rians, when he does not apprehend the plaineft Thing relating to Evidence, what is necessary to give Credit to an Eye-Witness, and what to an Hiftorian. After these Inftances, there is little Reason to expect from this Hand a judicious or a fair Answer to the Tryal. The Confiderer feems to me to have set out at first, with a Defign only to write against the Credit of the Refurrection, as reported by the Evangelifts; and that it was an After-Thought, and meant to give himself fome Air of Importance, to work up his Book into an Answer to the Tryal. It is plainly a Piece of PatchWork, and has but little in it to entitle it to be called an Answer to the Tryal. Has he weighed the Arguments on both Sides of the Queftion as stated in the Tryal, and fhewed where the Author of the Tryal either diffembled the Force of the Objection, or failed in the Answer to it? Nothing like it. He does not fo much as pretend it. He has found an eafier Method of making an Appearance of an Anfwer to the Tryal: fome Paffages taken independently of the Argument of which they are a Part, he has fingled out to furnish Matter of Controverfy; but as these were too few in Number to make a decent Appearance of Quotations from a Book, which he profeffed to anfwer; he has taken the Liberty to use the Language of the Tryal to his own Purpose, and has diftinguished it by Italics, and referred the the Reader to the Tryal, even where the Words by the Additions and Alterations made by the Confiderer, are turned to a Senfe directly contrary to that, in which the Author of the Tryal ufed them. And by this little Art the Confiderer appears to an unwary Reader to to be quoting and confuting the Tryal of the Witnesses. As much as the Confiderer has perverted, altered, and misapplyed the Paffages he has taken from the Tryal, it is nothing in Comparifon with his Abufe of the Writers of the New Teftament, whom he treats as Impoftors and Cheats, and void even of Cunning to tell their own Story plausibly. St. Matthew is charged with forging a Prophecy; and Matthew, Mark, and Luke, with fraudulent Defigns; and again, there is Reafon, he fays, to fufpect all the Predictions of it (i.e. the Refurrection) inferted in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, to be Forgery. St. Matthew has given an Account of guarding and fealing the Sepulchre; the other Evangelifts fay nothing of it. Upon this the Confiderer fays, they tell different Stories. How fo? does a Man who fays nothing of the Story tell a different Story, or contradict the Story? Yes, this is the Confiderer's Logic, and he fays expressly, in a like Cafe, St. John Jays not a Word d First Edit. p. 28. 31. Edit. p. 32. Third Edit. 37. Third Edit. p. 27. с Third Edit. p. 20. 23. First of of it, but denies it all. Upon this kind of Reasoning, if it is Reafoning, the Confiderer charges all the four Evangelifts with Forgery; and supposes that St. Matthew's Story being detected, Mark and Luke tell another; theirs being alfo confuted, John comes and tells a Story different from all the reft: And this vehement Charge is founded in this only, that Mark, Luke, and John fay nothing about it. At this rate how eafily may all historical Facts be confuted? It is but faying the Histories are forged; and it requires no great Head, provided there be a good Face, to say it of any Hiftory in the World. But there will be an Opportunity of examining this Fact of guarding the Sepulchre, and the Confiderer's Reafoning upon it, in what is to follow. But the Confiderer, not content to charge the Evangelifts with Forgery, has, to impose on those who will rely on his Word, forged Things for them. John the Baptist says to the Jews, think not to Jay within your felves, we have Abraham to our Father; for I say unto you, that God is able of thefe Stones to raise up Children to Abraham h. Let us fee now how the Confiderer reports this Paffage. His Words are, Some believe that Abfurdities and Contradictions are poffible to the Power of God; be can raife Children from the Loins of Abraham out. of the Stones of the Street. He plainly faw First Edit. p. 32. First Edit. p. 47. Third Edit. p. 23. I h Mat. iii. 9. that that the Paffage, as it ftood in St. Matthew, afforded no Colour for his Abufe, and therefore he adds, from the Loins of Abraham. I defire the Reader to confider whofe Forgery this is. At p. 67. of the first Edit. and p. 54. of the third, there occurs one of the most extraordinary Paffages that is any where to be found, and fhews with what Confcience the Confiderer applies Scripture to his Purpofe. He is treating of the Afcenfion, and endeavours to prove, that the Accounts given of it by the Evange lifts do not agree. With refpect to St. John, he fays, John leaves us at all Uncertainties, and fays, Jefus went, like a wandring Jew, without bidding them Good-by, the Lord knows where! To support this Remark he refers to John xxi. 19, 20, &c. The Cafe there is briefly this: Our Lord after his Refurrection foretells to Peter, by what Death he shall glorify God. St. Peter enquires, what was to become of St. John? Our Lord fays, if I will that he tarry till I 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. One may fometimes fee what Handle People take to misrepresent Scripture; but in this Inftance it is difficult to difcern what could lead to this wild Conceit. Could it be the Word follow? Follow me; did the Confiderer fuppofe him to mean wandring and rambling over the World? It But does he suppose It can be nothing else. that no Difciple can follow his Master, 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 Instances, which I have selected from many of the fame Kind, will fhew, how confiderable and how fair an Adverfary this Gentleman is. I have brought them in one View, that they might not stand in the way, and divert us from attending to his Reafoning against the Truth of the Refurrection. . II. 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 Close 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 see the Dif Tryal, p. 11. Firft Ed. p. 17. Third Ed. p. 9. ference |