duces them in this manner," it is true that in other cases, &c." and refers the reader to the Trial; as if the words produced expressed the sense of the author of the Trial himself. The Considerer was made sensible of this mistake, and though the passage still stands, and very improperly, in his new edition, yet he has taken some care to cover the blunder by dropping the reference to the Trial.

But let us see in other instances how fairly the Considerer deals.

The author of the Trial, to show that the Jews in guarding the sepulchre betrayed a secret conviction of the truth of the miracles performed by Christ in his lifetime, says,

"For had they been persuaded that he wrought no wonders in his life, I think they would not have been afraid of seeing any done by him after his death."

Again, the author of the Trial, to show the inconsistency of Woolston's scheme, says,

66

Surely this is a.most singular case; when the people thought him a prophet, the chief priests sought to kill him, and thought his death would put an end to his pretensions; when they and the people had discovered him to be a cheat, then they thought him not safe, even when he was dead, but were afraid he should prove a true prophet, and, according to his own prediction, rise again."

By this artful abuse of the language of the Trial, he makes

the reader imagine that he has convicted the author out of his own mouth.

Once more; amongst other things amazingly acted, as he expresses himself, the Considerer reckons this for one, that St. Matthew should be admitted as an evidence in a court to prove a fact when he was absent; and for this amazing thing he refers the reader to the Trial.

I thought it impossible that the author of the Trial should give any handle for so impertinent an objection to the credit of St. Matthew. St. Matthew is an historian; and who ever objected to an historian, that he was not present at all the transactions he reports? However I turned to the Trial, but not one word is there about the credit of St. Matthew; nor is it easy to discern what the Considerer refers to without supposing him guilty of a great blunder, and not to know the difference between an historian and one produced as an eye-witness.

The author of the Trial objects to the credibility of the story made by the guards of the sepulchre, because their own relation shows they were asleep when the things they related happened. And to this purpose he says, "I would ask the gentleman whether he has any authorities in point, to show that ever any man was admitted as an evidence in any court to prove a fact which happened when he was asleep?" This, I suppose, must be the passage on the strength of which the author of the Trial is made a party to the objection against the credit of St. Matthew; and it shows how well qualified the Considerer is to determine on the credit of the gospel historians, when he does not apprehend the plainest thing relating to evidence, what is necessary to give credit to an eye-witness, and what to an historian.

After these instances there is little reason to expect from this hand a judicious or a fair answer to the Trial.

The Considerer seems to me to have set out at first with a design only to write against the credit of the resurrection, as reported by the evangelists; and that it was an after-thought, and meant to give himself some air of importance, to work up his book into an Answer to the Trial. It is plainly a piece of patchwork, and has but little in it to intitle it to be called an

"Answer to the Trial." Has he weighed the arguments on both sides of the question as stated in the Trial, and showed where the author of the Trial either dissembled the force of the objection, or failed in the answer to it? Nothing like it. He does not so much as pretend it. He has found an easier method of making an appearance of an Answer to the Trial: some passages taken independently of the argument of which they are a part, he has singled out to furnish matter of controversy; but as these were too few in number to make a decent appearance of quotations from a book which he professed to answer, he has taken the liberty to use the language of the Trial to his own purpose, and has distinguished it by italics, and referred the reader to the Trial, even where the words by the additions and alterations made by the Considerer are turned to a sense directly contrary to that in which the author of the Trial used them. And by this little art the Considerer appears to an unwary reader to be quoting and confuting the Trial of the Wit

nesses.

As much as the Considerer has perverted, altered, and misapplied the passages he has taken from the Trial, it is nothing in comparison with his abuse of the writers of the New Testament, whom he treats as impostors 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 designs; and again, "there is reason," 99 he says, "to suspect all the predictions of it (that is, the resurrection) inserted in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, to be forgery."

St. Matthew has given an account of guarding and sealing the sepulchre; the other evangelists say nothing of it. On this the Considerer says they tell different stories. How so? does a man who says nothing of the story tell a different story, or contradict the story? Yes, this is the Considerer's logic; and he says expressly in a like case, "St. John says not a word of it, but denies it all." On this kind of reasoning, if it is reasoning, the Considerer charges all the four evangelists with forgery, and supposes that St. Matthew's story being detected, Mark and Luke tell another; theirs being also confuted,

John comes and tells a story different from all the rest; and this vehement charge is founded in this only, that Mark, Luke, and John say nothing about it.

At this rate how easily may all historical facts be confuted. It is but saying the histories are forged; and it requires no great head, provided there be a good face, to say it of any history in the world. But there will be an opportunity of examining this fact of guarding the sepulchre, and the Considerer's reasoning on it, in what is to follow.

But the Considerer, not content to charge the evangelists 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 say within yourselves we have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham :' Matt. iii. 9. Let us see now how the Considerer reports this passage. His words are: some believe that absurdities and contradictions are possible to the power of God; he can raise children from the loins of Abraham out of the stones of the street." He plainly saw that the passage as it stood in St. Matthew afforded no color for his abuse, and therefore he adds, from the loins of Abraham.' I desire the reader to consider whose forgery this is.

66

At p. 67. of the first edition, and p. 54. of the third, there occurs one of the most extraordinary passages that is any where to be found, and shows with what conscience the Considerer applies Scripture to his purpose. He is treating of the ascension, and endeavors to prove that the accounts given of it by the evangelists do not agree. With respect to St. John he says, "John leaves us at all uncertainties, and says Jesus went, like a wandering Jew, without bidding them goodbye, the Lord knows where !" To support this remark he refers to John xxi. 19. 20. &c. The case there is briefly this: our Lord after his resurrection foretels to Peter, by what death he shall glorify God.' St. Peter inquires what was to become of St. John? Our Lord says, 'if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me ;' that is, what is it to you what becomes of him? Do you follow the example 1 have set you, and glorify God by your death. One may some

times see what handle people take to misrepresent Scripture ; but in this instance it is difficult to discern what could lead to this wild conceit. Could it be the word follow? Follow me;' did the Considerer suppose him to mean wandering and rambling over the world? It can be nothing else. But does he suppose that no disciple can follow his master but by taking a journey with him? I apprehend the Considerer to be a follower of Woolston and the Moral Philosopher, but I never inquired how far he travelled with them.

These instances, which I have selected from many of the same kind, will show how considerable and how fair an adversary 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 reasoning against the truth of the resurrection.

SECTION II.

Before I come to the points which more immediately affect the evidence of the resurrection, I shall take notice of one remark which the Considerer has dropped at the close of his introduction, and which relates to the credit of revelation in general.

It had been observed in the Trial, "that revelation is by the common consent of mankind the very best foundation of religion, and therefore every impostor pretends to it." In answer to which the Considerer says, "I conceive that which is the foundation of any, much less of every false religion, cannot be the foundation of the true." What poor sophistry is this! Cannot this great Considerer see the difference between a real and a pretended foundation? Let him try it in his own favorite virtue, sincerity. Sincerity is by common consent the very best foundation of a good character, and therefore all knaves pretend to it. Will the Considerer in this case say, that which is the foundation of every bad character cannot be the foundation of a good one? It is to no purpose to controvert such points; and I think this passage from the Trial was produced only to give the Considerer an opportunity of entering into his darling common-place of abusing revelation, and drawing together what has been retailed a hundred times