And they gave him a
piece of a broiled ' fifh, and of
an honey-comb.
43 And he took it, and did
eat before them.
44 And he faid unto them,
Thefe are the words that I
fpake unto you, while I was
yet with you, that all things
muft be fulfilled which were
Written in the Jaw of Mofes,

and in the prophets, and in tha
pfalms concerning me.
45 Then opened he their un
derftanding, that they might un
derftand the fcriptures,
46 And faid unto them, Thus.
it is written, and thus it be.
hoved Chrift to fuffer, and to
rife from the dead the third
day: 47 And that repentance' and
remiffionof finsfhouldbepreacliT ;
ed in his name among all nations,
beginning at Jerufalem.
48 And ye are witneffes of
thefe things.
49 And behold, I fend the
promife of my father upon youj
but tarry ye in the city of Je
rufalem, until ye be endued
with power from on high.
50 And he led them out as
far as Bethany : and he lift up
his hands, arid bleffed them.
51 And it came to pafs, while
he bleffed them, he was parted
frpm them, and carried up in
to heaven. 52 And they worlhipped him,
and returned to Jerufalem with
great joy :
53 And were continually in
the temple, praifing and blef7
fmg Qod. Amen.

St. John,
19 Then the fame day at
f vening, being the firft day of
the week, when the doors were
fhut, where the difciples were
alfembled fbr fear of the Jews,
came, Jefus and ftood in the
midft, and faith unto them,
Peace be unto you.
20 And when he had fo faid,

Chap. XX.
he fhewed unto them his hands
and his fide. Then were the
difciples glad when they faw
the Lord.
2 1 Then faid Jefus unto them
again, Peace be unto -you: a§
my Father hath fent me, even
fo fend I you, 22 And

(9i )
22 And when he had faid 23 Whofe foever fins ye re.
this, he breathed on them, and mit, they are remitted unto
faith unto them, Receive ye the themj and whofe foever fins ye
'Holy Ghoft. retain, they are retained.
Another appearance.

24 But Thomas, one of the
twelve, called Didymus, was
not with them when Jefus came.
25 The other difciples there
fore faid unto him, We -have
feen the Lord. But he faid
unto them, Except I fhall fee
in his hands the print of the
nails, and put my finger into
the print of the nails, and thruft
my hand into his fide, I will
not believe.
26 And after eight days again
his difciples were within, and
Thomas with them : then came
Jefus, the doors being fhut, and

flood in the midft, and faid,
Peace be unto you.
27 Then faid he to Thomas,
Reach hither thy finger, and be
hold my hands ; and reach hi
ther thy hand, and thruft it •
into my fide; and be not faith-
lefs, but believing.
28 And Thomas ahfwered
and faid unto him,. My Lord
and my God.
29 Jefus faith unto him,Thor,
mas, becaufe thou haft feen me,
thou haft believed : bleffed are
they that .have not feen, and
yet have believed.

St. John relates another appearance of Jefus after this, to feven
Difciples at the fea of Tiberias, where he wrought a miracle
in catching fifh, and dined with them. Cpnfirmed Peter in his
love, and bade him follow him, but where is not faid. This
is Jefus' s third and laft appearance to his Difciples, according to
St. John, Chap. xxi.
FACT'S of the APOSTLES.
CHAP. I.

1 The former treatife have I
made, O Theophilus, of aU
that Jefus began both to do and
teach. 2 Until the day in which he
was taken up, after that he,
through the Holy Ghoft, had
given commandments unto the
apoftles whom he had chofen.
3 To whom alfo he fhewed
himfelf alive after his paffion,
by many infallible proofs, be
ing feen of them forty days, aud

fpeaking of the things pertain?
ing to the kingdorn of God.
4 And being affembled to-
. gether with them, commanded
them that they fhould not' de
part from Jerufalem, but wait
for. the' promife of the Father,
which, faith he, ye have heard
of me.
5 For John truly baptized
with water ; but ye fhall be bap
tized with the Holy Gholt not
many days hence. 6 Wheit

( 92 )
6 When, they therefore were after that the Holy Ghoft* ii
come upon you^ and ye fhall

tome together, they afked him,
faying, Lord, wilt thou at this
time reftore again the kingdom
to Ifrael?
7 And he faid unto them,
It is not for you to know the
times or the feafons, which
• the Father hath put in his dwn
power. 8 But ye fhall receive power

ye
be witneffes unto me both in
Jerufalem and in all Judea, and
in Samaria, and unto the utter-
moft parts of the earth. :
9 And when he had fpoken|
thefe things, while they be- ,
held, he was taken up, and a
cloud received him out of theij?
fight

I. Corinthians, Chap. XV.

3 I delivered Unto you firft
«f allj that which I alfo re
ceived, how that Chrift died for
our fins, according to the fcrip
tures. 4 And that he was buried,
and that he rofe again the third
day, according to the fcriptures :
5 And that he was feen of
Cephas, then of the twelve..

6 After that he was feen of
above 500 brethren at once : of
whom the greater part remain
unto this prefent, but fome are-
fallen afleep.
7 After that, he was feen of
JameS; then of all the apoftles.
8 And laft of all, he was-
feen of me alfo, as of one bofal
out of due time.

FINIS,

ERRATA.

Dele page 12. line 33. that, P.48.L z* not. p. 5*0.1. 14. falfej
_« '6. true*.

THE
RESURRECTION RECONSIDERED. BEING AN
ANSWER T O T H E
Clearer and Others.

[ Price One Shilling. ]

THE
RESURRECTION RECONSIDERED. BEING AN
ANSWER TO THE
Clearer and Others.
By Way of Dialogue between the
CONSIDERER and his FRIEND.

By the Author of The Refurreftion of Jesus Con-
fidered, in Anjwer to the Trial of the Witneffes.
PART I.
§)uod fuperefi, vacuas aureis mihi Memmiada, et te
Semotum a curis adhibe ver dm ad rationem,
Ne mea dona tihifiudio difpofia fideli,
Intellefta prius quamfint contemta relinquas. — Lu cre T.
Thou Reader, who art free from other Cares,
< Receive right Reafon's Truth with well-purg'd Ears j
Left what I write, and fend you for your good,
Be fcorn'd and damn'd before well underftood.

LONDON:
Printed for the Author ; And Sold by M. Cooper in
Pater-nofiler-Row, and the Bookfellers of London zs\&
Wefiminfier. 1744.

THE

INTRODUCTION.

READER,
WHOEVER thou art that lookeft into
this Controverfy, by whatever Cu
riofity induced ; Curiofity leads to
Freedom, to Knowledge, to Troth,
and to Felicity. No Being can go further,' none
defires it: I fay, whoever thou art, tread prudent
ly the Path that leads to Happinefs ; be not rafh to
condemn unheard, nor pafs the Sentence of Igno
rance againft that Truth, which fears not thy moft
impartial Inflection, thy niceft Scrutiny, thy pro-
foundeft Search, but earneftly calls for it, and
eagerly courts it; which defires nothing more, and
fears nothing lefs. Look with a human Eye oVer
human Frailties : Do not expeft that Perfeftion in
Infidels, by the affiftance of their Reafon, which
you cannot find in Believers, affifted with their
Holy Ghoft: Be not fo unreafonably partial, fo ftu-
pidly deluded, to expeft thofe to work Miracles,
who deny the power of doing them. Take us as
we are, as your felves are, men with human fail
ings : We pretend to no Authority above you, no
^extraordinary Gifts that you have not, are no more
the Almighty's Favourites than' you ; do not de
ceive your felves by imagining, you are more {o,
than we : If you fancy you are, and call this fan-
A cy,

2 The INTRODUCTION.
cy, paith, New Birth, the Operations of Grace,
the Work of the Spirit, and fuch like ¦, Come now,
and let us reafon together, as, in the Name of the
Lord, faid the Prophet Ifiaiah: And the God that
anfwers by Fire, by the fiery trial of Examina-
tion, by the fpiritual light of penetrating and dif-
tinguifhing Reafon, by clear convincing Argu
ment, Let him be God; Let that be Truth:
And let the contrary fide be look'd upon, as it is,
pious Fraud, bold Impofture, and ftrong Delufion.
This Argument has no evil tendency, as lbme may
imagine, to deftroy all Religion : On the contrary,
it tends to eftablifh true Religion* by the difcovery
of Truth, to fhew that 'tis not the mere effeft of
Credulity erefted on the Bafis of an hiftorical Faith ;
but that its Foundation is in, and not but of Na
ture : For if you would mount as high as the
afpiring Ladder of man's fublimeft ftretch of judg
ment can carry you, 'tis Nature all the way : Be
yond it no Philofopher, but Fools prefume; if the
prefumption be fincere ; Knaves if it be not. The
tendency of this Argument will be to lead us to
enquire, Whether Religion fhould be founded on
the Reafon and Nature of things, or on thofe that
have neither Nature nor Reafon for their founda
tion, proof, or plea; which have no natural ten
dency to civilize mens manners, nor illuminate '
their minds. This Argument will plainly difcover,
that the Relation we ftand in one towards another,
and the fitnefs of behaviour thofe feveral Relations'
require, u-nalterably declare what the will of God
and Man's duty is : That Mens ignorance that this
is Truth, and of what this Truth informs us/ is
owing to their neglefting the proper Ufe of their
Ratiocination : Seeking the one pure and plain Reli
gion elfewhere, leads men out of it. Another
true Foundation can no man lay, than
2 THAT

The INTRODUCTION. 3
THAT WHICH GoD HAS EVER LAID IN NA
TURE.
Traditional and Hiftorical Fafts may be preca
rious and 'uncertain ; and the moft wonderful are
the moft improbable. If the Laws of Nature are
unchangeable, no work can be wrought contrary
to them; nor can they contradift themfelves. If
changeable, there can be no dependance on any
thing: For what can interfere or fet them afide,
muft of necefiity fet afide all Criterions of Truth,
and all poffible Knowledge of it. If then there be
any Truth that may be depended on, what is found
ed on this bottom muft remain evidently, and un
changeably fo, till Nature changes, and can fuffer
no mutation by miracles. Nature is obftinate, and
.parts with1 its frame, -when it parts with its quality :
It cannot diveft itfelf of itfelf: And that which
-may be fuppofed, or imagined able to do it, is al
together mere. Suppofition and Imagination : Be
caufe it can be only faid, not proved : And all fuch
are at beft but precarious Principles., The Argu
ment on my fide then, is fo far from being perni
cious, or deftruftive of Religion, that it tends to
fix it on true, folid, and eternal Principles ; which
are every where of the fame importance, liability
and Luftre.
The Social duties of Mankind are eafy to be un
derftood, fit to be praftifed, and productive of Fe-
licity : Their plainnefs fhews their fitnefs and ufeful-
nefs, and their Tendancy difcovers their lovelinefs
and excellency : Were they obfcure, intricate, and
myfterious, their fitnefs would be difficult to appre
hend ; their ufefulnefs to promote man's mutual
and focial happinefs would not appear. Myftery
and Obfcurity are not productive of Knowledge.
Thofe are the Regions of Impofition and Igno
rance, where Reafon is condemn'd. In this Domi
nion therefore, Knaves only reign, and only Fools
A 2 obey.

4 , The I N T R O D U C T I O N.
obey ;, and what real Goodnefs can keep fuch
Company ? Religion, which is not natural is artifi
cial, and is made up of Invention and Myftery ;
this is a Market in which the Liberties, Properties,
and Souls of men are bought and fold : By their
fruifs you fhall know them : 'Tis beneficial to the
Teaphers, but. prejudicial in Praftice. The Doc*
fors gain what the Difciples lofe by it ; the- more
Poverty the ftupid Believers embrace, the more
Opulence and Luxury the Preachers enjoy : The
more the Convert gives, the more the Church
receives. All in a falfe Religion are fheepifh prey^
or ravening wolves: But the true, is .natural and
divine, agreeable to, and worthy of God , and Na
ture, pure, plain, and perfeft, of moft advantage •
to thofe that praftife it beft. The artificial Rel^.
gion puzzles and confounds the Student, it bewil
ders him in a Maze of Confufion in the knowledge;
of good and evil, and uncertainty of right and
wrong. But that of Nature clears his Apprehen
fions, and informs his Judgment, producing Satis*
faftion and Serenity, Joy and Tranquility. Rea<-
fon and Nature uncorrupted by bad Education or
regenerated from it, afford the Poffeflbr, Pleafures
pure, difpaffionate, and harmonious; by difpafi-
fionate, I mean, a calm and ferene joy, which is
always the fame as to quality, tho' not as to mea
fure ; widely different from the girds and ftarts,
and convulfive raptures of Saints, which high tide
of the fpirits rolling rapidly on, leaves the Channelo
dry. Not fb the Charms of Philofophy, it has all
the majefty and harmony of Divinity within ; and
without, 'tis all manly, juft, and good. But Re
ligion, form'd by human Inventions, produces Per<-
plexity, Perturbation, and Difcord, which men fear
to keep, and fear to part with ; becaufe 'tis found
ed on precarious Principles, and at times is a hell
within co their Souls, as well as occafions a hell
without'

The INTRODUCTION. 5
without to the world: What horrors has it not
begotten? What iniquity has it not brought forth?
By its fruits you fhall know it.
Of how much more Importance the Subject is,
or is reprefented to be, the Enquiry is fo much the
more reafonable and neceffary. Where no Exami
nation is, there is no proof of Truth, nor under
ftanding of it. Where no Search is, nothing can
be found but by accident, and feldom in this-ftate
is rightly known ; therefore not rightly valued, or
efteemed. Where no Knowledge is acquired, no
true Judgment formed, no mental Faculties impro
ved, Truth is not found. Precious Jewels do not
lay open to every eye. Trees that produce the
moft -delicious fruits muft be cultivated ; and Plants
that bring. forth the fineft flowers muft be carefully
managed. Truth is the moft inviting Fruit, and
the moft -beautiful Flower that adorns the Elyfian
fields, and beds of Paradice : Its natural Soil is the
human mind. It is worth while to thofe that prize
the moft valuable thing, to cultivate the garden of
their Minds, to plant therein the feed of Know
ledge, and water the fprig of Underftanding, that
the Divine fragrancy may flow out : So thou Reader
fhalt be filled with God, and the Rays of the Di
vinity will enoble thy thoughts, adorn thy fpeech,
and direft thy ways. See to it then what fort of
Religion or Principles you embrace, and be very
wary what you take upon truft. A Religion built
on fallible, human Tradition, is fallible, and hu
man. Why fhould that be infallibly depended on,
or how can that be fafely credited, which is not
erefted on infallible Principles, but on things that
are, or may be uncertain ; or if they are true, we
cannot know them to be io? Obfcurity and Uncer
tainty are the beft Cloaks for Error to wrap itfelf
in. Cuftom introduced by. Tradition, co'nfe'crates
and' gives it a Sanction. But fundamental Prin
ciples
r

6 The INTRODUCTION.
ciples of Truths neceffary for man's knowledge,
are clear, and certain: True Philofophy founded
on Nature's Laws, prefents to man's view an infal
lible Rule of ufeful Knowledge, and right Con
duft. This is the fecureft reft, the fafeft retreat
from the tempeft of giddy Opinions, that as Rocks,
deftroy mens Reafon,. and as Sands, fwallow up
their Underftandings. Thofe laws of Religion
which demand the Obedience of all, fhould be evi
dent enough -to convince the Reafon of all. To be
enjoyn'd to believe what is not only precarious, but
improbable, or to be damn'd, is Caufe fufficient to
rejeft the Impofition. There is a World of reafon
to defpife that Authority, . which defpifes the Au
thority of the Reafon of the world ; and what
makes no ufe of man's rational faculty, renders it
ufelefs : Thefe powers not exercifed, are rejefted.
And if aught elfe is preferr'd in their ftead, it is to
thruft them out. No man can love God the giver,
that difefteems or neglefts Reafon, which is his
Gift ; for all that can be known of God by man is
known only by this light. This is all the Image
man has of' the Divinity, 'tis this alone which
exalts him above all other Creatures on this Globe.
This is the Ray of Heaven in man, which never
was, nor can be excelled by any fupernatural
Revelation, pretended, or real ; for a greater, or
more glaring Light muft dazzle the human mind,
but cannot enlighten it. If greater ever was", or
could be given, that it may be made ferviceable,at
muft be made rational: A lefs cannot direft men,
and a greater muft diftraft them : Both thefe dif-
play no Certainty, or Truth. What is above our
Comprehenfion, is of no ufe to us. And thofe
things that puzzle the wit of man to reconcile, and
defend, which if they couid be done, are no clue to
guide the reafonable mind to Wifdom and Virtue,
are of no fervice to man, tho' long harangues may be

The INTRODUCTION, 7
be made thereon : For what Truth is it, the wit of
man cannot contradift ? Or what Falfhood is that,
which he cannot fay fomething in favour of? But I
am fenfible all that can be faid, will be to little
.purpofe to difprove the plain dictates of natural
Reafon to thofe that can fee the light of it. In the
cafe of Religion* there is no Medium ; what is
not infallibly right, is infallibly wrong. Therefore
this Enquiry tends to found Religion on the bafis of
Reafon, and right Aftion, on fix'd, and eternal
Principles ; tho' it may chance to fubvert the falfe
Foundation of an Hiftorical faith, on which the
Deities of Jupiter Ammon, the Delphic Apollo,
.the Ephefian Diana, and every man-made God,
or woman Goddefs, that ever was in the World
were founded. If Traditional Faith be facred, with
out the fcrutinizing eye of Profane Reafon, their
Divinities. are unqueftionably equal. Or if the be
lief of romantic Fafts, and abfurd Notions, will
awe a man into Godlinefs, no doubt but Faith in
any of thofe Gods had a very godly tendency.
Mr. Tipping Silvefter, like an honeft Church-man,
has wrote his Evidence of the Refurreftion of Jefus
vindicated for the ufe of the Church ; therefore, I
fhall fay but little to it, being determined not to
rob it of fuch a Treafure, but leave him and the
Church in quiet poffeflion of fuch- arguments as
are fit for them only to ufe. Yet, as I go along,
if I find any thing worthy my notice, I fhall take
it into Confideration : And if I meet with any
Blunders and Errors in my way, (to one kind or
other of which all men are fubjeft) I intend ei
ther to pafs them over in filence, or treat them in a
manner not unbecoming the dignity of a Moral
Philosopher. Mr. Samuel Chandler has pretended to anfwer the
Refurreftion Confidered without naming the book,
out of a pious care to his P.eaders poor Souls, left
they

8 The INTRODUCTION.
they fhould eat of the tree of Knowledge, and be
damn'd by our Lord God the Prieft, who is the
only Lord God that ever prohibited the feeding oh
that fruit ; or left they fhould eat of the tree of
Life, that is, the tree df Underftanding, (Prov. iii.
1 8.) and live for ever without dependence on his
Inftruftions, and the fervile fear of his woful
Denunciation, of being expelled the Paradice of
Fools. For a general Confutation of alt he "has
faid, I fhall only fhew how he has done it himfelf:
His verbofe work is labour'd quibbles, ftrain'd
fenfe, far fetch'd meanings, guefles, and prooflefs
affertions infiead of Arguments. And being confci
ous to himfelf that he has wrote much and little to
the purpofe, he refts the matter with his Reader feo^'.
to confider what is of real weight or conse-
qjience ; (p. 170.) fo that this Piece of his, is of
no real weight or confequence, becaufe what he allows
to be fuch, is yet to come. But as his heat has
finged his Reputation, as a Writer, to defend the
Charafter of Jofeph and his Brethren; I am appre--
henfive he will have enough to do to juftify his
own and theirs.
Mr. Chandler, in his Sermon, on the neceffary
and immutable Difference between Moral Good
and Evil Afferted and Explained fays, p. 36.
1. We may fie the Great Wifdom of God, and his
great* Goodnefs to Mankind, in making thofe Things,
which are of the greateft Importance to them, and in
which their Duty and Happinefs is moft direftly and
effentially concerned, to be fo exceeding evident and
plain to them, as that if they will but ufe their Under-
fiandings, they may as plainly diftinguifh and difcertt
them, as they can any fiffihle Objefts with their eyes, '
or fuch Things as are pleafant and wholefome, by their
Tafte and Palate. Therefore moral Knowledge and
Practice is of the greateft importance, and that Faitlv
the leaft, that is the leaft evident.
2. We

The INTRODUCTION. 9
2. We, may infer from what hath been faid, how
ftrong and unchangeable all Mens Obligations are tb
the Praftice of Religidn and Virtue ; as unchangeable
as the very Nature and Reafon of Things, and as their
Inclinations are to purfue Pleafure before Pain, and to
embrace Happinefs in preference to Mifery. If Reli
gion and Virtue are founded 'On the ftrong and un-.
changeable Obligations of the very Nature and Rea
fon of things, then that Faith which is contrary to
the Nature and Reafon of things, is no Religion
nor Virtue ; and confequently, there is no Obliga
tion in Reafon or Nature to" receive it.
3. We may infer the great - Folly and Abfurdity of
Mens giving favourable Names to Vice, and endea
vouring, to fcreen the Malignity and Deformity of it+
by the honourable Appellations of Virtue.— Thus fome
men who are fordidly penurious and covetous, would
fdin have it all pafs for frugality, and the commenda
ble Care of their Families and Friends. Revelling
dnd Drunkennefs is changed into Good-nature and
Fellowfhip. Leudnefs wears the genteel Name of
Gallantry and Politenefs. Ambition and Envy coyer
their Deformity, and become reputable and popular by
putting on the Garb and Merit of Patriotifm. Cen-
fure and Reproach, Reviling and Scandal put off their
Fury dfefs, and make their appearance in the facred
habit of Sanftity and Zeal. Thus changed, not in
Nature, but appearance and Name, Vice is fometimes-
embraced and harboured as a Heavenly Virtue. But
is not fuch a Conduft an Argument of the extrem'eft
folly? Can any one imagine, that by mifcalling Vice,
they can transform it into a real perfeftion, and t hits
confound the unalterable Nature and Differences of
things ? Should Satan drefs himfelf like an Angel of
Light, be would be Satan ftill ; his. Nature would con
tinue the fame, tho' his appearance was altered ; and
his Qualities be truly devilijh, under the moft radiant
drefs of Celeftial Glory, &c — I may add, a ftupid
B Credulity,

10 The INTRODUCTION.
Credulity, the Belief of Lies and Nonfenfe, wears
the fanftified Mafk of Faith in God, and depen--
dance on his word. Further to apply this in almoft*
his own words : Whatever is contrary to God and his
Laws, to the Truth and Reafon, and the immutable
Nature of things, and to the true Honour of God and
happinefs of men, palliate it as much as you pleafe^ '.
and call it by whatever favourable Names you will,
harbour it in your Breafts and it will defile you : In
dulge it in your lives, and it wjll fink you under fub-
ftantial guilt : Compare it with the Rule of Reafon.
and the Law of God, (that is, the known Laws of
Nature, the eternal Rules of the Relations and fit
nefs of things) and it will immediately appear in its
true Deformity.
All this may be faid of that Faith which is fet in
the room of, and fubftituted for Righteoufnefs. : If
Faith be not in it felf Righteoufnefs, to impute or
efteem it fuch, is a Deception, is Hypocrify, and
confequently a very malignant Vice. Thus Faith
makes men believe they are what they are not,
that they are really righteous, when they are ha-,
bitually wicked. I fay habitually, for it muft be
habitude in ignorance that can thus debauch the
Underftanding, and debafe their reafoning facul
ties ; thus to put one thing for another, 'tis calling.
evil good, and good evil, 'tis palpably putting dark-
nefsfor light, and light for darknefs, to reprefent as
fome do, that all mens good works or moral righ
teoufnefs out of, or without faith, is Sin ; but that
faith it felf is righteoufnefs- without works. This is
an unrighteous Cheat to obtund the pangs of Con-.
fcience, and exclude the Rays of Reafon from en
lightening it. How can believing a Story that is told,
beHolinefs? Belief and Holinefs are different things:.
That there is virtue, value, merit, worth, or righ
teoufnefs in barely believing a fet of Principles, or
a certain Story, is partiality, and partiality is a fin; 'tis

The INTRODUCTION. n
'tis to be partial in Judgment, which is an unrigh
teous thing. . So that 'tis fo far from being righte
oufnefs, that 'tis the very contrary. That the em
bracing, a certain Opinion fhould bring one into the
good Opinion of Deity, is furely to be much opi
nionated ; this favours of little Reafon and much
Self-conceit. One would fcarce believe this to be as
true as the Gofpsl, if one did not know it to be
Gofpel, or if the Preachers of the Gofpel" did not
affirm it to be fo. But furely it is falfe righteouf
nefs to believe a falfe, Story, if it be true righte
oufnefs to believe Truth. If this be the point, that
Faith is Virtue, or Virtue Faith ; which however
will not be granted by me, till I feev it proved.
How careful fhould men be that they are not de
ceived in having that true Faith or Righteoufnefs
which is acceptable to God, and not by Faith be de
luded with Spiritual Sorcery, with a Faith > that
upon examination proves manifeftly wrong. To
believe things difhonourable of God, is furely bring
ing no Honour to him ; and is, I think, if any
thing be, a Sin "againft God. As to believe God
cannot, ©r will not fhew Mercy to guilty perfons,
unlefs. he takes vengeance on an innocent perfon;
that he will not fave the unrighteous, unlefs he con
demns the righteous; that God the Father is not
good nor beneficent to man, unlefs God the Son
makes him fo ; and that God the Holy Ghoft is.
implacable, and will not forgive Sins committed a-
gainft himfelf; nor the Sdn forgive thofe that do
not believe in him. Is this Faith called Righteouf
nefs which, makes *b& God/ unrighteous! And is
this the faith that muft fave mankind, which damns
both Gods and men. Lord fave us Infidels or we
perifh! O Good God, we can fopner be damn'd
than have fo S an Opinion of thee, fo un
righteous a faith, and believe it righteoufnefs. » Why
didft thou not, O God, make us as ftupid as Be
fi 2 lievers-

12 The INTRODUCTION,
lievers, that .we might believe-- thefe things and be
faved. If thou art no more gracious .than thy wor-^
fhippers make thee, thou wilt have but little wor
fhip from us, however fond thou mayeft be of hu
man worfhip : We will not feek other Gods to pro
voke thee to jealoufy and anger : We fhall fooner
herd with Atheifts, and believe with fools that there
is no God, than that there is fuch a God as Knaves
reprefent thee. And If thou damn us for this, we
are damn'd with a good .Confcience, and hell can
not be hell if that be there. So that if our bodies
be quiet, our Souls w,ill be fafe enough. If there
is no material fire in Hell, there is no immaterial,
that can hurt honeft Infidels.
Why fhould any people's believing what they
are told, make them more pleafing to their Maker
than thofe that do not : That think with reafon the
Story had not God for its maker ; and if it had,
Man has told it fince ; and if it be truly faid that
every man is a liar, then to believe any Story not
immediately told from, God himfelf, is not believing!
in God, but believing a Liar. But is crediting
things with reafon, or not giving credit to them
without, not having Faith in God? Or does taking
things upon truft make us the wifer or better men,
certainly the Contrary; for it makes us the more
ftupid, and what viilaay may not a ftupid wretch
commit! Implicit Faith then is fo far from making
men better, that it makes them worfe, it makes
them Fools, and may render them Villains. Add
to the ftupidity of the Righteoufnefs of Faith, a
meafure of Godly Zeal, _and thefe two Religious
qualities, are capable of making any people the
vileft in every refpeft that it is poffible they can
be: No Ingredients from ""the fink of Hell can
make them more compkat Devils, £r more infernal.
Furies. *

The INTRODUCTION. ^
He that believes- and vindicates falfe things, is
an Enemy -to Truth. He that believes what is dis
honourable to God and pernicious to right action,
embraces ungodly and unjuft Principles, and thefe
put into praftice, he is unrighteous in faft. 'Tis
no wonder if fuch an evil tree has produced fo
much evil fruit. Sentiments contrary to Truth
and Good Manners cannot be good, cannot, be of
God, if God be good.- Men do not gather Grapes
of thorns, nor Figs of thiftles : And as you may
know the Tree by its fruits, fo you may know the
Fruits by the Tree if ever it be pregnant. Be not
deceived. Evil Communications corrupt good manners.
Why has any one Religion been worfe in its Con
fequences than any other ? It muft be becaufe it was
worfe in its Nature. The Child commonly takes
after the Parent, bad Praftices naturally flow from
bad Principles. There is no evil done fo heartily
as the evil that is done for God's fake; nothing but
the moft perverted Faith can teach men to hate fa
ther and mother, and wife and brethren, and chil
dren, and one's own life for the Caufe of Religion :
'Tis irreligion in the moft pernicious degree. Net
Sort of Religion can require it but the moft affum-
ing Tyranny ; and no religious .creature can praftice
it, but fuch as are funk into the moft abject Slave
ry, into the dregs of Spiritual Infatuation, and en-
thufiaftic Bigottry. That Faith then that is -not
right, is unrighteous; and therefore- is fo far from
being righteoufnefs, that it is fin to harbour it, the
very Seed of fin, a Serpent in one's bofom. Let a
Heavenly Ardour then, O Reader, rouze your le
thargic Soul, bruife its head, and break its yoke
from off your Neck ; for this is the Caufe of Truth,
of Goodnefs it felf, and of pure Religion : For
tho' men may believe, bad things, and praftice
'good ; may entertain a falfe Faith, and yet love
Truth j it is becaufe they are ignorant that their
2 belief

J4 The INTRODUCTION.
belief is fa!fe? and therefore naturally prejudicial^ to
Truth, and produAive of evil. Let us then (in
Mr. Chandler's words) return to the original Truth
and Simplicity of things ;. nor deceive our felves by mifi
reprefienting or over looking them. Let Scandal, re
proach, cenforioufnefs', and rafh judgment ever be ab-
borr'd as certain proofs of a diftempered, envious, and
tigqtted mind ; and as jure Marks not of a religious,
but of an enthufiaftic and fuperftitious Zeal, that hath
neither knowledge to enliven it, nor reafon, humanity,
or confidence to direft it.
That the Truth of a Religion fhould be founded
on barely believing it to be true, fhews its founda
tion is eftablifhed on Credit ; and that if it be dif-
credited, the Truth difappears. To fay that belief
is the Bafis of man's acceptance with God, is to fay
that our acceptance with God is imaginary. To
fuppofe Faith to be man's principal Virtue, or
Righteoufnefs, is to deftroy the very nature of vir
tue, and of righteoufnefs : For this confifts in pu
rity of heart and manners, but much faith may be
where there is little goodnefs or none at all ; there
fore Goodnefs and Faith are diftinft things. And,
indeed, the men of faith give it up, for they dare
not ftand the battle, they never enter the lifts of
Difputation with us. Our Contention is only with
thofe that have mix'd Reafon with faith, that have
made a Linfey-woolfey Garment ; and, like the old
Samaritans, worfhip the Lord and thejr own God?.
I fhall conclude with obferving the Arts made
ufe of for Argument?, by thofe who are on the
wrong fide of Reafon, which the Clearer and
Others in this Controverfy furnifh me with the
knowledge of.
I. To mifreprefent their Adverfaries Arguments,
meaning, and Intention, by prefenting things in
falfe Lights and Colours, in order to confound and
puzzle the Caufe, by a maze of little Artifices not
eafily

The INTRODUCTION. 15
eafily to be defcribed, to delude the Underftanding
of the Readers.
2. To ftrain the apparent Senfe of Scripture
when it does not fuit their purpofe, which, if it
cannot be done by the Englijh Tranfiation, to give
fuch a new Interpretation to the language of the
Original text, (as without being , reduced to an ex
tremity themfelves, would never have thought of )
to make it fpeak different from what it does : And
to charge their Adverfaries with wrefting the Senfe
of the Scriptures, who by taking it in its own na
tural fenfe, plain to common Underftandings, fhew
to them their own Abfurdities.
3. To render contemptible what they cannot an
fwer, to ufe any fort of mean Infinuations to dis
credit their Adverfaries ; thus Infamy fometimes
paffes for Argument, and the Detraftion of a man's
Charafter, Qualifications, or Abilities, for the De
termination of the Debate.
4. To confound the Reafon of the Subjeft with
a multitude of words, as Dr. Garth fays, is the
praftice of Quacks in other cafes :
Tbe Patient's Ears remorfelefs he affails,
Murders with Jargon when his Medicine fails.
5. To flip foftly and filently over the moft weigh
ty and effential points, and to make the moft. of
the leaft Advantage; to triumph and infult over the
leaft Slip, as if that very Error, tho' of no confe
quence to the point in debate, was the very life and
Soul of it, and that conquering point, which gain
ed them an entire Viftory.
6. To take Qieftions begged, for things grant
ed ; Affertions, for Proofs ; and the Evidence ex
cepted againft, to prove Fafts in difpute, as indif-
. putable Evidence ; and from thence to argue and
harangue in order to fiir up the prejudices of Edu
cation,

i6 The INTRODUCTION.
cation, and inflame the Paflions of thofe whofe un-
-derftandings being deluded with their Leaders mock
piety, romantic Divinity, and oftentatious fhew, of
Devotion for the pretended good of Souls, are
ever devoted to their Service. By thefe little Arts
they are fecure of Viftory, and ever gain the Afcen-
dant in the judgments of thofe that are determined
humbly to obey, and be under the Direftion of
their Spiritual Commanders.

THE
RefurreBion Re-confidered s
• I N A
DIALOGUE BETW BEX T,HE
CONSIDERER and his FRIEND.

I

Conf."^f Rejoice to fee you my very good Friend!
This is an acceptable Vifit, and the more
fo, becaufe yOu come at a time when I
have Leifure for Converfation, and want
ed an agreeable Companion. I hope you are come-
to fpend the Evening with me.
Friend. I am fo, and the joy is reciprocal ; what
you receive, you give; fo both are gainers.
C. Nothing can be more agreeable to me than
fuch a Vifit from fuch a Friend. Come, fit down.
F. This happens according to my Wifhj that I
have found you thus at Leifure ; for I am come to
difeourfe with you on an Affair of Importance,
which you are concerned in.
C. 'Tis an Inftance of great Favour aiid Friend
fhip. • F. But as our Friendfhip, fo our Concern is-
mutual. „ , ,
: . C C. Frankly,

( >8 )
C. Frankly difclofe it then, without Ceremony
Of further' ©day.
F. I am come to difeourfe with you concerning
The Refurreftion Cleared, and your other Oppo
nents, in a grave and ferious manner; becaufe, in
The Refurreftion of Jefus Confidered, they complain
of yourufing fo ferious a Subject with too much

Ci They will always find Occafions of Com
plaint, let a Subject be handled as it will. Their
prefent Intereft, in it, makes^ them affeft Gravity;
which is to me an occafion of Laughter, to obferve
hqw feriojufly they jeft4 '* f - >
• AF. They complain of this Difp6fition of yours
as 111- manners, in expofing fuch grave Subjects to
Ridicule. C. They are grave indeed to him that believes
them, but as I happen not to be of the Number* I
cannot think my felf guilty^ of the ImpeaeHment.
Suppofe I was difturbed in my brain, ought I to
efteem, my Phyfician guilty of. Ill-manners, becaufe
he prefcribes Diversions for thy Cure^ This Com
plaint is all a jeft : I think I have treated the Sub
ject devoutly. The Defenders always' complain of
the Manner of doing It, becaufe they would not
have the Matter enquired into at all: Therefore it is
no, wonder that all who have ever wrote on thefe
Subjects, have been complained df as treating them
difagreeably. They think it Hl-manners not to
fwallovv the whole, but hone to .flander and abufe
thofe that cannot. They can bear no 'Ridicule- in
thefe Affairs, but delight to fee whole Volleys of
Satyr and Lampoon difcharged! on Subjects) which
not themfelves, but others 'efteem Sacred, as if
they thought it the beft way of expofing 'Serious
Folly. Befides, too niuch ferioufnefs is fournefs ;
I think, to be pleafant and fincere, renders a man's
Co'rfipatiy the, Moft agreeable.
i P. But

( 19 )
F. But I would not only talk with ypu of the
Manner ef ^handling the Spbjeft, but of the Mat
ter, or Subject it feff ; I would propofe the Clearer's
Arguments, and hear your Anfwers. Whereby you
may do juftice to your felf, and give fatisfactioh to
an enquiring Friend.
C. Come on, I like the Propofal; have react the
Book, and there it is, Pray do not omit any thing
in it that is remarkably good or bad, true or falfe.
F. ' May your Conduct equal your Courage : Pre
pare, and expect no Favour.
C. I am prepared.
F, The Clearer in the Beginning of his Book re
prefents you in Diftrefs, and p. \y. complaining
grievoufiy that all the Evidence is on the fide of the
Refurreftion. C. I believe the Defenders have more caufe to
make grievous Complaints that what Evidence they
have 'is no better, and find J themfelves in greater
Diftrefs how to make it harmonize than they could
wifh. 'The Diftrefs is apparently on their fide, bu|
he fays this, that it may be thought to be ori minej
tho' I find my felf in none about it ; and do not
doubt but they would willingly change Side's, pro
vided they could keep their Livings. 'Tis well for
them that the keeping them does not depend on
their proving the Fact in Queftion j if fo, they
would be diftreffed indeed. I muft own it is a
great hardfhip on the Clergy, that they are obliged
to profefs to believe what is out of their power, as
reafonable men ; for Faith is not formed by thb
Will, but the Judgment. I thjnk, therefore, -11131;
thefe of all men are the moft to be pitied, who are
neceffitated to fell their Liberties for their. Livings,
But if inftead of being enjoined to beljeve what
they profefs, . they were allowed to profefs what
they believe, to worfhip God, and inftruft man,
anyway which misdit be conducive to the common
/ ¦ C* ' Tran.

( 20 )
Tranquility according to their • Confciences and
Judgments, no men could themfelves be, or make
others more happy. This would as much encotir
rage Learning and Knowledge, as the Impofing
certain modes of Faith and Worfhip tends to.difl
countenance them, by ftinting mens Underftand-
?ngs. ¦'-'¦.¦ _,j
F. You feem. to have a Latitudinarian Faith. v . ;
C. 'Tis agreeable to the Gofpel: There I read
that Jefus was an Enemy to his Difciples exercifing
Authority over one another ; Te know, faid he to
them^ that the Princes of the Gentiles exercife Domi
nion 'Over them, and they that are great, exercife_ Au*
tbority over them. But it fhall not be fo among you:
But whofoever will be great among you3 let him be your
Minifter; and whofoever will be chief among you, let
him be your Servant. You fee the Gofpel Govern
ment is a Republic where all under Jefus are equals
And he has not as a King fubftituted any Vice-Roy
in his Room. Bui let us return.
F. The Clearer fays, * An Author of fo much vi
vacity and fo full of himfelf, can hardly be expefted
to keep the dull Road of Reafoning. His Wit will
fometimes run away with him, hence proceed fo much
pertnefs and fpirit in his Performance, and witty Con
ceits in ferious Argument.
C. It is plain, he was ferioufly confounded when
he read if. I think his Zeal carries him out of the
Road of fair Reafoning. His Judgment of me has
nothing to do with the Argument, tho' he builds
his whole Argument upon it.
F. The Clearer quotes you faying, tl In my
" Opinion, great Judgment and great Faith are
" fuel) Contradictions that they never unite in one
"perfon." And comments on it thus : I dare fay.
be did not mak? this Declaration on any Sujpicion be
had of his own Judgment, C, i
* Page 2.

( 21 )
C. I dare fay he does not make any Declaration
againft me, upon any Sufpicion he has of his own
want of Superior Judgment, but thinks he has
quitted fcores with me at leaft ; or elfe is willing it
fhould be thought fo.
F. Again, you faid with refpeft to Miracles,
every real: Miracle is an Abfurdity to common fenfe,
and contrary to the Attributes of God.
C. Yes it is fo according to my underftanding of
Miracles,- and the divine Attributes, if Wifdom
and Goodnefs, and unchangeablehefs are the Attri
butes of God.
F. After thefe exprefs Declarations one would won
der (he fays) how you could propofe yourfelf to the
world as a proper perfon to make a fair Examination
of the Evidence of the Refurreftion, which- is both the
greateft Miracle, .and the greateft Article of the Chrif
tian Faith. ' .
C. What! becaufe a man expreffes his Sentiments
fairly and honeftly, is he not therefore fit to enquire
into an Argument ?
F. He laysi he muft needs commend you for the
open and frank Declaration of your Principles in refpeft
to Religion. Some have pretended Friendfhip to the
Gofpel, that they might the more fuccefisfully undermine
tbe Foundation of it ; but you aft with more bravery
and more honefty.
C. I do not value my felf upon his Commenda
tion, for I cannot think he intended me any ; if he
did, he contradifts himfelf, which he has too much
fenfe to do, at leaft to intend ; for if he commends
me for my honefty, why does he objeft againft my
being a proper perfon to make a fair Examination ?
F. He objects againft your Underftanding, and
thinks you prejudiced.
C. It is becaufe my Underftanding is not under
his Direftion, and prejudiced as his is. But the lefs
I have, the lefs is his Conqueft. Perhaps he will not

( ™ s)
not allow any one to be a proper Perfon bo make a
fair Examination of the Refurreftion, but he that
believes it. And I would fain know How fuch an
one can be a proper Perfon, The ftronger Faith,
the greater Partiality : How a partial man can be
one proper to make a fair Examination, I cannot
conceive, and bdieve he cannot prove; therefort,
fince he himfelf profefles to have a ftrong Faith in
jthe Refurreftion, and -in Miracles, He cannot be a
proper perfon. Now fuppofing a Doubter the only
man fit to enquire,' and that neither he norT are
fuch ; if he will allow himfelf a fit Advocate on
pne fide, he may grant 'me fit to object on the
other ; and by virtue of our Arguments, let the
enquiring Reader make an Examination, and judge
pf the Matter ; for this is my View and Intention.
F. No, but the View you had in anfwering the
Trial of the Witneffes, he expreffes in your own
Words in that Anfwer ; * " My defign is to pro?
" mote that Veneration for Wifdom and Virtus
«' which has been debafed and degraded by Faith,
" by a Faith which has not fent Peace on Earth,
" but a Sword,-" — Where this foolifh Faith beam
" fway, the Tree of Knowledge, produces damn-.
" ing Fruit : But under the benign Influence of
" Geprge our King in this glorious day of Light
" and Liberty, this divine Hag and her pious
" Witchcrafts, which were brought forth by Dark-
«' nefs and nourifhed by Obfcurity, faint at the ap4
« prpach of day, and vanifh upon fight."
C. Very well, thefe were my words, and what
then? P. Why then he fays, The Faith which the Gofpel
propofes in Jefus. Chrift the ever bleffed Son of God,
and the only Name under Heaven by whicb zve may be
faved, is here with an aftonifhing degree of Impiety%
caUed a divine Hag with pious Witchcrafts. C AU
* Page 3,

<»3.)
C. All' this is Conjuration and Witchcraft, with
the mafk of" Piety4 to ftir up men's Prejudices and
inflame their- Paffions. But go on.
F. Unhappy man (fays he) what eouU'he mean by
this ? I pity him from my Heart.
C, Artifice alii Proceed.
jF. * But what (fays he) could he Wttafi by abu±
fing the Kiiig, zutdefs he had- a mind to flkw, that he
is juft as good a Sub/Bft'as be is a Chriftian?
C. Unhappy Gentleman, what does he mean to
Hiifiake. for the Faith of Chrift, the Faith I had
defcribed, " which debafes and degrades both Wif-
" dom and Virtue,, which has not ferit Peace on
'« Earth, but a Sword ;" or that to call fuch Faith
a Divine Hag with pious Witchcrafts, is any degree
of Impiety?, Or that I am to be pitied ori this Ac
count ? Or that I have abufed the King, rby' faying,
that under his benign Influence, in this glorious day of
Light and Liberty, this malignant Faith faints and
vanijhes away? Which is a Glory that will immor
talize his Reign. For ftill we perceive the Gofpel
flourifhes among us in the Beft and moft glorious
Light it ever did ; and confequently the Pureft
Faith of it remains, and triumphs with aufpicious
Sway under his prefent Majefty's Government and
Protection. Therefore I really pity this Gentleman
thus to mifunderftand and mifreprefent the Faith
which the* Gofpel propofes in Jefus Chrift, for the
Faith which, has long reigned in the Chriftian
world, which has difcovered it felf an Enemy to
Peace, and Love, and Knowledge: For a Faith
which is declarative of Deftruftion by Fire, and
Sword, and Variance, and Eternal War, the gnaw*
ing worm of neverTdying Enmity among Mankind,
and the fire of Contention between the neareft and
-deareft Relations that never can be quenched.
What does this Author mean, thus to -abqfe the
Heavenly Majefty of his Spiritual King Chrift Je
fus,
• Page 4.

( 24 )
fus, to afcribe fo Pernicious a Faith to him? And
byfoforc'd an Infinuation as he makes ufe o£ to
excite the Civil Power to .give the reins to fo bar
barous, fo bloody, and ib diabolical a Faith, that
the King may be his Slave, and Priefts may rule
over him ; but plainly to prove, that he is equally-
angry, as he is miftaken.
F. Every ferious man (he fays) "will read thefe,
Paffages with abhorrence ; and, they are a Warning, to
every Reader to be upon his Guard againft the Repre-
fentai ions made  by fo determined, andfo inveterate
an Enemy.
C. On fo Pernicious a Faith, every unprejudic'd
perfon muft look with abhorrence, and be upon his"
guard againft the Profeflbrs of it, whether they are
induced to it by their own Blind nefs, or by Bri
bery ; all fuch are to be pitied, as wanting. Senfe
or Shame. I hope you fee clearly that this Ex-
preffion is more applicable to the Clearer than he is
aware of, and turns to my Advantage : For I would'
have all men upon their guard, by what Compafs
they direft their Judgment and Conduft ; 'tis an
Affair of moment, and will not, by thofe that are
wife, be taken upon truft. Let men be always upon
their guara\ what they are taught to believe and do.
Let Arguments be weighed, and the Reafon of
things impartially confidered : And let not men be
deluded by holy Names, and a Face of Godlinefs:
Since generally thofe that Holy Mother-Church
calls Saints, (who have exifted not merely in Ro
mance), have been the vileft of men ; therefore, as
in common, Saint and. Villain have been the fame,
they ought to be looked on in general as Syno-
nimous terms. They that have affected to appear
more .ianftified than thofe, who haye been morally-
honeft, have only been fo much more inwardly, fe
cretly, and artfully wicked. Therefore, my Friend,
if you would not be bubbled out of your. Under
ftanding,

ftandihg» Reputation, Subftahcei Friends and Life,
by Malicious Arts, Slander and Villany in every
Grave and Holy Shape, when you fee, a Saint look to
your Self. And take fpecial Care that the artful In-
finuations of Interefted, Prejudiced, and Cunning
men to raife Popular Clamours, be not miftaken
for plain and ufeful Truths, nor bear them down.
Permit a little Digreffion on this Subjeft : 'Tis a
tender Point, and the Clearer is prick'd with itt
There are furpfifing Expreffions afcribed to Jefus
Chrift in our Gofpels, that he fhould declare, Luke
xii. 49 to 53. I am come to fend fire on the earthy
and what will I if it be already kindled ? What does
ithis mean?
, F. Perhaps this may mean the fire of the Holy
Ghoft,. for John the Baptift faid of Jefus, He Jhall
baptise you with the Holy Ghoft, and with fire.
C. When there is no infallible Rule to find the
meaning of Scripture, all Interpretations are Guefs-
work. 'Tis very hard to mend fuch Expreffions»
and 'tis very hard to believe, that God fhould de
liver himfelf in fuch a manner as wants mending.
F. It is an aft of common Charity, to give the
beft Conftruftion tp mens words.
C. But 'tis alfo an aft of common Prudence, to
endeavour to penetrate to the right Senfe of them,
to avoid impofing on our felves and being deceived.
However, this Sentence might eafily pafs with a
Spiritual meaning as: ypu fay, if what follows did
not feem to prevent it; for left we fhould be de
ceived by doing it, Jefus is faid to, tell us plainly:
Sitppofe ye that I am come to give Peace on -Earth? I
tell you, nay ; but rather Divifion : For from hence
forth there fhall be five in one houfe divided, three
againft two, and two againft three. The Father fhall
be divided againft the Son, and the Son againft the Fa*
ther: The Mother againft the Daughter, and the
Daughter againft the Mother : The Mother-in-law
D againft

( 26 .:)
againft her Daughter-in-law, and the Dmghteuin-
law againft her Mother-in-law. Agreeable to-Mmt.
x. 34, 35, 36. Think not that I' am come to find
Peace on the Earth ; I came not to fiend Peace, but a
Sword. For I am come to fet a man at variance- d-
gainft his Father, and the Daughter againft her Ma
ther, and the Daughter-in-law againft her Mother-i^-
law. And a man's Foes Jhall be thofe of his orm
Houfhold. F. Does the Gofpel then require people to be
unnatural? Was it\defigned to loofen all natural
Ties, and bind us with unnatural- Chains?
C I am perfuaded fhe Writers knew the. mean-
, ing, and Their Aim. That the fofteft, ftrongeft
ties of Nature might not hinder the propagation
of the Gofpel 'tis added, He that loveth Father or
Mother more than me, is not worthy of me : And bt
that loveth Son or Daughter more than me, is not wor
thy of me. And he that taketh not his Crofs and fol-
loweth after me, is not worthy of me. And, as if aH
that was too little, Luke (xiv. 26.) tells us that Jefus
faid to the Multitude, If any man come to me and hale
not his Father and his Mother, and Wife, and Chil
dren, and Brethren, and Sifters, yea, and his own
Life alfo, he cannot be my Difeiple. This muft have
a great effeft upon the fears of credulous men : If
fuch a Declaration from the Author of any other
Religion could be found by Chriftians, and it was
not their own Property only, they would account it a
Declaration fufficient to condemnt he whole. Thofe
that endeavour artfully to explain it away, fhew
how much they are afhamed of it ; but fuch paf
fages ftill are, by which defigning men have an op
portunity always to underftand them as. they pleafe;
or as they fuit their purpofes : Thefe unexplained;
one would think cannot be the Word of God ; arid
expounded, are the Words of the Expounder only. •
1 F. Per-

( 27 )
F: Perhaps Jefus only meant prophetically; that
not Peace, but fire and fword among men would
be the confequence of his Miffion.
C. Then he was a true. Prophet, if he meant
this would be the Spirit of Chriftianity: But if he
came to fend this terrible Meffenger of his Ven
geance, one would think he had better never have
came, than come on fuch an errand. Let us pray
the Father to fave us from the wrath of the Son!
A man had need to work Miiacles that teaches fuch
a Doftrine is of God ; and all are too little to make
the reafonable and moral part of mankind believe;
The Romanifts do well to bide thefe things from the,
Wife and Prudent, for they, inftead of believing
,,,, them to be the Bread that came down from Heaven
Whereof a man 'may eat and not. die, may miftake
| them for ftrdng Poifon from an oppofite Climate
and diftant- World, or indigeftible Cinders from
the Burning Furnace. ; ¦ ..
F. But when the Apoftles were fent abroad to
preach, they were to blefs the places where they
went, with Peace. u
C. That was but a Verbal Salutation : However,
fuppofing they carried' 'Peace wherever they went,
if thofe to whom they went, did not receive them,
their Peace was to- retwn'lo' them again, they were to-
tak'e' their Peace awiy with them, and therefore
leave' hone behind. The Peace that Jefus left, was
only to 'his Difcipjesy as the Gofpel acquaints us,
bu:t: the bittefeft Execrations are poured, out on all
that do" not bdlevd.1 .-.: z.-:i -. '--¦,
F. But Jefus Chrift declared that the Sow' of Man
was not come to defiroy mens lives, but, to fave them.
C. No, not to' deftroy them by/ fire, from .Hea
ven, in the manner-' the Apoftles, thofe Minifxers of
-^Mercy' wanted him to call for. If the Saints were
arm'd with Jove's Thunder, what terrible work
would they make! When Jefus 'gave, the Jews.a
D 2 Parable

( 28 )
Parable relating to, himfelf, in the application, >
mong other Judgments of rewards and punifhments
to be given, when he had received the Kingdom,
he fays, Luke xix. 27. Thofe my Enemies, which would
not that I fhould reign over them, firing them hither-
and Slay them before me. And at another time* he
faid to his Difciples, Luke xxii. 36. He that has m
Sword, let him fell his Garment and buy one : Thefe
are things of the fame Nature. > The Apoftles and
the Holy Ghoft feemed to Underftand this meaning,
if they killed Ananias and Sapfdma his Wife with
the fire and fword of the Spirit. If the Story of
it be true, they foon learn'd their leflbn, and foon
begun to praftife. it. . ,-:\ .
- F. You feem to queftion the Truth of it ?
C. 'Tis out of Refpeft to the Apoftles that I do.
You know I am an Unbeliever, and thefe things
make me fo : I cannot tell how to account for
them, but having a charitable Faith in the Lord
Jefus, chufe rather to believe that fbme evil Spirit
has been medllhg and fowling Tares among the
Wheat ; that fbme who profeffed themfelves.. his
Difciples have belied their Mafter, . to the end, that
becaufe he did not reign, they -might ieign in his
Stead. 3- 1
F. You faid, [if the Saints were arm'd with Jove's
Thunder, what terrihle work. would they makes
but they are,, lp armed, if we 'beljeve what we
read ; fi: their fewer of working Miracles, andrer
'mitting and retaining mens Sins; and fome, doubts
arife in my mihd concerning the Legality, of - the
Apoftle*s putting Ananias and Sappbirq to Death,
fuppofing, their jTale is true. ...-- >
C. But I. have a multitude of Doubts and" Objec
tions befides, -v(z. the reafonablefs of fuch Faith, or
dependance on Providence, as prevents Care and
Labour for tha Neceffaries of Life. And the giving
r$way all men Jiave, % the fake of Religion,: whjcji IS

(r 29 )
is recommended in the Gofpel. . The juftice of pre-
ferring.:a.Single Life before a married State, and
of making that an intolerable yoke when it hap
pens -wrong, by allowing no Divorce to fet it right,
whereby Chrift is no Redeemer to married People.
The Prohibition of revenging the breach of Peace
and Faith, receiving Injuries in Body,, and the Lofs
of Goods without profecuting the Offenders and in-
fiifting legal Punifhments upon them; and of fight
ing in defence of our Lives and Properties, which,
encourages Impofition and Villany. The neceffity
of i Faith above Righteoufnefs, and of believing ab
furd .Principles, inexplicable Myfteries, and Fafts
improbable, if not abfolutely impoffible, are fuch
'Whirlpools to human minds, that they abforb all
Common Senfe, and utterly deftroy the ufe of
mens reafoning faculties in matters of Religion.
Thofe Preachers, of the Gofpel, who are men of
Senfe and Learning, are perpetually holding out to
us. the faireft: of its Morals, but draw a dark Veil
over -thefe things,- as we muft now dp.
F, Indeed they will lead us too far from the
End defign'd at ; this time, and therefore we muft
refer the difcuffion; pf thefe points till another
opportunity. The Clearer infinuates, that you was
fo little qualified, to write an Anfiwer to the Trial of
the •Witneffes,;,//^/ you did not underftand it when
¦you publifhed your Anfwer, but miftopk fometimes. the
-Qbje 'ftion for the Anfwer to the Objeftion, and fame-
times vice vzxfa, -,md lafiribed to, the Author of the
Trial, the very Opinion'he was confuting.
C. This is, a heavy, Charge: Let us fee how it is
made out: Perhaps I may haye committed fpme
Errors as well as the Clearer \ and pther Writers. I
make no , Pretentions i to Infallibility, .Thofe, I have
been guilty of, I believe will be .found in the Skirts
Ipf the Argument, and Mode of -Expreffion, npt
jin the Argument or Subjeft {itfelf ; which all unex
perienced

C 3° )'
pefienced Difputarits, and unwary Writers are lia
ble to, but fuch are of little Or no Confequence' td
the point in Debate". ;
F. His two firft Inftances are, what are mention
ed in the firft Edition, and left but in the other. '¦¦¦'\
C. And therefore he, refolving to take all Ad
vantages, was determined not to leave them out in
his Remarks.- -
F. In your -firft Edition he fays, p. 5. You have]
charged the Author , of the Trial with founding Faith
on Education, and' writing in favour of that Opinion."*
C. Thefe are my Words: " The Author ofthe
Trial fays in favour of this Faith, which is the ef
feft of Education.'' Now certainly the faying
fomething in favoar of it, is pne thing ; but found
ing Faith upon it, and writing in favour of that
Opinion, is another. Therefore-this Accufation be
ing not rightly ftated, falls ef courfe. One Quo
tation I afterwards' made from the Trial in the fame
Edition, p. ii.- fhews how far I was from charging
That Author with what This accufes me of. rt The
u "Gentleman is pleafed to fay, the mere Antiquity
" Pf the Refurreftion I give up; for if it was
'*' not good at firft, it cannot be good now." This
is very fair.
F. The Clearer -fays, To fupport this Charge you
'quote from the Trial the very words that dificlaim that
'Opinion ; and to make this good, he mentions one
"of your Quotations, and leaves the other out. But
what if I join your two Quotations in one, as it
ftands in the Trial. ¦
C- Be pleafed to dofo, and read it there.
F. Trial, p. 20. The Gentleman's ObfirValidh,
(i. e, .the Objector's)' That the general belief of the
Refurreftion creates a Prefumption that it ftands upon
good Evidence, and- ther ef ort- petrpk look no farther,
but follow their Fathers, as their Fathers did their
Grandfathers before- them, is in a great meafure trtie, but

( *x )
bat itAis a Truth nothing to bis purpofe. He allows
that tbe Refurreftion has been believed in all ages of
the Church, that is, from the very time of the Refur
reftion: What then, prevailed with thofe who firft re
ceived . it. ? They ¦, certainly did not follow the Example
of their, Fathers. Here then is Jhe, point : How did
this' Fdft gain Credit in the Woridiat firft ? Credit it
has gained without doubt. If the. Multitude at prefent
go. into:. this belief thro' Prejudice, 'Example, and for
Gontpa^'s fake;,. they do in this Cafe.no more nor -.other*-
wifi-thari they do in all other Cafes, And it cannot be
denied but Truth may. be. received thro' Prejudice, (as
it is called) i. e.. without Examining the Proof, or
Merits of the Caufe, as well as Falfhood.
'¦:£'.- This I imagined to be faid in favour of. that
Faith- which is the effeft of Education.'
F. And 'eis what may reafonably be faid. -
C. For any Educational Faith I grant, and .proves
that a Faith which is. the effeft ofs Education, is not
always wrong. Therefore thofe. Quotations I made
from this paffage, were only to introduce the Fit
nefs of Enquiry, which, in ray- next Edition, is
better expreffed without them. ;
F. But the Clearer fays, you charge the Author
of the Trial with founding Faith on Education, and
writing in favour of that Opinion, and puts thofe
words in Italics to make his Reader believe they
were yours, to fupport his Change ; as to fupport
yours, he fays, you quote from the Trial the very
words that difclaim that Opinion.
C. Then this Charge had no Support, and his has*
as little. But as it was" not my Intention then, nei*
ther am I difpofed to fupport it now.
F. The Clearer fays, 'tis marvelous how you could
read, could tranfcribe thofe words into your Book, and
not feel that the meaning and intent of them was to
hy the Force of Cuftom and Education quite out. of
thej Cafe, and to bring the gueftion to reft upon the
original

( 32 )
original Evidence \of 'the Refurreftion at Jhe-firft^
before Cuftom or Education could poffibly have. any. In
fluence. C. This is alfo my Intention; therefore let him
not be angry with me, for I join.iffue with him in
this point. But if I had been as wrong as the
Clearer charges me to be, or as wrong as he is in
charging me, I. had drop'd this paffage, by his own
•Confeffion, in my. new Edition, 'leaving it as a Pat
tern to others, when they feel what is iight, to
drop what is wrong. As 'tis fcarce poffible for any
to be faultlefs, none fhould prefume nor exult. In
fmall things 'tis eafy to err, or to. fhew the. error of
another. F. But here is the Point : How did this Faft: gain
Credit, in the world at firft? Credit it has gained
without doubt.
C. I have had occafion to examine Origen againft
Celfits, and if we may be permitted to draw an An
fwer from thence, it appears, that the want of
ftrift Examination into the report, gave it Credit
in the credulous world at firft. Celfius fays, " that
" fome of the Chriftians, neither examining what
" it was they believed, nor caring to be examined,
" ufed this Expreffion : Do not examine into Matters
" but believe, and thy Faith will infallibly fave thee."
F. What fays Origen to this ?
C. He fays, That our bleffediJaviour would have
perfons of mean Capacities,.. and under fome pecu
liar Circumftances, to believe without a fevere Exa
mination ; fince otherwife. we cannot fuppofe that
the Gofpel would.be of. any real advantage to
them.-  -The method of ftrift Examination be
ing for Reafons. (lays he); before given impraftica-
blei, what better way could one have contrived and
taken, more fuked tu the genigs. and outward Cir
cumftances of -the common People, than that which our

(33 )
our bleffed Saviour took for the Cpnverfion of a
degenerate world.
F. What were thofe Reafons?
Ct They are comprehended in thefe words, which
feem to grant the Reafonablenefs of Enquiry, tho*
at the fame time they difcourage it ; viz. Tbe fublime
Doftrines of the Chriftian Religion are not more in
volved and attended with greater Obfeurity than many
Opinions of Philofophers. If all men could conveni
ently leave -the Concerns of Life, and had Leifure, In
clination, and Ability to examine, 'twould be better
for them to build their Faith on rational and convincing
Arguments, than take things on truft. You may per
ceive his Reafons are, the Obfeurity of the Doc
trines, which required mens leaving the concerns of
Life for leifure to examine; and their having Incli
nations and Abilities, which were fuch Difficulties,
that the greateft part of mankind had neither Abi
lities nor Inclinations to furmount them.
F. Does Origen then juftify mens Belief of things
they don't enquire into ?
C. Thefe are his Words : Since our Adverfaries
are continually making fuch a Stir about our tolling
things on truft, I anfwer, that we who fee plainly,
and have found the vaft advantage that the com
mon fort of people do manifeftly and frequently
reap thereby, who make up by far the greater Num
ber; I fay, we who are well advifed of thefe things,
do prpfeffedly teach them to believe, without a fevere
Examination, who cannot negleft their worldly bu
finefs, and fpare time enough to make long and ex-
aft Enquiries into the Grounds of our holy Religion.
F. Origen excufes an Exaft and Strift Enquiry.
C. Unlefs the Enquiry be ftrift and exaft, it may
as well not be at all ; for in that part which is flub-
bered over, may lay the Deceit. We fee from this
Confeffion of Origen's Doctrine of Chriftianity,
Viz. th$ Neceffity of Faith, without a ftrift ExaT
E minatiori

(34)
mination into the Foundation of it, or from their
avowed Praftice to take Principles- upon Trull* the
Refurreftion of Jefus might gain Credit in the
World at firft, and that the Common People, who
kake up by far the greater Number, did then as they
do now, take it upon Truft; and no doubt but
their Teachers taught it then as they teach it now
for Intereft, were it not for this, the Teachers them
felves would deny it.
F. His next Impeachment is, * that you fay,
" 'Tis argued the Apoftles were fincere, ' there-
" fore whac they reported was true." That you di
not direftly chargethe Author of the Trial with argu
ing thus.
d And therefore he might have paffed it over
as what did not concern him ; but to do lb, would
not anfwer his defign : He thought he could make
fome advantage of it.
F. To perfuade the Reader, that the only thing
you have made clear is, that you did not know what
you were writing about.
C. Why, the whole Trial is to fhew that the Re
furreftion was real matter of Faft, evidenc'd by
the Report of the Witneffes ; and that the Since
rity of the Reporters, is an Argument of the Proof
of it. And I think this is the whole Argument':
For what Proof have we that the Reporters of the
Fact were not deceived, but their Report ? And
what Proof haye we of the Truth of their Rela
tion, but the Perfuafion of the Sincerity of the Re
lators ? And what other Proof can be given to any,
or what fort of Proof can be given to thofe that
believe them infincere ? Attend to what the Author
of the Trial fays, p. 65. Prefumptions are of no
weight againft pofitive Evidence ; and every jiccount
of the Refurreftion ajjures us that the Body of Chrift
was feen, felt, and handled by many perfons. And
page
* Pag*v

(-15)
page. iq^.,Now if you will allow the < Sufferings ~tf
the Apoft-lesz to pr-ove their Sincerity, which you cannot
well difallow, arid confider that they died for the Truth
of a matter of. Faft which they had feen themfelves.,
you will perceive -how ftrong the Evidence is in this
Cafe. : In Doftrines and matters of -Opinion, men m'if-
take perpetually, and it is no reafon for me to take up
with another man's Opinion^ becaufe I am perfuaded he
is fincere in it ; but when a man reports- to me an un
common Faft, yet fuch a one as "in its own nature is a
plain objeft of fenfe, if I believe him not, 'tis not ber
caufe I fufpeft his Eyes, or his fenfe of Feeling, but
merely becaufe I fufpeft his Sincerity; for if I was to
fee the fame thing my felf, I fhould believe my felf;
and therefore my Sufpicion does not arifie from the Ina
bility of human fenfes to judge in the Cafe, but from a
Doubt of the Sincerity of the Reporter ; in fuch Cafes
therefore, there wants nothing to be proved^ but only
the Sincerity of the Reporter ; and fince voluntary Suf
fering for tbe Truth, is at leaft a Proof of Sincerity,
the Sufferings of the Apoftles for the Truth of the Rer
furreftion, is a full and unexceptionable Proof.
F. So then you charge this on the Author of the
Trial now, tho' you did not before. The Clearer
fays, Whomfoever you mean to charge . with arguing
thus, ¦ it fhews plainly you never-mderftood the Ufe or
Force of the Argument drawn from the Topic of Sin
cerity, which is never applied, to prove the fincere Re
porter delivers nothing but Ttuth, for he may be, aiid
often is, impofed or. himfelf; b^t is ufed merely to, fhow,
that he is not a Deceiver himfelf r and ailing with a
Defign to impofe on others.
, C. I wiffi none. of my Antagonifts have any fuch
Defign, whofe underftandings there is no room to
queftion. 'Tis certain that Origen . quotes from the
Epiftle of Barnabas, Tnat Jefus chofe fuch perfons
to the Apoftolic Fun ftion as were wicked to the laft de
gree] And thefe are thofe w^iofe fincerity we are
-. E 2 to

( 36)
to depend upon. And yet we fee the Hiftorian's
pofitive Evidence of no natural or probable, but fu
pernatural, and therefore improbable Faft to Rea
fon, tho' not to Faith, is proved by Sincerity, and
their Sincerity by their Sufferings ; and that this
alone, for nothing elfe can do it, is to prove the Hif
tory true, that they were not deceived themfelves,
nor had any defign to deceive others.
F. There is little Reafon then for the Clearer's
Reflections that, fome kind Friend pointed out this
wiifiake, and it difappears upon the new Edition.
C. This fame kind Friend, which this Gentleman
more than once upbraids me with, wtib advifed
thefe alterations, is what I am ignorant of. But if
my Amendments were by fiich Monitions, it appears
I am not incorrigible, but willing to know, and
amend my faults, and reform my errors as foon as I
difcern them. I am not fo vain as to think I flood
in no need of the Affiftance of fome able Friend.
No doubt but more Time, and the Direftion of
better Judgment would have added a Grace to my
Performance. I do not queftion but the Clearer,
and fome others of my Adverfaries, are much
better Difputants than I, and can make the worfe,
appear tbe better Reafon, to perplex and dafh matu-
rer Counfiel. And that himfelf no doubt received
Aid and Improvements from the judgment and
advice of the Learned Author to whom he in-
fcribes his Sheet? : I had no fuch helps. Two wife
and learned Heads, and an Auxiliary of mere than
200,000, upon Occafion, that have nothing elfe to
do, being kept in pay on purpofe to fight for the
Church Militant, are certainly able to bear down
one undifciplined Volunteer in this Literary War,
if the Goodnefs of the Caufe alone did not fup
port me.
F. But if this was not a fault in the firft Edition,
was it not a fault to leave it out in the next ? C. This

C. This Argument was not fo fully expreffed as
it ought to have been, for I affefted brevity too
much. But, concerning the Alterations made in the
new Edition, once for all I give thefe Reafons : I
thought it proper to leave out fome things lefs ne
ceffary, that J might make room for others more
material, which are not in the firft ; and to amend
and fhorten the Expreffions, that it'might excel the
pirated fecond Edition at the fame price. If this
fpurious Piece had not appeared, I had no Intention
to expofe it fo publickly, or .reprint it.
F. The Clearer, * accufes you of charging the
words of A the Objeftor, to B the Author of the
Trial, and which, he fays, will hardly pafs for a mif-
fake only, having received the Approbation of your fe
cond thoughts, by a place in your new Edition. For,
"fays he, the Perfon defign'd by B in the Trial,
p. 30. or the Author of it, repeats the Objeftion
of A the Pleader againft the Refurreftion, which
let us turn to. It runs thus : There is but one Ob
fervation more which the Gentleman (i. e. A) made
under this head, Jefus (he fays) referr'd to the Au
thority of ancient Prophecies, to prove that the Meffias
was to die and rife again ; the ancient Books referred
to are extant, and no fuch Prophecies (he fays) are to
be found. Now, whether -the Gentleman can find thefe
Prophecies or no, is not Material to the prefent Quef
tion. It is allowed that Chrift foretold his own Death
and Refurreftion ; if the Refurreftion was managed by
Fraud, Chrift was certainly in the fraud himfelf, by
foretelling the fraud that was to happen ; difprove
therefore the Refurreftion, and we Jhall have no fur
ther Occafion for Prophecy. On the other fide, by fore
telling the Refurreftion, he certainty put the Proof of
his Miffion on the Truth of the Event. Whether it
be* tbe Charafter of the Meffias in the ancient Prophets
or no, that be fhould die and rife again, without doubt
Jefus
* Page 6.

f 33 )
Jefus- is not the Meffias if he. did not rife again ; for
by his own Prophecy, he made it a part of the Charac
ter of the Meffias.
C. Well, what is the Accufa'tion ?
F. The Accufation is in thefe Words : Is it not
manifeft to fight, that thofe words, * «' The ancient
" Books referred to are extant, and no fuch Pro-
" phecies are to be found," etiprefs ¦ the Senfe and
Opinion of the Objeftor to the Refurreftion ? But that
you charge it to the Author of tbe Trial, as his own
Sentiment, which you would not have done, had you
quoted the paffage fairly. For this Reafon you have
altered it, and left out all the words which exprefly re
fer the Opinion to the Objeftor.
C. In this very Inftance, he is guilty of the very
fault he accufes me : For to make me culpable he
has perverted my quotation, and himfelf has repre-
fented me charging to the Author of the Trial, as his
own Sentiment, the Exceptions of A the Objeftor.
For this Reafon, he has altered and left out all the
words which are exprefly thofe of B the Author of
the Trial, and applied them to A's Exceptions.
Therefore I have placed them in two oppofite Co
lumns, that the Reader may the more eafily per
ceive my meaning :

In my firft Edition,
page 20. my Quotation
is thus :
The Author of the
Trial fays, that Chrift
foretold his own Death
and Refurreftion ; there
fore, if the Refurreftion
was managed by Fraud,
he was certainly, in the
fraud himfelf, by foretel ling

The Clearer fays my
Quotation ftands thus:
" The Author of the
" Trial (or Mr. B) fays,
" that tho' Jefus- refer-
" red to the Authority
" of the ancient Pro-
" phecies, to prove that
" the Meffias was to die
" and rife again ; that
" tho' the ancient Books
" refer-

Page ;..

)
" referred to are extant,
" and no fuch Prophe-
" cies are to be found ;
" whether the Prophe-
" cies can be fourtd or
" no, 'tis not material
" to the prefent Quef-
" tion."

( 39
ling the fraud that was
to happen. And tho' the
Gentleman grants, that
Jefus referr 'd to the Au
thorities of the ancient
Prophecies, io prove that
the Meffias was to die and
rife again; and that tho'
the antient Books referred
to are extant, and no fitch
Prophecies are to be found;
whether thefe Prophecies
can be found or no, 'tis
not Material to the pre
fent Queftion : Becaufe,
fays the Gentleman, dif
prove the Refurreftion, and
we Jhall have no further
occafion for Prophecy. ,

F. This quotation of yours begins differently in
your new Edition.
C. Yet it begins with the words of the Author
<& the Trial, thus: Mr. B fays, (p. ii.) That Chrift
Jefus declared himfelf a Prophet, and put the Proof
ef his Miffion on this, that he fhould die openly and
publickly, and rife again the third day, and (p. 30.)
that tho' Jefus referred, &c.
F. Here the words, tho' the Gentleman grants,
are omitted.
C. I know not by what means this error happen
ed ; yet, I think, it is implied that the words
which follow, are an Objection that ftand in the
way. But why then was not this omiffion complain-^
ed of, which is the only fault that ought to haVe
been, and not a falfe one urged and infinuattd. 1
fear I fhall find more fuch unfair Quotations and
Complaints, and fince this is evidently one, his own
1 Appli-

(4?)
Application- be to himfelf, viz. This will hardly pafs
for a miftake only; I Jhall, leave his fair dealing to be
tried upon a Comparifon - of the PaJJage, as it ftands
in the Trial, and as it is. tranfcribed into my Anfwer;
and the Clearer^ Reprefen tation of. it : And let him
account to his Readers, if. he can, for having fo grpfiy
impofed on them. It is. plain I had no Intention to
mifrepreferit the Author's, mean ing,. as he infinuates,
for the page is referred to, and the Book it felf is
recommended to the Confideration of the Reader.
It is vexatious to fpend fo much time and labour
in making large quotations on fuch immaterial
points ; but I having to do with an artful Adver
fary, am obliged to it, to fet matters in a clear:
light. F. The Clearer fays, that the only thing here'
proper to be charged on the Author of the Trials iit
is -expreffed in thefe words, Whether the Gentleman.
(i. e. the Objeftor) can find thefe Prophecies or no,, —
is not material to the prefent Queftion.
C. Yes, the Words going before the Exceptions,
which I have mentioned, and he has omitted, as
well as thofe that follow, are properly that Au
thor's. Tho' if thofe he has quoted do exprefs the
Senfe of the Objeftor, the Author does not refblve
it ; therefore it remains good : Why then is it not
material ?
F. . ' * 1 think (continues he) this is fiaid very juftly ;
for furely Believers are not to wait for the Evidence of
Prophecy, ' till Infidels can, or will fee it.
C. Believers do not wait, whether they have
Evidence, or no ; but. why are they to be fo haftyx
as not tb let Infidels fee the Evidence of Prophecy,
if any is to be feen ?
F. Becaufe the Argument from Prophecies, in
this Cafe, is given ud.
C. Why
* Page 8.

;( 4* )
v C. Why was it given up, but becaufe the Pro
phecies and the Fafts they are faid to relate to can
not be found, or do not correfpond ?
F. The Clearer abjects, that the prefent Queftion
related to the Truth of the Refurreftion, confiderefl
merely as matter of Faft ; and as'Fafts muft be proved^
not by Prophecy, but by hiftorical Evidence^ it was im
pertinent to talk oj " Prophecy ± when the Enquiry con
cerned a mere Faft only.
C. I thought it material to the prefent Queftion*
as it concerned the Credit of the Witneffes j for
with what Reafon fhould that Evidence determine
a Faft fufpefted, when the Cafe affords juft reafon
to fufpeft the Evidence ? For the Witneffes pretend
Prophecies to precede Faftsj which want probabili
ty ; and Fafts to anfwer Prophecies* which them
felves feem never to have found. Therefore it was
very material to the prefent Queftion of the Faft of
the Refurreftionj to prove their Correfpondencei
in order to corroborate the Credibility of the Evi-
dencej Ought not this matter of Faft to be proved
by credible Evidence? If they are not to be be
lieved in one part of the Story * for what Reafon
fhould they be credited in the other ? Why fhould
not the Subjeft be confidered with all its Accidents*
and thofe efpecially on which it is founded ; and
have* ever fince its rife, been the grand Subjeft of
Debate between Jews and Chriftians. For Chriftia
nity was at firft only look'd on by the Jews and
Heathens, as Heretical Judaifm.
F. But 'tis complained that you, for want of Dif-
cernment or fomething elfe, fay, It is granted, the Gof
pel Hiftorians fuggeft there are Prophecies which are
mt to be found in the Books they refer to, but this il
not material: You leave out the wprds, to the pre'
fent Queftion, and go on.
C; And what then ? F F. Why

(42 )
F. Why then, you only appear to be hunting dom
a great Blunder of your own? ¦ ¦• l
C. Were thofe Words, to the prefent Queftion,
' fo very material then ? Pray what was the prefent
Queftion?
• F. The Truth of the Refurreftion confidered merdy
as a matter of faft.
C. Is. not that plainly underftood? Could I mean
any thing elfe ? This complaint feems to be made
¦for want of Difcernment, or fometbing elfe. I find,
when men refolye to complain, if they cannot
make juft Complaints, it will not hinder them from
complaining. The Art of this Gentleman, I per
ceive, confifts in fetting me in a bad light ; that
by this, what Credit I am robbed of, his Argu
ments may gain, lam very forry we muft be di
verted, by fuch Stuff, from what is material to the
prefent Queftion.
¦ F. The Clearer alledges, * That you have pro
duced words out of the Trial, and expreffed them as
the Senfe of the Author himfelf, by which artful Abufe
of Language, ' to make the Reader imagine that you
have convicled the Author out of his own Mouth.
Two Inftances are given for Proofs :
C. This is an Accufation of a Crime fo far dif-
tant from my, defign, that I thought could never
have come into any man's head. Repeat the firft.
. F. In the 14th Page of the Trial, the Objeftor
fays, In other Cafes, the Evidence fupports the Credit
of the Hifiory, but here the Evidence it felf is pre-
fumed only upon the Credit which the Hiftory has
gained. In p. 8. of your firft Edition, you intro
duce it thus : 'Tis true that in other Cafes the Evi
dence fupports the Credit of the Hiftory, but here' the
'Evidence- itfelf is prefumed only upon the Credit whicb
the Hiftory has gained. In p. 6. of your third Edi
tion,, it is thus introduced : If upon Enquiry' it be
founii
* Page 9 and 10.

(43 )
found, that ¦tho' in other Cafes the Evidence fupports
the Credit 'of the Hiftory, yet here, &cc. .
« C. I believe no Reader underftood thofe Expref-
fions, but in the Ligh't I intended them ; not pro- ¦
duced as the Senfe of the Author, but made ufe of ,
as the fitteft, by which to exprefs the Senfe of my
Argument on the Subjeft, without regarding whe- •
ther they were the words of the Objeftor, or the
Author, or having any Defign of fathering fuch" a -
Senfe on the Author of the Trial. I think the*
manner of introducing the Sentences complained'
of, is fufficient to clear me from this accufation.
- F. The Clearer fays, You was made fenfible of
this ^Miftake, and tho' the paffage fiilb ftands, and
very improperly, in your new ¦ Edition, yet you have
taken fame Care to cover the blunder, by dropping the
reference to the Trial.
C. But the Misfortune is, I do not know who
made me fenfible of the blunder, nor that it is fuch,-
whether the reference to the Trial be made or not.
The very quoting the Trial, I thought, would clear
me of the Imputation of expreffing the words quo
ted as the Senfe of the Author himfelf. What is
the other Inftance ?
F. The Author^ of the Trial, tp fhew that the
Jews, in guarding the Sepulchre, betrayed, a fecret
conviftion of the Truth of the Miracles performed by
Chrift in his life time, fays, Trial,, p. 38. " For,
*' had they been perfuaded that, he wrought np
" wonders in his Life, I think they would not have
" been afraid of feeing any done by him after his
"-Death." The Author of the Trial, to fhew the.
inconfiftency of Woolfton'j Scheme fays, p. 39.
" Surely this is a moft lingular Cafe; when the,
«' People thought him a Prophet, the chief Priefts,
".fought to kill him, and thought his Death would
".put an end, to his Pretenfions; when they and
** the People difcovered him to be a Cheat, then
I F a « they

( 44 )
w they thought him not fafe, even when he was
*( dead, but were afraid he fhould prove a true
** Prophet, and according to his own Prediction,
*' rife again." You quote the words thus in p., 38.
of the firft Edition, and p. 29. of the third:
»* There is no Reafon then to fuppofe they were
« afraid of a true Refurreftion, or that they were
« convinced of any Miracles faid to be done by
** liim. But they being perfuaded he perforrn'd no
«? wonders in bis. Life, were not afraid of feeing any
l*' done by him after his Death. Therefore* that
if they Jhould kill him, that his Death might put an
" end to all pretenfions, yet think him not fafe" when
?' be was dead is, I muft own, a needlefs and pre-
" poftrous fear, and a moft Angular Cafe, as the
" Gentleman (meaning the Author ofthe Trial)
tl rightly expreffes it,'' p. 38, and 39.
• C. Who fees not that the Author of the. Trial
wrote this to fhew an Inconfiftency in the Scheme.
he oppofed, and that what I wrote is to fhew the
Confiftency of mine in his own words ; and there
fore quoted the place where they are to be found in
the Trial, direfting the Reader thereby to judge of
both, and obferve how they were applied ? Is it
any Injuftice to the Author of the Trial, that I
have expreffed the force of my argument in words
pr expreffions borrowed from him ? Since, I think,
no body but the Clearer would offer to charge
me for fo doing, as he does : That by an artfuh
Abufe of the language in the Trial, I would make
the Reader imagine any thing elfe, than that I have
ijluftrated my Argument againft him in his own
words. Since I referred to the place from whence
I borrowed them, the Reader is to fee and judge
for himfelf. And the References were, evident^
)y ^.otxe, to fhew to what End we both applied
?hem, tho' fometimes to different ; becaufe they
feem'd to me to fuit my way of reafoning as wefj

( 45 >
as his. ; But, perhaps his own Arguments turn'd
upon Km\, alter the Cafe : Tho' I have been ufed
to think that the fame Arguments were alike
good, when the Cafes were alike.
F. The Clearer complains that, amongft other things
Amazingly afted^ you reckon this, for one; * " That
ft St. Mqttbew fhould be admitted as an Evidence
" in a Court to prove a Faft, when he was ab-
" lent;" md for this you refer the Reader to the
Trial,- p. 4,2. And that the page referred to, has
nothing of St. Matthew in if, but of the Waich,
concerning whofe report of the Difciples flealing
away the body while; the Guard flept,, there the
Objeftor is afked : Whether be has any Authorities in
point to fhew, that ever any man was admitted as an
Evidence in any Court to prove a Fafti which happen
ed when he was afieep ?
C. And I, in return, made the other a matter
ef like wonder, concerning St. Matthew's telling
what a Privy Council of the Jews did, about
bribing the Watch, thinking it pretty near a pa
rallel Cafe.
F. He fuppofes you guilty of a -great Blunder,
not to know- the Difference between an fHftorian, ' and
one produced as an Eye-witnefs.
C. But who ever produced the Watch, as,Eye-
witneffeSi when they were afieep ? They could not *
pretend tp be fuch, they own'd the contrary by
faying, what they reported was done when they
were afieep. And as fome body muft be fuppofed
to acquaint Matthew with what the Privy Council
faid, and afted, fb fome body with no lefs proba
bility and proof, may be fuppofed to acquaint the
Watch when they were awake, who ftole away the
body, which before they flept they faw fecured,
but afterwards gone, and the Sepulchre broke
ppen. Or if the Watch only fuppofed by whom the

(46 )
the thing was dohe, and could attribute it to no
other more probable Caufe, I think, in this Cafe,
they were as much Hiftorians as St. Matthew was,
and relate things on equal Credit. Therefore, in;
this Cafe, the Watchmen and St. Matthew are
to be confidered equally as Eye-witneffes, and'
Hiftorians^ Nay, if there was a Watch fet; 'tis
not improbable they were ufed by Pilate^ rather as
Spies to obferve, than as Watch to prevent any
thing, and To might pretend Sleep, whilft they let
the Difcipies fteal away the body, or might be their
Confederates. F. The Clearer draws this Inference from his re
mark on this paffage: It fhews how well qualified you.
are to determine on the Credit of the Gofpel Hiftorians,
when. you do not apprehend the plaineft thing relating
to Evidence, what is neceffary to give Credit to an
Eye-witnefe, and what to an Hiftorian. After thefe
Inftances, there is little Reafon to expeft from your
hand a judicious, or a fair Anfwer to the Trial.
C. This: Gentleman's angry Difpofition has in
duced him to make too hafty Conclufions. Or elfe
it is by this Art, he attempts to eftablifh his Argu
ments, or bring them to a Crifis to invalidate alt
mine. His infinuating a Diftinftion where there
is no Difference, fhews how well qualified he is
to mifreprefent his Antagonift, and deceive his
Readers. F. The Clearer fays, * The Refurreftion confider
ed, is plainly apiece of Patchwork, and has but little
in it to entitle it to be called, An Anfwer to the
Trial. C. It is fo far from being a piece of patchwork,
that it is nothing elfe but patchwork pick'd in
pieces. The beft that can be done with bad fluff,
which Traders attempt to put off, is to fhew how
bad it ia. -
F. The
?Page i^

( 47 3
F. The Clearer afks, Have you' weighed the Argu
ments, on both fides of the Queftion, as ft a ted in the
Trial,: 'and Jhewed where the Author of the Trial ei
ther diffembled the Force of the Objeftion, or failed in
the Anfwer to it ? Nothing like it, fays he.
C. Is he angry becaufe I have not charg'd the
Author with any thing mean or bafe ? No, I do
not fb much as pretend to it. I thought it enough
to examine his Foundation, whether Arguments
brought from* thence, are fufficient Proofs of the
Faft afferted, and believed.
F. The Clearer fays* you have found an. eafier me
thod of making an Appearance, of an Anfwer to the
Trial. C. I own, I found it no hard matter to make
a real Difcovery of the Infufficiency of the Evi
dence, by which the Caufe was tried. ;
F. He continues, that fame Paffages taken inde
pendently of the Argument of which they are a part,
you have Jingled out to furniflo matter of Controverfy.
But as thefe were too few in Number to make a decent
appearance of Quotations from a Book, which you pro-
feffed to anfwer,'-
C. Many Quotations are to me, I own, a labo
rious piece of work, therefore I made as few as
poffible ; but I endeavoured to take fuch Paffages
as contain'd the main force of the Subjeft.
F. Let me go on : Tou have, he fays, taken the
Liberty to ufe the Language of the Trial to your own
purpofe, and have diftinguijhed it in Italics, and re
ferr' d the Reader to the Trial, even where the words,
by the Additions and Alterations made by you, are turn'd
to a fenfe direftly contrary to that in which the Author
of the Trial ufed them. And by this little Art, you
appear, to an unwary Reader, to be quoting and con
futing the Trial of the Witneffes.
C. If I have ufed the Language of the Trial to
my own purpofe, I know of no Injury I did, or
I defign'd

C 48 )
defign'd the Author by fo doing. And quoting
the Trial, I thought was very fair, ' that the Reader
mi»ht fee to what different purpofes the words were
ufed, and that I had no Intention to impofe upon
him, Or pervert the Senfe of the Author* Whe*
ther References had been made or not to the Trial, I
do not fee how the Reader could mifunderftand the
matter. F. But as much as you have perverted, altered,
and mifapplied the Paffages taken from the Trial, fays
the Clearer, * it is nothing in comparifon with your
abufie of the Writers of the New Teftament, whom
you treat as Impoftors and Cheats, and void even of
Cunning to tell their own Story plaufibly.
C. And if they do not tell their own Story plau
fibly, am I to blame ?
F. Yes, to tell x>f it, and charge them with it.
C. I take the common, natural, literal Senfe of
Scripture to be the meaning. I do not examine
it with the Criticifms of a Grammarian ; for I art
told, the Difciples of Jefus were ignorant and un
learned men, they then could not write Gramma
tically, it's rather a queftion whether they could
write at all. Peter and John are confeffed to be
fuch; Afts iv. 13. who then wrote Peter's Epifiles,
and John's Gofpel, Epiftles and Revelation, is worth
Enquiry, if it could be found out. And that illite
rate Hebrews fhould write in Greek, is folvable by
nothing but Miracles, which is capable of making
every thing, any thing, or nothing. Nor had they
any fpiritualizing Notion, for they were always
forc'd to afk their Mafter the meaning of his Para
bles ; and if at any time they were afraid to do
that, for fear he fhould upbraid them with their
dulnefs, they remained ignorant.
F. The
* Page 13.

(; 49 )"
F. The Clearer fays, you have charged St. Mat
thew with forging a Prophecy, (firft Edition, p. 28.
third, p. 20.)
C I obfcrved that the fign given to that evil ger
neration, was never fulfilled to them; therefore, I
conjectured it was not given by Jefus Chrift, but
was forgery, which I did not therefore afcribe to
St. Matthew. Or otherwife, I fuppofed it might
be mifreprefented by tranfcribers. Could any thing'
be more modeft ? Let him prove the genuinenefs*
of St. Matthew's Gofpel if he can, and anfwer
Mr- John Potter's ingenious Treatife called, The
Authority of the Old and New Teftament Confidered ;
where he has proved, that the two firft chapters of
St. Matthew's Gofpel are a fpurious Addition, and
fhewn other Interpolations in the New Teftament.
F. And Matthew, Mark and Luke, are charged
with fraudulent defigns ; (firft Edition, p. 31. third,
p. 23.) and again, there is Reafon, you fay, to fuf
peft .all the Prediftions of the Refurreftion in them, to
be forgery. C. In things 'that do not' agree, there is not the
appearance of Truth ; and when we find this, 'tis
natural to fufpeft fome Reafon : Therefore I fuppo
fed that there was forgery in the Text, of which I
conceive the difagreements are a Proof. I thought
it better to do this, than to afcribe Lie's to God, or
Fraud, to his only Son, or his Servants, the holy
Apoftles. I would not be thought fo prophane as
to blafpheme the Charafters of the Saints, whofe
Piety, Wifdom and Sincerity, is not to be queftioned.
Their inconfiftency, tharefore, I imputed to others.
The Tranflator of £flvz againft Celfus fays, the
Scripture is corruptjJMPRhe Original ; thefe are his
words, (Preface, p^) Nay, the Greek and He
brew Text of tbe Scripture, thofe facred and refrefh-
ing .Fountains of living water, have been fhamefully
polluted by human Additions, and cur fed Innovations.
G How

( 5°)
How then have I abufed the Writers of the New
Teftament, as the Clearer would infinuate, that
Matthew is charged with forging a Story of the
Watch, and that there is reafon to fufpeft all rhe
Prediftions of the Prophecy of the Refurreftion to
be forgery, fince their Difagreements in the fulfil*-
ling thofe Prophecies can fignify no lefs,
F. The Clearer, p. 19. fays, that Celfus lived at
no great diftance from the Apoftolic Age : Did he
know any thing of the Corruption of the Gof
pels ?
C. Yes, Origen repeats Celfus's. words faying,
that *' fome of the Chriftians, like men intoxi-.
" cated with fumes of Wine, who do not mind
" at all what they fay or do, have altered the Ori-
" ginal Text of the Gofpels, fo that they may ad-
*' mit of various, and almoft infinite Readings.
" And this, (fays he) I fuppofe they did out of
" human Policy, that when we prefs them hpmq
*' with an Argument, they might have the larger
" fcope for their pitiful Evafions."
F. How does Origen anfwer this ?
C. He confeffes, that the Original Text of the
Gofpels had been altered by three Seels, viz. the
followers of Marcion, Valentinus, and Lucian. But
thinks 'tis no. convincing Argument againft the Truth.
of the Chriftian Religion, that fome perfons have had
the horrid Impudence to corrupt tbe Gofpels themfelves,
and fo have given an unhappy rife to numerous and
mofi impious Herefies. A glorious Confeffion to
Truth by Origen, but not to the Truth of the Gof
pels ! The Chriftians not only corrupted the Gof
pels, but as Mr. Toland fays, jfrrged Books on one
another, and wanting HeatherftTeftimony, forged
them too, as well as, 'tis likely, were" impofed
upon by the Forgeries of Jews and Heathens, who-
in the mean while laughed in their fleeves at the
Credulity of Chriftians. F. But

(5i)
F. But while you charge the Saints with incoh-
fiftency, the Clearer charges you a Sinner with the
fame.
C. How?.
F. St. Matthew has given an account of guarding
and fiealing the Sepulchre ; the other Evangelifis fay
nothing of it. Upon this, you fay, they tell different
Stories. How fo ? Says the Clearer, Does a man
who fays nothing of a Story, tell a different Story, or
contradift the Story? Tet this, fays he, is the Coh-
fiderer's Logic*, arid to prove it, refers to firft Edit.
p. 36, and 37. third, p. 27.
C. The words there are thefe : " But why do
" thefe Evangelifis tell different Stories ? St. Mat-
" thew one, about guarding and foaling the Sepul-
" chre ; St. Mark and St. Luke another, which
" fhews it was neither guarded nor fealed ; St. John
" to the fame purpofe, but different from both?"
That is, St. John tells about fpicing the body,
in a different manner than was by Mark and
Luke, before mentioned ; whofe relations are ir
reconcileable, as their Defenders may find, if God
give them Underftanding : Therefore the fenfe
of my words is obvious, and eafy to be under
ftood. F. The Clearer continues, that you fay exprefiy,
in a like Cafe, " St. John fays not a word of it,
" but denies it all;" firft Edit. p. 32. third,
p. 23.
C. There indeed he has me, and I muft get off
as well as I can. A little of that Chriftian Charity
he beftows upon the Scriptures, fometimes to help
their natural Senfe, and frequent Infirmities, are un
happily wanted to this Expreffion. The words of
mine are : " I have not mentioned what St. John
" fays of Chrift's foretelling his Refurreftion to his
" Difciples, left it fhould be thought ,1 ftifle his
" Evidence ; I ,have examined him, and find he
G 2 " fays

( 52 )
" fays not a word of it, but denies it all:" That
is, St. John fays not a word of what the other
Evangelifis fay of Jefus's foretelling his Refurrec-
tion to his Difciples, but on the contrary denies it,
by' faying, They knew not the Scriptures, that he
muft rife again from the dead. But if thefe Remarks
were given for Arguments, it is a fign the Clearer
was diftreffed.
F. The Clearer fays, * Upon this kind of reafon
ing, if it is reafoning, you charge all the four Evan
gelifis with forgery ; and fiuppofie, " that Matthew's
" Story, being detefted, Mark and Luke tell an-
" other ; theirs being alfo confuted, John comes
" and tells a ftory different from all theirs." And
this vehement Charge is founded on this only, that
Mark, Luke and John, fay nothing about it.
C. This is fo far from being the only thing, that
by reafon of the Clearer** vehement charge of me,
, the only thing upon which my Suppofition is found
ed, is over-look'd by him : That is, the Incon-
fiftencies and Differences in the Hiftories, which
cannot be reconciled without more forgery.
F. He goes on : At this rate, bow eafily may all
hiftorical fafts be confuted ? It is but faying the hifto
ries are forged, and it requires no good head, provided
there be a good face, to fay it of any Hiftory in the
world. C. But if this Gentleman errs in his Charge, his
Confequence likewife is an Error.
F. But you, fays the Clearer, not content to charge
the Evangelifis with Forgery, have forged things for
them, by faying, -h " Some believe that Abfurdi-
" ties and Contradictions are poffible to the power
" of God : That he can raife up Children from
" the loins of Abraham, out of the ftones of the
" Streets." Tou plainly faw, that the paffage as it
ftood in St. Matthew, afforded no colour for this abufe, and
Page 14. f Page 15.

*

( 53 ) .
and therefore you- add, from the Loins of Abraham.
I defire the Reader, fays he, to confider wjoofie Forgery
this is ?
C. I defire the Reader to confider, that I only
expreffed by it the abfurdity of fome mens faith.
'Tis known that the Jews valued themfelves for
being the feed of Abraham, as thofe to, whom the
promife was made : In thy feed fhall all the Families
of the Earth be bleffed. Now we are told, that the
Promife was made to the feed of Abraham in Ifaac:
In Ifaac fhall thy feed be called, (Rom. ix. 7.) who is
fuppofed to come out of his Loins: Gen. xv. 4.
But if Ifaac was the Son of Abimelech, then he was
only a Son to Abraham by Faith, and carne not out
of his Loins. How am I guilty of forging things
for the Evangelifis ? Since I did not fix it as the
fenfe of thofe words, for I know not what Senfe
to make of them, fuppofing John, when he fpoke,
pointed to fome Stones on the Earth at that time,
as he feems to have done by the words, thefe Stones*
How they could be raifed up Children to Abraham,
more than to any other man, I confefs I can no
more apprehend, than that fuch Children fhould
come out of his Loins. But if every one that can
not underftand, or mifunderftands a text of Scrip
ture is guilty of forgery, I believe I have all the
Chriftians in the world on my fide. There are
many things I cannot conceive, that perhaps others
can. Nor can I fee how I am guilty of forgery,
. if I exprefs my conceptions by adding1 fome words
to the text to explain it ; in many places it cannot
be underftood without : Whoever would under
ftand fuch texts, it muft be according to the forgery
of their own Underftanding. I cannot fee any
reafon of Complaint but this, that we fhould not
forge any fenfe of thefe things for our felves, but
our Divine Blackfmiths, whofe bufinefs it is, are to
forge things for us; becaufe, by this Craft, they
2 have

(54)
have their Wealth. Their Interpretation is the Image
that comes down from Jupiter. This is their Holy
Ghoft, which is to guide us into all Truth ; and thus
have we received their Haly Ghoft from the begin

ning

F. The next thing puts this Gentleman in a
maze, thefe are his word : At page 6y of the firft
Edition, and 54 of the third, there occurs one of the
moft extraordinary Pafiages that is any where to be
found, and fhews with what Confidence the , Con fiderer
applies Scripture to his purpofe. " That Jejus at his
" laft departure, according to St. John, xxi. 19,
** 20. leaves us at all uncertainties, and went like
" a wandering Jew the Lord knows where.'' The
Clearer' ftates the Cafe thus:- Our Lord, after his
Refurreftion, fsretels Peter by what Death he fliould
glorify God. St. Peter enquires what was to become
of St. John ? Our Lord fays, if I will that he tar
ry till 1 come, what is that to thee ? Follow thou
me, i. e. What is it to you what becomes of him?
Do you follow the Example I have fet you, and glorify
God by your Death.
C. Is this Senfe paft all difpute ?
F. One would think fo by his inference, for he
adds, one may fometimes fee what handle People take
to mifreprefent Scripture ; but in this Inftance, it is
difficult to difiern what could lead to this wild Conceit.
C. I anfwer, nothing but the apparent meaning
of the words themfelves : When Jefus had faid
unto Peter, Follow me, Peter turning about, feeth the
Difdple whom Jefus loved following, and feeing him
faid, Lord what fhall this man do ? Jefus faid to Pe
ter, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to
thee ? Follow thou me. Was the Difciple whom
Peter then faw following Jefus, fuffering Death for
his Mafter, or in bodily Motion ? When Peter
turned about, and faw him following, did he turn
from his Mafter's Precept of fuffering Death for
him,

( 5S)
him, or was that turning, a bodily Motion ? If
both thefe Difciples were fo moving, they afted ac
cording to their Underftanding of the Precept.
And fince they did not underftand it in the Clear-
er's fenfe, but in the fenfe of bodily motion, as the
Hiftory fhews, I beg to be excufed. But at this rate^
how eafily may the apparent Senfe of Scripture be
explained away. Thefe Inftances, which the Clearer
has not felefted, but rather invented, fhew how fair
an Adverfary he is ; and help the Reader to form a
Judgment what thofe other paffages are, which
he complains of, but does not mention.
F. Before the Clearer comes to the points which
more immediately affeft the Evidence of the Re- ¦
furreftion, he takes notice of what Was drop'd at
the clofe of your Introduftion, which relates to the
Credit of Revelation in general, concerning Infpi
ration : * " That what is the Foundation of any*
** much lefs of every falfe Religion, cannot be the
" Foundation of the true." To this the Gentle
man objefts thus : What poor Sophiftry is this ! Can
not this great Confiderer fee the Difference between a
real and a pretended foundation ? Let him try it in his
own favourite Virtue, Sincerity. Sincerity is, by com
mon Gonfent, the very beft foundation of a good Cha
rafter, and therefore all- Knaves pretend to it. Will
the Confiderer in this- Cafe fay, that which is the
Foundation of every bad Charafter, cannot be tbe
foundation of a good' one ?
C. I cannot underftand that this is a parallel
Cafe. Every man in the world knows there is
ftieh a Principle in human Nature, as Sincerity.
But who knows Supernatural Infpiration? Does it
not eonfift in the Imagination- only ? And what is
it then but an imaginary Principle ? I believe, none
of my Antagonifts, nor the Great Clearer himfelf, will
* Page 1 6.

(56-)
will pretend to do it any more than I do. How
can they then contend for the Truth of what they
know nothing of? Truth is founded on Realities:
Falfity on Fiction : That which is in its own na
ture falfe, cannot produce Truth. Befides, pre
tended Sincerity is not the Foundation of every bad
Charafter, but pretended Infpiration is the founda
tion of every falfe Religion, they can be founded on
nothing elfe.
F. The Clearer -fays, the Paffage from the Trial
about Infpiration, * was produced only to give you an
Opportunity of entering into your darling common place
of abufing Revelation, and drawing together what has
heen retailed an hundred times over by all the little
Traders in infidelity, and has been as often anfwered to
the Satisf aftion of all fiber Enquirers.
C. Of his party only : Of thofe poor humble
Souls that, are content with any Words their Leaders
give them inftead of Reafons; becaufe' they have
faith to believe them and no body elfe, and their-
counterfeit Coin to be true, which will not pafs
current in other hands. I deny that my Objeftions
are anfwered, therefore need not reply. But was
willing, in converfation with you, to vindicate my
felf, and fhew the weaknefs of their Anfwers. If
all little traders in infidelity, that is, if all Infidels
(for Infidelity is no trade, tho' Faith is) perpetually
urge the fame Objeftions, it feems to me, they
have the beft pretentions to true Infpiration, if
there be any fuch thing, fince they fo greatly har
monize. For my part, I received my Objeftions'
from none ; but am glad to hear, that tho' I am the
Maker of my own, others have made the fame an
hundred times over. When clear and effeftual
Anfwers cannot be given, the fame Objeftions will
ever be made, and ftand good.
F. The
* Page 17.

( 57)
Fv The next point that more immediately affefts
the Credit of the Refurreftion is, the Nature and
Quality of the Evidence. The Clearer fays, you
begin with complaining grievoufiy, that all the Evi
dence is on the fide of the Refurreftion, and that you
can find none againft it. And this you think is a very
hard cafe upon you.
C. But much harder to defend the Evidence
that is on the fide of it. This I delivered not by
way pf Complaint, but to fhew the little Reafon to
expect what fb plainly appears.
F. He adds, If you fhould take it in your head to
prove, that Casfar was not killed in the Senate-boufe,
you might begin with the fame Complaint ; for all the
Evidence would be on one fide, and all againft you.
C. True : And if the Evidence for this Article
Of Faith was as probable, and as well attefied, it
would be no more queftioned than that is. But if
Cafiar's Death had no better Evidence than the Re
furreftion of J ejus, 'tis likely the Clearer himfelf
might queftion it. If he fhould take it in his
head to difprove the Afcention of Romulus, tho' all
the Evidence be on one fide,- and all againft him ;
yet, I queftion much whether he could believe it, even
tho' he was hired to it. That Ccefar was killed in
the Senate-houfc, there is the concurrent Teftimony
of Cafiar's Friends, as well as Enemies,, both as to
the Faft it felf; and its Confequences ; therefore 'tis
inconteftible.. But the ftabbing Cafiar in the Senate-
houfe, might fail of Credit on unknown and difa-
greeing Evidence, tho' all combined to affert it.
A miraculous faft on fuch bad Evidence, is much
more incredible. Any Aftion faid to be done by
man, which is above human power, feems to me
to require more than human proof : But if it have
lefs than reafonable proof, it is incredible to men
that reafon about it. Mr, Lacy, one ofthe French-
H Prophets,

( 58 )
Prophets, publifhed a Book in London, entitled, A
Cry from the Defart ; in which « is an Account of a
famous Miracle, done by Mr. Clary at Cannes near
Serignau, in France, Auguft 1 703, and by them faid
to be attefted by a Thoufand ; which I do not know
was ever contradicted, tho' no body but themfelves
believed it, if themfelves did. What may they not fay
of Whitefield fome ages hence ? Is it not miraculous
that he fhould, without any bribe of Loaves and
Fifhes, draw together fo often, five or feven thou
fand Men, befides Women and Children, to liften
with attention to the Charming Nonfenfe of his
Preaching. . F. The Clearer fays, * you imagine there was an
ciently a great ftock of Evidence againft the Truth of
the Refurreftion, but that it has been unhappily loftn
or deftroy ed; becaufe you faid, " That books have
" been wrote by Porphyry, Celfius, and others, which
" contained what the Chriftians thought were beft
" anfwered by ftifling and burning. That it is
" well known from fome fragments of them in
*• Origen, that they contradicted what is related in
" the Evangelifts." Fragments of Porphyry, in
Origen, could not be, for Origen was dead before
Porphyry fet Pen to Paper.  Porphyry could not
be above twenty- one years old when Origen died. 
There was about an hundred years between Celfiis and
Porphyry. 
C. This may be true : I am fenfible there is no
thing of Porphyry in Origen, nor did I intend to
fay there was, I only meant to fay, fome fragments,
of Books in Origen ; but 'tis fo negligently ex
preffed, I own, that my Senfe may be here eafily
miftaken, without ftraining the natural Senfe of the
words, as they are carelefly thrown together. If
the Grand Fact in debate was liable to the like Ex
ceptions, then indeed, the Evidence of it would be
* Page 18.

(59)
be cleared. I am fenfible this is an Error in my
Wording it. It fhould be read thus : It is Well-
known from fome fragments of the boolcs of Celfus.
\n Origen, that they contradicted what is related by
the Evangelifis.
F. And fo do you, fays the Clearer, but what
then ? Is the Credit of any Hiftory the worfe, becaufe
it is wantonly contradifted, without Evidence or Aii*
thority, . of any fort, to fupport the Contradiftion ? ¦¦•¦
C. No. But that I contradift it wantonly, is
what- cannot be proved. And that the Credit of
this Hiftory is without Harmonious Evidence, or
the Authority of Reafon, is what they cannot dif
prove. F. Celfus and Porphyry were juft fuch Witneffes,
the Clearer urges, againft the Gofpel, as you are;
and for want of Evidence to contradift the Evangelifis,
they were forced to rely upon the Difiagreements, which
they fuppofed were to be found in the feveral Accounts
gfaen by the Evangelifis.
C, And thefe Arguments were the beft they
could ufe, againft them that were capable of be
lieving no Evidence but their own, and refolved tp
deny whatever contradifted it. It was beft to fhew
fuch, the contradiftion of their own Evidence,
which they could not deny. The beft and only
way of reafoning with men, is by Arguments
drawn from Premifes they themfelves acknowledge.
Therefore, whether there was any good Evidence
againft the Gofpel Hiftory in Celfus's time or no, he
thought beft to confound it by -its own Evidence.
If the Witneffes for a faft cannot prove it, there is
no occafion to bring any other to difprove it.
F. Celfus lived at no great diftancefrom the Apofto-
Uc Age : At a time when all Religions were tolerated
but the Chrifiian ; when no Evidence was ftifled, no
Books deftroyed, but thofe of Chriftians.
H 2 C This,

( 60 )
C This, .to' me, is fcarce credible, that under
the Roman Government, all Religions fhould be to
lerated but Chriftians, and that their Books alone
fhould be deftroyed, unlefs they fuffered under the
Name of Jews, being originally a Judaic Seft. Or un
lefs theChriftians were a very immoral Seft,whoex-
alted Faith and debafed Morality. For St. Peter
reafons well when he fays, i Epift. iii. 13. Who will.
harm you, if you be followers of that which is good ? •
F. But at the time Celfus lived, he had only
the Gofpel to fearch for Evidence againft the Gofpel.
A ftrong Proof that there never had been Books of
¦any Credit in the World, that queftioned the Gofpel
Fafts, when fo fpileful, and fo artful an Adverfary as
Celfus, made no ufe of them.
C. I have already obferved, that the Arguments
fo founded againft the Chriftians, were the hardeft
for them to anfwer. But whether there were no
other, I believe cannot be proved. Or whether the
meannefs or contemptiblenefs of the Seft, which
was every where fpoken againft, did not render them
unworthy the oppofition of the Learned, till Num
bers made them confiderable. On this Confidera
tion, Celfus might have been one of the firft that
wrote againft them. But if it had not been for the
fake of Origen's Anfwer, 'tis evident, the Objec
tions of Celfus had never been known. And fuch
Anfwers as Origen made, if in our Time, would
be look'd upon as evafive and trifling. The body
of Faith has increafed and gather'd Strength by
Age, for I perceive 'tis better vindicated now, than
in its Infancy. Education and Long Cuftom has
made it ftrong ; Celfus chofe this method of Con
viftion, to argue from their own Gofpels rather
than any other, for drawing to a Conclufion, fpeak
ing to the Chriftians, he adds : " All I have faid has
peen borrowed from your own approved Author's,
fo that I need not produce any other Tefti monies ;
fince

( 61 )
fince the edge of your own Weapon's is fufficiently
turn'd on yourfelves." Hence, I prefume, that Cel
fus had other Teftimonies to produce on his fide of
of the Argument, but did not ufe them, becaufe
he thought them not neceffary ; fo that this was a
Method of Choice. In anfwer to this, Origen tells
us, that he has been pleas'd to interlard it with
abundance of ridiculous ftories, that the Evange
lifis never thought of. If he had not thofe ftories
from fome others, Origen would no doubt have
told us they were of his own Invention, and never
produc'd by any but Celfus in the World before j
but this he does not charge him with, not even
when Celfus tells the moft fcandalous ftory of the
Virgin Mary. But if Celfus had no Arguments
againft the Gofpel, but what the Gofpel afforded ;
neither did Origen find where, or how to apply for
any other Evidence in its favour, than what he
there found, tho' he feems, like the Clearer, to
have wanted neither Learning nor Cunning to
make the beft of a bad Caufe, and to flander, de-
fpife and infult his Adverfary, and fing te Deum
when he was beaten.
F. What does Origen fay, to obviate that. Scan
dal of Celfus, concerning the holy Virgin.
C. All that he fays, amounts to no more than
this, that fo pure a Soul as that of Jefus, could ne
ver come from fuch impure embraces.
F. The Clearer fays, that Celfus admitted Chrift'/
Miracles ; the Difference between him and Origen
lies in accounting for them, the one aficribing- them to
the Power of God, the other to the Power of Magic.
C. Granting, that Jefus did Miracles, Celfus, in
the perfon of a Jew, does this to try how the Chrif
tians could vindicate them from that Imputation ;
againft which, Origen makes but a poor Plea when
he fays, But tho' we fhould grant, that 'lis difficult
for us to determine precifely, by what Power our Sa-
i viour

I")
viour wrought his Miracles ; yet, 'tis very plain, that
the Chriftians made ufe of no Enchantments, unlefs the
Name of Jefus, and fome pafiages of tbe holy Scrip
tures, were a kind of facred Spell.
F. If Celfus was a Jew, he muft needs give Cre
dit to Miracles.
C. It appears he was no Jew, for he fays, ". that
" Judaifm, with which the Chriftian Religion has
•* a very clofe conneftion, has all abng been a bar-
" barous Seft." Origen obferves, that Cdfus never
reckoned the Jews among tbe wife nations of the
World, that he treats Mofes as a notorious and
fhameful Impoftor, and takes the People that were
governed by him, to be extremely ignorant and
credulous. F. What may we then fuppofe Celfus to have:
been ?
C. Origen fuppofes him to have been an Epicu
rean, and if fo the Matter is out of all difpute,
that he believed no Miracles nor Magic, or Diaba-
lical Power. Origen quotes thefe Sentences of his,"
which fhews him to have been, without all doubt,
a Philofopher : " He advifes men to embrace no
*' Opinion, but under the Conduft of Impartial'
" Reafon, on account of the many, and grofs Er-
" rors, to which the contrary Praftice will fhame-
" fully and unavoidably expofe us." Elfe-whefe,
he fays, " As the Sun, which enlightens every
" thing by its piercing Rays, immediately difco-
" vers it felf to us, by the glorious Light which it
" tranfmits over the whole Sphere by turns ; fo
" your pretended Saviour, had he been God, or
" the Son of God, would have refembled that glo-
" rious Luminary."
F. What Opinion had Celfus of the Gofpel Mi
racles ?
C. It is certain he did not believe them, for
he treats them with the greateft Contempt and
Ridicule,'

(63 )
Ridicule, imaginable. He wonders, ?« that the An-
" gel which was difpatch'd from God fop the Safety
" of his Son, when young, could not as eafily pre-
" ferve- him in Judea, as in Egypt!' Concerning
the Dove that deficended upon our Saviour, at his Bap-
tifim, fays Origen, he would fain have the whole ac
count, to pafs for a falfe and trifling Story, And as
to his Death* fays Origen, This pretended Jew goes
on, and is rtady- to fplit his fides with laughing at the
Earthquake, and ridicules the more than ordinary
Darknefs, that were the awful Concommitants of our
Saviour's Sufferings, &cc.
F. But what does Celfus fay of the Miracles
Wrought by Chrift himfelf ?
C.'He reprefents the Chriftians faying, " Our
" Saviour was the Son of God, becaufe he cured
" the lame, and blind, and raifed a few from the
" dead ; as we, poor Creatures that we are, are
" ready to imagine." — ¦ — He calls the Miraculous
Stories of Jefus, a Company of old Wives Fables,
which you impofe on us, faid he, and have not the
Senfe to give them the leaft Colour of Reafon.  And
as fpeaking to Jefus, fays, What did you ever fay or
do, that was worthy of Admiration, tho' you was
openly challeng'd to give convincing Proofs, that you
wai the Son of God, ore. Thefe are the Proofs of
his admitting Chrift's Miracles, which except the
Clearer had- affirmed, I fhould not have mentioned,
nor fought after.
F. The Clearer tells us, that Origen'.? Anfwer is
not a general Reply to Celfus, but a minute Examina
tion of all his Objeftions, even of thofe that appeared
to Origen mofi frivolous.
C. Them chiefly, I fuppofe, for Origen, no doubt,
like the Clearer, took the chiefeft care to anfwer
the eafteft Objections.
F. He

(64)
F.- He fays; Or/genftates the Objeftions of Celfus
in his own words, in the order Celfus had placed
them. C. So does the Clearer ftate mine, but fometimes
miftates, and miftakes them.
F. Celfus then, as it happens, he fays, is fafe, and
you need not lament over him any more.
C. He is as faithfully , preferved, by Origen, as
perhaps the Refurreftion confidered is, by the Evi
dence of the Refurreftion cleared. They that can
abfolutely depend on the Veracity of a party, muft
have a great deal of partial Faith, and Faith of af
furanee.:  ¦
F. What Lamentation you may be allowed to
make :for Porphyry, I do not know; for only fome
difperfed fragments of him are to be found, in Eufebius
and Jerom. However, this you ought to lament,
that you have mixed Porphyry with Celfus, in

C. I do. I have own'd the fault, and fhewn
how it is to be corrected, and hope my Adverfaries
, will learn to do the like, when they are convicted
of Errors, to mend them, that Truth may be glo
rified ; for I argue for Conviftion, not for Con-
queft. F. So you muft be content to follow the fteps of your
great Leaders ; Celfus, Porphyry, Julian, &c. te
fearch the Gofpel for Objeftions againft tbe Gofpel.
C. I am Content with that Liberty.
F. Why this (the Clearer fays) is anofher hard/hip,
and the fubjeft of another Complaint ; for you faid,
Can it be expefted, an equitable Iffue fhould be obtained
from what may be fairly reafbned out of their own re
ports ?
C. It is not to be expefted, but it may be done,
and I have fairly done it ; perhaps contrary to the
expeftation of all who read without enquiry. The
Reports betray the Fafts reported. F. But

> ( 65 )
. F. But by that Expreffion, hefuggefts you had
no profpeft of doing it ; and therefore fays, If you
had no belter hopes, why did you trouble your felf , and
the World? Did you propofe, becaufe- nothing could be
fairly reafbned out of the Gofpels, to reafon fiomething
out of it unfairly. Tou have indeed done fo, ; ( he
fays) fiut did not, he fuppofes, mean to give warning
of it. ¦.•¦¦_;•'.
• C. This is unfairly faid, and falfely. infinuated. I
faw, plainly before I begun, that the Penmen of
thofe books, feem to have had fo little Direction
from the holy infallible Spirit,,that it feems rather to
have jeft them to themfelves, and. to their own
Confufion ; or it has been bafely corrupted and
interpolated fince, wish forged Stories^ I was obli
ged to impute^ the Errors in them to one of thefe,
in, my Refiurre. ftion Confider ed; and I thought the
laft was the beft, and would give the leaft offence!
F. But what Objeftion have you to the Evidence
in the Trial ?,
C. " Can that be efteemed a fair Trial, where
«' the Evidences are only on one fide of the Qyef-
«« tion?"
F. * Why not ? Was ever full and. clear Evidence
rejefted, becaufe there was no Evidence to be produced
againft it? The Cafe will be .always fo, where the
Truth is notorious. : .; /
C. Right. But the Objeftion here lies, that the
Evidence is not clear and full, and , therefore the
Truth is not notorious. "Were it fo, it would'not
admit of fuch a field of debate. If the Truth was
notorious, men could, not find in the Gofpel, Ob-
jeftipns againft the Gofpel. To do this, Unbe
lievers think, there is no occafion to reafon any
thing unfairly out of it. The Witneffes xthat do
not agree, deftroy their own Evidence ; and "ye:,
the Clearer owns, -(p. 33.) that all depends upon the ,
I GOESf '

(66 )N ..
Credit: of Goffli \ Hiftory $ and therefore^! is tPbe^la-
mented, that- any thing fhould appear in ir, whidi
is juftly queftionables and a proper Subjeft of Com-*
plaint; that the Credit of thefe Gofpels were fix?&
by the Church', after' the peculiar Marks of the
Hbly Spirit had- left it, long after' the Gift of1 difc
cerning Spirits^ and even of Truth itfelf was loft,-
by the perpetual Faftions and Superftitions that*
prevailed, in it.; when common Senfe was con
founded by Faith; and Reafort caitf off' as a dan
gerous Guide ; afteri fo many fpiirious Gofpels arofe,
and were nourifhed; by. the contending parties, thatf
it required no lefs<than a miraculous power, or Spi
rit of Divination; to diftinguifh'' the genuine- from*
the. apocryphal ; and' the Fathers of the Church'
having abandoned' mafeuline Senfe, and found
Judgment, were become filly, hot-headed, and im-;
pertinent old Women. It is certain they were al
ways divided into Parties, and ever condemning one
another for never being in the right. How can
pure and untainted Water be expected from fuch
muddy Streams! Or the refulgent Rays of divine
Truth from fuch an impenetrable Cloud of Obfeu
rity, and winding Maze' of inextricable Perplexities
as they were involved in 1 He that attempts to feek
Truth, being governed by any Authority or- Spirit
but that of Reafon, is loft in the endlefi Maze of
Uncertainty and Confufion. Behold ye Sons of
Men, Reafon is the God incarnate ! and he that has
forfaken God, is forfaken of him. He that will not1
follow the Light of God's Wifdom, is juftly left in
the Darknefs of his own Folly. He that racks his
Reafon to defend Errors, crucifies the Word of God
between Thieves : And his Reward is to be tormen
ted in the fiery Gulf of his boundlefs burning Paf
fions ; inftead of treading the pure Plains of lather
with a mafeuline. Soul, and upright Countenance,
F. Well,

(*7)
- -]F. Well, but wherein confifts the Difficulty of
.your Tafk, rinifinding che Truth of the Cafe in
Difpute ? ".-Ax
' £. " To.find the Truth of a Cafe by.the Tefti-
.-*'• rjapny pf^partial cEvidence > combined againft it,
*e muft be owned to be a difficult Tafk ;" at leaft
one might, reafonably imagine it to be fo, tho' in
.this Cafe it isrnot.
:F. But how do you know the Witneffes are partial. ?
* It is not a thing to be taken for granted; and Proof
-$011 bring none. And is it not the Purpofe and Drift of
-your whole Book, toijkew them.contrddifting one another
fypalmoft every <Inftanee ? How then .were they combined
rtogether ?
-C. When feveral Perfons agree to affert a Fact,
-which even their ?own Evidence . difproves when
.Compared and examined'; It fhews them both par-
-tial ^and combined .
• , F. 'Why did you not 'tell us what was their View in
¦combining together •? It coftthem their Lives : Tou fee
what their Combination tended to. . v. .,.-:-.<
C, How many Millions in all Ages run thehazard
of lofing their Lives, that they may live well while
they do live. But I queftion much if the Apoftles
-died, miferably and violently, as 'tis pretended. \
doubt much of the Truth of partial Hiftory, and
all .Ecclefiaftic Hiftory written by Ecclefiaftics on
•thatifide, is fuch. .1
F. Another Queftion you have' chofen to debate, is
about -the Nature of Chrift' s Kingdom. Many Pafiages
areproducedfromithe Trial, all fpeaking to this Ef
fect: That Jefus did not. pretend to a Spiritual
•kingdom, &c. y Among thefe Quotations, fome are
•taken from the. Mouth of the Pleader againft the Re
furreftion, a-ndaferlbed to the Author of the Trial,
* Page z?y -'--¦¦ ¦ ¦+ P-age-24.
I 2 C, Bs

( 68)
,C. Be it fo ;' if all the Quotations are to this effeft,
where is the Damage to the Author or Argu
ment ?
¦¦ F. But this happens fe frequently*, that it would be
endlefs to take notice of it as often as it happens, the
Clearer fays. . ..... "-¦•_
. C. His Complaints" are fo falfe,. or fo little to the
purpofe, that they are not worth - my while to re
gard, but to undeceive thofe whom his Complaints
may deceive.
F. Does the Confiderer, cries he, enter into the
Argument as itftauds in the Trial ? No. But be takes
the Paffages • independently of- the Argument, of which
they are a Part ; and thinks that, taken by themfielv.es,
they are not true. Be it fo ; what then does it fignify
to the Faft of the Refurreftion which he was to dif
prove ? , Why all this Parade of many Quotations from
the Trial, fine e they do not relate, to the Point in • dif
pute ? Some, good Friend, I fuppofe, had afked the
Confiderer thefe. Quefiions, which he could not anfivef-;
• and tho' he was unwilling to part with fo many Quota
tions at once, yet' to prevent the fame Queftions being
afked him again, he has, in his new Edition, p. 8. con-
feffed, that be this (i. e. the ancient Prophecies of
•this Kingdom) myftically or conditionally true, it con
cerns not the Refurreftion.
C. The fame is confeffed in the firft Edition, p. 17.
tho' the Clearer could not clearly fee it, which one
would have thought fo clear-lighted a Man might
have done; but then he could not have feen an Oc
cafion for Complaint and this Infinuation, and there
fore 'tis to be feared he would not fee it.
F. Tou think it is not true that Chrift declined Tem
poral Power %, and go on to produce Prophecies, that
God would give him the Throne of his Father David,
and fay, that he was called King of Ifrael, King of the
Jews,' and xebifkednot thofe who. gave him the Title. And
% Page 25,

(69) .
Andwhyfhbuld he rebuke them, fince he claimed that
Title, and never denied that he was King ofthejefrs ?
C. Very good. And therefore Jefus told his
twelve Difciples, that when he enjoyed the Glory of
fitting oh his Throne, he would make them twelve
Judges, give them great Poffeffions, reward them
an hundred fold in this World, and everlafting
Life fhould be thrown to them tnto the Bargain.
Matt. xix. 28, 29. What did Jefus mean by this ?
Can it be proved to. have' any Meaning foreign to
the literal Senfe ? ;
F. Bur that is to be when Chrift comes again in
Glory. Judges are of no ufe till the Court of
Judgment opens. This is to be at Doomfday.
C. I dare 'fay the Apoftles did not expeft to wait
fo long before they were to be put in Commiffion.
I do not doubt but they, will be fo when their Ma
fter comes again ; then' is to be the Kingdom of the
Meffiah, which they called the Kingdom of Hea
ven or of God : To keep up their Expeftation of it,
they were ordered to pray for its Coming, and to
preach that it was then at hand. , Chriftians have
hitherto prayed, Thy Kingdom come, above 1700
Xears in vain. Our Lord God Chrift is as one that
hears us not, and as one that has forgotten to return.
But the Difciples had reafon to expeft it before they
died, if we may believe what we read : Or what
mean thefe Words of Chrift to them ? Verily I fay
unto you, there be fome fianding here' who Jhall not tafte
of Death, tilt they fee the Kingdom of God come with
Power, Matt, xvi, 28.
F. It means a fpiritual Kingdom, to be fure ; for
Chrift never had a Temporal.
C. Nor a -Spiritual over the Nation of the jews -,
therefore he was King of the Jews in no fenfe ; and ,
fo means neither.
F, The

p. The Preaching pf the Word, or the Gofpel,
was the Kingdom of God. Rom. x. i.
C. Then it was a Kingdom in Word only.
P. But the Faith -that .was promulgated by the
Gofpel, was the Kingdom of God. Rom.x. 8.
C. Then. this is the Kingdom of Faith only.
F. The Word of Faith fignifies Power, bywhish
Devils- were caft out of .many whom they had bodily
poffeffed,.and fo the Kingdom of God was. come un
to them. Jlf<?^. xii. 28.. /i -;
C. Yetwe fee nothing of this Kingdom ;* it _is
not come jjn to us, •for.eifher.jbhe Wordof.ounGo-
fpel, or pur Gofpel Faith, is not able to call out
Devi]sr; lfor,we lee no foch things done, or other*
wife there are no fuch to caft out, nor do, we know
whether jhere ever werefuch-Devils in the Work}.
, F', IheTJaith of the Gofpel caftsout Sins, which
are Devils of a wptfejdnd : How many has White-
field converted, known to i^P-ve been notorious Sin
ners before their Converfion, but nowjare-fanftH
fied! C. And yet who have in common been more
wicked than Believers ? What People pretending
to Godlinefs have been more ungodly? How are
the Methodifts better than others nOw? Some of
them are by their Converfion made lefs, openly prp>
Jane, and are more zealoufly religious, and preeife
in Ceremonies, but, as ignorant as ever, and -more
.rigidly, eenforious; their Malice againft thofe that
4ar.e Unbelievers in their- Way, jncreafeswith the*r
Zeal : They can, with a, Chriftian Confcience, hatp
their Friends^and Rdations for Chrift's fake, while
they pretend to love their Enemies; for- they can
hate whom they fuppofe to be Chrift's -Enemies, can
burn, and be burnt for Faith, and defpife moral. Vip-
tue in others. Thus Converfion is nothing but,Cpn-
ceitednefs, Enthufiafm ,and Superftition, a going
from -ene vicious Extreme to another, from being
public-

pubhc-fprrited Sinners,1 to be reclufe aVidworthlefs
Bigots, from being openly prophane, arid; finning'
without Fear or Wit, tb haYbbur mote inward 'Sins,
Cenforioufnefs, hob/ Scandal; or fanftified Malice -,
prodigally' waftjng their' Subftance, Time and La
bour; necef&ry TOf the1 Support of tHe'mfefyes' and
their Families ;'. thus bringing them to Beggary for
Chrift's^ fake, to the'Startclaf attd Reproach of their
Pfpfeflion, and Injury to themfelves and Society'.
A- religious-Running' from place to place, to" hear
Preaching and Praying, with ' a' Dependence on Pro
vidence to rhake up the Defects of their Negligence,
is but pious Lazinefs ; their Heads are made' giddy/
with Lies, and amufed with Nonfenfe. Lo, thefe
are the Fruits of this Chriftian Converfion ! thefe
are the Productions of the New Birth !
F. But there are fome good People amongft
them. C. Yes, there are, no doubt; and thefe might
have been as- good as they now are, had they be
longed to any other Society. The Head being con
verted toOpinions, makes not the Heart better, un
lefs to thofe Opinions that teach the Government of
the Heart, . the Paffions,. and the right Conduft of
Life,- which is to enjoy it with Prudence ; to make,
and be made wifer and better, in reality not enthu*
fiaftically; a philofophical Cdhverfion to ufe and fol
low Reafon, not to a fpiritual Lullaby, and a Faith
without Foundation, which rouzes and excites the
Fancy ; but rocks the- Underftanding into a Le
thargy. But go on ; What fays the Clearer ?
F.' That you feem not to know, that there never was
a Quefiion between Jews and Chriftians, PVhether-
JeJus was, or pretended to be a temporal Prince ?
C. I fuppofe it will not admit of a Queftion'.
F. The Clearer fays,, Both-Sides agree' that- he nei
ther was, nor pretended to be.
C. Why

(7rO,
C. Why then did the Jews, in oppofition > to
him, cry out, JF* have no King but Caesar"? And
why was the Accufation on his Crofs written, This
is Jesus the Kino of. the Jews ? Was he put
to Death for being, or pretending to be a fpiritual
Prince of another World ? Did the Prophecies re
late to that ?
F. Had not the Prophets declared him to be a great
Prince, there would have, been no Difpute whether be,
was to be a fpiritual or a temporal Prince- Quoting
therefore the Prophecies, will not determine theQuer,
ftion; for- the Doubt is not whether there are fitch
Prophecies or . no ? But. what is the Meaning of
them ?
C. Prophecieswith an unknown Meaning, arePro--
phecies without a Meaning, and therefore no Prophe
cies. A miraculous Spirit hasdoubtlefs a miraculous
Meaning ; therefore lean never believe'any Man*
knows what the Prophecies mean, till I know he has
the fame Spirit by working Miracles : For if the;
Meaning is not known by the Words, they are fal- ;
lacious ; and I would fain know by what Rule we
may know their Meaning, or that they mean any
thing. F. You infinuated, that Jefus confeffed to Pilate,
that his Kingdom was not of this World *, for poli
tical Ends, as if the Time and Place then required
fuch Confeffion. There is one to whom you muft an
fwer it.
C. Judge nothing before the Time till tbe Lord come.
I Cor. iv. 5.
F. In the meantime, how will you anfwer to rea
fonable Enquirers the Difingenuity of concealing, that
Jefus, fo far from denying himfelf io be the King of the
Jews, confeffed it before Pilate ?
C, I afk if it be not difingenuous to fay, Thou
fayefi, is a Confeffion ; which I think implies, Do
* Page 26.

. -(73/)
Ifay fo ? This Charge is of thyfelf,' or other.';, John
!xviii. 34., Inftead of this being a Confeffion,' it
feems tome to be- tantamount to a Denial.
F. The Clearer demands with what Confcience
you afk, How it appears by any thing recorded,
that Jefus explained away the Kingly Office of the
Meffias ? Explain it away I No, he infifled on it to
the laft.
C. With what Confcience' does the Clearer thils
equivocate? No, I find J ejus did not explain k
away ; he left that for his Followers to do; and yet
they infift on it -that it is not done! Well, they have
-the knack of Wonder-working yet !
F. if you mean lo afk whether ever Jefus explained
away, the temporal Kingdom, it is manifeft: from every
Part, and pvery Circumftance of his Life, that he, ne
ver claimed it.
C. Becaufe his Hour was not yet come.
, F. If you mean to afk whether ever Jefus explained
the Nature of .the Kingdom of the Meffias ; what' more
is wanting than his Confeffion to Pilate, that he was
the King of the Jews, and that his Kingdom was not
of this World.
C. Such a Confeffion as the Clearer afferts, that
Jefus confeffed before Pilate, that he was King of
the Jews, is wanting to prove the Truth of the
former, Part of his Affertion ; and Chrift's explain
ing the Nature of his Kingdom to his Difciples, is
wanting to prove the latter part of the Clearer's
Affertion. When Chrift told Pilate where his
Kingdom was not, I fuppofe Pilate knew not where
it was. Perhaps this Kingdom might have been
more intelligible to Caiaphas the High Prieft, a
Spiritual Ruler : But to him he talkt otherwife,
Hereafter you fhall fee the Son of Man coming in the
Clouds "of Heaven; {Matt. xxvi. 64.) except that
Sight was not to be in this World. But if Jefus was
Kim of the Jews, and his Kingdom was not of this
K World,

v 74 ;
World, then he was King of the JeWs in another
World ; • and fo the Jews in this Wprld fent him
out of it, that he might take poffeflion of his
Kingdom. But if Chrift difclaimed all Temporal
Power, why was the Government alarmed, and
Jefus looked on as a Perfon dangerous to the State?
" If he explained away the Temporal Majefty of
" the Meffiah, Jefus was the beft Friend among the
" Jews the Roman Government had, to preferve
" the People from enthufiaftic Seditions. If this
" be true, it was the worft Policy in the World for
• " the Romans to put him to Death," faid I.
F. Who told you the Roman Government was alar-'
med ? queries the Clearer *.
C. I faid the Government was alarmed, and the
Evangelifis fay as much ; but why does he fay Ro
man Government ?
F. The Clearer affirms you faid fo, and that you
pretend to have it from the Trial; but according to
Cuftom, you have taken the Objeftor 's Words for
the Words of the Author.
C, According to his Cuftom, he has again broke
the Ninth Commandment, which fays, Thoujhalt
not bear falfei, witnefs. ' I did not mention Roman
Government, tho' he has charged me with it. He
grants that the Jewifh Government indeed was. And
if my Words are true, that the Government was a-
larmed, what matter whether I had them from the
Objeftor to, or Author of the Trial ? That Author
does not look upon it fcandalous to be charged with
fpeaking Truth. Whether thefe Words were the
Objeftor 's or the Author's, 'tis what one fays, the
other grants, and the Evangelifis fhew. May I
not complain of this Clearer in the Words of Ahab
concerning Benhadad, (i Kings xx. 7.) Mark I pray
you, and fee how this Man fieketh Mifchief. Tis mar
vellous elfe how the Clearer could read, could tranfcribe thefe
* Page 27.

(75)
thefe Words into his Book, and not feel that the Word
Roman was not added to Government, till he added
it. Is this Man a fiir Antagonift, who makes what
is_ no Crime a Matter of Accufation ; and to make
his Scandal ftick, charges me with what I am npt
guilty ? Can fuch a Man have Truth or Honefty
at heart?
F. What you have in view, the Clearer fays, in this
coflfufed Difeourfe about Chrift's Kingdom*, he can
not guefs.
G. Then let him not pretend to it.
F. Nay, but you are to underftand by that he
can guefs.
C. You are fit, I find, to interpret facred Writ
ings. Well, what does he guefs?
F. That you feem to think, Jefus underfiood the Pro
phecies to relate to a Temporal Kingdom, and in confe
rence claimed it, and did not renounce a Kingdom of
'z-t his World till driven to it by Defpair and Neceffiiy.-
But where, he afks, did you learn this Secret ? Not
.from the Gofpel-Hiftory, nor yet from any Enemies of
I the Gofpel, whether Jews or Heathens ; who never
have charged Jefus with Jetting up for Temporal
Power. C. I muft confefs I do not know that. It was al
ledged at' his Trial, that he aimed at being King of
the Jews, as the Title of his Accufation on the
Crofs fhews. A fpiritual King is a Subterfuge of
Neceffity. F. One would imagine it impoffible, fays he, for any
one who had read the four Gofpels, or any one of them,
to entertain this Conceit. Look into the Gofpel; every
Page will afford a Proof, that Jefus, tho' he clainied
to be the King of the Jews foretold in the ancient Pro
phets, yet he difclaimed all temporal Power and Great-
nefs.
K 2 C. How
Page 284

(76)
C. How is Jefus in this fenfe King of the Jews ?
for they difown him to this Day : He is the King
of the .Gentiles rather.
F. The Gentiles that believe in him are Jews in
the Spirit : He is .not a Jew who is one outwardly ;
and Chrift is aJCing not in his Flefh but in. the
Spirit. C. So then the King and Kingdom in the Spirit
mean nothing, lefs .than what they exprefs in the Let
ter. Methinks thefe fpiritual Believers feem to have
forfaken Jefus Chrift, and loft fight of him ; and
have taken up with a Spirit in his room.
F. Does not St. Paul fay, Henceforth know we no
Man after the Flefh ; yea though we have known Chrift
after the FleJh, yet henceforth know we bimfo no more ?
Cl And yet the fame Apoftle faid, He defired to
know nothing but Jefus Chrift and him crucified ; and
as he himfelf fays, he was put to Death or crucified
in the Flefh. And the fame Apoftle defired lo know,
the Love of Chrift which paffeth Knowledge. How is
that ? ~ '
F. It paffeth the Knowledge of thofe that do not
believe in him. All. Abfurdities to carnal Men,:
are reconciled to the fpiritual Man ; for he knows>_
alltbings, C. Or pretends to it, if he be never fo ignorant.
The fpiritual Senfe is the Art of holy wire-draw
ing, to put any Senfe on any Subjeft. O how
precious a Hiftory could I write of Jack the Giant-
Killer fpiritualized! Carnal Minds indeed, and Infi
dels, might laugh at it; but they might read it for
their Diverfion, and. the Spiritual for thdr Edifica
tion. How gravely might it go down with thefe„
if they fliould take it into their Heads that it was
wrote by an infpired Author ! How angry would
they be to hear fo ferious a thing ridiculed ! For as
Mr. Chandler has proved in his Prime Miniftry of Jo
feph, that any thing means -every thing in the He-
z brew,

( 77 )
brrw, it does the fame in the Language of Canaan
or the Spirit. Well, what Proofs does the Clearer
produce, that Jefus difclaimed all temporaT Power
and Greatnefs ? What Reafons has he, that Jefus
fhould not be externally and literally a King, as well
as Prieft and Prophet ? Had he fuffered only in Spi
rit, and triumphed over the earthly Majefties of the
World, it had been a more noble Charafter than this
mock Majefty. Produce the Clear er's mighty Ar
guments, and let them be examined.
F. When one of the Scribes offered to become his
Difciple, what Encouragement did he find ? Poffibly ,
this Scribe might conceive Hopes of having a Share in
the Temporal Kingdom, ,wbich be and his Countrymen
expefted. But our Lord undeceives him, and tells him,
the Foxes have-Holes, and the Birds of the Air have
Nefts, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay his
Head. Matt. viii. 20.
. C. It might be fo at that time. I am miftaken
if the Clearer would have been his Difcjple in the
fame Cafe. Whatever his Circumftances then were,
the Succeffors of his Difciples have feathered their
Nefts finely fince.
F. * When our Lord fent out his twelve Difciples, he
orders them exprefly to preach, faying the Kingdom
of Heaven is at hand. In order to eftablifh this
Kingdom, what Power does he give them ? Were they
td ifjue out Proclamations, notifying that the viftorious
Prince was come, and calling upon all his Subjefts t»
arm, and attend him ? Nothing lefs.
C. Any Pretender might have done thus ; there
fore had he done fb, it had been no Proof that his
Pretentions were juft.
, F. He gives them Power againft unclean Spirits, to
heal all Difeafes.
C. Had he given them Power againft the unclean
Spirit of Tyranny in Church and State, a mdft pep.
nicious
* Page 29.

(7* )
nicious Difeafe which has infefted^ both, but efpeci
ally his own Kingdom the Chriftian Church, he had
fhewn himfelf a public-fpirited Being. Had this
been the Throne of his Glory, it would have been
a glorious Throne : He had then fulfilled the Pro
phecy, that Men fhould beat' their Swords into Plow-
fihares, and their Spears into Pruning-Hooks. Nation
fhould not have lift up Sword againfi Nation, neither
Jhould they have learned War any more.
F. As to the Condition of the Dificiples in this World,
he tells them' they Jhould be brought before Governors
for his fake, and be hated of aU Men ; and advifes
them, for their Safety when perfecuted in one City, to
flee into another. Are thefe Proofs of his claiming
temporal Power ?
C. No ; nor of his having any Power at all to
defend himfelf or his Servants. But this may have
been to fulfil a Prophecy in Joel iii. 9, 10. Prepare
War, among the Gentiles, beat your Plow fhares into
Swords, and your Pruning-Hooks into Spears. Since
Perfecution has ever attended his coming to this
day. Tho' our Lord caft out fo many Devils, this
Devil hath never been call out of the Church by
Church-Power ; for that eftablifhes it. Has our
bleffed Lord bleffed the World with a Religion that
has always "been attended with Fire and Sword ?
Did he know the evil Confequences that would at
tend it, and yet never prevented it ? Did he know
the Power of Satan ? And could he vanquifh Le
gions of Devils at a word of Command ? And was
it for this purpofe the Son of God was manifefted, that
he might deftroy the Works of the Devil ? Heb. iii. 14.
Why then did he go away without doing, it ? Why
did heleave this World to be a Hell, arid the King
dom of the Devil ; himfelf and his Servants, Fugitives
and Victims to his Power, when he had Power to
prevent it ? And fince he fent his Minifters to pro
claim, The Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand, is nigh unto

(79)
unto you, even at the. Doors, why did he" not re
deem this World from the Devil's Power, and make
it a; Colony of the Kingdom of Heaven? If Jefus
never claimed any temporal Power, his Followers
have done it, and praftifed it with a; witnefs. If
their own Story be true, they begun it early. Why
were Ananias and Sapphira killed for not giving
them all their Money ? Shooting Men to /Death
with Powder, which makes , no Noife, is as much
Murder as fhooting them with that which makes, a
Report. A fecret way of killing Men without Law,
is as criminal as by public Violence. If the Kingdom
of Chrift be no temporal Kingdom, then that
Church- which claims temporal Power is not his
Church; and then thofe of that Church, who un
der a Cloke of Godlinefs ereft the pretended King
dom of Chrift on temporal Power, are no Subjefts
of that Kingdom.
F. The Clearer goes on, In like manner, and with
like Comrniffon, he fent out the Seventy Difciples ; they
return with Joy, and relate to him their Succefs, Lord
even the Devils are fubjeft tous through thy Name.
Tou fee it was the Kingdom of Satan he came to de
ftroy, and not the Kingdom of Caefar.
C. And yet Satan's Kingdom, as I have obferv-
ed, is not deftroyed : And we are told of no par
ticular Feats done by the Difciples while their Ma
fter was alive. O that he had. deftroyed all fpiritual
Wickednefs in high Places !
F. The Clearer goes on : The Apoftles were under
the fame Miftake with, the reft of their Countrymen ;
and expefted a temporal Kingdom ; and the Sons, of Ze
bedee were early Sollicitors to be firft Minifter s. Our
Lord correfts their Error.
C. Their Pride, hcihould have faid ; their Error
remained ; .for he did not undeceive them, nor cor
rect their Miftake of the Expeftation of the Tem
poral Kingdom of the Meffiah.
F. He

<8o )
F. He tells them his Kingdom was a different thing
from the Kiugdoms of this World. Ye know that
they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles,
exercife Lordfhip over them. — Butfo it fhall not be
among you ; but whofoever would be great among
you, fhall be yoor Minifter. ,Mark x. 42, 43.
C. He tells them too, that thofe Places which
they required, were not his to give, that the other
Difciples might not envy their Grandeur, as thro*'
Jealoufy they did ; tho' at another time he faid, All
things are committed to me of my Father; and elfe- *
where, v All Power is given unto me in Heaven and in
Earth. And when the Difciples fay unto him, We
have forfaken all and followed thee ; What fhall we
have therefore ? Jefus faid unto them, Verily I fiay
unto-you, that ye which have folio-wed me in the Rege>-
neration, when the Son of Man Jhall fit on the Throne
of his Glory, ye fhall fit upon twelve Thrones, judging
the twelve Tribes of Ifrael. And every one that hath
forfaken Houfes or Brethren, or Sifters, or Father, or
Mother, or Wife, or Children, for my fake, fhall re
ceive an hundred fold, and Jhall inherit everlafiing Life.
Matt. xix. 27, 28, 29. He fhall receive an hundred
fold now in this time, Houfes and Brethren, and.
Sifters and Mothers, and Children and Lands, with
Perficutions (before thefe Enjoyments) and in tbe
World to come Life Everlafiing, Mark x. 30. He
fhall receive manyf old more in this present Time,
fays St. Luke xviii. 30. and in the World to come Life
everlafiing. So that you fee the Difciples were pro
mifed fome prefent Comforts. His later Miniflers
have found thefe prefent Promifes made good to
them, who have never left any thing for his fake ;
how the future will be to them, or how it has been
made up in the other World to thofe that have left
their all, and hated their own Lives for Chrift's fake
in this World, is all behind the Curtain; and dead
Men tell no Tales. They that are bleffed with the pre fent

.... . <*0
fent Benefits1, ~ar'e fure of fomething. Some thro'
Faith depending; otf the Promife's of Rewards of an
ihvifible Inheritance, have facrificed their Lives to
give his.Minifter.s Livings. A-ll are to be Kings
arid Priefts in' thofe Rfgtid Incognita, without either
Subjects dr Laymen ; 'therefore hopeful Kingdoms
.arid Livings'! "This is me Kingdom and Priefthood
of Faith., V ' ' ,
: F. The Clehre? infinuateV that the Jews put Je
fus to the1 PrObf "concerning, the Tribute-Money,
whether he would declare for or againft the Roman'
Supremacy, br his Own. . _ '
C. True '; and what did his Anfwer fhew more,
than that fi€ wifely evaded both.
F. The, Inference the : Clearer draws i from it is,
That the Kingdom of God by the Meffiah was to
fubmit tos the Kingdom of Catfar ; and therefore
nbt a temporal Kingdom.
C. 'Tis" true that this fpiritual Interpolation has
been often injurious to the Kingdom of C<efar. How
much happier \s China, where the Kingdom is not
divided between the Flefh arid the Spirit; where
they have in the Government no King but Cafar !
F. There is one Paffage more which the Clearer
refers to, that our Lord in a Parable fhewed the Ru
lers of the Jews, Matt. xxi. 43. That for their wicked
and dbflinate Behaviour the Kingdom they expefted
fhould be taken from them.
C. This refpefted that Nation or People only,
but did not fet afide the Meffiah's expefted King
dom ; for when it was taken from them, it was to
be given to a Nation or People bringing forth the Fruits
thereof. F. Nay, but *tis faid in the Trial, that Jefus fell
into Difgrace with his Countrymen, and fuffered for
oppofing their Notions of a viftorious Meffiah.
C. " 1 believe it cannot be proved that Jefus fuf-
«• fered for/this Caufe;,"
L F.Vtry

(82 )
F. Very concife, fays the Clearer : But -what, Con*
ceit muft you have of your own Opinion, if you think
it ought to pafs without Proof for a fufficient Anfiwer to
fuch Evidence.
C. Where is the Evidence ? By what is it prdr
ved ? Sure the Clearer muft have a great Conceit
of his own Opinion, if he means to pafs that for
Evidence. What Prevarication is here, in order tp
avoid the Proof called for by me.;, that. I'doubt of
it, will fcarce be doubted ; therefore <this needsnp
Proof on my fide : Nor will any one imagine I of
fered it, as he infiriuates, for a Proof of the Nega-r
tiye, which was a Call for a Proof of the Affirma
tive. If the Affertions of thofe that fay Jefus fills
fered for the Caufe pf oppofing the Jews Notions or
a victorious Meffiah, are the only Proof, I fay it can
not be proved ; and then my Belief that, it cannot
be proved, is a fufficient Anfwer tb fuch Evidence,"
F Tou obferve d before, that the,Conquefi the Trial
feems to have over Mr. Woolfton, was occafioned by.
his granting too much 9 and are determined to avoid. this,
'Fault, and to grant nothing*. f '
C. If I grant what appears to me unreafonable, I.
give up my Reafon and the Argument, and am left
defencelefs ; for Reafon is my only Guide and Guard.,
F. Not your only Guard. Gratefully confider the
Lenity arid Indulgence pf his prefent Majefty's Go
vernment, by whieh'you enjoy this happy Liberty,
without which the ftrongeft Reafons in the World
could' not defend you : A Liberty unknown to Ages;
paft;" a1 Freedom to all Lovers, and Advocates of
Truth, from that Yoke of Perfecption for Religion,
which neither w'e -nor our Fathers were able to bear. -
C. Therefore our King is the Defender of Truth ;
but other Kings have been the Defenders of Faith,
whether it was Truth or no : For this reafon I glory
that I Jive in thefe Days, under fo benign a Prince and;
* Page 33.

( «3 )
and. Government, by whom I enjoy this religious
Liberty, this divine Favour. , •
F. Your Adverfary ,- 'pities you for thus :abufing
the King. A. .:.:!." -zv-A^A : . "".. 'z -:.r. :
C. But how much more is.'he tocbe pitied who
calls it fo. This injurious Accufation offends me
mpre, than any thing he. has wrote ; becaufe: itJ&-
vours of a malevolent'Difpofitibn; and an Inquifi-
tion-Spirit. Does he abufe, the King who fpeaks in
his Praife without Falfity or Flattery ? Or he who
calls that juft Praife, Abufe ? Is he guilty of Abufe,
who is free from it even in Thought and Intention?
Or he who racks: his Wit unjuflly toaccufe the In
nocent? And as for Pity, thefe are . to' be pitied,
who attempt^ or are obliged, to. defend what is in-
defenfible; whofe Judgments and Conferences, if
they have both, are divided by-Spir'itua'ls and Tem
porals, to ferve God and Mammon. Let thenvhe.
pitied who think contrary to. Com mon Senfe, and'
aft Contrary to Common, Honefty.,. Pity'him that
is in the Houfe of Bondage, not him that is fenfible
he is delivered out of it, and thankful for his Deli
verance. This is Loyalty, reafonable Gratitude, and
moral Duty. To enjoy common Liberty, and not
to be fenfible of it, is to want common Senfe ; to
feel the Benefit, and not be thankful for it, nor own
it, is Ingratitude.' I hope I have expreffed nothing
that may juftly be efteemed an Abufe of this Free
dom. The Indulgence of a virtuous Liberty in t-
fpoufing the Caufe of ufeful Truth, is the Harmony
of Society, the Bleffing enjoyed under a good Go
vernment, which renders a People happy, which.
calls for the moft vigorous Conteft of thofe who
want it, and the molt thankful Acknowledgment
of thofe who have it. It is the peculiar Glory of
his'prefent Majefty 's Reign, that Perfecutipn hides
its Head, and that religious Liberty is .enjoyed by all

( ft)
alh%i3 SuhjriSUjjtnd thesefore l^jutHyfitefePV^thefr
Loyalty. ' ¦'"• > ¦ ¦ '•" ¦*
-\.F: -MtcWUffon has lately entered into this De
bate concerning the Refurreftion; and her-ets come
out/Mriy^/^'sTJifcourfe' oh- the Subject of Pro
phecies and Mftvcbfyin hv&Addrefs to the- Deifts. ">
:C.iIl would greatly pleafe-me to pay my Refpefts
to this; worthy Author Nlr.Jackfon, oh that account •,
for, all others have wretchedly mangJed my Argui
ments on Mihacles, Or flubbered them over ;laut we
muft defer thefe Thingsf, and the reft of what the
Clearer- md others have feid on this Subjeft, to
another Opportunity, if ever we fhall ibe fo happy1
a&tQierijoyit. ¦ And for what Mr. Whifton -has fa
voured?, us with, ore may further ido, I wifh him'
Succefs, in his. frefh; Attempt to oblige the World,
by fettling the Fajth. But it is now time to take
Refrefhment.andRepofei Another Evening it will-
be a Pleafure to me to1 renew our Cbnverfarion, -7
, F. And Lfhall. long for chat OpporwHrty, which-
will afford me. an equal- ; Satisfaftion.

FINIS:

ERRATA.
Page rl. Lines 8. 9. for to be Gofpel read to be called-Go'-!
l'pel, Page 27, Line 5. for Chriftianity read Chriftians.
Line 7: for came read come. Page 58, Lines 35, 36.
'for If the grand Faft, read If my Argument on the grand.
Point.

THE
-Resurrection Defenders
Stript of all Defence.
Whereiri is fhewn,
That all the Predictions of it were Unknown—*
That Chrift's miracles were not believed — That
his Rifing again was not expefted — That the
Story of the Watch is incredible--^ That the
.,, Defenders, Mr. Sylvester* the Clearer,
Mr. Chandler, and Mr. Jackson, dilagree
in underftanding the Appearances, as much as
the Evangdifts 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 veritate caufa pendetur;
Sola bona qua honefta.
- ~-  —  ' — — — -" — ' 
Come now, and let us reafon together. Ifai. i. 18.
Thou art weighed in the balance, and found wanting.
Dan. v. 27.

LONDON:
Printed for the Author ; and Sold at the Pamphlet Shops
in London and Wefiminfitr.
MDCCXI.V.

T H E
CONTENTS.

Sect. i.'T^ HE introduction. Page 3
2. Of Chrift's foretelling his own refurreftion. 4
3. Whether the prediftions 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 difciples to fecrete-his charac
ter. — — ¦ — 9
7. Whether the difciples or Judas divulg'd the prediftion
of Chrift's refurreftion. — — , 10
8. Whether the Jew rulers believed the prediftion of Chrift's
refurreftion. —  13
q. 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 effefts, improbable. 21
i 3. Of the Jews afcribing Chrift's miracles to the devil. 24
14. Remarks on fome . particulars in the Clearer. 27
15. Of the prediftions of' the refurreftion. 28
16. The defenders charafteriz'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
1,9. Of the effeft the apparition made to the watch, had
on them and the priefts. — — 36
20. Remarks on Mr. Chandler's affertions. . 38
21. Whether the watch were credible evidence in favour
of the refurreftion. — — 4°
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. Sylvefier's account of the appearances of Jefas
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 hiftory of Chrift's appfcrance to Mary Magda*
lent, according to Mr. Chandler.  46
a?. Mi. Jackfion's relation of the appearance of Jefus to
Mary Magdalene. — —-47
28. Remarks on the expofitions of thefe gofpel-defenders. 47
29. The harmony of the gofpel-defenders. 50
30. Remarks on attempting to reconcile irreconcileable
hiftory; — — — 52
31. Of the next appearance, and other circumftances. 54
32. Of unintelligible hiftory, and the manner of defend
ing it. ' - — ¦- •  >¦ 58
33. On the harmony of the other appearance or appear*
ances. — — - , — 59'
34. Of the other appearance of Jefus, according to the
defenders. — — — 61
35. Or" the miracles performed when Jefus was appre
hended. — — — '68
36. Obfervations on the hiftory of Judas. 69
37. Obfervations on fbme circumftances at the crucifixion. 70
38. Reflections on the miraculous gift of tongues. 73
39. Remarks on Jefus being the fon of God. 74
40. Obfervations on S&.'John's gofpel. — — 75
41. On the authority of the gofpels. — — 79
42. Of St. Matthew's gofpel. — — 81
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. Conclufive queries. — *— 93

THE

THE
Resurrection Defenders
Stript of all Defence.
In a Letter to a Friend.

§. 1. The Introduction*
8 t R,
AS a traveller on a jourhey, to make the
beft of his way, waits not for company*
fo I fhall not for your converfation to
flnifh our difeourfe on the fubjeft we
had begun ; that I may difpateh it in fewer
Words." Having fufficiently vindicated myfelf in the firft
part, called the Refurreftion Reconfidered, which title
I now think Was a mifnomen, I purpofe to pafs
over all refleftions, regard nothing but the argu
ment, and to handle it in as ferious a manner, as I
can, to gratify fuch ferious enquirers as yourfdf.
You have been acquainted, that the Cleare r's
infinuations againft me are falfe, I hope to your
farisfaftion j and 1 don't doubt to make \\ appear,
that all his arguments, with thofe of Mr. Sylves
ter's, Mr. Chandler's, and Mr. Jackson's, are
B of

[ 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. Sylvefter 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 Refurfe 'ftion.
I am now to begin with Chrift's foretelling his
own refurreftion : I fhewed, that what is faid to be
delivered in public, that ofthe 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
underftood. This is well faid, becaufe the circum
ftances attending the faft contradift the pT%die-:
tions : therefore, as the difciples fore-knew nothing
of their Mafter's rifing from the dead, the Jew
rulers muft have been ignorant of any fuch predic
tion ; and if fo, the ftory of Tefting a watch, and
the private prediftions, muft have been interpo
lations. Againft this 'tis urged, ift, That the five predic
tions to the difciples were not all delivered in pri
vate. %dly, That they were not enjoined fecrecy
in the cafe. %dly, That fome difciples might ac
quaint the Jew rulers with it. And, 4-tbly, 'that they
.liftened to the prophecy, becaufe they were con
vinced, that Jefus wrought miracles.
I fhall anfwer all thefe objeftions to my argu
ments. §• 3-

is]
§. 3. Whether the prediftions were all delivered in
private.
Qbj. That the five prediftions of Jefus to his
difciples 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
1 had fevevty difciples.'
Anf. There is no reafon to fuppofe this the^cafe
the .firft time; for St. Luke (ix. 18.) fays, When he
was alone praying, his difciples were with him. Could
he be alone, when fevehty 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
gelifis fay, what need had he to afk his difciples,
what men faid of him ? for in that cafe he muft
have known before-hand, what men faid, and what
,they would anfwer.
The third time was, when he paffed thro1 Galilee,
and would not that any man fhould know it, (Mark ix.
30.) therefore he had not the multitude of the dif
ciples, nor the 70 with him ; for then he muft
have been known. Befides, at this third time,
they that heard, did not underftand 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 prediftions to the
difciples were private to the apoftles only.
§. 4. Whether fecrecy was enjoined the apoftles ?
Obj. « But they were not enjoined fecrecy in
1 the affair ; only in this point, that Jefus was the
« Chrift.' ¦Anfi. The reafon why Jefus defired privacy was.,
according to Mark, (ix. 31.) for this very caufe, that
be taught his difciples, and faid unto them, the fion of
man muft be killed, and rife 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 ; And they kept that faying
with themfelves, quefiioning one with another, what
the rifing from the dead Jhould mean. But St. Luke,
(ix. 44.) has it only, that he fhquld be delivered into
the hands of men, without a word of his rifing
again, the moft effential point j fo that either the
one feems to have ftretch'd, or the other to have
forgot himfelf, and wrote without the guidance of
the Holy Spirit; for that St. John (xiv. 26.) was
to bring all things to their remembrance, chat Chrift
had faid unto them. St. Luke (ix. 45.) writes, that
they underftood not this faying, and it was bid from
them ; that they perceived it not, and they feared to
afk him of that faying. Surely he kept them in a
very awful fubjeftion ! But what did they not un
derftand ? 'Tis very plain they did not underftand
what he meant, that he fhould be delivered into the
hands of men, and rife from the dead.
The fourth time, when Jefus is faid to deliver
this fecret to the twelve, apart from the reft, it was
fecret enough, for they knew not the things that were
fpoken, that is, they knew not what he faid ; there-,
fare they could not djfeover it. Fit receptacles thefe .

L7J
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
myfteries of the kingdom are always explaining,
and never explained. If they underftood not their
Mafter, how fhould we, who have our lefibns
from them.
Obj. But fays the Clearer, < Tho' the difciples
' did not underftand the meaning of the prophecy,
' they underftood the language or import of- the
' words, or elfe what did St. Peter reprove our
« Lord for ? '
Anfi. How they underftood not the meaning,
but the import of the words, paffes my underftand
ing-: St. Peter underftood what he faid about his
fufferings and death, but not what he faid about his
rjfing again; and 'tis moft trifling to fay, 'If
' they underftood the literal fenfe of the words
4 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-
c 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- Objeftions anfwered.
Obj. ' But the thing they did not underftand
' was, how the Meffiah, who (according to their
' notions) was to live for ever, was to die and rife
' again.' Anfi. 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.

[»¦¦] .
Obj. ' The Apoftles were enjoin'd fecrecy, not
' with refpeft to the death and refurreftion of Je-
4 fus; but with refpeft expfefsly to this point only,
c that he was the Chrift.'
Anf. But I have proved the former part of this
affertion to be wrong. The Clearer himfelf tells us
of another fecrecy enjoined the difciples, Ijdides
his being the Chrift, which is the vifion of the trans
figuration .' Therefore the Injunction was not with
refpeft to that ' one point only,' as" the Clearer
fays, p. 50. That fuch a fine fhow fhould be
made only to three men, and kept private till after
the refurreftion, is as dark a ftory as the vifion
is faid to be bright.
Obj. The Clearer argues (p. 50.) ' That the pro-
' hibition 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
a ftill fmall voice. John the Baptift and Jefus only
heard it before, and thefe three his familiars now.
Had the voice fpoke to the- feribes, pharifees, 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.

§.6. Of Jefus enjoining his difciples. to fecret e his
charafter.
But wherefore did Jefus charge his difciples to
tell no mah that he was the Chrift ? The Clearer
fays (p. 4.7, 48.) to prevent the ill effefts 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.'
Anf. 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 n£ed 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 the Chrift; but commanded them, after he
was dead and gone, to conftrain 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,
fhould not his firft and chief bufinefs have been to
fet his difciples and the .people right in their no
tions, what the expe&ed Meffiah really was, be
fore he declared himfelf that perfon ? Had he
convinced them of the former, th.e way had been
pav'd to the latter. What fignified referring the
people to fearch the Scriptures, and telling them
that they teftified of him, when they did not un
derftand its Teftimony : For while their notion re
mained of a temporal redeemer, they could not fee
the fcriptures teftined of him. To what pnd were
they to fearch the fcriptures, which reprefented the
Meffiah to them in a wrong character, as a prince
poffeffing, and not difclaiming temporal power ?
That the Father fhould deceive his own p.gp!e by
1 his

r; io )
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-
rOugh-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
charafter the new dbes not, 'tis plain they differ as
widely as flefh and fpirit, things temporal and fpi-
ritual. 'Tis probable, Jefus finding his difciples.
rude and ignorant, knew that their manner of di
vulging his pretentions 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
prediftion of Chrift's refurreftion.
'Tis objected, that fome difciples, or at leaft Ju
das, might acquaint the fcribes and pharifees with
the private prediftion of Jefus Concerning his dy
ing and rifing again.
And yet the Clearer fays (p. 71.) that ' There
* is not the leaft intimation in the gofpel, that the
c chief priefts knew the opinion of the difciples in
1 this cafe, or that they would have confidered it
* of

[ II 1
' of any weight or moment at ail.' For as he
* fays, * The rulers had them in contempt,' how
then did they believe their ftory if they heard it ?
But this they could not do ; fo»'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 ; this the
fcripture and the Clearer confeffes, p. 49* and what
men do not underftand they don't know; But that
fome of the difciples fhould blab the fecret^ 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 fo idle
a ftory told them by his credulous difciples, at ldaft
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 mafter, fhews
he did not believe a word of it, unlefs he was in
. hopes after his refurreftion to fell him again. But
had the fcribes and 'pharifees been told of it, why
fhould 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 hearcLthe prediftion, they regarded it
fo little, that theyWorgot it, though it was of the
laft importance to them to remember it -, and how"
fhould they do otherwife, if they did not under
ftand what was faid about ir. St. John delivers jit
by way of excufe, that as yet they knew not the fieri f->
tures thai he was to rife again from the dead. But
if they knew not what the fcriptures or old prophet
cies faid, they knew what their mafter had prophe-»
fied, if he faid what is reported, which Was
enough to inform them of it. The words as jet,
the defenders fay, is a kind of proof that they knew
C it

L i2 J
it afterwards : But 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 't hem the force of prophecies.
Words not underftood, as they raife no expecta
tions of any thing to come in the hearers, fo they
foretell nothing, and are no prophecies. * Mr. Syl-
vefier has found the prophecy only in types, and
Mr. Chandler in ftrain'd inferences. This fhews
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
ture to ferve his turn.
The Clearer objefts. ' Suppofe now the difci-
' pies want of underftanding to be true, it fhews
• their honefty and fincerity in reporting it fairly ;
* and afks what purpofe could beferv'd by it.'
I anfwer, viri vera fimplicitate boni I Are we then
to depend on the fincerity and honefty of men that
want underftanding ? Alas, how eafily 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 mafter was rifen,
fome Jews might ' put this queftion to them, which
1 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 dijd not foretel hisv
own refurreftion ? To which they, ' to prevent the
' fame queftion being afked again,' told of fome pre
diftions of this fort delivered in a private manner ;
and the reafon they never divulged them before his
refurreftion, nor expefted 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. §. Whether

[ '3 3
§.8. Whether the Jew rulers believed the prediftion of
Chrift's refurreftion ? '
The Clearer queries, * What then is to be faid
' for the chief priefts, why did they fear his re-
' furreftion ? ' And anfwers, * Becaufe he had
* foretold it, that they took him for a great pro-
* phet,' and had been witneffes to his miracles ;
•* therefore they liftened 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 life, they
* would not have been afraid of feeing any done
* by him after his death.'
, Anf. Nor does it appear they were. This is, Sir,
putting it upon a different footing than what St.
Matthew does ; but let us try the cafe in this light.
That Jefus had foretold his refurreftion, at leaft
to the fcribes and pharifees, is not proved , aiid
that lie did it at all, wants confiftent proof ; for
had the difciples known it, they muft have fore
known his rifing again ; but that none of them
foreknew this, is confeffed by words and deeds.
If they did not fufpeft him to rife again, who
believed in him, and (as 'tis reported) heard him
foretel it plainly, and frequently, how could they
expeft it who believed him not, nor the flying
reports that were told of him ; nor, as far as we
can find, ever heard of any fuch prediftion from
himfelf or others? But waving the advantage, fup
pofe the chief priefts heard of this prophecy, would
they regard ic 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 pof
fibly put him to death, to fuch a kind of death as
an iiripoftor, and wifh his blood might be on them
and their children ? Or believing him to be a great
C 2 prophet,

[ 14]
prophet, did they therefore fufpeft he might po
fibly rife again ? Were great prophets ufed to rife
again P Or is it poffible for them to do fo ? No
certainly ,; prophets once dead lay as quiet as other
men. But ' The wonders he had wrought in his
* Jife made them liften to a prophecy in this cafe.'
Did they on this account fufpeft he would do
wonders when he was dead ? It cannot be : The
Clearer fays (p. 39.) when they faw him on the
crofs, c 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 cr.uel treatment of him.* Did they
for this fet a guard of foldiers to kill him again,
as Mr. Chandler bfinuates, p. £,6, 57. ' Had he
' appear'd as himfelf, who knows what the watch
' might have done, in afting the fame bloody
4 fcene over again, were it not for the angels
1 that defended him ?' Or did the chief priefts
{et a watch 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 itfelf, 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 no;i poteft ; light
cannot be hid ; and no man lights a candle to put it-
under a bujhel, but on a candlefiick. Sir, they muft na
turally conclude, as we fhould have done in the
fame cafe, that there was nothing in it, if they

faw nothing of it.

§. Whether,

[i5]
§. 9- Whether the gofpel hiftory be a proof that the Jews
believed the miracles of Jefus ?
But tho', to give their argument full fcope, I
have fuppofed the fcribes, priefts, and pharifees, had
fome apprehenfions from miracles ; yet now I ih-
; 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 fcribes 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 fhould 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
againft itfelf, thofe will be looked upon as the moft
credible : For not fo much heed is given to what
an evidence affirms on the fide he efpoufes, as to
what probabable fafts he inadvertently confefies on
the contrary fide. For what can that evidence
prove to the fatisfaftion of the enquirer, who finds
reafon by his enquiry to be diffatisfied about the evi
dence ? Witneffes 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 confiftency and
validity of the writings out of which the proofs are
taken, and the probability of every thing they re
late, fhould firft be clear'd up, before the proofs out
of it in their favour are to be taken for granted.
For deifts think it reafonable, that as thefe hiftories
relate more improbable, and much more incredible
things than other hiftories, they ought to bring
with them fome more fubftantial proof than others to

[ 16 ]
to confirm the truth of fuch prodigies as they relate;
or elfe that every relation in them which is not as
probable as other true hiftory fhould ftand for
nought •, that what is to pafs for the current coin of
Ceefiar fhould have Cafiar's image and fuperfcription
on it. Stories that are not miraculous may pafs for
truth, and often 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 Canterbury with his coach
and horfes went over the Thames, in the ferry,
from Lambeth to Palace-yard, on a certain day ;
it might be credible, and Deifts and Chriftians 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 theaffiftance of angels, I fear it would be incre
dible to thofe who are flo'w 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 poffible
that they could report any thing fo incredible :
And why muft we needs believe, on the bare report
of unknown reporters, things feemingly as impof
fible or unlikely, becaufe they are generally be
liev'd by thofe that never made a particular enqui
ry. Many believers have not time, fbme have no
difpdfition, others no capacity to examine rightly.
Befides, when principles are fixed by authority, as
only right, it difcountenances all examination ; 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

[ i7]
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 felf, but by its
own internal marks j and muft perifh with the au
thority by which it is fupported, unlefs it have this
eternal charafter. But I muft cut fhort this co
pious fubjeft, becaufe I have many articles to run
thro'. §. io. Whether the Jew rulers believed. Chrift's mi
racles ?
The Clearer endeavours to prove the book by
the book, viz. that the priefts, fcribes, and phari
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 effefts don't agree with the caufes, 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 objefted, 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 defired others. Why does
Jefus call upon them to believe his works, John x.
25, 26. 38. but v becaufe they didn't believe them,
can any thing be more plain? They accufe him,
John viii. 13. of bearing record of himfelf, without
other fufficient teftimony, and therefore thatic 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
effefted. A bare declaration that he was the Chrift, did

t 18 ]
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 leaft credit among thofe who fhould
have known him beft, his own countrymen, and
his own houfe. An evident mirade for the .probf
of his miffion feems all along to be the conteft be
tween the tfnbelievirg 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 refurreftion before predifted : but this pre
diftion, as well as the refurreftion, appear to want
that clear and proper evidence, which 'tis reafona
ble to expeft in fo important and extraordinary a
cafe.§'. n.TheClearer's arguments to proveChrift's miracles
believed, prove the contrary.
Sir, If ' the Jews believed his miracles, and
e had a jealoufy, thac he might poffibly be the
* Chrift,' as the Clearer infinuat.es, (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 thac
they fufpefted it; it only proves his pretenfions to
that charafter, not fo Barabbas, or any other com
mon malefaftor. They had put that queftion to
him before, John x. 24. and probably often ; fbr
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 charafter : and perhaps the high prieft afk'd
him with no other view, but to condemn him cue of

- I 19 3
of his own mouth, whether he denied, or affirmed
it. Had he denied it, they had proof of his pre
tentions ; and" he affirming it, they condemn'd it
for blafphemy:: this might perhaps be to provoke
him to work a miracle then, to prove it; for Jefus
told them they fhould fee one hereafter, "but that
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 anfwer, becaufe he
<anfwered nothing to .queftions thac were afk'd
•him. Again. When Pilate was willing to acquit him,
left he fhould noe be crucified, all the people, as well
as well as the priefts, the fcribes and pharifees, cried
out earneftly, 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-
c ene'd by their priefts to make this clamorous de-
1 mand.' Anf. With St. 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 wich loud voices in making fuch
demand ; and I think, that ' He fhews himfelf to be
* little acquainced with the fentiments of human nature'
who thinks they could believe his miracles, believe
him a prophet, and yet be influenced to fpeak and
aft in fuch a manner.
Again. Herod was glad when he had him in his
cuftody, becaufe he expefted to fee him do fome
mirade 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, and fet him at nought, concluding cer
tain ly that the extraordinary power of God was
D moft

[ 20 ]
moft neceffary to be difplayed, on the moft extraor
dinary and neceffary occafions ; and therefore they
mockt him on the crofs, faying, He faved others,
himfelf he cannot fave. And, Ab ! thou that favedft
others, fave thyfelf, come down from the crofs, and we
will believe thee; i. e. We will believe thou canft
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, be faved others,
they fpake as they meant, and ' acknowledge his mi-
' 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, rhe whole is mockery,
and fignify, they believed nothing lefs 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 fa ving others,
when he cannot fave himfelf. Ic feems nacurally
impoffible, they fhould believe he faved others, con
fefs u, and droll upon it, or make it the fubjeft 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 fufpefted he might probably prove fo
' indeed? What occafion for this fudden joy and
' exultation ? ' Cercainly none, had they fufpefted
he mighc have proved lo, whac advantage was ic to
them, to crucify one whom they fufpefted might
one day be their king, and deliver them from their
fubjeft ion to a foreign yoke? Had this gentleman
quoted the whole text, it had fet him right. If he
be the king of Ifrael, let him come down from tbe
crofs, and we will believe in him, which fhews they
did not beljeve his miraculous power, nor that he
was

[ 21 ]
was the Chrift. As if they had faid, If he be
Chrift the King of Ifrael, as he would be efteem'd,
lee him deliver himfelf now from the Roman power,
without which he cannot deliver us, nor be our
king, and then we will believe his power and cha
rafter. St, Matthew and Sc. Mark fay, They that paffed
by railed on him, and reviledhim, wagging their heads,
und faying, Thou that defiroy efi the temple, and buildeft
it in three days, fave thyfelf, if thou be the fon of God,
come down from the crofs : this is mockery boch in
Words and gefture. 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 ; let God fhew it by a fignal
deliverance ; which fhews they had no fuch excraor-
dinary opinion [of him, and alfo the fmall credit
and confidence they put in him, or his miraculous
works.
§. 12. Miracles, without correfpondent effefts, im
probable.
The Clearer fays, (p. 40.) ' Their mirch did not
' laft Jong : when Chrift died, naCure 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.s
And yet the nacure of the Jews remain'd the
fame ; their hearcs were noe renc, tho' the rocks
rent ; nor quaked, cho' the earth quaked ; and cho*
the graves opened, their underftandings appear not
to be opened! What a ftrange ching is infidelity,
that no miracle can work upon it. The only per
sons thefe/miracles were wrought to affeft, were un-
affeftcd':"byv-"ariy," which is itfelf anoeher miracle!
unlefs" the/. were wrought only for fhow, and to be
gaz'd at, to affeft mens eyes, and not cheir hearcs;
• or were they defign'd not co do it ? or could the
!* • D 2 . 1 devil's

I 22 I .
devil's power prevent God's from taking effect?'
Indeed the evangelifis bring in the Roman cencu-
rion, faying, this was a righteous man, and the
people fmiting cheir breafts. BuC though all were
fmitten, none were wounded, none are faid to be
converted. The Clearer fays, " Probably the fcribes
' and pharifees withdrew filently,. unwilling to dif-
* cover any fear or apprehenfion before the people.'
And 'eis as probable they faw none of thefe fights,
rinee we read of no effeft thefe miracles had upon
them. If we may judge by probabilities,, is it pro
bable that God, or Chrift, fhould work wonders in-
vain, fo that an uncommon power fhould be ex>
erted, and produce no common effeft! or that mi
racles fliould be wroughe to contradift miracles ! as-
thofe muft be that have a contrary effeft to their
natural tendency,, and the defign of che Great Au
thor. For according to the Clearer, concerning
Chrift's miracles* ' The queftion' now is (faith he
4 p. 38.) what effeft this had upon the fcribes and
4 chief priefts ? That they were extremely alarm'd,,
4 appears plainly ; and chat they foughe his life, as
4 the cn!y method to ftop the influence he gain'd
4 over the people, is notorious. But wer.echey clear
4 of all doubts themfelves ? Had they no mifgiv-
4 ings of mind that he mighc poffibly be whac he
4 pretended co be ? ' I fay* Sir, Co me ic feems impof
fible, chat they fhould feek his life eo ftop the in
fluence he gain'd over the people by miraculous
works, or chac chey fought his life,, and brought a-
boue his death in a judicial way,, and yet had mif-
givings or doubes in cheir minds, chat he might
poffibly be what he pretended to be. ' Whoever can
4 fuppofe it,, fhews himfelf to be bue little acquainced,
4 with the fentimentsof human-nature.' If the Romany
had afted thus towards- him,, for fear of .his- be-,
coming a king, . and breaking their power, ic had
been mote reafonable ;. but that the Jews believing. his.-

[23 ]
his miracles^ fhould crucify him, for fear of his
delivering them from the Remans, is alcogeeher ab
furd. Had they believed he wroughe many mi
racles, they had the lefs reafon to fear the Roman
power, and the more eo let htm 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 objected, that only the ignoranc.bdieved
in him. If probability may be allowed, we may
judge of effefts by their caufes, and of caufes by
their effefts; i. e. wonderful caufes will produce
wonderful effefts ; and where no wonderful effefts
are produced, 'tis probable there were no wonderful
producing caufes : Or otherwife chey are of no con
fequence or fignification ; they proceed from no
natural caufe ; therefore, they being not a link of
the great chain of naeure, have no nacural effefts ;
theyeppear to be works in vain ; extraordinary
power difplayed to no purpofe ; being out of na
ture, nature is not affected by them ; they go no
fareher ehan chemfelves. A eryal of fkill one may
call ic, that leaves every thing as it found them -,
him that is unjuft, to be unjuft ftill; he chat is
filthy, to be filthy ftill; he chat is righceous, to 'be
righteous ftill ; and he that is , a fool, a deceiver,
or a believer, a wife or an honeft man, or an in
fidel, to be the fame ftill : So ic was if che rulers and
men of learning among the Jews had been witneffes
of his power to work miracles, as 'eis infinuated,
and yee behaved in fo violent and outrageous a man
ner againft him. That they fhould confpire Co put
Jefus to death becaufe he wrought miracles, is to
out-do miracles.
If it be objected, that this was the will of God,
That they feeing might fee, and not perceive ; and
bearing might hear, and not underftand ; left they
Jhould fie with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and

[ 24 ]
and underftand with their hearts, and fhould be con
verted and faved; and that the Lord gave them
eyes that they might not fee, ears that they might not
hear, and hearts that they might not underftand. Then
one would be apt to chink 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 confeffed, they might
have been converted. But this is throwing all the
odium on God, eo make che ftory good ; and ra
ther than ehac may be falfe, he muft be rendered
cruel and unjuft. This way of accouneing for fuch
unaccountable tilings, may accoune for any thing,
be ic ever fo abfurd. Nor will a judicial hardning
falve the fore, and be the confiftent praftice of him
that delights not in the death of a finner, but rather
that he turn and live, of him whofe tender mercies are
over all his works, of him in whom mercy rejoices
againft judgment, and of him who came to call fin
ner s to repentance, and to feek and to fave the loft
fheep 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 ftubbornefs mira-
culoufly infufed 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 Chrift's miracles to the
Devil.
Obj. 4 Buc che Jews,, who could not deny his
4 miracles, afcribed them to the power of the de-
4 vil.' Anf, 'Tis wonderful ftrange, that the Lord Jefus
never caft this devil out of their hearts, and yet caft- 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 noe eafy to diftinguifh, and miracles are the
proofs of a divine miffion, thefe proofs are not
eafily known ; and then we are little the better for
having ic figned and fealed wich miracles. Mr.
Hardy, a reverend, grave pace, ehae wrote a-
gainft Mr. Chubb, fays chey are diftinguifhed by fu
perior power; if fo, good and evil are noC crice-
rea, buc power gives righe ; and the devil is righr,
when he is noe concradifted, or confounded by fu
perior power: Buc if Mr. Chubb had held fuch doc
trine, whac a devil would they make of him, for
his powerful dulnefs. Suppofing God and the de
vil both work miracles, I apprehend that natural
reafon can inform men how co diftinguifh die one
from che oeher ; viz. by cheir nacure, rendency, and
effefts. The devil's miracles muft difcover chem-
felve's by doing mifchief to the bodies and proper
ties of men, and afts of violence tending to fome
ill end, as the feeeing up another Deity, teaching
immoral afts for religious' duties, or doftrines de-
ftruftive of reafon and mankind, by introducing
wars, tyranny, ignorance, perfecution, and all mif-
chiefs injurious to civil fociety. Buc fuppofe the
miracles wrought are a mixrure of good and evil,
to whom chen may chey be afcribed ? If a mancan-
noc ferve God and Mammon, and there be no com
munion of lighc wich darknefs, if alfo God be ab-
folutely good, chey cannot be from him. And if
the devil could fpeak truch for an ill end, as in
Job -, or if he can cransform himfelf into an an
gel of light, why may he noe do good that evil
may come ? Since we believe Jefus was fent from
God, and afted by his Authority in all he did for
the good of men, that he did no fin, neither was
guik found in his mouth ; that he went about doing
2 , good,

1 26 1 '
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
ftories muft be look'd upon as forgery ; therefore
the gofpel of our Saviour's infancy is rejefted, in
which are1 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 thac were
witneffes of chem could noe afcribe them to the
devil. The cree is known by its fruit. If on this
accounc his fame went thro' all Syria for the great
and good works that he wrought ; if 4 all the
4 country was alarmed wich his miracles, fo that
4 the chief priefts could not be unacquainted wich
4 them, if many of his miracles were perform'd
4 in public places of reforc, in prefence of the
4 fcribes and pharifees,' as the Clearer fays, p. 37*
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 thac no fign Jhould be given them, if
he gave them fo many ? Whac need had they to
fear any thing, eicher as to his noe being the per
fon they expefted, or being unable to perform
what they defired? 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 prieft 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 Che fame in all ages ; chey
muft needs think it weak, as well as wicked, to
attempt Co puc to death one whom they knew had
power to raife che dead.
'Sir, if the enemies of Jefus doubted the reaficy
of his miracles, or believing them^-'weTe foolifh.
enough

[ 27 ]
enough to think they could be Wrought by- any
other than the power of God ; 'they mighc ima
gine if they had him in their cuftody. they fhould
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, andconcencionson chac fcore.
This only will accoune - for their aftions cowards
him, and for defpifing his pretentions, as well as
difmiffing all their apprehenfions concerning him,
or whae his weak, difpers'd, and terrified par-ty, after
his death, were able to do with his' dead body.
If che Jews faw his miracles, . and fometimes
fufpefted they might be from God, at. other times
from the devil; chofe miracles were not of thac
fort as could certainly convince them' by 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 wroughe were eo no
purpofe, nor any true fign of his miffion.
Sir, if the ftory was then reported, that Jefus had
been in private conference with the devil forry days,
and fome had feen them on rhe pinacle of the temple,
it might give them a great deal of fufpicion that
he had to do with che devil, and was entered inco
coneraft with him eo cure difeafes and caft ouc de
vils by Beelzebub ; not co divide, but Co eftablifh his
kingdom in che world. But the ftory thac gives
colour co fuch an infinuation is fo infamous, thac ic
bughe with fcorh to be torn out of the gofpels,
and excommunicated as apocryphal and heretical.
§. 14. Remarks on feme particulars in the Clearer.
As eo .my examination <>f St. John, concerning
Chrift's foretelling his,-refu^reftio'n,r the Clearer is
by no means willing? to rely orPiti and.-beg's leave
to examine fbr him felf. Very well. To examine
E for

i 28 ]•
for one's felf is right. But has he found me in an
error I No :. Then he confirms my fearch.
What the Clearer finds in Sc. John which he
fuppofes predifted Chrift's death, I. pafs over, that
being no pare of ehis argumenc. He imagines the
refurreftion indicated in John xiv. i. 2. 16. 18.
xv. 16. 22. which he fays were far from being deli
vered, as fecretSi. Tho' che meaning of thofe words
muft needs have been a fecrec ehen, if they are not
fo yet. He owns (p, 58.) that ' The difciples
4 ehemfelves little apprehended what Chrift's dy-
4 ing and rifing again meant, thought ic myfte-
4 rious, and a parable :. They had been long accuf-
4 tomed to this fort of language, and had frequently
' been puzzled with it/ And elfewhere, 4 When
' he was crucified, all their hopes died with him ;
4 and when he was rifen again, they could fcarce
4 credit ic.''
The Clearer's method of finding out the fenfe of
expreffions, by applying one to another utcered at
different times and occafions, fhews him to be in
the utmoft diftrefs.
He chinks ehac prophecies may not be under
ftood, 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 too,
that che evangelifis were great grammarians, aud
had a critical knowledge of the Greek tongue, or
why do they reafon fb grammatically in feveral plai
ces. A thoufand fuppofitions noe to be proved are
not to che purpofe.
§* 15. Of the prediftions ef the refurreftion-.
In my Refurreftion of Jefus confiderM, it was ob-
ferved, that it does not appear to be foretold, nor
expefted, for reafons which I fhall now corroborate. L Be-

[ 29 ]
I. Becaufe what was faid to be given in public,
was not underftood to relate to it, nor fulfill'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 little I have faid will not convince -them,
and the great deal they have faid will nor convince
me. Mr. Whifton fays on this fubjeft, ' I cannot
* pretend, that two nighes alone are rhree nighcs ;'
and therefore he thinks the ehree days and three nights
in Matthew xii. 40. a later inrerpolation : and I
think Chrift cannoc be faid to rife on che third day,
if he rofe before the third day came. He laid in
the grave no (part of the third day, nor the third
night : this difficulty has no doubt been a thoufand
times repeaced, but never confuted, neither in the
iTRIAL, the Evidence clear' d,, nor any other, nor can
be ; therefore it would be loft time to cake notice of
<what has been faid, or /ay any more about ic.
.But, . , ¦
idly. The prediftion fays no fign fhould be given
to that evil generation, buc that of Jonah; and yet
neither che fign, nor the thing fignified, was ever
¦given to chat evil generation, who required ic,: but
thefe gentlemen can fee no promife of a refurreftion
-to f hem in ehis fign, <;0nly of lying a certain time in
the grave. But, fays the Clearer, 4 chac Chrift
4 would appear to them in perfon after his refurrec-
4 tion, there is nor a word abouc ic.' Then ic was
no fign ac all to them ; ie fignified only, chac he
fliould,' when dead, lie three days in the^grave,
and who doubeed ic-: well then, whae did they ex
peft, that he .would afterwards rife again ; 4 there
4 is not a word about it,' fays he : what then were
they afraid of? and why did they watch ?
%dly. The Jews were told wfign fhould be given
'them, buc that of the prophet Jonas ; whereas the
Clearer fays, he gave chem many other figns or
E' 2 miracles,

[ 3° ]
miracles, which if he did, this fen tence is not true,
and if this fentence be true, he gave them no fign^
. but difclaimed all miraculous power; tho' if any
fign was given, why fhould they demand another;
and why did he not then refer them Co thofe figris
and wonders he had given therri ? Or wby noe tell
them of the refurreftion of Lazarus, that was to
be ? If he intended co give chem a fign, why was
not Lazarus rarher given for a fign to that genera
tion chan Jonas, whom chey knew noching of, but
by cradition ? If 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, muft have
been a full and fatisfaftory anfwer. All my anta-
gonifts have piaffed over in filence the remarks I
made on whae followed the railing of Lazarus, in
•the Refurreftion ...confidered, third edition, page 28.
That affair is fet in fo true and converting a light,
that it dazzles thejr interefted optics.
The prediftion in John ii. 20. was not underftood
by any, • therefore" no prediftion; and when fpoken-,
conveyed no fuch meaning to che hearers, as his re
furreftion from rhe dead.'
II. The prediftions faid to be given in private
were not underftood to have any fignification of a
real refurreftion,. but only as parables, and dark
enigma's, rherefore no prediftions.
17?. Becaufe 'tis confeffed, the difciples did not
underftand the words that were fpoken, what rifing
from the dead meane ; therefore they could not blab
it to the high prieft and pharifees, nor alarm them
with what they were not alarm'd of, nor expefted.
And thofe that heard not his prophecies, nor be
liev'd his miracles, but were ever and anon call
ing for, a miracle, could not expeft the rifing again
pf Jefus after his death, But

[ 3« )¦
But if a fraudulent refurreftion was apprehended,
as St. Matthew relates, and Mr. Chandler fuppofes,
of che difciples making, and therefore chey fat a
watch, and a true one unexpectedly happen'd, 'tis
not probable.
ift. Becaufe 'tis not credible that the watchmen
fhould be almoft killed by miracles, and deny thofe
miracles that had fuch an effeft upon them.
idly, Becaufe 'tis not credible thac che Jew ru
lers fhould believe* them, and hire the foldiers to
deny that cruch which they themfelves believed.
^dly, Becaufe 'tis not credible chac the rulers
and foldiers fhould by fo doing chink to conceal
the confequence of a true refurreftion.
4-tbly, Becaufe *tis confeffed thac Jefus never ap
peared iripublic to any, but to his difciples only.
gthly, Becaufe the accounts of the appearances of
Jefus, even to his difciples, do not agree, nor can
they make them agree, cho' they have rack'd their
inventions all manner of ways, and would have
their unaurhoriz'd explanations pafs for gofpel au
thority. 6thly, I have to add,- that the miraculous cir
cumftances of the refurreftion as related, and the
miracles faid eo be done afterwards eo prove ic, do
all wane equal proof as the refurreftion itfelf.
§. 1 6. The defenders charafteriz'd.
I wifh, Sir, I could find any fair Arguments a-
gainft thefe, in che 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 honeft heart pay them a compli
ment that I find any of them produce beecer than
the great Clearer himfelf, who has the are of mak
ing affertions and fuppofitionslook 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 betcer) he is nexc Co a bifhop
in his way, greater chan St. Paul for learning, and
almoft like him, fcarce behind the very chiefeft of
the apoftles ; with this difference, Sc. Paul had a
thorn in the flefh, but he has a thorn in the fpirit.
Refpeft ing Mr. Silvefter, I am forry that any honeft
man fhould noe fee chac' eruth and honefty are nearly
relaced : However, as he is churchman, and what
he has wrote is for the church, 'tis excufable. He
buc modeftly fuppofes tilings, and hopes his fuppo-
fitions will be admicted to pais for authentic:
But Mr. Jackfion does more ; he afferts many things,
¦which would be labour loft for me to repeat, and
himfelf Co aCCempt co prove; ic is much che
fhorter mechod to afferr all, ehan to prove any thing.
I expefted better things of fo good ah author, but
men cannot make bricks without clay, whatever
they may do withouc' ftraw. However, he afferrs
fo boldly, one would almoft think he had been one
of the wicneffes.
When men are in palpable diftrefs, whatcan they
do ? Thefe brave defendants do all that men in their
circumftances can. 'Tis not therefore the fault of
the pleaders thac the caufe is not clear'd up ; but
the inexplicable darknefs that invelopes ic. They
want neither underftanding co brighten their own
fide nor blacken the other.
§. 17. Of fpicing the body of Jefus, and other cir
cumftances.
The Clearer thinks, p. 70, 71.' that the difciples
fpicing their mafter's body, is no argument of their
believing or not believing his refurreftion. But
were the Clearer's friends to offer to give him the
extreme unction at going to bed, fuppofing his re
ligion

C 33 1
Iigion allowed of that ceremony, he would think
either that they did noe expeft 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 wicneffe«, who cell him the difciples did not
expeft the refurreftion of their mafter. But had
they expefted it, what need was there of this coft
and ceremony ? Dead bodies were fpiced Co preferve
them from ftinking ; I think there was no fear of
that in two days, had they expefted him to rife
the third. Or would the power of the refurreftion
not have fweecened ic ? 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 'ewas
expefted he fhould rife again. And why was the
body of Jefus fpiced, but becaufe the difciples con
feffed they had no expeftation of|it. This plainly
enough betrays their want of faith and foreknow
ledge of the refurreftion of Jefus.
If Nicodemus, who was a ruler and a difciple,
interr'd the body wich an hundred pound weight
of fpices, ic'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 all 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, Cho' they defired co fee fomething of chac fort
which had been reported to ehem, chey could have
'no anxiecy about his dead body to occafion them to
fet a watch. As for the difciples, 'tis own'd chey
had them in concempt, and therefore could be un
der no aprehenfion of their power, or plotting to
fteal

[ 34 3
fteal away the body, and pretend it was rifen,
or of making any hand of it if they did ; for
could the people believe he was rifen from the grave,
if they faw him not afterwards, who to them feem'd
not able co deliver himfelf from the pains of death,
of the public ignominious death of a criminal. No
wonder this was to tbe Jews aftumbling block.
Why could not che Jew' rulers fet 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 thac any privare perfon mighc
have done ehis, or hired anocher, or fome ochers Co
do it, unlefs they were afraid the perfons fo doing
might be murdered in the night, and therefore ic
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 ftrong guard was neceffary ; then
the more public, the more wonderful the women
did not hear of it, as che Clearer fuggefts, and then
the greater wonder the guard fhould all agree to
fpread about a falfe report, conerary to cheir know
ledge ; and the lefs reafon to fuppofe their fleepy fto-
^ry could be credieed, or chac one or two angels in
winding lheets fhould frighten all and convert none.
Not to mention the angels going away when the
lighc came, as if chey were afraid or afham'd of
being feen : Why was ehis done in che 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 wifh, if true, they had nor a fellow-feeling,
, for there was no feeing in the cafe. The ftory is
as dark as the nighc ic was done in. ' You fee,
4 Sir, how rhis demonftration for che gofpel-evi-
4 dence turns our.* §. 1 8.

f'35]
§. j 8, Of the women difciples that attended the fe
pulchre.
_To expofe fome things is a fufficient anfwer.
The Clearer infinuates thac the women who foUow
ed the body from the crofs to the fepulchre, knew
nothing what was done co ic, iov Jofeph and Nicode-
mus wrapt ic in linen, nor did chey nor any one elfe
vouchfafe to tell the women, though they were
thofe who had fubfifted .and attended Jefus in his
preaching and travels : Yet* as they never left che
corps till they faw it depofited, chey mighe un
doubtedly have fmelc an hundred pound weighc of
fpices. The Clearer, Sir, queries whether ic was fuf
ficient, and fuppofes, that * the funeral ceremonies
4 were-referyed to be perform'd after che fabbath
4 with more fpices, had noe providence prevenCed
4 it by a more wonderful evenr,' by the unbe
lieving women difciples, who had buried their
faith with their mafter, while the faith of infidel
priefts grew out of his grave, and would have had
no ocher evidence of his refurreftion than what
the apoftles gave them, if they had noe watch'd
,th? fepulchre. 4 This more wonderful event1 nei
ther the men nor women difciples expefted ; and
though it is faid Co be known Co, and believed by
the unbelieving Jew rulers, Nicodemus the only be^
l.ieyer among the rulers, did not believe ie ; for fpi
cing the body was a fign of his infidelity or igno
rance, not of his .faith or knowledge. As for che
women, poor creatures, the Clearer argues they
were ignoranc of every ehing, knew nothing of che,
prediftion, nor of Niccdemus's fpicing che (body,
or. chat a watch had been feen fet, 'twas done ' while
4 they were confined ac \cme,' and refted devoutly
on 'the fabbath,'".4 without ftirring abroad,' or gof-
fipping, or afking or hearbg any news all that
F live-

1 36 ]
live-long day ; for neither 4 the, Roman governor
4 nor the chief priefts thought- it neceffary to in
form thefe poor women ; * nor could any one
-elfe, for they fee a public wacch privately, the wo
men therefore could not know, for they were no
witches, nor were any of the difciples conjurers
enough tp inform them of it ; and bang 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, 4 1 cannot apprehend how it was poP
4 fible they fhould know what was done at the
4 fepulchre ; therefore they went early in the morn
ing after che fabbath was paft, to pay their laft re-
fpefts to it, by anointing and perfuming it4' and
confolced about rolling away the ftone from the fe-
pulcre. And therefore 4 where is the inconfiftency
of all this ? Or how are thefe different ftories ?*
'Tis faid,Sir,thatthe women at the fepulchre mourn
ed and wept. Why fhould they weep if they knew
he was to rife again, and in fo fhort a time ? Had
they known this, certainly they would have watch'd
the grave with eager expeftation 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 ftory ! How could they forget at fo re
markable a time, fuch repeated affurances of the
moft amazing aftion that ever was, and they his
moft intimate friends, acquaintance, and believers
in him ?
§. 19. Of the effeft the apparition made to the watch,
had on them and the priefts.
, The Clearer fays, 4 that the chief -priefts well knew
4 whae effeft the report of the watch would natu-
4 rally have on the minds of the people, if fairly
made.' How could they krlow it, if it made none on

[*7l
on them nor the watch ? And if it had an effeft
on both the watch and them, why does he only
in contradiction to what I argued about ic, endea
vour to prove it had not ? If it had an effeft, how
could they think to prevent it by means of thofe
Very men that had found it iitefiflable. But tufh,
he infinuate^ that was buc 4 a fright,' (p. 87, 88.)
* There is not the leaft reafon to fufpeft they were
4 acquainted with the charafter and pretenfions of
4 fhe perfon lying in the grave.,* tho all Jerufalem
knew it. 4 They did not expeft to be difturb'd by
* invifiye powers.' True ; but if they were, and
the invifible powers appear'd vifible, it muft 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 affected them no more. Why ? They were com
mon foldiers, and therefore not common men ; they
were feared and terrified by a furprizing fight,
but unaffected with the confequences 5 and the chief
priefts too* though they were alarm'U at it The
foidiers-j bribed by them with ready money, re
ported what the priefts invented ; who* though
they admieeed his miracles, and were witneffes to
fome of them, fo that (p. 61.) 4 Whether they
4 thought him to be the Chrift or no, could not
4 but fufpeft him to be a great prdphet at leaft ;'
yet they afcribed his miracles to the pdwer of Beel
zebub ; and tho' they fufpefted 4 He might pof-
4 fibly come from the grave arm'd with power to
4 take vengeance for their wicked and cruel treat-
4 rheiit of him,' yet 4 Might afcribe all the guards
4 reported to be ctpne at the fepulchre to the power
4 Of the devil : ' Supra quam cuique credibile eft.
Priefts aftd infidels, or infidel priefts have gene
rally mote fenfe than to believe fo much in the
devil. - . ^,
F 2 The

C 38 I
The Clearer thinks it proper that neither- the
watch, the angels, nor the priefts fhould be wit-
neffes of the refurreftion, p. 91. but fuch chofen
witneffes to convince the world, as the world would
not chufe of all men, interefted in the cafe, whofe
honefty was fufpefted, and judg'd to require- a
ftrift watch, left they fhould be guilty of foul play.
But tho' che high prieft and rulers knew the difci
ples, and we not, 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 offspring ehro' faich,by a lineal de-
fcent, we go to heaven in a righc line.
§.20. Remarks on Mr, Chandler'* affertions. ¦'<¦'¦
Mr. Chandler (p. 8, 'and 9.). affures us, that the
* prediftions of Chrift co his difciples of his fuffer-
4 ings and refurreftion,. as co che fenfe and meaning
* of them, were too clear to beimifunderftood ; '
and p. 10. 4 they underftood the meaning of thefe
4 expreffions perfeftly well;' tho' ; the evangelifis
' fay the difciples did not underftand them, Mark
ix. 10. 32. as alfo appears by their aftions: bur he
prefumes, thac they did not underftand how the
Meffiah was to fuffer and rife again, and yet they
underftood Jefus to be the Meffiah, and the fenfe of
what he told themuabouc ic, very well. If chey did
underftand his words, why did they not believe,
and expeft the fulfilling them ? If they did not
underftand how the Meffiah was to fuffer, why
did he not open their underftandings ? without
which, whacever he taught them, they learnt no
thing. Why did he, who was called tbe light of
the world, find and leave them in the dark. He
calls them che light of the world, Matt. v. 14. and
yet they groped in darknefs. Jefus faid, All that
ever

[ 39 r
ever came before me were thieves and robbers, John x.
8. fo>are all that have been after him, for they have
ftole away our light.. Their prejudices, fay thefe
pleaders, darkened their minds ; ftpnge ! that the
light of God which came'down from heaven being
with them, could not, or did not remove thofe
prejudices ! That God .fhould not enlighten *his own
people, nor Chrift his difciples is a very dark
ftory. Mr. C. adds., that 4 if they were not fatisfied,
4 'twas becaufe they demanded unreafonable fatif-
4, faftion : ' this, is an unreafonable affertion ; for
what is more reafonable, than fuch proof of the
truth of a faft, as the naCure of ic could and ought
to give; and p. 19. 4 Suppofing they were an evil,
4 aduleerous, profligate, hypocritical, perfecucing,
4 (bigotted generation, how was it poffible to fatisfy
4 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 betcer? You know, Sir, lee men be
ever fo bad, they neverchelefs believe cheir own
eyes. Had Jefus perfonally and publickly appeared
to .them after his refurreftion, as before, the trouble
of after miracles mighe have been fpared, and the
the Holy Ghoft might have ftaid in heaven. If a
miracle be neceffary at all to confirm it, 'tis now •
but then it required no other than a perfonal mani-
feftaeion. Ic would be loft time, Sir, particularly to fhew
how greatly Mr. C. affirms and fuggefts, and how
little he proves, like the other gentlemen in this
unbloody war; they make defperate attacks, but
fhameful reereats. ' Arguments founded merely on
^imagination, are but imaginary arguments : fuppo- fitions

fitions are fit anfwers to fuppofi tions 5 and affertions
to affertions ; which may be done without end.
§.21. Whether the watch were credible evidence in
favour of the "refurreftim.<
Sir, If the Jew rulers found it neceffary rjoliey to
bribe the foldiers to report a Iye» 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 affert any thing for a bribe,
and thofe 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 ; theitj
is the lefs reafon to believe any thing they reported i
they are a perjured evidence, and not to be credited,
in any refpeft, or for any party. Thus, fuppofing;
there was a watch as pretended, they prove nothing;5
in favour of the refurreftion ; becaufe if they werfc
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 angel a-*piece might in
duce them to run away, and let the difciples do
what they pleas'd with ic. 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 ftory by Pilate ?

§. 22

t;4i 3
§. 22. Of the Jkfficiency of gofpel evidence, and my

errors.

I afked, Why do the evangelifis tell different fto
ries? 4 What do you mean? fays the Clearer, St.
4 Matthew alone tells the ftory of guarding the
* fepulchre, the reft are quite fifenc in that point,
* but fay. mothing that is inconfiftent with-it.' The
inconfiftency I have already fhewn. 4 St. Matthew
4 alone tells the ftory of watching the fepulchre*
* the reft are quite filent about it;' what, not one
word by the others, but of fafts that cannot at all
ftand with it ? Why did; not Matthew mention what
the women came for to roll away the ftone, and
fpiee the body? No; 'twas not agreeable to the
ftory of the watch. That the gofpel evidence may
be as remarkable as the gofpel fafts, one witnefs
unknown and abfent, muft be fufficient in uncom
mon cafes; but common cafesun law require at leaft
two living witneffes prefent to eftablifh the truch ;
for the gofpel is founded on faith, but the law on
reafon. All the Confiderer's reafons are to be efteem'd, of
no weight: why? becaufe,, fays Mr. Jackfon, he
blunders, and miftakes one man for another, and
one woman for another. Wdl, I am' convinc'd of
thefe two errors, and make a public recantation :
jft, I mentioned that Agrippa, which fhould' have
been Feftus, told zPaul he was mad; p. 71-. of the
2d edition, line '30^ 'tis eafily mended), for he read
Feftus; but what is this to the argument!? and p.
35, for Mary the mother of Jefus, vead Jofes; and
p. 36, for Jefus's own mother, read thr mother of
Jofies; for 'tis a queftion, whether we may not
reckon the mother of Jefus among his brethren,
Matt. xii. 47, 489 49- John vii. £ 4, 5. and one
of

of his own kindred, and his own houfe, Mark v.
4. for ic feems he had little to do with his own mo
ther, John ii. 4.
§.23. Of the defenders attemptslto reconcile the dp-
'. ¦¦' pear ance s of. Chrift. .-.,i
All the four gentlemen agree to affirm, that
there is no inconfiftency at all in the relation of the
appearances of Chrift in the four gofpels ; yet, Sir,
there is no agreement among chem and the gofpds,
nor among one another in -making them confiJ
ftent. - Mr. Chandler fays, (p. 7 9.) thac ' Grotius and moft
other incerpreeers make ehis appearance of Chrift to
Mary Magdalene, mentioned by/SuJohn, the fame
wich chac to the women meneioned by St. Matthew),
and think, that the appearance of the angel men-r
tioned by Matthew, Mark,, and. Lake, which was
made to the women in common, was alfo the fame
as that which St. John mentions as made to M.
Magdalene* Buc Mr. C. being full of himfelf,
thinks there is the fulleft evidence to che concrary ;. if
fo, 'tis furprizing chac ochers could not, as well as
himfelf, diftinguifh by. the fulleft evidence : but if
he means, that in fuch light there is the fulleft evi
dence, that the ftory does not harmonize, it may
be true. 4 What then is to be done in this diftrefs,'
but to fuppofe them two diftinft appearances, to
reconcile the inconfiftencies chac attend their being
one appearance. Ic is co be obferved, Sir,
ift, Thac they have no auehority for doing this,
but che necefficy they are under to reconcile the
differences, that arife from their being confidered
as one appearance.
' idly, That, confidering them as two diftinft ap
pearances does not reconcile the differences. Zdly,

[43]
%dly, That tho' they affirm nothing more than
that they are confiftent in every part, they prove
nothing lefs.
But the great Clearer has endeavoured to recon
cile the differences in one appearance, (if I under
ftand him aright) tho' his great patron fuppofed
two to M. Magdalene.
§. 24. Mr. Sylvefter'j account of the appearances Of
Jefus compared with the evangelifis.
I fhall mention- Mr. Sylvefter next, becaufe the
Others feem to have followed him, with fome varia
tion where they are crampt, to make ic, as chey
think, more confiftenr, they fall under a necefiiey,
as men fhipwrackt, each to fhift for himfelf. Mr.
T. S. from Lucas Brugenfis, delivers icchus,, p. 63, 64.
1. 4 When che women faw che body was gone,
4 and had feen che vifion of angels, who faid thac
4 he was alive, and communicated ic to the difci-
4 pies; 2. 4 Then ran Peter and John quickly to the
4 fepulchre, and not finding the body of Jefu?, re-
4 turned home aftonifhed, Luke xxiv. 12. John
4 xx. 3.
3. 4 Mary Magdalene returning to che fepulchre,
4 and continuing there weeping, had the honour of
4 the firft appearance from our Lord, Mark x. 9.
4 John xx. 11.
4. 4 When fhe had communicated this to the
4 ocher women, and was going together with them
4 to the apoftles, to fignify what had happened,
4 Jefus mee them, appearing co chem all, Matt.
4 xxviii. 9.
5. 4 During this, after the appearance ofthe
•angels to the foldiers, who were appointed for the
14 watch,, being bribed, they went into the city,
4 and reported, chat the difciples came by night,
". G * and

;;[ 44 3
4 and ftole the body of Jefus away, Matt.
¦*¦ xxviii. 4. 11. v •=.-.' t ... ¦'- -¦¦
6. 4 The women giving teftimony that Jefus was
4 alive, and the apoftles being incredulous, he ap-
4 peared then to Peter, Luke xxiv. 34.
7. ' Afterwards he appeared to the two difciples
4 going eo Emmaus, Luke xxiv. 13. Mark~xvi. 12.
8. 4 And chen on che evening of che firft day of
4 che week, that is, the Lord's day, he appe#r$d
' to all . the apoftles togecher, Thomas alone being
4 abfene, Mark xvi. 14. Luke xxiv. 36. John
4 xx. 19.
9. 4 Thomas remaining incredulous to the, report
4 of the difciples, Jefus prefented himfelf before
4 chem all, eo be feen and felc on the eighth day
.4 after, John xx. 24.
10. 4 Afterwards the difciples repairing to Gati-
4 lee, as they were commanded, they faw Jefus at
4 the fea of Tiberias, and there he dined with
4 them, John xxi. 1.
11. ' And afterwards he was feen by a greac num-
' ber on che mount, Matt, xxviii. 16.
12. 4 So then after the completion of forty days,
* in which he converted with his difciples, fpeaking
4 to them the things that concern the kingdom ef
' God, on the fortieth day, while they tjeheld he
4 afcended into heaven, Mark xvi. 19. Luke xxiv.
4 50. Afts i. 3.'
Againft this, Sir, I have thefe objeftions.
'That the women went and found the body was
gone* came and told Peter and John, and went
^again with them, and faw Jefus in their fecond re
turn, is not agreeable to any evangelical" ac
count. Matthew fays, in their return from thenee
•the firft time, they met Jefus by the way.. It muft
: be the firft time, becaufe they carried fpices wiph
efhem. •If

[45 1\
If they went . twice co che fepulchre, and faw,
angels at che firft time, who^told, chem, thac Jefus
was alive, why did they noe tell it to Peter and
John ? and if- they did, why does not John mention
it ? but on the contrary, that they faid, they haye
taken the Lord; out of the fepulchre, and we know
not where they* have lajd him.. This, fay's, Mr. C.
is only a rehearfal of what fhe- faid to the angel ;
but no angel told, him fo : and why did fhe or John
tell. one. part of the- ftory, and not the other.?
If the foldiers were but going into the city, when
t/he.women were the laft time going to tdl the difr
ciples, certainly they muft have feen them at che
fepulchre the firft time; but thac chey could not
do, for the foldiers ffed at the opening the fepulchre,
and M,. Magdalene with the women came the firft
time after ic was opened.
Where was Jefus gone, that he did not appear, to
Peter and John at the fepulchre, yee muft of ne-
ceffity.be there -bqt a little before, and was there afr
terwards? So were the angels, yet Peter and John
faw them, not, neither in the fepulchre nop.out
of.it. §. 25. The manner of the firft ^appear ante to Mary
Magdalene, according to /^.Clearer.
The Clearer differs from; Lucas Brugenfis, in that
he conceives thefe two appearances are, kne, An^ f"ays
Mary Magdalene was only rnention'd as being the
principal, and that: fhe faw Jefus, after going ''the
fecond time to the fepulchre with che women, (which
Matthew fays was in their -firft return.) By this
accommodation of the appearance, ftanding aqd go7
ing, at the fepulchre, and ata.diftance from it,
are. the 'fame thing. The Clearer, fays Jefus for-
bad them. to touch hjs body, after they had touch'd
him. '-If Mary had not la,id, hold of JefusYfeet,
G 2 ¦ he

[ 46 ]
e he could have no occafion to fay, touch me not.*
Thus he alone attempts to reconcile the accounts
in one appearance. To do him juftice, as after all,
he does not conceal his diffidence of the truth ac
cording to his explanation ; fo I will not conceal his
modefty. 4 Upon the whole (fays he) I think the
4 account here given feems to me to be the moft
' probable, which I would be underftood to fay
4 without prejudice to other interpretations, which
4 many worthy and learned writers have followed.'
§. 16. Tbe hiftory of Chrift's appearance to Mary
Magdalene according to Mr. Chandler.
But Mr. Chandler will have it, that M. Magd. in
one journey eo che fepulchre faw Jefus twice, once
alone, according to St. John, and once with her com
panions, according to St. Matthew. And (p. 83,
84.) thac ' They afterwards came to Peter and John,
4 and that M. Magd. told them fhe had a meffage
* from Chrift to them all : That the two apoftles'
4 gathered the reft together, with M. Magd. and
4 the other women ; fhe related to them the fe-
4 veral appearances as they happened in order,, who
4 had a greater command of her fpirits, and was
4 able calmly to give them the important relation,
4 who heard all without believing any thing. It
4 does not appear (adds he) from this account, that
4 M. Magd. ran back and told the difciples what
4 fhe had feen at the fepulchre, and then return'd
4 to it and faw Jefus.  (p. 84.) ' 'Tis abfolutely
4, improbable.' (p. 86, 87.) Mark and John fpeak
4 of the firft appearance of Chrift to Mary and the'
4 reft of her companions, as they were at a diftance
4 from the fepulchre, and haftening home to make
4 their report to the apoftles.'  (p. y^.) l Either
4 M. Magd. did not flee at all from it, (i. e. the
« fepulchre) or immediately returned to it.'  (P-

[ 47 ]
(p. 88.) 4 Though St.- John mentions M. Magda
len's running to Peter immediately after the ac
count that fhe faw the ftone 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's running tp the fepulchre, he refumes ic
4 again, and connefts ic by a word that plainly
* fhews it to be a continuance of che foregoing nar-
4 ration.' Thus by interpolations thefe holy writ
ings are defended againft any ineerpoiacions, 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
Jefus to M. Magdalen:
Mr. Javkfbn'&gofpe] of therasfurreftion'j p. 1 24, 1 2 5,;
126, differsfrom Mr. Sylvefier's tad the reft:, of which
this is the fubftance : M. Magd.mth the other women
goto the fepulchre, and find not the body; Mary
Magdalene leaves them, and runs to tdl Peter and
John ; the other women flay -and fee Angels ; they
goto 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
ftays, fees angels and Jefus ; fhe 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 expofitions of thefe gofpel-de
fenders.
Thus, Sir, thefe gentlemen have tryed all man
ner of ways to make the ftory confiftent, though every

[ 48 ]!
every one of them affert thpre is no inconfiftency
in the feveral accounts of the evangelifis ; yet in
endeavouring to make them agree, the gofpels ofthe
refurreftion of the Clearer^ of- Mr. Syhefter* of Mr.
Chandler, and ofj Mr. Jafkfon, differ as much as Mat-
thewiMdrkiLyke and John,. Nulliduoconcinwmt. Their
underftanding it fo differently fhews it is above their
underftanding as well as mine ; yet every; one feems
fure his. own is right- ; add; if ic be, lam fure no
man knows which co take, or refufe. Buc above
all that are fure*. a* Mr. Jackfion expreffes ir, p, 13.9,
that ' There is no. contradiction nor inconfiftencies
- in the feveral accounts of Chrift's refurreftion, nor
4 any other difference, but one evangelift omits fome
4 circumftances which are related in others : ' I
fay above all the reft I.reco.mmend you, Sir, to
Mr. Chandler, if pofitivenels. he a proof of being in
the right, he is pofitively the man. And to com-
pleat che: jeft- he pretends Xo ferapC acquaintance
with honefty, whom you. may believe him acquainted
with, if he isib weak in judgment as to.be ftrong
in faith. He fays, p. 86. 4 Upon the wholes as
4 the feverah accounts are fairly capable of being
4 reconcil'd. without any unnatural fuppofitions and
4 forced conftruftions , upon the plain letter of the
4 words, and. the intimations droptby one or other.
4 of the hiftorians themfelves ; I am forced as an
4 honefi men, and a lover, of jtfftice, to bring in my
4 verdifti in favour of thefe witneffes, and declare
4 them fully confiftent.' p. 80. ' So that compar-
4 ing chefe feveral accouncs/, we have the whole hif-
4 tory of this important event. campleat,. and every
4 part of it is a confirmation of the whole.' p. 82.
4 So that the teftimony of the evangelifis; in
4 theirdifferent narrations is perfeftly confiftent.'
p. 92. ' 'Tis not necefficy, any other chan that
4 irrefiftable necefficy of fa'ft, and the ftrongeft cir-
4 cumftances, that drives us- to;faffert: two appejy- 4 a.nces,

[ 49 3
' anGes, which removes all abfurdity From the ac-
* count, and juftifies the whole, without receding
4 one tittle from the letter of the hiftory, &c.'
To affirm at this rate, after fuch tranfpofitions, in
terpolations, and conftruftions, which he is forced
to make ufe of, to make it in any tolerable man
ner hang together, and accord, is intojlerable, and
fhews that modefiy is an utter ftranger to him.
I wifh he' had better acquaintance with that polite
lady, and was more in favour with her grace.
If fuch dividing and tacking of the evangdifts
together, as all thefe gentlemen are forc'd tp
contrive to make difcord look hke concord,
was done to make them difagfee, what would chri
ftian preachers and believers think and fay, or ra
ther what would they not fay toexpofeand reproach
fuch male practice. Tho' the Clearer fays, 4 All
* the evidence is on the fide of the refurreftion,'
'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, fhews them reduc'd to the greateft
diftrefs. What does all thefe contrivances demon-
ftrate, but fhe palpable patchwork of an ill con
nected ftory, to make the beft of it. They tell us
St. John wrote his gofpel to correft che defefts of
the others : Certainly chey were very defective, and
his correftion very incorrect. 'Tis confeffing the
evangelifis told their ftory by halves, and fo badly,
that if they had not the Holy Ghoft. to direft
them, no body ftood in more need of ic ; nor is
-there lefs need of him now co informus what they
mean, than was ac firft Co teach them what he
meant. If they had learn'd their leffon right, they
certainly would have raughc us better; but cheir
blundering fhews their honefty: Though the Holy
Ghoft may pardon an honeft blunderer, yet fure
-he 'would never chufe eo fend fuch - of an errand.
To make up their defefts, thefe gentlemerugiveus for
i gofpel

t 5° ]
gofpel their own conjeftures, for which there is no
authority, the pure offspring of invention and ne-
ceflicy co make che accourirs correfpond, which yet
fail in doing. But- fuch mangling and cobling of
the text fhews manifeft confufion and egregious
blunders not eafy to make on the fide of truth and-
underftanding, nor eafy to reconcile with it. And"
ic feems very unreafonable that the worft ftory-td-
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 moft fhining truth
is always attended with the cleareft evidence, and
virtue is wholly without compulfion, 'tis the beft
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, chac ftories which do not
agree, cannoc be all crue, yee they do not confider,
- that 'tis more likely they may be all falfe ; and that
many that do agree, are alfo falfe ; therefore che
agreement of ftories is no proof of the truth of
them ; and if probability be abfenc, it fhews proof
is wanting. Improbable hiftories that rightly tally,
prove the faft no more, than a falfe ftory often re
peated by one perfon, or cold by feveral, prove it
to be true.
§. 29. The harmony of the gofpel defenders.
Having fhewn, Sir, how each of thefe gentlemen
endeavour to ftate the account of Chrift's firft ap
pearance, to make the evidence agree, and what
agreement is between them and the evidence, I now
come to fhew, how in endeavouring Co remove all
difagreemencs they agree one wich another.
I hope, Sir, that you now clearly fee, that there
is fuch agreement in the gofpel, and gofpel ex
pounders

I 5i ]
pounders and defenders., chat whether the firft ap
pearance -of Chrift after his refurreftion was to Maty
alone, according to St. John, Mr. Sylvefter, p. 65.
Mr.' Chandler, p. 78, jg. and Mr. Jackfion, p. 126.
or to her in company with other women, as Sr.
Matthew and the Clearer fay, in contradiftion to Sr.
John and the reft ; both are confiftent, and agreea
ble to them and the text. Whether Mary toucht
not Jefus's feet at firft, but embrac'd them afteiv
wards, as Mr. Sylvefter has it-; or whether fhe and
the women embrac'd them, and were forbidden at
the fame time, as che Clearer fays, p. 1 14. or chat
Mary was not forbad at all, and that ' there is no
4 reafon to think it,' as Mr. C. p. 89, fays ; and
that fhe was forbid, and did not touch him at all,
as Mr. Jackfion fays, p. 126. Is either way intirely
confiftent? Whether M. M. went with other wo
men to the fepulchre, and afterwards came and told
Peter and John, and left the other women behind,
as Mr. Jackfion fays ; or whecher they wenc away,
and left her behind, or wenc a little way with them,
and then return'd alone, and afterwards join'd them,
as Mr. Chandler fays ; or whether chey all wenc to-
gecher, as fay Mr. Silvefier and che Clearer, is all
concordanc and confiftent-? Whether M. M. with
the women, reported to the apoftles they had feen
angels and Jefus Chrift, as St. Matthew and Mr. C.
fays, (p. 85.) or that they reported not a word
abouc it, only- chac che body was gone, as St. John
and the Clearer relate, (p. 105.) is perfeftly natural
and harmonious? So, whether Mary faw Chrift af
ter Peter and John wenc co che fepulchre, as Sr.
John and che Clearer and Mr. Jackfion relate ? Or
whether fhe faw him at the fepulchre before Peter
and John went there, as Mr. C. places it, ' I am
4 forc'd, as an honeft man, and a lover of juftice,
4 to bring in my verdift in favour of thefe jdry-
-4 men, and declare them fully confiftent.' That 5t. '
H Mark

[5*]
Mark and St. John 'fpeak of one appearance 'to M.
Magd. alone, ftanding by che fepulchre,-; and Mat
thew of another to her andher companions, going
away, and at a diftance from it, as-tfi#5^e na"
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 ; and therefore
ftanding or running, being ac che fepulchre ovr,%t
a diftance from ic, by herfelf or in compan^.^tp
make Matthew and John agree, is all one; rrbj^is
there any manner of contradiftion in it, nor in their
contradictions, which laft is as true as all the
reft. §. 30. . Remarks on attempting to reconcile irrecon
cileable hiftory.
Is it, Sir, a proof of the hiftory and its cohfi-
ftency, that eVery interpreter differs about the
fenfe of it, and to bring it out of confufion con
founds it, arid is confounded ? Is it, Sir, a fair re-
prefent-ation of the fenfe and critereon of the vera
city of it, that not two of thofe who fwear co the
truth of it, can agree abouc che meaning, nor in
whae fenfe Co reprefliic it ? If the evangelifis don't
agree in whae tMtey tell, I fee no reafon, thac men
fliould cherefore fuggeft, they tell what they don't.
What would, or might be faid Co thofe, thac fhould
thus mangle and diftort a hiftory, to make it con
tradift itfelf, I think may be faid to thofe, that by
fuch means endeavour to take away thefe contradic
tions 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
Englijh fentences, to a fenfe unthought of before, to
help them out ac a dead lift. Have che evange-
}ifts expreffed cheir own fenfe clear and righc, how
2 can

I 53 ]
can the expofitors do ic better? Have the gofpel
hiftorians expreffed themfelves in fuch manner, that
men- cannot agree what cheir fenfe is? 'eis noe in
their rp6wer to clear it up: this one thing is clear
from hence,;, that the believers and defenders are
greatly in the dark, and nothing difcovers it more,
than their affirming thac Co' be erue, which chey.
know nothing of, and afferting thofe things co be
right, which cheir own ignorance of is a demon
ftration, chat fuch affertions are manifeftly wrong.
If it "cannot be known, let ic 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 expreffing, what men can'c 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 eongues Co exprefs them, 'tis very
ftrange, they knew not how to agree together to
tell a confiftent ftory : if they fay they had thefe
helps, and there appears plainly their want of them,
.they can obcain credit with none buc che credulous.
Sir, it is my opinion, thac che apoftles on whom
thefe things are father'd, were innocehc of che mat
ter ; but others have done ic in their names. What
mended their hearts and tongues muft have mended
.their intdlefts, and better direfted their pens : if
there is no proof of the latter, there is. -no reafon
to believe the former ; for the more of- th^e one is
afcribed to them, and the lefs appearance there is of
the other, the more (tinker .like) in mpding, it
mars the metal. A.---y''"' ¦"¦¦- A:'"

H2 §-3i-

[54 I '
t
§.31. Of the next appearance, and other circum
ftances.
The Clearer thinks Chrift had ho occafion to
mention his intention to fee them that night in Je
rufalem, fp. 122.) but I cannoc help thinking,, it
had been better for him to have mentioned this
firft, and in that vifit, he had an opportunity to tell
them of his pleafure co fee them in Galilee ; for if
the laft' was firft, and only mentioned, without
doubt it would have fet che difciples on making the
beft of their way chicher immediately, by which
means they would have loft the pleafure and oppor
tunity of feeing him in Jerufalem ; fo his moft faith
ful difciples would have been worft treated, as being
by their faith and obedience moft likely Co be moft
difappointed of the advancage given eo oehers, who
unexpeftedly faw him at Jerufalem. But notwith
ftanding the meffage pretended to be given by the
angels and himfelf, they were m no hafle to go
there : And why fhould he trudge them there and
back again, when ic don'c appear, he wenc or came
with 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 che way on fooc. According
to St.' '-Luke, he never went to Galilee, but afcended
the evening of the day he arofe : to get off from
this dilemma, they fay nothing but what is mon-
ftroufly^abfurd. Mr. Chandler has it, p. 112. 4 That
4 the account of che appearance eo che apoftles,
' and whae belongs Co ic, ends ac ver. 43. and the
4 44th verfe, And he faid unto them, . or as he renders
4 it, ' moreover he faid unco chem, relate to an
' appearance forty days after,' to reconcile it with
Afts 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 does
not neceffity drive men to ! The Clearer fays, p. 132.
4 The orders to go to Galilee, and continue at Je-
4 rufialem, were given at different times; yes, the
order in the morning bade them go to Galilee, but
in the evening of the fame day, if St. Luke writes
hke honeft men that are no faints, they were
(ver. 49.) ordered to tarry at Jerufalem, by that
time Jefus had chang'd his mind, and inftead 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 Emmaus,
he appeared in another form, their eyes were holden
that they fhould not know him, and he vanijhed out
of fight ; in doing which they do not well agree:
but by what they fay, 'tis plain, all the interpreta
tion which can be given it, is but gueffing at the
meaning, and endeavouring to account for it, as
well as they can. And to follow their pattern, he
that gueffes what is moft probable, and fartheft off
from miracle, feems to come neareft the mark. So
that miracles are only to be allowed in cafes of ne-
cefficy ; buc he does beft, who can do wichout
them. The gentlemen are very careful to convince me
of my error, that Simon Peter was not the other
difciple that went wich Cleopas to Emmaus; but this
care is of no moment ; 'twas but a mere fuppofition
or conjefture of mine, and delivered as fuch, ae the
overthrow of which they feem co glory, as if chey
had obcained fome fore of viftory : buc whae, pray,
does ie fignify eo the argument, whether ic was Si--
mon Peter with Cleopas, .thac 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. gyl) was not fo well acquainted with his
manner.

[ 56 3
manner, perfon, and voice, and might, for atfg^t.
-we know, as little know Chrift, as we know hirhV
or Cleopas, 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 little 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 fhould not know him, when^
rifen; but if they had little knowledge of him, or.
we of them, their evidence is of fo much the lefs
weight. But whether they were both worth naming
or 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 pff
alive or dead, all the day long, and wanted to have
their underftandings opened .by the refurreftion,
which were noe opened by the prediftion of it, fave
only 'tis faid, he appear'd to Peter; but of this ap
pearance 'tis very remarkable, that there is nothing
remarkable in it, not fo much as when, where, ia
what manner, or on what account this private ap
pearance to Pejer was made, and what makes it
more fo, tho' he had appear'd to Petef^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 appear'd
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 Sc. Mirk,
they did noe believe them, (ver. 13.) nay, they
could hardly believe Chrift himfelf, St. Luke fays,
(ver. 41.) So that either thefe are bad accounts of
his appearance, or the difciples were bad fort of-
believers.

:.k: C 57 I
belie^^ If it was fo hard to make believers be-
lieve^hey were not 'far from unbelievers; and
therefore; we may hope for the more grace hereafter,
who have here no evidence of Chrift's refurreftion,
-nor- of his appearance, fit to convince a reafonable
< man. The appearance of Jefus upon the day of his re
furreftion was to one woman alone, then to twO or
t^fee: or more, -for a minute or two, in the morn-
in^early, or to them altogether. He fupp'd and
dih'd with none that we read of. At fome time
ofthe day afterwards fomewhere he appear'd to
fome Simon or other, and either before or after two
men incog, one unknown, who kne'w^fofMttle whe
ther it was him or no, and told their ftol^fo evan
gelically, that they could not convince, '^fe other
difciples of the truth of ic ; 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 out.
Z»&? 35^39. One would have thought it more na
tural and reafonable, firft co appear Co them altoge
ther, by appointment, in or near Jerufalem, 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 objeftion
alone, raifed from what the evidence confefs, that
he was never feen in public afterwards, though he
rofe again for a public good, is fufficienc to over
balance all that can poffibly be urg'd in favour of
it. Some want to know what Jefus faid to chefe
two difciples, when he opened their underftandings
that they might underftand 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 funftion muft not blab them 5 if they
did, the myftery would be at an end, and their gain

[ 58' 3
gain be gone. The magi underftand magic better ;
if he opened their underftand ings, they never open
ours, nor ever will, no, they live by confounding
them ; for when that lock is opened, we ourfelves
fhall keep the keys of the kingdom.
§• 32- Of .unintelligible hiftory, and the manner of
defending it.
They objeft, that I don't underftand the fcrip
tures. Sir, I own it ; therefore I propofe my ob
jeftions, that I may be taught to underftand it: But
I find thofe that pretend to teach others know as
little, fince they don't agree how it is to be under
ftood ; 'tis plain they do but guefs 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
direftor, whether they expound it by the help of
the fpirit or the letter, agree in their expofitions.
As the fenfe is not infallibly 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 fenfe fufficient to underftand it, they
would agree in the fenfe of it. It is noe 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 che cexc,, or che nature of
the ftory occafions, in fuch manner as to cover the
imperfeftions of ir, 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 paffable, how they vaunt, exult, and
crow, as if they were matters of the field, whereas
*tis only like fkinning over an old uker that after a
while breaks out a-frefh, and difcovers the latent
corruption, though they affirm 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 hiftory 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 hiftory
(though I think truth only makes hifiory facred,
and falfhood renders it prophane) thefe to them
are plain proofs of the fimplicity and integrity of
the writers, 4 without the leaft defign of impo-
4 ficion on the weak and credulous part of man-
4 kind,' (as Mr. C. fays, p. yy.) and the leaft
agreement in any part of thefe proves the truth of
the whole ; but in thofe, the difagreement of the
pares is ape co make men queftion the whole, or at
leaft to read it with caution, and receive it with
diffidence. Such is the marvellous pre-eminence of
. gofpel hiftory.
§.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 neceffities they
are redue'd to. Mr. C. p. 125. tartly affures 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 wrote or read,
whofe books when or where penn'd God only
I knows,

[6°]..
knows, have no authority but their own, though
their ftories are fufficient to amaze the world, yet
no proof remains (befides thefe books) that the
world knew any thing of them. Evangelical har
mony no numbers can confound. The eleven
Mark xvi. 1 4, Luke xxiv. 33, are ten to make it
tally with John xx. 24, and the eleven at another
time, Mat. xxviii. 16. are twelve to make it agree
with 1 Cor. xv. 5. as Mr. C. will have it, p. .119,
or the eleven are 500 with Mr. Sylvefter, p. 64, and
Mr. Jackfion, p. 127. With the Clearer, p. 133, ten,
eleven, and twelve mean che fame ; buc he is care
ful in whae appearance to accoune 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 che gofpel, fets ic by
itfelf next to that of Matthew xxvjii. 16. Mr. C.
makes Mark xvi. 14, and Johnxx. 16, to be the
fame appearance, becaufe they both intimate that.
'Chrift appeared to the eleven, p. 1 10, m. .But
the Clearer fuppofes the appearance mentioned hy
St. Mark xvi. 14, is the fame as that of St. Luke
xxiv. 36, and St. Johnxx. 19, 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 muft be fome of the eleven, becaufe they
are exprefiy 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 Jerufalem the fame place,
they will have it that it was a different appearance;
but they have no other reafon to make it fo, but
the diftrefs the different accounts reduce them to, to

to make them agree.1 As to this; appearance, fcjr
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 fhort 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 gofpel !
§. 34.- Of the ether appearances of Jefus, accord
ing to the defenders.
Sir, I now ptirpofe to give you at one view in
what order the defenders range the appearances of
Chrift, after he appear'd to tfie'two difciples going
to Emmaus ; whereby, Sir, you will fee,, that though
they are all certain that I am wrong, in faying ac
cording to Matthew, Mark, and 'Luke? thac Jeftjs
made buc one appearance to his difciplqs, yet that
that. they cannoc agree how certainly to underftand
them as different appearances ; and though they
fay I -confound one appearance with another, yee
it appears themfelves are confounded in what order
to take them. I have feparated every appearance
by a line, according co their different definitions of
the text.

I2 Mr.

Mr. Sylvefter.

Mark xvi. 14.
Luke xxiv. 36.
Johnxx. 19.

John xx. 24.

Jobnxxi. 1.

The Clearer.

Mark xvi. 14.
Luke xxiv. 36.
John xx. 19.

Matthew xxviii. 16.
this to 500.
— • — """
M?r& xvi. 19.
L«&? xxiv. 50.
y^?J i. 3.

Jefe xx. 26.

Jobnlxx. 21.

./&?* i. 6.
Luke xxiv. 51.
_M?r& xvi. 19.

Mr. Chandler.

Mr. *fackfon.

Matthew xxviii. 16.
Z.«foxxiv. 49.
^j i. 4.

£,«&? xxiv.
John xx. 1

36.-
9.—

-40. 24.

Mz?"£ xvi.
John xx. .

14.
t6.-

.29.

Johnxx. i

t. 12.

14.

M?«&. xxviii. 11
1 Cor. xv. 5.

5. — 20.

1 Cor. xv

. 6.

1 Cor. xv,

¦ 7-

Luke xxiv. 13. 15. 16.
30. — 44.
Mark xvi. 12. 13. 14-
Johnxx. 19- 20. 24.—
29.

A&//&. xxviii. 16. 17. r-i
1 Cor. xv. £,"6, 7.
Toiwxxi. 1, 2.
, im. mil ¦ * '
LukexxW. 50, 51, 52-
Afts i. 3. 9" 12.

He omits thofe in 1 Cor.
xv. faying- his account
creates no difficulty.

1 Cor. xv. 7.
Luke xxiv. 46. — 31.
Afts i. 4. -— 9.

[63]
Thefe texts are eafily feen in thofe affixed to my
Refurreftion confidered.
If the appearances of Jefus in the evangelifis
can be reconciled, they think 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 neceffary 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 fliould 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 refurreftion went 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, {j. 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 che time and
place, therefore we may fuppofe ic co be where we
pleafe ; but he gives not the leaft intimation of any
other appearance.
According to St. Luke, two men in fhining gar
ments (angels becaufe of their heavenly apparel)
reminded the women what Jefus faid in Galilee, chat
he fhould rife again, buc noe a word chat che dif-.
ciples fhould meec him there ; therefore he cells us
noching ofthe difciples going inco Galilee, buc makes
his appearance ac Jerufalem. Sc. Matthew, Mark,
and Luke deliver ic as plain as chey tell any ftory,
for the firft as well as the laft time, for they give us
not

[64]
not the leaft intimation of any before to the eleven,.
. nor Matthew of any after. St. Luke is plainly one
COnnefted ftory, all from firft to laft on the day of
the refurfeftton. There is not the leaft 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 fufficient, St. John, like one
newly rifen to make new revelations, tells of more,
and gives liberty to others to ftretch after him ; ac
cordingly, the author of the Afts tells us he was
forty days before he afcended ; and St. Paul, thac
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 abfolutely 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 Chrift true, if not contradifted by the evange
lifis ? Is the gofpel of the infancy of Jefus true,
becaufe none of our gofpels flatly deny it ? Does not
the romifb clergy make this the plea for all their un-
fcriptural tradition, that they are not forbidden ?
Tho' 'twas promifed the Holy Ghoft fhould 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 it worfe ; their memory was very httle, 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 refurreftion was the moft ef
fential part of his life. This was done, as the Au
thor of the TRTAL allows, to convince the
world of his charafter ; yet we don'c find he ap
peared

[ 65 ]
peared to convince any but his difciples, er to make.
one convert more than he had done before ; fo that
either he jrofe from the dead to a very little pur
pofe; or we have a very wretched account of ic.
One would imagine, if a man is raifed from the
dead, it is to fome great end, not merely to catch
fifh, eat and4rink, and vifit his friends. If 500
few Jefus .after he was rifen, where and when was
it? And why do none of the evangelifis mention
it, but becaufe they knew nothing of it; for had
they known it, it had been an inexcufable neglect
to.be .filent about ic; as alfo not. to mention ehe
other public 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 Jefus 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
cted him 40 days; fojhac he could not eat a bit
of bread all that while, becaufe he would yield to
no temptation : How devils pofleffed many per
fons, and particularly the man they kept day .and
night in the tombs, and made him fo ftrong, that
no fetters could bind him, that he had an army of
devils within him. What fhould induce them to
.poffefs 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 chey* had feparated
themfelves, and caken every devil his man. Then,
-that Jefus, to gratify the devils, fhould fuffer them
to ruin the Gadarenes, by deftroy ing 2000 of their
fwine, is furprizing : Thefe, and fuch like ftories,
which in any other book ic 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 refurreftion are fo miferably 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 contradifts 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 flay till his return, but when that ;
return was, we want another gofpel to inform us.
The ftraining the fenfe of St. Matthew, Mark and
Luke, to take in the ftories of St. John, the Afts,
and St. Paul, is whae 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 fie 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 at Jerufalem ;
therefore this apparition of St. Matthew's relating
at Galilee, appears, according to him, to be the firft
and laft, time he appeared to the eleven, as he had
appointed, which appointment cuts off all expefta*
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 laft appearance, with
out giving the leaft hinc 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 chem chere. And St.
Luke's

[ 67 ]
Luke's account cuts off all reafon for believing that
meeting. And 'tis quite abfurd, thatJefusfhould.be forty
days prefent with his difciples after his refurreftion,
and be feen by above 500 brethren at once, and
none of the evangelifis in the leaft mention either
the one or the other.
Permit me, Sir, to remark the deep diftrefs the
defenders are reduced to, to anfwer my objeftions,
and make the different accounts agree, (yet all in
vain) tho' they tranflate and tranfpofe words and
fentences as they pleafe, add fenfe, and take away
at pleafure, (intolerable in any buc orthodox belie
vers). From forced conftruftions and diftorted parts
they repeatedly affert, that all is natural, plain and
confiftent; whereas nothing is more evident, than
that a fenfe fo remote from the natural meaning of
the words, and fuch diflocation of parts which they
make, prove the hiftory to be very contrary to
thefe affertions. This diftrefs makes them (pit their
fpleen freely, which would have choak'd them elfe.
The poifion 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 fubjeft 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 blocs 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
gnajhing of teeth. I do not expeft 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
text.
K §• 35-

{ 0» J
§.35. 0/ the miracles performed when Jefus was

When Jefus was feized by the officers, and fol
diers fent co fake him, 'tis faid, they were ftruck
down backwards by his, word, and that he healed
Malchus's ear, which Peter had cut off; but he
might as well have done nothing : for tho' they fell
to the ground by a miraculous power, without any
miraculous power they feized him afterwards. And
the' Malchus's ear was cut off, and immediately
healed, we read not a word of its being mentioned
ac his trial : and tho' St.jMark and St. John fay, that
oneof the difciples cut off the high prieft's fervant.'s
ear, yet they don't fay Jefus cured it, which is very
furprizing. They muft be bleffed hiftorians, that
omit giving an account of the beft and principal
part of a ftory. 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 Malchztts's head, for I fuppofe
he roifs'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
raife a dead man, as cure a paralitic. T^at the
high prieft's fervant fhould lofe his ear in taking
Jeliis, if it was not cured, as two evangelifis feem
to know nothing of, and one of thefe two was pre
fent at the aftion, the other, fome fey, had it from
Peter's own mouth, it muft have exceedingly irri
tated the high prieft. If it was cured, furely St.
Mirk and St. John are inexcufable to omit fo re
markable an aftion of him, whofe life they wrote ;
and 'tis as wonderful, that 'twas not mentioned at
$he trial, nor mitigated the refentment of the high
prieft

E 69 ]
prieft againft Jefus : but of this there is not a word*
nor of 'any perfons appearing to witnefs any of his
other cures.
§. S^' Obfervations on the hiftory of Judas.
Another lobfervation, Sir, I have made out of
thefe hiftorians, is concerning Judas f who Sc. Mat*
tbew xxvii. fays, repented, brought again the thirty
pieces of filver, and went and hang'd himfelf; and
thac the chief priefts bought a field with the money to
bury ftrangers in, whith being tbe price of. blood, that
field was called the field of blo&d. But in Afts i. 1 8.
we are told, that Judas purchafed afield with the re
ward of iniquity, and falling headlong, he burft afiun-
der in the midft, artd all his bowels gufhed eut ; there*
fore that field was called tbe field of blood. Now here
are two different ftories, not eafy for rrie to recon
cile, therefore I defire they would try their parts,
who have the knack of it, and are men of fiibtil
invention. How the failing down of Judas, and
burfting his guts, agrees wich his hanging himfelf,
I cannot tell : and I would, be inform'd, how Judas
bought a field with his thirty pieces of filver, anet*
afterwards died in that field, agrees with his return
ing she filver to the chief priefts,, and went and,
hang'd himfelf, and they afterwards hough c a field
wish the money to bury ftrangers in ;, and whether
it was call'd the field of blood for the one reafon or
the other before-mentioned. I don't prefume to
Call thefe -contradictions or inconfiftencies ; no, in
profane hiftory it would be fo, buc being fanfti-
fied by the word of God, the contradiftion va-
nifhe:

s.

K 2 §• S7-

[ 7° ]
§. 37« Obfervations on fome circumftances at tbe cru
cifixion.
Permit me, Sir, to remark how little thefe hifto
rians regarded exaftnefs in their narrations : I ob
ferve they don't agree exaftly. in the words of the
title over the crofs, that all Jerufalem' might read j
for 'tis, according to
St. Matthew, This is Jefus the king of the Jews.
St. Mark, The king of the Jews.
St. Luke, This is the king of tbe Jews.
St. John, Jefus of Nazareth tbe king oftbejews.
St. Mark xv. 25. fays, it was the third hour,
when they crucified Jefus ; but St. John xix. 14. tdls
us, 'twas the fixth hour, when Jefus ftood before
Pilate, before he delivered him to be crucified.
I obferve concerning the thieves that were cruci
fied with Jefus, that St. Matthew tells us, they caft
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 hiftorians 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 feem 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 refurreftion, and went into the
holy city, and appeared unto many. St. Mark only
tells us of the rending of the vail of the temple in
twain ; St. Luke that there was darknefs over all the
earth three hours, and the vail of the temple was
2 rent

'[7* 3
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 hiftorians thefe, to
omit the principal parts of the hiftory they wrote,
for fuch tjiey 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 late appear
ance, even our St. Matthew the very firft of them ;
the ftory of the dead faints arifing at the refurrec-
tion of Jefus, feems to fhew it was wrote after the
doftrine of purgatory took place, or that ftory looks
as if it was then Iugg'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
the others make any remark of it. I know my ad
verfaries tell me 'tis neverthelefs true. It may be
fo in their opinion ; I am fure there is fo much the
lefs proof of it, and the lefs proof there is of a
thing, the lefs reafon there is to believe it, and the
more to fufpeft it. Is the probf of God's truth lefs
than that of man's ? lefs reafonable ? lefs probable ?
and lefs poffible? Is God's truth darker than man's
truth ? or of lefi confequence, that it is fo carelefsly
tranfmitted to us? This ftory of the faints refur
reftion 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, or elfe
there muft have been a jail-delivery from purgatory,
for the fouls of faints do not go to hell. Thefe
graves, 'tis laid, opened at the crucifixion of Chrift,
and the bodies came out after his refurreftion,
whence I fuppofe they ftood gaping open all thac
time, which made it the mOre known, therefore the
more remarkable, when many, that is, not a few,
bodies,

f 72 ]
bodies,\iot fouls only, of the faints which flept arofe.
Whether this was written to fupport the gofpel of
Nicodemus, or this ftory gave occafion to that, I
know not. This refurreftion of the faints was more
miraculous than the refurreftion of Jefus, for God
knows how long fome of them had flept ; howe
ver they were bodies, not fkektons, and they might
as well have new cloaths given them as new flefh, and
new 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 ;* cherefore 'tis fit to con
clude they had cloches on, and news cloaths tocy
for where fhould they find their old ones, which had
new pofleffors, or were new moddl'd, or worn out.
They went into che holy city ; where elfe fhould
faints walk ? But, was thutthe New Jerufalem or the
Old ? The Old ic could noe be, for chat was called
Sodom and Egypt, where cur Lord was crucified,
and which he himfelf faid was worfe than Sodom
and Gomorrah. Is the New Jerufalem the holy city?
No doubc of it ; but no body ever yet few that,
therefore no body could fee the faints there ; then
the faints appear'd no where. Tis faid they ap
pear'd 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'
ftill in their graves, for when they came out, no bo
dy knew nor regarded them but St. Matthew ; but
fare he did not raife them, for he was an apoftle,
and we are well affur'd the apoftles were no con
jurers. Did no one afk any of thefetravellingfaints, what

T 73 ]
what news from Hades ? Did they only flare and
look about them ? Or, being fleepy, did they walk
in their fleep ? "Had they teftified the refurreftion
of their great ddiverer, this had been a proper er
rand. Never was the like heard of. The divi mi-
nores, or leffer gods, fent from one world to make
their public entrance in another, to fay and do no
thing 1 Well, but how long did they ftay? and
what beame of them? Where did they go, co hea
ven or to fleep again ? As this refurreftion was iii
the dark, we are left in the dark about it.
§. 38. Reflections on the miraculous gift of tonguest
Indulge me, kind Sir, to tell you, that the pre
tended miraculous proofs faid to be given by the
apoftles to confirm the refurreftion 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 5 for if they
could be proved by any thing elfe, that proof would
be a miracle. De quibus nutrimur, ex us exiftimus :
Homogeneous things naurifh and fupport each
other ; flefh is fupported by flefh, life by life, truth
by truth, lies by lies, fraud by frauds and force by
force. It is altogether as improbable as it is unac
countable, that Peter, with the reft of the apoftles
and a ftrong gale of wind, fhould bring three thou
fand converts inco the haven of faith in one day.
Whether thefe came in fpontaneoufly as free agents,
or drove in by a mighty wind, and compell'd by
ftrefs of weacher, is a query ? For I don't fee any
thing fo wonderfully convincing in P^r's Sermon
to produce ic, and lefs reafon to believe their re
ceiving the gift of tongues, for after this they were
ftill ignorant and unlearned, Afts iv. 13. and St. Paul,
who we never read had that gift by infpiration, but
knew no more than what he had been taught, fays*
2 1 Cor.

[74]
iCor. xiv. 1 8. I 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
fuppofe, Sir, that every apoftle fpoke every lan
guage. But if this was the cafe, how could fome
of them afcribe it to drunkennefe ? Wine is fo far
From infpiring 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 their
ears, and the devil in their hearts at the fame time
to fay they were drunk ? If the gofpel was then
preached to every 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, befides the
difciples, thefe.,-. cloven tongues ? If they alone faw
for all the reft, their eyes faw double.
§. 39. Remarks on Jefus being tbe fon of God.
Matthew and Luke reprefent Jefus to be the fon
of God, by the Holy Ghoft over-fhadowing 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 Afts
(xiii. 32, 33.) Paul being diftrefs'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, bow that tbe promife which

I 75 ]
which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled
the fame unto us their children, in that he hath raifed
up Jefius again, as 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 begoeten fon, if Lazarus was
raifed from the dead before ; for then Lazarus was
the firft begotten, of the dead, and fo Chrift's elder
brother. , If Jefus was begotten of God, and
brought forch by Mary, how was he che feed of
David according Co c,he flefh ? Had Mary not been
above three or feven years old, the miracle had cer
tainly been the greater; buc chus ic pleafed the Lord
to efpoufe himfelf to the church who, I fear, is no
virgin. §. 46. Obfervations on St. John'j gofpel.
Permit me, Sir, to add a few obfervarions On
St. John's gofpel, becaufe che Clearer cells us, that
it was wrote, 4 nor wich defign of repeating what
4 the other evangelifis had fully delivered, but
4 chiefly to preferve the memory of what they had
4 omitted.' Yet St. John tells the fame ftory as St.
Matthew and St. Luke, of Chrift's walking on the
water in bad weather, and in the night, when he
might have gone by fhipping; a journey thac fcarce
any one would have chofe, befides himfelf, had it
been in his power. Sc. Matthew indeed fays, St.
Peter had a fancy to do the fame, but had like to
have been fopt for it, and glad he was to ger aboard
again with wet feet, the floor gave way ; he feems
to have been over fhoes and boots, if he had any ;
Peter began to fink ; it was his flony hearc chat
weighed him down: they had fuch nacural hard
hearcs, thac 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. But, Cui bono? where's the goodnefs of
this action ?
St. John alfo tells the fame ftory as St. Matthew
and St. Mark do, of Chrift's feeding the multitude
with five loaves and two fifties; 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, 5000 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;) 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 fign fhe-wefi 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
sjeat 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-
geftion 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 ! 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

[77]
with the blood in it was forbidden by the Mofaic
law. The eating his flefh and drinking his blood
was fo ill digefted by them, that many eveh of his
difciples went back, and walked no 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 difeourfe.
St. John writes,, that Jefus came up to Jerufalent
at a feaft of the paffover, foon after his beginning
to make himfelf public, John ii. 13, &c. and thac
then ic was he drove Che buyers' and fellers ouc of
the temple, when the Jews required him, "fince he
afted in that manner, to fhew his authority by fome
fign or miracle ; he anfwered, If they would defiroy
that temple, be would build it up in three days ; buc
he very well knew, according to their underftand
ing of his wordsj 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 Jerufalem but a little before he fuffered,
and then it was according to them that he drove the
buyers and fellers out of the cemple.
As ic was the bufinefs of this evangelift to fet
forth Jefus as God, it behoved him more than the
reft to give us a narration of his divine extraction ;
ffOW the word was made flefh. 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 coo well aetefted and confirm
ed ; ic is furely of moreimporrance than that which
' the other hiftorians were afhamed of, viz. che
drunken marriage feaft.
Sc. John acquaincs us, that Jefus went into Sa
maria, and made difciples there. But St. Matthew
{xv.) that when he fent his miffionaries to difciple
the Jews, he exprefly forbad chem going into any
L 2 city

' [ 78 ]
city of the Samaritans, and declared, be was fent only
to the loft foeep of the houfe 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
facracity and fidelity, but by the ability and honefty
of all thofe that tranfmit their accounts and cha
rafters to us, and how certain this rule is, I leave,
Sir, to your confideration, and wheeher the hiftory
of uncommon, fupernatural, and unaccountable
things are, as credible as common and natural hiftory.
If that of Julius Cafiar was mix'd with fable and
romance, the romantic parts, ae leaft, would not find
eafy credit with confiderate readers. Were men
eafily to believe fuch ftories, they would be liable to
be everlaftingly deceived by falfities, frauds, and fic
tions : 'Tis not reafopable, therefore, to credit unrea
fonable accounts, that are no better attefied than
holy writings, which werefown in weaknefis, but are
raifed in power. The ftrangeft ftories in the world
fhould carry with them the moft 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
productive of the greater fraud and impofition ;
yet fcarce were ever any hiftories received in the
world as authentic on fo dark teftimonies, and fo
uncertain foundation, as thofe that are with us com
monly efteem'd the moft bright and certain of all
hiftorical fafts 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 touchftone of pure reafon, which only
can difcover them ; and all faith which cannot bear
this teft is folly and ftupidity. In anfwer therefore
to Mr. Jackfon's Addrefs to the deifts, 'tis noe im
poffible.

t 79 3
poffible to prove the impoffibility of fupernatural
revelation. §.41. On the authority of the gofpels.
I believe, Sir, upon the ftrifteft enquiry it will
be found impoffible to us to know for certain who
were the writers of the gofpels, and the afts of the
apoftles, 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 filenee a
modeft author, and put his affuranee out of coun
tenance : Though the 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 Chrift'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. Thac 'tis impoffible co affign any certain time
when the canonical books were collected-; That
there is no proof they were fixed in the firft, nor
beginning of the fecond century.
2. That they have been all or moft of them re
jefted by fome 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
lacer times.

[ 8o]
3. Fauftus Manichxeus., and his followers, are faid
to have rejefted all the new teftament, as not written
by the apoftles.
4. The Allogians rejefted the gofpel of St. John.
5. Severus and his feft rejefted the Afts of the
apoftles, and all Paul's epifiles.
Certain it is, that Chriftianity was no fooner pro
pagated ehan ic was divided inco fefts 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 apoftle or difciple \
and each feft have ever condemned the other of forr
gery, herefy, ignorance, or mifconftruftion.
4 The learned Caufaubon, than whom no one
* was either more acquainted with, or more judi-
4 cious in chriftian antiquities, in his differtation
4 againft Baronius fays, I cannot but much refent
* the praftice of many in the earlieft ages of the
* church, who reckoned it an aftion very merito-
4 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-
4 trived for a pious end. This produced innu-
4 merable books in thofe ages, wrote by men, not
* bad, under the name of our Saviour, his apoftles
4 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 direfted
by them. That the bifhops affem.bled at the coun-
dl 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 fanguin
as to advife the Galatians to receive no gofpel but
his, though it fhould come from heaven, and even
to curfe the angel that brings it.
The gofpels were kept private more than, a cen
tury, at leaft to infidels, if they were wrote before.
And fince 'tis owned that the firft ages of chriftia
nity which produced gofpels abounded with more
forged than true, how can we be infallibly certain
of the truth of any.
' No fuch objeftions lie againft profane or hea
then as holy hiftory. How can the incredible accouncs,
delivered we know not by whom, when, where*
or how, be fet on a level with probable fafts, whofe
authors and writings have been generally allowed :
what advances the credic of thefe, and leffehs thofe
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 impoffible to determine any
thing abouc ics true author. — And fo many names
it has had, or is thought to have had, as fhew' the
doubtfulnefs of its original.— It is alfo thought to
be in many places altered and interpolated. The
Nazarines are accufed of corrupting it almoft 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 Peter and Paul were at Rome. But

[ 82 ]
But fome learned men have much queftioned 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 refurreftion,
to be depended upon for authentic, 'Tis ftrange,
thac of him who was fo famous, as the evangelifis
report, no body began it fooner, and that none
wrote it but his negligent fervants, who omitted
fo long, fo effential a point, on the faith of which
the falvation of the world depended.
Perhaps fome fuch objeftion made Eufebius, who
lived in the beginning of the fourth century, fay
Matthew's gofpel was wrote eight years after Chrift's
afcenfion. And what carries ic on his fide againft
Irenaus is, that to the end of the old Arabic verfion
there is affixed the following teftimony : 4 The end
*, of the holy gofpel of the preaching of St. Mat-
4 tbew, which he preached in Hebrew, in the land
' of Palefiine, by the influence of the holy fpirit,
4 eight years after our Lord Chrift afcended in his
* flefh to heaven, and the firft year of the Roman
4 emperor Claudius.' And to be fure the teftimony
was not interpolated, though the gofpel was, nor
would believers father a lie on the Holy Ghoft.
But this Ire'naus never faw, or he would not have
faid it was written twenty years later : but Eufiebius,
who came 150 years after, knew exaftly 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 Eufebius, '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.
Notwithftanding the preceding teftimony, it is
not agreed in what language St. Matthew's gofpel
was wrote, the original text being loft, nor can the
copies ofthe original be determined. Some fathers of

[ 83 ]
of the church would have it believed it was wrote
in Hebrew ; but many of our firft reformers by their
learned criticifms have endeavoured to prore, that
the gofpel we now have according to St. Matthew
is from fome Greek original.
Epiphanius, bifhop of Salamis in Cyprus, anno
370, or thereabouts, fays, the gofpel of St. Mat
thew, ufed by "the Ebionites, (who it's thought were
the firft Chriftians) 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 catches
the croud ; and he that affirms with moft affuranee
is moft firmly believed.
The German anabaptifts of the laft preceding
century, and Dr. Servetus, 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 gofipel.
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 Afts of the apoftles, in St. Paul's epifiles, 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."
Eufebius tells us, that 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 heard of
St. Peter, which we now call the gofpel of St.
Mark, and that St. Peter approved of it. In ano
ther place the fame author fays, that St. Peter nei-
M , ther

[ H ] i
ther encouraged nor obftrWied. &&??£ in his under
taking. This Qlonens lived about the middle, of the fecond
century, and 'tis therefore very likely he knew very
little of the matter; nor might Eufebius, be well in?.
form'd, of what he faid; yet fuch is church autho
rity. These is but little credit to be given to eco]e-r
fiaftical hiftory ; ihe hiftorians affirm'd what they
thought beft tended to the good of the. church,
and the church confirm'd it ;, and have condemn'd
and deftroyed all other.
Iren<eus, who lived in the fecond century, fays,
that Mark, St. Peter's interpreter, wrote his gofpel
after the death of Peter, what he had heard hii®.
preach ; but Origen, who lived in the third centgryy
writes, chac Mark wrote his gofpel according Co the
directions of St. Peter; and Jerom, who lived in
the fourth century, eells us, that Peter publifhed it;
in the churches, and commanded the reading of it
by his own authority : thus, the later the hiftorian,
the greater' the confirmation. Fama volans au-
geturj 'Tis verged, thac the Syriac, Arabic, and Perfic
verfions affirm St. Mark to haye 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 chat as to the time when
St. Mark wrofe his gofpel, 'tis- e>jceed ing difficult to
come to any clear determination, tho' 'tis pretended;
to be wrote in Nero's reign.
So that 'tis not knowable for certain, when,
where, in wha^ language, or by whom- this gofjd
was wrote ; for 'tis laid, he wrote what he had
heard from St. Peter at Rome, and 'tis much -quef-.
tioped, whether ev?r St. Peter was there. It is
thought by fome, to be only an abridgment of St.
Matthew's gofpel, with an, additional feftion con
cerning Chrift's refurreftkan after the end of the 8eh
verfe,

[*5]
verfe, which St. Jerom lays moft of the Greek co
pies have not; fo fays Gregory Nyfjene ; buc Grotius-
fuppofes it was left out with defign, becaufe it
feem'd to contradift St. Matthew, that Porphiry,
Julian, and fuch others, might not take occafion
from thence to ridicule the gofpel; as Mr. Fabricius
alfo obferves, and adds, that 'tis a cafe like what hap
pened to thofe words Mark xiii. 32. tb avoid the
force of the Arian objeftions. It is confeffed by
Mr. Jones, vol. I. p. 564, that the laft chapter of
St. Mark's gofpel has: fuffered many alterations :
This fhews how our gofpels have been moulded ;
but it cannot be fhewn, how they were firft caft.
Aaron's calf was, no doubt, a type of this lamb.
§. 44. On St. LukeV gofpel.
St. Luke is fuppofed to be the perfon mentioned
'in St. Paul's epifiles. The accounts which we have
from antiquity concerning this evangelift, are very
fhort and imperfect : '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 '#is the pureft Greek
of all the evangelifis.
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 fefts chat differ in their fenti'ments 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 ¦' -r: %

[86]
fay Ireneus, Tertullian and Epipbanius. Or perhaps
others have added whae 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- Qf &• JohnV gofpel.
sTis faid, St. John wrote his gofpel to fupply the
defefts of the other gofpels : 'tis certain, the other
wrieers were very defective or negligent, and fhis
fupply weakens the force of his allies. 'Tis alfo
faid, that it was written to confute the Ebionites,
Nicolaitans, Marcionites, and others, who denied
the divinity of Chrift; by which it appears, the
primitive Chriftians were 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. - Epipba
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' Sfc John was an unlearned Hebrew,
into which tongue it is faid to be afterwards tranfla
ted. With thefe incredible circumftances it paffes
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 Afts of the apoftles.
¦ The authority we have, that St. Luke is the au
thor of the Afts, is from a conjecture of Irenaus,
tho' 'tis not known, who ehis Luke was, a difciple
Of Jefus or noe ; for he calls him the difciple and
follower of the apoftles : this conjecture of Irenaus is

[87]
is founded on 2 Tim. iv. 11. applied to Afts xvi. to,
11, 12. 16, 17. where the writer fpeaks not in the
name of Paid in the firft perfon Angular, but as a
companion of Paul in the firft 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 had chofe Silas for his com
panion, and not before. Befides, the Afts of the apo
ftles could not be wrote by St. Luke, becaufe of the
difagreement in the time of Chrift's abode on earth
after his refurreftion, which, according to St. Luke
was but one day, but according to the Afts is forty
days. All the fucceeding fathers of the church afcribe
the Afts of the apoftles to St. Luke, being fo di
refted by Irenaus; for they follow one another in a
traft: what one fays or conjeftures, 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 firft Chri
ftians, the Cerinthians, Manicheans and Marcionites
rejefted this book as falfe and fpurious.
That the tranfcribers made alterations in this book
is evident from the confeffion of Erafmus, who faid
he found more curious readings in the manufcripts
of this, than any other of the facred books.
There was another Afts of the apoftles receiv'd
by the Manicheans : the different fefts 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 gofpels to correfpond with
their faith, as every believer now does, in explaining
thofe they have. The prevailing feft were always
orthodox, and accufed the others of being ignorant
heretics, of adding and caking away from the gof pels

[ 88']'
pels according to their oWn fancies ; and Were the
accufed to anfwer for themfelves, they would fey
the fame of their accufers.
§. 47. Of Chriftian herefies.
'Tis certain, that no fooner did Chriftianity ap
pear, but faftions, parties and herefies immediately
fprung up, and have ever remained, and are evef .
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 expreffed to look like error, that is
not to be' underftood; ic may be produftive of the
fame ill confequences as error is, but chert error is
the occafion Of it, that is, the error of expreffion j
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 Jove 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 obfeurity., It is not the nature of love
and piety to produce contentions, envyings, herefies
and perfections; its nature is to fend peace on
earth, not fire and fword ; nor is ic difpofed co
kindle the one, nor does ic advife to fell one's gar
ment to buy the other.
A religion founded on bare authority, not con
ducted by the choice of reafon, will admit of in
numerable pretentions and impoftures. Hence arifes
the exceeding difficulties of diftinguifhing right from
wrong, truth from falfhood : But if we tike reafon
2 and

[\]
and nature for our guide the diftinftion will be
clear and eafy.
Ever fince the revelation of Chriftianity, diffe
rent fefts have rifen up among them : the weeds of
herefies have plentifully fprouted out of this ground,
but the true plant among chriftians is hard to be
found ; they had ever more credulity than wifdom,
and more zeal than virtue. Each feft 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 receiv'd their fanftion from the authority of
the cliurch only, for none hut the church ever re
ceived them at all. And what makes any doftrines
be called orthodox, but the fuccefs the maintainers
have had, who call themfelves the catholic church,
by fuppreffing all other. And why are others
deem'd or damn'd for heretics by the triumphant
party, bqt 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 ; 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 doftrines pre
tended to be given by that court above, i. 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 vanquifh'd party is confequently declared
heretical. Orthodoxy therefore is only triumphant
herefy ; and the authority of the fathers which are
ort 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
fachers of the church, their doftrines had been or
thodox, and their gofpels, epiftles, acts, and reve-
lacions would have had the fanftion of the infpira
tion of the fpirit ; fince the defenders, of every an
cient herefy efpoufed fome books peculiar to them
felves, that were fo called. Every' feft received fuch
books for canonical, as were for their purpofe, or
made them fo ; and the victorious party burnt and
deftroyed, as far as they were able, all that they
difliked. Cyril of Jerufalem advifes his catechumen
to rejeft all facred books noe contained in his cata
logue, and not to read them. The fame che coun
cil of Laodicea, in che middle of the fourth century.
The earlieft Chriftians, viz. the Nazarines, Ebio-
nites, Cerihehians, Nicolairans, Valentinians, Me-
nandrians, Carpocratians, Montanifts, Gnoftics,
Manicheans, Cerdonices, Marcionites, Tatianites,
&c. are all condemn'd for heretics by the other
fefts, and thofe thai 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 ic depends upon human authority ; but
that

[ 9i ]
that of its divine, muft reft upon its Own intrinfic
worth : this is the only rule of judging its truth and.
purity, for doing which the learned 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 contradictions ; 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 doftrine and manners.
2. That book is certainly apocryphal which either
contains any hiftories, or propofes any doftrines
contrary to thofe which are certainly known to "be
true. To impute fuch a book to che Holy Ghoft,
is to make Gpd 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 impofing
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

1 92 1
w This obfervation (fays he) is not only evidently
true, but of the greateft neceffity in the bufinefs
we are now about; for 'tis certain, thac a very
great number of the apocryphal books of the Hew'
teftament are filled wich the moft idle and trifling
ftories, the moft ridiculous and extravagant foo-;
leries imaginable. The romantic accounts of the
virgin Mary's nativity, being bred by Mgels, and fed
by them in her infancy, &c. the childifh relations of
our Saviour' s . infancy and education, his learning the
alphabet, his -ftature, appearing fome times as d child}
fometimes as a man, fometimes fo tall that his bead
would, reach the clouds, the length Of his hair, beards
. &c. the fpirit' s taking him up to mount Thabcrr 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^
with all the other ftories like them, unqueftibnable
arguments to prove the books which contain them
apocryphal ; ,and to be no other than either the
works' . of the weakeft of men, Who were fondly
credulous -'of every report, and had not difcretiori
enough .to diftinguifh between fenfe and nonfenfe;
between;' that' which was credible and rhac which
was not fo ; or elfe the artful contrivance of fome
who were more Zealous than" honeft, who thoughc
by thefe ftrange ftories to gain credit to their new
rdigion.'' Mr. Jones' very juftly argues* Vol. 1. p. 11. that
the receiving books for infpired, which are not fd,
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 affent to the moft grofs and no
torious errors as indubitable truths, and fo very
i;^ften fhall be like to oblige ourfelves to many bur-
denfome

[ 93 ¦}
ctenfome imaginary duties, not only not required
pf God, but contrary to his will. p. 13.
How careful then, Sir, fhould men be to enquire
and affure themfelves indubitably what the infpired
;books are. And how can we give our affent,
where we have not full and clear evidence ? and
how can lefs evidence be fatisfaftory ? for our af
fent to any propofition can only be in proportion
.to its evidences. §. 49. Conclufive queries.
I purpofe tp 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 honeft) 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 fhould we give our af
fent ? If to him that has the greateft reafon and
probability on his fide, whether it be not juft and
jieceffary to enquire into, and judge of things
by their reafon and probability ?
How is the gofpel che revelaeion of God, if
men cannot underftand ic who honeftly endeavour
to do ic ?
Why fhould men be fo biceer (as ehefe gentiemen
are) in vindicating what is ouc of their power CO
underftand, explain, or defend ?
Whether 'tis noe an evidene mark of great weak
nefs and folly in men, (co fay no worfe) noe to agree
in the circumftances of an extraordinary fafty* or
not to be able to tell an important ftory (which 'tis
faid, was well known to che relacers) in a confiftent
and intelligent manner ? N 2 Whethef

[ 94 ]
Whether 'tis fit, that the ill-connefted tales of
credulous and ignorant men fhould be attributed tb
the direftion of a divine, unerring fpirit, or be
called gofpd, 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 Ghoft 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 of
uncertain tradition, that it was ever given ?
If the Holy Ghoft be given to believers now,
what are the evident proofs of it, (befides believing)
whereby it may be diftinguifh'd 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, thac che falvaeion of mens fouls
fhould in any meafure depend upon cheir believing
the precarious and uncertain accounes of weak and
fallible men ?
And wheeher any aurhoriey not founded in the
nature and reafon of things, is to be received as the
facred injunctions of divine truth ?
Where is the goodnefs or virtue of taking things
upon truft, believing without evidence, and the
reafonable means of conviftion, as the credulous,
unthinking herd do, whofe creed, like clock-work,
goes as it is direfted 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 manifeft
advantage

[ 95 1
advantage to their benefit, where is the crime of
making an honeft enquiry ? Or rather, is not a rea
fonable infpeftion and fcrutiny convenient and ne
ceffary ?
Be pleafed, Sir, to bear in mind, that the defign
of this enquiry is to fhew, that tbe evidence given is
not fufficient to fupport the credit of fo extraordinary
an event, and to demonftrate, thac true religion or
righteoufnefs is not founded on an hiftorical faith,
and the credit of mighty aftions 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 Chriftianity as old as tbe creation is the only
true religion in it.

Tour real and faithful Friend,

And bumble Servant,

Moral Philosopher.

Lately Publifhed, and lo be had at the Pamphlet Shops.
The RESURRECTION considered,
in anfwer to the Trial of the Witneffes ; in which
are particularly confidered, The Reafonablenefs
of confidering this Subjeft, 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 underftood, no Refurreftion ex
pefted, che Effefts of che Waech being fet dif
prove che Scory, che Confequences of the Refur
reftion of Lazarus, the Evangelifis Difagree-
ments concerning Chrift's Appearances, his Af
cenfion, his not appearing in public, the Infuffi-
ciency of the Evidence, the Impoffibiliey of Mi
racles, wich all the Gofpel Texts of the Refurrec-
tions annext.
The RESURRECTION reconsidered,
in anfwer to the Clearer and others. — The Intro
duftion begins with a pathetic Call to Enquiry,
declares the Nature, Confequence, Importance,
and Excellency of Truth ; Remarks on Mr. Syl
vefter; the Author's Doftrine proved by Mr.
Chandler's Sermon, fhews Belief to be no Part of
Religion ; obferves the Arts of thofe that argue
againft Truth. This Treatife difcourfes of the man
ner of treating the Subjeft, vindicates the Author's
underftanding if, clears him of many falfe Char
ges ; Remarks on explaining Scripture, on Gofpel
Morals, and feveral Particulars; fhews how che Re
furreftion firft gained credie, treats of the Evidence
of Prophecy, proves the Corruptions of the Gofpels,
fhews Celfus's Objeftions againft the Truth of it,
1 and how vindicated by Origen ; obferves the Dif-
agreement of .Chriftians, -and the Gofpels, and
what GhriftianConverfion is ; difco'vers'how Chrift's
Kingdom was underft6bd;sahd' that temporal Feli-
were citiesprorhifed, with many other Obfervations,