because other men have not received all the Proof which they defire. But according to this way of reasoning, it seems to be out of the Power of God himself to make any Fact appear to be True; because while he leaves men in poffeffion of Free-will, they may (under the Colour of Free-thinking) make Objections, and infift upon unreasonable terms of Satisfaction: but thefe don't influence the nature of Facts, and therefore without any regard to the Seal or the Sealers, we muft affert, that Jefus did truly Rife from the Dead on the third Day according to the Scriptures. I have now gone thro' every part of what was at first pos'd, having fhew'd by direct Proof that Jefus did rife, and having answer'd the feveral Objections against this Fact, which fome have drawn from the Writings of the Evangelifts.

pro

THE Evidence then of this Great and Miraculous Action lies fairly before the Reader. I have plac'd it in the Cleareft Light that I could, and have brought the Proofs of it into a Shorter Compass than Ufual: Both thefe are great Helps to any Sin cere, Unprejudiced man, who would fee the Reafon of a Chrif tian's Faith and Hope: It appears Abfolutely Impoffible (accord ing to the Scripture Story), that the Apoftles fhould have been Deceiv'd in this Point of Jefus's Refurrection; which is no lefs than a Demonftration in their Favour: and it appears to have been Morally Impoffible that they fhould have wilfully Deceived Mankind in this Particular: the Circumftances of their Cafe will not admit of fuch a Suppofition, and the whole Weight of Improbability lies against it, which is the strongest Proof that fuch a Diftant Fact is capable of.

AND will a Wise man think a few Cavils fufficient to deter mine the Point against such Evidence? When the Proofs are fo much Stronger on the one fide than the Objections on the Other, are there not greater Difficulties to be met with in Disbelieving than in Believing?

HERE then a Rational Man will take his Stand, and being once convinced that Jefus did truly rife from the Dead, from hence he will fet out in his Enquiries, and taking this Clue along with him will eafly fee what Judgment is to be made of fome other Particulars in the Gofpel, against which Exceptions have been taken: With this Evidence in his hand, he will easily admit all the Miracles wrought by Jefus, when Alive, to have been True and Real ones: For the Divine Power (we may be fure) would never have exerted itself in his favour to Raise him again, if during his Abode on Earth he had counterfeited Miracles and impofed on a Credulous Multitude: And if he wrought Undoubted Miracles, will not.this Conclufion neceffarily follow, That he came from God, teaching the Divine Will, because he made ufe of his Miracles as fo many Proofs of his having a Commiffion from Heaven?

AND the fame must be faid of the Application of the Prophecies of the Old Testament, which Jefus and his Apoftles declar'd

to

Part I. to have been fulfill'd in Him: For however fome of them may appear to Us, at this distance of time, not to be exprefly determin'd and tied down to His Perfon, yet no Senfe of them can be clearer than what is given them by one who wrought undoubted Miracles, and thereby prov'd himfelf to come from that God, who fpake by the Prophets; and therefore Jefus's Explication of them is no other than God's Own; and can we defire a better Interpretation?

IN all Enquiries the only way to come at Truth is to fet out right at firft. There is no Propofition in Euclid or Newton, tho' never fo ftrictly Demonftrable, but will lofe all its Force of Conviction, if a man begins at the wrong end, disjoints the feveral parts of the Proof, or places them in a wrong and unnatural Order. It is the fame thing in Chriftianity; if a man fingles out a Miracle or a Prophecy, and having expos'd, as Artfully as he can, the Literal Story of either, if from thence he forms an Argument, that Thefe don't prove Jefus to have come from God or to have been the Meffiah; he may to weak Understandings seem to fay fomething Material, and may triumph (if he pleases) in the Quaintnefs of his Objections: For, no doubt, every Miracle of Chrift Singly confider'd does not Infallibly prove his Divine Miffion, nor does every Prophecy Singly confider'd point him out for the true Meffiah. Exceptions may be drawn from the Circumstances of fome of them by men difpos'd to cavil, and they may say that at best (when taken in this Separate view) they can only make us Wonder, not Believe.

BUT all this while Truth is Truth, and would appear fo, if the Proofs were purfued in their Natural Order: Do but begin aright and follow the Chain of things; and you have Demonftration: whereas, if you Start wrong, or lofe the Track, then Doubts and Difficulties meet you at every Turning, and you will foon have a Stock of them to fet up with, as a Modern Free-thinker in the bad Sense of the Word.

THIS Question may fairly be asked, If we give up Chriftia nity, what Religion will they give us in the Room of it? Chriftianity is furely worth fomething, and a Man would not part with it except to Advantage. Why, the Golden Religion of Nature (g) is offer'd us in exchange: but as all is not Gold that glifters, it has been prov'd a thousand times, that Natural Religion is not fufficient for all our Wants, that it had one great Defect at leaft, which the Gospel remedies by promifing Pardon and Forgiveness of Sins. But are they in earnest when they talk of fetting up Morality for the Standard? If they were, one would think, that they fhould practife it in their Writings, while they recommend it, and the Example fhould go along with the Doctrine. But is not the Contrary vifible in the Works of most of them? I will inftance only in the Author of the Difcourfes on the

(g) Woolfton's Difc. 6. pag. 28.

Miracles

Miracles of our Saviour: one Specimen of his Difingenuity in Quotations I have given before in Page 5, which I hope will be referr'd to upon this occafion. To this I add, that in Difcourfe I. Page 25, he fays, that St. Hilary is plain, that there was no fuch Market kept in the Temple of Jerufalem, i. e. for buying and felling Sheep, Oxen, and Doves: and for this purpose he quotes thefe words of that Father, Non habebant Judai quod venire poffent, neque erat quod emere quis poffet: Whereas this is but a part of a Sentence, the whole runs thus: Sed neque emere Judæos in Synagoga, neque vendere Spiritum Sanctum exiftimandum eft; non enim habebant ut vendere poffent, neque erat quod quis emere poffet: We must not think that the Jews were able to buy and fell the Holy Ghost in the Synagogue; for they had it not to fell, nor was there any one to buy it. Here he deceives his Reader, concealing from him that the buying and felling mention'd by St. Hilary was that of the Holy Ghost, not of Sheep and Oxen, and the Place spoken of was not the Temple but the Synagogue. Is this manner of quoting confiftent with Morality?

AGAIN, he makes Erafmus fay, that Jefus could not be zealous against the Profanation of that Temple of the Jews, which was foon to be destroy'd, Page 30. But the words of Erafmus have a quite different meaning, and run thus; Nec enim illum tantopere commovebat Templum illud mercimoniis Boum, Ovium, Hircorum & Columbarum profanatum: Sed oftendere voluit Avaritiam & Quæftum fore capitalem Peftem Ecclefia fua, quam. Templum illud, cujus Religio mox erat abolenda, figurabat. Fefus was not fo much mov'd at the Profanation of the Temple by the merchandife of Oxen, Sheep, Goats and Doves; but he meant to fhew, that Avarice and Luxury would be a fatal Calamity to his Church, which was figur'd out by that Temple whofe Worship was foon after to be abolished. The Author above-mention'd makes Erafmus affign the Temple's being foon to be destroy'd, as a Reason why he fays that Jefus could not be Zealous against the Profanation of it: whereas Erafmus does not fay this, much lefs does he affign a Reafon for it: he only mentions the Temple's being foon to be deftroy'd, as a Circumftance to fhew that the Temple was a Figure of the Chriftian Church, which was to fucceed it.- Was there a greater Difference between Erafmus and the Monks of His time, than there is between the True Senfe of Erafmus, and what this Unfair Author would fix upon him?

SOME other opportunity will be taken to add more Instances of the like Behaviour, but these are sufficient to fhew that this great Recommender of the Golden Religion of Nature, in his attacks upon Chriftianity, violates the first principles of Natural Religion, and makes a Sacrifice of Common Honefty to his Zeal against Revelation. If his Morality teaches him no better things, I would advise him not to offer it to the World; it is best in his Own keeping, it may be of great ufe to Him in raifing

Objections

Part I. Objections against the Bible; nay it may be a Golden Religion to him, if by the help of it he can furnish his Discourses with fuch bold Falfhoods as fhall make them Sell the better. But to all Serious Men, to all who enquire and examine into every Hardy Affertion, his Book is their Antidote; by feeing what He is, they learn what fuch men as have caft off the Gospel are likely to be: He is the ftrongeft Proof against Himself that Christianity is Neceffary to reftrain men, and there is nothing in his Writings of fo much Weight to incline men to be Unbelievers, as there is in his Example to fhew them the Neceffity of Believing.

A Man must be much in Love with Variety, and wear his Religion, like his Clothes, fubject to every Change of the Fashion, if he will quit the Christian Faith, and renounce his Creed for an uncertain Something, fo ill fupported and fo ill recommended as the Religion of thefe Difputers. When they have demonftrated the Falfhood of Chriftianity, or fhewn us that the Objections against it are of more Force than the Proofs for it, then we may allow them (after great Examples in other cafes) to spend their whole Stock of Wit and Drollery upon the Subject. But if they must be under a Restraint till then, it will all die with them, and the World will lose the Proof of their Abilities in the Great Art of Ridicule: For as yet the Article of Jefus's Refurrection (that Foundation-Stone of Chriftianity) remains unmov'd by any thing that They have offer'd: They have done their Beft, it must be owned, and have faid all perhaps that the Wit or Malice of man can devife: But ftill it can no more prevail against this Truth, than Death and the Grave could against our Saviour; it rifes like him, and triumphs over all Objections.

IT is hoped, therefore, that what has been faid on this Occafion, will have fome Effect to check the increafing Infidelity of the Age; and that men will confider and weigh matters, before they form any Judgment to the Prejudice of that Faith, which can plead Prescription, and (by fhewing its Reasonableness) can make that Prescription appear a Good one. If the Proofs that I have brought in its favour are fo convincing, as I am perfuaded they are, let fuch men examine their own hearts carefully, and fee whether other Motives than those of Reason do not determine them to Unbelief. I pretend not to charge it upon their Vices or their Vanity and Love of Novelty; they Themselves are the best Judges of what that Principle is which influences them: But they must give up the Pretence of Reason in this Cafe (of right Reafon founded upon good Evidence); for This lies directly against them, it blows full in their Face; and that which is the Demonftration of Our Faith, can never be the Foundation of Their Infidelity.

The End of the First Part.

PART

PART the SECOND.

CONTAINING,

A Defence of the Literal Story of JESUS's driving the BUYERS and SELLERS out of the TEMPLE;

AND

Suffering the DEVILS to enter into the Herd of SWINE.

M

Y former Difcourfe endeavour'd to establish the Truth of that Great Miracle, the Refurrection of Jefus, and in pursuance of that Defign, I fhew'd it to be Abfolutely Impoffible that the Apostles fhould be Deceived, and Morally Impoffible that they fhould intend to Deceive Mankind: The Proofs of these two Particulars were There laid before the Reader in fo Short and yet fo Plain a manner, that they seem to amount to as full a Demonftration of the Fact in queftion, as fuch Matters are capable of.

IN that Difcourfe it was not attempted to clear the Apoftles from the Charge of Enthufiafm, because what was There faid, when laid together, feem'd a full Vindication of them in this Particular; but fince thofe, who have got a Plaufible Word on their fide, are fond of making the Moft of it, and affect to range the Apoftles under a third Clafs, that of Enthufiafts, I fhall follow them into this Covert, and try to force them out of it, by fhewing how effectually all Sufpicion of Enthusiasm has been removed from them, by what has been already Prov'd on the Article of Jesus's Refurrection.

ENTHUŠÍ AS M in its only Proper Senfe (when apply'd to Teachers) is the afferting fomething for Truth upon a Strong but Falfe Imagination of being Divinely Infpir'd: You fee then that the Subject, whereon the warm Brain of the Enthufiaft difplays itself, is Opinion and Doctrine only; but the Point in Queftion between Us was a Fact, viz. the Refurrection of Jefus, in which (as then appear'd) it is Abfolutely Impoffible that they fhould have been Deceived, they having fuch Proofs of it, as