THE SEQUEL

OF THE

TRIAL OF THE WITNESSES

OF THE

RESURRECTION:

BEING

An answer to the exceptions of a late pamphlet, entitled "The Resurrection of Jesus considered by a

Moral Philosopher."

REVISED BY THE AUTHOR OF THE TRIAL OF THE WITNESSES.

THE SEQUEL

OF

THE TRIAL OF THE WITNESSES.

SECTION I.

THE Considerer introduces himself and his book to the world in a very extraordinary and pompous manner. The Trial of the Witnesses had, it seems, gone through ten editions unanswered; had, (as he most ingeniously expresses himself,) "miraculously supported the miracles of the gospel; had gained an indisputable conquest, and reached the remotest corners of infidelity." What then was to be done in this distress? Why, he is called on by his friends to read it, and by his ardent love of truth to answer it; and seems to think that all the hopes of infidelity centre in him.

An author of so much vivacity, and so full of himself, can hardly be expected to keep the dull road of reasoning; his wit will sometimes run away with him. Hence it is that we meet with so much pertness and spirit in his performance; hence proceed those beautiful expressions of "miraculously supported the miracles," the "damnably bad" opinions of somebody or other, and the witty conceit of introducing ghosts"in white sheets and dark lanterns" into this serious argument. Of all which, and many others of equal politeness, I take leave once for all, and give them

up to be enjoyed by the author and his admirers without disturbance.

But I must needs commend this author for the open and frank declaration of his principles in respect to religion. Some have pretended friendship to the gospel, that they might the more successfully undermine the foundations of it; but this author acts with more bravery and more honesty. He says fairly, "In my opinion great judgment and great faith are such contradictions that they never unite so as to meet in one person.' I dare say he did not make this declaration on any suspicion he had of his own judgment. Again, with respect to miracles, he tells us, "every real miracle is an absurdity to common sense and understanding, and contrary to the attributes of God."

After these express declarations, one would wonder how this author could propose himself to the world as a proper person to make a fair examination of the evidence of the resurrection, which is both the greatest miracle and the greatest article of the Christian faith. But he had his view in so doing, and has been so good as to acquaint us what he proposed by his answer to the Trial of the Witnesses; and he shall tell it himself. "My design is to promote that veneration for wisdom and virtue which has been debased and degraded by faith; by a faith which has not sent peace on earth, but a sword. Where this foolish faith bears sway, the tree of knowledge produces damning fruit; but under the benign influence of George our King in this glorious day of light and liberty, this divine hag and her pious witchcrafts, which were brought forth in darkness and nourished by obscurity, faint at the approach of day, and vanish on sight."

The faith which the gospel proposes in Christ Jesus, the ever blessed Son of God, and the only name under heaven by which we may be saved, is here, with an astonishing degree of impiety, called a divine hag with pious witchcrafts.' Unhappy man! what could he mean by this? I pity him from my heart. But what could he mean by abusing the king, unless he had a mind to show that he is just as good a subject as he is a Christian?

Every serious man will read these passages with abhorrence; and they are a warning to every reader to be on his guard against the representations made of the doctrines of the gospel and the evidences of Christianity by so determined and so inveterate an enemy to both.

But let us examine this author in another respect. So little qualified was he to write an answer to the Trial of the Witnesses, that he did not understand it when he published his answer, but mistook sometimes the objection for the answer to the objection, and sometimes vice versa, and ascribed to the author of the Trial the very opinion he was confuting. A few instances will explain my meaning.

The Considerer charges the author of the Trial with founding faith on education, and writing in favour of that opinion. To support this charge, he quotes from the Trial the very words that disclaim that opinion. The words are: "What prevailed with those who first received it? (that is, the belief of the resurrection :) they certainly did not follow the examples of their fathers. Here then is the point: how did this fact gain credit in the world at first? Credit it has gained without doubt." It is marvellous how the Consid