obtained from what may be fairly reafoned out of their own Report?If the Confiderer had no better Hopes, why did he trouble himself and the World? Did he propofe, because nothing could be fairly reafoned out of the Gofpel, to reafon fomething out of it unfairly? He has indeed done fo; but did not, I fuppose, mean to give Warning of it.

But this is not the Whole of his Complaint. Can that, fays he, be efteemed a fair Tryal, where the Evidences are only on one fide the Queftione, &c. Why not? was full and clear Evidence ever rejected, because there was no Evidence to be produced against it? The Cafe must always be fo where the Truth is notorious. The main Facts relating to our Saviour were as public and as well known in Judea and the neighbouring Countries, when the Gospels were publifhed, as the Coronation of Henry VIII. was known in his Time in England; and if the Confiderer has a Mind to call that Fact in Queftion, he will find the Witneffes all on one fide.

He goes on. To find the Truth of a Cafe by the Teftimony of partial Evidence combined against it, must be owned to be a difficult Tasks.

In the firft Place, how does he know the Witneffes are partial? it is not a Thing to be taken for granted; and Proof he brings none. I imagine he supposes every Witness to be partial to the Side for which he gives Evidence; and if fo, then every faithful Witness to Truth is a partial Evidence; and the more fincerely concerned for the Truth, the more partial ftill.

Secondly, Why does he call the Evangelists combined Witneffes? Is it not the Purpose and Drift of his whole Book, to fhew them contradicting one another in almost every Instance? How then were they combined together? Was it part of their Agreement to contradict one another? Why did he not tell us what was their View in combining together? We know that they were oppreffed by fews and Heathens, that they attefted the Truth of the Facts they delivered at the Peril of their Lives daily, and at last died miferably and violently in Confirmation of the Truth. You fee what their Combination tended to!

Another Question the Confiderer has chofen to debate, is about the Nature of Christ's Kingdom. It very little concerns the Refurrection, but we must take it in our Way. Many Paffages are produced from the Tryal, all speaking to this Effect; "That Jefus did not pretend "to a temporal Kingdom; and that he expound

""

*ed the ancient Prophecies relating to the Meffias, in a different Manner than his Countrymen did, who expected a temporal "Prince for their Meffias.' Among these Quotations fome are taken out of the Mouth of the Pleader against the Refurrection, and afcribed to the Author of the Tryal; but this happens fo frequently, that it would be endless to take Notice of it, as often as it occurs. But let us fee to what Purpose thefe Paffages are produced.

It was a Part of Woolfton's Scheme, to charge Chrift with a fecret Defign of getting temporal Power, notwithstanding he openly difavowed all fuch Pretenfions. In anfwer to this the Author of the Tryal fhewed, from the uniform Character and Conduct of Jesus, that Woolfton's Notion was void of all Colour of Support. Does the Confiderer now enter into the Argument, as it ftands in the Tryal? No. But he takes the Paflages independently of the Argument, of which they are a Part; and thinks that taken by themselves they are not true. Be it fo; what then does it fignify to the Fact of the Refurrection which he was to difprove? Why all this Parade of many Quotations from the Tryal, fince they do not relate to the Point in Difpute? Some good Friend, I fufpect, had afked the Confiderer these Questions which he could not answer; and tho' he was unwilling to part with fo many Quotations at once, yet, to prevent the fame Questions being

afked

afked him again, he has in his new Edition confeffed, that be this (i. e. the ancient Prophecies of the Kingdom) myftically or conditionally true, it concerns not the Refurrection. Yet let not Truth be denied".

Well then; the Credit of the Resurrection is fo far fafe. But he thinks it not true, that Chrift declined temporal Power; and Truth must not be denied. He goes on to produce Prophecies, that God would give him the Throne of his Father David, and fays, that he was called King of Ifrael, King of the Jews, and rebuked not those who gave him the Title. And why

fhould he rebuke them, fince he claimed that Title, and never denied that he was King of the Jews? But the Confiderer feems not to know that there never was a Question between Jews and Chriftians, whether Jefus was, or pretended to be, a temporal Prince. Both fides agree that he neither was nor pretended to be. But the Question was and is, whether, according to ancient Prophecy, the Meffias was to be a temporal Prince.

Had not the Prophets declared him to be a great Prince, there would have been no Difpute whether he was to be a temporal or a spiritual Prince. Quoting therefore thefe Prophecies will not determine the Queftion; for the Doubt is not, Whether there are fuch Prophecies or no? But what is the Meaning of them?

Third Edit. p. 8.

E

The

1

1

The Confiderer fays, that Jefus was commonly called King of the Jews, only he had not the Kingdom; therefore when he was about to fuffer for it, be found it was not of this World. This Confeffion be prudently made at a proper Time, tho' it had not the Effect to fave his Life. After what has already appeared of this Author's Spirit, it is in vain to complain of the Impiety of this Charge of Fraud and Deceit upon our Bleffed Saviour. There is one to whom he must answer for it. In the mean time, how will he answer to reafonable Enquirers the Difingenuity of concealing, that Jefus, fo far from denying himself to be the King of the Jews, confeffed it before Pilates? And as to the Nature of this Kingdom he declared it not to be of this World. With what Confcience now does the Confiderer afk, how it appears by any thing recorded, that Jefus explained away the kingly Office of the Meffias? Explain it away! No. He infifted on it to the laft. But if he means to ask, whether Jefus ever explained away the temporal Kingdom; it is manifeft from every Part and every Circumftance of his Life, that he never claimed it. If he means to ask, whether Jefus ever explained the Nature of the Kingdom of the Meffias; what more is wanting than his Confeffion to Pilate, that he was King of the Jews, and that

First Edit. p. 15. Third Edit. p. 8.

Matt. xxix. 11. Mark xv. 2. Luke xxiii. 3. John * John xviii. 36.

xviii. 37.

his