the fame Reason afcribe all the Guards reported to be done at the Sepulchre to the fame Power?

If it be fufficient to fet afide the Authority of the Gofpel, because it represents the chief Priefts acting unreasonably, the fame Argument will be too hard for the Credit of all the Hiftories in Being; for they all show us Men acting with great Folly and great Wickedness. The Old Teftament muft doubtlefs follow the New; for what is more unreasonable than the Behaviour of the ancient Jews, after their wonderful Deliverance from Egypt? May not the Confiderer fay, Had God fo vifibly interpofed for their Deliverance, it is impoffible they should rebel fo foon as the History says they did; and therefore the Hiftory must be falfe? But I leave this to confider a Complaint of a much higher Nature.

The Angel, it seems, who was the Minister of God, and acted as by him directed, did very impolitickly in frightening away the Watch, before Jefus came out of the Sepulchre, fo that they could not be Witnefes of his Refurrection. How he knows that the Watch was terrified before Jefus came out of the Sepulchre, I cannot tell; he learns it not from the Gofpel. The Angel mov'd the Stone for the Sake of those who came to the Sepulchre, that they might fee, and report what they faw; our Lord certainly wanted not their Help. But why were the Angels impolitic? First Edit. p. 47. Third Edit. p. 38. 3

were

were they to govern themfelves by the Politics of the Chief Priests, and follow their Measures? Had God, or the Angels by his Direction appointed the Watch to be Witneffes of the Refurrection, and they had been scared away before the Time, the Objection would have laid: But how was God bound to give this Evidence to the Guards? Was it because the Chief Priests had fet the Watch? But what Right had they to prescribe to God, who fhould be Eye-Witneffes of his Son's Refurrection? The setting of the Watch and what followed was fufficient to convince the Jews, that Jefus, according to his own Prophecy, was three Days in the Heart of the Earth, and then released. This Evidence rofe providentially out of their own Contrivance, to watch the Body; but their Contrivance laid no Obligation on God, nor could it haften or retard the Refurrection, or have any Effect on the Manner of it. We find in the Gospel, that very particular Care was taken by our Lord, to appoint chofen Witneffes of the Refurrection. To them he fhewed himself alive, after the Refurrection; to them were given Powers from on high to confirm this Evidence; but where does the Confiderer read, that it was referred to the High Priests, or that they had any Right to appoint Witneffes in this Cafe? If they had no Right to appoint them, no Injury was done in not admitting them. And yet after all, though the Confidererer thinks the Guards did not fee enough, they faw fo much as to make their Report of great Weight, had there. not been an N 2

incor

incorrigible Obftinacy in the Jewish Rulers; enough to awaken their Attention, and to call to their Remembrance the Sign of Jonas, which was to be given them; enough to raise ferious Reflections upon all the Miracles of Jefus, of which they had themselves been EyeWitneffes.

III.

We come now to confider the Inconfiftences, which the Confiderer charges upon the Evangelifts in the Account they give of the Circumftances of the Refurrection. One would ima→ gine this Gentleman had never read any Piece of Hiftory reported by different Writers; or any Tryal, whofe Facts are proved by many Witneffes; otherwise he would not have objected to the Relations of the Evangelifts, merely because fome mention Circumftances omitted by others, though all agree in the principal Facts to be proved; and all the Circumftances, though all not mentioned by each Writer, are perfectly confiftent. For this is the Cafe of all Hiftorians, who treat of the fame Facts; and I am perfuaded, that, had the Gofpel Accounts with all their Varieties related to any Matter of civil History, and been published under the Name of any Grecian or Roman Hiftorians, thefe different Relations, inftead of being thought Matter of Objection, would have been confidered as confirming and eftablishing each the other. Such Differences among Reporters of the fame Fact, will always be found from the very Nature of Things. For all Facts be

ing

ing attended with many Circumftances, and all of them not of equal Importance, Hiftorians, according to their different Judgments, choofe to report fome more, fome fewer of thofe Circumstances. This, I fay, must be the common Cafe, where Hiftorians write without Regard to each other; but it must neceffarily be fo, where a later Historian publishes an Account on Purpose to fupply the Defects or Omiffions of those before him; for then his very Defign is to add fuch Things or Circumstances, as the others had either totally neglected or imperfectly related.

The Four Gospels were not published at the fame Time, nor can the precife Date of the Publication of each of them be afcertained. St. Matthew by the general Confent of Antiquity is taken to be first, and to have been publifhed not many Years after our Saviour's Crucifixion. St. Mark and St. Luke came next in Order. After all, and long after all came St. John's Gofpel, publish'd in an extreme old Age, and not above a Year before his Death. His Intention was, as all Antiquity bears Witness, to compleat the History of our Saviour, by adding what the other Evangelifts had omitted, and enlarging what they had concisely related.

This being the State of the History, as contained in the Four Gospels; the true Way of examining it is, to confider the Accounts given by the three first Evangelifts feparately (as being the Accounts which lay before St. John, when he wrote his Gospel) and then to com

pare

pare them with St. John. By which means we fhall fee, what he left as he found it, and as wanting no Addition or Explanation; and alfo what Additions or Explanations he thought proper to infert; and fo be able to judge upon the whole,whether the Hiftory be confiftent with itself, In order