be fuppofed that the Power which raised him to Life did not cure thofe Wounds? It is with just as little Meaning that he afks, whether another Perfon who might have a Mind to deceive could not make Scars? The Reader, I believe, will not expect to have a formal Confutation of fuch impertinent and fenfelefs Suggestions; barely reciting them is expofing them effectually.

Much about the fame Size with thefe is another Exception he makes to this Story. Because the Wound in the Side is mentioned only by St. John, he thinks Thomas and the other Apoftles knew nothing of the Matter 2. As if fo extraordinary a Circumftance was likely to be a Secret to any of them; and as if Thomas's direct Appeal to this Circumstance was not a Demonstration, that it was no Secret to him. I leave it with the Reader, without any farther Anfwer, as one Inftance, amongst a Thousand, of the Folly and Abfurdity into which a Man is fure to be betrayed, when the unclean Spirit of Singularity has once feized him. The Confiderer has faid fomething more of this piece of Hiftory, but it is fo like the Sample already given, that it would be an Affront to the Reader to take anyfurther Notice of it.

After having gone through his Proofs against the Credit of the Gofpel-Hiftory, the Confiderer returns to the Tryal of the Witneffes. The Author of the Tryal had obferved, that in all Cafes of Confequence Men take Care to make Choice of proper unexceptionable Witneffes, a Ibid.

that

that the fame Care was taken in the Refurrection, and then adds, "How comes it to pass then, that "the very Thing which shuts out all Sufpicion in "other Cafes, fhould in this Cafe only be of all "others the most fufpicious Thing itself." The Confiderer anfwers, because this Cafe of all others is the most uncommon. Is that a Reason why it fhould not be fupported by the best Evidence, that human Wisdom is able to think of in the moft material Cafes? He goes on; Is it not abfurd, that the meanest Witnesses fhould be pick'd and cull'd out for the best and greatest Affairs? What he intends by the meanest I know not. Men may furely be good Witneffes without having great Eftates, and be able to report what they fee with their Eyes without being Philofophers: As far then as the Truth of the Refurrection depended on the Evidence of Senfe, the Apostles were duly qualified. But how comes he to lay fuch Strefs upon their Meanness? did their Meannefs ftand in the Way of the Evidence, which arose from the great Powers with which they were endowed from above? Confider their natural and fupernatural Qualifications, they were in every refpect proper Witnesses; take thefe Qualifications together, and they were Witneffes without Exception. But the Conf derer thinks the Apoftles were interested in the Affair, and that half a dozen Watchmen would bave been better than a dozen ApostlesTM. * Tryal, p. 47. 1 First Edit. p. 72. 3. Third Edit.

P. 58. First Edit. p. 94.

Third Edit. p. 64.

I

would

would fain know, what fort of Witneffes he requires. Suppose half-a-dozen Watchmen had feen and believed the Refurrection, I doubt their being Believers would have been, in his way of Reckoning, an Objection; he would have told us, they expected Commiffions in the Meffiah's Army. Would he then have Evidence from Unbelievers? A Witnefs, who does not believe the Truth of what he affirms, is a mere Cheat. No body therefore could be a Witness to the Refurrection but a Believer; and fuch an one he esteems to be interested. But this is an abfurd Objection, because it is an Objection to every honest Witnefs that ever lived; for every honest Witness believes the Truth of what he says. If he means to charge the Apoftles with Views or Hopes of temporal Advantage to themselves, he fhews himself to be a mere Stranger to the Hiftory of the Church, or wilfully imposes on his ignorant Readers. How much the Apoftles endured and fuffered for the Testimony of the Truth, what Havock was made among the Converts to Chriftianity, by Perfecution upon Perfecution, for three hundred Years together, 'till the Empire became Chriftian, is as notorious as any Part of History; and he may as well, and with as much Truth, deny that there were any Heathen Emperors of

d Page 44

35.

Τ

Rome,

Rome, as that the Apoftles, and firft Chrifti ans, were afflicted, tormented, and put to cruel Deaths by them.

In the next Page the Confiderer repeats the old Objection," that Jefus did not fhew

himself to the Jews after his Resurrection.” This Plea had been examined, and answered in the Tryal; and fince the Confiderer has thought fit to pafs over in Silence what he found there, I must refer the Reader to the Tryal itfelf for an Anfwer to this old Objection. And, if he wants farther Satisfaction, I recommend to him a little Piece wrote upon this Point only, and published in 1730. The Confiderer wonders, that an extraordinnry Action, bighly neceflary to be known to Mankind, fhould be fo fecretly done, that no Man faw it ; — and that Jefus fhould require Men to believe his Difciples, rather than their own Senfes. When fo ma

ny faw him dead, and fo many faw and converfed with him after he arose from the Grave, it is furprizing to hear this Affertion, that no Man faw the Refurrection. Is any thing more wanting to complete a fenfible Proof of a Refurrection, than to fee a Man dead and buried, and to fee him alive again? But, it seems, the Jews could not believe the Difciples in the

An impartial Examination, and full Confutation of the Argument, &c. against the Truth of our Saviour's Resurrection, viz. That he appeared only to the Difciples. Printed for J. Roberts in Warwick-lane, 1730.

First Edit. p. 73, Third Edit. p. 59.

I

Report

Report they made of the Refurrection, without contradicting their own Senfes. They had then, in this Writer's Opinion, the Evidence of Senfe against the Truth of the Refurrection. This is great News, and it is Pity this Evidence was not produced; it would have been material to inform us, which of their Senfes afforded that Evidence; and by what Means he came to know this Piece of Evidence which the Jews had, and which the World never heard of before, and which probably they will never hear of again.

The Author of the Tryal had taken Notice of our Saviour's Prediction just before his Death, that the Jews fhould fee him no more, till they faid, Bleed is he that cometh in the Name of the Lord; and then added, "The Jews were not "in this Difpofition after the Resurrection, "nor are they in it yet" b. The Confiderer fays that Jefus himself found them in that Difpofition before his Death; and he refers for Proof of this bold Affertion to Luke xix. 38. The Case there is this: Upon our Lord's Entrance into Jerufalem, the Multitude of Difciples cryed, Bleffed be the King that cometh in the Name of the Lord. This was the Language of the Dif ciples only, and the Confiderer does not think all the Jews were Difciples. How comes he

a Luke xiii. 35. First Edit. p. 76.