would then be possessed of a proof against image-worship. But how? Not because the miracle proves any thing as to the point itself; but because the man's declaration is authorised by him who wrought the miracle in confirmation of his doctrine. And therefore miracles are directly a proof of the authority of persons, and not of the truth of things. To apply this to the present case: if the Apostles had wrought miracles, and said nothing of the resurrection, the miracles would have proved nothing about the resurrection one way or other. But when as eye-witnesses they attested the truth of the resurrection, and wrought miracles to confirm their authority, the miracles did not directly prove the resurrection, but they confirmed and established beyond all suspicion the proper evidence, the evidence of eye-witnesses. So that here is no change of the evidence from proper to improper; the fact still rests on the evidence of sense, confirmed and strengthened by the authority of the Spirit. If a witness calls in his neighbors to attest his veracity, they prove nothing as to the fact in question, but only confirm the evidence of the witness. The case here is the same; though between the authorities brought in confirmation of the evidence there is no comparison. The second objection was, that this evidence, however good it may be in its kind, is yet nothing to us. It is well, the gentleman says, for those who had it; but what is that to us who have it not? : To adjust this difficulty, I must observe to you that the evidence now under consideration was not a private evidence of the Spirit, or any inward light, like to that which the quakers in our time pretend to, but an evidence appearing in the manifest and visible works of the Spirit; and this evidence was capable of being transmitted, and actually has been transmitted to us on unquestionable authority and to allow the evidence to have been good in the first ages and not in this, seems to me to be a contradiction to the rules of reasoning. For if we see enough to judge that the first ages had reason to believe, we must needs see at the same time that it is reasonable for us also to believe. As the present question only relates to the nature of the evidence, it was not necessary to produce from history the instances to show in how plentiful a manner this evidence was granted to the church. may easily have it. Whoever wants this satisfaction Gentlemen of the jury, I have laid before you the substance of what has been said on both sides. You are now to consider of it, and to give your verdict. The jury consulted together, and the foreman rose up. Jury. Yes. Judge. Who shall speak for you? Jury. Our foreman. Judge. What say you Are the Apostles guilty of giving false evidence in the case of the resurrection of Jesus, or not guilty? Foreman. Not guilty. Judge. Very well; and now, Gentlemen, I resign my commission, and am your humble servant. The company rose up and were beginning to pay their compliments to the judge and the council, but were interrupted by a gentleman who went up to the judge and offered him a fee. What is this? says the judge. A fee, Sir, said the gentleman. A fee to a judge is a bribe, said the judge. True, Sir, said the gentleman; but you have resigned your commission, and will not be the first judge who has come from the bench to the bar without any diminution of honor. Now Lazarus's case is to come on next, and this fee is to retain you on his side. There followed a confused noise of all speaking together to persuade the judge to take the fee; but as the trial had lasted longer than I expected, and I had lapsed the time of an appointment for business, I was forced to slip away; and whether the judge was prevailed on to undertake the cause of Lazarus or no, I cannot say. N. B. Not only Mr. Woolston's objections in his Sixth Discourse, but those also which he and others have published in other books, are here considered. SUMMARY. SECTION I. THE manner in which the Considerer introduces himself and his book into the world described. His frank declaration of his principles in respect to religion commended; yet after this, it is matter of surprise that such a person should set himself up for a fair examiner of the evidence of the resurrection. His blasphemous language quoted; his qualifications to write an answer to the Trial of the Witnesses examined in several instances; from whence it appears that there is little reason to expect from him a judicious or fair appeal. His perversion, alteration, and misapplication of passages taken from the Trial stated. His abuse of the writers of the New Testament. His attempts at forgery in their names. SECTION II. Before the main points are considered, a remark of the Considerer is noticed, relating to the credit of revelation in general. The first point that more directly affects the credit of the resurrection, is the nature and quality of the evidence. The Considerer complains that all the evidence lies on the side of the resurrection; imagines that there was anciently a great stock of evidence against the truth of it, but that it has unhappily been lost or destroyed: this and similar complaints answered. Another question taken up by the Considerer, is about the nature of Christ's kingdom. This, although it very little concerns the resurrection, is examined at considerable length. The next question started is, whether Christ predicted his own death and resurrection; which the Considerer is willing to think he did not, because the author of the Trial asserts that he did. This point examined: first, with regard to the Con-> siderer's assertion that the chief priests and rulers never heard of any such predictions, and his inference from thence: secondly, with regard to his admission, that such predictions appear five times in the gospel; and his inference that they are forgeries, from their not being understood by the disciples. The only way of accounting for the actions of men is by comparing them with their opinions and persuasions, and the circumstances in which they were at the time, and then considering what men under such circumstances and such persuasions would naturally do. The conduct of the rulers of the Jews, and of the disciples, accounted for in this method. A particular consideration of the prophecy deduced from the sign of Jonas. That part of the gospel-history which contains the sign promised to the Jews, is not admitted by the Considerer His reasons to prove the whole a forgery examined. as true. SECTION III. Consideration of the inconsistencies charged on the evangelists in the account they give of the circumstances of the resurrection. Order in which the four gospels appeared. The true way of examining the state of the history is, to consider the accounts given by the three first evangelists separately, and then to compare them with that of St. John. The account of what passed at the sepulchre, as given by the three evangelists, stated. The particulars in which they differ: these compared with St. John's account, and their difference considered after his additions and explications. Having gone through his proofs against the gospel history, the Considerer returns to the Trial of the Witnesses. His objections against the unexceptionable character of the witnesses answered. Reply to his repetition of the old objection, that Jesus did not show himself to the Jews after his resurrection. Other objections of his stated and answered. SECTION IV. The Considerer has one argument still in reserve, which, were it a valid one, would strike at the credit of revelation in general. He thinks that miracles of any kind are impossible, and exclude all evidence, being inconsistent with the reason of man and the nature of things, &c. For the possibility of the resurrection the reader is referred to the Trial of the WitThe reason and possibility of miracles in general is here discussed. Answer to the Considerer's arguments against them, as contrary to experience, reason, and common sense. Answer to his arguments against them, as being impossible in a moral point of view; that is, contrary to the perfection of God's nature, to his unchangeableness, his wisdom, his justice, and his goodness. Conclusion. nesses. |