« PrécédentContinuer »
REV. RICHARD GRAVES, B. D. M. R. I. A.
AND JUNIOR FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN,
"Paul faid, I am not mad, most noble Feftus, but speak the
PRINTED FOR C. DILLY, IN THE POULTRY.
The apofiles and evangelifts were not enthufiafts, because they did not
embrace the faith which they taught, till they had required and received
fufficient proofs of its divine original.
SECT. I. The general statement and divifion of the fubje&. Page 1
SECT. II. The faith of the apoftles in their Lord, at its firft origin
and progrefs, was founded not on the delufions of enthufiafm, but on
SECT. III. Some circumftances which have afforded pretexts for im
puting our Lord's miracles to the force of enthufiafm, confidered and
SECT. IV. The nature of the miracles wrought by our Lord
during his public miniftry, and the circumstances which attended them,
prove they cannot be afcribed to the power of enthufiafm.
SECT. V. The apoflles belief in our Lord's refurrection, and in the
fubfequent manifeftation of his divine power, was not imputable to en-
CHA P. II.
Containing arguments to prove that the apostles were not enthufiafts, from
their not requiring faith in others without fupplying fufficient evidence
SECT. I. The apostles converted men not by enthufiaftic delufions,
but by working public and indifputable MIRACLES.
SECT. II. The arguments from PROPHECY adduced by the apofles
could not derive their weight from the influence of enthufiafm-proved
in this fection, fo far as relates to the Prophecies of the Old Tefla-
ment, which the apofiles afferted were accomplished in the person of
SECT. III. The prophecies delivered by our Saviour, and fuch
predictions of the apofiles as are connected with them, are not imputa-
SECT. IV. The MODE in which the apostles proposed the evidence
The CONDUCT of the apostles, fhewn to be inconfiflent with the fuppoft-