« EelmineJätka »
The present constitution of the word, v tion, the religion, the liberty, or $2157 Dec which subfift in it, is but one ftage cheese rious prophecies, which were of oid devices tunes of individuals, nations and constres fay what Tertullian, speaking of the accur 1 prophecy, said in his--Quicquid agitat pretis.2437 detur audiebatur. The reader may fud ticis Bp. Newton in his Differtations on the Proper his Accomplishinent of Scripture Prophecy ; rés Argument in defence of Christianity ; brirem mons on the Circumftances of the Jewish Perse Truth of Christianity ; by the author of 101? tienne ; by the author of an Essay in the Independency of the Arabs ; by Bishops hue. in their Sermons preached at Warburiol's Eand Henry More, in their relpective wo: hịs Seçmon preached at Boyle's Lecture, 17
All the Astions recorded in the
This Tract is the 4th chap. of us Gospel History, by Mackoight. You E tract familiar to them by a frequent per: very concise, but satisfactory anwens ing some parts of our Saviour's cuits credibility of miracles, &c. which 2:4ist in wanton mockery of religion, man sation, and which never fail to eart it, of thole who know not how to reply in the
of the Argument for the Truto ó';
m the Truth of the 69:-
D. D, 1763. i
Ititudes out of Enter
d from Heaters
made, is a proof of nothing but that the means were adequate to the
An Ejay on the Man of Sin, from Benson's Paraphrase
and Notes on St. Paul's Epifles. p. 268.
That the Popish religion is the Chrisian religion, is a false po-
of the Church of Rome be, in many of its parts, an impofture. This observation should be always kept in mind by such of our young men cf fashion, as are sent to finish their education by travelliog in Catholic countries, It may seem paradoxical to affert, that the corruptions of any religion can be proofs of its truth; yet the corruptions of the Christian ieligion, as practised by the Church of Rome, are certain proofs of the truth of the Chriftiaa religion ; inasmuch as they are exact completions of the prophecies which were delivered by Daniel, St. Paul, and St. John, concerning that apostasy from the faith, which was to take place, ia the latter times. I have known the infidelity of more than one young man happily removed, by Thewing him the characters of Popery delineated by St. Paul in his prophecy concerning the Man of Sin (2 Thef. ii. 1.), and in that concerning the apoftafy of the latter times (1 Tim. iv. 1). Bp. Hurd, in his 7th fermon at Warburton's Lecture, has given a concise hiftory of the charge of Antichristianism, which has, at different times, been brought against the Church of Rome. Dr. Whitaker, Regius Profetlor of Divinity at Cambridge, in his exercise for his degree at the Cominencement in 1582, supported this Thesis--Pontifex R manus eft ille Antichristus quem futurum Scriptura prædixit. He had, before that time, refuted the forty arguments by which Nicholas Sander boated that he had demonstrated that the Pope was not Antichrift. Whitaker's works are very well worth being looked into by those who would know what can be said for and against the other prineipal points in controversy between Proteftanis and Papitts, as well as against this primary pillar of the reformed faith-That the Hierarchy of the Church of Rome is the Little Horn of Daniel, the Man of Sin of St. Paul, and the Antichrift of St. John. The evidence arising froin the completion of the prophecies relative to the Rife, Charačter, and Fall of the Man of Sin, is an increasing evidence : it strikes us with more force than it struck our ancestors before the Reformation, and it will strike our pofterity, who hail obterve the different gradations of his decline, and his final catastrophe, with more force than it now strikes us,
Observations on the History and Evidence of the Refur-
which are brought to invalidate the fact of the Resurrection are des duced from the real, or seeming, differences in the accounts which the Evangelists have given of the circumstances which attended it ; and much labour has been employed in harmonizing the several accounts. But what if it should be admitted (1 do not fay that the concession is neceffary), that the accounts cannot in every little point be made to agree? Will you for that reaton disbelieve the fact itself? As well might you have disbelieved the report of those who should have faid, that they had seen the body of Cæsar dead, becaufe you would have foun:i them disagreeing, probably, in some minute points, relative to the number or situation of his wounds, to the time or manner of his being ftabbed in the Capitol. A flight dilagreement between the writers of the New Testament, in their re: lations of matiers of fact, is entirely analogous to what may be ob ferved every day in courts of justice ; no one, on account of a trifling difference in the testimonies of the witnesses, ever thinks of queltioning the existence of the fact in which they all agree, or of impeaching either their integrity, or competency to ettablish the fact. If the Evangelists do really differ from each other in their accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus, it is a proof that they did not write in concert, were not combined to impose a fable on the world'; and it is a proof, also, that what they wrote was not inspired in the manner which fome, with more piety than judgment, have supposed it to have been. Let the Deists make the most they can of the variations which they think may be found in the Evangelists; yet wilt they never be able to prove, that the facts inentioned by these writers respecting the Birth, Life, Death, Resurrection, and Aleension of Jesus Christ
, are not true : let them fasten upon the writers of the New Testainent as much human infirmity as they can ; yet will they never be able to prove that they were not divinely inspired in what they delivered concerning the doctrines necessary to be believed, and the duties neceffary to be performed, by all true disciples of Jesus Chrift.-The book which is here printed has been much esteemed ;
it has been translated both into German and French, and may be of great use to those whose religious principles are unsettled. Macknight, in bis Harmony, has endeavoured to reconcile the seeming inconfiftencies in the Evangelists relative to the resurrection. Lardner published some judicious observations on Macknig ist's plan. Benson has given his sentiments on the subject of the Resurrection in his Life of Chrift, and has answered the objections usually made to it. Bp. Newcome, in his Harmony, may be consulted on the subject with great advantage. A pamphlet, published many years ago, intituled, The Trial of the Witneffes of the Resurrection of Jesus, has been well received in the world; but the inost folid reasoning on the subject may be met with in a discourse concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, by Humphrey Ditton, 5th ed. 1749. Fabricius, in the 44th chap. of his Delectus Argumentorum, mentions 28 'different authors on the Resurrection, and in the oth chap. of his. Lux Evangelica he adds above 20 more ; nor would it be a difficult taik greatly to enlarge his catalogue.
prophets, Christ and his apostles, were endued with divine authority, that they had a commission from God to act and teach as they did, and that he will verify their declarations concerning future things, and especially those concerning a future life, by the event : or, in other words, it is to receive the scriptures as our rule of life, and the foundation of all our hopes and fears. And as all those who regulate their faith and practice by the scriptures are Christians; so all those who disclaim that name, and pass under the general title of unbelievers, do also disavow this regard to the scriptures. But there are various classes of unbelievers. Some appear to treat the scriptures as mere forgeries; others allow them to be the genuine writings of those whose names they bear, but suppose them to abound with fictions, not only in the miraculous, but also in the common part of the history; others again allow this part, but reject that; and, lastly, there are others who seem to allow the truth of the principal facts, both common and miraculous, contained in the scriptures, and yet still call in question its divine authority, as a rule of life, and an evidence of a happy futurity under Christ our saviour and king. He, therefore, that would satisfy himself or others in the truth of the Christian religion, as opposed by these several classes of unbelievers, must inquire into these three things :
First, The genuineness of the books of the Old and New Testament.
Secondly, The truth of the principal facts contained in them, both common and miraculous. ' And,
Thirdly, Their divine authority, I will endeavour, therefore, to state some of the chief evidences for each of these important points, having first premised three preparatory propositions, or lemmas, whereby the evidence for any one of them may be transferred upon the other two.