"

controverfy-they are eager to lead the way in fome debate-and feek for applause by their nice interpretations, and happy accommodation of different texts. In the mean time it is probable, that neither religion, nor fcripture are in least affifted by their learned labours. Like fome necromancer of old, they raise a spectre, that they may have the credit of laying it; though it would otherwife have vanished of itfelf, without doing mifchief to any one.

But befides thofe, who look into a glass, through pride and vanity, there is another fet of men who are chiefly characterised by the apostle's comparison-fuch as look into a glass fo carelessly as to answer no end at all. They ftraightway forget what manner of men they are. Now these are by far the most numerous fet of chriftians. They never confider the perfect law of liberty as a law intended for their ufe. The pleafures of the world fo entirely engage them, that they think not of any higher concern. They feel nothing of their foul about them all relates to their body.

Befides thefe ill-difpofed, and careless examiners, there are others, whom the apoftle's comparison supposes to look into a glass merely to adjuft any impropriety, which they may difco

ver in themselves. These are they who read the fcriptures with two great views.

The firft is, to rectify in themselves what they may obferve amifs. If they look attentively into the fcriptures, and compare their own thoughts, words, and actions, with what they find there; they will of course find many things daily getting wrong. We see our own faults with a tender eye. A faithful friend, who will point them out to us, is a kind monitor. Friendship however is delicate. But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty, may be fure, if his heart go with his eyes, to fee his faults laid truly before him.

The fecond great point he has in view, after the amendment of his faults, is to adorn himfelf with virtues. Many, as was observed, look into a glass to adorn themselves fantaftically; he puts on merely fuch ornaments as are plain, fimple, and becoming, and render him. in fact more agreeable to others. He adorns himfelf with the virtues of a christian.

This is the man, whom the apoftle's comparifon points out to us for imitation—this is the man, who, in the language of the text, shall be bleed in his decd.

XXXVI.

१

And he faid, Nay, father Abraham ; but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent And he faid unto him, If they hear not Mofes and the prophets, neither will they be perfuaded. though one rofe from the dead-Luke xvi. 30, 31.

THIS

HIS paffage puts the following objection into the mouth of the freethinker.

"If a perfon's rifing from the dead, fays he, is not a mode of evidence fuited to perfuade, why fhould Jefus offer his own refurrection from the dead, as the last and best proof of his divine commiffion? On his own authority we fee it is of little weight; and yet his diciples are continually urging it as the ftrongest évidence, that could be produced."

If the objector will be at the pains of confidering the fact, he will find, that his statement of it is not quite exact; and that there is no difagreement between what our Saviour fays, and what his apoftles urged.

VOL. 1.

F F

Th

The parable represents an infidel calling for a refurrection from the dead, as the strongest evidence to convince another infidel. Abraham does not in the least infinuate, that a refurrection from the dead was not the frongest evidence: indeed his argument plainly leads us to believe, he thought it was the ftrongeft evidence. What he fays therefore amounts only to this—that if the infidel, who was a Jew, would not give a fair hearing to Mofes, and the prophets, no. evidence, however ftrong, could have weight with him.

When the heart is hardened and confirmed in infidelity, it will fhuffle off, and avoid the force of any evidence, that can be given. The strongest would be thrown

away.

Now this was in fact the very cafe of the unbelieving Jews at that time, to whom the parable was addreffed. They rejected our Saviour as the Meffiah, and ascribed his miracles to the devil; though they faw them plainly wrought to counteract the works of the devil. Nay, many of them, who had been present at the refurrection of Lazarus, had even the evidence here required of a man raifed from the dead; and yet they still continued impenitent. And afterwards the more awful circumstances of the refurrection of Jefus himself,

3

3:

himself, had no better effect, upon them. So that it is plain a refurrection from the dead, however convincing a proof in itself, is not fufficient to convince thofe, whofe hearts are hardened by infidelity. It feems alfo as if it had been one defign of our Saviour in this parable to point out the future hardened infidelity of the Jews with regard to the very event of his own refurrection.

"But ftill, replies the objector, it appears from the parable, that Jefus thought the evidence of Mofes, and the prophets fufficient, without adding the farther evidence of a man raised from the dead. And though we may allow the evidence of a man raised from the dead to be the strongest evidence that can be given, yet ftill if it was more than was neceffary, it seems more than Providence ordinarily allows. So that at any rate there feems to have been no occafion for the refurrection of Jesus."

To this we reply, that if we confider the diffe rent pretenfions of Judaism, and christianity, there was occafion for it. The faith of the Jews was confined to Mofes, and the prophets; for which they had fufficient evidence of various kinds. They did not therefore require the additional evidence of a man raised from the dead.