Typescript converted to computer file by Lee Dunbar  - July 2002



The TRIAL
of the
WITNESSES
of the
RESURRECTION
of
JESUS CHRIST

N.B. Not only Mr. Woolston's objections in his Sixth Discourse on our
Saviour's Miracles, but those also which he and others have published
in other Books, are here considered.

First Published about the Year 1729


THE
T R I A L
OF THE
WITNESSES
OF THE
Resurrection of Jesus

We were, not long since, some Gentlemen of the inns of court together,
each to other so well known, that no man's presence was a confinement
to any other, from speaking his mind on any subject that happened to
arise in conversation.  The meeting was without design, and the
discourse, as in like cases, various.  Among other things we fell upon
the subject of Woolston's trial and conviction, which had happened some
few days before.  That led to a debate, How the law finds in such
cases? what punishment it inflicts? and, in general, whether the law
ought at all to interpose in controversies of this kind?  We were not
agreed in these points.  One, who maintained the favorable side to
Woolston, discovered a great liking  and approbation of his discourses
against the miracles of Christ, and seemed to think his arguments
unanswerable.  To which another replied, I wonder that one of your
abilities, and bred to the profession of the law, which teaches us to
consider the nature of evidence, and its proper weight, can be of that
opinion: I am sure you would be unwilling to determine a property of
five shillings upon such evidence, as you now think material enough to
overthrow the miracles of Christ.

	It may easily be imagined, that this opened a door to much
dispute, and determined the conversation for the remainder of the
evening to this subject. The dispute ran thro' almost all the
particulars mentioned in Woolston's pieces; but the thread of it was
broken by several digressions, and the pursuit of things which were
brought accidentally into the discourse.  At length one of the company
said pleasantly; Gentlemen, you don't argue like lawyers; if  I were
judge in this cause, I would hold you better to the point. The company
took the hint, and cried, they should be glad to have the cause
reheard, and him to be the judge.  The Gentlemen who had engaged with
mettle and spirit in a dispute which arose accidentally, seemed very
unwilling to be drawn into a formal controversy; and especially the
Gentleman who argued against Woolston, thought the matter grew too
serious for him, and excused himself from undertaking a controversy in
religion, of all others the most momentous.  But he was told, that the
argument should be confined merely to the nature of the evidence; and
that might be considered, without entering into any such controversy as
he would avoid; and, to bring the matter within bounds, and under one
view, the evidence of Christ's resurrection, and the exceptions taken
to it, should be the only subject of the conference. With such
persuasion he suffered himself to be persuaded, and promised to give
the company, and their new-made judge, a meeting that day fortnight.
The judge and the rest of the company were for bringing on the cause a
week sooner; but the council for Woolston took the matter up, and said,
Consider, Sir, the Gentleman is not to argue out of  Littleton,
Plowden, or Coke, authors to him well known; but he must have his
authorities from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and a fortnight is time
little enough of all conscience to gain a familiarity with a new
acquaintance: and, turning to the Gentleman, he said, I'll call upon
you before the fortnight is out, to see how reverend an appearance you
make behind Hammond on the New Testament, a concordance on one hand,
and a folio Bible with references on the other.  You shall be welcome,
Sir, replied the Gentleman; and perhaps you may find some company more
to your own taste.  He is but a poor council who studies on one side of
the question only; and therefore I will have your friend Woolston,
T____l, and C___s, to entertain you when you do me the favor of the
visit.  Upon this we parted in good humour, and all pleased with the
appointment made, except the two Gentlemen who were to provide the
entertainment.

The Second Day

	The company met at the time appointed: but as it happened in
this, as in like cases it often does, that some friends to some of the
company, who were not of the party the first day, had got notice of the
meeting; and the Gentlemen who were to debate the question, found they
had a more numerous audience than they expected or desired.  He
especially who was to maintain the evidence for the resurrection, began
to excuse the necessity he was under of disappointing their
expectation, alledging that he was not prepared; and he had persisted
in excusing himself, but that the strangers who perceived what the case
was, offered to withdraw; which the Gentleman would by no means consent
to:  they insisting to go, he said, he would much rather submit himself
to their candour, unprepared as he was, than be guilty of such
rudeness, as to force them to leave the company. Upon which one of the
company, smiling, said, It happens luckily that our number is
increased: when we were last together, we appointed a judge, but we
quite forgot a jury: and now, I think, we are good men and true,
sufficient to make one.  This thought was pursued in several allusions
to legal proceedings; which created some mirth, and had this good
effect, that it dispersed the solemn air, which the mutual compliments
upon the difficulty before mentioned had introduced, and restored the
ease and good humour natural to the conversation of Gentlemen.

	The judge perceiving the disposition of the company, thought it a
proper time to begin, and called out, Gentlemen of the jury, take your
places; and immediately seated himself at the upper end of the table.
The company sat round him, and the judge called upon the council for
Woolston to begin.

	Mr. A. Council for Woolston, addressing himself to the judge,
said,

	May it please your Lordship, I conceive the Gentleman on the
other side ought to begin, and lay his evidence, which he intends to
maintain, before the court; till that is done, it is to no purpose for
me to object.  I amy perhaps object to something which he will not
admit to be any part of his evidence;  and therefore I apprehend, the
evidence ought in the first place to be distinctly stated.

	Judge. Mr. B What say you to that?

	Mr. B. Council on the other side:

	My Lord, If the evidence I am to maintain, were to suppose any
new claim; if I were to gain any thing which I am not already possessed
of, the Gentleman would be in the right: but the evidence is old, and
is matter of record; and I have been long in possession of all that I
claim under it.  If the Gentleman has anything to say to dispossess me,
let him produce it; otherwise I have no reason to bring my own title
into question.  And this I take to be the known method of proceeding
in such cases: no man is obliged to produce his title to his
possession; it is sufficient if he maintain it when it is called in
question.

	Mr A.  Surely, my Lord, the Gentleman mistakes the case.  I can
never admit myself to be out of possession of my understanding and
reason; and since he would put me out of this possession, and compel me
to admit things incredible, in virtue of the evidence he maintains, he
ought to set forth his claim, or leave the world to be directed by
common sense.

	Judge.   Sir, you say right, upon supposition that the truth of
the Christian religion were the point in question.  In that case it
would be necessary to produce the evidence for the Christian religion.
But the matter now before the court is, Whether the objections produced
by Mr. Woolston, are of weight to overthrow the evidence of Christ's
resurrection? You see then the evidence of the resurrection is supposed
to be what it is on both sides; and the thing immediately in judgement
is, the value of the objections; and therefore they must be set forth.
The court will be bound to take notice of the evidence, which is
admitted as a fact on both parts.  Go on, Mr. A.

	Mr. A.  My Lord, I submit to the direction of the court, I cannot
but observe, that the Gentleman on the other side, unwilling as he
seems to be to state his evidence, did not forget to lay in his claim
to prescription; which is perhaps, in truth, tho' he has too much skill
to own it, the very strength of his cause.  I do allow, that the
Gentleman maintains nothing, but what his father and grandfather, and
his ancestors, beyond time of man's memory, maintained before him:  I
allow too, that prescription in many cases makes a good title; but it
must always be with this condition, that the thing is capable of being
prescribed for: and I insist, that prescription cannot run against
reason and common sense. Customs may be pleaded by prescription; but
if, upon showing the custom, anything unreasonable appears in it, the
prescription fails; for length of time works nothing towards the
establishing anything that could never have a legal commencement.  And
if this objection will overthrow all prescriptions for customs; the
mischief of which extends perhaps to one poor village only, and affects
them in no greater a concern, than their right of common upon a ragged
mountain:  shall it not much more prevail, when the interest of mankind
is concerned, and in no less a point than his happiness in this life,
and all his hopes for futurity?  Besides, if prescription must be
allowed in this case, how will you deal with it in others?  What will
you say to the ancient Persians, and their fire-altars? nay, what to
the Turks, who have been long enough in possession of their faith to
plead -----

	Mr. B.   I beg pardon for interrupting the Gentleman, but it is
to save him trouble.  He is going into his favorite common-place, and
has brought us from Persia to Turkey already; and if he goes on, I know
we must follow him around the globe. To save us from this long journey,
I'll waive all advantage from the antiquity of the resurrection, and
the general reception the belief of it has found in the world; and am
content to consider it as a fact which happened but last year, and was
never heard of either by the Gentleman's grandfather, or by mine.

	Mr. A. I should not have taken quite so long a journey as the
Gentleman imagines; nor, indeed, need any man go far from home to find
instances to the purpose I was upon.  But, since this advantage is
quitted, I am as willing to spare my pains, as the Gentleman is
desirous that I should.  And yet I suspect some art even in this
concession, fair and candid as it seems to be.  For I am persuaded,
that one reason, perhaps the main reason, why men believe this history
of Jesus, is, that they cannot conceive, that any one should attempt,
much less succeed in such an attempt as this, upon the foundation of
mere human cunning and policy; and 'tis worth to go round the globe, as
the Gentleman expressed himself, so see various instances of the like
kind, in order to remove this prejudice.  But I stand corrected, and
will go directly to the point now in judgement.

	Mr. B.  My Lord, the Gentleman, in justification of his first
argument, has entered upon another of a very different kind.  I think
he is sensible of it, and seeming to yield up one of his popular
topicks, is indeed artfully getting rid of another; which has made a
very good figure in many late writings, but will not bear in any place
where he who maintains it may be asked questions.  The mere antiquity
of the resurrection I gave up; for, if the evidence was not good at
first, it can't be good now.  The Gentleman is willing, he says,  to
spare us his history of  ancient errors; and intimates, that upon this
account he passes over many instances of fraud, that were in like
circumstances to the case before us.  I would not have the main
strength of his case betrayed in complaisance to me.  Nothing can be
more material than to show a fraud of this kind, that prevailed
universally in the world.  Christ Jesus declared himself a Prophet, and
put the proof of his mission on this, that he should die openly and
publickly, and rise again the third day.  This surely was the hardest
plot in the world to be managed; and if there be one instance of this
kind, or in any degree like it, by all means let it be produced.

	Mr. A.  My Lord, There has hardly been an instance of a false
religion in the world, but it has also afforded a like instance to this
before us.  Have they not all pretended to inspiration?  Upon what foot
did Pythagoras, Numa, and others set up?  Did they not all converse
with the gods, and pretend to deliver oracles?

	Mr. B.  This only shews, that revelation is by the common consent
of mankind the very best foundation of religion; and therefore every
imposter pretends to it.  But is a man's hiding himself in a cave for
some years, and then coming out into the world, to be compared to a
man's dying, and rising to life again?  So far from it, that you and I
and every man may do the one, but no man can do the other.

	Mr. A.  Sir, I suppose it will be allowed to be as great a thing
to go to heaven, and converse with angels, and with God, and to come
down to earth again, as it is to die, and  rise again?  Now, this very
thing Mahomet pretended to do; and all his disciples believe it.  Can
you deny this fact?

	Mr. B.  Deny it, Sir? No. But tell us who went with Mahomet?  Who
were his witnesses?  I expect, before we are done, to hear of the
guards set over the sepulchre of Christ, and the seal of the stone.
What guard watched Mahomet in his going or returning?  What seals and
credentials had he?  He himself pretends to none.  His followers
pretend to nothing but his own word.  We are now to consider the
evidence for Christ's resurrection, and you think to parallel it, by
producing a case for which no one ever pretended there was any
evidence.  You have Mahomet's word; and no man ever told a lie, but you
had his word for the truth of what he said: and therefore you need not
go round the globe to find such instances as these.  But this story, it
is said, has gained great credit, and is received by many nations.
Very well.   And how was it received?  Was not every man converted to
this faith with the sword at his throat?  In our case, every witness to
the resurrection, and every believer of it, was hourly exposed to
death.  In the other case, whoever refused to believe, died;  or, what
was as bad, lived a wretched conquered slave.  And will you pretend
these cases to be alike?  One case indeed there was, within our own
memory, which, in some circumstances, came near to the case now before
us.  The French prophets put the credit of their mission upon the
resurrection of Dr. Emmes, and gave publick notice of it.  If the
Gentleman pleases to make use of this instance, it is at his service.

	Mr. A.  The instance of Dr. Emmes is so far to the purpose, that
it shews to what lengths enthusiasm will carry men.  And why might not
the same thing happen at Jerusalem, which happened but a few years ago
in our own country?  Matthew and John, and the rest of them, managed
that affair with more dexterity than the French prophets; so that the
resurrection of Jesus gained credit in the world, and the French
prophets sunk under their ridiculous pretensions.  That is all the
difference.

	Mr. B.  Is it so? And a very wide difference, I promise you.  In
one case everything happened that was proper to convince the world of
the resurrection;  in the other, the event manifested the cheat: and
upon the view of these circumstances, you think it is sufficient to
say, with great coolness, That is all the difference.  Why, what
difference do you expect  between truth and falsehood?  What
distinction _____

	Judge.  Gentlemen, you forget you are in a court, and are falling
into dialogue.  Courts don't allow of chit-chat.  Look ye, the evidence
of the resurrection of Jesus is before the court, recorded by Matthew,
Mark, and others.  You must take it as it is; you can neither make it
better, or worse.  These witnesses are accused of giving false
evidence.  Come to the point; and let us hear what you have to offer to
prove the accusation.

	Mr. B.  Is it your meaning, Sir, that the objections should be
stated and argued all together, and that the answer should be to the
whole at once?  or would you have the objections argued singly,  and
answered separately by themselves?

	Judge.  I think this court may dispense with the strict forms of
legal proceeding; and therefore I leave this to the choice of the jury.


	After the jury had consulted together, the foreman rose up,


	The Foreman of the Jury.  We desire to hear the objections argued
and answered separately.  We shall be better able to form a judgement,
by hearing the answer while the objection is fresh in our minds.

	Judge.  Gentlemen, you hear the opinion of the jury.  Go on.

	Mr. A	I am now to disclose to you a scene, of all others the most
surprising.  "The resurrection has been long talked of, and, to the
amazement of everyone who can think freely, has been believed through
all ages of the church."  This general and constant belief creates in
most minds a presumption that it was founded on good evidence.  In
other cases the evidence supports the credit of the history; but here
the evidence itself is presumed only upon the credit which the story
has gained.  I wish the books dispersed against Jesus by the ancient
Jews had not been lost; for they would have given us a clear insight
into this contrivance: but it is happy for us, that the very account
given by the pretended witnesses of this fact, is sufficient to destroy
the credit of it.

	The resurrection was not a thing contrived for its own sake.  No!
it was undertaken to support great views, and for the sake of great
consequences that were to attend it.  It will be necessary therefore to
lay before you those views, that you may be the better judge of this
part of the contrivance, when you have the whole scene before you.

	The Jews were a weak superstitious people, and, as is common
among such people, gave great credit to some traditionary prophecies
about their own country.  They had, besides, some old books among them,
which they esteemed to be writings of certain Prophets, who had
formerly lived among them, and whose memory they had in great
veneration.  From such old books and traditions they formed many
extravagant expectations; and among the rest one was, that some time or
other a great victorious prince would rise among them, and subdue all
their enemies, and make them lords of the world.  In Augustus's time
they were in a low state, reduced under the Roman yoke; and as they
never wanted a deliverer more, so the eagerness of this hope, as it
happens to weak minds, turned into a firm expectation that he would
soon come. This proved a temptation to some bold, and to some cunning
men, to personate the prince so much expected.  And "nothing is more
natural and common to promote rebellions, than to ground them on new
prophecies, or new interpretations of old ones; prophecies being suited
to the vulgar superstition, and operating with the force of religion."
Accordingly, many such imposters rose, pretending to be the victorious
prince expected; and they, and the people who followed them, perished
in the folly of their attempt.

	But Jesus, knowing that victories and triumphs are not things to
be counterfeited; that the people were not to be delivered from the
Roman yoke by sleight of hand; and having no hope of being able to cope
with the Emperor of Rome in good earnest, took another  and more
successful method to carry on his design.  He took upon him to be the
prince foretold in the ancient Prophets; but then he insisted that the
true sense of the prophecies had been mistaken;  that they related not
to the kingdoms of this world, but to the kingdom of heaven; that the
Messias was not to be a conquering prince, but a suffering one;  that
he was not to come with horses of war, and chariots of war, but was to
be meek and lowly, riding on an ass.  By this means, he got the common
and necessary foundation for a new revelation, which is to be built and
founded on a precedent revelation.

	To carry on this design, he made choice of twelve men of no
fortunes or education, and of such understandings, as gave no jealousy
that they would discover the plot.  And, what is most wonderful, and
shews their ability, while the master was preaching the kingdom of
heaven, these poor men, not weaned from the prejudices of their
country, expected every day that he would declare himself a king, and
were quarreling who should be his first minister.  This expectation had
a good effect on the service; for it kept them constant to their
master.

	I must observe further, that the Jews were under strange
apprehensions of supernatural powers:  and as their own religion was
founded on the belief of certain miracles said to be wrought by their
lawgiver Moses; so were they ever running after wonders and miracles,
and ready to take up with any stories of this kind.  Now, as something
extraordinary was necessary to support the pretensions of Jesus, he
dextrously laid hold of this weakness of the people, and set up to be a
wonder-worker.  His disciples were well qualified to receive this
impression:  they saw, or thought they saw many strange things, and
were able to spread the fame and report of them abroad.

	This conduct had the desired success.  The whole country was
alarmed, and full of the news of a great Prophet's being come among
them.  They were too full of their own imagination, to attend to the
notion of a kingdom of heaven.  Here was one mighty in deed and in
word; and they concluded that he was the very prince their nation
expected.  Accordingly they once attempted to set him up for a King;
and at another time attended him in triumph to Jerusalem. This natural
consequence opens the natural design of the attempt.  If things had
gone on successfully to the end, it is probable that the kingdom of
heaven would have been changed into a kingdom of this world.  The
design indeed failed, by the impatience and over-hastiness of the
multitude; which alarmed not only the chief of the Jews, but the Roman
governor also.

	The case being come to this point, and Jesus seeing that he could
not escape being put to death, he declared, that the ancient Prophets
had foretold, that the Messias should die upon a cross, and that he
should rise again on the third day.  Here was the foundation for the
continuing this plot, which otherwise had died with its author.  This
was his legacy to his followers; which, having been well managed by
them and their successors, has at last produced a kingdom indeed; a
kingdom of priests, who have governed the world for many ages, and have
been strong enough to set Kings and Emperors at defiance. But so it
happens, the ancient Prophets appealed to are still extant; and there
being no such prophecies of the death and resurrection of the Messias,
they are a standing evidence against this story.  As he expected, so it
happened, that he died on a cross; and the prosecuting of this
contrivance was left to the management of his disciples and followers.
Their part is next to be considered-----.

	Mr. B.	My Lord, Since it is your opinion that the objections
should be considered singly, and the Gentleman has carried his scheme
down to the death of Christ, I think he is come to a proper rest; and
that it is agreeable to your intention that I should be admitted to
answer.

	Judge.	You say right, Sir.  Let us hear what you answer to
this charge.

	Mr. B.	My Lord, I was unwilling to disturb the Gentleman by
breaking in upon his scheme; otherwise I would have reminded him that
this court sits to examine evidence, and not to be entertained with
fine imaginations. You have had a scheme laid before you, but not one
bit of evidence to support any part of it; no, not so much as a
pretence to any evidence.  The Gentleman was, I remember, very sorry
that the old books of the Jews were lost, which would, as he supposes,
have set forth all this matter; and I agree with him, that he has much
reason to be sorry, considering his great scarcity of proof.  And since
I have mentioned this, that I may not be to return to it again, I would
ask the Gentleman now, how he knows there ever were such books? And
since, if ever there were any, they are lost, how he knows what they
contained?  I doubt I shall have frequent occasion to ask such
questions.  It would indeed be a sufficient answer to the whole, to
repeat the several suppositions that have been made, and to call for
the evidence upon which they stand.  This would plainly discover every
part of the story to be  mere fiction.  But since the Gentleman  seems
to have endeavored to bring under one view the many insinuations which
have of late been spread abroad by different hands, and to work the
whole into a consistent scheme; I will, if  your patience shall permit,
examine this plot, and see to whom the honour of  the contrivance
belongs.

	The Gentleman begins with expressing his "amazement, that the
resurrection has been believed in all ages of the church."  If you ask
him, Why? he must answer , Because the account of it is a forgery; for
it is no amazement to him, surely, that a true account should be
generally well received.  So that this remark proceeds indeed from
confidence rather than amazement; and comes only to this, that he is
sure that there was no resurrection.  And I am sure that this is no
evidence that there was none.  Whether he is mistaken in his
confidence,  or I in mine, the court must judge.

	The Gentleman's observation, That the general belief of the
resurrection creates a presumption that it stands upon good evidence,
and therefore people look no farther, but follow their fathers, as
their fathers did their grandfathers before them, is in great measure
true; but it is a truth nothing to his purpose.  He allows, that the
resurrection has been believed in all ages of the church; that is, from
the very time of the resurrection: what then prevailed with those who
first received it? They certainly did not follow the example of their
fathers.  Here then is the point, How did this fact gain credit in the
world at first?  Credit it has gained without doubt.  If the multitude
at present go into this belief through prejudice, example, and for
company sake, they do in this case no more, nor otherwise, than they do
in all cases.  And it cannot be denied, but that truth may be received
through prejudice, (as it is called), i.e. without examining the proof,
or merits of the cause, as well as falsehood.  What general truth is
there, the merits of which all the world, or the one hundredth part has
examined?  It is smartly said somewhere, That the priest only continues
what the nurse began.  But the life of the remark consists in the
quaintness of the antithesis between the nurse and the priest; and owes
its support much more to sound than to sense.  For is it possible that
children  should not hear something of the common and popular opinions
of their country, whether these opinions be true or false?  Do they not
learn the common maxims of reason this way?  Perhaps every man first
learned from his nurse that two and two make four; and whenever she
divides an apple among her children, she instills into them this
prejudice, That the whole is equal to its parts,  and all the parts
equal to the whole: and yet Sir Isaac Newton, (shame on him!) what work
has he made, what a building he has erected upon the foundation of this
nursery-learning?  As to religion, there never was a religion, there
never will be one, whether true or false, publickly owned in any
country,  but children have heard, and ever will hear,  more or less of
it from those who are placed about them.  And if this is, and ever must
be the case, whether the religion be true or false; 'tis highly absurd
to lay stress on this observation, when the question is about the truth
of any religion; for the observation is indifferent to both sides of
the question.

	We are now, I think, got through the common-place learning, which
must forever, it seems,  attend upon questions of this nature; and are
coming to the very merits of the cause.

	And here the Gentleman on the other side thought proper to begin
with an account of the people of the Jews, the people in whose country
the fact is laid, and who were originally, and in some respects
principally concerned in its consequences.

	They were, he says, a weak superstitious people, and lived under
certain pretended prophecies and predictions; that upon this ground
they had, some time before the appearance of Christ Jesus, conceived
great expectation of  the coming of a victorious prince, who should
deliver them from the Roman yoke, and make them all kings and princes.
He goes on then to observe,  how liable the people were, in this state
of things,  to be imposed on, and led into rebellion, by any one who
was bold enough to take upon him to personate the prince expected.  He
observes further, that in fact many such imposters did arise, and
deceived multitudes to their ruin and destruction.

	I have laid these things together, because I do not intend to
dispute these matters with the Gentleman.  Whether the Jews were a weak
and superstitious people, and influenced by false prophecies, or
whether they had true prophecies among them, is not material to the
present question:  it is enough for the Gentleman's argument if I allow
the fact to be as he has stated it, that they did expect a victorious
prince; that they were upon this account exposed to be practised on by
pretenders; and in fact were often so deluded.

	This foundation being laid, it was natural to expect, and I
believe your Lordship and every one present did expect, that the
Gentleman would go on to shew, that Jesus laid hold of this
opportunity,  struck in with the opinion of the people,  and professed
himself to be the prince who was to work their deliverance.  But so
far, it seems, is this from being the case, that the charge upon Jesus
is, that he took the contrary part, and set up in opposition to all the
popular notions and prejudices of his country; that he interpreted the
prophecies to another sense and meaning than his countrymen did; and by
his expositions took away all hopes of their ever seeing the victorious
deliverer so much wanted and expected.

	I know not how to bring the Gentleman's premisses and his
conclusion to any agreement; they seem to be at a great variance at
present.  If it be the likeliest method for an imposter to succeed, to
build on the popular opinions, prejudices and prophecies of the people;
then surely an imposter cannot possibly take a worse method, than to
set up in opposition to all the prejudices and prophecies of the
country.  Where was the art and cunning then of taking this method?
Could anything be expected from it but hatred, contempt, and
persecution? And did Christ in fact meet with any other treatment from
the Jews?  And yet when he found, as the Gentleman allows he did, that
he must perish in this attempt, did he change his note?  did he come
about, and drop any intimations agreeable to the notions of the people?
It is not pretended.  This, which, in any other case which ever
happened, would be taken to be a plain mark of great honesty, or great
stupidity, or of both, is in the present case art, policy, and
contrivance.

	But, it seems, Jesus dared not set up to be the victorious prince
expected, for victories are not to be counterfeited.  I hope it was no
crime in him that he did not assume this false character, and try to
abuse the credibility of the people; if he had done so, it certainly
would have been a crime; and therefore in this point at least he is
innocent.  I do not suppose the Gentleman imagines the Jews were well
founded in their expectation of a temporal prince: and therefore when
Christ opposed this conceit at the manifest hazard of his life, as he
certainly had truth on his side, so the presumption is, that it was for
the sake of truth that he exposed himself.

	No.  He wanted, we are told, the common and necessary foundation
for a new revelation, the authority of an old one to build on.  Very
well.  I will not inquire how common, or how necessary this foundation
is to a new revelation; for, be that case as it will, it is evident,
that in the method Christ took, he had not, nor could have the supposed
advantage of such foundation.  For why is this foundation necessary?  A
friend of the Gentleman's shall tell you "Because it must be difficult,
if not impossible, to introduce among men (who in all civilized
countries are bred up in the belief of some revealed religion) a
revealed religion wholly new, or such as has no reference to a
preceding one; for that would be to combat all men on too many
respects, and not to proceed on a sufficient number of principles
necessary to be assented to by those on whom the first impressions of a
new religion are proposed to be made."  You see now the reason of the
necessity of this foundation: it is, that the new teacher may have the
advantage of old popular opinions, and fix himself upon the prejudices
of the people.  Had Christ any such advantages? or did he seek any
such?  The people expected a victorious prince; he told them they were
mistaken:  they held as sacred the traditions of the elders;  he told
them those traditions made the law of God of none effect:  they valued
themselves for being the peculiar people of God; he told them, that
people from all quarters of the world should be the people of God, and
sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom: they thought
God could be worshipped only at Jerusalem;  he told them God might and
should be worshipped everywhere:  they were superstitious in the
observance of the sabbath; he, according to their reckoning, broke it
frequently:  in a word, their washings of hands and pots, their
superstitious distinctions of meats, their prayers in publick, their
villanies in secret, were all reproved, exposed, and condemned by him;
and the cry ran strongly against him, that he came to destroy the Law
and the Prophets.  And now, Sir, what advantage did Christ have of your
common and necessary foundation?  What sufficient number of principles
owned by the people did he build on?  If he adhered to the old
revelation in the true sense, or (which is sufficient to the present
argument) in a sense not received by the people, it was in truth the
greatest difficulty he had to struggle with: and therefore what could
tempt him, but purely a regard for truth, to take upon himself so many
difficulties, which might have been avoided, could he have been but
silent as to the old revelation, and left the people to their
imaginations?

	To carry on this plot, we are told, that the next thing which
Jesus did, was, to make choice of proper persons to be his disciples.
The Gentleman has given us their character; but, as I suppose he has
more employment for them before he has done, I desire to defer the
consideration of their abilities and conduct till I hear what work he
has for them to do.  I would only observe, that thus far this plot
differs from all that ever I heard of.  Imposters generally take
advantage of the prejudices of the people, generally too they make
choice of cunning dextrous fellows to manage under them; but in this
case Jesus opposed all the notions of the people, and made choice of
simpletons, it seems, to conduct his contrivances.

	But what design, what real end was carrying on all this while?
Why, the Gentleman tells us, that the very thing disclaimed, the
temporal kingdom, was the real thing aimed at under this disguise. He
told the people there was no foundation to expect a temporal deliverer,
warned them against all who would set up those pretensions;  he
declared there was no ground from the ancient prophecies to expect such
a prince: and yet by these very means he was working his way to an
opportunity of declaring himself to be the very prince the people
wanted.  We are still upon the marvelous; every step opens new wonders.
I blame not the Gentleman; for what but this can be imagined to give
any account of these measures imputed to Christ?  Be this never so
unlikely, yet this is the only thing that can be said.  Had Christ been
charged with enthusiasm, it would not have been necessary to assign a
reason for his conduct:  madness is unaccountable:  Ratione modoque
tractari non vult.  But when design, cunning, and fraud are made the
charge, and carried to such an height, as to suppose him to be a party
to the contrivance of a sham resurrection for himself, it is necessary
to say to what end this cunning tended.  It was, we are told, to a
kingdom: and indeed the temptation was little enough, considering that
the chief conductor of the plot was crucified for his pains.  But were
the means made use of  at all probable to achieve the end?  Yes, says
the Gentleman, that can't be disputed; for they had really this effect,
the people would have made him King.  Very well: Why was he not King
then?  Why, it happened unluckily that he would not accept the offer,
but withdrew himself from the multitude, and lay concealed until they
were dispersed.  It will be said, perhaps, that Jesus was a better
judge of affairs than the people, and saw that it was not yet time to
accept the offer.  Be it so; let us see then what follows.

	The government was alarmed, and Jesus was looked on as a person
dangerous  to the state; and he had discernment enough to see that his
death was determined and inevitable.  What does he do then?  Why, to
make the best of a bad case, and to save the benefit of his undertaking
to those who were to succeed him, he pretends to prophecy of his death,
which he knew could not be avoided: Men do not use to play tricks in
articulo mortis; but this plot had nothing common, nothing in the
ordinary way. But what if it should appear, that after the foretelling
of his death (through despair of his fortunes it is said) he had it in
his power to set up for King once more, and once more refused the
opportunity?  Men in despair lay hold on the least help, and never
refuse the greatest.  Now, the case was really so.  After he had
foretold his crucifixion, he came to Jerusalem in the triumphant manner
the Gentleman mentioned; the people strewed his way with boughs and
flowers, and were all at his devotion; the Jewish governors lay still
for fear of the people.  Why was not this opportunity laid hold on to
seize the kingdom, or at least to secure himself from the ignominious
death he expected?  For whose sake was he contented to die?  for whose
sake did he contrive this plot of his resurrection?  Wife and children
he had none; his nearest relations gave little credit to him; his
disciples were not fit even to be trusted with the secret, nor capable
to manage any advantage that could arise from it.  However, the
Gentleman tells us, a kingdom has arisen out of this plot, a kingdom of
priests.  But when did it arise?  Some hundred years after the death of
Christ, in opposition to his will, and almost to the subversion of his
religion.  And yet we are told this kingdom was the thing he had in
view.  I am apt to think the Gentleman is persuaded, that the dominion
he complains of is contrary to the spirit of the gospel; I am sure some
of his friends have taken great pains to prove it is so.  How then can
it be charged as the intention of the gospel to introduce it?  Whatever
the case was, it cannot surely be suspected that Christ died to make
Popes and Cardinals.  The alterations which have happened in the
doctrines and practices of churches, since the Christian religion was
settled by those who had an authentick commission to settle it, are
quite out of the question, when the inquiry is about the truth of the
Christian religion.  Christ and his Apostles did not vouch for the
truth of all that should be taught in the church in future times; nay,
they foretold and fore warned the world against such corrupt teachers.
It is therefore absurd to challenge the religion of Christ, because of
the corruptions which have spread among Christians.  The gospel has no
more concern with them, and ought no more to be charged with them, than
with the doctrines of the Alcoran.

	There is but one observation more, I think, which the Gentleman
made under this head.  Jesus, he says, referred to the authority of
ancient  prophecies to prove that the Messias was to die and rise
again;  the ancient books referred to are extant, and no such
prophecies, he says, are to be found.  Now, whether the Gentleman can
find these prophecies or no, is not material to the present question.
It is allowed that Christ foretold his own death and resurrection;  if
the resurrection was managed by fraud, Christ was certainly in the
fraud himself, by foretelling the fraud which was to happen: disprove
therefore the resurrection, and we shall have no further occasion for
prophecy.  On the other side, by foretelling the resurrection, he
certainly put the proof of his mission on the truth of the event.
Whether it be the character of the Messias, in the ancient Prophets, or
no, that he should die, and rise again; without doubt Jesus is not the
Messias, if  he did not rise again: for, by his own prophecy, he made
it part of the character of the Messias.  If the event justified the
prediction, it is such an evidence as no man of sense and reason can
reject.  One would naturally think, that the foretelling his
resurrection, and giving such publick notice to expect it, that his
keenest enemies were fully apprised of it, carried with it the greatest
mark of sincere dealing.  It stands thus far clear of the suspicion of
fraud.  And had it proceeded from enthusiasm, and an heated
imagination, the dead body at least would have rested in the grave, and
without further evidence have confuted such pretensions: and since the
dead body was not only carried openly to the grave, but there watched
and guarded, and yet could never afterwards be found, never heard of
more as a dead body, there must of necessity have been either a real
miracle, or a great fraud in this case.  Enthusiasm dies with the man,
and has no operation on his dead body.  There is therefore here no
medium: you must either admit the miracle, or prove the fraud.

	Judge.	Mr. A.  You are at liberty either to reply to what
has been said under this head, or to go on with your cause

	Mr. A.	My Lord, the observations I laid before you, were but
introductory to the main evidences on which the merits of the cause
must rest.  The Gentleman concluded, that here must be a real miracle
or a great fraud; a fraud, he means, to which Jesus in his lifetime was
a party.  There is, he says, no medium.  I beg his pardon.  Why might
it not be an enthusiasm in the master which occasioned the prediction,
and fraud in the servants who put it in execution?

	Mr. B.	My Lord, This is new matter, and not a reply.  The
Gentleman opened this transaction as a fraud from one end to the other.
Now he supposes Christ to have been an honest, poor enthusiast, and the
disciples only to be cheats.

	Judge.	Sir, if you go to new matter, the council on the
other side must be admitted to answer.

	Mr. A.	My Lord, I have no such intention.  I was observing,
that the account I gave of Jesus was only to introduce the evidence
that is to be laid before the court. It cannot be expected, that I
should know all the secret designs of this contrivance, especially
considering that we have but short accounts of this affair, and those
too conveyed through hands of friends and parties to the plot.  In such
a case it is enough if we can imagine what the views probably were; and
in such case too it must be very easy for a Gentleman of parts to raise
contrary imaginations, and to argue plausibly from them.  But the
Gentleman has rightly observed, that if the resurrection be a fraud,
there is an end to all pretensions, good or bad, that were to be
supported by it: therefore I shall go on to prove this fraud, which is
one main part of the cause now to be determined.

	I beg leave to remind you,  that Jesus in his lifetime foretold
his death, and that he should rise again the third day.  The first part
of his prediction was accomplished:  he died on the cross and was
buried.  I will not trouble you with the particulars of his
crucifixion, death, and burial;  it is a well known story.

	Mr. B.	My Lord, I desire to know, whether the Gentleman
charges any fraud upon this part of the history.  Perhaps he may be of
the opinion by and by, that there was a sleight of hand in the
crucifixion, and that Christ only counterfeited death.

	Mr. A.	No, no; have no such fears; he was not crucified by
his disciples; but by the Romans and the Jews; and they were in very
good earnest.  I will prove beyond contradiction, that the dead body
was fairly laid in the tomb; and it will be well for you if you can get
it as fairly out again.

	Judge.	Go on with your evidence.

	Mr. A.	My Lord, the crucifixion being over, the dead body
was conveyed to a sepulchre; and in the general opinion there seemed to
be an end of the whole design.  But the governors of the Jews, watchful
for the safety of the people,  called to mind that Jesus in his
lifetime had said, that he would rise again on the third day.  It may
at first sight seem strange that they should give any attention to such
a prophecy; a prophecy big with confidence and presumption, and which
to the common sense of mankind carried its confutation along with it:
and "there is no other nation in the world which would not have
slighted such a vain prognostication of a known imposter."  But they
had warning to be watchful.  It was not long before, that the people
"had like to have been fatally deluded and imposed on by him in the
pretended resuscitation of Lazarus."  They had fully discovered the
cheat in the case of Lazarus, and had narrowly escaped the dangerous
consequences of it.  And though Jesus was dead, yet he had many
disciples and followers alive, who were ready enough to combine in any
fraud, to verify the prediction of their master.  Should they succeed,
the rulers foresaw, the consequences in this case would be more fatal
than those which before they had narrowly escaped.  Upon this account
they addressed themselves to the Roman governor, told him how the case
was, and desired that he would grant them a guard to watch the
sepulchre;  that the service would not be long, for the prediction
limited the resurrection to the third day; and when that was over, the
soldiers might be released from the duty.  Pilate granted the request;
and a guard was set to watch the sepulchre.

	This was not all.  The chief priests took another method to
prevent all frauds, and it was the best that could possibly be taken;
which was, to seal up the door of the sepulchre.  To understand to what
purpose this caution was used, you need only consider what is intended
by sealing up doors, and boxes, or writings.  Is it not for the
satisfaction of all parties concerned, that they may be sure things are
in the state they left them, when they come and find their seals not
injured?  This was the method used by Darius, when Daniel was cast into
the lions den;  he sealed the door of the den.  And for what purpose?
Was it not to satisfy himself and his court, that no art had been used
to preserve Daniel? And when he came and saw Daniel safe, and his seal
untouched, he was satisfied.  And indeed if we consider the thing
rightly, a seal thus used imports a covenant.  If you deliver writings
to a person sealed, and he accepts them so, your delivery and his
acceptance implies a covenant between you, that the writings shall be
delivered and the seal whole; and should the seal be broken, it would
be a manifest fraud, and breach of trust. Nay, so strongly is this
covenant implied, that there needs no special agreement in the case; it
is a compact which men are put under by the law of nations, and the
common consent of mankind.  When you send a letter sealed to the post-
house, you have not indeed a special agreement with all persons through
whose hands it passes, that it shall not be opened by any hand , but
his only to whom it is directed;  yet men know themselves to be under
this restraint, and that it is unlawful and dishonorable to transgress
it.

	Since then the sepulchre was sealed; since the seal imported a
covenant, consider who were the parties to this covenant.  They could
be no other than the chief priests on one side, and the apostles on the
other.  To prove this, no special agreement need be shewn.  On one
side, there was a concern to see the prophecy fulfilled; on the other,
to prevent fraud in fulfilling it.  The sum of their agreement was
naturally this, that the seals should be opened at the time appointed
for the resurrection, that all parties might see and be satisfied,
whether the dead body was come to life or no.

	What now would any reasonable man expect from these
circumstances?  Don't you expect to hear, that the chief priests and
the apostles met at the time appointed, opened the seals, and that the
matter in dispute was settled beyond all controversy one way or other?
But see how it happened, The seals were broken, the body stolen away in
the night by the disciples; none of the chief priests present, or
summoned to see the seals opened.  The guards, when examined, were
forced to confess the truth, though joined with an acknowledgement of
their guilt; which made them liable to be punished by Pilate:  they
confessed that they were asleep, and in the mean time that the body was
stolen away by the disciples.

	This evidence of the Roman soldiers, and the far stronger
evidence arising from the clandestine method of breaking up the seals,
are sufficient proofs of fraud.

	But there is another circumstance in the case, of equal weight.
Though the seals did not prevent the cheat entirely, yet they
effectually falsified the prediction.  According to the prediction,
Jesus was to rise on the third day, or after the third day.  At this
time the chief priests intended to be present, and probably would have
been attended by a great multitude.  This made it impossible to play
any tricks at that  time; and therefore the apostles were forced the
hasten the plot: and accordingly the resurrection happened a day before
its time; for the body was buried on the Friday, and was gone early in
the morning on Sunday.

	These are plain facts; facts drawn from the accounts given to us
by those who are friends to the belief of the resurrection.  The
Gentleman won't call these imaginations, or complain that I have given
him schemes instead of evidence.

	Mr. B.	My Lord, I am now to consider that part of the
argument upon which the Gentleman lays the greatest stress.  He has
given us his evidence; mere evidence, he says, unmixed, and clear of
all schemes and imaginations.  In one thing indeed he has been as good
as his word; he has proved beyond contradiction, that Christ died, and
was laid in the sepulchre: for, without doubt, when the Jews sealed the
stone, they took care to see that the body was there; otherwise their
precaution was useless.  He has proved too, that the prediction of
Christ concerning his own resurrection, was a thing publickly known in
all Jerusalem; for he owns, that this gave occasion for all the care
that was taken to prevent fraud.  If this open prediction implies a
fraudulent design, the evidence is strong with the Gentleman: but if it
shall appear to be, what it really was, the greatest mark that could be
given of sincerity and plain dealing in the whole affair, the evidence
will still be as strong, but the weight of it will fall on the wrong
side for the Gentleman's purpose.

	In the next place, the Gentleman seems to be at a great loss to
account for the credit which the chief priests gave to the prediction
of the resurrection, by the care they took to prevent it.  He thinks
the thing in itself was too extravagant and absurd to deserve any
regard; and that no one would have regarded such a prediction in any
other time or place.  I agree with the Gentleman entirely: but then I
demand of him a reason why the chief priests were under any concern
about this prediction.  Was it because they had plainly discovered him
to be a cheat and an imposter?  It is impossible.  This reason would
have convinced them of the folly and presumption of the prediction.  It
must therefore necessarily be, that they had discovered something in
the life and actions of Christ which raised this jealousy, and made
them listen to a prophecy in his case, which in any other case they
would have despised.  And what could this be, but the secret conviction
they were under, by his many miracles, of his extraordinary powers?
This care therefore of the chief priests over his dead, helpless body,
is a lasting testimony of the mighty works which Jesus did in his
lifetime; for had the Jews been persuaded that he performed no wonders
in his life, I think they would not have been afraid of seeing any done
by him after his death.

	But the Gentleman is of another mind.  He says, they had
discovered a plain cheat in the case of Lazarus, whom Christ  had
pretended to raise from the dead; and therefore they took all this care
to guard against a like cheat.

	I begin now to want evidence;  I am forbid to call this
imagination, what else to call it I know not.  There is not the least
intimation given from history, that there was any cheat in the case of
Lazarus, or that any one suspected a cheat.  Lazarus lived in the
country after  he was raised from the dead; and though his life was
secretly and basely sought after, yet no body had the courage to call
to a trial for his part in the cheat.  It may be said, perhaps, the
rulers were terrified.  Very well:  but they were not terrified when
they had Christ in their possession, when they brought him to a trial;
why did they not  then object this cheat to Christ?  It would have been
much to their purpose.  Instead of that, they accuse him of a design to
pull down their temple, to destroy their law, and of blasphemy; but not
one word of any fraud in the case of Lazarus, or any other case.

	But not to enter into the merits of this cause, which has in it
too many circumstances for your present consideration;  let us take the
case to be as the Gentleman states it, that the cheat in the case of
Lazarus was detected; what consequence is to be expected?  In all other
cases, impostors, once discovered, grow odious and contemptible, and
quite incapable of doing further mischief; so little are they regarded,
that even when they tell the truth, they are neglected.  Was it so in
this case?  No, says the Gentleman; the Jews were the more careful that
Christ should not cheat them in his own resurrection.  Surely this is a
most singular case.  When the people thought him a Prophet, the chief
priests sought to kill him, and thought his death would put an end to
his pretensions:  when they and the people had discovered him to be a
cheat, then they thought him not safe, even when he was dead, but were
afraid he should prove a true Prophet, and, according to his own
prediction, rise again.  A needless, a preposterous fear!

	In the next place, the Gentleman tells us how proper the care was
that the chief priests took.  I agree perfectly with him.  Human policy
could not invent a more proper method to guard against and prevent all
fraud.  They delivered the sepulchre, with the dead body in it, to a
company of Roman soldiers, who had orders from their officer to watch
the sepulchre.  Their care went further still;  they sealed the door of
the sepulchre.

	Upon this occasion, the Gentleman has explained the use of seals
when applied to such purposes.  They imply, he says, a covenant, that
the things sealed up shall remain in the condition they are till the
parties to the sealing agree to open them.  I see no reason to enter
into the learning about seals:  let it be as the Gentleman has opened
it; what then?

	Why then, it seems, the apostles and chief priests were in a
covenant that there should be no resurrection, at least no opening of
the door, till they met together at an appointed time to view and
unseal the door.

	Your Lordship and the court will now consider the probability of
this supposition.  When Christ was seized and carried to his trial, his
disciples fled, out of a just apprehension that they should, if
apprehended, be sacrificed with their master.  Peter indeed followed
him; but his courage soon failed, and it is well known in what manner
he denied him.  After the death of Christ, his disciples were so far
from being ready to engage for his resurrection, or to enter into terms
and agreements for the manner in which it should be done, that they
themselves did not believe it ever would be;  they gave over all hopes
and thoughts of it;  and far from entering into engagements with the
chief priests, their whole concern was, to keep themselves concealed
from them.  This is a well known case, and I will not trouble you with
particular authorities to prove this truth.  Can any man now in his
right senses think, that the disciples under these circumstances
entered into this covenant with the Jews?  I believe the Gentleman
don't think it, and for that reason says, that seals so used import a
covenant without a special agreement.  Be it so; and it must then be
allowed, that the apostles were no more concerned in these seals, than
every other man in the country, and no more answerable for them; for
the covenant reached to every body as well as to them, since they were
under no special contract.

	But I beg pardon for spending your time unnecessarily, when the
simple plain account of this matter will best answer all these
jealousies and suspicions.  The Jews, it is plain, were exceedingly
solicitous about this event;  for this reason they obtained a guard
from Pilate; and when they had, they were still suspicious lest their
guards should deceive them, and enter into combination against them.
To secure this point, they sealed the door, and required of the guards
to deliver up the sepulchre to them sealed as it was.  This is the
natural and true account of the matter.  Do but consider it in a
parallel case.  Suppose a prince should set a guard at the door of his
treasury, and the officer who placed the guard should seal the door,
and say to the soldiers, You shall be answerable for the seal if I find
it broken: would not all the world understand the seal to be fixed to
guard against the soldiers, who might, though employed to keep off
others, be ready enough to pilfer themselves?  This is in all such
cases but a necessary care;  you may place guards, and when you do all
is in their power: Et quis custodes custodiat ipsos?

	But it seems, that, notwithstanding all this care,  the seals
were broken, and the body gone.  If you complain of this, Sir, demand
satisfaction of your guards; they only are responsible for it:  the
disciples had no more to do in it than you or I.

	The guards, the Gentleman says, have confessed the truth, and
owned that they were asleep, and that the disciples in the mean time
stole away the body.  I wish the guards were in court, I would ask
them, how they came to be so punctual in relating what happened when
they were asleep?  what induced them to believe that the body was
stolen at all? what, that it was stolen by the disciples; since by
their own confession they were asleep and say nothing, saw no body?
But since they are not to be had, I would desire to ask the Gentleman
the same questions; and whether he has any authorities in point, to
shew, that ever any man was admitted as an evidence in any court, to
prove a fact which happened when he was asleep?  I see the Gentleman is
uneasy; I'll press the matter no further.

	As this story has no evidence to support it, so neither has it
any probability.  The Gentleman has given you the character of the
disciples; that they were weak, ignorant men, full of the popular
prejudices and superstitions of their country,which stuck close to them
notwithstanding their long acquaintance with their master.  The
apostles are not much wronged in this account; and is it likely that
such men should engage in so desperate design, as to steal away the
body, in  opposition to the combined power of the Jews and Romans?
What could tempt them to it?  What good could the dead body do them?
Or if it could have done them any, what hope had they to succeed in
their attempt?  A dead body is not to be removed by sleight of hand;
it requires many hands to move it: besides, the great stone at the
mouth of the sepulchre was to be removed; which could not be done
silently, or by men walking on tip-toes to prevent discovery: so that
if the guards had really been asleep, yet there was no encouragement to
go on this enterprise; for it is hardly possible to suppose, but that
rolling away the stone, moving the body, the hurry and confusion of
carrying it off, must awaken them.

	But supposing the thing was practicable, yet the attempt was such
as the disciples consistently with their own notions could not
undertake.  The Gentleman says, they continued all their master's
lifetime to expect to see him a temporal prince; and a friend of the
Gentleman's has observed, what is equally true, that they had the same
expectation after his death.  Consider now their case.  Their master
was dead;  and they are to contrive to steal away his body.  For what?
Did they expect to make a King of the dead body, if they could get it
into their power? Or did they think, if they had it, they could raise
it to life again?  If they trusted so far to their master's prediction,
as to expect his resurrection, (which I think is evident they did not),
could they yet think the resurrection depended on their having the dead
body?  It is in all views absurd.  But the Gentleman supposes, that
they meant to carry on the design for themselves, in the master's, if
they could but have persuaded the people to believe him risen from the
dead.  But he does not consider, that by this supposition he strips the
disciples of every part of their character at once, and presents to us
a new set of men, in every respect different from the former.  The
former disciples were weak, plain men; but these are bold, hardy,
cunning, and contriving: the former were full of the superstitions of
their country, and expected a prince from the authority of their
Prophets; but these were despisers of the Prophets, and of the notions
of their countrymen, and are designing to turn these fables to their
own advantage; for it cannot be supposed that they believed the
Prophets, and at the same time thought to accomplish or defeat them by
so manifest a cheat, to which they themselves at least were conscious.

	But let us take leave of these suppositions, and see how the true
evidence is this case stands.  Guards were placed, and they did their
duty.  But what are guards and sentinels against the power of God? An
angel of the Lord opened the sepulchre; the guards saw him, and became
like dead men.  This account they gave to the chief priests, who, still
persisting in their obstinacy, bribed the guards to tell the
contradictory story, of their being asleep, and the body stolen.

	I cannot but observe to your Lordship, that all these
circumstances, so much questioned and suspected, were necessary
circumstances, supposing the resurrection to be true.  The seal was
broken, the body came out of the sepulchre, the guards were placed in
vain to prevent it.  Be it so:  I desire to know, whether the Gentleman
thinks that the seal put God under covenant? or could prescribe to him
a method for performing this great work? or whether he thinks the
guards were placed to maintain the seal in opposition to the power of
God?  If he will maintain neither of these points, then the opening of
the seals, notwithstanding the guard set upon them, will be an
evidence, not of the fraud, but of the power of the resurrection; and
the guards will have nothing to answer for, but only this, that they
were not stronger than God.  The seal was a proper check upon the
guards: the Jews had no other meaning in it; they could not be so
stupid as to imagine, that they could by this contrivance disappoint
the designs of providence.  And it is surprising to hear these
circumstances made use of to prove the resurrection to be a fraud,
which yet could not but happen, supposing the resurrection to be true.

	But there is another circumstance still, which the Gentleman
reckons very material, and upon which I find great stress is laid.  The
resurrection happened, we are told, a day sooner than the prediction
imported.  The reason assigned for it is, that the execution of the
plot at the time appointed was rendered impracticable, because the
chief priests, an probably great numbers of the people, were prepared
to visit the sepulchre at that time; and therefore the disciples were
under a necessity of hastening their plot.

	This observation is entirely inconsistent with the supposition
upon which the reasoning stands.  The Gentleman has all along supposed
the resurrection to have been managed by fraud, and not by violence.
And indeed violence, if there had been an opportunity of using it,
would have been insignificant:  beating the guards, and removing the
dead body by force, would have destroyed all pretences to a
resurrection.  Now, surely the guards, supposing them to be enough in
number to withstand all violence, were at least sufficient to prevent
or to discover fraud.  What occasion then to hasten the plot for fear
of numbers meeting at the tomb, since there were numbers always present
sufficient to discover any fraud; the only method that could be used in
the case?

	Suppose then that we could not give a satisfactory account of the
way of reckoning the time from the crucifixion to the resurrection;
yet this we can say, that the resurrection happened during the time
that the guards had the sepulchre in keeping; and it is impossible to
imagine what opportunity this could give to fraud.  Had the time been
delayed, the guards removed, and then a resurrection pretended, it
might with some colour of reason have been said, Why did he not come
within his time? why did he chuse to come after his time, when all
witnesses, who had patiently expected the appointed hour, were
withdrawn?  But now what is to be objected?  You think he came too
soon.  But were not your guards at the door when he came?  did they not
see what happened?  and  what other satisfaction could you have had,
supposing he had come a day later?

	By saying of this, I do not mean the decline the Gentleman's
objection, which is founded upon a mistake of a way of speaking, common
to the Jews and other people; who, when they name any number of days
and years, include the first and last of the days or years to make up
the sum.  Christ, alluding to his own resurrection, says, In three days
I will raise it up.  The angels report his prediction thus, The Son of
Man shall be crucified, and the third day rise again.  Elsewhere it is
said, After three days; and again, that he was to be in the bowels of
the earth three days and three nights.  These expressions are
equivalent to each other; for we always reckon the night into the day,
when we reckon by so many days.  If you agree to do a thing ten days
hence, you stipulate for forbearance for the nights as well as days;
and therefore, in reckoning, two days, and two days and two nights, are
the same thing.  That the expression, After three days, means inclusive
days, is proved by Grotius on Matt. xxvii. 63 and by others. The
prediction therefore was, that he would rise on the third day.  Now, he
was crucified on Friday and buried; he lay in  the grave all Saturday,
and rose early on Sunday morning.  But the Gentleman thinks he ought
not to have risen before Monday.  Pray try what the use of common
language requires to be understood in a like case.  Suppose you were
told, that your friend sickened on Friday, was let blood on Saturday,
and the third day he died;  what day would you think  he died on?  If
you have any doubt about it, put the question to the first plain man
you meet, and he will resolve it.  The Jews could have no doubt in this
case; for so they practised in one of the highest points of their law.
Every male child was to be circumcised on the eighth day.  How did they
reckon the days?  Why, the day of the birth was one, and the day of the
circumcision another; and though a child was born towards the every end
of the first day, he was capable of circumcision on any time of the
eighth day.  And therefore it is not new nor strange, that the third
day, in our case, should be reckoned into the number, though Christ
rose at the very beginning of it.  It is more strange to reckon whole
years in this manner; and yet this is the constant method observed in
Ptolemy's canon, the most valuable piece of ancient chronology, next to
the Bible, now extant.  If a King lived over the first day of a year,
and died the week after, that whole year is reckoned to his reign.

	I have now gone through the several objections upon this head:
what credit they may gain in this age, I know not; but 'tis plain they
had no credit when they were first spread abroad; nay, 'tis evident,
that the very persons who set abroad this story of the body being
stolen, did not believe it themselves.  And, not to insist here upon
the plain fact, which was, that the guards were hired to tell this lie
by the chief priests, it will appear from the after conduct of the
chief priests themselves, that they were conscious that the story was
false.  Not long after the resurrection of Christ, the disciples
having received new power from above, appeard publickly in Jerusalem,
and in the very temple, and testified the resurrection of Christ, even
before those who had murdered him.  What now do the chief priests do?
They seize upon the apostles, they threaten them, they beat
them,. they scourge them, and all to stop their mouths, insisting that
they should say no more of the matter.  But why did they not, when
they had the disciples in their power, charge them directly with their
notorious cheat in stealing the body, and expose them to the people as
imposters?  This had been much more to their purpose, than all their
menaces and ill usage, and would more effectually have undeceived the
people.  But of this not one word is said.  They try to murder them,
enter into combinations to assassinate them, prevail with Herod to put
one of them to death; but not so much as a charge against them of any
fraud in the resurrection.  Their orator Tertullus, who could not have
missed so fine a topick of declamation, had there been but a suspicion
to support it, is quite silent on this head, and is content to
flourish on the common-place of sedition and heresy, profaning the
temple, and the like: very trifles to his cause, in comparison to the
other accusation, had there been any ground to make use of it.  And
yet as it happens, we are sure the very question of the resurrection
came under debate; for Festus tells King Agrippa, that the Jews had
certain questions against Paul, of one Jesus which was dead, whom Paul
affirmed to be alive.  After this, Agrippa hears Paul himself; and had
he suspected, much less had he been convinced that there was a cheat
in the resurrection, he would hardly have said to Paul at the end of
the conference, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

	But let us see what the council and senate of the children of
Israel thought of this matter, in the most solemn and serious
deliberation they ever had about it.  Not long after the resurrection,
the apostles were taken;  the High Priest  thought the matter of that
weight, that he summoned the council and senate of the children of
Israel.  The apostles are brought before them, and make their defence.
Part of their defence is in these words:  The God of our fathers raised
up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.  The defence was indeed a
heavy charge upon the senate, and in the warmth of their anger, their
first resolution was to slay them all.  But Gamaliel, one of the
council, stood up, and told them, that the matter deserved more
consideration.  He recounted to them the history of several imposters
who had perished, and concluded with respect to the case of the
apostles then before them:  If this work be of men, it will come to
nought; but if it be of  God, ye cannot overthrow it,  lest haply ye be
found to fight against God.  The council agreed to this advice, and
after some ill treatment, the apostles were discharged.  I ask now, and
let any man of common sense answer,  Could Gamaliel possibly have given
this advice, and supposed that the hand of God might be with the
apostles, if he had known that there was a cheat discovered in the
resurrection of Jesus?  Could the whole senate have followed this
advice, had they believed the discovery of the cheat?  Was there not
among them one man wise enough to say, How can you suppose God to have
anything to do in this affair, when the resurrection of Jesus, upon
which all depends, was a notorious cheat, and manifestly proved to be
so?  I should but lessen the weight of this authority by saying more,
and therefore I will rest here, and give way to the Gentleman to go on
with his accusation.

	Mr. A.	My Lord, Before I proceed any further, I beg leave to
say a few words in reply to what the Gentleman has offered on this
head.

	The Gentleman thinks, that the detection in the case of Lazarus
ought to have made the Jews quite unconcerned in the case of Jesus, and
secure as to the event of his own resurrection.  He says very true,
supposing their care had been for themselves:  but governors have
another care upon their hands, the care of their people; and 'tis not
enough for them to guard against being imposed on themselves, they must
be watchful to guard the multitude against frauds and deceits.  The
chief priests were satisfied indeed of the fraud in the case of
Lazarus, yet they saw the people deceived by it; and for this reason,
and not for their own satisfaction, they used the caution in the case
of the resurrection of Jesus, which I before laid before you.  In so
doing, they are well justified; and the inconsistency charged on the
other side, between their opinion of Jesus, and their fear of being
imposed on by his pretended resurrection, is fully answered.

	The next observation relates to the seal of the sepulchre.  The
Gentleman thinks the seal was used as a check upon the Roman soldiers.
But what reason had the Jews to suspect them?  They were not disciples
of Jesus; they were servants of the Roman governor, and employed in the
service of the Jews: and I leave it to the court to judge, whether the
Jews set the seal to guard against their friends, or their enemies?
But if the seals were really used against the guards, then the breaking
of  the seals is a proof that the guards were corrupted: and if so,
'tis easy to conceive how the body was removed.

	As to the disciples, the Gentleman observes, that the part
allotted them in the management of the resurrection supposes an
unaccountable change in their character.  It will not be long before
the Gentleman will have occasion for as great a change in their
character: for these weak men you will find soon employed in converting
the world, and sent to appear before Kings and Princes in the name of
their master; soon you will see them grow wise and powerful, and every
way qualified for their extensive and important business.  The only
difference between me and the Gentleman on the other side will be found
to be this, that I date this change a little earlier than he does: A
small matter, surely, to determine the right of this controversy.

	The last observation relates to King Agrippa's complaisance to
Paul, and Gamaliel's advice.  I cannot answer for Agrippa's meaning:
but certainly he meant but little; and if this matter is to be tried by
his opinion, we know that he never did turn Christian.  As for
Gamaliel, 'tis probable that he saw great numbers of the people engaged
zealously in favour of the apostles, and might think it prudent to pass
the matter over in silence, and not to come to extremities.  This is a
common case in all governments: the multitude and their leaders often
escape punishment, not because they do not deserve it, but because it
is not, in some circumstances, prudent to exact it.

	I pass over these things lightly, because the next article
contains the great, to us indeed, who live at this distance, the only
great question;  for whatever reason the Jews had to believe the
resurrection, it is nothing to us, unless the story has been conveyed
to us upon such evidence as is sufficient to support the weight laid on
it.

	My Lord, we are now to enter upon the last and main article of
this case; the nature of the evidence upon which the credit of the
resurrection stands.  Before I inquire into the qualifications of the
particular witnesses whose words we are desired to take in this case, I
would ask, why this evidence, which manifestly relates to the most
essential point of Christianity, was not put beyond all exception?
Many of the miracles of Christ are said to be done in the streets, nay
even in the temple, under the observation of all the world; but the
like is not so much as pretended as to this; nay, we have it upon the
confession of Peter, the ringleader of the apostles, that Christ
appeared, not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of
God.  Why picking and culling of witnesses in this case more than in
any other?  Does it not import some suspicion, raise some jealousy,
that this case would not bear the publick light?

	I would ask more particularly, Why did not Jesus after his
resurrection appear openly to the chief priests and rulers of the Jews?
Since his commission related to them in an especial manner,  why were
not his credentials laid before them?  The resurrection is acknowledged
to be the chief proof of his mission, why then was it concealed from
those who were more than all others concerned in the event of his
mission?  Suppose an ambassador from some foreign prince should come
into England,  make his publick entry through the city, pay and receive
visits, and at last refuse to shew any letters of credence, or to wait
on the King, what would you think of him?  Whatever you would think in
that case, you must think in this; for there is no difference between
them.

	But we must take the evidence as it is.  It was thought proper,
in this case, to have select chosen witnesses; and we must now consider
who they were, and what reason we have to take their word.

	The first witness was an angel, or angels.  They appeared like
men to some women who went early to the sepulchre.  If they appeared
like men, upon what ground are we to take them for angels?  The women
saw men, and therefore they can witness only to the seeing of men.  But
I suppose it is the women's judgement, and not their evidence, that we
are to follow in this case.  Here then we have a story of one
apparition to support the credit of another apparition: and the first
apparition hath not so much as the evidence of the women to support it,
but is grounded on their superstition, ignorance, and fear.  Every
country can afford an hundred instances of this kind; and there is this
common to them all, that as learning and common sense prevail in any
country, they die away, and are no more heard of.

	The next witnesses are the women themselves.  The wisest men can
hardly guard themselves against the fears of superstition;  poor silly
women therefore in this case must needs be unexceptionable witnesses,
and fit to be admitted into the number of the chosen witnesses to
attest this fact.  One part of the account given of them is very
rational, that they were surprised and frightened beyond measure; and I
leave it to your Lordship and the court to judge, how well qualified
they were to give a just relation of what passed.

	After this, Jesus appears to two of his disciples as they were
upon a journey;  he joins them, and introduces a discourse about
himself; and spent much time, till it began to grow dark, in expounding
the prophecies relating to the death and resurrection of the Messias.
All this while, the disciples knew him not.  But then going into an
house to lodge together,  at supper he broke bread, and gave it to
them;  immediately they knew him, immediately he vanished.  Here then
are two witnesses more.  But what will you call them?  eye-witnesses?
Why their eyes were open, and they had their senses, when he reasoned
with them and they knew him not.  So far therefore they are witnesses
that it was not he.  Tell us therefore upon what account you reject the
evidence of their sense before the breaking of the bread,  and insist
on it afterwards?  And why did Jesus vanish as soon as known; which has
more of the air of an apparition, than of the appearance of a real man
restored to life?

	Cleopas, who was one of these two disciples, finds out the
apostles, to make the report of what had passed to them.  No sooner was
the story told, but Jesus appears among them.  They were all frightened
and confounded, and thought they saw a spectre.  He rebukes them for
infidelity, and their slowness in believing the prophecies of his
resurrection: and though he refused before to let the women touch him
(a circumstance which I ought not to have omitted); yet now he invites
the apostles to handle him, to examine his hands and feet, and search
the wounds of the cross.  But what body was it they examined?  The same
that came in  when the doors were shut; the same that vanished from the
two disciples; the same that the women might not touch:  in a word, a
body quite different from a human body, which we know cannot pass
through walls, or appear or disappear at pleasure.  What then could
their hands or eyes inform them of in this case?  Besides, is it
credible that God should raise a body imperfectly, with the very wounds
in it of which it died?  Or, if the wounds were such as destroyed the
body before, how could a natural body subsist with them afterwards?

	There are more appearances of Jesus recorded;  but so much of the
same kind, so liable to the same difficulties and objections, that I
will not trouble your Lordship and the court with a distinct
enumeration of them.  If the Gentleman on the other side finds any
advantage in any of them more than in these mentioned, I shall have an
opportunity to consider them in my reply.
It may seem surprising to you, perhaps, that a matter of  this
moment was trusted upon such evidence as this: but it will be still
more surprising to consider that the several nations who received the
gospel, and submitted to the faith of this article, had not even this
evidence:  for what people or nation had the evidence of the angels,
the women or even of all the apostles?  So far from it, that every
country had its single apostle, and received the faith upon the credit
of his single evidence. We have followed our ancestors  without
inquiry; and if you examine the thing to the bottom, our belief was
originally built upon the word of one man.
I shall trouble you, Sir, but with one observation more; which is
this: That although in common life we act in a thousand instances upon
the faith and credit of human testimony; yet the reason for so doing is
not the same in the case before us.  In common affairs, where nothing
is asserted but what is probable, and possible, according to the usual
course of nature, a reasonable degree of evidence ought to determine
every man:  for the very probability, or possibility of the thing, is
an support to the evidence; and in such cases we have no doubt but a
man's senses qualify him to be a witness.  But when the thing testified
is contrary to the order of nature, and, at first sight at least,
impossible, what evidence can be sufficient to overturn the constant
evidence of nature, which she gives us in the uniform and regular
method of her operations?  If a man tells me he has been in France, I
ought to give a reason for not believing him; but if he tells me he
comes from the grave what reason can he give why I should believe him?
In the case before us, since the body raised from the grave differed
from common natural bodies, as we have before seen; how can I be
assured that the apostles' senses qualified them to judge at all of
this body; whether it was the same, or not the same which was buried?
They handled the body, which yet could pass through doors and walls;
they saw it, and sometimes knew it, at other times knew it not.  In a
word, it seems to be a case exempt from human evidence.  Men have
limited senses, and a limited reason: when they act within their
limits, we may give credit to them; but when they talk of things
removed beyond the reach of their senses and reason, we must quit our
own, if we believe theirs.
Mr. B.  My Lord, in answering the objections under this head I
shall find myself obliged to change the order in which the gentleman
thought proper to place them.  He began with complaining, that Christ
did not appear publickly to the Jews after his resurrection, and
especially to the chief priests and rulers; and seemed to argue, as if
such evidence would have put the matter in question out of all doubt:
but he concluded with an observation to prove that no evidence in this
case can be sufficient; that a resurrection is thing in nature
impossible, at least impossible to be proved to the satisfaction of a
rational inquirer.  If this be the case, why does he require more
evidence, since none can be sufficient?  Or to what purpose is it to
vindicate the particular evidence of the resurrection of Christ, so
long  as this  general prejudice, that a resurrection is incapable of
being proved, remains unremoved? I am under a necessity therefore to
consider this observation in the first place, that it might lie as a
dead weight upon all I have to offer in support of the evidence of
Christ's resurrection.


	The gentleman allows it to be reasonable in many cases to act
upon the testimony and credit of others; but he thinks this should be
confined to such cases, where the thing testified is probable,
possible,  and according to the usual course of nature. The Gentleman
does not, I suppose, pretend to know the extent of all natural
possibilities, much less will he suppose them to be generally known;
and therefore his meaning must be, that the testimony of witnesses is
to be received only in cases which appear to us to be possible. In any
other sense we can have no dispute; for mere impossibilities, which can
never exist, can never be proved.  Taking the observation therefore in
this sense, the proposition is this: That the testimony of others ought
not to be admitted, but in such matters as appear probable, or at least
possible to our conceptions.  For instance: A man who lives in a warm
climate, and never saw ice, ought upon no evidence to believe, that
rivers freeze, and grow hard, in cold countries; for this is
improbable, contrary to the usual course of nature, and impossible
according to his notion of things.  And yet we all know, that this is a
plain manifest case discernible by the senses of men; of  which
therefore they are qualified to be good witnesses.  An hundred such
instances might be named; but 'tis needless:  for surely nothing is
more apparently absurd than to make one man's ability in discerning and
his veracity in reporting plain facts, depend upon the skill or
ignorance of the hearer.  And what has the Gentleman said upon this
occasion against the resurrection, more than any man who never saw ice
might say against an hundred honest witnesses, who assert that water
turns to ice in cold climates?


Yet it is very true, that men do not so easily believe, upon
testimony of others, things which to them seem improbable or
impossible; but the reason is not, because the thing itself admits no
evidence, but because the hearer's  preconceived opinion outweighs  the
credit of the reporter and makes his veracity to be called in question.
For instance it is natural for a stone to roll down hill, it is
unnatural for it to roll up hill: but a stone moving uphill is as much
the object of sense as a stone moving downhill; and all men in their
senses are as capable of seeing  and judging and reporting the fact in
one case, as in the other.  Should a man then tell you, that he saw a
stone go uphill of its own accord, you might question his veracity; but
you could not say the thing admitted no evidence, because it was
contrary to the law and usual course of nature; for the law of nature
formed to yourself from your own experience and reasoning  is quite
independent of the matter of fact which the man testifies:  and
whenever you see facts yourself, which contradict your notions of the
law of nature, you admit the facts,  because you believe yourself; when
you do not admit like facts upon the evidence of others, it is because
you do not believe them, and not because the facts in their own nature
exclude all evidence.

Suppose a man should tell you, that he was come from the dead,
you would be apt to suspect his evidence.  But what would you suspect?
That he was not alive when you heard him, saw him,  felt him,  and
conversed with him?  You could not suspect  this, without giving up all
your senses and acting in this case as you act in no other.  Here then
you would question, whether the man had ever been dead? But would you
say, that it is incapable of being made plain by human testimony, that
this or that man died a year ago? It can't be said.  Evidence in this
case is admitted in all courts perpetually

Consider it the other way.  Suppose you saw a man publicly
executed, his body afterwards was wounded by the executioner, and
carried and laid in the grave; that after this you should be told, that
the man was come to life again; what would you suspect in this case?
Not that the man had never been dead; for that you saw yourself: but
you would suspect whether he was now alive.  But would you say this
case excluded all human testimony and that men could not possibly
discern , whether one with whom they conversed familiarly was alive or
no? Upon what ground could you say this?  A man rising from the grave
is an object of sense, and can give the same evidence of his being
alive, as any other man in the world can give.  So that a resurrection
considered only as a fact to be proved by evidence, is a plain case; it
requires no greater ability in the witnesses, than that they be able to
distinguish between a man dead, and a man alive:  a point in which I
believe every man  living thinks himself a judge.

I do allow that this case, and others of like nature, require
more evidence to give them credit than ordinary cases do.  You may
therefore require more evidence in these, than in other cases; but it
is absurd to say, that such cases admit no evidence, when the things
in question are manifestly objects of sense.

I allow further, that the Gentleman has rightly stated the
difficulty upon the foot of common prejudice; and that it arises from
hence, that such cases appear to be contrary to the course of nature.
But I  desire to consider what this course of nature is. Every man,
from the lowest countryman to the highest philosopher frames to himself
from his experience and observation, a notion of a course of nature;
and is ready to say of everything reported to him that contradicts his
experience, that it is contrary to nature.  But will the Gentleman say,
that everything is impossible or even improbable, that contradicts the
notion which men frame to themselves of the course of nature?  I think
he will not say it.  And if he will, he must say that water can never
freeze; for it is absolutely inconsistent with the notion which men
have of the course of nature, who live in the warm climates.  And hence
it appears, that when men talk of the course of nature, they really
talk of their own prejudices and imaginations; and that sense and
reason are not so much concerned in the case as the Gentleman imagines.
For I ask, Is it from the evidence of sense, or the evidence of reason
that people of warm climates think it contrary to nature,  that water
should grow solid, and become ice?  As for sense, they see indeed that
water with them is always liquid; but none of their senses tell them
that it can never grow solid.  As for reason, it can never so inform
them; for right reason can never contradict the truth of things.  Our
senses then inform us rightly what the usual course of things is; but
when we conclude that things cannot be otherwise, we outrun the
information of our senses, and the conclusion stands upon prejudice,
and not upon reason.  And yet such conclusions form what is generally
called the course of nature.  And when men upon proper evidence and
informations admit things contrary to this presupposed course of
nature, they do not, as the Gentleman expresses it, quit their own
sense and reason; but, in truth, they quit their own mistakes and
prejudices.

	In the case before us, the case of the resurrection, the great
difficulty arises from the like prejudice.  We all know by experience
that all men die, and rise no more;  therefore we conclude, that for a
dead man to rise to life again, is contrary to the course of nature.
And certainly it is contrary to the uniform and settled course of
things.  But if we argue from hence that it is contrary and repugnant
to the real laws of nature and absolutely impossible on that account,
we argue without any foundation to support us either from our senses or
our reason.  We cannot learn from our eyes, or feeling, or any other
sense, that it is impossible for a dead body to live again; if we learn
it at all, it must be from our  reason; and yet what one maxim of
reason is contradicted by the supposition of a resurrection?  For my
own part; when  I consider how I live;  that all animal motions
necessary to my life are independent of my will; that my heart beats
without my consent and without my direction; that digestion and
nutrition are performed by methods to which I am not conscious; that my
blood moves in a perpetual round, which is contrary to all known laws
of motion: I cannot but think, that the preservation of my life, in
every moment of it, is as great an act of power, as is necessary to
raise a dead man to life.  And whoever so far reflects upon his own
being as to acknowledge that he owes it to a superior power, must needs
think, that the same power which gave life to senseless matter at
first, and set all the springs and movements a-going at the beginning,
can restore life to dead body.  For surely it is not a greater thing to
give life to a body once dead, than to a body that never was alive.

	In the next place must be considered the difficulties which the
gentleman has laid before you, with regard to the nature of Christ's
body after the resurrection.  He has produced some passages which
which, he thinks, imply, that the body was not a real natural body, but
a mere phantom, or apparition:  and thence concludes, that there being
no real object of sense, there can be no evidence in the case.

	Presumptions are of no weight against positive  evidence; and
every account of the resurrection assures us, that the body of  Christ
was seen, felt, and handled by many persons; who were called upon by
Christ so to do, that they might be assured that he had flesh and
bones, and was not a mere spectre, as they, in their first surprize,
imagined him to be. It is impossible that they who  give this account,
should mean, by anything they report, to imply that he had no real
body; it is certain, then, that when the Gentleman makes use of what
they say to this purpose, he uses their sayings contrary to their
meaning:  for it is not pretended that they say, that Christ had not a
real human body after the resurrection; nor is it pretended they had
any such thought, except only upon the first surprize of seeing him,
and before they had examined him with their eyes and hands.  But
something they have said, which the Gentleman, according to his notions
of philosophy, thinks, implies that the body was not real.  To clear
this point, therefore, I must lay before you the passages referred to,
and consider how justly the Gentleman reasons from them.

	The first passage relates to Mary Magdalene, who, the first time
she saw Christ, was going to embrace his feet, as the custom of the
country was:  Christ says to her, [John 20:17] Touch me not, for I am
not yet ascended to my Father;  but go to my brethren and tell them,
etc.  Hence the gentleman concludes, that Christ's body was not such an
one as would bear the touch.  But how does he infer this? Is it from
these words Touch me not? It cannot be: for thousands say it every day,
without giving the least suspicion, that their bodies are not capable
of being touched.  The conclusion then must be built on those other
words, For I have not yet ascended to my Father.  but what have these
words to do with the reality of his body?  It might be real or not
real, for anything that is here said.  There is a difficulty in these
words, and it may be hard to give the true sense of them; but there is
no difficulty in seeing that they have no relation to the nature of
Christ's body; for of his body nothing is said. The natural sense of
the place as I collect, by comparing this passage with Matthew 28:9 is
this. Mary Magdalene, upon seeing Jesus, fell at his feet, and laid
hold of them and held them as if she meant never to let them go:
Christ said to her, "Touch me not, or hang not about me now; you will
have other opportunities of seeing me for I go not yet  to my Father:
lose no time then but go quickly with my message to my brethren." I am
not concerned to support this particular interpretation of the passage;
it is sufficient to my purpose, to show that the words cannot possibly
relate to the nature of Christ's body one way or other.

	The next passage relates to Christ's joining two of his
disciples upon the road and conversing with them without being known by
them: it grew dark, they pressed him to stay with them that night; he
went in with them, broke bread, blessed it, and gave it them, and then
they knew him; and immediately he disappeared.

	The circumstance of disappearing, shall be considered under the
next head, with other objections of the like kind.  At present I shall
only examine the other parts of this story, and inquire whether they
afford any ground to conclude that the body of Christ was not a real
one.  Had this piece of history been related of any other person I
think such suspicion could have risen.  For what is there unnatural or
uncommon in this account? Two men meet an acquaintance whom they
thought dead: They converse with him for some time, without suspecting
who he was; the very persuasion they were under that he was dead,
contributed greatly to their not knowing him; besides, he appeared in a
habit and form different from what he used when he conversed with them;
appeared to them on a journey and walked with them side by side; in
which situation no one of  the company has a full view of another:
afterwards, when they were at supper together, and lights brought in,
they plainly discerned who he was.  Upon this occasion, the Gentleman
asks what sort of witnesses these are? eye-witnesses? No; before supper
they were eye-witnesses, says the Gentleman, that the person whom they
saw was not Christ: and then he demands a reason for our rejecting the
evidence of their sense when they did not know Christ, and insisting on
it when they did.

	It is no uncommon thing for men to catch themselves and others by
such notable acute questions, and to be led by the sprightliness of
their imagination out of the road of truth and common sense.  I beg
leave to tell the Gentleman a short story, and then to ask him his own
question.  A certain Gentleman who had been some years abroad happened
in his return to England through Paris to meet his own sister there.
She was not expecting to see him there, nor he to see her, they
conversed together with other company, at a publick house, for great
part of a day, without knowing each other.  At last the Lady began to
shew great signs of disorder; her color came and went, and the eyes of
the company were drawn toward her; and then she cried out, Oh my
brother!  and was hardly held from fainting.  Suppose now this Lady
were to depose upon oath in a court of justice that she saw her brother
at Paris;  I would ask the Gentleman, Whether he would object to the
evidence, and say, that she was as good an eye-witness that her brother
was not there, as that he was; and demand of the court, why they
rejected the evidence of her senses when she did not know her brother,
and were ready to believe it when she did.  When the question is
answered in this case, I desire only to have the benefit of it in the
case now before you.  But if you shall be of opinion, that there was
some extraordinary power used on this occasion, and incline to think
that the expression, their eyes were holden, imports as much;  then the
case will fall under the next article.  In which

	We are to consider Christ's vanishing out of sight; his coming in
and going out when the doors were shut; and such like passages; which,
as they fall under one consideration, so I shall speak to them
together.

	But it is necessary first to see what the Apostles affirm
distinctly in their accounts of these facts; for I think more has been
said for them, than ever they said, or intended to say for themselves.
In one place [Luke 24:31] it is said, he vanished out of their sight.
Which translation is corrected in the margin of our Bibles thus:  He
ceased to be seen of them.  And the original imports no more.
It is said in another place, that the disciples being together,
and the doors shut, Jesus came and stood in the midst of them.   How he
came, is not said; much less is it said that he came through the door,
or the keyhole;  and for anything that is said to the contrary, he
might come in at the door, though the disciples saw not the door open,
nor him, till he was in the midst of them.  But the Gentleman thinks
these passages prove that the disciples saw no real body, but an
apparition.  I am afraid that the Gentleman, after all his contempt of
apparitions, and the superstition on which they are founded, has fallen
into the snare himself, and is arguing upon no better principles than
the common notions which the vulgar have of apparitions.  Why else does
he imagine these passages to be inconsistent with the reality of
Christ's body?  Is there no way for a real body to disappear? Try the
experiment now; do but put out the candles, we shall all disappear.  If
a man falls asleep in the day-time, all things disappear to him; his
senses are all locked up; and yet all things about him continue to be
real, and his senses continue perfect.  As shutting out all rays of
light would make all things disappear; so intercepting the rays of
light from any particular body, would make that disappear.  Perhaps
something like this was the case; or perhaps something else, which we
know not.  But, be the case what it will, the Gentleman's conclusion is
founded on no principle of true philosophy:  for it does not follow
that a body is not real because I lose sight of it suddenly.  I shall
be told, perhaps, that this way of accounting for the passages is as
wonderful, and as much out of the common course of things, as the
other.  Perhaps it is so; and what then?  Surely the Gentleman does not
expect, that, in order to prove the reality of the greatest miracle
that ever was, I should shew that there was nothing miraculous in it,
but that everything happened according to the ordinary course of
things.  My only concern is, to shew, that these passages do not infer,
that the body of Christ after the resurrection was no real body.  I
wonder the Gentleman did not carry his argument a little further, and
prove, that Christ, before his death, had no real body; for we read,
that when the multitude would have thrown him down a precipice,  he
went through the midst of them unseen.  Now, nothing happened after his
resurrection more unaccountable than this that happened before it; and
if the argument be good at all, it will be good to prove, that there
never was such a man as Jesus in the world.  Perhaps the gentleman may
think that this is a little too much to prove:  and if he does, I hope
he will quit the argument in one case as well as in the other; for
difference there is none.

	Hitherto we have been called upon to prove the reality of
Christ's body, and that it was the same after the resurrection that was
before: but the next objection complains, that the body was too much
the same with that which was buried; for the Gentleman thinks that it
had the same mortal wounds open and uncured of which he died.  His
observation is grounded upon the words which Christ uses to Thomas:
[John 20:27] Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach
hither thy hand and thrust it into my side.  Is it here affirmed that
Thomas did actually put his hand into his side, or so much as see his
wounds fresh and bleeding?  Nothing like it: but it is supposed from
the words of Christ; for if he had no wounds, he would not have invited
Thomas to probe them.  Now, the meaning of Christ will best appear by
an account of the occasion he had to use this speech.  He had appeared
to his disciples, in the absence of Thomas, and shewn them his hands
and feet, which still had the marks of his crucifixion: the disciples
report this to Thomas: he thought the thing impossible, and expressed
his unbelief, as men are apt to do when they are positive, in a very
extravagant manner: You talk, says he, of the prints of the nails in
his hands and feet; for my part, says he, I'll never believe this
thing, except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put
my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his
side.  Now, in the first place, here is nothing  said of open wounds;
Thomas talks only of putting his finger into the print, that is, the
scar of the nails, and thrusting his hand into his side.  And, in
common speech, to thrust an hand into any one's side does not signify
to thrust it through the side into the bowels.  Upon this
interpretation of the words, which is a plain and natural one, the
Gentleman's objection is quite gone. But suppose Thomas to mean what
the Gentleman means; in that case the words of Christ are manifestly a
severe reproach to him for his infidelity: Here, says Christ, are my
hands and my side; take the satisfaction you require; thrust your
fingers into my hands, your hand into my side; repeating to him his own
words, and calling him to his own conditions; which, to a man beginning
to see his extravagance, is of all rebukes the severest.  Such forms of
speech are used on many occasions, and are never understood to import
that the thing proposed is proper, or always practicable.  When the
Grecian women reproached their sons with cowardice, and called to them
as they were flying from the enemy, to come and hide themselves, like
children as they were, in their mothers' wombs; he would be ridiculous
who had asked the question, Whether the women really thought they could
take their sons into their wombs again?

	I have now gone through the objections which were
necessarily to be removed  before I could state the evidence in this
case.  I am sensible I have taken
up too much of your time; but I have this to say in my excuse, That
objections built on popular notions and prejudices, are easily conveyed
to the mind in few words; and so conveyed, make strong impressions: but
whoever answers the objections, must encounter all the notions to which
they are allied, and to which they owe their strength; and it is well
if with many words he can find admittance.

	I come now to consider the evidence on which our belief of the
resurrection
stands.  And here I am stopped again.  A general exception is taken to
the evidence, that it is imperfect, unfair; and a question is asked,
Why did not  Christ appear publickly to all the people, especially to
the magistrates?  Why were some witnesses culled and chosen out, and
others excluded ? It may be sufficient perhaps to say, that where there
are witnesses enow, no judge, no jury complains for want of more; and
therefore, if the witnesses we have are sufficient, it is no objection
that we have not others, and more.
If three credible man attest a will, which are as many as the law
requires, would any body ask, why all the town were not called to set
their hands? But why were these witnesses culled and chosen out?  Why?
For this reason, that they might be good ones.  Does not every wise men
chuse proper witnesses to his deed and to his will?  and does not a
good choice of witnesses give strength to every deed? How comes it to
pass, then, that the very thing which shuts out all suspicion in other
cases should in this case only be of all others the most suspicious
thing itself?

	What reason there is to make any complaints on the behalf of the
Jews,
may be judged, in part, from what has already appeared.  Christ
suffered openly in their sight; and they were so well apprised of his
prediction, that he should rise again, that they set a guard on his
sepulchre; and from their guards they learned the truth.  Every soldier
was to them a witness of the resurrection of their own chusing.  After
this they had not
one apostle,(which the Gentleman observes was the case of other
people), but all the apostles, and many other witnesses with them, and
in their power.  The apostles testified the resurrection to them; not
only to the people, but to the elders of Israel assembled in Senate: to
support their evidence they were enabled to work, and did work miracles
openly in the name of Christ.  These people therefore have the least
reason to complain;
and had of all others the fullest evidence; and in some respects such
as none but themselves could have, for they only were keepers of the
sepulchre.I believe, if the gentleman was to chuse an evidence to his
own  satisfaction in a like case, he would desire no more, than to keep
the sepulchre, with a sufficient number of guards.

	But the argument goes further.  It is said, that Jesus was sent
with a special commission to the Jews; that he was their Messias; and
as his resurrection was his main credential, he ought to have appeared
publickly to the rulers of the Jews after his resurrection: that in
doing otherwise, he acted like an ambassador pretending authority  from
his prince, but refusing to show his letters of credence.

	I was afraid, when I suffered myself to be drawn into this
argument,
that I should be led into matters fitter to be decided by men of
another profession, than by lawyers.  But since there is no help now, I
will lay before you what appears to me to be the natural and plain
account of this matter; leaving it to others, who are better qualified,
to give a fuller answer to the objection.

	It appears to me, by the accounts we have of Jesus, that he had
two distinct offices: one, as the Messias particularly promised to the
Jews;  another, as he was to be the great high priest of the world.
With respect  to the first office, he is called [Heb. 3:1] the apostle
of the Hebrews;  the [Rom. 15:8] minister of the circumcision; and says
himself, [Matt 15:24]  I am not sent, but unto the lost sheep of the
house of Isreal. Accordingly, when he sent out his Apostles in his
lifetime to preach, he expressly forbids
them to go to the Gentiles or Samaritans; but go, [Matt. 10:6] says he,
to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.  Christ continued in the
discharge of  this office during the time of his natural life, till he
was finally rejected by the Jews.  And it is observable, that the last
time he spoke to the people according to St. Matthew's account, he
solemnly took leave of them, and closed his commission.  He had been
long among them publishing glad tidings; but when all his preaching,
all his miracles, had proved to be in vain, the last thing he did was,
to denounce the woes they had brought on themselves. The 23d chapter of
St. Matthew recites these woes; and at the end of them Christ takes
this passionate leave of Jerusalem: "Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou
that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee,
how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!  Behold, your
house is left unto you desolate.  For I say unto you, Ye shall not see
me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name
of  the Lord." It is remarkable, that this passage, as recorded by St.
Matthew  and St. Luke, twice over, is determined, by the circumstances,
to refer to the near approach of his own death, and the extreme hatred
of the Jews to him: and therefore those words, Ye shall not see me
henceforth, are to be
dated from the time of his death, and manifestly point out the end of
his particular mission to them.  From the making this declaration, as
it stands in St. Matthew, his discourses are to his disciples, and they
chiefly relate to the miserable and wretched condition of the Jews,
which was now decreed, and soon to be accomplished. Let me now ask,
Whether, in this state of  things, any farther credentials of Christ's
commission to the Jews could  be demanded or expected?  He was
rejected, his commission was determined,
and with it the fate of the nation was determined also: what use then
of  more credentials?  As to appearing to them after his resurrection,
he could not do it consistently with his own prediction, Ye shall see
me no more, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of
the Lord. The Jews were not in this disposition after the resurrection,
nor are they in it yet.
  	The resurrection was the foundation of Christ's new
commission, which
extended to all the world.  Then it was he declared, that all power was
given unto him in heaven and in earth.  Then he gave a new commission
to his disciples, not restrained to the house of Israel, but to go and
teach all nations.  This prerogative the Jews had under this
commission, that the gospel was every-where first offered to them; but
in no other terms than it was offered to the rest of the world.  Since
then this commission, of which the resurrection was the foundation,
extended to all the world alike; what ground is there to demand special
and particular evidence to the Jews?  The Emperor and the Senate of
Rome were a much more considerable part of the world, than the chief
priests and the synagogue; why does not the Gentleman object then, that
Christ did not shew himself to Tiberius  and his senate? And since all
men have an equal right in this case, Why may not the same demand be
made for every country; nay, for every age? And then the Gentleman may
bring the question nearer home; and ask, Why Christ did not appear in
England in King George's reign? There is, to my apprehension, nothing
more unreasonable, than to neglect and despise plain and sufficient
evidence before us, and to sit down to imagine what kind of evidence
would have pleased us; and then to make the want of such evidence an
objection to the truth; which yet, if well considered, would be found
to be well established.

	The observation I have made upon the resurrection of Christ,
naturally leads to another; which will help to account for the nature
of the evidence we have in this great point.  As the resurrection was
the opening a new commission, in which all the world had an interest;
so the concern naturally was, to have a proper evidence to establish
this truth, and which should be of equal weight to all.  This did not
depend upon the satisfaction given to private persons, whether they
were magistrates or not magistrates; but upon the conviction of those,
whose office it was to be, to bear testimony to this truth in the
world.  In this sense the Apostles were chosen to be witnesses of the
resurrection, because they were chosen to bear testimony to it in the
world; and not because they only were admitted to see Christ after his
resurrection: for the fact is otherwise. The gospel indeed, concerned
to shew the evidence on which the faith of the world was to rest, is
very particular in setting forth the ocular demonstration which the
apostles had of the resurrection; and mentions others, who saw Christ
after his resurrection, only accidentally, and as the thread of the
history led to it. But yet it is certain, there were many others, who
had this satisfaction, as well as the apostles.  St. Luke tells us,
that when Christ appeared to the eleven apostles, there were others
with them [Luke 24:33]; who they were, or how many there were, he says
not.  But it appears in the Acts, when an apostle was to be chosen in
the room of Judas; and the chief qualification required was, that he
should be one capable of being a witness of the resurrection; that
there were present an hundred and twenty so qualified [Acts 1. Compare
vv.  15,21,22 together].  And Saint Paul says, that Christ after his
rising was seen by 500 at once, many of whom were living when he
appealed to their evidence.  So that the Gentleman is mistaken, when
he imagines that a few only were chosen to see Christ after he came
from the grave.  The truth of the case is, that, out of those who saw
him, some were chosen to bear testimony to the world; and for that
reason had the fullest demonstration of the truth, that they might be
the better able to give satisfaction to others.  And what was there in
this conduct to complain of? what to raise any jealousy or suspicion?

	As to the witnesses themselves, the first the Gentleman takes
notice of, are the angels and the women.  The mention of angels led
naturally to apparitions: and the women were called poor silly women;
and there is an end to their evidence.  But to speak seriously: will
the Gentleman pretend to prove, that there are no intelligent beings
between God and man; or that they are not ministers of God; or that
they were improperly employed in this great and wonderful work, the
resurrection of Christ?  Till some of these points are disproved we
may be at rest; for the angels were ministers, and not witnesses of
the resurrection.  And it is not upon the credit of the poor silly
women that we believe angels were concerned, but upon the report of
those who wrote the gospels, who deliver it as a truth known to
themselves, and not merely as a report taken from the women.

	But for the women what shall I say? Silly as they were, I hope at
least they had eyes and ears, and could tell what they heard and saw.
In this case they tell no more.  They report that the body was not in
the sepulchre; but so far from reporting the resurrection; that they
did not believe it, and were very anxious to find to what place the
body was removed.  Further they were not employed.  For, I think, the
Gentleman in
another part observes rightly, that they were not sent to bear
testimony to any people.  But suppose them to be witnesses; suppose
them to be improper ones; yet the evidence of the men surely is not the
worse, because some wonen happened to see the same thing which they
saw.  And if men only must be admitted, of them we have enow to
establish this truth.

	I will not spend your time in enumerating these witnesses, or in
setting forth the demonstration they had of the truth which they
report.  These things are well known.  If you question their sincerity,
they lived miserably, and died miserably, for the sake of this truth.
And what greater evidence of sincerity can man give or require?  And
what is still more, they were not deceived in their expectation of
being ill treated; for he who employed them, told them beforehand that
the world would hate them, and treat them with contempt and cruelty.

	But, leaving these weighty and well known circumstances to your
own reflexion, I beg leave to lay before you another evidence, passed
over in silence by the Gentleman on the other side.  He took notice,
that a resurrection was so extraordinary a thing, that no human
evidence could support it.  I am not sure that he is not in the right.
If twenty men were to come into England with such a report from a
distant country, perhaps they might not find twenty more here to
believe their story.  And I rather think the Gentleman may be in the
right, because in the present case I see clearly, that the credit of
the resurrection of Christ was not trusted to mere human evidence.  To
what evidence it was trusted, we find by his own declaration: The
Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of
me.  And ye also (speaking to his apostles) shall bear witness,
because ye have been with me from the beginning [John 15:26,27].  And
therefore, though the apostles had conversed with him forty days after
his resurrection, and had received his commission to go teach all
nations; yet he expressly forbids them entering upon the work, till
they should receive powers from above [Acts 1:14]  And St. Peter
explains the evidence of the resurrection in this manner: We (the
apostles) are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy
Ghost, whom God hath given to them who obey him [Acts 5:32].

	Now, what were the powers received by the apostles?  Where they
not the powers of wisdom and courage, by which they were enabled to
appear before rulers and princes in the name of Christ; the power of
miracles, even of raising the dead to life; by which they convinced the
world, that God was with them in what they said and did?  With respect
to this evidence, St. John says, If we receive the witness of men, the
witness of God is greater. [I John 5:9] Add to this, that the apostles
had a power to communicate these gifts to believers.  Can you wonder
that men believed the reality of those powers of which they were
partakers, and became conscious to themselves?  With respect to these
communicated powers, I suppose, St. John speaks, when he says, He that
believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: [I John 5:10]
appealing, not to an inward testimony of the Spirit, in the sense of
some modern enthusiasts; but to the powers of the Spirit, which
believers received, and which were seen in the effects that followed.

	It was objected, That the apostles separated themselves to the
work of the ministry, and one went into one country, another to
another; and, consequently, that the belief of the resurrection was
originally received every where upon the testimony of one witness.  I
will not examine this fact.  Suppose it to be so.  But did this one
witness go alone, when he was attended with the powers of heaven?  Was
not every blind man restored to sight, and every lame man to his feet,
a new witness to the truth reported by the first? Besides, when the
people of different countries came to compare notes, and found that
they had all received the same account of Christ and of his doctrine;
then surely the evidence of these distant witnesses thus united, became
stronger than if they had told their story together: for twelve men
separately examined form a much stronger proof for the truth of any
fact, than twelve men agreeing together in one story.

	If the same thing were to happen in our own time:  if one or two
were to come into England, and report that a man was raised from the
dead; and, in consequence of it, teach nothing but that we ought to
love God and our neighbors: if,  to confirm their report, they should,
before our eyes, cure the blind, the deaf,  the lame, and even raise
the dead to life: if, endued with all these powers, they should live in
poverty and distress, and patiently submit to all that scorn, contempt,
and malice could contrive to distress them; and at last sacrifice even
their lives in justification of the truth of their report:  if upon
inquiry we should find, that all the countries in Europe had received
the same account, supported by the same miraculous powers, attested in
like manner by the sufferings, and confirmed by the blood of the
witnesses:  I would fain know what any reasonable man would do in this
case?  Would he despise such evidence?  I think he would not.  And
whoever thinks otherwise, must say, that a resurrection, though in its
own nature possible, is yet such a thing, in which we ought not to
believe either God or man.

	Judge.   Have you done, Sir?

	Mr. B.  Yes, my Lord.

	Judge.   Go on, Mr. A., if you have anything to say in reply.

	Mr. A.  My Lord, I shall trouble you with very little. The
objections and answers under this head, I shall leave to the judgment
of the court; and beg leave only to make an observation or two upon the
last part of the Gentleman's argument.

	And first, with respect to the sufferings of the apostles and
disciples of Jesus, and the argument drawn from thence for the truth of
their doctrines and assertions, I beg leave to observe to you, that
there is not a false religion or pretence in the world, but can produce
the same authority, and show many instances of men who have suffered
even to death for the truth of their several professions.  If we
consult only modern story we shall find Papists suffering for Popery,
Protestants for their religion.  And among Protestants every sect has
had its martyrs; Puritans, Quakers, Fifth-monarchy men. In Henry VIII's
time England saw both Popish and Protestant martyrs; in Queen Mary's
reign the rage fell upon Protestants; in Queen Elizabeth's Papists and
Puritans were called sometimes, though rarely, to this trial.  In later
times, sometimes churchmen, sometimes dissenters were persecuted.  What
must we say, then?  All these sufferers had not truth with them; and
yet, if there be any weight in this argument from suffering they  have
all the right to plead it.

	But I may be told, perhaps, that men by their sufferings, though
they do not prove their doctrines to be true, yet prove at least their
own sincerity: as if it were a thing impossible for men to dissemble at
the point of death. Alas! how many instances are there of men's denying
facts plainly proved, asserting facts plainly disproved, even with the
rope around their necks? Must all such pass for innocent sufferers,
sincere men?  If not, it must be allowed, that a man's word at the
point of death is not always to be relied on.

	Another observation I would make, is with respect to the evidence
of the Spirit, on which so much stress is laid.  It has been hitherto
insisted on, that the resurrection was a matter of fact, and such a
fact as was capable and proper to be supported by the evidence of
sense.  How comes it about, that this evidence, this which is the
proper evidence, is given up as insufficient, and a new  improper
evidence introduced?  Is it not surprising, that one great miracle
should want an hundred more to prove it?  Every miracle is itself an
appeal to sense, and therefore admits no evidence but that of sense.
And there is no connexion between a miracle done this year and last
year.  It does not follow, therefore, because Peter cured a lame man,
(allowing the fact), that therefore Christ rose from the dead.

	But allowing the Gentleman all he demands, what is to us?  They
who had the witness within them, did perhaps very well to consult, and
to take his word; but how am I, or others, who have not this witness is
us, the better for it?  If the first ages of the church saw all the
wonders related by the Gentleman, and believed, it shews at least, in
his opinion, that this strong evidence was necessary to create the
belief he requires; why then does he require this belief of us, who
have not this strong evidence?

	Judge.  Very well.  Gentlemen of the jury, You have heard the
proofs and arguments on both sides, and it is now your part to give a
verdict.

	Here the Gentlemen whispered together, and the Foreman stood up.

	Foreman.  My Lord, The case has been long, and consists of
several articles; therefore the jury hope you will give them your
directions.

	Judge.	No, no; you are very able to judge without my help.

	Mr. A.	My Lord, Pray consider, you appointed this meeting
and chose your office.  Mr. B. and I have gone through our parts, and
have some right on your doing your part.

	Mr. B.	I must join, Sir, in that request.

	Judge.  I have often heard, that all honour has a burden
attending it; but I did not suspect it in this office, which I
conferred upon myself.  But, since it must be so, I will recollect, and
lay before you, as well as I can, the substance of the debate.

	Gentlemen of the jury, The question before you, is Whether the
witnesses of the resurrection of Christ are guilty of giving false
evidence, or no?

	Two sorts of objections, or accusations, are brought against
them.  One charges fraud and deceit on the transaction itself;  the
other charges the evidence as forged, and insufficient to support the
credit of so extraordinary an event.

	There are also three periods of time to be considered.

	The first takes in the ministry of Christ, and ends at his death.
During this period the fraud is supposed to be contrived.

	The second reaches from his death to his resurrection.  During
this period the fraud is supposed to be executed.

	The third begins from the resurrection, and takes in the whole
ministry of the apostles.  And here the evidence they gave the world
for this fact is the main consideration.

	As to the first period of time, and the fraud charged upon Jesus,
I must observe to you, that this charge had no evidence to support it;
all the facts reported of Jesus stand in full contradiction to it.  To
suppose, as the council did, that this fraud might possibly appear, if
we had any Jewish books written at the time, is not to bring proof, but
to wish for proof: for, as it was rightly observed on the other side,
how does Mr. A. know there were any such books?  And since they are
lost, how does he know what was in them?  Were such books extant, they
might probably prove beyond dispute the facts recorded in the gospels.

	You were told, that the Jews were a very superstitious people,
much addicted to prophecy; and particularly, that they had a strong
expectation about the time that Christ appeared, to have a victorious
prince rise among them.  This is laid as the ground of suspicion; and,
in fact, many imposters, you are told, set up upon these notions of the
people; and thence it is inferred, that Christ built his scheme upon
the strength of these popular prejudices.  But when this fact came to
be examined on the other side, it appeared, that Christ was so far from
falling in with these notions, and abusing the credulity of the people,
that it was his main point, to correct these prejudices, to oppose
these superstitions; and by these very means he fell into disgrace with
his countrymen, and suffered as one who, in their opinion, destroyed
the Law and the Prophets.  With respect to temporal power, so far was
he from aiming at it, that he refused it when offered: so far from
giving any hopes of it to his disciples, that he invited men upon quite
different terms: To take up the cross, and follow him. And it is
observable, that, after he had foretold his death and resurrection, he
continued to admonish his disciples of the evils they were to suffer;
to tell them, that the world would hate them, and abuse them; which
surely to common sense has no appearance that he was then contriving a
cheat, or encouraging his disciples to execute it.

	But as ill supported as this charge is, there was no avoiding it;
it was necessity and not choice, which drove the Gentleman to it: for
since Christ had foretold his resurrection, if the whole was a cheat,
he certainly was conscious to it, and consequently the plot was laid in
his own time.  And yet the supposing Christ conscious to such a fraud
in these circumstance, is contrary to all probability.  It is very
improbable, that he, or any man, should, without any temptation,
contrive a cheat to take place after his death.  And if this could be
supposed, it is highly improbable that he should give publick notice of
it, and thereby put all men on their guard; especially considering
there were only a few women, and twelve men, of low fortunes, and mean
education, to conduct the plot, and the whole power of the Jews and
Romans to oppose it.

	Mr. A. seemed sensible of  these difficulties, and therefore
would have varied the charge, and have made Christ an enthusiast, and
his disciples only cheats.  This was not properly moved, and therefore
not debated; for which reason I shall pass it over with this short
observation;  that enthusiasm is as contrary to the whole character and
conduct of Christ, as even fraud is.  Besides, this imagination, if
allowed, goes only to Christ's own part; and leaves the charge of
fraud, in its full extent, upon the management from the time of his
death; and therefore is of no use, unless the fraud afterwards be
apparent.  For if there really was a resurrection, it will sufficiently
answer the charge of enthusiasm.

	I pass on to the second period, to consider what happened between
the death and resurrection of Christ.  And here it agreed that Christ
died, and was buried.  So far then there was no fraud.

	For the better understanding the charge here, we must recollect a
material circumstance reported by one of the evangelists; which is
this:  After Christ was buried, the chief priests and Pharisees came to
Pilate, the Roman governor, and informed him, that this deceiver
(meaning Jesus) had in his lifetime foretold, that he would rise again
after three days; that they suspected his disciples would steal away
the body, and pretend a resurrection; and then the last error would be
worse than the first. They therefore desire a guard to watch the
sepulchre, to prevent all fraud.  They had one granted; accordingly
they placed a watch on the sepulchre, and sealed up the stone at the
mouth of it.

	What the event of this case was, the same writer tells us.  The
guards saw the stone removed by angels, and for fear they became as
dead men:  when they came to the city, they reported to the chief
priests what had happened: a council is called, and a resolution taken
to bribe the soldiers to say, that the body was stolen while they were
asleep; and the council undertook to excuse the soldiers to Pilate, for
their negligence in falling asleep when they were on duty.

	Thus the fact stands in the original record.  Now, the council
for Woolston  maintains, that the story reported by the soldiers, after
they had been bribed by the chief priests, contains the true account of
this pretended resurrection.

	The Gentleman was sensible of a difficulty in his way, to account
for the credit which the Jews gave to the prediction of Christ; for if,
as he pretends, they knew him to be an impostor, what reason had they
to take any notion of his prediction? And therefore, that very caution
in this case betrayed their concern, and shewed, that they were not
satisfied that his pretensions were groundless.  To obviate this, he
says, That they had discovered before, one great cheat in the case of
Lazarus, and therefore were suspicious of another in this case.  He was
answered, That the discovery of a cheat in the case before mentioned,
ought rather to have set them at ease, and made them quite secure as to
the event of the prediction.  In reply he says, That the chief priests,
however satisfied of the cheat themselves, had found that it prevailed
among the people; and, to secure the people from being further imposed
on, they used the caution they did.

	This is the substance of the argument on both sides.

	I must observe to you, that this reasoning from the case of
Lazarus has no foundation in history.  There is no pretence for saying,
that the Jews in this whole affair had any particular regard to the
raising of Lazarus.  And if they had any such just suspicion, why was
it not mentioned at the trial of Christ?  There was then an opportunity
of opening the whole fraud, and undeceiving the people.  The Jews had a
plain law for punishing a false prophet; and what could be a stronger
conviction, than such a cheat made manifest?  Why then was this
advantage lost?

	The Gentleman builds this observation on these words,  So the
last error shall be worse than the first.  But is there here anything
said about Lazarus?  No.  The words are a proverbial form of speech,
and probably were used without relation to any particular case.  But if
a particular meaning must be assigned, it is more probable, that the
words being used to Pilate, contained a reason applicable to him.  Now,
Pilate had been drawn in to consent to the crucifixion, for fear the
Jews should set up Jesus to be their King in opposition to Caesar;
therefore say the chief priests to him, If once the people believe him
to be risen from the dead, the last error will be worse than the first;
i.e. they will be more inclined and encouraged to rebel against the
Romans than ever.  This is a natural sense of the words, as they are
used to move the Roman governor to allow them a guard.  Whether Lazarus
were dead or alive; whether Christ came to destroy the Law and the
Prophets, or to establish or confirm them, was of little moment to
Pilate.  It is plain, he was touched by none of these considerations;
and refused to be concerned in the affair of Christ, till he was
alarmed with the suggestions of danger to the Roman state.  This was
the first fear that moved him; must not therefore the second now
suggested to him be of the same kind?

	The next circumstance to be considered, is that of the seal upon
the stone of the sepulchre.  The council for Woolston supposes an
agreement between the Jews and disciples about setting this seal.  But
for this agreement there is no evidence; nay, to suppose it,
contradicts the whole series of the history, as the Gentleman on the
other side observed.  I will not enter into the particulars of this
debate; for it is needless.  The plain natural account given of this
matter, shuts out all other suppositions.  Mr. B. observed to you, that
the Jews having a guard, set the seal to prevent any combination among
the guards to deceive them:  which seems a plain and satisfactory
account.  The council for W. replies, Let the use of the seals be what
they will, it is plain they were broken; and if they were used as a
check upon the Roman soldiers, then probably they consented to the
fraud: and then it is easily understood how the body was removed.

	I must observe to you here, that this suspicion agrees neither
with the account given by the evangelist, nor with the story set about
by the Jews; so that it is utterly unsupported by any evidence.

	Nor has it any probability in it.  For what could move Pilate,
and the Roman soldiers, to propagate such a cheat?  He had crucified
Christ, for no other reason, but for fear the people would revolt from
the Romans;  perhaps too he consented to place a guard upon the
sepulchre, to put an end to the people's hope in Jesus: and is it
likely at last that he was consenting to a cheat, to make the people
believe him risen from the dead; the thing, of all others, which he was
obliged, as his apprehensions were, to prevent?

	The next circumstance insisted on as a proof of the fraud, is,
that Jesus rose from the dead before the time he had appointed.  Mr. A.
supposes that the disciples hastened the plot, for fear of falling in
with multitudes, who waited only for the appointed time to be at the
sepulchre, and to see with their own eyes.  He was answered, That the
disciples were not, could not be concerned, or be present at moving the
body;  that they were dispersed, and lay concealed for fear of the
Jews: that hastening the plot, was of no use; for the resurrection
happened whilst the guards were at the sepulchre; who were probably
enow to prevent violence; certainly enow to discover it, if any were
used.

	This difficulty then rests merely upon the reckoning of the time.
Christ died on Friday, rose early on Sunday.  The question is, Whether
this was rising the third day, according to the prediction?  I will
refer the authorities made use of in this case to your memory, and add
only one observation, to shew that it was indeed the third day,
according as the people of the country reckoned.  When Christ talked
with the two disciples who knew him not, they gave him an account of
his own crucifixion, and their disappointment; and tell him, Today is
the third day since these things were done [Luke24:21]. Now, this
conversation was on the very day of the resurrection.  And the
disciples thought of nothing less than answering an objection against
the resurrection, which as yet they did not believe.  They recount only
a matter of fact, and reckon the time according to the usage of their
country, and call the day of the resurrection the third day from the
crucifixion; which is a plain evidence, in what manner the Jews
reckoned in this and like cases.

	As the objections in this case are founded upon the story
reported by the Jews, and the Roman soldiers, Mr. B. in his answer,
endeavored to shew, from some historical passages, that the Jews
themselves did not believe the story.

	His first argument was, That the Jews never questioned the
disciples for this cheat, and the share they had in it, when they had
them in their power.  And yet who sees not that it was very much in
their purpose so to do?  To this there is no reply.

	The second argument was from the treatment St. Paul had from King
Agrippa, and his saying to St. Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a
Christian: A speech which he reckons could not be made by a prince, to
one concerned in carrying out a known cheat.  To this the Gentleman
replies, That Agrippa never did become a Christian; and that no great
stress is to be laid upon his compliance to his prisoner.  But allowing
that there was something of humanity and civility in the expression,
yet such civility could hardly be paid to a known impostor.  There is a
propriety even in civility.  A prince may be civil to a rebel; but he
will hardly compliment him for his loyalty:  he may be civil to a poor
sectary; but if he knows him to be a cheat, he will scarcely compliment
him with hopes that he will be of his party.

	The third argument was from the advice given by Gamaliel to the
council of the Jews, to let the apostles alone, for fear they
themselves should be found to fight against God:  A supposition which
the Gentleman thinks absolutely inconsistent with his, or the council's
being persuaded, that the apostles were guilty of any fraud in managing
the resurrection of Christ.

	The Gentleman replies, That Gamaliel's advice respected only the
numbers of people deceived; and was a declaration of his opinion, that
it was not prudent to come to extremities till the people were in a
better temper.  This deserves consideration.

	First, I observe, that Gamaliel's words are express, Lest ye be
found to fight against God; which reason respects God, and not the
people.  And the suppostion is, that the hand of God might possibly be
in this work: A saying which could not have come from him, or have been
received by the council, if they had believed the resurrection to have
been a cheat.

	Secondly, It is remarkable, that the miracles wrought by the
apostles after the death of Christ, those especially which occasioned
the calling of this council, had a much greater effect upon the Jews,
than even the miracles of Christ himself.  They held out against all
the wonders of Christ, and were perpetually plotting his death, not
doubting but that would put an end to all their trouble: but when,
after his death, they saw the same powers continue with the apostles,
they saw no end of the affair, but began to think in earnest there
might be more in it than they were willing to believe.  And, upon the
report made to them of the apostle's works, they make serious
reflexion, and doubted whereunto this would grow.  And though in their
anger and vexation of heart they thought of desperate remedies, and
were for killing the apostles also; yet they hearkened willing to
Gamaliel's advice; which at another time might have been dangerous to
the adviser.  So that it appears from the history, that the whole
council had the same doubt that Gamaliel had, that possibly the hand of
God might be in this thing.  And could the Jews, if they had manifestly
discovered the cheat of the resurrection a little time before, have
entertained such a suspicion?

	The last period commences at the resurrection, and takes in the
evidence upon which the credit of this fact stands.

	The council for Woolston, among other difficulties, started one,
which, if well grounded, excludes all evidence out of this case.  The
resurrection being a thing out of the course of nature, he thinks the
testimony of nature, held forth to us in her constant method of
working, a stronger evidence against the possibility of a resurrection,
than any human evidence can be for the reality of one.

	In answer to this, it is said, on the other side,

	First, That a resurrection is a thing to be judged of by mens
senses; and this cannot be doubted.  We all know when a man is dead;
and should he come to life again, we might judge whether he was alive
or no, by the very same means by which we judge those about us to be
living men.

	Secondly, That the notion of a resurrection, contradicts no one
principle of right reason, interferes with no law of nature: and that
whoever admits that God gave man life at first, cannot possibly doubt
of his power to restore it when lost.

	Thirdly, That appealing to the settled course of nature, is
referring the matter in dispute, not to rules or maxims of reason and
true philosophy, but to the prejudices and mistakes of men; which are
various and infinite, and differ sometimes according to the climate men
live in; because men form a notion of nature from what they see: and
therefore in cold countries all men judge it to be according to the
course of nature for water to freeze; in warm countries they judge it
to be unnatural.  Consequently, that it is not enough to prove anything
to be contrary to the laws of nature, to say that it is usually, or
constantly, to our observation, otherwise.  And therefore, though men
in the ordinary course die, and do not rise again, (which is certainly
a prejudice against the belief of a resurrection); yet is it not an
argument against the possibility of a resurrection?

	Another objection was against the reality of the body of Christ
after it came from the grave.  These objections are founded upon such
passages as report his appearing or disappearing to the eyes of his
disciples at pleasure; his coming in among them when the doors were
shut; his forbidding some to touch him, his inviting others to do it;
his having the very wounds whereof he died, fresh and open in his body,
and the like. Hence the council concluded, that it was no real body,
which was sometimes visible, sometimes invisible; sometimes capable of
being touched, sometimes incapable.

	On the other side it was answered, That many of these objections
are founded on a mistaken belief of the passages referred to;
particularly of the passage in which Christ is thought to forbid Mary
Magdalene to touch him; of another, in which he calls to Thomas to
examine his wounds; and probably of a third, relating to Christ's
conversation with his disciples on the road, without being known by
them.

	As to other passages which relate his appearing and disappearing,
and coming in when the doors were shut, it is said, that no conclusion
can be drawn from them against the reality of Christ's body: that these
things might happen many ways, and yet the body be real; which is the
only point to which the present objection extends:  that there might be
in this, and probably was, something miraculous; but nothing more
wonderful than what happened on another occasion in his lifetime, where
the Gentleman who makes the objection allows him to have had a real
body.

	I mention these things but briefly, just to bring the course of
the argument to your remembrance.

	The next objection is taken from hence, That Christ did not
appear publickly to the people, and particularly to the chief priests
and rulers of the Jews.  It is said, that his commission related to
them in an especial manner; and that it appears strange, that the main
proof of his mission, the resurrection, should not be laid before them;
but that witnesses should be picked and culled to see this mighty
wonder.  This is the force of the objection.

	To which it is answered, First, That the particular commission to
the Jews expired at the death of Christ; and therefore the Jews had, on
this account, no claim for any particular evidence.  And it is
insisted, that Christ, before his death, declared, the Jews should not
see him, till they were better disposed to receive him.

	Secondly, That as the whole world had a concern in the
resurrection of Christ, it was necessary to prepare a proper evidence
for the whole world; which was not to be done by any particular
satisfaction given to the people of the Jews, or their rulers.

	Thirdly, That as to the chosen witnesses, it is a mistake to
think that they were chosen as the only persons to see Christ after the
resurrection; and that in truth many others did see him: but that the
witnesses were chosen as proper persons to bear testimony to all
people; an office to which many others who did see Christ, were not
particularly commissioned. That making choice of proper and credible
witnesses, was so far from being a ground of just suspicion, that it is
in all cases the most proper way to exclude suspicion..

	The next objection is pointed against the evidence of the angels,
and the women.  It is said, That history reports, that the women saw
young men at the sepulchre; that they were advanced into angels, merely
through the fear and superstition of the women: that, at the best, this
is but a story of an apparition; a thing in times of ignorance much
talked of, but in the days of knowledge never heard of.

	In answer to this, it is said, That the angels are not properly
reckoned among the witnesses of the resurrection; they were not in the
number of the chosen witnesses, or sent to bear testimony in the world:
that they were indeed ministers of God appointed to attend the
resurrection: that God has such ministers, cannot be reasonably
doubted; nor can it be objected, that they were improperly employed, or
below their dignity, in attending on the resurrection of Christ: that
we believe them to be angels, not on the report of the women, but upon
the credit of the evangelist who affirms it: that what is said of
apparitions on this occasion, may pass for wit and ridicule, but yields
not reason or argument.

	The objection to the women was, I think, only that they were
women; which was strengthened by calling them silly women.

	It was answered, That women have eyes and ears as well as men,
and can tell what they see and hear.  And it happened in this case,
that the women were so far from being credulous, that they believed not
the angels, and hardly believed their own report.  However, that the
women are none of the chosen witnesses; and if they were, the evidence
of the men cannot be set aside, because women saw what they saw..

	This is the substance of the objections and the answers.

	The council for the apostles insisted further, That they gave the
greatest assurance to the world that possibly could be given, of their
sincere dealing, by suffering all kinds of  hardship, and at last death
itself, in confirmation of the truth of their evidence.

	The council for Woolston, in reply to this, told you, That all
religions, whether true or false, had had their martyrs; that no
opinion, however absurd, can be named, but some have been content to
die for it; and then concluded, that suffering is no evidence of the
truth of the opinions for which men suffer.

	To clear this matter to you, I must observe how this case stands.
You have heard often, in the course of this argument, that the apostles
were witnesses chosen to bear testimony to the resurrection; and, for
that  reason, had the fullest evidence themselves of the truth of it;
not merely by seeing Christ once or twice after his death, but by
frequent conversations with him for forty days together, before his
ascension.  That this was their proper business, appears plainly from
history; where we find, that to ordain an apostle, was the same thing
as ordaining one to be a witness of the resurrection.[Acts 1:22]  If
you look further, to the preaching of the apostles, you will find this
was the great article insisted on [Acts 2:22, 3:15, 4:10, 5:30]. And
St. Paul knew the weight of this article, and the necessity of teaching
it, when he said, If Christ be not risen, our faith is vain.  You see,
then, that the thing which the apostles testified, and the thing for
which they suffered, was the truth of the resurrection; which is a mere
matter of fact.

	Consider now how the objection stands.  The council for Woolston
tells you, that it is common for men to die for false opinions; and he
tells you nothing but the truth. But even in those cases their
suffering is an evidence of their sincerity; and it would be very hard
to charge men who die for the doctrine they profess, with insincerity
in the profession.  Mistaken they may be; but every mistaken man is not
a cheat.  Now, if you will allow the suffering of the apostles to prove
their sincerity, which you cannot well disallow; and consider that they
died for the truth of a matter of  fact which they had seen themselves,
you will perceive how strong the evidence is in this case.  In
doctrines, and matters of opinion, men mistake perpetually; and it is
no reason for me to take up with another man's opinion, because I am
persuaded he is sincere in it. But when a man reports to me an uncommon
fact, yet such an one as in its own nature is a plain object of sense;
if I believe him not, it is not because I suspect his eyes, or his
sense of feeling, but merely because I suspect his sincerity: for if I
was to see the same thing myself, I should believe myself; and
therefore my suspicion does not arise from the inability of human
senses to judge in the case, but from a doubt of the sincerity of the
reporter.  In such cases, therefore,  there wants nothing to be proved,
but only the sincerity of the reporter: and since voluntary sufferings
for the truth, is at least a proof of sincerity; the sufferings of the
apostles for the truth of the resurrection, is a full and
unexceptionable proof.

	The council for Woolston was sensible of this difference; and
therefore he added, that there are many instances of men's suffering
and dying in an obstinate denial of the truth of facts plainly proved.
This observation is also true.  I remember a story of a man who endured
with great constancy all the tortures of the rack, denying the fact
with which he was charged.  When he was asked afterwards, how he could
hold out against all the tortures? He answered, I had painted a gallows
upon the toe of my shoe, and when the rack stretched me, I looked on
the gallows, and bore the pain, to save my life.  This man denied a
plain fact, under great torture; but you see a reason for it.  In other
cases, when criminals persist in denying their crimes, they often do
it, and there is a reason to suspect they do it always, in hopes of a
pardon or reprieve.  But what are these instances to the present
purpose?  All these men suffer against their will, and for their
crimes; and their obstinacy is built on the hope of escaping, by moving
the compassion of the government. Can the Gentleman give any instances
of persons who died willingly in attestation of a false fact?  We have
had in England some weak enough to die for the Pope's supremacy; but do
you think a man could be found to die in proof of the Pope's being
actually on the throne of England?

	Now, the apostles died in asserting the truth of Christ's
resurrection.  It was always in their power to quit their evidence and
save their lives.  Even their bitterest enemies, the Jews, required no
more of them than to be silent. [Acts 4:17, 5:28]  Others have denied
facts, or asserted facts, in hopes of saving their lives, when they
were under sentence of death: but these men attested a fact at the
expence of their lives, which they might have saved by denying the
truth.  So that between criminals dying, and denying plain facts, and
the apostles dying for their testimony, there is this material
difference: criminals deny the truth in hopes of saving their lives;
the apostles willingly parted with their lives, rather than deny the
truth.

	We are come now to the last, and indeed the most weighty
consideration.

	The council for the apostles having in the course of the argument
allowed, that more evidence is required to support the credit of the
resurrection, it being a very extraordinary event, than is necessary in
common cases, in the latter part of his defence sets forth the
extraordinary evidence upon which this fact stands.  That is, the
evidence of the Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom and power, which was given
to the apostles, to enable them to confirm their testimony by signs and
wonders, and mighty works.  This part of the argument was well argued
by the Gentleman, and I need not repeat all he said.

	The council for Woolston, in his reply, made two objections to
this evidence.

	The first was this: That the resurrection having all along been
pleaded to be a matter of fact, and an object of sense, to recur to
miracles for the proof of it, is to take it out of its proper evidence,
the evidence of sense; and to rest it upon a proof which cannot be
applied to it: for seeing one miracle, he says, is no evidence that
another miracle was wrought before it; as healing a sick man, is no
evidence that a dead man was raised to life.

	To clear this difficulty, you must consider by what train of
reasoning miracles come to be proofs in any case.  A miracle of itself
proves nothing, unless this only, that there is a cause equal to the
producing the effect we see.  Suppose you should see a man raise one
from the dead, and he should go away and say nothing to you, you would
not find that any fact, or any proposition, was proved or disproved by
this miracle.  But should he declare to you, in the name of him, by
whose power the miracle was wrought, that image-worship was unlawful,
you would then be possessed of a proof against image-worship.  But how?
Not because the miracle proves anything as to the point itself, but
because the man's declaration is authorised by him who wrought the
miracle in confirmation of his doctrine; and therefore miracles are
directly a proof of the authority of  persons, and not of the truth of
things.

	To apply this to the present case:  If the apostles had wrought
miracles, and said nothing of the resurrection, the miracles would have
proved nothing about the resurrection one way or another.  But when as
eye-witnesses they attested the truth of the resurrection, and wrought
miracles to confirm their authority; the miracles did not directly
prove the resurrection; but they confirmed and established beyond all
suspicion the proper evidence, the evidence of eye-witnesses.  So that
here is no change of the evidence from proper to improper; the fact
still rests upon the evidence of sense, confirmed and strengthened by
the authority of the Spirit.  If a witness calls in his neighbors to
attest his veracity, they prove nothing as to the fact in question, but
only confirm the evidence of the witness.  The case here is the same;
though between the authorities brought in confirmation of the evidence,
there is no comparison.

	The second objection was, That this evidence, however good it may
be in its kind, is yet nothing to us.  It was well, the Gentleman says,
for those who had it; but what is that to us, who have it not?

	To adjust this difficulty, I must observe to you, that the
evidence now under consideration, was not a private evidence of the
Spirit, or any inward light, like to that which the Quakers in our time
pretend to; but an evidence appearing in the manifest and visible works
of the Spirit: and this evidence was capable of being transmitted, and
actually has been transmitted to us upon unquestionable authority.  And
to allow the evidence to have been good in the first ages, and not in
this, seems to be to be a contradiction to the rules of reasoning: for
if we see enough to judge that the first ages had reason to believe, we
must needs see at the same time, that it is reasonable for us also to
believe.  As the present question only relates to the nature of the
evidence, it was not necessary to produce from history the instances to
shew in how plentiful a manner this evidence was granted to the church.
Whoever wants this satisfaction, may easily have it.

	Gentlemen of the jury, I have laid before you the substance of
what has been said on both sides.  You are now to consider of it, and
to give your verdict.

	The jury consulted together, and the Foreman rose up.

	Foreman.	My Lord, We are ready to give our verdict.

	Judge.	Are you all agreed?

	Jury.	Yes.

	Judge.	Who shall speak for you?

	Jury.	Our Foreman.

	Judge.	What say you?  Are the apostles guilty of giving
false evidence in the case of the resurrection of Jesus, or not guilty?

	Foreman.	Not guilty.

	Judge.  	Very well. And now, Gentlemen, I resign my commission
and am your humble servant.

	The company rose up, and were beginning to pay their compliments
to the judge and the council; but were interrupted by a Gentleman, who
went up to the judge, and offered him a fee.  What's this? Says the
judge.  A fee, Sir, said the Gentleman.  A fee to a judge is a bribe,
said the judge.  True, Sir, said the Gentleman; but you have resigned
your commission, and will not be the first judge who has come from the
bench without any diminution of honour.  Now, Lazarus's case is to come
on next, and this fee is to retain you on his side.  There followed a
confused noise of all speaking together, to persuade the judge to take
the fee: but as the trial had lasted longer than I expected, and I had
lapsed the time of an appointment for business, I was forced to slip
away; and whether the judge was prevailed on to undertake the cause of
Lazarus, or no, I cannot say.

FINIS