It can be nothing else.
But does he fuppofe
that no Disciple can follow his Mafter, but
by taking a Journey with him? I apprehend
the Confiderer to be a Follower of Woolston and
the Moral Philofopher, but I never enquired
how far he travelled with them.

These Inftances, which I have selected from
many of the fame Kind, will shew, how
confiderable and how fair an Adversary this
Gentleman is. I have brought them in one
View, that they might not ftand in the
and divert us from attending to his Reasoning
against the Truth of the Refurrection.

II.

way,

Before I come to the Points, which more immediately affect the Evidence of the Refurrection, I fhall take Notice of one Remark which the Confiderer has dropt at the Clofe of his Introduction, and which relates to the Credit of Revelation in general.

It had been obferved in the Tryal, "that Reve"lation is by the common Confent of Mankind "the very best Foundation of Religion, and "therefore every Impoftor pretends to it." In answer to which the Confiderer fays, I conceive that which is the Foundation of any, much lefs of every falfe Religion, cannot be the Foundation of the true. What poor Sophiftry is this! Cannot this great Confiderer fee the Dif

Tryal, p. 11. ! First Ed. p. 17. Third Ed. p. 9. ference

ference between a real and a pretended Foun dation? Let him try it in his own favourite Virtue, Sincerity. Sincerity is by common Confent the very best Foundation of a good Character, and therefore all Knaves pretend to it. Will the Confiderer in this Cafe fay, that which is the Foundation of every bad CharaЄter, cannot be the Foundation of a good one? It is to no Purpofe to controvert fuch Points; and I think this Paffage from the Tryal was produced, only to give the Confiderer an Opportunity of entring into his darling common Place of abufing Revelation, and drawing together what has been retailed an hundred times over by all the little Traders in Infidelity, and has been as often answered to the Satisfaction of all fober Enquirers.

The first Point that more directly affects the Credit of the Refurrection, is the Nature and Quality of the Evidence. The Confiderer begins with complaining grievoufly, that all the Evidence is on the Side of the Refurrection, and that he can find none against it. And this he thinks is a very hard Cafe upon him. If the Refurrection, fays he, be a Fraud or the Evidence forged, what Books have we to prove it fob? This is indeed a hard Cafe. But if he fhould take it into his Head to prove that Cæfar was not killed in the Senate-house, he

a First Edit. p. 7. p. 9. Third Edit. p.

Third Edit. p. 5.
D

b First Edit.

might

might begin with the fame Complaint; for all the Evidence would be on one fide, and all against him.

But he imagines there was anciently a great Stock of Evidence against the Truth of the Refurrection, but that it has been unhappily loft or destroyed. 'Tis certain, he fays, Books have been wrote by Porphyry, Celfus, and others, which contained what the Chriftians thought were beft anfwered by stifling and burning. It is well known from fome Fragments of them in Origen, that they contradicted what is related in the Evangelifts. Who furnishes the Confiderer with his Learning, I know not; but whoever he is, he has cheated him abominably. Fragments of Porphyry and Celfus in Origen! why Origen was dead before Porphyry fet Pen to Paper. When Origen anfwered Celfus, Porphyry could not be above fixteen Years of Age, and not above twenty or twenty one when Origen died. I imagine by the Order in which he places them, that he took Porphyry to be older than Celfus, and that Origen having wrote against Celfus, could not but take notice of Porphyry too. But there was indeed about an hundred Years between Celfus and Porphyry.

Porphyry and Celfus, he fays, contradicted what is related in the Evangelifts; and fo does the Confiderer too; but what then? Is the Cre

First Edit. p. 8.

Third Edit. p. 5.

dit

dit of any History the worse, because it is wantonly contradicted, without Evidence or Authority of any Sort to fupport the Contradiction? The Confiderer, I fufpect, means to introduce Celfus and Porphyry, as Witneffes against the History of the Gospel. If he does, he is mistaken. They were juft fuch Witneffes against the Gofpel as he is; and for Want of Evidence to contradict the Evangelifts, they were forced to rely upon the Difagreements, which they supposed were to be found in the feveral Accounts given by the Evangelists.

Had there ever been good Evidence against the Gospel Hiftory, it could not have been loft in Celfus's Time. For Celfus lived at no great Distance from the Apoftolic Age; at a Time when all Religions were tolerated but the Chriftian; when no Evidence was ftifled, no Books destroyed, but thofe of Chriftians. And yet Celfus laboured under the fame Want of Evidence, as Woolfton and his Auxiliaries, and had the Gospel only to fearch (as Origen more than once obferves) for Evidence against the Gospel. A ftrong Proof that there never had been Books of any Credit in the World, that queftioned the Gospel Facts, when fo fpiteful and fo artful an Adverfary as Celfus made no Ufe of them.

Celfus admits the Truth of Chrift's Miracles. The Difference between him and Origen lies in the Manner of accounting for them; the one afcribing them to the Power of God, the D 2

other

other to the Power of Magic. So that if the Confiderer will ftand to the Evidence of his own Witnefs, the Queftion will not be, whether the Miracles are true in Fact (for that is granted on both sides) but whether the Truth of the Miracles infers the divine Authority of the Performer? Now can it be fuppofed that Celfus would have admitted the Miracles of Chrift as real Facts, had he not been compelled to it by the univerfal Confent of all Men in the Age he lived?

But why does the Confiderer complain for Want of the Affiftance of Celfus, and lead his Readers to imagine that the Books of Celfus were deftroyed because they could not be anfwered? Does he not know that there is hardly a plaufible Argument, produced by Woolston or himself, that is not borrowed from Celfus? The Truth is, that the Objections of Celfus are preferved, and preferved in his own Language. Origen's Anfwer is not a general Reply to Celfus, but a minute Examination of all his Objections, even of thofe which appeared to Origen moft frivolous; for his Friend Ambrofius, to whom he dedicates the Work, defires him to omit nothing. In order to this Examination Origen ftates the Objections of Celfus in his own Words; and that nothing might escape him, he takes them in the Order in which Celfus had placed them. Celfus then, as it happens, is fafe; and the Confiderer needs not lament over him

any more.