{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_5608/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_5608","id":"gutenberg_5608","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5608","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Deism -- Controversial literature","Jesus Christ -- Resurrection","Woolston, Thomas, 1670-1733. Sixth discourse on the miracles of our Saviour"],"text":"Typescript converted to computer file by Lee Dunbar  - July 2002\n\n\n\nThe TRIAL\nof the\nWITNESSES\nof the\nRESURRECTION\nof\nJESUS CHRIST\n\nN.B. Not only Mr. Woolston's objections in his Sixth Discourse on our\nSaviour's Miracles, but those also which he and others have published\nin other Books, are here considered.\n\nFirst Published about the Year 1729\n\n\nTHE\nT R I A L\nOF THE\nWITNESSES\nOF THE\nResurrection of Jesus\n\nWe were, not long since, some Gentlemen of the inns of court together,\neach to other so well known, that no man's presence was a confinement\nto any other, from speaking his mind on any subject that happened to\narise in conversation.  The meeting was without design, and the\ndiscourse, as in like cases, various.  Among other things we fell upon\nthe subject of Woolston's trial and conviction, which had happened some\nfew days before.  That led to a debate, How the law finds in such\ncases? what punishment it inflicts? and, in general, whether the law\nought at all to interpose in controversies of this kind?  We were not\nagreed in these points.  One, who maintained the favorable side to\nWoolston, discovered a great liking  and approbation of his discourses\nagainst the miracles of Christ, and seemed to think his arguments\nunanswerable.  To which another replied, I wonder that one of your\nabilities, and bred to the profession of the law, which teaches us to\nconsider the nature of evidence, and its proper weight, can be of that\nopinion: I am sure you would be unwilling to determine a property of\nfive shillings upon such evidence, as you now think material enough to\noverthrow the miracles of Christ.\n\n\tIt may easily be imagined, that this opened a door to much\ndispute, and determined the conversation for the remainder of the\nevening to this subject. The dispute ran thro' almost all the\nparticulars mentioned in Woolston's pieces; but the thread of it was\nbroken by several digressions, and the pursuit of things which were\nbrought accidentally into the discourse.  At length one of the company\nsaid pleasantly; Gentlemen, you don't argue like lawyers; if  I were\njudge in this cause, I would hold you better to the point. The company\ntook the hint, and cried, they should be glad to have the cause\nreheard, and him to be the judge.  The Gentlemen who had engaged with\nmettle and spirit in a dispute which arose accidentally, seemed very\nunwilling to be drawn into a formal controversy; and especially the\nGentleman who argued against Woolston, thought the matter grew too\nserious for him, and excused himself from undertaking a controversy in\nreligion, of all others the most momentous.  But he was told, that the\nargument should be confined merely to the nature of the evidence; and\nthat might be considered, without entering into any such controversy as\nhe would avoid; and, to bring the matter within bounds, and under one\nview, the evidence of Christ's resurrection, and the exceptions taken\nto it, should be the only subject of the conference. With such\npersuasion he suffered himself to be persuaded, and promised to give\nthe company, and their new-made judge, a meeting that day fortnight.\nThe judge and the rest of the company were for bringing on the cause a\nweek sooner; but the council for Woolston took the matter up, and said,\nConsider, Sir, the Gentleman is not to argue out of  Littleton,\nPlowden, or Coke, authors to him well known; but he must have his\nauthorities from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and a fortnight is time\nlittle enough of all conscience to gain a familiarity with a new\nacquaintance: and, turning to the Gentleman, he said, I'll call upon\nyou before the fortnight is out, to see how reverend an appearance you\nmake behind Hammond on the New Testament, a concordance on one hand,\nand a folio Bible with references on the other.  You shall be welcome,\nSir, replied the Gentleman; and perhaps you may find some company more\nto your own taste.  He is but a poor council who studies on one side of\nthe question only; and therefore I will have your friend Woolston,\nT____l, and C___s, to entertain you when you do me the favor of the\nvisit.  Upon this we parted in good humour, and all pleased with the\nappointment made, except the two Gentlemen who were to provide the\nentertainment.\n\nThe Second Day\n\n\tThe company met at the time appointed: but as it happened in\nthis, as in like cases it often does, that some friends to some of the\ncompany, who were not of the party the first day, had got notice of the\nmeeting; and the Gentlemen who were to debate the question, found they\nhad a more numerous audience than they expected or desired.  He\nespecially who was to maintain the evidence for the resurrection, began\nto excuse the necessity he was under of disappointing their\nexpectation, alledging that he was not prepared; and he had persisted\nin excusing himself, but that the strangers who perceived what the case\nwas, offered to withdraw; which the Gentleman would by no means consent\nto:  they insisting to go, he said, he would much rather submit himself\nto their candour, unprepared as he was, than be guilty of such\nrudeness, as to force them to leave the company. Upon which one of the\ncompany, smiling, said, It happens luckily that our number is\nincreased: when we were last together, we appointed a judge, but we\nquite forgot a jury: and now, I think, we are good men and true,\nsufficient to make one.  This thought was pursued in several allusions\nto legal proceedings; which created some mirth, and had this good\neffect, that it dispersed the solemn air, which the mutual compliments\nupon the difficulty before mentioned had introduced, and restored the\nease and good humour natural to the conversation of Gentlemen.\n\n\tThe judge perceiving the disposition of the company, thought it a\nproper time to begin, and called out, Gentlemen of the jury, take your\nplaces; and immediately seated himself at the upper end of the table.\nThe company sat round him, and the judge called upon the council for\nWoolston to begin.\n\n\tMr. A. Council for Woolston, addressing himself to the judge,\nsaid,\n\n\tMay it please your Lordship, I conceive the Gentleman on the\nother side ought to begin, and lay his evidence, which he intends to\nmaintain, before the court; till that is done, it is to no purpose for\nme to object.  I amy perhaps object to something which he will not\nadmit to be any part of his evidence;  and therefore I apprehend, the\nevidence ought in the first place to be distinctly stated.\n\n\tJudge. Mr. B What say you to that?\n\n\tMr. B. Council on the other side:\n\n\tMy Lord, If the evidence I am to maintain, were to suppose any\nnew claim; if I were to gain any thing which I am not already possessed\nof, the Gentleman would be in the right: but the evidence is old, and\nis matter of record; and I have been long in possession of all that I\nclaim under it.  If the Gentleman has anything to say to dispossess me,\nlet him produce it; otherwise I have no reason to bring my own title\ninto question.  And this I take to be the known method of proceeding\nin such cases: no man is obliged to produce his title to his\npossession; it is sufficient if he maintain it when it is called in\nquestion.\n\n\tMr A.  Surely, my Lord, the Gentleman mistakes the case.  I can\nnever admit myself to be out of possession of my understanding and\nreason; and since he would put me out of this possession, and compel me\nto admit things incredible, in virtue of the evidence he maintains, he\nought to set forth his claim, or leave the world to be directed by\ncommon sense.\n\n\tJudge.   Sir, you say right, upon supposition that the truth of\nthe Christian religion were the point in question.  In that case it\nwould be necessary to produce the evidence for the Christian religion.\nBut the matter now before the court is, Whether the objections produced\nby Mr. Woolston, are of weight to overthrow the evidence of Christ's\nresurrection? You see then the evidence of the resurrection is supposed\nto be what it is on both sides; and the thing immediately in judgement\nis, the value of the objections; and therefore they must be set forth.\nThe court will be bound to take notice of the evidence, which is\nadmitted as a fact on both parts.  Go on, Mr. A.\n\n\tMr. A.  My Lord, I submit to the direction of the court, I cannot\nbut observe, that the Gentleman on the other side, unwilling as he\nseems to be to state his evidence, did not forget to lay in his claim\nto prescription; which is perhaps, in truth, tho' he has too much skill\nto own it, the very strength of his cause.  I do allow, that the\nGentleman maintains nothing, but what his father and grandfather, and\nhis ancestors, beyond time of man's memory, maintained before him:  I\nallow too, that prescription in many cases makes a good title; but it\nmust always be with this condition, that the thing is capable of being\nprescribed for: and I insist, that prescription cannot run against\nreason and common sense. Customs may be pleaded by prescription; but\nif, upon showing the custom, anything unreasonable appears in it, the\nprescription fails; for length of time works nothing towards the\nestablishing anything that could never have a legal commencement.  And\nif this objection will overthrow all prescriptions for customs; the\nmischief of which extends perhaps to one poor village only, and affects\nthem in no greater a concern, than their right of common upon a ragged\nmountain:  shall it not much more prevail, when the interest of mankind\nis concerned, and in no less a point than his happiness in this life,\nand all his hopes for futurity?  Besides, if prescription must be\nallowed in this case, how will you deal with it in others?  What will\nyou say to the ancient Persians, and their fire-altars? nay, what to\nthe Turks, who have been long enough in possession of their faith to\nplead -----\n\n\tMr. B.   I beg pardon for interrupting the Gentleman, but it is\nto save him trouble.  He is going into his favorite common-place, and\nhas brought us from Persia to Turkey already; and if he goes on, I know\nwe must follow him around the globe. To save us from this long journey,\nI'll waive all advantage from the antiquity of the resurrection, and\nthe general reception the belief of it has found in the world; and am\ncontent to consider it as a fact which happened but last year, and was\nnever heard of either by the Gentleman's grandfather, or by mine.\n\n\tMr. A. I should not have taken quite so long a journey as the\nGentleman imagines; nor, indeed, need any man go far from home to find\ninstances to the purpose I was upon.  But, since this advantage is\nquitted, I am as willing to spare my pains, as the Gentleman is\ndesirous that I should.  And yet I suspect some art even in this\nconcession, fair and candid as it seems to be.  For I am persuaded,\nthat one reason, perhaps the main reason, why men believe this history\nof Jesus, is, that they cannot conceive, that any one should attempt,\nmuch less succeed in such an attempt as this, upon the foundation of\nmere human cunning and policy; and 'tis worth to go round the globe, as\nthe Gentleman expressed himself, so see various instances of the like\nkind, in order to remove this prejudice.  But I stand corrected, and\nwill go directly to the point now in judgement.\n\n\tMr. B.  My Lord, the Gentleman, in justification of his first\nargument, has entered upon another of a very different kind.  I think\nhe is sensible of it, and seeming to yield up one of his popular\ntopicks, is indeed artfully getting rid of another; which has made a\nvery good figure in many late writings, but will not bear in any place\nwhere he who maintains it may be asked questions.  The mere antiquity\nof the resurrection I gave up; for, if the evidence was not good at\nfirst, it can't be good now.  The Gentleman is willing, he says,  to\nspare us his history of  ancient errors; and intimates, that upon this\naccount he passes over many instances of fraud, that were in like\ncircumstances to the case before us.  I would not have the main\nstrength of his case betrayed in complaisance to me.  Nothing can be\nmore material than to show a fraud of this kind, that prevailed\nuniversally in the world.  Christ Jesus declared himself a Prophet, and\nput the proof of his mission on this, that he should die openly and\npublickly, and rise again the third day.  This surely was the hardest\nplot in the world to be managed; and if there be one instance of this\nkind, or in any degree like it, by all means let it be produced.\n\n\tMr. A.  My Lord, There has hardly been an instance of a false\nreligion in the world, but it has also afforded a like instance to this\nbefore us.  Have they not all pretended to inspiration?  Upon what foot\ndid Pythagoras, Numa, and others set up?  Did they not all converse\nwith the gods, and pretend to deliver oracles?\n\n\tMr. B.  This only shews, that revelation is by the common consent\nof mankind the very best foundation of religion; and therefore every\nimposter pretends to it.  But is a man's hiding himself in a cave for\nsome years, and then coming out into the world, to be compared to a\nman's dying, and rising to life again?  So far from it, that you and I\nand every man may do the one, but no man can do the other.\n\n\tMr. A.  Sir, I suppose it will be allowed to be as great a thing\nto go to heaven, and converse with angels, and with God, and to come\ndown to earth again, as it is to die, and  rise again?  Now, this very\nthing Mahomet pretended to do; and all his disciples believe it.  Can\nyou deny this fact?\n\n\tMr. B.  Deny it, Sir? No. But tell us who went with Mahomet?  Who\nwere his witnesses?  I expect, before we are done, to hear of the\nguards set over the sepulchre of Christ, and the seal of the stone.\nWhat guard watched Mahomet in his going or returning?  What seals and\ncredentials had he?  He himself pretends to none.  His followers\npretend to nothing but his own word.  We are now to consider the\nevidence for Christ's resurrection, and you think to parallel it, by\nproducing a case for which no one ever pretended there was any\nevidence.  You have Mahomet's word; and no man ever told a lie, but you\nhad his word for the truth of what he said: and therefore you need not\ngo round the globe to find such instances as these.  But this story, it\nis said, has gained great credit, and is received by many nations.\nVery well.   And how was it received?  Was not every man converted to\nthis faith with the sword at his throat?  In our case, every witness to\nthe resurrection, and every believer of it, was hourly exposed to\ndeath.  In the other case, whoever refused to believe, died;  or, what\nwas as bad, lived a wretched conquered slave.  And will you pretend\nthese cases to be alike?  One case indeed there was, within our own\nmemory, which, in some circumstances, came near to the case now before\nus.  The French prophets put the credit of their mission upon the\nresurrection of Dr. Emmes, and gave publick notice of it.  If the\nGentleman pleases to make use of this instance, it is at his service.\n\n\tMr. A.  The instance of Dr. Emmes is so far to the purpose, that\nit shews to what lengths enthusiasm will carry men.  And why might not\nthe same thing happen at Jerusalem, which happened but a few years ago\nin our own country?  Matthew and John, and the rest of them, managed\nthat affair with more dexterity than the French prophets; so that the\nresurrection of Jesus gained credit in the world, and the French\nprophets sunk under their ridiculous pretensions.  That is all the\ndifference.\n\n\tMr. B.  Is it so? And a very wide difference, I promise you.  In\none case everything happened that was proper to convince the world of\nthe resurrection;  in the other, the event manifested the cheat: and\nupon the view of these circumstances, you think it is sufficient to\nsay, with great coolness, That is all the difference.  Why, what\ndifference do you expect  between truth and falsehood?  What\ndistinction _____\n\n\tJudge.  Gentlemen, you forget you are in a court, and are falling\ninto dialogue.  Courts don't allow of chit-chat.  Look ye, the evidence\nof the resurrection of Jesus is before the court, recorded by Matthew,\nMark, and others.  You must take it as it is; you can neither make it\nbetter, or worse.  These witnesses are accused of giving false\nevidence.  Come to the point; and let us hear what you have to offer to\nprove the accusation.\n\n\tMr. B.  Is it your meaning, Sir, that the objections should be\nstated and argued all together, and that the answer should be to the\nwhole at once?  or would you have the objections argued singly,  and\nanswered separately by themselves?\n\n\tJudge.  I think this court may dispense with the strict forms of\nlegal proceeding; and therefore I leave this to the choice of the jury.\n\n\n\tAfter the jury had consulted together, the foreman rose up,\n\n\n\tThe Foreman of the Jury.  We desire to hear the objections argued\nand answered separately.  We shall be better able to form a judgement,\nby hearing the answer while the objection is fresh in our minds.\n\n\tJudge.  Gentlemen, you hear the opinion of the jury.  Go on.\n\n\tMr. A\tI am now to disclose to you a scene, of all others the most\nsurprising.  \"The resurrection has been long talked of, and, to the\namazement of everyone who can think freely, has been believed through\nall ages of the church.\"  This general and constant belief creates in\nmost minds a presumption that it was founded on good evidence.  In\nother cases the evidence supports the credit of the history; but here\nthe evidence itself is presumed only upon the credit which the story\nhas gained.  I wish the books dispersed against Jesus by the ancient\nJews had not been lost; for they would have given us a clear insight\ninto this contrivance: but it is happy for us, that the very account\ngiven by the pretended witnesses of this fact, is sufficient to destroy\nthe credit of it.\n\n\tThe resurrection was not a thing contrived for its own sake.  No!\nit was undertaken to support great views, and for the sake of great\nconsequences that were to attend it.  It will be necessary therefore to\nlay before you those views, that you may be the better judge of this\npart of the contrivance, when you have the whole scene before you.\n\n\tThe Jews were a weak superstitious people, and, as is common\namong such people, gave great credit to some traditionary prophecies\nabout their own country.  They had, besides, some old books among them,\nwhich they esteemed to be writings of certain Prophets, who had\nformerly lived among them, and whose memory they had in great\nveneration.  From such old books and traditions they formed many\nextravagant expectations; and among the rest one was, that some time or\nother a great victorious prince would rise among them, and subdue all\ntheir enemies, and make them lords of the world.  In Augustus's time\nthey were in a low state, reduced under the Roman yoke; and as they\nnever wanted a deliverer more, so the eagerness of this hope, as it\nhappens to weak minds, turned into a firm expectation that he would\nsoon come. This proved a temptation to some bold, and to some cunning\nmen, to personate the prince so much expected.  And \"nothing is more\nnatural and common to promote rebellions, than to ground them on new\nprophecies, or new interpretations of old ones; prophecies being suited\nto the vulgar superstition, and operating with the force of religion.\"\nAccordingly, many such imposters rose, pretending to be the victorious\nprince expected; and they, and the people who followed them, perished\nin the folly of their attempt.\n\n\tBut Jesus, knowing that victories and triumphs are not things to\nbe counterfeited; that the people were not to be delivered from the\nRoman yoke by sleight of hand; and having no hope of being able to cope\nwith the Emperor of Rome in good earnest, took another  and more\nsuccessful method to carry on his design.  He took upon him to be the\nprince foretold in the ancient Prophets; but then he insisted that the\ntrue sense of the prophecies had been mistaken;  that they related not\nto the kingdoms of this world, but to the kingdom of heaven; that the\nMessias was not to be a conquering prince, but a suffering one;  that\nhe was not to come with horses of war, and chariots of war, but was to\nbe meek and lowly, riding on an ass.  By this means, he got the common\nand necessary foundation for a new revelation, which is to be built and\nfounded on a precedent revelation.\n\n\tTo carry on this design, he made choice of twelve men of no\nfortunes or education, and of such understandings, as gave no jealousy\nthat they would discover the plot.  And, what is most wonderful, and\nshews their ability, while the master was preaching the kingdom of\nheaven, these poor men, not weaned from the prejudices of their\ncountry, expected every day that he would declare himself a king, and\nwere quarreling who should be his first minister.  This expectation had\na good effect on the service; for it kept them constant to their\nmaster.\n\n\tI must observe further, that the Jews were under strange\napprehensions of supernatural powers:  and as their own religion was\nfounded on the belief of certain miracles said to be wrought by their\nlawgiver Moses; so were they ever running after wonders and miracles,\nand ready to take up with any stories of this kind.  Now, as something\nextraordinary was necessary to support the pretensions of Jesus, he\ndextrously laid hold of this weakness of the people, and set up to be a\nwonder-worker.  His disciples were well qualified to receive this\nimpression:  they saw, or thought they saw many strange things, and\nwere able to spread the fame and report of them abroad.\n\n\tThis conduct had the desired success.  The whole country was\nalarmed, and full of the news of a great Prophet's being come among\nthem.  They were too full of their own imagination, to attend to the\nnotion of a kingdom of heaven.  Here was one mighty in deed and in\nword; and they concluded that he was the very prince their nation\nexpected.  Accordingly they once attempted to set him up for a King;\nand at another time attended him in triumph to Jerusalem. This natural\nconsequence opens the natural design of the attempt.  If things had\ngone on successfully to the end, it is probable that the kingdom of\nheaven would have been changed into a kingdom of this world.  The\ndesign indeed failed, by the impatience and over-hastiness of the\nmultitude; which alarmed not only the chief of the Jews, but the Roman\ngovernor also.\n\n\tThe case being come to this point, and Jesus seeing that he could\nnot escape being put to death, he declared, that the ancient Prophets\nhad foretold, that the Messias should die upon a cross, and that he\nshould rise again on the third day.  Here was the foundation for the\ncontinuing this plot, which otherwise had died with its author.  This\nwas his legacy to his followers; which, having been well managed by\nthem and their successors, has at last produced a kingdom indeed; a\nkingdom of priests, who have governed the world for many ages, and have\nbeen strong enough to set Kings and Emperors at defiance. But so it\nhappens, the ancient Prophets appealed to are still extant; and there\nbeing no such prophecies of the death and resurrection of the Messias,\nthey are a standing evidence against this story.  As he expected, so it\nhappened, that he died on a cross; and the prosecuting of this\ncontrivance was left to the management of his disciples and followers.\nTheir part is next to be considered-----.\n\n\tMr. B.\tMy Lord, Since it is your opinion that the objections\nshould be considered singly, and the Gentleman has carried his scheme\ndown to the death of Christ, I think he is come to a proper rest; and\nthat it is agreeable to your intention that I should be admitted to\nanswer.\n\n\tJudge.\tYou say right, Sir.  Let us hear what you answer to\nthis charge.\n\n\tMr. B.\tMy Lord, I was unwilling to disturb the Gentleman by\nbreaking in upon his scheme; otherwise I would have reminded him that\nthis court sits to examine evidence, and not to be entertained with\nfine imaginations. You have had a scheme laid before you, but not one\nbit of evidence to support any part of it; no, not so much as a\npretence to any evidence.  The Gentleman was, I remember, very sorry\nthat the old books of the Jews were lost, which would, as he supposes,\nhave set forth all this matter; and I agree with him, that he has much\nreason to be sorry, considering his great scarcity of proof.  And since\nI have mentioned this, that I may not be to return to it again, I would\nask the Gentleman now, how he knows there ever were such books? And\nsince, if ever there were any, they are lost, how he knows what they\ncontained?  I doubt I shall have frequent occasion to ask such\nquestions.  It would indeed be a sufficient answer to the whole, to\nrepeat the several suppositions that have been made, and to call for\nthe evidence upon which they stand.  This would plainly discover every\npart of the story to be  mere fiction.  But since the Gentleman  seems\nto have endeavored to bring under one view the many insinuations which\nhave of late been spread abroad by different hands, and to work the\nwhole into a consistent scheme; I will, if  your patience shall permit,\nexamine this plot, and see to whom the honour of  the contrivance\nbelongs.\n\n\tThe Gentleman begins with expressing his \"amazement, that the\nresurrection has been believed in all ages of the church.\"  If you ask\nhim, Why? he must answer , Because the account of it is a forgery; for\nit is no amazement to him, surely, that a true account should be\ngenerally well received.  So that this remark proceeds indeed from\nconfidence rather than amazement; and comes only to this, that he is\nsure that there was no resurrection.  And I am sure that this is no\nevidence that there was none.  Whether he is mistaken in his\nconfidence,  or I in mine, the court must judge.\n\n\tThe Gentleman's observation, That the general belief of the\nresurrection creates a presumption that it stands upon good evidence,\nand therefore people look no farther, but follow their fathers, as\ntheir fathers did their grandfathers before them, is in great measure\ntrue; but it is a truth nothing to his purpose.  He allows, that the\nresurrection has been believed in all ages of the church; that is, from\nthe very time of the resurrection: what then prevailed with those who\nfirst received it? They certainly did not follow the example of their\nfathers.  Here then is the point, How did this fact gain credit in the\nworld at first?  Credit it has gained without doubt.  If the multitude\nat present go into this belief through prejudice, example, and for\ncompany sake, they do in this case no more, nor otherwise, than they do\nin all cases.  And it cannot be denied, but that truth may be received\nthrough prejudice, (as it is called), i.e. without examining the proof,\nor merits of the cause, as well as falsehood.  What general truth is\nthere, the merits of which all the world, or the one hundredth part has\nexamined?  It is smartly said somewhere, That the priest only continues\nwhat the nurse began.  But the life of the remark consists in the\nquaintness of the antithesis between the nurse and the priest; and owes\nits support much more to sound than to sense.  For is it possible that\nchildren  should not hear something of the common and popular opinions\nof their country, whether these opinions be true or false?  Do they not\nlearn the common maxims of reason this way?  Perhaps every man first\nlearned from his nurse that two and two make four; and whenever she\ndivides an apple among her children, she instills into them this\nprejudice, That the whole is equal to its parts,  and all the parts\nequal to the whole: and yet Sir Isaac Newton, (shame on him!) what work\nhas he made, what a building he has erected upon the foundation of this\nnursery-learning?  As to religion, there never was a religion, there\nnever will be one, whether true or false, publickly owned in any\ncountry,  but children have heard, and ever will hear,  more or less of\nit from those who are placed about them.  And if this is, and ever must\nbe the case, whether the religion be true or false; 'tis highly absurd\nto lay stress on this observation, when the question is about the truth\nof any religion; for the observation is indifferent to both sides of\nthe question.\n\n\tWe are now, I think, got through the common-place learning, which\nmust forever, it seems,  attend upon questions of this nature; and are\ncoming to the very merits of the cause.\n\n\tAnd here the Gentleman on the other side thought proper to begin\nwith an account of the people of the Jews, the people in whose country\nthe fact is laid, and who were originally, and in some respects\nprincipally concerned in its consequences.\n\n\tThey were, he says, a weak superstitious people, and lived under\ncertain pretended prophecies and predictions; that upon this ground\nthey had, some time before the appearance of Christ Jesus, conceived\ngreat expectation of  the coming of a victorious prince, who should\ndeliver them from the Roman yoke, and make them all kings and princes.\nHe goes on then to observe,  how liable the people were, in this state\nof things,  to be imposed on, and led into rebellion, by any one who\nwas bold enough to take upon him to personate the prince expected.  He\nobserves further, that in fact many such imposters did arise, and\ndeceived multitudes to their ruin and destruction.\n\n\tI have laid these things together, because I do not intend to\ndispute these matters with the Gentleman.  Whether the Jews were a weak\nand superstitious people, and influenced by false prophecies, or\nwhether they had true prophecies among them, is not material to the\npresent question:  it is enough for the Gentleman's argument if I allow\nthe fact to be as he has stated it, that they did expect a victorious\nprince; that they were upon this account exposed to be practised on by\npretenders; and in fact were often so deluded.\n\n\tThis foundation being laid, it was natural to expect, and I\nbelieve your Lordship and every one present did expect, that the\nGentleman would go on to shew, that Jesus laid hold of this\nopportunity,  struck in with the opinion of the people,  and professed\nhimself to be the prince who was to work their deliverance.  But so\nfar, it seems, is this from being the case, that the charge upon Jesus\nis, that he took the contrary part, and set up in opposition to all the\npopular notions and prejudices of his country; that he interpreted the\nprophecies to another sense and meaning than his countrymen did; and by\nhis expositions took away all hopes of their ever seeing the victorious\ndeliverer so much wanted and expected.\n\n\tI know not how to bring the Gentleman's premisses and his\nconclusion to any agreement; they seem to be at a great variance at\npresent.  If it be the likeliest method for an imposter to succeed, to\nbuild on the popular opinions, prejudices and prophecies of the people;\nthen surely an imposter cannot possibly take a worse method, than to\nset up in opposition to all the prejudices and prophecies of the\ncountry.  Where was the art and cunning then of taking this method?\nCould anything be expected from it but hatred, contempt, and\npersecution? And did Christ in fact meet with any other treatment from\nthe Jews?  And yet when he found, as the Gentleman allows he did, that\nhe must perish in this attempt, did he change his note?  did he come\nabout, and drop any intimations agreeable to the notions of the people?\nIt is not pretended.  This, which, in any other case which ever\nhappened, would be taken to be a plain mark of great honesty, or great\nstupidity, or of both, is in the present case art, policy, and\ncontrivance.\n\n\tBut, it seems, Jesus dared not set up to be the victorious prince\nexpected, for victories are not to be counterfeited.  I hope it was no\ncrime in him that he did not assume this false character, and try to\nabuse the credibility of the people; if he had done so, it certainly\nwould have been a crime; and therefore in this point at least he is\ninnocent.  I do not suppose the Gentleman imagines the Jews were well\nfounded in their expectation of a temporal prince: and therefore when\nChrist opposed this conceit at the manifest hazard of his life, as he\ncertainly had truth on his side, so the presumption is, that it was for\nthe sake of truth that he exposed himself.\n\n\tNo.  He wanted, we are told, the common and necessary foundation\nfor a new revelation, the authority of an old one to build on.  Very\nwell.  I will not inquire how common, or how necessary this foundation\nis to a new revelation; for, be that case as it will, it is evident,\nthat in the method Christ took, he had not, nor could have the supposed\nadvantage of such foundation.  For why is this foundation necessary?  A\nfriend of the Gentleman's shall tell you \"Because it must be difficult,\nif not impossible, to introduce among men (who in all civilized\ncountries are bred up in the belief of some revealed religion) a\nrevealed religion wholly new, or such as has no reference to a\npreceding one; for that would be to combat all men on too many\nrespects, and not to proceed on a sufficient number of principles\nnecessary to be assented to by those on whom the first impressions of a\nnew religion are proposed to be made.\"  You see now the reason of the\nnecessity of this foundation: it is, that the new teacher may have the\nadvantage of old popular opinions, and fix himself upon the prejudices\nof the people.  Had Christ any such advantages? or did he seek any\nsuch?  The people expected a victorious prince; he told them they were\nmistaken:  they held as sacred the traditions of the elders;  he told\nthem those traditions made the law of God of none effect:  they valued\nthemselves for being the peculiar people of God; he told them, that\npeople from all quarters of the world should be the people of God, and\nsit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom: they thought\nGod could be worshipped only at Jerusalem;  he told them God might and\nshould be worshipped everywhere:  they were superstitious in the\nobservance of the sabbath; he, according to their reckoning, broke it\nfrequently:  in a word, their washings of hands and pots, their\nsuperstitious distinctions of meats, their prayers in publick, their\nvillanies in secret, were all reproved, exposed, and condemned by him;\nand the cry ran strongly against him, that he came to destroy the Law\nand the Prophets.  And now, Sir, what advantage did Christ have of your\ncommon and necessary foundation?  What sufficient number of principles\nowned by the people did he build on?  If he adhered to the old\nrevelation in the true sense, or (which is sufficient to the present\nargument) in a sense not received by the people, it was in truth the\ngreatest difficulty he had to struggle with: and therefore what could\ntempt him, but purely a regard for truth, to take upon himself so many\ndifficulties, which might have been avoided, could he have been but\nsilent as to the old revelation, and left the people to their\nimaginations?\n\n\tTo carry on this plot, we are told, that the next thing which\nJesus did, was, to make choice of proper persons to be his disciples.\nThe Gentleman has given us their character; but, as I suppose he has\nmore employment for them before he has done, I desire to defer the\nconsideration of their abilities and conduct till I hear what work he\nhas for them to do.  I would only observe, that thus far this plot\ndiffers from all that ever I heard of.  Imposters generally take\nadvantage of the prejudices of the people, generally too they make\nchoice of cunning dextrous fellows to manage under them; but in this\ncase Jesus opposed all the notions of the people, and made choice of\nsimpletons, it seems, to conduct his contrivances.\n\n\tBut what design, what real end was carrying on all this while?\nWhy, the Gentleman tells us, that the very thing disclaimed, the\ntemporal kingdom, was the real thing aimed at under this disguise. He\ntold the people there was no foundation to expect a temporal deliverer,\nwarned them against all who would set up those pretensions;  he\ndeclared there was no ground from the ancient prophecies to expect such\na prince: and yet by these very means he was working his way to an\nopportunity of declaring himself to be the very prince the people\nwanted.  We are still upon the marvelous; every step opens new wonders.\nI blame not the Gentleman; for what but this can be imagined to give\nany account of these measures imputed to Christ?  Be this never so\nunlikely, yet this is the only thing that can be said.  Had Christ been\ncharged with enthusiasm, it would not have been necessary to assign a\nreason for his conduct:  madness is unaccountable:  Ratione modoque\ntractari non vult.  But when design, cunning, and fraud are made the\ncharge, and carried to such an height, as to suppose him to be a party\nto the contrivance of a sham resurrection for himself, it is necessary\nto say to what end this cunning tended.  It was, we are told, to a\nkingdom: and indeed the temptation was little enough, considering that\nthe chief conductor of the plot was crucified for his pains.  But were\nthe means made use of  at all probable to achieve the end?  Yes, says\nthe Gentleman, that can't be disputed; for they had really this effect,\nthe people would have made him King.  Very well: Why was he not King\nthen?  Why, it happened unluckily that he would not accept the offer,\nbut withdrew himself from the multitude, and lay concealed until they\nwere dispersed.  It will be said, perhaps, that Jesus was a better\njudge of affairs than the people, and saw that it was not yet time to\naccept the offer.  Be it so; let us see then what follows.\n\n\tThe government was alarmed, and Jesus was looked on as a person\ndangerous  to the state; and he had discernment enough to see that his\ndeath was determined and inevitable.  What does he do then?  Why, to\nmake the best of a bad case, and to save the benefit of his undertaking\nto those who were to succeed him, he pretends to prophecy of his death,\nwhich he knew could not be avoided: Men do not use to play tricks in\narticulo mortis; but this plot had nothing common, nothing in the\nordinary way. But what if it should appear, that after the foretelling\nof his death (through despair of his fortunes it is said) he had it in\nhis power to set up for King once more, and once more refused the\nopportunity?  Men in despair lay hold on the least help, and never\nrefuse the greatest.  Now, the case was really so.  After he had\nforetold his crucifixion, he came to Jerusalem in the triumphant manner\nthe Gentleman mentioned; the people strewed his way with boughs and\nflowers, and were all at his devotion; the Jewish governors lay still\nfor fear of the people.  Why was not this opportunity laid hold on to\nseize the kingdom, or at least to secure himself from the ignominious\ndeath he expected?  For whose sake was he contented to die?  for whose\nsake did he contrive this plot of his resurrection?  Wife and children\nhe had none; his nearest relations gave little credit to him; his\ndisciples were not fit even to be trusted with the secret, nor capable\nto manage any advantage that could arise from it.  However, the\nGentleman tells us, a kingdom has arisen out of this plot, a kingdom of\npriests.  But when did it arise?  Some hundred years after the death of\nChrist, in opposition to his will, and almost to the subversion of his\nreligion.  And yet we are told this kingdom was the thing he had in\nview.  I am apt to think the Gentleman is persuaded, that the dominion\nhe complains of is contrary to the spirit of the gospel; I am sure some\nof his friends have taken great pains to prove it is so.  How then can\nit be charged as the intention of the gospel to introduce it?  Whatever\nthe case was, it cannot surely be suspected that Christ died to make\nPopes and Cardinals.  The alterations which have happened in the\ndoctrines and practices of churches, since the Christian religion was\nsettled by those who had an authentick commission to settle it, are\nquite out of the question, when the inquiry is about the truth of the\nChristian religion.  Christ and his Apostles did not vouch for the\ntruth of all that should be taught in the church in future times; nay,\nthey foretold and fore warned the world against such corrupt teachers.\nIt is therefore absurd to challenge the religion of Christ, because of\nthe corruptions which have spread among Christians.  The gospel has no\nmore concern with them, and ought no more to be charged with them, than\nwith the doctrines of the Alcoran.\n\n\tThere is but one observation more, I think, which the Gentleman\nmade under this head.  Jesus, he says, referred to the authority of\nancient  prophecies to prove that the Messias was to die and rise\nagain;  the ancient books referred to are extant, and no such\nprophecies, he says, are to be found.  Now, whether the Gentleman can\nfind these prophecies or no, is not material to the present question.\nIt is allowed that Christ foretold his own death and resurrection;  if\nthe resurrection was managed by fraud, Christ was certainly in the\nfraud himself, by foretelling the fraud which was to happen: disprove\ntherefore the resurrection, and we shall have no further occasion for\nprophecy.  On the other side, by foretelling the resurrection, he\ncertainly put the proof of his mission on the truth of the event.\nWhether it be the character of the Messias, in the ancient Prophets, or\nno, that he should die, and rise again; without doubt Jesus is not the\nMessias, if  he did not rise again: for, by his own prophecy, he made\nit part of the character of the Messias.  If the event justified the\nprediction, it is such an evidence as no man of sense and reason can\nreject.  One would naturally think, that the foretelling his\nresurrection, and giving such publick notice to expect it, that his\nkeenest enemies were fully apprised of it, carried with it the greatest\nmark of sincere dealing.  It stands thus far clear of the suspicion of\nfraud.  And had it proceeded from enthusiasm, and an heated\nimagination, the dead body at least would have rested in the grave, and\nwithout further evidence have confuted such pretensions: and since the\ndead body was not only carried openly to the grave, but there watched\nand guarded, and yet could never afterwards be found, never heard of\nmore as a dead body, there must of necessity have been either a real\nmiracle, or a great fraud in this case.  Enthusiasm dies with the man,\nand has no operation on his dead body.  There is therefore here no\nmedium: you must either admit the miracle, or prove the fraud.\n\n\tJudge.\tMr. A.  You are at liberty either to reply to what\nhas been said under this head, or to go on with your cause\n\n\tMr. A.\tMy Lord, the observations I laid before you, were but\nintroductory to the main evidences on which the merits of the cause\nmust rest.  The Gentleman concluded, that here must be a real miracle\nor a great fraud; a fraud, he means, to which Jesus in his lifetime was\na party.  There is, he says, no medium.  I beg his pardon.  Why might\nit not be an enthusiasm in the master which occasioned the prediction,\nand fraud in the servants who put it in execution?\n\n\tMr. B.\tMy Lord, This is new matter, and not a reply.  The\nGentleman opened this transaction as a fraud from one end to the other.\nNow he supposes Christ to have been an honest, poor enthusiast, and the\ndisciples only to be cheats.\n\n\tJudge.\tSir, if you go to new matter, the council on the\nother side must be admitted to answer.\n\n\tMr. A.\tMy Lord, I have no such intention.  I was observing,\nthat the account I gave of Jesus was only to introduce the evidence\nthat is to be laid before the court. It cannot be expected, that I\nshould know all the secret designs of this contrivance, especially\nconsidering that we have but short accounts of this affair, and those\ntoo conveyed through hands of friends and parties to the plot.  In such\na case it is enough if we can imagine what the views probably were; and\nin such case too it must be very easy for a Gentleman of parts to raise\ncontrary imaginations, and to argue plausibly from them.  But the\nGentleman has rightly observed, that if the resurrection be a fraud,\nthere is an end to all pretensions, good or bad, that were to be\nsupported by it: therefore I shall go on to prove this fraud, which is\none main part of the cause now to be determined.\n\n\tI beg leave to remind you,  that Jesus in his lifetime foretold\nhis death, and that he should rise again the third day.  The first part\nof his prediction was accomplished:  he died on the cross and was\nburied.  I will not trouble you with the particulars of his\ncrucifixion, death, and burial;  it is a well known story.\n\n\tMr. B.\tMy Lord, I desire to know, whether the Gentleman\ncharges any fraud upon this part of the history.  Perhaps he may be of\nthe opinion by and by, that there was a sleight of hand in the\ncrucifixion, and that Christ only counterfeited death.\n\n\tMr. A.\tNo, no; have no such fears; he was not crucified by\nhis disciples; but by the Romans and the Jews; and they were in very\ngood earnest.  I will prove beyond contradiction, that the dead body\nwas fairly laid in the tomb; and it will be well for you if you can get\nit as fairly out again.\n\n\tJudge.\tGo on with your evidence.\n\n\tMr. A.\tMy Lord, the crucifixion being over, the dead body\nwas conveyed to a sepulchre; and in the general opinion there seemed to\nbe an end of the whole design.  But the governors of the Jews, watchful\nfor the safety of the people,  called to mind that Jesus in his\nlifetime had said, that he would rise again on the third day.  It may\nat first sight seem strange that they should give any attention to such\na prophecy; a prophecy big with confidence and presumption, and which\nto the common sense of mankind carried its confutation along with it:\nand \"there is no other nation in the world which would not have\nslighted such a vain prognostication of a known imposter.\"  But they\nhad warning to be watchful.  It was not long before, that the people\n\"had like to have been fatally deluded and imposed on by him in the\npretended resuscitation of Lazarus.\"  They had fully discovered the\ncheat in the case of Lazarus, and had narrowly escaped the dangerous\nconsequences of it.  And though Jesus was dead, yet he had many\ndisciples and followers alive, who were ready enough to combine in any\nfraud, to verify the prediction of their master.  Should they succeed,\nthe rulers foresaw, the consequences in this case would be more fatal\nthan those which before they had narrowly escaped.  Upon this account\nthey addressed themselves to the Roman governor, told him how the case\nwas, and desired that he would grant them a guard to watch the\nsepulchre;  that the service would not be long, for the prediction\nlimited the resurrection to the third day; and when that was over, the\nsoldiers might be released from the duty.  Pilate granted the request;\nand a guard was set to watch the sepulchre.\n\n\tThis was not all.  The chief priests took another method to\nprevent all frauds, and it was the best that could possibly be taken;\nwhich was, to seal up the door of the sepulchre.  To understand to what\npurpose this caution was used, you need only consider what is intended\nby sealing up doors, and boxes, or writings.  Is it not for the\nsatisfaction of all parties concerned, that they may be sure things are\nin the state they left them, when they come and find their seals not\ninjured?  This was the method used by Darius, when Daniel was cast into\nthe lions den;  he sealed the door of the den.  And for what purpose?\nWas it not to satisfy himself and his court, that no art had been used\nto preserve Daniel? And when he came and saw Daniel safe, and his seal\nuntouched, he was satisfied.  And indeed if we consider the thing\nrightly, a seal thus used imports a covenant.  If you deliver writings\nto a person sealed, and he accepts them so, your delivery and his\nacceptance implies a covenant between you, that the writings shall be\ndelivered and the seal whole; and should the seal be broken, it would\nbe a manifest fraud, and breach of trust. Nay, so strongly is this\ncovenant implied, that there needs no special agreement in the case; it\nis a compact which men are put under by the law of nations, and the\ncommon consent of mankind.  When you send a letter sealed to the post-\nhouse, you have not indeed a special agreement with all persons through\nwhose hands it passes, that it shall not be opened by any hand , but\nhis only to whom it is directed;  yet men know themselves to be under\nthis restraint, and that it is unlawful and dishonorable to transgress\nit.\n\n\tSince then the sepulchre was sealed; since the seal imported a\ncovenant, consider who were the parties to this covenant.  They could\nbe no other than the chief priests on one side, and the apostles on the\nother.  To prove this, no special agreement need be shewn.  On one\nside, there was a concern to see the prophecy fulfilled; on the other,\nto prevent fraud in fulfilling it.  The sum of their agreement was\nnaturally this, that the seals should be opened at the time appointed\nfor the resurrection, that all parties might see and be satisfied,\nwhether the dead body was come to life or no.\n\n\tWhat now would any reasonable man expect from these\ncircumstances?  Don't you expect to hear, that the chief priests and\nthe apostles met at the time appointed, opened the seals, and that the\nmatter in dispute was settled beyond all controversy one way or other?\nBut see how it happened, The seals were broken, the body stolen away in\nthe night by the disciples; none of the chief priests present, or\nsummoned to see the seals opened.  The guards, when examined, were\nforced to confess the truth, though joined with an acknowledgement of\ntheir guilt; which made them liable to be punished by Pilate:  they\nconfessed that they were asleep, and in the mean time that the body was\nstolen away by the disciples.\n\n\tThis evidence of the Roman soldiers, and the far stronger\nevidence arising from the clandestine method of breaking up the seals,\nare sufficient proofs of fraud.\n\n\tBut there is another circumstance in the case, of equal weight.\nThough the seals did not prevent the cheat entirely, yet they\neffectually falsified the prediction.  According to the prediction,\nJesus was to rise on the third day, or after the third day.  At this\ntime the chief priests intended to be present, and probably would have\nbeen attended by a great multitude.  This made it impossible to play\nany tricks at that  time; and therefore the apostles were forced the\nhasten the plot: and accordingly the resurrection happened a day before\nits time; for the body was buried on the Friday, and was gone early in\nthe morning on Sunday.\n\n\tThese are plain facts; facts drawn from the accounts given to us\nby those who are friends to the belief of the resurrection.  The\nGentleman won't call these imaginations, or complain that I have given\nhim schemes instead of evidence.\n\n\tMr. B.\tMy Lord, I am now to consider that part of the\nargument upon which the Gentleman lays the greatest stress.  He has\ngiven us his evidence; mere evidence, he says, unmixed, and clear of\nall schemes and imaginations.  In one thing indeed he has been as good\nas his word; he has proved beyond contradiction, that Christ died, and\nwas laid in the sepulchre: for, without doubt, when the Jews sealed the\nstone, they took care to see that the body was there; otherwise their\nprecaution was useless.  He has proved too, that the prediction of\nChrist concerning his own resurrection, was a thing publickly known in\nall Jerusalem; for he owns, that this gave occasion for all the care\nthat was taken to prevent fraud.  If this open prediction implies a\nfraudulent design, the evidence is strong with the Gentleman: but if it\nshall appear to be, what it really was, the greatest mark that could be\ngiven of sincerity and plain dealing in the whole affair, the evidence\nwill still be as strong, but the weight of it will fall on the wrong\nside for the Gentleman's purpose.\n\n\tIn the next place, the Gentleman seems to be at a great loss to\naccount for the credit which the chief priests gave to the prediction\nof the resurrection, by the care they took to prevent it.  He thinks\nthe thing in itself was too extravagant and absurd to deserve any\nregard; and that no one would have regarded such a prediction in any\nother time or place.  I agree with the Gentleman entirely: but then I\ndemand of him a reason why the chief priests were under any concern\nabout this prediction.  Was it because they had plainly discovered him\nto be a cheat and an imposter?  It is impossible.  This reason would\nhave convinced them of the folly and presumption of the prediction.  It\nmust therefore necessarily be, that they had discovered something in\nthe life and actions of Christ which raised this jealousy, and made\nthem listen to a prophecy in his case, which in any other case they\nwould have despised.  And what could this be, but the secret conviction\nthey were under, by his many miracles, of his extraordinary powers?\nThis care therefore of the chief priests over his dead, helpless body,\nis a lasting testimony of the mighty works which Jesus did in his\nlifetime; for had the Jews been persuaded that he performed no wonders\nin his life, I think they would not have been afraid of seeing any done\nby him after his death.\n\n\tBut the Gentleman is of another mind.  He says, they had\ndiscovered a plain cheat in the case of Lazarus, whom Christ  had\npretended to raise from the dead; and therefore they took all this care\nto guard against a like cheat.\n\n\tI begin now to want evidence;  I am forbid to call this\nimagination, what else to call it I know not.  There is not the least\nintimation given from history, that there was any cheat in the case of\nLazarus, or that any one suspected a cheat.  Lazarus lived in the\ncountry after  he was raised from the dead; and though his life was\nsecretly and basely sought after, yet no body had the courage to call\nto a trial for his part in the cheat.  It may be said, perhaps, the\nrulers were terrified.  Very well:  but they were not terrified when\nthey had Christ in their possession, when they brought him to a trial;\nwhy did they not  then object this cheat to Christ?  It would have been\nmuch to their purpose.  Instead of that, they accuse him of a design to\npull down their temple, to destroy their law, and of blasphemy; but not\none word of any fraud in the case of Lazarus, or any other case.\n\n\tBut not to enter into the merits of this cause, which has in it\ntoo many circumstances for your present consideration;  let us take the\ncase to be as the Gentleman states it, that the cheat in the case of\nLazarus was detected; what consequence is to be expected?  In all other\ncases, impostors, once discovered, grow odious and contemptible, and\nquite incapable of doing further mischief; so little are they regarded,\nthat even when they tell the truth, they are neglected.  Was it so in\nthis case?  No, says the Gentleman; the Jews were the more careful that\nChrist should not cheat them in his own resurrection.  Surely this is a\nmost singular case.  When the people thought him a Prophet, the chief\npriests sought to kill him, and thought his death would put an end to\nhis pretensions:  when they and the people had discovered him to be a\ncheat, then they thought him not safe, even when he was dead, but were\nafraid he should prove a true Prophet, and, according to his own\nprediction, rise again.  A needless, a preposterous fear!\n\n\tIn the next place, the Gentleman tells us how proper the care was\nthat the chief priests took.  I agree perfectly with him.  Human policy\ncould not invent a more proper method to guard against and prevent all\nfraud.  They delivered the sepulchre, with the dead body in it, to a\ncompany of Roman soldiers, who had orders from their officer to watch\nthe sepulchre.  Their care went further still;  they sealed the door of\nthe sepulchre.\n\n\tUpon this occasion, the Gentleman has explained the use of seals\nwhen applied to such purposes.  They imply, he says, a covenant, that\nthe things sealed up shall remain in the condition they are till the\nparties to the sealing agree to open them.  I see no reason to enter\ninto the learning about seals:  let it be as the Gentleman has opened\nit; what then?\n\n\tWhy then, it seems, the apostles and chief priests were in a\ncovenant that there should be no resurrection, at least no opening of\nthe door, till they met together at an appointed time to view and\nunseal the door.\n\n\tYour Lordship and the court will now consider the probability of\nthis supposition.  When Christ was seized and carried to his trial, his\ndisciples fled, out of a just apprehension that they should, if\napprehended, be sacrificed with their master.  Peter indeed followed\nhim; but his courage soon failed, and it is well known in what manner\nhe denied him.  After the death of Christ, his disciples were so far\nfrom being ready to engage for his resurrection, or to enter into terms\nand agreements for the manner in which it should be done, that they\nthemselves did not believe it ever would be;  they gave over all hopes\nand thoughts of it;  and far from entering into engagements with the\nchief priests, their whole concern was, to keep themselves concealed\nfrom them.  This is a well known case, and I will not trouble you with\nparticular authorities to prove this truth.  Can any man now in his\nright senses think, that the disciples under these circumstances\nentered into this covenant with the Jews?  I believe the Gentleman\ndon't think it, and for that reason says, that seals so used import a\ncovenant without a special agreement.  Be it so; and it must then be\nallowed, that the apostles were no more concerned in these seals, than\nevery other man in the country, and no more answerable for them; for\nthe covenant reached to every body as well as to them, since they were\nunder no special contract.\n\n\tBut I beg pardon for spending your time unnecessarily, when the\nsimple plain account of this matter will best answer all these\njealousies and suspicions.  The Jews, it is plain, were exceedingly\nsolicitous about this event;  for this reason they obtained a guard\nfrom Pilate; and when they had, they were still suspicious lest their\nguards should deceive them, and enter into combination against them.\nTo secure this point, they sealed the door, and required of the guards\nto deliver up the sepulchre to them sealed as it was.  This is the\nnatural and true account of the matter.  Do but consider it in a\nparallel case.  Suppose a prince should set a guard at the door of his\ntreasury, and the officer who placed the guard should seal the door,\nand say to the soldiers, You shall be answerable for the seal if I find\nit broken: would not all the world understand the seal to be fixed to\nguard against the soldiers, who might, though employed to keep off\nothers, be ready enough to pilfer themselves?  This is in all such\ncases but a necessary care;  you may place guards, and when you do all\nis in their power: Et quis custodes custodiat ipsos?\n\n\tBut it seems, that, notwithstanding all this care,  the seals\nwere broken, and the body gone.  If you complain of this, Sir, demand\nsatisfaction of your guards; they only are responsible for it:  the\ndisciples had no more to do in it than you or I.\n\n\tThe guards, the Gentleman says, have confessed the truth, and\nowned that they were asleep, and that the disciples in the mean time\nstole away the body.  I wish the guards were in court, I would ask\nthem, how they came to be so punctual in relating what happened when\nthey were asleep?  what induced them to believe that the body was\nstolen at all? what, that it was stolen by the disciples; since by\ntheir own confession they were asleep and say nothing, saw no body?\nBut since they are not to be had, I would desire to ask the Gentleman\nthe same questions; and whether he has any authorities in point, to\nshew, that ever any man was admitted as an evidence in any court, to\nprove a fact which happened when he was asleep?  I see the Gentleman is\nuneasy; I'll press the matter no further.\n\n\tAs this story has no evidence to support it, so neither has it\nany probability.  The Gentleman has given you the character of the\ndisciples; that they were weak, ignorant men, full of the popular\nprejudices and superstitions of their country,which stuck close to them\nnotwithstanding their long acquaintance with their master.  The\napostles are not much wronged in this account; and is it likely that\nsuch men should engage in so desperate design, as to steal away the\nbody, in  opposition to the combined power of the Jews and Romans?\nWhat could tempt them to it?  What good could the dead body do them?\nOr if it could have done them any, what hope had they to succeed in\ntheir attempt?  A dead body is not to be removed by sleight of hand;\nit requires many hands to move it: besides, the great stone at the\nmouth of the sepulchre was to be removed; which could not be done\nsilently, or by men walking on tip-toes to prevent discovery: so that\nif the guards had really been asleep, yet there was no encouragement to\ngo on this enterprise; for it is hardly possible to suppose, but that\nrolling away the stone, moving the body, the hurry and confusion of\ncarrying it off, must awaken them.\n\n\tBut supposing the thing was practicable, yet the attempt was such\nas the disciples consistently with their own notions could not\nundertake.  The Gentleman says, they continued all their master's\nlifetime to expect to see him a temporal prince; and a friend of the\nGentleman's has observed, what is equally true, that they had the same\nexpectation after his death.  Consider now their case.  Their master\nwas dead;  and they are to contrive to steal away his body.  For what?\nDid they expect to make a King of the dead body, if they could get it\ninto their power? Or did they think, if they had it, they could raise\nit to life again?  If they trusted so far to their master's prediction,\nas to expect his resurrection, (which I think is evident they did not),\ncould they yet think the resurrection depended on their having the dead\nbody?  It is in all views absurd.  But the Gentleman supposes, that\nthey meant to carry on the design for themselves, in the master's, if\nthey could but have persuaded the people to believe him risen from the\ndead.  But he does not consider, that by this supposition he strips the\ndisciples of every part of their character at once, and presents to us\na new set of men, in every respect different from the former.  The\nformer disciples were weak, plain men; but these are bold, hardy,\ncunning, and contriving: the former were full of the superstitions of\ntheir country, and expected a prince from the authority of their\nProphets; but these were despisers of the Prophets, and of the notions\nof their countrymen, and are designing to turn these fables to their\nown advantage; for it cannot be supposed that they believed the\nProphets, and at the same time thought to accomplish or defeat them by\nso manifest a cheat, to which they themselves at least were conscious.\n\n\tBut let us take leave of these suppositions, and see how the true\nevidence is this case stands.  Guards were placed, and they did their\nduty.  But what are guards and sentinels against the power of God? An\nangel of the Lord opened the sepulchre; the guards saw him, and became\nlike dead men.  This account they gave to the chief priests, who, still\npersisting in their obstinacy, bribed the guards to tell the\ncontradictory story, of their being asleep, and the body stolen.\n\n\tI cannot but observe to your Lordship, that all these\ncircumstances, so much questioned and suspected, were necessary\ncircumstances, supposing the resurrection to be true.  The seal was\nbroken, the body came out of the sepulchre, the guards were placed in\nvain to prevent it.  Be it so:  I desire to know, whether the Gentleman\nthinks that the seal put God under covenant? or could prescribe to him\na method for performing this great work? or whether he thinks the\nguards were placed to maintain the seal in opposition to the power of\nGod?  If he will maintain neither of these points, then the opening of\nthe seals, notwithstanding the guard set upon them, will be an\nevidence, not of the fraud, but of the power of the resurrection; and\nthe guards will have nothing to answer for, but only this, that they\nwere not stronger than God.  The seal was a proper check upon the\nguards: the Jews had no other meaning in it; they could not be so\nstupid as to imagine, that they could by this contrivance disappoint\nthe designs of providence.  And it is surprising to hear these\ncircumstances made use of to prove the resurrection to be a fraud,\nwhich yet could not but happen, supposing the resurrection to be true.\n\n\tBut there is another circumstance still, which the Gentleman\nreckons very material, and upon which I find great stress is laid.  The\nresurrection happened, we are told, a day sooner than the prediction\nimported.  The reason assigned for it is, that the execution of the\nplot at the time appointed was rendered impracticable, because the\nchief priests, an probably great numbers of the people, were prepared\nto visit the sepulchre at that time; and therefore the disciples were\nunder a necessity of hastening their plot.\n\n\tThis observation is entirely inconsistent with the supposition\nupon which the reasoning stands.  The Gentleman has all along supposed\nthe resurrection to have been managed by fraud, and not by violence.\nAnd indeed violence, if there had been an opportunity of using it,\nwould have been insignificant:  beating the guards, and removing the\ndead body by force, would have destroyed all pretences to a\nresurrection.  Now, surely the guards, supposing them to be enough in\nnumber to withstand all violence, were at least sufficient to prevent\nor to discover fraud.  What occasion then to hasten the plot for fear\nof numbers meeting at the tomb, since there were numbers always present\nsufficient to discover any fraud; the only method that could be used in\nthe case?\n\n\tSuppose then that we could not give a satisfactory account of the\nway of reckoning the time from the crucifixion to the resurrection;\nyet this we can say, that the resurrection happened during the time\nthat the guards had the sepulchre in keeping; and it is impossible to\nimagine what opportunity this could give to fraud.  Had the time been\ndelayed, the guards removed, and then a resurrection pretended, it\nmight with some colour of reason have been said, Why did he not come\nwithin his time? why did he chuse to come after his time, when all\nwitnesses, who had patiently expected the appointed hour, were\nwithdrawn?  But now what is to be objected?  You think he came too\nsoon.  But were not your guards at the door when he came?  did they not\nsee what happened?  and  what other satisfaction could you have had,\nsupposing he had come a day later?\n\n\tBy saying of this, I do not mean the decline the Gentleman's\nobjection, which is founded upon a mistake of a way of speaking, common\nto the Jews and other people; who, when they name any number of days\nand years, include the first and last of the days or years to make up\nthe sum.  Christ, alluding to his own resurrection, says, In three days\nI will raise it up.  The angels report his prediction thus, The Son of\nMan shall be crucified, and the third day rise again.  Elsewhere it is\nsaid, After three days; and again, that he was to be in the bowels of\nthe earth three days and three nights.  These expressions are\nequivalent to each other; for we always reckon the night into the day,\nwhen we reckon by so many days.  If you agree to do a thing ten days\nhence, you stipulate for forbearance for the nights as well as days;\nand therefore, in reckoning, two days, and two days and two nights, are\nthe same thing.  That the expression, After three days, means inclusive\ndays, is proved by Grotius on Matt. xxvii. 63 and by others. The\nprediction therefore was, that he would rise on the third day.  Now, he\nwas crucified on Friday and buried; he lay in  the grave all Saturday,\nand rose early on Sunday morning.  But the Gentleman thinks he ought\nnot to have risen before Monday.  Pray try what the use of common\nlanguage requires to be understood in a like case.  Suppose you were\ntold, that your friend sickened on Friday, was let blood on Saturday,\nand the third day he died;  what day would you think  he died on?  If\nyou have any doubt about it, put the question to the first plain man\nyou meet, and he will resolve it.  The Jews could have no doubt in this\ncase; for so they practised in one of the highest points of their law.\nEvery male child was to be circumcised on the eighth day.  How did they\nreckon the days?  Why, the day of the birth was one, and the day of the\ncircumcision another; and though a child was born towards the every end\nof the first day, he was capable of circumcision on any time of the\neighth day.  And therefore it is not new nor strange, that the third\nday, in our case, should be reckoned into the number, though Christ\nrose at the very beginning of it.  It is more strange to reckon whole\nyears in this manner; and yet this is the constant method observed in\nPtolemy's canon, the most valuable piece of ancient chronology, next to\nthe Bible, now extant.  If a King lived over the first day of a year,\nand died the week after, that whole year is reckoned to his reign.\n\n\tI have now gone through the several objections upon this head:\nwhat credit they may gain in this age, I know not; but 'tis plain they\nhad no credit when they were first spread abroad; nay, 'tis evident,\nthat the very persons who set abroad this story of the body being\nstolen, did not believe it themselves.  And, not to insist here upon\nthe plain fact, which was, that the guards were hired to tell this lie\nby the chief priests, it will appear from the after conduct of the\nchief priests themselves, that they were conscious that the story was\nfalse.  Not long after the resurrection of Christ, the disciples\nhaving received new power from above, appeard publickly in Jerusalem,\nand in the very temple, and testified the resurrection of Christ, even\nbefore those who had murdered him.  What now do the chief priests do?\nThey seize upon the apostles, they threaten them, they beat\nthem,. they scourge them, and all to stop their mouths, insisting that\nthey should say no more of the matter.  But why did they not, when\nthey had the disciples in their power, charge them directly with their\nnotorious cheat in stealing the body, and expose them to the people as\nimposters?  This had been much more to their purpose, than all their\nmenaces and ill usage, and would more effectually have undeceived the\npeople.  But of this not one word is said.  They try to murder them,\nenter into combinations to assassinate them, prevail with Herod to put\none of them to death; but not so much as a charge against them of any\nfraud in the resurrection.  Their orator Tertullus, who could not have\nmissed so fine a topick of declamation, had there been but a suspicion\nto support it, is quite silent on this head, and is content to\nflourish on the common-place of sedition and heresy, profaning the\ntemple, and the like: very trifles to his cause, in comparison to the\nother accusation, had there been any ground to make use of it.  And\nyet as it happens, we are sure the very question of the resurrection\ncame under debate; for Festus tells King Agrippa, that the Jews had\ncertain questions against Paul, of one Jesus which was dead, whom Paul\naffirmed to be alive.  After this, Agrippa hears Paul himself; and had\nhe suspected, much less had he been convinced that there was a cheat\nin the resurrection, he would hardly have said to Paul at the end of\nthe conference, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.\n\n\tBut let us see what the council and senate of the children of\nIsrael thought of this matter, in the most solemn and serious\ndeliberation they ever had about it.  Not long after the resurrection,\nthe apostles were taken;  the High Priest  thought the matter of that\nweight, that he summoned the council and senate of the children of\nIsrael.  The apostles are brought before them, and make their defence.\nPart of their defence is in these words:  The God of our fathers raised\nup Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.  The defence was indeed a\nheavy charge upon the senate, and in the warmth of their anger, their\nfirst resolution was to slay them all.  But Gamaliel, one of the\ncouncil, stood up, and told them, that the matter deserved more\nconsideration.  He recounted to them the history of several imposters\nwho had perished, and concluded with respect to the case of the\napostles then before them:  If this work be of men, it will come to\nnought; but if it be of  God, ye cannot overthrow it,  lest haply ye be\nfound to fight against God.  The council agreed to this advice, and\nafter some ill treatment, the apostles were discharged.  I ask now, and\nlet any man of common sense answer,  Could Gamaliel possibly have given\nthis advice, and supposed that the hand of God might be with the\napostles, if he had known that there was a cheat discovered in the\nresurrection of Jesus?  Could the whole senate have followed this\nadvice, had they believed the discovery of the cheat?  Was there not\namong them one man wise enough to say, How can you suppose God to have\nanything to do in this affair, when the resurrection of Jesus, upon\nwhich all depends, was a notorious cheat, and manifestly proved to be\nso?  I should but lessen the weight of this authority by saying more,\nand therefore I will rest here, and give way to the Gentleman to go on\nwith his accusation.\n\n\tMr. A.\tMy Lord, Before I proceed any further, I beg leave to\nsay a few words in reply to what the Gentleman has offered on this\nhead.\n\n\tThe Gentleman thinks, that the detection in the case of Lazarus\nought to have made the Jews quite unconcerned in the case of Jesus, and\nsecure as to the event of his own resurrection.  He says very true,\nsupposing their care had been for themselves:  but governors have\nanother care upon their hands, the care of their people; and 'tis not\nenough for them to guard against being imposed on themselves, they must\nbe watchful to guard the multitude against frauds and deceits.  The\nchief priests were satisfied indeed of the fraud in the case of\nLazarus, yet they saw the people deceived by it; and for this reason,\nand not for their own satisfaction, they used the caution in the case\nof the resurrection of Jesus, which I before laid before you.  In so\ndoing, they are well justified; and the inconsistency charged on the\nother side, between their opinion of Jesus, and their fear of being\nimposed on by his pretended resurrection, is fully answered.\n\n\tThe next observation relates to the seal of the sepulchre.  The\nGentleman thinks the seal was used as a check upon the Roman soldiers.\nBut what reason had the Jews to suspect them?  They were not disciples\nof Jesus; they were servants of the Roman governor, and employed in the\nservice of the Jews: and I leave it to the court to judge, whether the\nJews set the seal to guard against their friends, or their enemies?\nBut if the seals were really used against the guards, then the breaking\nof  the seals is a proof that the guards were corrupted: and if so,\n'tis easy to conceive how the body was removed.\n\n\tAs to the disciples, the Gentleman observes, that the part\nallotted them in the management of the resurrection supposes an\nunaccountable change in their character.  It will not be long before\nthe Gentleman will have occasion for as great a change in their\ncharacter: for these weak men you will find soon employed in converting\nthe world, and sent to appear before Kings and Princes in the name of\ntheir master; soon you will see them grow wise and powerful, and every\nway qualified for their extensive and important business.  The only\ndifference between me and the Gentleman on the other side will be found\nto be this, that I date this change a little earlier than he does: A\nsmall matter, surely, to determine the right of this controversy.\n\n\tThe last observation relates to King Agrippa's complaisance to\nPaul, and Gamaliel's advice.  I cannot answer for Agrippa's meaning:\nbut certainly he meant but little; and if this matter is to be tried by\nhis opinion, we know that he never did turn Christian.  As for\nGamaliel, 'tis probable that he saw great numbers of the people engaged\nzealously in favour of the apostles, and might think it prudent to pass\nthe matter over in silence, and not to come to extremities.  This is a\ncommon case in all governments: the multitude and their leaders often\nescape punishment, not because they do not deserve it, but because it\nis not, in some circumstances, prudent to exact it.\n\n\tI pass over these things lightly, because the next article\ncontains the great, to us indeed, who live at this distance, the only\ngreat question;  for whatever reason the Jews had to believe the\nresurrection, it is nothing to us, unless the story has been conveyed\nto us upon such evidence as is sufficient to support the weight laid on\nit.\n\n\tMy Lord, we are now to enter upon the last and main article of\nthis case; the nature of the evidence upon which the credit of the\nresurrection stands.  Before I inquire into the qualifications of the\nparticular witnesses whose words we are desired to take in this case, I\nwould ask, why this evidence, which manifestly relates to the most\nessential point of Christianity, was not put beyond all exception?\nMany of the miracles of Christ are said to be done in the streets, nay\neven in the temple, under the observation of all the world; but the\nlike is not so much as pretended as to this; nay, we have it upon the\nconfession of Peter, the ringleader of the apostles, that Christ\nappeared, not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of\nGod.  Why picking and culling of witnesses in this case more than in\nany other?  Does it not import some suspicion, raise some jealousy,\nthat this case would not bear the publick light?\n\n\tI would ask more particularly, Why did not Jesus after his\nresurrection appear openly to the chief priests and rulers of the Jews?\nSince his commission related to them in an especial manner,  why were\nnot his credentials laid before them?  The resurrection is acknowledged\nto be the chief proof of his mission, why then was it concealed from\nthose who were more than all others concerned in the event of his\nmission?  Suppose an ambassador from some foreign prince should come\ninto England,  make his publick entry through the city, pay and receive\nvisits, and at last refuse to shew any letters of credence, or to wait\non the King, what would you think of him?  Whatever you would think in\nthat case, you must think in this; for there is no difference between\nthem.\n\n\tBut we must take the evidence as it is.  It was thought proper,\nin this case, to have select chosen witnesses; and we must now consider\nwho they were, and what reason we have to take their word.\n\n\tThe first witness was an angel, or angels.  They appeared like\nmen to some women who went early to the sepulchre.  If they appeared\nlike men, upon what ground are we to take them for angels?  The women\nsaw men, and therefore they can witness only to the seeing of men.  But\nI suppose it is the women's judgement, and not their evidence, that we\nare to follow in this case.  Here then we have a story of one\napparition to support the credit of another apparition: and the first\napparition hath not so much as the evidence of the women to support it,\nbut is grounded on their superstition, ignorance, and fear.  Every\ncountry can afford an hundred instances of this kind; and there is this\ncommon to them all, that as learning and common sense prevail in any\ncountry, they die away, and are no more heard of.\n\n\tThe next witnesses are the women themselves.  The wisest men can\nhardly guard themselves against the fears of superstition;  poor silly\nwomen therefore in this case must needs be unexceptionable witnesses,\nand fit to be admitted into the number of the chosen witnesses to\nattest this fact.  One part of the account given of them is very\nrational, that they were surprised and frightened beyond measure; and I\nleave it to your Lordship and the court to judge, how well qualified\nthey were to give a just relation of what passed.\n\n\tAfter this, Jesus appears to two of his disciples as they were\nupon a journey;  he joins them, and introduces a discourse about\nhimself; and spent much time, till it began to grow dark, in expounding\nthe prophecies relating to the death and resurrection of the Messias.\nAll this while, the disciples knew him not.  But then going into an\nhouse to lodge together,  at supper he broke bread, and gave it to\nthem;  immediately they knew him, immediately he vanished.  Here then\nare two witnesses more.  But what will you call them?  eye-witnesses?\nWhy their eyes were open, and they had their senses, when he reasoned\nwith them and they knew him not.  So far therefore they are witnesses\nthat it was not he.  Tell us therefore upon what account you reject the\nevidence of their sense before the breaking of the bread,  and insist\non it afterwards?  And why did Jesus vanish as soon as known; which has\nmore of the air of an apparition, than of the appearance of a real man\nrestored to life?\n\n\tCleopas, who was one of these two disciples, finds out the\napostles, to make the report of what had passed to them.  No sooner was\nthe story told, but Jesus appears among them.  They were all frightened\nand confounded, and thought they saw a spectre.  He rebukes them for\ninfidelity, and their slowness in believing the prophecies of his\nresurrection: and though he refused before to let the women touch him\n(a circumstance which I ought not to have omitted); yet now he invites\nthe apostles to handle him, to examine his hands and feet, and search\nthe wounds of the cross.  But what body was it they examined?  The same\nthat came in  when the doors were shut; the same that vanished from the\ntwo disciples; the same that the women might not touch:  in a word, a\nbody quite different from a human body, which we know cannot pass\nthrough walls, or appear or disappear at pleasure.  What then could\ntheir hands or eyes inform them of in this case?  Besides, is it\ncredible that God should raise a body imperfectly, with the very wounds\nin it of which it died?  Or, if the wounds were such as destroyed the\nbody before, how could a natural body subsist with them afterwards?\n\n\tThere are more appearances of Jesus recorded;  but so much of the\nsame kind, so liable to the same difficulties and objections, that I\nwill not trouble your Lordship and the court with a distinct\nenumeration of them.  If the Gentleman on the other side finds any\nadvantage in any of them more than in these mentioned, I shall have an\nopportunity to consider them in my reply.\nIt may seem surprising to you, perhaps, that a matter of  this\nmoment was trusted upon such evidence as this: but it will be still\nmore surprising to consider that the several nations who received the\ngospel, and submitted to the faith of this article, had not even this\nevidence:  for what people or nation had the evidence of the angels,\nthe women or even of all the apostles?  So far from it, that every\ncountry had its single apostle, and received the faith upon the credit\nof his single evidence. We have followed our ancestors  without\ninquiry; and if you examine the thing to the bottom, our belief was\noriginally built upon the word of one man.\nI shall trouble you, Sir, but with one observation more; which is\nthis: That although in common life we act in a thousand instances upon\nthe faith and credit of human testimony; yet the reason for so doing is\nnot the same in the case before us.  In common affairs, where nothing\nis asserted but what is probable, and possible, according to the usual\ncourse of nature, a reasonable degree of evidence ought to determine\nevery man:  for the very probability, or possibility of the thing, is\nan support to the evidence; and in such cases we have no doubt but a\nman's senses qualify him to be a witness.  But when the thing testified\nis contrary to the order of nature, and, at first sight at least,\nimpossible, what evidence can be sufficient to overturn the constant\nevidence of nature, which she gives us in the uniform and regular\nmethod of her operations?  If a man tells me he has been in France, I\nought to give a reason for not believing him; but if he tells me he\ncomes from the grave what reason can he give why I should believe him?\nIn the case before us, since the body raised from the grave differed\nfrom common natural bodies, as we have before seen; how can I be\nassured that the apostles' senses qualified them to judge at all of\nthis body; whether it was the same, or not the same which was buried?\nThey handled the body, which yet could pass through doors and walls;\nthey saw it, and sometimes knew it, at other times knew it not.  In a\nword, it seems to be a case exempt from human evidence.  Men have\nlimited senses, and a limited reason: when they act within their\nlimits, we may give credit to them; but when they talk of things\nremoved beyond the reach of their senses and reason, we must quit our\nown, if we believe theirs.\nMr. B.  My Lord, in answering the objections under this head I\nshall find myself obliged to change the order in which the gentleman\nthought proper to place them.  He began with complaining, that Christ\ndid not appear publickly to the Jews after his resurrection, and\nespecially to the chief priests and rulers; and seemed to argue, as if\nsuch evidence would have put the matter in question out of all doubt:\nbut he concluded with an observation to prove that no evidence in this\ncase can be sufficient; that a resurrection is thing in nature\nimpossible, at least impossible to be proved to the satisfaction of a\nrational inquirer.  If this be the case, why does he require more\nevidence, since none can be sufficient?  Or to what purpose is it to\nvindicate the particular evidence of the resurrection of Christ, so\nlong  as this  general prejudice, that a resurrection is incapable of\nbeing proved, remains unremoved? I am under a necessity therefore to\nconsider this observation in the first place, that it might lie as a\ndead weight upon all I have to offer in support of the evidence of\nChrist's resurrection.\n\n\n\tThe gentleman allows it to be reasonable in many cases to act\nupon the testimony and credit of others; but he thinks this should be\nconfined to such cases, where the thing testified is probable,\npossible,  and according to the usual course of nature. The Gentleman\ndoes not, I suppose, pretend to know the extent of all natural\npossibilities, much less will he suppose them to be generally known;\nand therefore his meaning must be, that the testimony of witnesses is\nto be received only in cases which appear to us to be possible. In any\nother sense we can have no dispute; for mere impossibilities, which can\nnever exist, can never be proved.  Taking the observation therefore in\nthis sense, the proposition is this: That the testimony of others ought\nnot to be admitted, but in such matters as appear probable, or at least\npossible to our conceptions.  For instance: A man who lives in a warm\nclimate, and never saw ice, ought upon no evidence to believe, that\nrivers freeze, and grow hard, in cold countries; for this is\nimprobable, contrary to the usual course of nature, and impossible\naccording to his notion of things.  And yet we all know, that this is a\nplain manifest case discernible by the senses of men; of  which\ntherefore they are qualified to be good witnesses.  An hundred such\ninstances might be named; but 'tis needless:  for surely nothing is\nmore apparently absurd than to make one man's ability in discerning and\nhis veracity in reporting plain facts, depend upon the skill or\nignorance of the hearer.  And what has the Gentleman said upon this\noccasion against the resurrection, more than any man who never saw ice\nmight say against an hundred honest witnesses, who assert that water\nturns to ice in cold climates?\n\n\nYet it is very true, that men do not so easily believe, upon\ntestimony of others, things which to them seem improbable or\nimpossible; but the reason is not, because the thing itself admits no\nevidence, but because the hearer's  preconceived opinion outweighs  the\ncredit of the reporter and makes his veracity to be called in question.\nFor instance it is natural for a stone to roll down hill, it is\nunnatural for it to roll up hill: but a stone moving uphill is as much\nthe object of sense as a stone moving downhill; and all men in their\nsenses are as capable of seeing  and judging and reporting the fact in\none case, as in the other.  Should a man then tell you, that he saw a\nstone go uphill of its own accord, you might question his veracity; but\nyou could not say the thing admitted no evidence, because it was\ncontrary to the law and usual course of nature; for the law of nature\nformed to yourself from your own experience and reasoning  is quite\nindependent of the matter of fact which the man testifies:  and\nwhenever you see facts yourself, which contradict your notions of the\nlaw of nature, you admit the facts,  because you believe yourself; when\nyou do not admit like facts upon the evidence of others, it is because\nyou do not believe them, and not because the facts in their own nature\nexclude all evidence.\n\nSuppose a man should tell you, that he was come from the dead,\nyou would be apt to suspect his evidence.  But what would you suspect?\nThat he was not alive when you heard him, saw him,  felt him,  and\nconversed with him?  You could not suspect  this, without giving up all\nyour senses and acting in this case as you act in no other.  Here then\nyou would question, whether the man had ever been dead? But would you\nsay, that it is incapable of being made plain by human testimony, that\nthis or that man died a year ago? It can't be said.  Evidence in this\ncase is admitted in all courts perpetually\n\nConsider it the other way.  Suppose you saw a man publicly\nexecuted, his body afterwards was wounded by the executioner, and\ncarried and laid in the grave; that after this you should be told, that\nthe man was come to life again; what would you suspect in this case?\nNot that the man had never been dead; for that you saw yourself: but\nyou would suspect whether he was now alive.  But would you say this\ncase excluded all human testimony and that men could not possibly\ndiscern , whether one with whom they conversed familiarly was alive or\nno? Upon what ground could you say this?  A man rising from the grave\nis an object of sense, and can give the same evidence of his being\nalive, as any other man in the world can give.  So that a resurrection\nconsidered only as a fact to be proved by evidence, is a plain case; it\nrequires no greater ability in the witnesses, than that they be able to\ndistinguish between a man dead, and a man alive:  a point in which I\nbelieve every man  living thinks himself a judge.\n\nI do allow that this case, and others of like nature, require\nmore evidence to give them credit than ordinary cases do.  You may\ntherefore require more evidence in these, than in other cases; but it\nis absurd to say, that such cases admit no evidence, when the things\nin question are manifestly objects of sense.\n\nI allow further, that the Gentleman has rightly stated the\ndifficulty upon the foot of common prejudice; and that it arises from\nhence, that such cases appear to be contrary to the course of nature.\nBut I  desire to consider what this course of nature is. Every man,\nfrom the lowest countryman to the highest philosopher frames to himself\nfrom his experience and observation, a notion of a course of nature;\nand is ready to say of everything reported to him that contradicts his\nexperience, that it is contrary to nature.  But will the Gentleman say,\nthat everything is impossible or even improbable, that contradicts the\nnotion which men frame to themselves of the course of nature?  I think\nhe will not say it.  And if he will, he must say that water can never\nfreeze; for it is absolutely inconsistent with the notion which men\nhave of the course of nature, who live in the warm climates.  And hence\nit appears, that when men talk of the course of nature, they really\ntalk of their own prejudices and imaginations; and that sense and\nreason are not so much concerned in the case as the Gentleman imagines.\nFor I ask, Is it from the evidence of sense, or the evidence of reason\nthat people of warm climates think it contrary to nature,  that water\nshould grow solid, and become ice?  As for sense, they see indeed that\nwater with them is always liquid; but none of their senses tell them\nthat it can never grow solid.  As for reason, it can never so inform\nthem; for right reason can never contradict the truth of things.  Our\nsenses then inform us rightly what the usual course of things is; but\nwhen we conclude that things cannot be otherwise, we outrun the\ninformation of our senses, and the conclusion stands upon prejudice,\nand not upon reason.  And yet such conclusions form what is generally\ncalled the course of nature.  And when men upon proper evidence and\ninformations admit things contrary to this presupposed course of\nnature, they do not, as the Gentleman expresses it, quit their own\nsense and reason; but, in truth, they quit their own mistakes and\nprejudices.\n\n\tIn the case before us, the case of the resurrection, the great\ndifficulty arises from the like prejudice.  We all know by experience\nthat all men die, and rise no more;  therefore we conclude, that for a\ndead man to rise to life again, is contrary to the course of nature.\nAnd certainly it is contrary to the uniform and settled course of\nthings.  But if we argue from hence that it is contrary and repugnant\nto the real laws of nature and absolutely impossible on that account,\nwe argue without any foundation to support us either from our senses or\nour reason.  We cannot learn from our eyes, or feeling, or any other\nsense, that it is impossible for a dead body to live again; if we learn\nit at all, it must be from our  reason; and yet what one maxim of\nreason is contradicted by the supposition of a resurrection?  For my\nown part; when  I consider how I live;  that all animal motions\nnecessary to my life are independent of my will; that my heart beats\nwithout my consent and without my direction; that digestion and\nnutrition are performed by methods to which I am not conscious; that my\nblood moves in a perpetual round, which is contrary to all known laws\nof motion: I cannot but think, that the preservation of my life, in\nevery moment of it, is as great an act of power, as is necessary to\nraise a dead man to life.  And whoever so far reflects upon his own\nbeing as to acknowledge that he owes it to a superior power, must needs\nthink, that the same power which gave life to senseless matter at\nfirst, and set all the springs and movements a-going at the beginning,\ncan restore life to dead body.  For surely it is not a greater thing to\ngive life to a body once dead, than to a body that never was alive.\n\n\tIn the next place must be considered the difficulties which the\ngentleman has laid before you, with regard to the nature of Christ's\nbody after the resurrection.  He has produced some passages which\nwhich, he thinks, imply, that the body was not a real natural body, but\na mere phantom, or apparition:  and thence concludes, that there being\nno real object of sense, there can be no evidence in the case.\n\n\tPresumptions are of no weight against positive  evidence; and\nevery account of the resurrection assures us, that the body of  Christ\nwas seen, felt, and handled by many persons; who were called upon by\nChrist so to do, that they might be assured that he had flesh and\nbones, and was not a mere spectre, as they, in their first surprize,\nimagined him to be. It is impossible that they who  give this account,\nshould mean, by anything they report, to imply that he had no real\nbody; it is certain, then, that when the Gentleman makes use of what\nthey say to this purpose, he uses their sayings contrary to their\nmeaning:  for it is not pretended that they say, that Christ had not a\nreal human body after the resurrection; nor is it pretended they had\nany such thought, except only upon the first surprize of seeing him,\nand before they had examined him with their eyes and hands.  But\nsomething they have said, which the Gentleman, according to his notions\nof philosophy, thinks, implies that the body was not real.  To clear\nthis point, therefore, I must lay before you the passages referred to,\nand consider how justly the Gentleman reasons from them.\n\n\tThe first passage relates to Mary Magdalene, who, the first time\nshe saw Christ, was going to embrace his feet, as the custom of the\ncountry was:  Christ says to her, [John 20:17] Touch me not, for I am\nnot yet ascended to my Father;  but go to my brethren and tell them,\netc.  Hence the gentleman concludes, that Christ's body was not such an\none as would bear the touch.  But how does he infer this? Is it from\nthese words Touch me not? It cannot be: for thousands say it every day,\nwithout giving the least suspicion, that their bodies are not capable\nof being touched.  The conclusion then must be built on those other\nwords, For I have not yet ascended to my Father.  but what have these\nwords to do with the reality of his body?  It might be real or not\nreal, for anything that is here said.  There is a difficulty in these\nwords, and it may be hard to give the true sense of them; but there is\nno difficulty in seeing that they have no relation to the nature of\nChrist's body; for of his body nothing is said. The natural sense of\nthe place as I collect, by comparing this passage with Matthew 28:9 is\nthis. Mary Magdalene, upon seeing Jesus, fell at his feet, and laid\nhold of them and held them as if she meant never to let them go:\nChrist said to her, \"Touch me not, or hang not about me now; you will\nhave other opportunities of seeing me for I go not yet  to my Father:\nlose no time then but go quickly with my message to my brethren.\" I am\nnot concerned to support this particular interpretation of the passage;\nit is sufficient to my purpose, to show that the words cannot possibly\nrelate to the nature of Christ's body one way or other.\n\n\tThe next passage relates to Christ's joining two of his\ndisciples upon the road and conversing with them without being known by\nthem: it grew dark, they pressed him to stay with them that night; he\nwent in with them, broke bread, blessed it, and gave it them, and then\nthey knew him; and immediately he disappeared.\n\n\tThe circumstance of disappearing, shall be considered under the\nnext head, with other objections of the like kind.  At present I shall\nonly examine the other parts of this story, and inquire whether they\nafford any ground to conclude that the body of Christ was not a real\none.  Had this piece of history been related of any other person I\nthink such suspicion could have risen.  For what is there unnatural or\nuncommon in this account? Two men meet an acquaintance whom they\nthought dead: They converse with him for some time, without suspecting\nwho he was; the very persuasion they were under that he was dead,\ncontributed greatly to their not knowing him; besides, he appeared in a\nhabit and form different from what he used when he conversed with them;\nappeared to them on a journey and walked with them side by side; in\nwhich situation no one of  the company has a full view of another:\nafterwards, when they were at supper together, and lights brought in,\nthey plainly discerned who he was.  Upon this occasion, the Gentleman\nasks what sort of witnesses these are? eye-witnesses? No; before supper\nthey were eye-witnesses, says the Gentleman, that the person whom they\nsaw was not Christ: and then he demands a reason for our rejecting the\nevidence of their sense when they did not know Christ, and insisting on\nit when they did.\n\n\tIt is no uncommon thing for men to catch themselves and others by\nsuch notable acute questions, and to be led by the sprightliness of\ntheir imagination out of the road of truth and common sense.  I beg\nleave to tell the Gentleman a short story, and then to ask him his own\nquestion.  A certain Gentleman who had been some years abroad happened\nin his return to England through Paris to meet his own sister there.\nShe was not expecting to see him there, nor he to see her, they\nconversed together with other company, at a publick house, for great\npart of a day, without knowing each other.  At last the Lady began to\nshew great signs of disorder; her color came and went, and the eyes of\nthe company were drawn toward her; and then she cried out, Oh my\nbrother!  and was hardly held from fainting.  Suppose now this Lady\nwere to depose upon oath in a court of justice that she saw her brother\nat Paris;  I would ask the Gentleman, Whether he would object to the\nevidence, and say, that she was as good an eye-witness that her brother\nwas not there, as that he was; and demand of the court, why they\nrejected the evidence of her senses when she did not know her brother,\nand were ready to believe it when she did.  When the question is\nanswered in this case, I desire only to have the benefit of it in the\ncase now before you.  But if you shall be of opinion, that there was\nsome extraordinary power used on this occasion, and incline to think\nthat the expression, their eyes were holden, imports as much;  then the\ncase will fall under the next article.  In which\n\n\tWe are to consider Christ's vanishing out of sight; his coming in\nand going out when the doors were shut; and such like passages; which,\nas they fall under one consideration, so I shall speak to them\ntogether.\n\n\tBut it is necessary first to see what the Apostles affirm\ndistinctly in their accounts of these facts; for I think more has been\nsaid for them, than ever they said, or intended to say for themselves.\nIn one place [Luke 24:31] it is said, he vanished out of their sight.\nWhich translation is corrected in the margin of our Bibles thus:  He\nceased to be seen of them.  And the original imports no more.\nIt is said in another place, that the disciples being together,\nand the doors shut, Jesus came and stood in the midst of them.   How he\ncame, is not said; much less is it said that he came through the door,\nor the keyhole;  and for anything that is said to the contrary, he\nmight come in at the door, though the disciples saw not the door open,\nnor him, till he was in the midst of them.  But the Gentleman thinks\nthese passages prove that the disciples saw no real body, but an\napparition.  I am afraid that the Gentleman, after all his contempt of\napparitions, and the superstition on which they are founded, has fallen\ninto the snare himself, and is arguing upon no better principles than\nthe common notions which the vulgar have of apparitions.  Why else does\nhe imagine these passages to be inconsistent with the reality of\nChrist's body?  Is there no way for a real body to disappear? Try the\nexperiment now; do but put out the candles, we shall all disappear.  If\na man falls asleep in the day-time, all things disappear to him; his\nsenses are all locked up; and yet all things about him continue to be\nreal, and his senses continue perfect.  As shutting out all rays of\nlight would make all things disappear; so intercepting the rays of\nlight from any particular body, would make that disappear.  Perhaps\nsomething like this was the case; or perhaps something else, which we\nknow not.  But, be the case what it will, the Gentleman's conclusion is\nfounded on no principle of true philosophy:  for it does not follow\nthat a body is not real because I lose sight of it suddenly.  I shall\nbe told, perhaps, that this way of accounting for the passages is as\nwonderful, and as much out of the common course of things, as the\nother.  Perhaps it is so; and what then?  Surely the Gentleman does not\nexpect, that, in order to prove the reality of the greatest miracle\nthat ever was, I should shew that there was nothing miraculous in it,\nbut that everything happened according to the ordinary course of\nthings.  My only concern is, to shew, that these passages do not infer,\nthat the body of Christ after the resurrection was no real body.  I\nwonder the Gentleman did not carry his argument a little further, and\nprove, that Christ, before his death, had no real body; for we read,\nthat when the multitude would have thrown him down a precipice,  he\nwent through the midst of them unseen.  Now, nothing happened after his\nresurrection more unaccountable than this that happened before it; and\nif the argument be good at all, it will be good to prove, that there\nnever was such a man as Jesus in the world.  Perhaps the gentleman may\nthink that this is a little too much to prove:  and if he does, I hope\nhe will quit the argument in one case as well as in the other; for\ndifference there is none.\n\n\tHitherto we have been called upon to prove the reality of\nChrist's body, and that it was the same after the resurrection that was\nbefore: but the next objection complains, that the body was too much\nthe same with that which was buried; for the Gentleman thinks that it\nhad the same mortal wounds open and uncured of which he died.  His\nobservation is grounded upon the words which Christ uses to Thomas:\n[John 20:27] Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach\nhither thy hand and thrust it into my side.  Is it here affirmed that\nThomas did actually put his hand into his side, or so much as see his\nwounds fresh and bleeding?  Nothing like it: but it is supposed from\nthe words of Christ; for if he had no wounds, he would not have invited\nThomas to probe them.  Now, the meaning of Christ will best appear by\nan account of the occasion he had to use this speech.  He had appeared\nto his disciples, in the absence of Thomas, and shewn them his hands\nand feet, which still had the marks of his crucifixion: the disciples\nreport this to Thomas: he thought the thing impossible, and expressed\nhis unbelief, as men are apt to do when they are positive, in a very\nextravagant manner: You talk, says he, of the prints of the nails in\nhis hands and feet; for my part, says he, I'll never believe this\nthing, except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put\nmy finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his\nside.  Now, in the first place, here is nothing  said of open wounds;\nThomas talks only of putting his finger into the print, that is, the\nscar of the nails, and thrusting his hand into his side.  And, in\ncommon speech, to thrust an hand into any one's side does not signify\nto thrust it through the side into the bowels.  Upon this\ninterpretation of the words, which is a plain and natural one, the\nGentleman's objection is quite gone. But suppose Thomas to mean what\nthe Gentleman means; in that case the words of Christ are manifestly a\nsevere reproach to him for his infidelity: Here, says Christ, are my\nhands and my side; take the satisfaction you require; thrust your\nfingers into my hands, your hand into my side; repeating to him his own\nwords, and calling him to his own conditions; which, to a man beginning\nto see his extravagance, is of all rebukes the severest.  Such forms of\nspeech are used on many occasions, and are never understood to import\nthat the thing proposed is proper, or always practicable.  When the\nGrecian women reproached their sons with cowardice, and called to them\nas they were flying from the enemy, to come and hide themselves, like\nchildren as they were, in their mothers' wombs; he would be ridiculous\nwho had asked the question, Whether the women really thought they could\ntake their sons into their wombs again?\n\n\tI have now gone through the objections which were\nnecessarily to be removed  before I could state the evidence in this\ncase.  I am sensible I have taken\nup too much of your time; but I have this to say in my excuse, That\nobjections built on popular notions and prejudices, are easily conveyed\nto the mind in few words; and so conveyed, make strong impressions: but\nwhoever answers the objections, must encounter all the notions to which\nthey are allied, and to which they owe their strength; and it is well\nif with many words he can find admittance.\n\n\tI come now to consider the evidence on which our belief of the\nresurrection\nstands.  And here I am stopped again.  A general exception is taken to\nthe evidence, that it is imperfect, unfair; and a question is asked,\nWhy did not  Christ appear publickly to all the people, especially to\nthe magistrates?  Why were some witnesses culled and chosen out, and\nothers excluded ? It may be sufficient perhaps to say, that where there\nare witnesses enow, no judge, no jury complains for want of more; and\ntherefore, if the witnesses we have are sufficient, it is no objection\nthat we have not others, and more.\nIf three credible man attest a will, which are as many as the law\nrequires, would any body ask, why all the town were not called to set\ntheir hands? But why were these witnesses culled and chosen out?  Why?\nFor this reason, that they might be good ones.  Does not every wise men\nchuse proper witnesses to his deed and to his will?  and does not a\ngood choice of witnesses give strength to every deed? How comes it to\npass, then, that the very thing which shuts out all suspicion in other\ncases should in this case only be of all others the most suspicious\nthing itself?\n\n\tWhat reason there is to make any complaints on the behalf of the\nJews,\nmay be judged, in part, from what has already appeared.  Christ\nsuffered openly in their sight; and they were so well apprised of his\nprediction, that he should rise again, that they set a guard on his\nsepulchre; and from their guards they learned the truth.  Every soldier\nwas to them a witness of the resurrection of their own chusing.  After\nthis they had not\none apostle,(which the Gentleman observes was the case of other\npeople), but all the apostles, and many other witnesses with them, and\nin their power.  The apostles testified the resurrection to them; not\nonly to the people, but to the elders of Israel assembled in Senate: to\nsupport their evidence they were enabled to work, and did work miracles\nopenly in the name of Christ.  These people therefore have the least\nreason to complain;\nand had of all others the fullest evidence; and in some respects such\nas none but themselves could have, for they only were keepers of the\nsepulchre.I believe, if the gentleman was to chuse an evidence to his\nown  satisfaction in a like case, he would desire no more, than to keep\nthe sepulchre, with a sufficient number of guards.\n\n\tBut the argument goes further.  It is said, that Jesus was sent\nwith a special commission to the Jews; that he was their Messias; and\nas his resurrection was his main credential, he ought to have appeared\npublickly to the rulers of the Jews after his resurrection: that in\ndoing otherwise, he acted like an ambassador pretending authority  from\nhis prince, but refusing to show his letters of credence.\n\n\tI was afraid, when I suffered myself to be drawn into this\nargument,\nthat I should be led into matters fitter to be decided by men of\nanother profession, than by lawyers.  But since there is no help now, I\nwill lay before you what appears to me to be the natural and plain\naccount of this matter; leaving it to others, who are better qualified,\nto give a fuller answer to the objection.\n\n\tIt appears to me, by the accounts we have of Jesus, that he had\ntwo distinct offices: one, as the Messias particularly promised to the\nJews;  another, as he was to be the great high priest of the world.\nWith respect  to the first office, he is called [Heb. 3:1] the apostle\nof the Hebrews;  the [Rom. 15:8] minister of the circumcision; and says\nhimself, [Matt 15:24]  I am not sent, but unto the lost sheep of the\nhouse of Isreal. Accordingly, when he sent out his Apostles in his\nlifetime to preach, he expressly forbids\nthem to go to the Gentiles or Samaritans; but go, [Matt. 10:6] says he,\nto the lost sheep of the House of Israel.  Christ continued in the\ndischarge of  this office during the time of his natural life, till he\nwas finally rejected by the Jews.  And it is observable, that the last\ntime he spoke to the people according to St. Matthew's account, he\nsolemnly took leave of them, and closed his commission.  He had been\nlong among them publishing glad tidings; but when all his preaching,\nall his miracles, had proved to be in vain, the last thing he did was,\nto denounce the woes they had brought on themselves. The 23d chapter of\nSt. Matthew recites these woes; and at the end of them Christ takes\nthis passionate leave of Jerusalem: \"Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou\nthat killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee,\nhow often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen\ngathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!  Behold, your\nhouse is left unto you desolate.  For I say unto you, Ye shall not see\nme henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name\nof  the Lord.\" It is remarkable, that this passage, as recorded by St.\nMatthew  and St. Luke, twice over, is determined, by the circumstances,\nto refer to the near approach of his own death, and the extreme hatred\nof the Jews to him: and therefore those words, Ye shall not see me\nhenceforth, are to be\ndated from the time of his death, and manifestly point out the end of\nhis particular mission to them.  From the making this declaration, as\nit stands in St. Matthew, his discourses are to his disciples, and they\nchiefly relate to the miserable and wretched condition of the Jews,\nwhich was now decreed, and soon to be accomplished. Let me now ask,\nWhether, in this state of  things, any farther credentials of Christ's\ncommission to the Jews could  be demanded or expected?  He was\nrejected, his commission was determined,\nand with it the fate of the nation was determined also: what use then\nof  more credentials?  As to appearing to them after his resurrection,\nhe could not do it consistently with his own prediction, Ye shall see\nme no more, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of\nthe Lord. The Jews were not in this disposition after the resurrection,\nnor are they in it yet.\n  \tThe resurrection was the foundation of Christ's new\ncommission, which\nextended to all the world.  Then it was he declared, that all power was\ngiven unto him in heaven and in earth.  Then he gave a new commission\nto his disciples, not restrained to the house of Israel, but to go and\nteach all nations.  This prerogative the Jews had under this\ncommission, that the gospel was every-where first offered to them; but\nin no other terms than it was offered to the rest of the world.  Since\nthen this commission, of which the resurrection was the foundation,\nextended to all the world alike; what ground is there to demand special\nand particular evidence to the Jews?  The Emperor and the Senate of\nRome were a much more considerable part of the world, than the chief\npriests and the synagogue; why does not the Gentleman object then, that\nChrist did not shew himself to Tiberius  and his senate? And since all\nmen have an equal right in this case, Why may not the same demand be\nmade for every country; nay, for every age? And then the Gentleman may\nbring the question nearer home; and ask, Why Christ did not appear in\nEngland in King George's reign? There is, to my apprehension, nothing\nmore unreasonable, than to neglect and despise plain and sufficient\nevidence before us, and to sit down to imagine what kind of evidence\nwould have pleased us; and then to make the want of such evidence an\nobjection to the truth; which yet, if well considered, would be found\nto be well established.\n\n\tThe observation I have made upon the resurrection of Christ,\nnaturally leads to another; which will help to account for the nature\nof the evidence we have in this great point.  As the resurrection was\nthe opening a new commission, in which all the world had an interest;\nso the concern naturally was, to have a proper evidence to establish\nthis truth, and which should be of equal weight to all.  This did not\ndepend upon the satisfaction given to private persons, whether they\nwere magistrates or not magistrates; but upon the conviction of those,\nwhose office it was to be, to bear testimony to this truth in the\nworld.  In this sense the Apostles were chosen to be witnesses of the\nresurrection, because they were chosen to bear testimony to it in the\nworld; and not because they only were admitted to see Christ after his\nresurrection: for the fact is otherwise. The gospel indeed, concerned\nto shew the evidence on which the faith of the world was to rest, is\nvery particular in setting forth the ocular demonstration which the\napostles had of the resurrection; and mentions others, who saw Christ\nafter his resurrection, only accidentally, and as the thread of the\nhistory led to it. But yet it is certain, there were many others, who\nhad this satisfaction, as well as the apostles.  St. Luke tells us,\nthat when Christ appeared to the eleven apostles, there were others\nwith them [Luke 24:33]; who they were, or how many there were, he says\nnot.  But it appears in the Acts, when an apostle was to be chosen in\nthe room of Judas; and the chief qualification required was, that he\nshould be one capable of being a witness of the resurrection; that\nthere were present an hundred and twenty so qualified [Acts 1. Compare\nvv.  15,21,22 together].  And Saint Paul says, that Christ after his\nrising was seen by 500 at once, many of whom were living when he\nappealed to their evidence.  So that the Gentleman is mistaken, when\nhe imagines that a few only were chosen to see Christ after he came\nfrom the grave.  The truth of the case is, that, out of those who saw\nhim, some were chosen to bear testimony to the world; and for that\nreason had the fullest demonstration of the truth, that they might be\nthe better able to give satisfaction to others.  And what was there in\nthis conduct to complain of? what to raise any jealousy or suspicion?\n\n\tAs to the witnesses themselves, the first the Gentleman takes\nnotice of, are the angels and the women.  The mention of angels led\nnaturally to apparitions: and the women were called poor silly women;\nand there is an end to their evidence.  But to speak seriously: will\nthe Gentleman pretend to prove, that there are no intelligent beings\nbetween God and man; or that they are not ministers of God; or that\nthey were improperly employed in this great and wonderful work, the\nresurrection of Christ?  Till some of these points are disproved we\nmay be at rest; for the angels were ministers, and not witnesses of\nthe resurrection.  And it is not upon the credit of the poor silly\nwomen that we believe angels were concerned, but upon the report of\nthose who wrote the gospels, who deliver it as a truth known to\nthemselves, and not merely as a report taken from the women.\n\n\tBut for the women what shall I say? Silly as they were, I hope at\nleast they had eyes and ears, and could tell what they heard and saw.\nIn this case they tell no more.  They report that the body was not in\nthe sepulchre; but so far from reporting the resurrection; that they\ndid not believe it, and were very anxious to find to what place the\nbody was removed.  Further they were not employed.  For, I think, the\nGentleman in\nanother part observes rightly, that they were not sent to bear\ntestimony to any people.  But suppose them to be witnesses; suppose\nthem to be improper ones; yet the evidence of the men surely is not the\nworse, because some wonen happened to see the same thing which they\nsaw.  And if men only must be admitted, of them we have enow to\nestablish this truth.\n\n\tI will not spend your time in enumerating these witnesses, or in\nsetting forth the demonstration they had of the truth which they\nreport.  These things are well known.  If you question their sincerity,\nthey lived miserably, and died miserably, for the sake of this truth.\nAnd what greater evidence of sincerity can man give or require?  And\nwhat is still more, they were not deceived in their expectation of\nbeing ill treated; for he who employed them, told them beforehand that\nthe world would hate them, and treat them with contempt and cruelty.\n\n\tBut, leaving these weighty and well known circumstances to your\nown reflexion, I beg leave to lay before you another evidence, passed\nover in silence by the Gentleman on the other side.  He took notice,\nthat a resurrection was so extraordinary a thing, that no human\nevidence could support it.  I am not sure that he is not in the right.\nIf twenty men were to come into England with such a report from a\ndistant country, perhaps they might not find twenty more here to\nbelieve their story.  And I rather think the Gentleman may be in the\nright, because in the present case I see clearly, that the credit of\nthe resurrection of Christ was not trusted to mere human evidence.  To\nwhat evidence it was trusted, we find by his own declaration: The\nSpirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of\nme.  And ye also (speaking to his apostles) shall bear witness,\nbecause ye have been with me from the beginning [John 15:26,27].  And\ntherefore, though the apostles had conversed with him forty days after\nhis resurrection, and had received his commission to go teach all\nnations; yet he expressly forbids them entering upon the work, till\nthey should receive powers from above [Acts 1:14]  And St. Peter\nexplains the evidence of the resurrection in this manner: We (the\napostles) are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy\nGhost, whom God hath given to them who obey him [Acts 5:32].\n\n\tNow, what were the powers received by the apostles?  Where they\nnot the powers of wisdom and courage, by which they were enabled to\nappear before rulers and princes in the name of Christ; the power of\nmiracles, even of raising the dead to life; by which they convinced the\nworld, that God was with them in what they said and did?  With respect\nto this evidence, St. John says, If we receive the witness of men, the\nwitness of God is greater. [I John 5:9] Add to this, that the apostles\nhad a power to communicate these gifts to believers.  Can you wonder\nthat men believed the reality of those powers of which they were\npartakers, and became conscious to themselves?  With respect to these\ncommunicated powers, I suppose, St. John speaks, when he says, He that\nbelieveth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: [I John 5:10]\nappealing, not to an inward testimony of the Spirit, in the sense of\nsome modern enthusiasts; but to the powers of the Spirit, which\nbelievers received, and which were seen in the effects that followed.\n\n\tIt was objected, That the apostles separated themselves to the\nwork of the ministry, and one went into one country, another to\nanother; and, consequently, that the belief of the resurrection was\noriginally received every where upon the testimony of one witness.  I\nwill not examine this fact.  Suppose it to be so.  But did this one\nwitness go alone, when he was attended with the powers of heaven?  Was\nnot every blind man restored to sight, and every lame man to his feet,\na new witness to the truth reported by the first? Besides, when the\npeople of different countries came to compare notes, and found that\nthey had all received the same account of Christ and of his doctrine;\nthen surely the evidence of these distant witnesses thus united, became\nstronger than if they had told their story together: for twelve men\nseparately examined form a much stronger proof for the truth of any\nfact, than twelve men agreeing together in one story.\n\n\tIf the same thing were to happen in our own time:  if one or two\nwere to come into England, and report that a man was raised from the\ndead; and, in consequence of it, teach nothing but that we ought to\nlove God and our neighbors: if,  to confirm their report, they should,\nbefore our eyes, cure the blind, the deaf,  the lame, and even raise\nthe dead to life: if, endued with all these powers, they should live in\npoverty and distress, and patiently submit to all that scorn, contempt,\nand malice could contrive to distress them; and at last sacrifice even\ntheir lives in justification of the truth of their report:  if upon\ninquiry we should find, that all the countries in Europe had received\nthe same account, supported by the same miraculous powers, attested in\nlike manner by the sufferings, and confirmed by the blood of the\nwitnesses:  I would fain know what any reasonable man would do in this\ncase?  Would he despise such evidence?  I think he would not.  And\nwhoever thinks otherwise, must say, that a resurrection, though in its\nown nature possible, is yet such a thing, in which we ought not to\nbelieve either God or man.\n\n\tJudge.   Have you done, Sir?\n\n\tMr. B.  Yes, my Lord.\n\n\tJudge.   Go on, Mr. A., if you have anything to say in reply.\n\n\tMr. A.  My Lord, I shall trouble you with very little. The\nobjections and answers under this head, I shall leave to the judgment\nof the court; and beg leave only to make an observation or two upon the\nlast part of the Gentleman's argument.\n\n\tAnd first, with respect to the sufferings of the apostles and\ndisciples of Jesus, and the argument drawn from thence for the truth of\ntheir doctrines and assertions, I beg leave to observe to you, that\nthere is not a false religion or pretence in the world, but can produce\nthe same authority, and show many instances of men who have suffered\neven to death for the truth of their several professions.  If we\nconsult only modern story we shall find Papists suffering for Popery,\nProtestants for their religion.  And among Protestants every sect has\nhad its martyrs; Puritans, Quakers, Fifth-monarchy men. In Henry VIII's\ntime England saw both Popish and Protestant martyrs; in Queen Mary's\nreign the rage fell upon Protestants; in Queen Elizabeth's Papists and\nPuritans were called sometimes, though rarely, to this trial.  In later\ntimes, sometimes churchmen, sometimes dissenters were persecuted.  What\nmust we say, then?  All these sufferers had not truth with them; and\nyet, if there be any weight in this argument from suffering they  have\nall the right to plead it.\n\n\tBut I may be told, perhaps, that men by their sufferings, though\nthey do not prove their doctrines to be true, yet prove at least their\nown sincerity: as if it were a thing impossible for men to dissemble at\nthe point of death. Alas! how many instances are there of men's denying\nfacts plainly proved, asserting facts plainly disproved, even with the\nrope around their necks? Must all such pass for innocent sufferers,\nsincere men?  If not, it must be allowed, that a man's word at the\npoint of death is not always to be relied on.\n\n\tAnother observation I would make, is with respect to the evidence\nof the Spirit, on which so much stress is laid.  It has been hitherto\ninsisted on, that the resurrection was a matter of fact, and such a\nfact as was capable and proper to be supported by the evidence of\nsense.  How comes it about, that this evidence, this which is the\nproper evidence, is given up as insufficient, and a new  improper\nevidence introduced?  Is it not surprising, that one great miracle\nshould want an hundred more to prove it?  Every miracle is itself an\nappeal to sense, and therefore admits no evidence but that of sense.\nAnd there is no connexion between a miracle done this year and last\nyear.  It does not follow, therefore, because Peter cured a lame man,\n(allowing the fact), that therefore Christ rose from the dead.\n\n\tBut allowing the Gentleman all he demands, what is to us?  They\nwho had the witness within them, did perhaps very well to consult, and\nto take his word; but how am I, or others, who have not this witness is\nus, the better for it?  If the first ages of the church saw all the\nwonders related by the Gentleman, and believed, it shews at least, in\nhis opinion, that this strong evidence was necessary to create the\nbelief he requires; why then does he require this belief of us, who\nhave not this strong evidence?\n\n\tJudge.  Very well.  Gentlemen of the jury, You have heard the\nproofs and arguments on both sides, and it is now your part to give a\nverdict.\n\n\tHere the Gentlemen whispered together, and the Foreman stood up.\n\n\tForeman.  My Lord, The case has been long, and consists of\nseveral articles; therefore the jury hope you will give them your\ndirections.\n\n\tJudge.\tNo, no; you are very able to judge without my help.\n\n\tMr. A.\tMy Lord, Pray consider, you appointed this meeting\nand chose your office.  Mr. B. and I have gone through our parts, and\nhave some right on your doing your part.\n\n\tMr. B.\tI must join, Sir, in that request.\n\n\tJudge.  I have often heard, that all honour has a burden\nattending it; but I did not suspect it in this office, which I\nconferred upon myself.  But, since it must be so, I will recollect, and\nlay before you, as well as I can, the substance of the debate.\n\n\tGentlemen of the jury, The question before you, is Whether the\nwitnesses of the resurrection of Christ are guilty of giving false\nevidence, or no?\n\n\tTwo sorts of objections, or accusations, are brought against\nthem.  One charges fraud and deceit on the transaction itself;  the\nother charges the evidence as forged, and insufficient to support the\ncredit of so extraordinary an event.\n\n\tThere are also three periods of time to be considered.\n\n\tThe first takes in the ministry of Christ, and ends at his death.\nDuring this period the fraud is supposed to be contrived.\n\n\tThe second reaches from his death to his resurrection.  During\nthis period the fraud is supposed to be executed.\n\n\tThe third begins from the resurrection, and takes in the whole\nministry of the apostles.  And here the evidence they gave the world\nfor this fact is the main consideration.\n\n\tAs to the first period of time, and the fraud charged upon Jesus,\nI must observe to you, that this charge had no evidence to support it;\nall the facts reported of Jesus stand in full contradiction to it.  To\nsuppose, as the council did, that this fraud might possibly appear, if\nwe had any Jewish books written at the time, is not to bring proof, but\nto wish for proof: for, as it was rightly observed on the other side,\nhow does Mr. A. know there were any such books?  And since they are\nlost, how does he know what was in them?  Were such books extant, they\nmight probably prove beyond dispute the facts recorded in the gospels.\n\n\tYou were told, that the Jews were a very superstitious people,\nmuch addicted to prophecy; and particularly, that they had a strong\nexpectation about the time that Christ appeared, to have a victorious\nprince rise among them.  This is laid as the ground of suspicion; and,\nin fact, many imposters, you are told, set up upon these notions of the\npeople; and thence it is inferred, that Christ built his scheme upon\nthe strength of these popular prejudices.  But when this fact came to\nbe examined on the other side, it appeared, that Christ was so far from\nfalling in with these notions, and abusing the credulity of the people,\nthat it was his main point, to correct these prejudices, to oppose\nthese superstitions; and by these very means he fell into disgrace with\nhis countrymen, and suffered as one who, in their opinion, destroyed\nthe Law and the Prophets.  With respect to temporal power, so far was\nhe from aiming at it, that he refused it when offered: so far from\ngiving any hopes of it to his disciples, that he invited men upon quite\ndifferent terms: To take up the cross, and follow him. And it is\nobservable, that, after he had foretold his death and resurrection, he\ncontinued to admonish his disciples of the evils they were to suffer;\nto tell them, that the world would hate them, and abuse them; which\nsurely to common sense has no appearance that he was then contriving a\ncheat, or encouraging his disciples to execute it.\n\n\tBut as ill supported as this charge is, there was no avoiding it;\nit was necessity and not choice, which drove the Gentleman to it: for\nsince Christ had foretold his resurrection, if the whole was a cheat,\nhe certainly was conscious to it, and consequently the plot was laid in\nhis own time.  And yet the supposing Christ conscious to such a fraud\nin these circumstance, is contrary to all probability.  It is very\nimprobable, that he, or any man, should, without any temptation,\ncontrive a cheat to take place after his death.  And if this could be\nsupposed, it is highly improbable that he should give publick notice of\nit, and thereby put all men on their guard; especially considering\nthere were only a few women, and twelve men, of low fortunes, and mean\neducation, to conduct the plot, and the whole power of the Jews and\nRomans to oppose it.\n\n\tMr. A. seemed sensible of  these difficulties, and therefore\nwould have varied the charge, and have made Christ an enthusiast, and\nhis disciples only cheats.  This was not properly moved, and therefore\nnot debated; for which reason I shall pass it over with this short\nobservation;  that enthusiasm is as contrary to the whole character and\nconduct of Christ, as even fraud is.  Besides, this imagination, if\nallowed, goes only to Christ's own part; and leaves the charge of\nfraud, in its full extent, upon the management from the time of his\ndeath; and therefore is of no use, unless the fraud afterwards be\napparent.  For if there really was a resurrection, it will sufficiently\nanswer the charge of enthusiasm.\n\n\tI pass on to the second period, to consider what happened between\nthe death and resurrection of Christ.  And here it agreed that Christ\ndied, and was buried.  So far then there was no fraud.\n\n\tFor the better understanding the charge here, we must recollect a\nmaterial circumstance reported by one of the evangelists; which is\nthis:  After Christ was buried, the chief priests and Pharisees came to\nPilate, the Roman governor, and informed him, that this deceiver\n(meaning Jesus) had in his lifetime foretold, that he would rise again\nafter three days; that they suspected his disciples would steal away\nthe body, and pretend a resurrection; and then the last error would be\nworse than the first. They therefore desire a guard to watch the\nsepulchre, to prevent all fraud.  They had one granted; accordingly\nthey placed a watch on the sepulchre, and sealed up the stone at the\nmouth of it.\n\n\tWhat the event of this case was, the same writer tells us.  The\nguards saw the stone removed by angels, and for fear they became as\ndead men:  when they came to the city, they reported to the chief\npriests what had happened: a council is called, and a resolution taken\nto bribe the soldiers to say, that the body was stolen while they were\nasleep; and the council undertook to excuse the soldiers to Pilate, for\ntheir negligence in falling asleep when they were on duty.\n\n\tThus the fact stands in the original record.  Now, the council\nfor Woolston  maintains, that the story reported by the soldiers, after\nthey had been bribed by the chief priests, contains the true account of\nthis pretended resurrection.\n\n\tThe Gentleman was sensible of a difficulty in his way, to account\nfor the credit which the Jews gave to the prediction of Christ; for if,\nas he pretends, they knew him to be an impostor, what reason had they\nto take any notion of his prediction? And therefore, that very caution\nin this case betrayed their concern, and shewed, that they were not\nsatisfied that his pretensions were groundless.  To obviate this, he\nsays, That they had discovered before, one great cheat in the case of\nLazarus, and therefore were suspicious of another in this case.  He was\nanswered, That the discovery of a cheat in the case before mentioned,\nought rather to have set them at ease, and made them quite secure as to\nthe event of the prediction.  In reply he says, That the chief priests,\nhowever satisfied of the cheat themselves, had found that it prevailed\namong the people; and, to secure the people from being further imposed\non, they used the caution they did.\n\n\tThis is the substance of the argument on both sides.\n\n\tI must observe to you, that this reasoning from the case of\nLazarus has no foundation in history.  There is no pretence for saying,\nthat the Jews in this whole affair had any particular regard to the\nraising of Lazarus.  And if they had any such just suspicion, why was\nit not mentioned at the trial of Christ?  There was then an opportunity\nof opening the whole fraud, and undeceiving the people.  The Jews had a\nplain law for punishing a false prophet; and what could be a stronger\nconviction, than such a cheat made manifest?  Why then was this\nadvantage lost?\n\n\tThe Gentleman builds this observation on these words,  So the\nlast error shall be worse than the first.  But is there here anything\nsaid about Lazarus?  No.  The words are a proverbial form of speech,\nand probably were used without relation to any particular case.  But if\na particular meaning must be assigned, it is more probable, that the\nwords being used to Pilate, contained a reason applicable to him.  Now,\nPilate had been drawn in to consent to the crucifixion, for fear the\nJews should set up Jesus to be their King in opposition to Caesar;\ntherefore say the chief priests to him, If once the people believe him\nto be risen from the dead, the last error will be worse than the first;\ni.e. they will be more inclined and encouraged to rebel against the\nRomans than ever.  This is a natural sense of the words, as they are\nused to move the Roman governor to allow them a guard.  Whether Lazarus\nwere dead or alive; whether Christ came to destroy the Law and the\nProphets, or to establish or confirm them, was of little moment to\nPilate.  It is plain, he was touched by none of these considerations;\nand refused to be concerned in the affair of Christ, till he was\nalarmed with the suggestions of danger to the Roman state.  This was\nthe first fear that moved him; must not therefore the second now\nsuggested to him be of the same kind?\n\n\tThe next circumstance to be considered, is that of the seal upon\nthe stone of the sepulchre.  The council for Woolston supposes an\nagreement between the Jews and disciples about setting this seal.  But\nfor this agreement there is no evidence; nay, to suppose it,\ncontradicts the whole series of the history, as the Gentleman on the\nother side observed.  I will not enter into the particulars of this\ndebate; for it is needless.  The plain natural account given of this\nmatter, shuts out all other suppositions.  Mr. B. observed to you, that\nthe Jews having a guard, set the seal to prevent any combination among\nthe guards to deceive them:  which seems a plain and satisfactory\naccount.  The council for W. replies, Let the use of the seals be what\nthey will, it is plain they were broken; and if they were used as a\ncheck upon the Roman soldiers, then probably they consented to the\nfraud: and then it is easily understood how the body was removed.\n\n\tI must observe to you here, that this suspicion agrees neither\nwith the account given by the evangelist, nor with the story set about\nby the Jews; so that it is utterly unsupported by any evidence.\n\n\tNor has it any probability in it.  For what could move Pilate,\nand the Roman soldiers, to propagate such a cheat?  He had crucified\nChrist, for no other reason, but for fear the people would revolt from\nthe Romans;  perhaps too he consented to place a guard upon the\nsepulchre, to put an end to the people's hope in Jesus: and is it\nlikely at last that he was consenting to a cheat, to make the people\nbelieve him risen from the dead; the thing, of all others, which he was\nobliged, as his apprehensions were, to prevent?\n\n\tThe next circumstance insisted on as a proof of the fraud, is,\nthat Jesus rose from the dead before the time he had appointed.  Mr. A.\nsupposes that the disciples hastened the plot, for fear of falling in\nwith multitudes, who waited only for the appointed time to be at the\nsepulchre, and to see with their own eyes.  He was answered, That the\ndisciples were not, could not be concerned, or be present at moving the\nbody;  that they were dispersed, and lay concealed for fear of the\nJews: that hastening the plot, was of no use; for the resurrection\nhappened whilst the guards were at the sepulchre; who were probably\nenow to prevent violence; certainly enow to discover it, if any were\nused.\n\n\tThis difficulty then rests merely upon the reckoning of the time.\nChrist died on Friday, rose early on Sunday.  The question is, Whether\nthis was rising the third day, according to the prediction?  I will\nrefer the authorities made use of in this case to your memory, and add\nonly one observation, to shew that it was indeed the third day,\naccording as the people of the country reckoned.  When Christ talked\nwith the two disciples who knew him not, they gave him an account of\nhis own crucifixion, and their disappointment; and tell him, Today is\nthe third day since these things were done [Luke24:21]. Now, this\nconversation was on the very day of the resurrection.  And the\ndisciples thought of nothing less than answering an objection against\nthe resurrection, which as yet they did not believe.  They recount only\na matter of fact, and reckon the time according to the usage of their\ncountry, and call the day of the resurrection the third day from the\ncrucifixion; which is a plain evidence, in what manner the Jews\nreckoned in this and like cases.\n\n\tAs the objections in this case are founded upon the story\nreported by the Jews, and the Roman soldiers, Mr. B. in his answer,\nendeavored to shew, from some historical passages, that the Jews\nthemselves did not believe the story.\n\n\tHis first argument was, That the Jews never questioned the\ndisciples for this cheat, and the share they had in it, when they had\nthem in their power.  And yet who sees not that it was very much in\ntheir purpose so to do?  To this there is no reply.\n\n\tThe second argument was from the treatment St. Paul had from King\nAgrippa, and his saying to St. Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a\nChristian: A speech which he reckons could not be made by a prince, to\none concerned in carrying out a known cheat.  To this the Gentleman\nreplies, That Agrippa never did become a Christian; and that no great\nstress is to be laid upon his compliance to his prisoner.  But allowing\nthat there was something of humanity and civility in the expression,\nyet such civility could hardly be paid to a known impostor.  There is a\npropriety even in civility.  A prince may be civil to a rebel; but he\nwill hardly compliment him for his loyalty:  he may be civil to a poor\nsectary; but if he knows him to be a cheat, he will scarcely compliment\nhim with hopes that he will be of his party.\n\n\tThe third argument was from the advice given by Gamaliel to the\ncouncil of the Jews, to let the apostles alone, for fear they\nthemselves should be found to fight against God:  A supposition which\nthe Gentleman thinks absolutely inconsistent with his, or the council's\nbeing persuaded, that the apostles were guilty of any fraud in managing\nthe resurrection of Christ.\n\n\tThe Gentleman replies, That Gamaliel's advice respected only the\nnumbers of people deceived; and was a declaration of his opinion, that\nit was not prudent to come to extremities till the people were in a\nbetter temper.  This deserves consideration.\n\n\tFirst, I observe, that Gamaliel's words are express, Lest ye be\nfound to fight against God; which reason respects God, and not the\npeople.  And the suppostion is, that the hand of God might possibly be\nin this work: A saying which could not have come from him, or have been\nreceived by the council, if they had believed the resurrection to have\nbeen a cheat.\n\n\tSecondly, It is remarkable, that the miracles wrought by the\napostles after the death of Christ, those especially which occasioned\nthe calling of this council, had a much greater effect upon the Jews,\nthan even the miracles of Christ himself.  They held out against all\nthe wonders of Christ, and were perpetually plotting his death, not\ndoubting but that would put an end to all their trouble: but when,\nafter his death, they saw the same powers continue with the apostles,\nthey saw no end of the affair, but began to think in earnest there\nmight be more in it than they were willing to believe.  And, upon the\nreport made to them of the apostle's works, they make serious\nreflexion, and doubted whereunto this would grow.  And though in their\nanger and vexation of heart they thought of desperate remedies, and\nwere for killing the apostles also; yet they hearkened willing to\nGamaliel's advice; which at another time might have been dangerous to\nthe adviser.  So that it appears from the history, that the whole\ncouncil had the same doubt that Gamaliel had, that possibly the hand of\nGod might be in this thing.  And could the Jews, if they had manifestly\ndiscovered the cheat of the resurrection a little time before, have\nentertained such a suspicion?\n\n\tThe last period commences at the resurrection, and takes in the\nevidence upon which the credit of this fact stands.\n\n\tThe council for Woolston, among other difficulties, started one,\nwhich, if well grounded, excludes all evidence out of this case.  The\nresurrection being a thing out of the course of nature, he thinks the\ntestimony of nature, held forth to us in her constant method of\nworking, a stronger evidence against the possibility of a resurrection,\nthan any human evidence can be for the reality of one.\n\n\tIn answer to this, it is said, on the other side,\n\n\tFirst, That a resurrection is a thing to be judged of by mens\nsenses; and this cannot be doubted.  We all know when a man is dead;\nand should he come to life again, we might judge whether he was alive\nor no, by the very same means by which we judge those about us to be\nliving men.\n\n\tSecondly, That the notion of a resurrection, contradicts no one\nprinciple of right reason, interferes with no law of nature: and that\nwhoever admits that God gave man life at first, cannot possibly doubt\nof his power to restore it when lost.\n\n\tThirdly, That appealing to the settled course of nature, is\nreferring the matter in dispute, not to rules or maxims of reason and\ntrue philosophy, but to the prejudices and mistakes of men; which are\nvarious and infinite, and differ sometimes according to the climate men\nlive in; because men form a notion of nature from what they see: and\ntherefore in cold countries all men judge it to be according to the\ncourse of nature for water to freeze; in warm countries they judge it\nto be unnatural.  Consequently, that it is not enough to prove anything\nto be contrary to the laws of nature, to say that it is usually, or\nconstantly, to our observation, otherwise.  And therefore, though men\nin the ordinary course die, and do not rise again, (which is certainly\na prejudice against the belief of a resurrection); yet is it not an\nargument against the possibility of a resurrection?\n\n\tAnother objection was against the reality of the body of Christ\nafter it came from the grave.  These objections are founded upon such\npassages as report his appearing or disappearing to the eyes of his\ndisciples at pleasure; his coming in among them when the doors were\nshut; his forbidding some to touch him, his inviting others to do it;\nhis having the very wounds whereof he died, fresh and open in his body,\nand the like. Hence the council concluded, that it was no real body,\nwhich was sometimes visible, sometimes invisible; sometimes capable of\nbeing touched, sometimes incapable.\n\n\tOn the other side it was answered, That many of these objections\nare founded on a mistaken belief of the passages referred to;\nparticularly of the passage in which Christ is thought to forbid Mary\nMagdalene to touch him; of another, in which he calls to Thomas to\nexamine his wounds; and probably of a third, relating to Christ's\nconversation with his disciples on the road, without being known by\nthem.\n\n\tAs to other passages which relate his appearing and disappearing,\nand coming in when the doors were shut, it is said, that no conclusion\ncan be drawn from them against the reality of Christ's body: that these\nthings might happen many ways, and yet the body be real; which is the\nonly point to which the present objection extends:  that there might be\nin this, and probably was, something miraculous; but nothing more\nwonderful than what happened on another occasion in his lifetime, where\nthe Gentleman who makes the objection allows him to have had a real\nbody.\n\n\tI mention these things but briefly, just to bring the course of\nthe argument to your remembrance.\n\n\tThe next objection is taken from hence, That Christ did not\nappear publickly to the people, and particularly to the chief priests\nand rulers of the Jews.  It is said, that his commission related to\nthem in an especial manner; and that it appears strange, that the main\nproof of his mission, the resurrection, should not be laid before them;\nbut that witnesses should be picked and culled to see this mighty\nwonder.  This is the force of the objection.\n\n\tTo which it is answered, First, That the particular commission to\nthe Jews expired at the death of Christ; and therefore the Jews had, on\nthis account, no claim for any particular evidence.  And it is\ninsisted, that Christ, before his death, declared, the Jews should not\nsee him, till they were better disposed to receive him.\n\n\tSecondly, That as the whole world had a concern in the\nresurrection of Christ, it was necessary to prepare a proper evidence\nfor the whole world; which was not to be done by any particular\nsatisfaction given to the people of the Jews, or their rulers.\n\n\tThirdly, That as to the chosen witnesses, it is a mistake to\nthink that they were chosen as the only persons to see Christ after the\nresurrection; and that in truth many others did see him: but that the\nwitnesses were chosen as proper persons to bear testimony to all\npeople; an office to which many others who did see Christ, were not\nparticularly commissioned. That making choice of proper and credible\nwitnesses, was so far from being a ground of just suspicion, that it is\nin all cases the most proper way to exclude suspicion..\n\n\tThe next objection is pointed against the evidence of the angels,\nand the women.  It is said, That history reports, that the women saw\nyoung men at the sepulchre; that they were advanced into angels, merely\nthrough the fear and superstition of the women: that, at the best, this\nis but a story of an apparition; a thing in times of ignorance much\ntalked of, but in the days of knowledge never heard of.\n\n\tIn answer to this, it is said, That the angels are not properly\nreckoned among the witnesses of the resurrection; they were not in the\nnumber of the chosen witnesses, or sent to bear testimony in the world:\nthat they were indeed ministers of God appointed to attend the\nresurrection: that God has such ministers, cannot be reasonably\ndoubted; nor can it be objected, that they were improperly employed, or\nbelow their dignity, in attending on the resurrection of Christ: that\nwe believe them to be angels, not on the report of the women, but upon\nthe credit of the evangelist who affirms it: that what is said of\napparitions on this occasion, may pass for wit and ridicule, but yields\nnot reason or argument.\n\n\tThe objection to the women was, I think, only that they were\nwomen; which was strengthened by calling them silly women.\n\n\tIt was answered, That women have eyes and ears as well as men,\nand can tell what they see and hear.  And it happened in this case,\nthat the women were so far from being credulous, that they believed not\nthe angels, and hardly believed their own report.  However, that the\nwomen are none of the chosen witnesses; and if they were, the evidence\nof the men cannot be set aside, because women saw what they saw..\n\n\tThis is the substance of the objections and the answers.\n\n\tThe council for the apostles insisted further, That they gave the\ngreatest assurance to the world that possibly could be given, of their\nsincere dealing, by suffering all kinds of  hardship, and at last death\nitself, in confirmation of the truth of their evidence.\n\n\tThe council for Woolston, in reply to this, told you, That all\nreligions, whether true or false, had had their martyrs; that no\nopinion, however absurd, can be named, but some have been content to\ndie for it; and then concluded, that suffering is no evidence of the\ntruth of the opinions for which men suffer.\n\n\tTo clear this matter to you, I must observe how this case stands.\nYou have heard often, in the course of this argument, that the apostles\nwere witnesses chosen to bear testimony to the resurrection; and, for\nthat  reason, had the fullest evidence themselves of the truth of it;\nnot merely by seeing Christ once or twice after his death, but by\nfrequent conversations with him for forty days together, before his\nascension.  That this was their proper business, appears plainly from\nhistory; where we find, that to ordain an apostle, was the same thing\nas ordaining one to be a witness of the resurrection.[Acts 1:22]  If\nyou look further, to the preaching of the apostles, you will find this\nwas the great article insisted on [Acts 2:22, 3:15, 4:10, 5:30]. And\nSt. Paul knew the weight of this article, and the necessity of teaching\nit, when he said, If Christ be not risen, our faith is vain.  You see,\nthen, that the thing which the apostles testified, and the thing for\nwhich they suffered, was the truth of the resurrection; which is a mere\nmatter of fact.\n\n\tConsider now how the objection stands.  The council for Woolston\ntells you, that it is common for men to die for false opinions; and he\ntells you nothing but the truth. But even in those cases their\nsuffering is an evidence of their sincerity; and it would be very hard\nto charge men who die for the doctrine they profess, with insincerity\nin the profession.  Mistaken they may be; but every mistaken man is not\na cheat.  Now, if you will allow the suffering of the apostles to prove\ntheir sincerity, which you cannot well disallow; and consider that they\ndied for the truth of a matter of  fact which they had seen themselves,\nyou will perceive how strong the evidence is in this case.  In\ndoctrines, and matters of opinion, men mistake perpetually; and it is\nno reason for me to take up with another man's opinion, because I am\npersuaded he is sincere in it. But when a man reports to me an uncommon\nfact, yet such an one as in its own nature is a plain object of sense;\nif I believe him not, it is not because I suspect his eyes, or his\nsense of feeling, but merely because I suspect his sincerity: for if I\nwas to see the same thing myself, I should believe myself; and\ntherefore my suspicion does not arise from the inability of human\nsenses to judge in the case, but from a doubt of the sincerity of the\nreporter.  In such cases, therefore,  there wants nothing to be proved,\nbut only the sincerity of the reporter: and since voluntary sufferings\nfor the truth, is at least a proof of sincerity; the sufferings of the\napostles for the truth of the resurrection, is a full and\nunexceptionable proof.\n\n\tThe council for Woolston was sensible of this difference; and\ntherefore he added, that there are many instances of men's suffering\nand dying in an obstinate denial of the truth of facts plainly proved.\nThis observation is also true.  I remember a story of a man who endured\nwith great constancy all the tortures of the rack, denying the fact\nwith which he was charged.  When he was asked afterwards, how he could\nhold out against all the tortures? He answered, I had painted a gallows\nupon the toe of my shoe, and when the rack stretched me, I looked on\nthe gallows, and bore the pain, to save my life.  This man denied a\nplain fact, under great torture; but you see a reason for it.  In other\ncases, when criminals persist in denying their crimes, they often do\nit, and there is a reason to suspect they do it always, in hopes of a\npardon or reprieve.  But what are these instances to the present\npurpose?  All these men suffer against their will, and for their\ncrimes; and their obstinacy is built on the hope of escaping, by moving\nthe compassion of the government. Can the Gentleman give any instances\nof persons who died willingly in attestation of a false fact?  We have\nhad in England some weak enough to die for the Pope's supremacy; but do\nyou think a man could be found to die in proof of the Pope's being\nactually on the throne of England?\n\n\tNow, the apostles died in asserting the truth of Christ's\nresurrection.  It was always in their power to quit their evidence and\nsave their lives.  Even their bitterest enemies, the Jews, required no\nmore of them than to be silent. [Acts 4:17, 5:28]  Others have denied\nfacts, or asserted facts, in hopes of saving their lives, when they\nwere under sentence of death: but these men attested a fact at the\nexpence of their lives, which they might have saved by denying the\ntruth.  So that between criminals dying, and denying plain facts, and\nthe apostles dying for their testimony, there is this material\ndifference: criminals deny the truth in hopes of saving their lives;\nthe apostles willingly parted with their lives, rather than deny the\ntruth.\n\n\tWe are come now to the last, and indeed the most weighty\nconsideration.\n\n\tThe council for the apostles having in the course of the argument\nallowed, that more evidence is required to support the credit of the\nresurrection, it being a very extraordinary event, than is necessary in\ncommon cases, in the latter part of his defence sets forth the\nextraordinary evidence upon which this fact stands.  That is, the\nevidence of the Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom and power, which was given\nto the apostles, to enable them to confirm their testimony by signs and\nwonders, and mighty works.  This part of the argument was well argued\nby the Gentleman, and I need not repeat all he said.\n\n\tThe council for Woolston, in his reply, made two objections to\nthis evidence.\n\n\tThe first was this: That the resurrection having all along been\npleaded to be a matter of fact, and an object of sense, to recur to\nmiracles for the proof of it, is to take it out of its proper evidence,\nthe evidence of sense; and to rest it upon a proof which cannot be\napplied to it: for seeing one miracle, he says, is no evidence that\nanother miracle was wrought before it; as healing a sick man, is no\nevidence that a dead man was raised to life.\n\n\tTo clear this difficulty, you must consider by what train of\nreasoning miracles come to be proofs in any case.  A miracle of itself\nproves nothing, unless this only, that there is a cause equal to the\nproducing the effect we see.  Suppose you should see a man raise one\nfrom the dead, and he should go away and say nothing to you, you would\nnot find that any fact, or any proposition, was proved or disproved by\nthis miracle.  But should he declare to you, in the name of him, by\nwhose power the miracle was wrought, that image-worship was unlawful,\nyou would then be possessed of a proof against image-worship.  But how?\nNot because the miracle proves anything as to the point itself, but\nbecause the man's declaration is authorised by him who wrought the\nmiracle in confirmation of his doctrine; and therefore miracles are\ndirectly a proof of the authority of  persons, and not of the truth of\nthings.\n\n\tTo apply this to the present case:  If the apostles had wrought\nmiracles, and said nothing of the resurrection, the miracles would have\nproved nothing about the resurrection one way or another.  But when as\neye-witnesses they attested the truth of the resurrection, and wrought\nmiracles to confirm their authority; the miracles did not directly\nprove the resurrection; but they confirmed and established beyond all\nsuspicion the proper evidence, the evidence of eye-witnesses.  So that\nhere is no change of the evidence from proper to improper; the fact\nstill rests upon the evidence of sense, confirmed and strengthened by\nthe authority of the Spirit.  If a witness calls in his neighbors to\nattest his veracity, they prove nothing as to the fact in question, but\nonly confirm the evidence of the witness.  The case here is the same;\nthough between the authorities brought in confirmation of the evidence,\nthere is no comparison.\n\n\tThe second objection was, That this evidence, however good it may\nbe in its kind, is yet nothing to us.  It was well, the Gentleman says,\nfor those who had it; but what is that to us, who have it not?\n\n\tTo adjust this difficulty, I must observe to you, that the\nevidence now under consideration, was not a private evidence of the\nSpirit, or any inward light, like to that which the Quakers in our time\npretend to; but an evidence appearing in the manifest and visible works\nof the Spirit: and this evidence was capable of being transmitted, and\nactually has been transmitted to us upon unquestionable authority.  And\nto allow the evidence to have been good in the first ages, and not in\nthis, seems to be to be a contradiction to the rules of reasoning: for\nif we see enough to judge that the first ages had reason to believe, we\nmust needs see at the same time, that it is reasonable for us also to\nbelieve.  As the present question only relates to the nature of the\nevidence, it was not necessary to produce from history the instances to\nshew in how plentiful a manner this evidence was granted to the church.\nWhoever wants this satisfaction, may easily have it.\n\n\tGentlemen of the jury, I have laid before you the substance of\nwhat has been said on both sides.  You are now to consider of it, and\nto give your verdict.\n\n\tThe jury consulted together, and the Foreman rose up.\n\n\tForeman.\tMy Lord, We are ready to give our verdict.\n\n\tJudge.\tAre you all agreed?\n\n\tJury.\tYes.\n\n\tJudge.\tWho shall speak for you?\n\n\tJury.\tOur Foreman.\n\n\tJudge.\tWhat say you?  Are the apostles guilty of giving\nfalse evidence in the case of the resurrection of Jesus, or not guilty?\n\n\tForeman.\tNot guilty.\n\n\tJudge.  \tVery well. And now, Gentlemen, I resign my commission\nand am your humble servant.\n\n\tThe company rose up, and were beginning to pay their compliments\nto the judge and the council; but were interrupted by a Gentleman, who\nwent up to the judge, and offered him a fee.  What's this? Says the\njudge.  A fee, Sir, said the Gentleman.  A fee to a judge is a bribe,\nsaid the judge.  True, Sir, said the Gentleman; but you have resigned\nyour commission, and will not be the first judge who has come from the\nbench without any diminution of honour.  Now, Lazarus's case is to come\non next, and this fee is to retain you on his side.  There followed a\nconfused noise of all speaking together, to persuade the judge to take\nthe fee: but as the trial had lasted longer than I expected, and I had\nlapsed the time of an appointment for business, I was forced to slip\naway; and whether the judge was prevailed on to undertake the cause of\nLazarus, or no, I cannot say.\n\nFINIS","title":"Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":29373}