,typescript converted to computer file  
by ,lee ,dunbar  - ,july #bjjb          
,the ,,trial  of the  ,,witnesses  of   
the  ,,resurrection  of  ,,jesus        
,,christ    ,n4,b4 ,not only ,mr4       
,woolston's objections in his ,sixth    
,discourse on our  ,saviour's ,miracles1
 but those also which he and others have
 published  in other ,books1 are here   
considered4    ,first ,published about  
the ,year #agbi      ,,the  ,t ,r ,i ,a 
,l  ,,of ,,the  ,,witnesses  ,,of ,,the 
,resurrection of ,jesus    ,we were1 not
 long since1 some ,gentlemen of the inns
 of court together1  each to other so   
well known1 that no man's presence was a
 confinement  to any other1 from        
speaking his mind on any subject that   
happened to  arise in conversation4     
,the meeting was without design1 and the
  discourse1 as in like cases1 various4 
,among other things we fell upon  the   
subject of ,woolston's trial and        
conviction1 which had happened some  few
 days before4  ,that led to a debate1   

,how the law finds in such  cases8 what 
punishment it inflicts8 and1 in general1
 whether the law  ought at all to       
interpose in controversies of this kind8
  ,we were not  agreed in these points4 
,one1 who maintained the favorable side 
to  ,woolston1 discovered a great liking
  and approbation of his discourses     
against the miracles of ,christ1 and    
seemed to think his arguments           
unanswerable4  ,to which another        
replied1 ,i wonder that one of your     
abilities1 and bred to the profession of
 the law1 which teaches us to  consider 
the nature of evidence1 and its proper  
weight1 can be of that  opinion3 ,i am  
sure you would be unwilling to determine
 a property of  five shillings upon such
 evidence1 as you now think material    
enough to  overthrow the miracles of    
,christ4     ,it may easily be imagined1
 that this opened a door to much        
dispute1 and determined the conversation
 for the remainder of the  evening to   
this subject4 ,the dispute ran thro'    

almost all the  particulars mentioned in
 ,woolston's pieces2 but the thread of  
it was  broken by several digressions1  
and the pursuit of things which were    
brought accidentally into the discourse4
  ,at length one of the company  said   
pleasantly2 ,gentlemen1 you don't argue 
like lawyers2 if  ,i were  judge in this
 cause1 ,i would hold you better to the 
point4 ,the company  took the hint1 and 
cried1 they should be glad to have the  
cause  reheard1 and him to be the judge4
  ,the ,gentlemen who had engaged with  
mettle and spirit in a dispute which    
arose accidentally1 seemed very         
unwilling to be drawn into a formal     
controversy2 and especially the         
,gentleman who argued against ,woolston1
 thought the matter grew too  serious   
for him1 and excused himself from       
undertaking a controversy in  religion1 
of all others the most momentous4  ,but 
he was told1 that the  argument should  
be confined merely to the nature of the 
evidence2 and  that might be considered1

 without entering into any such         
controversy as  he would avoid2 and1 to 
bring the matter within bounds1 and     
under one  view1 the evidence of        
,christ's resurrection1 and the         
exceptions taken  to it1 should be the  
only subject of the conference4 ,with   
such  persuasion he suffered himself to 
be persuaded1 and promised to give  the 
company1 and their new-made judge1 a    
meeting that day fortnight4  ,the judge 
and the rest of the company were for    
bringing on the cause a  week sooner2   
but the council for ,woolston took the  
matter up1 and said1  ,consider1 ,sir1  
the ,gentleman is not to argue out of   
,littleton1  ,plowden1 or ,coke1 authors
 to him well known2 but he must have his
  authorities from ,matthew1 ,mark1     
,luke1 and ,john2 and a fortnight is    
time  little enough of all conscience to
 gain a familiarity with a new          
acquaintance3 and1 turning to the       
,gentleman1 he said1 ,i'll call upon    
you before the fortnight is out1 to see 

how reverend an appearance you  make    
behind ,hammond on the ,new ,testament1 
a concordance on one hand1  and a folio 
,bible with references on the other4    
,you shall be welcome1  ,sir1 replied   
the ,gentleman2 and perhaps you may find
 some company more  to your own taste4  
,he is but a poor council who studies on
 one side of  the question only2 and    
therefore ,i will have your friend      
,woolston1  ,tl1 and ,cs1 to entertain  
you when you do me the favor of the     
visit4  ,upon this we parted in good    
humour1 and all pleased with the        
appointment made1 except the two        
,gentlemen who were to provide the      
entertainment4    ,the ,second ,day     
,the company met at the time appointed3 
but as it happened in  this1 as in like 
cases it often does1 that some friends  
to some of the  company1 who were not of
 the party the first day1 had got notice
 of the  meeting2 and the ,gentlemen who
 were to debate the question1 found they
  had a more numerous audience than they

 expected or desired4  ,he  especially  
who was to maintain the evidence for the
 resurrection1 began  to excuse the     
necessity he was under of disappointing 
their  expectation1 alledging that he   
was not prepared2 and he had persisted  
in excusing himself1 but that the       
strangers who perceived what the case   
was1 offered to withdraw2 which the     
,gentleman would by no means consent    
to3  they insisting to go1 he said1 he  
would much rather submit himself  to    
their candour1 unprepared as he was1    
than be guilty of such  rudeness1 as to 
force them to leave the company4 ,upon  
which one of the  company1 smiling1     
said1 ,it happens luckily that our      
number is  increased3 when we were last 
together1 we appointed a judge1 but we  
quite forgot a jury3 and now1 ,i think1 
we are good men and true1  sufficient to
 make one4  ,this thought was pursued in
 several allusions  to legal            
proceedings2 which created some mirth1  
and had this good  effect1 that it      

dispersed the solemn air1 which the     
mutual compliments  upon the difficulty 
before mentioned had introduced1 and    
restored the  ease and good humour      
natural to the conversation of          
,gentlemen4     ,the judge perceiving   
the disposition of the company1 thought 
it a  proper time to begin1 and called  
out1 ,gentlemen of the jury1 take your  
places2 and immediately seated himself  
at the upper end of the table4  ,the    
company sat round him1 and the judge    
called upon the council for  ,woolston  
to begin4     ,mr4 ,a4 ,council for     
,woolston1 addressing himself to the    
judge1  said1     ,may it please your   
,lordship1 ,i conceive the ,gentleman on
 the  other side ought to begin1 and lay
 his evidence1 which he intends to      
maintain1 before the court2 till that is
 done1 it is to no purpose for  me to   
object4  ,i amy perhaps object to       
something which he will not  admit to be
 any part of his evidence2  and         
therefore ,i apprehend1 the  evidence   

ought in the first place to be          
distinctly stated4     ,judge4 ,mr4 ,b  
,what say you to that8     ,mr4 ,b4     
,council on the other side3     ,my     
,lord1 ,if the evidence ,i am to        
maintain1 were to suppose any  new      
claim2 if ,i were to gain any thing     
which ,i am not already possessed  of1  
the ,gentleman would be in the right3   
but the evidence is old1 and  is matter 
of record2 and ,i have been long in     
possession of all that ,i  claim under  
it4  ,if the ,gentleman has anything to 
say to dispossess me1  let him produce  
it2 otherwise ,i have no reason to bring
 my own title  into question4  ,and this
 ,i take to be the known method of      
proceeding  in such cases3 no man is    
obliged to produce his title to his     
possession2 it is sufficient if he      
maintain it when it is called in        
question4     ,mr ,a4  ,surely1 my      
,lord1 the ,gentleman mistakes the case4
  ,i can  never admit myself to be out  
of possession of my understanding and   

reason2 and since he would put me out of
 this possession1 and compel me  to     
admit things incredible1 in virtue of   
the evidence he maintains1 he  ought to 
set forth his claim1 or leave the world 
to be directed by  common sense4        
,judge4   ,sir1 you say right1 upon     
supposition that the truth of  the      
,christian religion were the point in   
question4  ,in that case it  would be   
necessary to produce the evidence for   
the ,christian religion4  ,but the      
matter now before the court is1 ,whether
 the objections produced  by ,mr4       
,woolston1 are of weight to overthrow   
the evidence of ,christ's  resurrection8
 ,you see then the evidence of the      
resurrection is supposed  to be what it 
is on both sides2 and the thing         
immediately in judgement  is1 the value 
of the objections2 and therefore they   
must be set forth4  ,the court will be  
bound to take notice of the evidence1   
which is  admitted as a fact on both    
parts4  ,go on1 ,mr4 ,a4     ,mr4 ,a4   

,my ,lord1 ,i submit to the direction of
 the court1 ,i cannot  but observe1 that
 the ,gentleman on the other side1      
unwilling as he  seems to be to state   
his evidence1 did not forget to lay in  
his claim  to prescription2 which is    
perhaps1 in truth1 tho' he has too much 
skill  to own it1 the very strength of  
his cause4  ,i do allow1 that the       
,gentleman maintains nothing1 but what  
his father and grandfather1 and  his    
ancestors1 beyond time of man's memory1 
maintained before him3  ,i  allow too1  
that prescription in many cases makes a 
good title2 but it  must always be with 
this condition1 that the thing is       
capable of being  prescribed for3 and ,i
 insist1 that prescription cannot run   
against  reason and common sense4       
,customs may be pleaded by prescription2
 but  if1 upon showing the custom1      
anything unreasonable appears in it1 the
  prescription fails2 for length of time
 works nothing towards the  establishing
 anything that could never have a legal 

commencement4  ,and  if this objection  
will overthrow all prescriptions for    
customs2 the  mischief of which extends 
perhaps to one poor village only1 and   
affects  them in no greater a concern1  
than their right of common upon a ragged
  mountain3  shall it not much more     
prevail1 when the interest of mankind   
is concerned1 and in no less a point    
than his happiness in this life1  and   
all his hopes for futurity8  ,besides1  
if prescription must be  allowed in this
 case1 how will you deal with it in     
others8  ,what will  you say to the     
ancient ,persians1 and their            
fire-altars8 nay1 what to  the ,turks1  
who have been long enough in possession 
of their faith to  plead -----     ,mr4 
,b4   ,i beg pardon for interrupting the
 ,gentleman1 but it is  to save him     
trouble4  ,he is going into his favorite
 common-place1 and  has brought us from 
,persia to ,turkey already2 and if he   
goes on1 ,i know  we must follow him    
around the globe4 ,to save us from this 

long journey1  ,i'll waive all advantage
 from the antiquity of the resurrection1
 and  the general reception the belief  
of it has found in the world2 and am    
content to consider it as a fact which  
happened but last year1 and was  never  
heard of either by the ,gentleman's     
grandfather1 or by mine4     ,mr4 ,a4 ,i
 should not have taken quite so long a  
journey as the  ,gentleman imagines2    
nor1 indeed1 need any man go far from   
home to find  instances to the purpose  
,i was upon4  ,but1 since this advantage
 is  quitted1 ,i am as willing to spare 
my pains1 as the ,gentleman is  desirous
 that ,i should4  ,and yet ,i suspect   
some art even in this  concession1 fair 
and candid as it seems to be4  ,for ,i  
am persuaded1  that one reason1 perhaps 
the main reason1 why men believe this   
history  of ,jesus1 is1 that they cannot
 conceive1 that any one should attempt1 
much less succeed in such an attempt as 
this1 upon the foundation of  mere human
 cunning and policy2 and 'tis worth to  

go round the globe1 as  the ,gentleman  
expressed himself1 so see various       
instances of the like  kind1 in order to
 remove this prejudice4  ,but ,i stand  
corrected1 and  will go directly to the 
point now in judgement4     ,mr4 ,b4    
,my ,lord1 the ,gentleman1 in           
justification of his first  argument1   
has entered upon another of a very      
different kind4  ,i think  he is        
sensible of it1 and seeming to yield up 
one of his popular  topicks1 is indeed  
artfully getting rid of another2 which  
has made a  very good figure in many    
late writings1 but will not bear in any 
place  where he who maintains it may be 
asked questions4  ,the mere antiquity   
of the resurrection ,i gave up2 for1 if 
the evidence was not good at  first1 it 
can't be good now4  ,the ,gentleman is  
willing1 he says1  to  spare us his     
history of  ancient errors2 and         
intimates1 that upon this  account he   
passes over many instances of fraud1    
that were in like  circumstances to the 

case before us4  ,i would not have the  
main  strength of his case betrayed in  
complaisance to me4  ,nothing can be    
more material than to show a fraud of   
this kind1 that prevailed  universally  
in the world4  ,christ ,jesus declared  
himself a ,prophet1 and  put the proof  
of his mission on this1 that he should  
die openly and  publickly1 and rise     
again the third day4  ,this surely was  
the hardest  plot in the world to be    
managed2 and if there be one instance of
 this  kind1 or in any degree like it1  
by all means let it be produced4        
,mr4 ,a4  ,my ,lord1 ,there has hardly  
been an instance of a false  religion in
 the world1 but it has also afforded a  
like instance to this  before us4  ,have
 they not all pretended to inspiration8 
,upon what foot  did ,pythagoras1 ,numa1
 and others set up8  ,did they not all  
converse  with the gods1 and pretend to 
deliver oracles8     ,mr4 ,b4  ,this    
only shews1 that revelation is by the   
common consent  of mankind the very best

 foundation of religion2 and therefore  
every  imposter pretends to it4  ,but is
 a man's hiding himself in a cave for   
some years1 and then coming out into the
 world1 to be compared to a  man's      
dying1 and rising to life again8  ,so   
far from it1 that you and ,i  and every 
man may do the one1 but no man can do   
the other4     ,mr4 ,a4  ,sir1 ,i       
suppose it will be allowed to be as     
great a thing  to go to heaven1 and     
converse with angels1 and with ,god1 and
 to come  down to earth again1 as it is 
to die1 and  rise again8  ,now1 this    
very  thing ,mahomet pretended to do2   
and all his disciples believe it4  ,can 
you deny this fact8     ,mr4 ,b4  ,deny 
it1 ,sir8 ,no4 ,but tell us who went    
with ,mahomet8  ,who  were his          
witnesses8  ,i expect1 before we are    
done1 to hear of the  guards set over   
the sepulchre of ,christ1 and the seal  
of the stone4  ,what guard watched      
,mahomet in his going or returning8     
,what seals and  credentials had he8    

,he himself pretends to none4  ,his     
followers  pretend to nothing but his   
own word4  ,we are now to consider the  
evidence for ,christ's resurrection1 and
 you think to parallel it1 by  producing
 a case for which no one ever pretended 
there was any  evidence4  ,you have     
,mahomet's word2 and no man ever told a 
lie1 but you  had his word for the truth
 of what he said3 and therefore you need
 not  go round the globe to find such   
instances as these4  ,but this story1 it
  is said1 has gained great credit1 and 
is received by many nations4  ,very     
well4   ,and how was it received8  ,was 
not every man converted to  this faith  
with the sword at his throat8  ,in our  
case1 every witness to  the             
resurrection1 and every believer of it1 
was hourly exposed to  death4  ,in the  
other case1 whoever refused to believe1 
died2  or1 what  was as bad1 lived a    
wretched conquered slave4  ,and will you
 pretend  these cases to be alike8  ,one
 case indeed there was1 within our own  

memory1 which1 in some circumstances1   
came near to the case now before  us4   
,the ,french prophets put the credit of 
their mission upon the  resurrection of 
,dr4 ,emmes1 and gave publick notice of 
it4  ,if the  ,gentleman pleases to make
 use of this instance1 it is at his     
service4     ,mr4 ,a4  ,the instance of 
,dr4 ,emmes is so far to the purpose1   
that  it shews to what lengths          
enthusiasm will carry men4  ,and why    
might not  the same thing happen at     
,jerusalem1 which happened but a few    
years ago  in our own country8  ,matthew
 and ,john1 and the rest of them1       
managed  that affair with more dexterity
 than the ,french prophets2 so that the 
resurrection of ,jesus gained credit in 
the world1 and the ,french  prophets    
sunk under their ridiculous pretensions4
  ,that is all the  difference4     ,mr4
 ,b4  ,is it so8 ,and a very wide       
difference1 ,i promise you4  ,in  one   
case everything happened that was proper
 to convince the world of  the          

resurrection2  in the other1 the event  
manifested the cheat3 and  upon the view
 of these circumstances1 you think it is
 sufficient to  say1 with great         
coolness1 ,that is all the difference4  
,why1 what  difference do you expect    
between truth and falsehood8  ,what     
distinction      ,judge4  ,gentlemen1   
you forget you are in a court1 and are  
falling  into dialogue4  ,courts don't  
allow of chit-chat4  ,look ye1 the      
evidence  of the resurrection of ,jesus 
is before the court1 recorded by        
,matthew1  ,mark1 and others4  ,you must
 take it as it is2 you can neither make 
it  better1 or worse4  ,these witnesses 
are accused of giving false  evidence4  
,come to the point2 and let us hear what
 you have to offer to  prove the        
accusation4     ,mr4 ,b4  ,is it your   
meaning1 ,sir1 that the objections      
should be  stated and argued all        
together1 and that the answer should be 
to the  whole at once8  or would you    
have the objections argued singly1  and 

answered separately by themselves8      
,judge4  ,i think this court may        
dispense with the strict forms of  legal
 proceeding2 and therefore ,i leave this
 to the choice of the jury4       ,after
 the jury had consulted together1 the   
foreman rose up1       ,the ,foreman of 
the ,jury4  ,we desire to hear the      
objections argued  and answered         
separately4  ,we shall be better able to
 form a judgement1  by hearing the      
answer while the objection is fresh in  
our minds4     ,judge4  ,gentlemen1 you 
hear the opinion of the jury4  ,go on4  
,mr4 ,a ,i am now to disclose to you a  
scene1 of all others the most           
surprising4  ,the resurrection has been 
long talked of1 and1 to the  amazement  
of everyone who can think freely1 has   
been believed through  all ages of the  
church4  ,this general and constant     
belief creates in  most minds a         
presumption that it was founded on good 
evidence4  ,in  other cases the evidence
 supports the credit of the history2 but

 here  the evidence itself is presumed  
only upon the credit which the story    
has gained4  ,i wish the books dispersed
 against ,jesus by the ancient  ,jews   
had not been lost2 for they would have  
given us a clear insight  into this     
contrivance3 but it is happy for us1    
that the very account  given by the     
pretended witnesses of this fact1 is    
sufficient to destroy  the credit of it4
     ,the resurrection was not a thing  
contrived for its own sake4  ,no6  it   
was undertaken to support great views1  
and for the sake of great  consequences 
that were to attend it4  ,it will be    
necessary therefore to  lay before you  
those views1 that you may be the better 
judge of this  part of the contrivance1 
when you have the whole scene before    
you4     ,the ,jews were a weak         
superstitious people1 and1 as is common 
among such people1 gave great credit to 
some traditionary prophecies  about     
their own country4  ,they had1 besides1 
some old books among them1  which they  

esteemed to be writings of certain      
,prophets1 who had  formerly lived among
 them1 and whose memory they had in     
great  veneration4  ,from such old books
 and traditions they formed many        
extravagant expectations2 and among the 
rest one was1 that some time or  other a
 great victorious prince would rise     
among them1 and subdue all  their       
enemies1 and make them lords of the     
world4  ,in ,augustus's time  they were 
in a low state1 reduced under the ,roman
 yoke2 and as they  never wanted a      
deliverer more1 so the eagerness of this
 hope1 as it  happens to weak minds1    
turned into a firm expectation that he  
would  soon come4 ,this proved a        
temptation to some bold1 and to some    
cunning  men1 to personate the prince so
 much expected4  ,and nothing is more   
natural and common to promote           
rebellions1 than to ground them on new  
prophecies1 or new interpretations of   
old ones2 prophecies being suited  to   
the vulgar superstition1 and operating  

with the force of religion4             
,accordingly1 many such imposters rose1 
pretending to be the victorious  prince 
expected2 and they1 and the people who  
followed them1 perished  in the folly of
 their attempt4     ,but ,jesus1 knowing
 that victories and triumphs are not    
things to  be counterfeited2 that the   
people were not to be delivered from the
  ,roman yoke by sleight of hand2 and   
having no hope of being able to cope    
with the ,emperor of ,rome in good      
earnest1 took another  and more         
successful method to carry on his       
design4  ,he took upon him to be the    
prince foretold in the ancient          
,prophets2 but then he insisted that the
  true sense of the prophecies had been 
mistaken2  that they related not  to the
 kingdoms of this world1 but to the     
kingdom of heaven2 that the  ,messias   
was not to be a conquering prince1 but a
 suffering one2  that  he was not to    
come with horses of war1 and chariots of
 war1 but was to  be meek and lowly1    

riding on an ass4  ,by this means1 he   
got the common  and necessary foundation
 for a new revelation1 which is to be   
built and  founded on a precedent       
revelation4     ,to carry on this       
design1 he made choice of twelve men of 
no  fortunes or education1 and of such  
understandings1 as gave no jealousy     
that they would discover the plot4      
,and1 what is most wonderful1 and  shews
 their ability1 while the master was    
preaching the kingdom of  heaven1 these 
poor men1 not weaned from the prejudices
 of their  country1 expected every day  
that he would declare himself a king1   
and  were quarreling who should be his  
first minister4  ,this expectation had  
a good effect on the service2 for it    
kept them constant to their  master4    
,i must observe further1 that the ,jews 
were under strange  apprehensions of    
supernatural powers3  and as their own  
religion was  founded on the belief of  
certain miracles said to be wrought by  
their  lawgiver ,moses2 so were they    

ever running after wonders and miracles1
  and ready to take up with any stories 
of this kind4  ,now1 as something       
extraordinary was necessary to support  
the pretensions of ,jesus1 he           
dextrously laid hold of this weakness of
 the people1 and set up to be a         
wonder-worker4  ,his disciples were well
 qualified to receive this  impression3 
they saw1 or thought they saw many      
strange things1 and  were able to spread
 the fame and report of them abroad4    
,this conduct had the desired success4  
,the whole country was  alarmed1 and    
full of the news of a great ,prophet's  
being come among  them4  ,they were too 
full of their own imagination1 to attend
 to the  notion of a kingdom of heaven4 
,here was one mighty in deed and in     
word2 and they concluded that he was the
 very prince their nation  expected4    
,accordingly they once attempted to set 
him up for a ,king2  and at another time
 attended him in triumph to ,jerusalem4 
,this natural  consequence opens the    

natural design of the attempt4  ,if     
things had  gone on successfully to the 
end1 it is probable that the kingdom of 
heaven would have been changed into a   
kingdom of this world4  ,the  design    
indeed failed1 by the impatience and    
over-hastiness of the  multitude2 which 
alarmed not only the chief of the ,jews1
 but the ,roman  governor also4     ,the
 case being come to this point1 and     
,jesus seeing that he could  not escape 
being put to death1 he declared1 that   
the ancient ,prophets  had foretold1    
that the ,messias should die upon a     
cross1 and that he  should rise again on
 the third day4  ,here was the          
foundation for the  continuing this     
plot1 which otherwise had died with its 
author4  ,this  was his legacy to his   
followers2 which1 having been well      
managed by  them and their successors1  
has at last produced a kingdom indeed2 a
  kingdom of priests1 who have governed 
the world for many ages1 and have  been 
strong enough to set ,kings and         

,emperors at defiance4 ,but so it       
happens1 the ancient ,prophets appealed 
to are still extant2 and there  being no
 such prophecies of the death and       
resurrection of the ,messias1  they are 
a standing evidence against this story4 
,as he expected1 so it  happened1 that  
he died on a cross2 and the prosecuting 
of this  contrivance was left to the    
management of his disciples and         
followers4  ,their part is next to be   
considered-----4     ,mr4 ,b4 ,my ,lord1
 ,since it is your opinion that the     
objections  should be considered singly1
 and the ,gentleman has carried his     
scheme  down to the death of ,christ1 ,i
 think he is come to a proper rest2 and 
that it is agreeable to your intention  
that ,i should be admitted to  answer4  
,judge4 ,you say right1 ,sir4  ,let us  
hear what you answer to  this charge4   
,mr4 ,b4 ,my ,lord1 ,i was unwilling to 
disturb the ,gentleman by  breaking in  
upon his scheme2 otherwise ,i would have
 reminded him that  this court sits to  

examine evidence1 and not to be         
entertained with  fine imaginations4    
,you have had a scheme laid before you1 
but not one  bit of evidence to support 
any part of it2 no1 not so much as a    
pretence to any evidence4  ,the         
,gentleman was1 ,i remember1 very sorry 
that the old books of the ,jews were    
lost1 which would1 as he supposes1  have
 set forth all this matter2 and ,i agree
 with him1 that he has much  reason to  
be sorry1 considering his great scarcity
 of proof4  ,and since  ,i have         
mentioned this1 that ,i may not be to   
return to it again1 ,i would  ask the   
,gentleman now1 how he knows there ever 
were such books8 ,and  since1 if ever   
there were any1 they are lost1 how he   
knows what they  contained8  ,i doubt ,i
 shall have frequent occasion to ask    
such  questions4  ,it would indeed be a 
sufficient answer to the whole1 to      
repeat the several suppositions that    
have been made1 and to call for  the    
evidence upon which they stand4  ,this  

would plainly discover every  part of   
the story to be  mere fiction4  ,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 hands1  
and to work the  whole into a consistent
 scheme2 ,i will1 if  your patience     
shall permit1  examine this plot1 and   
see to whom the honour of  the          
contrivance  belongs4     ,the          
,gentleman begins with expressing his   
amazement1 that the  resurrection has   
been believed in all ages of the church4
  ,if you ask  him1 ,why8 he must answer
 1 ,because the account of it is a      
forgery2 for  it is no amazement to him1
 surely1 that a true account should be  
generally well received4  ,so that this 
remark proceeds indeed from  confidence 
rather than amazement2 and comes only to
 this1 that he is  sure that there was  
no resurrection4  ,and ,i am sure that  
this is no  evidence that there was     
none4  ,whether he is mistaken in his   

confidence1  or ,i in mine1 the court   
must judge4     ,the ,gentleman's       
observation1 ,that the general belief of
 the  resurrection creates a presumption
 that it stands upon good evidence1  and
 therefore people look no farther1 but  
follow their fathers1 as  their fathers 
did their grandfathers before them1 is  
in great measure  true2 but it is a     
truth nothing to his purpose4  ,he      
allows1 that the  resurrection has been 
believed in all ages of the church2 that
 is1 from  the very time of the         
resurrection3 what then prevailed with  
those who  first received it8 ,they     
certainly did not follow the example of 
their  fathers4  ,here then is the      
point1 ,how did this fact gain credit in
 the  world at first8  ,credit it has   
gained without doubt4  ,if the multitude
  at present go into this belief through
 prejudice1 example1 and for  company   
sake1 they do in this case no more1 nor 
otherwise1 than they do  in all cases4  
,and it cannot be denied1 but that truth

 may be received  through prejudice1 7as
 it is called71 i4e4 without examining  
the proof1  or merits of the cause1 as  
well as falsehood4  ,what general truth 
is  there1 the merits of which all the  
world1 or the one hundredth part has    
examined8  ,it is smartly said          
somewhere1 ,that the priest only        
continues  what the nurse began4  ,but  
the life of the remark consists in the  
quaintness of the antithesis between the
 nurse and the priest2 and owes  its    
support much more to sound than to      
sense4  ,for is it possible that        
children  should not hear something of  
the common and popular opinions  of     
their country1 whether these opinions be
 true or false8  ,do they not  learn the
 common maxims of reason this way8      
,perhaps every man first  learned from  
his nurse that two and two make four2   
and whenever she  divides an apple among
 her children1 she instills into them   
this  prejudice1 ,that the whole is     
equal to its parts1  and all the parts  

equal to the whole3 and yet ,sir ,isaac 
,newton1 7shame on him67 what work  has 
he made1 what a building he has erected 
upon the foundation of this             
nursery-learning8  ,as to religion1     
there never was a religion1 there  never
 will be one1 whether true or false1    
publickly owned in any  country1  but   
children have heard1 and ever will hear1
  more or less of  it from those who are
 placed about them4  ,and if this is1   
and ever must  be the case1 whether the 
religion be true or false2 'tis highly  
absurd  to lay stress on this           
observation1 when the question is about 
the truth  of any religion2 for the     
observation is indifferent to both sides
 of  the question4     ,we are now1 ,i  
think1 got through the common-place     
learning1 which  must forever1 it seems1
  attend upon questions of this nature2 
and are  coming to the very merits of   
the cause4     ,and here the ,gentleman 
on the other side thought proper to     
begin  with an account of the people of 

the ,jews1 the people in whose country  
the fact is laid1 and who were          
originally1 and in some respects        
principally concerned in its            
consequences4     ,they were1 he says1 a
 weak superstitious people1 and lived   
under  certain pretended prophecies and 
predictions2 that upon this ground  they
 had1 some time before the appearance of
 ,christ ,jesus1 conceived  great       
expectation of  the coming of a         
victorious prince1 who should  deliver  
them from the ,roman yoke1 and make them
 all kings and princes4  ,he goes on    
then to observe1  how liable the people 
were1 in this state  of things1  to be  
imposed on1 and led into rebellion1 by  
any one who  was bold enough to take    
upon him to personate the prince        
expected4  ,he  observes further1 that  
in fact many such imposters did arise1  
and  deceived multitudes to their ruin  
and destruction4     ,i have laid these 
things together1 because ,i do not      
intend to  dispute these matters with   

the ,gentleman4  ,whether the ,jews were
 a weak  and superstitious people1 and  
influenced by false prophecies1 or      
whether they had true prophecies among  
them1 is not material to the  present   
question3  it is enough for the         
,gentleman's argument if ,i allow  the  
fact to be as he has stated it1 that    
they did expect a victorious  prince2   
that they were upon this account exposed
 to be practised on by  pretenders2 and 
in fact were often so deluded4     ,this
 foundation being laid1 it was natural  
to expect1 and ,i  believe your         
,lordship and every one present did     
expect1 that the  ,gentleman would go on
 to shew1 that ,jesus laid hold of this 
opportunity1  struck in with the opinion
 of the people1  and professed  himself 
to be the prince who was to work their  
deliverance4  ,but so  far1 it seems1 is
 this from being the case1 that the     
charge upon ,jesus  is1 that he took the
 contrary part1 and set up in opposition
 to all the  popular notions and        

prejudices of his country2 that he      
interpreted the  prophecies to another  
sense and meaning than his countrymen   
did2 and by  his expositions took away  
all hopes of their ever seeing the      
victorious  deliverer so much wanted and
 expected4     ,i know not how to bring 
the ,gentleman's premisses and his      
conclusion to any agreement2 they seem  
to be at a great variance at  present4  
,if it be the likeliest method for an   
imposter to succeed1 to  build on the   
popular opinions1 prejudices and        
prophecies of the people2  then surely  
an imposter cannot possibly take a worse
 method1 than to  set up in opposition  
to all the prejudices and prophecies of 
the  country4  ,where was the art and   
cunning then of taking this method8     
,could anything be expected from it but 
hatred1 contempt1 and  persecution8 ,and
 did ,christ in fact meet with any other
 treatment from  the ,jews8  ,and yet   
when he found1 as the ,gentleman allows 
he did1 that  he must perish in this    

attempt1 did he change his note8  did he
 come  about1 and drop any intimations  
agreeable to the notions of the people8 
,it is not pretended4  ,this1 which1 in 
any other case which ever  happened1    
would be taken to be a plain mark of    
great honesty1 or great  stupidity1 or  
of both1 is in the present case art1    
policy1 and  contrivance4     ,but1 it  
seems1 ,jesus dared not set up to be the
 victorious prince  expected1 for       
victories are not to be counterfeited4  
,i hope it was no  crime in him that he 
did not assume this false character1 and
 try to  abuse the credibility of the   
people2 if he had done so1 it certainly 
would have been a crime2 and therefore  
in this point at least he is  innocent4 
,i do not suppose the ,gentleman        
imagines the ,jews were well  founded in
 their expectation of a temporal prince3
 and therefore when  ,christ opposed    
this conceit at the manifest hazard of  
his life1 as he  certainly had truth on 
his side1 so the presumption is1 that it

 was for  the sake of truth that he     
exposed himself4     ,no4  ,he wanted1  
we are told1 the common and necessary   
foundation  for a new revelation1 the   
authority of an old one to build on4    
,very  well4  ,i will not inquire how   
common1 or how necessary this foundation
  is to a new revelation2 for1 be that  
case as it will1 it is evident1  that in
 the method ,christ took1 he had not1   
nor could have the supposed  advantage  
of such foundation4  ,for why is this   
foundation necessary8  ,a  friend of the
 ,gentleman's shall tell you ,because it
 must be difficult1  if not impossible1 
to introduce among men 7who in all      
civilized  countries are bred up in the 
belief of some revealed religion7 a     
revealed religion wholly new1 or such as
 has no reference to a  preceding one2  
for that would be to combat all men on  
too many  respects1 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 made4  ,you 
see now the reason of the  necessity of 
this foundation3 it is1 that the new    
teacher may have the  advantage of old  
popular opinions1 and fix himself upon  
the prejudices  of the people4  ,had    
,christ any such advantages8 or did he  
seek any  such8  ,the people expected a 
victorious prince2 he told them they    
were  mistaken3  they held as sacred the
 traditions of the elders2  he told     
them those traditions made the law of   
,god of none effect3  they valued       
themselves for being the peculiar people
 of ,god2 he told them1 that  people    
from all quarters of the world should be
 the people of ,god1 and  sit down with 
,abraham1 ,isaac1 and ,jacob1 in the    
kingdom3 they thought  ,god could be    
worshipped only at ,jerusalem2  he told 
them ,god might and  should be          
worshipped everywhere3  they were       
superstitious in the  observance of the 
sabbath2 he1 according to their         
reckoning1 broke it  frequently3  in a  

word1 their washings of hands and pots1 
their  superstitious distinctions of    
meats1 their prayers in publick1 their  
villanies in secret1 were all reproved1 
exposed1 and condemned by him2  and the 
cry ran strongly against him1 that he   
came to destroy the ,law  and the       
,prophets4  ,and now1 ,sir1 what        
advantage did ,christ have of your      
common and necessary foundation8  ,what 
sufficient number of principles  owned  
by the people did he build on8  ,if he  
adhered to the old  revelation in the   
true sense1 or 7which is sufficient to  
the present  argument7 in a sense not   
received by the people1 it was in truth 
the  greatest difficulty he had to      
struggle with3 and therefore what could 
tempt him1 but purely a regard for      
truth1 to take upon himself so many     
difficulties1 which might have been     
avoided1 could he have been but  silent 
as to the old revelation1 and left the  
people to their  imaginations8     ,to  
carry on this plot1 we are told1 that   

the next thing which  ,jesus did1 was1  
to make choice of proper persons to be  
his disciples4  ,the ,gentleman has     
given us their character2 but1 as ,i    
suppose he has  more employment for them
 before he has done1 ,i desire to defer 
the  consideration of their abilities   
and conduct till ,i hear what work he   
has for them to do4  ,i would only      
observe1 that thus far this plot        
differs from all that ever ,i heard of4 
,imposters generally take  advantage of 
the prejudices of the people1 generally 
too they make  choice of cunning        
dextrous fellows to manage under them2  
but in this  case ,jesus opposed all the
 notions of the people1 and made choice 
of  simpletons1 it seems1 to conduct his
 contrivances4     ,but what design1    
what real end was carrying on all this  
while8  ,why1 the ,gentleman tells us1  
that the very thing disclaimed1 the     
temporal kingdom1 was the real thing    
aimed at under this disguise4 ,he  told 
the people there was no foundation to   

expect a temporal deliverer1  warned    
them against all who would set up those 
pretensions2  he  declared there was no 
ground from the ancient prophecies to   
expect such  a prince3 and yet by these 
very means he was working his way to an 
opportunity of declaring himself to be  
the very prince the people  wanted4  ,we
 are still upon the marvelous2 every    
step opens new wonders4  ,i blame not   
the ,gentleman2 for what but this can be
 imagined to give  any account of these 
measures imputed to ,christ8  ,be this  
never so  unlikely1 yet this is the only
 thing that can be said4  ,had ,christ  
been  charged with enthusiasm1 it would 
not have been necessary to assign a     
reason for his conduct3  madness is     
unaccountable3  ,ratione modoque        
tractari non vult4  ,but when design1   
cunning1 and fraud are made the  charge1
 and carried to such an height1 as to   
suppose him to be a party  to the       
contrivance of a sham resurrection for  
himself1 it is necessary  to say to what

 end this cunning tended4  ,it was1 we  
are told1 to a  kingdom3 and indeed the 
temptation was little enough1           
considering that  the chief conductor of
 the plot was crucified for his pains4  
,but were  the means made use of  at all
 probable to achieve the end8  ,yes1    
says  the ,gentleman1 that can't be     
disputed2 for they had really this      
effect1  the people would have made him 
,king4  ,very well3 ,why was he not     
,king  then8  ,why1 it happened         
unluckily that he would not accept the  
offer1  but withdrew himself from the   
multitude1 and lay concealed until they 
were dispersed4  ,it will be said1      
perhaps1 that ,jesus was a better  judge
 of affairs than the people1 and saw    
that it was not yet time to  accept the 
offer4  ,be it so2 let us see then what 
follows4     ,the government was        
alarmed1 and ,jesus was looked on as a  
person  dangerous  to the state2 and he 
had discernment enough to see that his  
death was determined and inevitable4    

,what does he do then8  ,why1 to  make  
the best of a bad case1 and to save the 
benefit of his undertaking  to those who
 were to succeed him1 he pretends to    
prophecy of his death1  which he knew   
could not be avoided3 ,men do not use to
 play tricks in  articulo mortis2 but   
this plot had nothing common1 nothing in
 the  ordinary way4 ,but what if it     
should appear1 that after the           
foretelling  of his death 7through      
despair of his fortunes it is said7 he  
had it in  his power to set up for ,king
 once more1 and once more refused the   
opportunity8  ,men in despair lay hold  
on the least help1 and never  refuse the
 greatest4  ,now1 the case was really   
so4  ,after he had  foretold his        
crucifixion1 he came to ,jerusalem in   
the triumphant manner  the ,gentleman   
mentioned2 the people strewed his way   
with boughs and  flowers1 and were all  
at his devotion2 the ,jewish governors  
lay still  for fear of the people4  ,why
 was not this opportunity laid hold on  

to  seize the kingdom1 or at least to   
secure himself from the ignominious     
death he expected8  ,for whose sake was 
he contented to die8  for whose  sake   
did he contrive this plot of his        
resurrection8  ,wife and children  he   
had none2 his nearest relations gave    
little credit to him2 his  disciples    
were not fit even to be trusted with the
 secret1 nor capable  to manage any     
advantage that could arise from it4     
,however1 the  ,gentleman tells us1 a   
kingdom has arisen out of this plot1 a  
kingdom of  priests4  ,but when did it  
arise8  ,some hundred years after the   
death of  ,christ1 in opposition to his 
will1 and almost to the subversion of   
his  religion4  ,and yet we are told    
this kingdom was the thing he had in    
view4  ,i am apt to think the ,gentleman
 is persuaded1 that the dominion  he    
complains of is contrary to the spirit  
of the gospel2 ,i am sure some  of his  
friends have taken great pains to prove 
it is so4  ,how then can  it be charged 

as the intention of the gospel to       
introduce it8  ,whatever  the case was1 
it cannot surely be suspected that      
,christ died to make  ,popes and        
,cardinals4  ,the alterations which have
 happened in the  doctrines and         
practices of churches1 since the        
,christian religion was  settled by     
those who had an authentick commission  
to settle it1 are  quite out of the     
question1 when the inquiry is about the 
truth of the  ,christian religion4      
,christ and his ,apostles did not vouch 
for the  truth of all that should be    
taught in the church in future times2   
nay1  they foretold and fore warned the 
world against such corrupt teachers4    
,it is therefore absurd to challenge the
 religion of ,christ1 because of  the   
corruptions which have spread among     
,christians4  ,the gospel has no  more  
concern with them1 and ought no more to 
be charged with them1 than  with the    
doctrines of the ,alcoran4     ,there is
 but one observation more1 ,i think1    

which the ,gentleman  made under this   
head4  ,jesus1 he says1 referred to the 
authority of  ancient  prophecies to    
prove that the ,messias was to die and  
rise  again2  the ancient books referred
 to are extant1 and no such  prophecies1
 he says1 are to be found4  ,now1       
whether the ,gentleman can  find these  
prophecies or no1 is not material to the
 present question4  ,it is allowed that 
,christ foretold his own death and      
resurrection2  if  the resurrection was 
managed by fraud1 ,christ was certainly 
in the  fraud himself1 by foretelling   
the fraud which was to happen3 disprove 
therefore the resurrection1 and we shall
 have no further occasion for  prophecy4
  ,on the other side1 by foretelling the
 resurrection1 he  certainly put the    
proof of his mission on the truth of the
 event4  ,whether it be the character of
 the ,messias1 in the ancient ,prophets1
 or  no1 that he should die1 and rise   
again2 without doubt ,jesus is not the  
,messias1 if  he did not rise again3    

for1 by his own prophecy1 he made  it   
part of the character of the ,messias4  
,if the event justified the  prediction1
 it is such an evidence as no man of    
sense and reason can  reject4  ,one     
would naturally think1 that the         
foretelling his  resurrection1 and      
giving such publick notice to expect it1
 that his  keenest enemies were fully   
apprised of it1 carried with it the     
greatest  mark of sincere dealing4  ,it 
stands thus far clear of the suspicion  
of  fraud4  ,and had it proceeded from  
enthusiasm1 and an heated  imagination1 
the dead body at least would have rested
 in the grave1 and  without further     
evidence have confuted such pretensions3
 and since the  dead body was not only  
carried openly to the grave1 but there  
watched  and guarded1 and yet could     
never afterwards be found1 never heard  
of  more as a dead body1 there must of  
necessity have been either a real       
miracle1 or a great fraud in this case4 
,enthusiasm dies with the man1  and has 

no operation on his dead body4  ,there  
is therefore here no  medium3 you must  
either admit the miracle1 or prove the  
fraud4     ,judge4 ,mr4 ,a4  ,you are at
 liberty either to reply to what  has   
been said under this head1 or to go on  
with your cause     ,mr4 ,a4 ,my ,lord1 
the observations ,i laid before you1    
were but  introductory to the main      
evidences on which the merits of the    
cause  must rest4  ,the ,gentleman      
concluded1 that here must be a real     
miracle  or a great fraud2 a fraud1 he  
means1 to which ,jesus in his lifetime  
was  a party4  ,there is1 he says1 no   
medium4  ,i beg his pardon4  ,why might 
it not be an enthusiasm in the master   
which occasioned the prediction1  and   
fraud in the servants who put it in     
execution8     ,mr4 ,b4 ,my ,lord1 ,this
 is new matter1 and not a reply4  ,the  
,gentleman opened this transaction as a 
fraud from one end to the other4  ,now  
he supposes ,christ to have been an     
honest1 poor enthusiast1 and the        

disciples only to be cheats4     ,judge4
 ,sir1 if you go to new matter1 the     
council on the  other side must be      
admitted to answer4     ,mr4 ,a4 ,my    
,lord1 ,i have no such intention4  ,i   
was observing1  that the account ,i gave
 of ,jesus was only to introduce the    
evidence  that is to be laid before the 
court4 ,it cannot be expected1 that ,i  
should know all the secret designs of   
this contrivance1 especially            
considering that we have but short      
accounts of this affair1 and those  too 
conveyed through hands of friends and   
parties to the plot4  ,in such  a case  
it is enough if we can imagine what the 
views probably were2 and  in such case  
too it must be very easy for a          
,gentleman of parts to raise  contrary  
imaginations1 and to argue plausibly    
from them4  ,but the  ,gentleman has    
rightly observed1 that if the           
resurrection be a fraud1  there is an   
end to all pretensions1 good or bad1    
that were to be  supported by it3       

therefore ,i shall go on to prove this  
fraud1 which is  one main part of the   
cause now to be determined4     ,i beg  
leave to remind you1  that ,jesus in his
 lifetime foretold  his death1 and that 
he should rise again the third day4     
,the first part  of his prediction was  
accomplished3  he died on the cross and 
was  buried4  ,i will not trouble you   
with the particulars of his             
crucifixion1 death1 and burial2  it is a
 well known story4     ,mr4 ,b4 ,my     
,lord1 ,i desire to know1 whether the   
,gentleman  charges any fraud upon this 
part of the history4  ,perhaps he may be
 of  the opinion by and by1 that there  
was a sleight of hand in the            
crucifixion1 and that ,christ only      
counterfeited death4     ,mr4 ,a4 ,no1  
no2 have no such fears2 he was not      
crucified by  his disciples2 but by the 
,romans and the ,jews2 and they were in 
very  good earnest4  ,i will prove      
beyond contradiction1 that the dead body
  was fairly laid in the tomb2 and it   

will be well for you if you can get  it 
as fairly out again4     ,judge4 ,go on 
with your evidence4     ,mr4 ,a4 ,my    
,lord1 the crucifixion being over1 the  
dead body  was conveyed to a sepulchre2 
and in the general opinion there seemed 
to  be an end of the whole design4  ,but
 the governors of the ,jews1 watchful   
for the safety of the people1  called to
 mind that ,jesus in his  lifetime had  
said1 that he would rise again on the   
third day4  ,it may  at first sight seem
 strange that they should give any      
attention to such  a prophecy2 a        
prophecy big with confidence and        
presumption1 and which  to the common   
sense of mankind carried its confutation
 along with it3  and there is no other  
nation in the world which would not have
  slighted such a vain prognostication  
of a known imposter4  ,but they  had    
warning to be watchful4  ,it was not    
long before1 that the people  had like  
to have been fatally deluded and imposed
 on by him in the  pretended            

resuscitation of ,lazarus4  ,they had   
fully discovered the  cheat in the case 
of ,lazarus1 and had narrowly escaped   
the dangerous  consequences of it4  ,and
 though ,jesus was dead1 yet he had many
  disciples and followers alive1 who    
were ready enough to combine in any     
fraud1 to verify the prediction of their
 master4  ,should they succeed1  the    
rulers foresaw1 the consequences in this
 case would be more fatal  than those   
which before they had narrowly escaped4 
,upon this account  they addressed      
themselves to the ,roman governor1 told 
him how the case  was1 and desired that 
he would grant them a guard to watch the
  sepulchre2  that the service would not
 be long1 for the prediction  limited   
the resurrection to the third day2 and  
when that was over1 the  soldiers might 
be released from the duty4  ,pilate     
granted the request2  and a guard was   
set to watch the sepulchre4     ,this   
was not all4  ,the chief priests took   
another method to  prevent all frauds1  

and it was the best that could possibly 
be taken2  which was1 to seal up the    
door of the sepulchre4  ,to understand  
to what  purpose this caution was used1 
you need only consider what is intended 
by sealing up doors1 and boxes1 or      
writings4  ,is it not for the           
satisfaction of all parties concerned1  
that they may be sure things are  in the
 state they left them1 when they come   
and find their seals not  injured8      
,this was the method used by ,darius1   
when ,daniel was cast into  the lions   
den2  he sealed the door of the den4    
,and for what purpose8  ,was it not to  
satisfy himself and his court1 that no  
art had been used  to preserve ,daniel8 
,and when he came and saw ,daniel safe1 
and his seal  untouched1 he was         
satisfied4  ,and indeed if we consider  
the thing  rightly1 a seal thus used    
imports a covenant4  ,if you deliver    
writings  to a person sealed1 and he    
accepts them so1 your delivery and his  
acceptance implies a covenant between   

you1 that the writings shall be         
delivered and the seal whole2 and should
 the seal be broken1 it would  be a     
manifest fraud1 and breach of trust4    
,nay1 so strongly is this  covenant     
implied1 that there needs no special    
agreement in the case2 it  is a compact 
which men are put under by the law of   
nations1 and the  common consent of     
mankind4  ,when you send a letter sealed
 to the post-  house1 you have not      
indeed a special agreement with all     
persons through  whose hands it passes1 
that it shall not be opened by any hand 
1 but  his only to whom it is directed2 
yet men know themselves to be under     
this restraint1 and that it is unlawful 
and dishonorable to transgress  it4     
,since then the sepulchre was sealed2   
since the seal imported a  covenant1    
consider who were the parties to this   
covenant4  ,they could  be no other than
 the chief priests on one side1 and the 
apostles on the  other4  ,to prove this1
 no special agreement need be shewn4    

,on one  side1 there was a concern to   
see the prophecy fulfilled2 on the      
other1  to prevent fraud in fulfilling  
it4  ,the sum of their agreement was    
naturally this1 that the seals should be
 opened at the time appointed  for the  
resurrection1 that all parties might see
 and be satisfied1  whether the dead    
body was come to life or no4     ,what  
now would any reasonable man expect from
 these  circumstances8  ,don't you      
expect to hear1 that the chief priests  
and  the apostles met at the time       
appointed1 opened the seals1 and that   
the  matter in dispute was settled      
beyond all controversy one way or other8
  ,but see how it happened1 ,the seals  
were broken1 the body stolen away in    
the night by the disciples2 none of the 
chief priests present1 or  summoned to  
see the seals opened4  ,the guards1 when
 examined1 were  forced to confess the  
truth1 though joined with an            
acknowledgement of  their guilt2 which  
made them liable to be punished by      

,pilate3  they  confessed that they were
 asleep1 and in the mean time that the  
body was  stolen away by the disciples4 
,this evidence of the ,roman soldiers1  
and the far stronger  evidence arising  
from the clandestine method of breaking 
up the seals1  are sufficient proofs of 
fraud4     ,but there is another        
circumstance in the case1 of equal      
weight4  ,though the seals did not      
prevent the cheat entirely1 yet they    
effectually falsified the prediction4   
,according to the prediction1  ,jesus   
was to rise on the third day1 or after  
the third day4  ,at this  time the chief
 priests intended to be present1 and    
probably would have  been attended by a 
great multitude4  ,this made it         
impossible to play  any tricks at that  
time2 and therefore the apostles were   
forced the  hasten the plot3 and        
accordingly the resurrection happened a 
day before  its time2 for the body was  
buried on the ,friday1 and was gone     
early in  the morning on ,sunday4       

,these are plain facts2 facts drawn from
 the accounts given to us  by those who 
are friends to the belief of the        
resurrection4  ,the  ,gentleman won't   
call these imaginations1 or complain    
that ,i have given  him schemes instead 
of evidence4     ,mr4 ,b4 ,my ,lord1 ,i 
am now to consider that part of the     
argument upon which the ,gentleman lays 
the greatest stress4  ,he has  given us 
his evidence2 mere evidence1 he says1   
unmixed1 and clear of  all schemes and  
imaginations4  ,in one thing indeed he  
has been as good  as his word2 he has   
proved beyond contradiction1 that       
,christ died1 and  was laid in the      
sepulchre3 for1 without doubt1 when the 
,jews sealed the  stone1 they took care 
to see that the body was there2         
otherwise their  precaution was useless4
  ,he has proved too1 that the          
prediction of  ,christ concerning his   
own resurrection1 was a thing publickly 
known in  all ,jerusalem2 for he owns1  
that this gave occasion for all the care

  that was taken to prevent fraud4  ,if 
this open prediction implies a          
fraudulent design1 the evidence is      
strong with the ,gentleman3 but if it   
shall appear to be1 what it really was1 
the greatest mark that could be  given  
of sincerity and plain dealing in the   
whole affair1 the evidence  will still  
be as strong1 but the weight of it will 
fall on the wrong  side for the         
,gentleman's purpose4     ,in the next  
place1 the ,gentleman seems to be at a  
great loss to  account for the credit   
which the chief priests gave to the     
prediction  of the resurrection1 by the 
care they took to prevent it4  ,he      
thinks  the thing in itself was too     
extravagant and absurd to deserve any   
regard2 and that no one would have      
regarded such a prediction in any  other
 time or place4  ,i agree with the      
,gentleman entirely3 but then ,i  demand
 of him a reason why the chief priests  
were under any concern  about this      
prediction4  ,was it because they had   

plainly discovered him  to be a cheat   
and an imposter8  ,it is impossible4    
,this reason would  have convinced them 
of the folly and presumption of the     
prediction4  ,it  must therefore        
necessarily be1 that they had discovered
 something in  the life and actions of  
,christ which raised this jealousy1 and 
made  them listen to a prophecy in his  
case1 which in any other case they      
would have despised4  ,and what could   
this be1 but the secret conviction  they
 were under1 by his many miracles1 of   
his extraordinary powers8  ,this care   
therefore of the chief priests over his 
dead1 helpless body1  is a lasting      
testimony of the mighty works which     
,jesus did in his  lifetime2 for had the
 ,jews been persuaded that he performed 
no wonders  in his life1 ,i think they  
would not have been afraid of seeing any
 done  by him after his death4     ,but 
the ,gentleman is of another mind4  ,he 
says1 they had  discovered a plain cheat
 in the case of ,lazarus1 whom ,christ  

had  pretended to raise from the dead2  
and therefore they took all this care   
to guard against a like cheat4     ,i   
begin now to want evidence2  ,i am      
forbid to call this  imagination1 what  
else to call it ,i know not4  ,there is 
not the least  intimation given from    
history1 that there was any cheat in the
 case of  ,lazarus1 or that any one     
suspected a cheat4  ,lazarus lived in   
the  country after  he was raised from  
the dead2 and though his life was       
secretly and basely sought after1 yet no
 body had the courage to call  to a     
trial for his part in the cheat4  ,it   
may be said1 perhaps1 the  rulers were  
terrified4  ,very well3  but they were  
not terrified when  they had ,christ in 
their possession1 when they brought him 
to a trial2  why did they not  then     
object this cheat to ,christ8  ,it would
 have been  much to their purpose4      
,instead of that1 they accuse him of a  
design to  pull down their temple1 to   
destroy their law1 and of blasphemy2 but

 not  one word of any fraud in the case 
of ,lazarus1 or any other case4     ,but
 not to enter into the merits of this   
cause1 which has in it  too many        
circumstances for your present          
consideration2  let us take the  case to
 be as the ,gentleman states it1 that   
the cheat in the case of  ,lazarus was  
detected2 what consequence is to be     
expected8  ,in all other  cases1        
impostors1 once discovered1 grow odious 
and contemptible1 and  quite incapable  
of doing further mischief2 so little are
 they regarded1  that even when they    
tell the truth1 they are neglected4     
,was it so in  this case8  ,no1 says the
 ,gentleman2 the ,jews were the more    
careful that  ,christ should not cheat  
them in his own resurrection4  ,surely  
this is a  most singular case4  ,when   
the people thought him a ,prophet1 the  
chief  priests sought to kill him1 and  
thought his death would put an end to   
his pretensions3  when they and the     
people had discovered him to be a       

cheat1 then they thought him not safe1  
even when he was dead1 but were  afraid 
he should prove a true ,prophet1 and1   
according to his own  prediction1 rise  
again4  ,a needless1 a preposterous     
fear6     ,in the next place1 the       
,gentleman tells us how proper the care 
was  that the chief priests took4  ,i   
agree perfectly with him4  ,human policy
  could not invent a more proper method 
to guard against and prevent all  fraud4
  ,they delivered the sepulchre1 with   
the dead body in it1 to a  company of   
,roman soldiers1 who had orders from    
their officer to watch  the sepulchre4  
,their care went further still2  they   
sealed the door of  the sepulchre4      
,upon this occasion1 the ,gentleman has 
explained the use of seals  when applied
 to such purposes4  ,they imply1 he     
says1 a covenant1 that  the things      
sealed up shall remain in the condition 
they are till the  parties to the       
sealing agree to open them4  ,i see no  
reason to enter  into the learning about

 seals3  let it be as the ,gentleman has
 opened  it2 what then8     ,why then1  
it seems1 the apostles and chief priests
 were in a  covenant that there should  
be no resurrection1 at least no opening 
of  the door1 till they met together at 
an appointed time to view and  unseal   
the door4     ,your ,lordship and the   
court will now consider the probability 
of  this supposition4  ,when ,christ was
 seized and carried to his trial1 his   
disciples fled1 out of a just           
apprehension that they should1 if       
apprehended1 be sacrificed with their   
master4  ,peter indeed followed  him2   
but his courage soon failed1 and it is  
well known in what manner  he denied    
him4  ,after the death of ,christ1 his  
disciples were so far  from being ready 
to engage for his resurrection1 or to   
enter into terms  and agreements for the
 manner in which it should be done1 that
 they  themselves did not believe it    
ever would be2  they gave over all hopes
  and thoughts of it2  and far from     

entering into engagements with the      
chief priests1 their whole concern was1 
to keep themselves concealed  from them4
  ,this is a well known case1 and ,i    
will not trouble you with  particular   
authorities to prove this truth4  ,can  
any man now in his  right senses think1 
that the disciples under these          
circumstances  entered into this        
covenant with the ,jews8  ,i believe the
 ,gentleman  don't think it1 and for    
that reason says1 that seals so used    
import a  covenant without a special    
agreement4  ,be it so2 and it must then 
be  allowed1 that the apostles were no  
more concerned in these seals1 than     
every other man in the country1 and no  
more answerable for them2 for  the      
covenant reached to every body as well  
as to them1 since they were  under no   
special contract4     ,but ,i beg pardon
 for spending your time unnecessarily1  
when the  simple plain account of this  
matter will best answer all these       
jealousies and suspicions4  ,the ,jews1 

it is plain1 were exceedingly           
solicitous about this event2  for this  
reason they obtained a guard  from      
,pilate2 and when they had1 they were   
still suspicious lest their  guards     
should deceive them1 and enter into     
combination against them4  ,to secure   
this point1 they sealed the door1 and   
required of the guards  to deliver up   
the sepulchre to them sealed as it was4 
,this is the  natural and true account  
of the matter4  ,do but consider it in a
  parallel case4  ,suppose a prince     
should set a guard at the door of his   
treasury1 and the officer who placed the
 guard should seal the door1  and say to
 the soldiers1 ,you shall be answerable 
for the seal if ,i find  it broken3     
would not all the world understand the  
seal to be fixed to  guard against the  
soldiers1 who might1 though employed to 
keep off  others1 be ready enough to    
pilfer themselves8  ,this is in all such
  cases but a necessary care2  you may  
place guards1 and when you do all  is in

 their power3 ,et quis custodes         
custodiat ipsos8     ,but it seems1     
that1 notwithstanding all this care1    
the seals  were broken1 and the body    
gone4  ,if you complain of this1 ,sir1  
demand  satisfaction of your guards2    
they only are responsible for it3  the  
disciples had no more to do in it than  
you or ,i4     ,the guards1 the         
,gentleman says1 have confessed the     
truth1 and  owned that they were asleep1
 and that the disciples in the mean time
  stole away the body4  ,i wish the     
guards were in court1 ,i would ask      
them1 how they came to be so punctual in
 relating what happened when  they were 
asleep8  what induced them to believe   
that the body was  stolen at all8 what1 
that it was stolen by the disciples2    
since by  their own confession they were
 asleep and say nothing1 saw no body8   
,but since they are not to be had1 ,i   
would desire to ask the ,gentleman  the 
same questions2 and whether he has any  
authorities in point1 to  shew1 that    

ever any man was admitted as an evidence
 in any court1 to  prove a fact which   
happened when he was asleep8  ,i see the
 ,gentleman is  uneasy2 ,i'll press the 
matter no further4     ,as this story   
has no evidence to support it1 so       
neither has it  any probability4  ,the  
,gentleman has given you the character  
of the  disciples2 that they were weak1 
ignorant men1 full of the popular       
prejudices and superstitions of their   
country1which stuck close to them       
notwithstanding their long acquaintance 
with their master4  ,the  apostles are  
not much wronged in this account2 and is
 it likely that  such men should engage 
in so desperate design1 as to steal away
 the  body1 in  opposition to the       
combined power of the ,jews and ,romans8
  ,what could tempt them to it8  ,what  
good could the dead body do them8  ,or  
if it could have done them any1 what    
hope had they to succeed in  their      
attempt8  ,a dead body is not to be     
removed by sleight of hand2  it requires

 many hands to move it3 besides1 the    
great stone at the  mouth of the        
sepulchre was to be removed2 which could
 not be done  silently1 or by men       
walking on tip-toes to prevent          
discovery3 so that  if the guards had   
really been asleep1 yet there was no    
encouragement to  go on this enterprise2
 for it is hardly possible to suppose1  
but that  rolling away the stone1 moving
 the body1 the hurry and confusion of   
carrying it off1 must awaken them4      
,but supposing the thing was            
practicable1 yet the attempt was such   
as the disciples consistently with their
 own notions could not  undertake4  ,the
 ,gentleman says1 they continued all    
their master's  lifetime to expect to   
see him a temporal prince2 and a friend 
of the  ,gentleman's has observed1 what 
is equally true1 that they had the same 
expectation after his death4  ,consider 
now their case4  ,their master  was     
dead2  and they are to contrive to steal
 away his body4  ,for what8  ,did they  

expect to make a ,king of the dead body1
 if they could get it  into their power8
 ,or did they think1 if they had it1    
they could raise  it to life again8  ,if
 they trusted so far to their master's  
prediction1  as to expect his           
resurrection1 7which ,i think is evident
 they did not71  could they yet think   
the resurrection depended on their      
having the dead  body8  ,it is in all   
views absurd4  ,but the ,gentleman      
supposes1 that  they meant to carry on  
the design for themselves1 in the       
master's1 if  they could but have       
persuaded the people to believe him     
risen from the  dead4  ,but he does not 
consider1 that by this supposition he   
strips the  disciples of every part of  
their character at once1 and presents to
 us  a new set of men1 in every respect 
different from the former4  ,the  former
 disciples were weak1 plain men2 but    
these are bold1 hardy1  cunning1 and    
contriving3 the former were full of the 
superstitions of  their country1 and    

expected a prince from the authority of 
their  ,prophets2 but these were        
despisers of the ,prophets1 and of the  
notions  of their countrymen1 and are   
designing to turn these fables to their 
own advantage2 for it cannot be supposed
 that they believed the  ,prophets1 and 
at the same time thought to accomplish  
or defeat them by  so manifest a cheat1 
to which they themselves at least were  
conscious4     ,but let us take leave of
 these suppositions1 and see how the    
true  evidence is this case stands4     
,guards were placed1 and they did their 
duty4  ,but what are guards and         
sentinels against the power of ,god8 ,an
  angel of the ,lord opened the         
sepulchre2 the guards saw him1 and      
became  like dead men4  ,this account   
they gave to the chief priests1 who1    
still  persisting in their obstinacy1   
bribed the guards to tell the           
contradictory story1 of their being     
asleep1 and the body stolen4     ,i     
cannot but observe to your ,lordship1   

that all these  circumstances1 so much  
questioned and suspected1 were necessary
  circumstances1 supposing the          
resurrection to be true4  ,the seal was 
broken1 the body came out of the        
sepulchre1 the guards were placed in    
vain to prevent it4  ,be it so3  ,i     
desire to know1 whether the ,gentleman  
thinks that the seal put ,god under     
covenant8 or could prescribe to him  a  
method for performing this great work8  
or whether he thinks the  guards were   
placed to maintain the seal in          
opposition to the power of  ,god8  ,if  
he will maintain neither of these       
points1 then the opening of  the seals1 
notwithstanding the guard set upon them1
 will be an  evidence1 not of the fraud1
 but of the power of the resurrection2  
and  the guards will have nothing to    
answer for1 but only this1 that they    
were not stronger than ,god4  ,the seal 
was a proper check upon the  guards3 the
 ,jews had no other meaning in it2 they 
could not be so  stupid as to imagine1  

that they could by this contrivance     
disappoint  the designs of providence4  
,and it is surprising to hear these     
circumstances made use of to prove the  
resurrection to be a fraud1  which yet  
could not but happen1 supposing the     
resurrection to be true4     ,but there 
is another circumstance still1 which the
 ,gentleman  reckons very material1 and 
upon which ,i find great stress is laid4
  ,the  resurrection happened1 we are   
told1 a day sooner than the prediction  
imported4  ,the reason assigned for it  
is1 that the execution of the  plot at  
the time appointed was rendered         
impracticable1 because the  chief       
priests1 an probably great numbers of   
the people1 were prepared  to visit the 
sepulchre at that time2 and therefore   
the disciples were  under a necessity of
 hastening their plot4     ,this        
observation is entirely inconsistent    
with the supposition  upon which the    
reasoning stands4  ,the ,gentleman has  
all along supposed  the resurrection to 

have been managed by fraud1 and not by  
violence4  ,and indeed violence1 if     
there had been an opportunity of using  
it1  would have been insignificant3     
beating the guards1 and removing the    
dead body by force1 would have destroyed
 all pretences to a  resurrection4      
,now1 surely the guards1 supposing them 
to be enough in  number to withstand all
 violence1 were at least sufficient to  
prevent  or to discover fraud4  ,what   
occasion then to hasten the plot for    
fear  of numbers meeting at the tomb1   
since there were numbers always present 
sufficient to discover any fraud2 the   
only method that could be used in  the  
case8     ,suppose then that we could   
not give a satisfactory account of the  
way of reckoning the time from the      
crucifixion to the resurrection2  yet   
this we can say1 that the resurrection  
happened during the time  that the      
guards had the sepulchre in keeping2 and
 it is impossible to  imagine what      
opportunity this could give to fraud4   

,had the time been  delayed1 the guards 
removed1 and then a resurrection        
pretended1 it  might with some colour of
 reason have been said1 ,why did he not 
come  within his time8 why did he chuse 
to come after his time1 when all        
witnesses1 who had patiently expected   
the appointed hour1 were  withdrawn8    
,but now what is to be objected8  ,you  
think he came too  soon4  ,but were not 
your guards at the door when he came8   
did they not  see what happened8  and   
what other satisfaction could you have  
had1  supposing he had come a day later8
     ,by saying of this1 ,i do not mean 
the decline the ,gentleman's  objection1
 which is founded upon a mistake of a   
way of speaking1 common  to the ,jews   
and other people2 who1 when they name   
any number of days  and years1 include  
the first and last of the days or years 
to make up  the sum4  ,christ1 alluding 
to his own resurrection1 says1 ,in three
 days  ,i will raise it up4  ,the angels
 report his prediction thus1 ,the ,son  

of  ,man shall be crucified1 and the    
third day rise again4  ,elsewhere it is 
said1 ,after three days2 and again1 that
 he was to be in the bowels of  the     
earth three days and three nights4      
,these expressions are  equivalent to   
each other2 for we always reckon the    
night into the day1  when we reckon by  
so many days4  ,if you agree to do a    
thing ten days  hence1 you stipulate for
 forbearance for the nights as well as  
days2  and therefore1 in reckoning1 two 
days1 and two days and two nights1 are  
the same thing4  ,that the expression1  
,after three days1 means inclusive      
days1 is proved by ,grotius on ,matt4   
xxvii4 #fc and by others4 ,the          
prediction therefore was1 that he would 
rise on the third day4  ,now1 he  was   
crucified on ,friday and buried2 he lay 
in  the grave all ,saturday1  and rose  
early on ,sunday morning4  ,but the     
,gentleman thinks he ought  not to have 
risen before ,monday4  ,pray try what   
the use of common  language requires to 

be understood in a like case4  ,suppose 
you were  told1 that your friend        
sickened on ,friday1 was let blood on   
,saturday1  and the third day he died2  
what day would you think  he died on8   
,if  you have any doubt about it1 put   
the question to the first plain man  you
 meet1 and he will resolve it4  ,the    
,jews could have no doubt in this  case2
 for so they practised in one of the    
highest points of their law4  ,every    
male child was to be circumcised on the 
eighth day4  ,how did they  reckon the  
days8  ,why1 the day of the birth was   
one1 and the day of the  circumcision   
another2 and though a child was born    
towards the every end  of the first day1
 he was capable of circumcision on any  
time of the  eighth day4  ,and therefore
 it is not new nor strange1 that the    
third  day1 in our case1 should be      
reckoned into the number1 though ,christ
  rose at the very beginning of it4  ,it
 is more strange to reckon whole  years 
in this manner2 and yet this is the     

constant method observed in  ,ptolemy's 
canon1 the most valuable piece of       
ancient chronology1 next to  the ,bible1
 now extant4  ,if a ,king lived over the
 first day of a year1  and died the week
 after1 that whole year is reckoned to  
his reign4     ,i have now gone through 
the several objections upon this head3  
what credit they may gain in this age1  
,i know not2 but 'tis plain they  had no
 credit when they were first spread     
abroad2 nay1 'tis evident1  that the    
very persons who set abroad this story  
of the body being  stolen1 did not      
believe it themselves4  ,and1 not to    
insist here upon  the plain fact1 which 
was1 that the guards were hired to tell 
this lie  by the chief priests1 it will 
appear from the after conduct of the    
chief priests themselves1 that they were
 conscious that the story was  false4   
,not long after the resurrection of     
,christ1 the disciples  having received 
new power from above1 appeard publickly 
in ,jerusalem1  and in the very temple1 

and testified the resurrection of       
,christ1 even  before those who had     
murdered him4  ,what now do the chief   
priests do8  ,they seize upon the       
apostles1 they threaten them1 they beat 
them14 they scourge them1 and all to    
stop their mouths1 insisting that  they 
should say no more of the matter4  ,but 
why did they not1 when  they had the    
disciples in their power1 charge them   
directly with their  notorious cheat in 
stealing the body1 and expose them to   
the people as  imposters8  ,this had    
been much more to their purpose1 than   
all their  menaces and ill usage1 and   
would more effectually have undeceived  
the  people4  ,but of this not one word 
is said4  ,they try to murder them1     
enter into combinations to assassinate  
them1 prevail with ,herod to put  one of
 them to death2 but not so much as a    
charge against them of any  fraud in the
 resurrection4  ,their orator           
,tertullus1 who could not have  missed  
so fine a topick of declamation1 had    

there been but a suspicion  to support  
it1 is quite silent on this head1 and is
 content to  flourish on the            
common-place of sedition and heresy1    
profaning the  temple1 and the like3    
very trifles to his cause1 in comparison
 to the  other accusation1 had there    
been any ground to make use of it4  ,and
  yet as it happens1 we are sure the    
very question of the resurrection  came 
under debate2 for ,festus tells ,king   
,agrippa1 that the ,jews had  certain   
questions against ,paul1 of one ,jesus  
which was dead1 whom ,paul  affirmed to 
be alive4  ,after this1 ,agrippa hears  
,paul himself2 and had  he suspected1   
much less had he been convinced that    
there was a cheat  in the resurrection1 
he would hardly have said to ,paul at   
the end of  the conference1 ,almost thou
 persuadest me to be a ,christian4      
,but let us see what the council and    
senate of the children of  ,israel      
thought of this matter1 in the most     
solemn and serious  deliberation they   

ever had about it4  ,not long after the 
resurrection1  the apostles were taken2 
the ,high ,priest  thought the matter of
 that  weight1 that he summoned the     
council and senate of the children of   
,israel4  ,the apostles are brought     
before them1 and make their defence4    
,part of their defence is in these      
words3  ,the ,god of our fathers raised 
up ,jesus1 whom ye slew and hanged on a 
tree4  ,the defence was indeed a  heavy 
charge upon the senate1 and in the      
warmth of their anger1 their  first     
resolution was to slay them all4  ,but  
,gamaliel1 one of the  council1 stood   
up1 and told them1 that the matter      
deserved more  consideration4  ,he      
recounted to them the history of several
 imposters  who had perished1 and       
concluded with respect to the case of   
the  apostles then before them3  ,if    
this work be of men1 it will come to    
nought2 but if it be of  ,god1 ye cannot
 overthrow it1  lest haply ye be  found 
to fight against ,god4  ,the council    

agreed to this advice1 and  after some  
ill treatment1 the apostles were        
discharged4  ,i ask now1 and  let any   
man of common sense answer1  ,could     
,gamaliel possibly have given  this     
advice1 and supposed that the hand of   
,god might be with the  apostles1 if he 
had known that there was a cheat        
discovered in the  resurrection of      
,jesus8  ,could the whole senate have   
followed this  advice1 had they believed
 the discovery of the cheat8  ,was there
 not  among them one man wise enough to 
say1 ,how can you suppose ,god to have  
anything to do in this affair1 when the 
resurrection of ,jesus1 upon  which all 
depends1 was a notorious cheat1 and     
manifestly proved to be  so8  ,i should 
but lessen the weight of this authority 
by saying more1  and therefore ,i will  
rest here1 and give way to the          
,gentleman to go on  with his           
accusation4     ,mr4 ,a4 ,my ,lord1     
,before ,i proceed any further1 ,i beg  
leave to  say a few words in reply to   

what the ,gentleman has offered on this 
head4     ,the ,gentleman thinks1 that  
the detection in the case of ,lazarus   
ought to have made the ,jews quite      
unconcerned in the case of ,jesus1 and  
secure as to the event of his own       
resurrection4  ,he says very true1      
supposing their care had been for       
themselves3  but governors have  another
 care upon their hands1 the care of     
their people2 and 'tis not  enough for  
them to guard against being imposed on  
themselves1 they must  be watchful to   
guard the multitude against frauds and  
deceits4  ,the  chief priests were      
satisfied indeed of the fraud in the    
case of  ,lazarus1 yet they saw the     
people deceived by it2 and for this     
reason1  and not for their own          
satisfaction1 they used the caution in  
the case  of the resurrection of ,jesus1
 which ,i before laid before you4  ,in  
so  doing1 they are well justified2 and 
the inconsistency charged on the  other 
side1 between their opinion of ,jesus1  

and their fear of being  imposed on by  
his pretended resurrection1 is fully    
answered4     ,the next observation     
relates to the seal of the sepulchre4   
,the  ,gentleman thinks the seal was    
used as a check upon the ,roman         
soldiers4  ,but what reason had the     
,jews to suspect them8  ,they were not  
disciples  of ,jesus2 they were servants
 of the ,roman governor1 and employed in
 the  service of the ,jews3 and ,i leave
 it to the court to judge1 whether the  
,jews set the seal to guard against     
their friends1 or their enemies8  ,but  
if the seals were really used against   
the guards1 then the breaking  of  the  
seals is a proof that the guards were   
corrupted3 and if so1  'tis easy to     
conceive how the body was removed4      
,as to the disciples1 the ,gentleman    
observes1 that the part  allotted them  
in the management of the resurrection   
supposes an  unaccountable change in    
their character4  ,it will not be long  
before  the ,gentleman will have        

occasion for as great a change in their 
character3 for these weak men you will  
find soon employed in converting  the   
world1 and sent to appear before ,kings 
and ,princes in the name of  their      
master2 soon you will see them grow wise
 and powerful1 and every  way qualified 
for their extensive and important       
business4  ,the only  difference between
 me and the ,gentleman on the other side
 will be found  to be this1 that ,i date
 this change a little earlier than he   
does3 ,a  small matter1 surely1 to      
determine the right of this controversy4
     ,the last observation relates to   
,king ,agrippa's complaisance to  ,paul1
 and ,gamaliel's advice4  ,i cannot     
answer for ,agrippa's meaning3  but     
certainly he meant but little2 and if   
this matter is to be tried by  his      
opinion1 we know that he never did turn 
,christian4  ,as for  ,gamaliel1 'tis   
probable that he saw great numbers of   
the people engaged  zealously in favour 
of the apostles1 and might think it     

prudent to pass  the matter over in     
silence1 and not to come to extremities4
  ,this is a  common case in all        
governments3 the multitude and their    
leaders often  escape punishment1 not   
because they do not deserve it1 but     
because it  is not1 in some             
circumstances1 prudent to exact it4     
,i pass over these things lightly1      
because the next article  contains the  
great1 to us indeed1 who live at this   
distance1 the only  great question2  for
 whatever reason the ,jews had to       
believe the  resurrection1 it is nothing
 to us1 unless the story has been       
conveyed  to us upon such evidence as is
 sufficient to support the weight laid  
on  it4     ,my ,lord1 we are now to    
enter upon the last and main article of 
this case2 the nature of the evidence   
upon which the credit of the            
resurrection stands4  ,before ,i inquire
 into the qualifications of the         
particular witnesses whose words we are 
desired to take in this case1 ,i  would 

ask1 why this evidence1 which manifestly
 relates to the most  essential point of
 ,christianity1 was not put beyond all  
exception8  ,many of the miracles of    
,christ are said to be done in the      
streets1 nay  even in the temple1 under 
the observation of all the world2 but   
the  like is not so much as pretended as
 to this2 nay1 we have it upon the      
confession of ,peter1 the ringleader of 
the apostles1 that ,christ  appeared1   
not to all the people1 but unto         
witnesses chosen before of  ,god4  ,why 
picking and culling of witnesses in this
 case more than in  any other8  ,does it
 not import some suspicion1 raise some  
jealousy1  that this case would not bear
 the publick light8     ,i would ask    
more particularly1 ,why did not ,jesus  
after his  resurrection appear openly to
 the chief priests and rulers of the    
,jews8  ,since his commission related to
 them in an especial manner1  why were  
not his credentials laid before them8   
,the resurrection is acknowledged  to be

 the chief proof of his mission1 why    
then was it concealed from  those who   
were more than all others concerned in  
the event of his  mission8  ,suppose an 
ambassador from some foreign prince     
should come  into ,england1  make his   
publick entry through the city1 pay and 
receive  visits1 and at last refuse to  
shew any letters of credence1 or to wait
  on the ,king1 what would you think of 
him8  ,whatever you would think in  that
 case1 you must think in this2 for there
 is no difference between  them4        
,but we must take the evidence as it is4
  ,it was thought proper1  in this case1
 to have select chosen witnesses2 and we
 must now consider  who they were1 and  
what reason we have to take their word4 
,the first witness was an angel1 or     
angels4  ,they appeared like  men to    
some women who went early to the        
sepulchre4  ,if they appeared  like men1
 upon what ground are we to take them   
for angels8  ,the women  saw men1 and   
therefore they can witness only to the  

seeing of men4  ,but  ,i suppose it is  
the women's judgement1 and not their    
evidence1 that we  are to follow in this
 case4  ,here then we have a story of   
one  apparition to support the credit of
 another apparition3 and the first      
apparition hath not so much as the      
evidence of the women to support it1    
but is grounded on their superstition1  
ignorance1 and fear4  ,every  country   
can afford an hundred instances of this 
kind2 and there is this  common to them 
all1 that as learning and common sense  
prevail in any  country1 they die away1 
and are no more heard of4     ,the next 
witnesses are the women themselves4     
,the wisest men can  hardly guard       
themselves against the fears of         
superstition2  poor silly  women        
therefore in this case must needs be    
unexceptionable witnesses1  and fit to  
be admitted into the number of the      
chosen witnesses to  attest this fact4  
,one part of the account given of them  
is very  rational1 that they were       

surprised and frightened beyond measure2
 and ,i  leave it to your ,lordship and 
the court to judge1 how well qualified  
they were to give a just relation of    
what passed4     ,after this1 ,jesus    
appears to two of his disciples as they 
were  upon a journey2  he joins them1   
and introduces a discourse about        
himself2 and spent much time1 till it   
began to grow dark1 in expounding  the  
prophecies relating to the death and    
resurrection of the ,messias4  ,all this
 while1 the disciples knew him not4     
,but then going into an  house to lodge 
together1  at supper he broke bread1 and
 gave it to  them2  immediately they    
knew him1 immediately he vanished4      
,here then  are two witnesses more4     
,but what will you call them8           
eye-witnesses8  ,why their eyes were    
open1 and they had their senses1 when he
 reasoned  with them and they knew him  
not4  ,so far therefore they are        
witnesses  that it was not he4  ,tell us
 therefore upon what account you reject 

the  evidence of their sense before the 
breaking of the bread1  and insist  on  
it afterwards8  ,and why did ,jesus     
vanish as soon as known2 which has  more
 of the air of an apparition1 than of   
the appearance of a real man  restored  
to life8     ,cleopas1 who was one of   
these two disciples1 finds out the      
apostles1 to make the report of what had
 passed to them4  ,no sooner was  the   
story told1 but ,jesus appears among    
them4  ,they were all frightened  and   
confounded1 and thought they saw a      
spectre4  ,he rebukes them for          
infidelity1 and their slowness in       
believing the prophecies of his         
resurrection3 and though he refused     
before to let the women touch him  7a   
circumstance which ,i ought not to have 
omitted72 yet now he invites  the       
apostles to handle him1 to examine his  
hands and feet1 and search  the wounds  
of the cross4  ,but what body was it    
they examined8  ,the same  that came in 
when the doors were shut2 the same that 

vanished from the  two disciples2 the   
same that the women might not touch3  in
 a word1 a  body quite different from a 
human body1 which we know cannot pass   
through walls1 or appear or disappear at
 pleasure4  ,what then could  their     
hands or eyes inform them of in this    
case8  ,besides1 is it  credible that   
,god should raise a body imperfectly1   
with the very wounds  in it of which it 
died8  ,or1 if the wounds were such as  
destroyed the  body before1 how could a 
natural body subsist with them          
afterwards8     ,there are more         
appearances of ,jesus recorded2  but so 
much of the  same kind1 so liable to the
 same difficulties and objections1 that 
,i  will not trouble your ,lordship and 
the court with a distinct  enumeration  
of them4  ,if the ,gentleman on the     
other side finds any  advantage in any  
of them more than in these mentioned1 ,i
 shall have an  opportunity to consider 
them in my reply4  ,it may seem         
surprising to you1 perhaps1 that a      

matter of  this  moment was trusted upon
 such evidence as this3 but it will be  
still  more surprising to consider that 
the several nations who received the    
gospel1 and submitted to the faith of   
this article1 had not even this         
evidence3  for what people or nation had
 the evidence of the angels1  the women 
or even of all the apostles8  ,so far   
from it1 that every  country had its    
single apostle1 and received the faith  
upon the credit  of his single evidence4
 ,we have followed our ancestors        
without  inquiry2 and if you examine the
 thing to the bottom1 our belief was    
originally built upon the word of one   
man4  ,i shall trouble you1 ,sir1 but   
with one observation more2 which is     
this3 ,that although in common life we  
act in a thousand instances upon  the   
faith and credit of human testimony2 yet
 the reason for so doing is  not the    
same in the case before us4  ,in common 
affairs1 where nothing  is asserted but 
what is probable1 and possible1         

according to the usual  course of       
nature1 a reasonable degree of evidence 
ought to determine  every man3  for the 
very probability1 or possibility of the 
thing1 is  an support to the evidence2  
and in such cases we have no doubt but a
  man's senses qualify him to be a      
witness4  ,but when the thing testified 
is contrary to the order of nature1 and1
 at first sight at least1  impossible1  
what evidence can be sufficient to      
overturn the constant  evidence of      
nature1 which she gives us in the       
uniform and regular  method of her      
operations8  ,if a man tells me he has  
been in ,france1 ,i  ought to give a    
reason for not believing him2 but if he 
tells me he  comes from the grave what  
reason can he give why ,i should believe
 him8  ,in the case before us1 since the
 body raised from the grave differed    
from common natural bodies1 as we have  
before seen2 how can ,i be  assured that
 the apostles' senses qualified them to 
judge at all of  this body2 whether it  

was the same1 or not the same which was 
buried8  ,they handled the body1 which  
yet could pass through doors and walls2 
they saw it1 and sometimes knew it1 at  
other times knew it not4  ,in a  word1  
it seems to be a case exempt from human 
evidence4  ,men have  limited senses1   
and a limited reason3 when they act     
within their  limits1 we may give credit
 to them2 but when they talk of things  
removed beyond the reach of their senses
 and reason1 we must quit our  own1 if  
we believe theirs4  ,mr4 ,b4  ,my ,lord1
 in answering the objections under this 
head ,i  shall find myself obliged to   
change the order in which the gentleman 
thought proper to place them4  ,he began
 with complaining1 that ,christ  did not
 appear publickly to the ,jews after his
 resurrection1 and  especially to the   
chief priests and rulers2 and seemed to 
argue1 as if  such evidence would have  
put the matter in question out of all   
doubt3  but he concluded with an        
observation to prove that no evidence in

 this  case can be sufficient2 that a   
resurrection is thing in nature         
impossible1 at least impossible to be   
proved to the satisfaction of a         
rational inquirer4  ,if this be the     
case1 why does he require more          
evidence1 since none can be sufficient8 
,or to what purpose is it to  vindicate 
the particular evidence of the          
resurrection of ,christ1 so  long  as   
this  general prejudice1 that a         
resurrection is incapable of  being     
proved1 remains unremoved8 ,i am under a
 necessity therefore to  consider this  
observation in the first place1 that it 
might lie as a  dead weight upon all ,i 
have to offer in support of the evidence
 of  ,christ's resurrection4       ,the 
gentleman allows it to be reasonable in 
many cases to act  upon the testimony   
and credit of others2 but he thinks this
 should be  confined to such cases1     
where the thing testified is probable1  
possible1  and according to the usual   
course of nature4 ,the ,gentleman  does 

not1 ,i suppose1 pretend to know the    
extent of all natural  possibilities1   
much less will he suppose them to be    
generally known2  and therefore his     
meaning must be1 that the testimony of  
witnesses is  to be received only in    
cases which appear to us to be possible4
 ,in any  other sense we can have no    
dispute2 for mere impossibilities1 which
 can  never exist1 can never be proved4 
,taking the observation therefore in    
this sense1 the proposition is this3    
,that the testimony of others ought  not
 to be admitted1 but in such matters as 
appear probable1 or at least  possible  
to our conceptions4  ,for instance3 ,a  
man who lives in a warm  climate1 and   
never saw ice1 ought upon no evidence to
 believe1 that  rivers freeze1 and grow 
hard1 in cold countries2 for this is    
improbable1 contrary to the usual course
 of nature1 and impossible  according to
 his notion of things4  ,and yet we all 
know1 that this is a  plain manifest    
case discernible by the senses of men2  

of  which  therefore they are qualified 
to be good witnesses4  ,an hundred such 
instances might be named2 but 'tis      
needless3  for surely nothing is  more  
apparently absurd than to make one man's
 ability in discerning and  his veracity
 in reporting plain facts1 depend upon  
the skill or  ignorance of the hearer4  
,and what has the ,gentleman said upon  
this  occasion against the resurrection1
 more than any man who never saw ice    
might say against an hundred honest     
witnesses1 who assert that water  turns 
to ice in cold climates8      ,yet it is
 very true1 that men do not so easily   
believe1 upon  testimony of others1     
things which to them seem improbable or 
impossible2 but the reason is not1      
because the thing itself admits no      
evidence1 but because the hearer's      
preconceived opinion outweighs  the     
credit of the reporter and makes his    
veracity to be called in question4  ,for
 instance it is natural for a stone to  
roll down hill1 it is  unnatural for it 

to roll up hill3 but a stone moving     
uphill is as much  the object of sense  
as a stone moving downhill2 and all men 
in their  senses are as capable of      
seeing  and judging and reporting the   
fact in  one case1 as in the other4     
,should a man then tell you1 that he saw
 a  stone go uphill of its own accord1  
you might question his veracity2 but    
you could not say the thing admitted no 
evidence1 because it was  contrary to   
the law and usual course of nature2 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 testifies3  and      
whenever you see facts yourself1 which  
contradict your notions of the  law of  
nature1 you admit the facts1  because   
you believe yourself2 when  you do not  
admit like facts upon the evidence of   
others1 it is because  you do not       
believe them1 and not because the facts 
in their own nature  exclude all        
evidence4    ,suppose a man should tell 

you1 that he was come from the dead1    
you would be apt to suspect his         
evidence4  ,but what would you suspect8 
,that he was not alive when you heard   
him1 saw him1  felt him1  and  conversed
 with him8  ,you could not suspect      
this1 without giving up all  your senses
 and acting in this case as you act in  
no other4  ,here then  you would        
question1 whether the man had ever been 
dead8 ,but would you  say1 that it is   
incapable of being made plain by human  
testimony1 that  this or that man died a
 year ago8 ,it can't be said4  ,evidence
 in this  case is admitted in all courts
 perpetually    ,consider it the other  
way4  ,suppose you saw a man publicly   
executed1 his body afterwards was       
wounded by the executioner1 and  carried
 and laid in the grave2 that after this 
you should be told1 that  the man was   
come to life again2 what would you      
suspect in this case8  ,not that the man
 had never been dead2 for that you saw  
yourself3 but  you would suspect whether

 he was now alive4  ,but would you say  
this  case excluded all human testimony 
and that men could not possibly  discern
 1 whether one with whom they conversed 
familiarly was alive or  no8 ,upon what 
ground could you say this8  ,a man      
rising from the grave  is an object of  
sense1 and can give the same evidence of
 his being  alive1 as any other man in  
the world can give4  ,so that a         
resurrection  considered only as a fact 
to be proved by evidence1 is a plain    
case2 it  requires no greater ability in
 the witnesses1 than that they be able  
to  distinguish between a man dead1 and 
a man alive3  a point in which ,i       
believe every man  living thinks himself
 a judge4    ,i do allow that this case1
 and others of like nature1 require     
more evidence to give them credit than  
ordinary cases do4  ,you may  therefore 
require more evidence in these1 than in 
other cases2 but it  is absurd to say1  
that such cases admit no evidence1 when 
the things  in question are manifestly  

objects of sense4    ,i allow further1  
that the ,gentleman has rightly stated  
the  difficulty upon the foot of common 
prejudice2 and that it arises from      
hence1 that such cases appear to be     
contrary to the course of nature4  ,but 
,i  desire to consider what this course 
of nature is4 ,every man1  from the     
lowest countryman to the highest        
philosopher frames to himself  from his 
experience and observation1 a notion of 
a course of nature2  and is ready to say
 of everything reported to him that     
contradicts his  experience1 that it is 
contrary to nature4  ,but will the      
,gentleman say1  that everything is     
impossible or even improbable1 that     
contradicts the  notion which men frame 
to themselves of the course of nature8  
,i think  he will not say it4  ,and if  
he will1 he must say that water can     
never  freeze2 for it is absolutely     
inconsistent with the notion which men  
have of the course of nature1 who live  
in the warm climates4  ,and hence  it   

appears1 that when men talk of the      
course of nature1 they really  talk of  
their own prejudices and imaginations2  
and that sense and  reason are not so   
much concerned in the case as the       
,gentleman imagines4  ,for ,i ask1 ,is  
it from the evidence of sense1 or the   
evidence of reason  that people of warm 
climates think it contrary to nature1   
that water  should grow solid1 and      
become ice8  ,as for sense1 they see    
indeed that  water with them is always  
liquid2 but none of their senses tell   
them  that it can never grow solid4  ,as
 for reason1 it can never so inform     
them2 for right reason can never        
contradict the truth of things4  ,our   
senses then inform us rightly what the  
usual course of things is2 but  when we 
conclude that things cannot be          
otherwise1 we outrun the  information of
 our senses1 and the conclusion stands  
upon prejudice1  and not upon reason4   
,and yet such conclusions form what is  
generally  called the course of nature4 

,and when men upon proper evidence and  
informations admit things contrary to   
this presupposed course of  nature1 they
 do not1 as the ,gentleman expresses it1
 quit their own  sense and reason2 but1 
in truth1 they quit their own mistakes  
and  prejudices4     ,in the case before
 us1 the case of the resurrection1 the  
great  difficulty arises from the like  
prejudice4  ,we all know by experience  
that all men die1 and rise no more2     
therefore we conclude1 that for a  dead 
man to rise to life again1 is contrary  
to the course of nature4  ,and certainly
 it is contrary to the uniform and      
settled course of  things4  ,but if we  
argue from hence that it is contrary and
 repugnant  to the real laws of nature  
and absolutely impossible on that       
account1  we argue without any          
foundation to support us either from our
 senses or  our reason4  ,we cannot     
learn from our eyes1 or feeling1 or any 
other  sense1 that it is impossible for 
a dead body to live again2 if we learn  

it at all1 it must be from our  reason2 
and yet what one maxim of  reason is    
contradicted by the supposition of a    
resurrection8  ,for my  own part2 when  
,i consider how ,i live2  that all      
animal motions  necessary to my life are
 independent of my will2 that my heart  
beats  without my consent and without my
 direction2 that digestion and          
nutrition are performed by methods to   
which ,i am not conscious2 that my      
blood moves in a perpetual round1 which 
is contrary to all known laws  of       
motion3 ,i cannot but think1 that the   
preservation of my life1 in  every      
moment of it1 is as great an act of     
power1 as is necessary to  raise a dead 
man to life4  ,and whoever so far       
reflects upon his own  being as to      
acknowledge that he owes it to a        
superior power1 must needs  think1 that 
the same power which gave life to       
senseless matter at  first1 and set all 
the springs and movements a-going at the
 beginning1  can restore life to dead   

body4  ,for surely it is not a greater  
thing to  give life to a body once dead1
 than to a body that never was alive4   
,in the next place must be considered   
the difficulties which the  gentleman   
has laid before you1 with regard to the 
nature of ,christ's  body after the     
resurrection4  ,he has produced some    
passages which  which1 he thinks1 imply1
 that the body was not a real natural   
body1 but  a mere phantom1 or           
apparition3  and thence concludes1 that 
there being  no real object of sense1   
there can be no evidence in the case4   
,presumptions are of no weight against  
positive  evidence2 and  every account  
of the resurrection assures us1 that the
 body of  ,christ  was seen1 felt1 and  
handled by many persons2 who were called
 upon by  ,christ so to do1 that they   
might be assured that he had flesh and  
bones1 and was not a mere spectre1 as   
they1 in their first surprize1  imagined
 him to be4 ,it is impossible that they 
who  give this account1  should mean1 by

 anything they report1 to imply that he 
had no real  body2 it is certain1 then1 
that when the ,gentleman makes use of   
what  they say to this purpose1 he uses 
their sayings contrary to their         
meaning3  for it is not pretended that  
they say1 that ,christ had not a  real  
human body after the resurrection2 nor  
is it pretended they had  any such      
thought1 except only upon the first     
surprize of seeing him1  and before they
 had examined him with their eyes and   
hands4  ,but  something they have said1 
which the ,gentleman1 according to his  
notions  of philosophy1 thinks1 implies 
that the body was not real4  ,to clear  
this point1 therefore1 ,i must lay      
before you the passages referred to1    
and consider how justly the ,gentleman  
reasons from them4     ,the first       
passage relates to ,mary ,magdalene1    
who1 the first time  she saw ,christ1   
was going to embrace his feet1 as the   
custom of the  country was3  ,christ    
says to her1 ,john #bj3ag ,touch me not1

 for ,i am  not yet ascended to my      
,father2  but go to my brethren and tell
 them1  etc4  ,hence the gentleman      
concludes1 that ,christ's body was not  
such an  one as would bear the touch4   
,but how does he infer this8 ,is it from
  these words ,touch me not8 ,it cannot 
be3 for thousands say it every day1     
without giving the least suspicion1 that
 their bodies are not capable  of being 
touched4  ,the conclusion then must be  
built on those other  words1 ,for ,i    
have not yet ascended to my ,father4    
but what have these  words to do with   
the reality of his body8  ,it might be  
real or not  real1 for anything that is 
here said4  ,there is a difficulty in   
these  words1 and it may be hard to give
 the true sense of them2 but there is   
no difficulty in seeing that they have  
no relation to the nature of  ,christ's 
body2 for of his body nothing is said4  
,the natural sense of  the place as ,i  
collect1 by comparing this passage with 
,matthew #bh3i is  this4 ,mary          

,magdalene1 upon seeing ,jesus1 fell at 
his feet1 and laid  hold of them and    
held them as if she meant never to let  
them go3  ,christ said to her1 ,touch me
 not1 or hang not about me now2 you will
  have other opportunities of seeing me 
for ,i go not yet  to my ,father3  lose 
no time then but go quickly with my     
message to my brethren4 ,i am  not      
concerned to support this particular    
interpretation of the passage2  it is   
sufficient to my purpose1 to show that  
the words cannot possibly  relate to the
 nature of ,christ's body one way or    
other4     ,the next passage relates to 
,christ's joining two of his  disciples 
upon the road and conversing with them  
without being known by  them3 it grew   
dark1 they pressed him to stay with them
 that night2 he  went in with them1     
broke bread1 blessed it1 and gave it    
them1 and then  they knew him2 and      
immediately he disappeared4     ,the    
circumstance of disappearing1 shall be  
considered under the  next head1 with   

other objections of the like kind4  ,at 
present ,i shall  only examine the other
 parts of this story1 and inquire       
whether they  afford any ground to      
conclude that the body of ,christ was   
not a real  one4  ,had this piece of    
history been related of any other person
 ,i  think such suspicion could have    
risen4  ,for what is there unnatural or 
uncommon in this account8 ,two men meet 
an acquaintance whom they  thought dead3
 ,they converse with him for some time1 
without suspecting  who he was2 the very
 persuasion they were under that he was 
dead1  contributed greatly to their not 
knowing him2 besides1 he appeared in a  
habit and form different from what he   
used when he conversed with them2       
appeared to them on a journey and walked
 with them side by side2 in  which      
situation no one of  the company has a  
full view of another3  afterwards1 when 
they were at supper together1 and lights
 brought in1  they plainly discerned who
 he was4  ,upon this occasion1 the      

,gentleman  asks what sort of witnesses 
these are8 eye-witnesses8 ,no2 before   
supper  they were eye-witnesses1 says   
the ,gentleman1 that the person whom    
they  saw was not ,christ3 and then he  
demands a reason for our rejecting the  
evidence of their sense when they did   
not know ,christ1 and insisting on  it  
when they did4     ,it is no uncommon   
thing for men to catch themselves and   
others by  such notable acute questions1
 and to be led by the sprightliness of  
their imagination out of the road of    
truth and common sense4  ,i beg  leave  
to tell the ,gentleman a short story1   
and then to ask him his own  question4  
,a certain ,gentleman who had been some 
years abroad happened  in his return to 
,england through ,paris to meet his own 
sister there4  ,she was not expecting to
 see him there1 nor he to see her1 they 
conversed together with other company1  
at a publick house1 for great  part of a
 day1 without knowing each other4  ,at  
last the ,lady began to  shew great     

signs of disorder2 her color came and   
went1 and the eyes of  the company were 
drawn toward her2 and then she cried    
out1 ,oh my  brother6  and was hardly   
held from fainting4  ,suppose now this  
,lady  were to depose upon oath in a    
court of justice that she saw her       
brother  at ,paris2  ,i would ask the   
,gentleman1 ,whether he would object to 
the  evidence1 and say1 that she was as 
good an eye-witness that her brother    
was not there1 as that he was2 and      
demand of the court1 why they  rejected 
the evidence of her senses when she did 
not know her brother1  and were ready to
 believe it when she did4  ,when the    
question is  answered in this case1 ,i  
desire only to have the benefit of it in
 the  case now before you4  ,but if you 
shall be of opinion1 that there was     
some extraordinary power used on this   
occasion1 and incline to think  that the
 expression1 their eyes were holden1    
imports as much2  then the  case will   
fall under the next article4  ,in which 

,we are to consider ,christ's vanishing 
out of sight2 his coming in  and going  
out when the doors were shut2 and such  
like passages2 which1  as they fall     
under one consideration1 so ,i shall    
speak to them  together4     ,but it is 
necessary first to see what the         
,apostles affirm  distinctly in their   
accounts of these facts2 for ,i think   
more has been  said for them1 than ever 
they said1 or intended to say for       
themselves4  ,in one place ,luke #bd3ca 
it is said1 he vanished out of their    
sight4  ,which translation is corrected 
in the margin of our ,bibles thus3  ,he 
ceased to be seen of them4  ,and the    
original imports no more4  ,it is said  
in another place1 that the disciples    
being together1  and the doors shut1    
,jesus came and stood in the midst of   
them4   ,how he  came1 is not said2 much
 less is it said that he came through   
the door1  or the keyhole2  and for     
anything that is said to the contrary1  
he  might come in at the door1 though   

the disciples saw not the door open1    
nor him1 till he was in the midst of    
them4  ,but the ,gentleman thinks  these
 passages prove that the disciples saw  
no real body1 but an  apparition4  ,i am
 afraid that the ,gentleman1 after all  
his contempt of  apparitions1 and the   
superstition on which they are founded1 
has fallen  into the snare himself1 and 
is arguing upon no better principles    
than  the common notions which the      
vulgar have of apparitions4  ,why else  
does  he imagine these passages to be   
inconsistent with the reality of        
,christ's body8  ,is there no way for a 
real body to disappear8 ,try the        
experiment now2 do but put out the      
candles1 we shall all disappear4  ,if  a
 man falls asleep in the day-time1 all  
things disappear to him2 his  senses are
 all locked up2 and yet all things about
 him continue to be  real1 and his      
senses continue perfect4  ,as shutting  
out all rays of  light would make all   
things disappear2 so intercepting the   

rays of  light from any particular body1
 would make that disappear4  ,perhaps   
something like this was the case2 or    
perhaps something else1 which we  know  
not4  ,but1 be the case what it will1   
the ,gentleman's conclusion is  founded 
on no principle of true philosophy3  for
 it does not follow  that a body is not 
real because ,i lose sight of it        
suddenly4  ,i shall  be told1 perhaps1  
that this way of accounting for the     
passages is as  wonderful1 and as much  
out of the common course of things1 as  
the  other4  ,perhaps it is so2 and what
 then8  ,surely the ,gentleman does not 
expect1 that1 in order to prove the     
reality of the greatest miracle  that   
ever was1 ,i should shew that there was 
nothing miraculous in it1  but that     
everything happened according to the    
ordinary course of  things4  ,my only   
concern is1 to shew1 that these passages
 do not infer1  that the body of ,christ
 after the resurrection was no real     
body4  ,i  wonder the ,gentleman did not

 carry his argument a little further1   
and  prove1 that ,christ1 before his    
death1 had no real body2 for we read1   
that when the multitude would have      
thrown him down a precipice1  he  went  
through the midst of them unseen4  ,now1
 nothing happened after his             
resurrection more unaccountable than    
this that happened before it2 and  if   
the argument be good at all1 it will be 
good to prove1 that there  never was    
such a man as ,jesus in the world4      
,perhaps the gentleman may  think that  
this is a little too much to prove3  and
 if he does1 ,i hope  he will quit the  
argument in one case as well as in the  
other2 for  difference there is none4   
,hitherto we have been called upon to   
prove the reality of  ,christ's body1   
and that it was the same after the      
resurrection that was  before3 but the  
next objection complains1 that the body 
was too much  the same with that which  
was buried2 for the ,gentleman thinks   
that it  had the same mortal wounds open

 and uncured of which he died4  ,his    
observation is grounded upon the words  
which ,christ uses to ,thomas3  ,john   
#bj3bg ,reach hither thy finger1 and    
behold my hands2 and reach  hither thy  
hand and thrust it into my side4  ,is it
 here affirmed that  ,thomas did        
actually put his hand into his side1 or 
so much as see his  wounds fresh and    
bleeding8  ,nothing like it3 but it is  
supposed from  the words of ,christ2 for
 if he had no wounds1 he would not have 
invited  ,thomas to probe them4  ,now1  
the meaning of ,christ will best appear 
by  an account of the occasion he had to
 use this speech4  ,he had appeared  to 
his disciples1 in the absence of        
,thomas1 and shewn them his hands  and  
feet1 which still had the marks of his  
crucifixion3 the disciples  report this 
to ,thomas3 he thought the thing        
impossible1 and expressed  his unbelief1
 as men are apt to do when they are     
positive1 in a very  extravagant manner3
 ,you talk1 says he1 of the prints of   

the nails in  his hands and feet2 for my
 part1 says he1 ,i'll never believe this
  thing1 except ,i shall see in his     
hands the print of the nails1 and put   
my finger into the print of the nails1  
and thrust my hand into his  side4      
,now1 in the first place1 here is       
nothing  said of open wounds2  ,thomas  
talks only of putting his finger into   
the print1 that is1 the  scar of the    
nails1 and thrusting his hand into his  
side4  ,and1 in  common speech1 to      
thrust an hand into any one's side does 
not signify  to thrust it through the   
side into the bowels4  ,upon this       
interpretation of the words1 which is a 
plain and natural one1 the  ,gentleman's
 objection is quite gone4 ,but suppose  
,thomas to mean what  the ,gentleman    
means2 in that case the words of ,christ
 are manifestly a  severe reproach to   
him for his infidelity3 ,here1 says     
,christ1 are my  hands and my side2 take
 the satisfaction you require2 thrust   
your  fingers into my hands1 your hand  

into my side2 repeating to him his own  
words1 and calling him to his own       
conditions2 which1 to a man beginning   
to see his extravagance1 is of all      
rebukes the severest4  ,such forms of   
speech are used on many occasions1 and  
are never understood to import  that the
 thing proposed is proper1 or always    
practicable4  ,when the  ,grecian women 
reproached their sons with cowardice1   
and called to them  as they were flying 
from the enemy1 to come and hide        
themselves1 like  children as they were1
 in their mothers' wombs2 he would be   
ridiculous  who had asked the question1 
,whether the women really thought they  
could  take their sons into their wombs 
again8     ,i have now gone through the 
objections which were  necessarily to be
 removed  before ,i could state the     
evidence in this  case4  ,i am sensible 
,i have taken  up too much of your time2
 but ,i have this to say in my excuse1  
,that  objections built on popular      
notions and prejudices1 are easily      

conveyed  to the mind in few words2 and 
so conveyed1 make strong impressions3   
but  whoever answers the objections1    
must encounter all the notions to which 
they are allied1 and to which they owe  
their strength2 and it is well  if with 
many words he can find admittance4      
,i come now to consider the evidence on 
which our belief of the  resurrection   
stands4  ,and here ,i am stopped again4 
,a general exception is taken to  the   
evidence1 that it is imperfect1 unfair2 
and a question is asked1  ,why did not  
,christ appear publickly to all the     
people1 especially to  the magistrates8 
,why were some witnesses culled and     
chosen out1 and  others excluded 8 ,it  
may be sufficient perhaps to say1 that  
where there  are witnesses enow1 no     
judge1 no jury complains for want of    
more2 and  therefore1 if the witnesses  
we have are sufficient1 it is no        
objection  that we have not others1 and 
more4  ,if three credible man attest a  
will1 which are as many as the law      

requires1 would any body ask1 why all   
the town were not called to set  their  
hands8 ,but why were these witnesses    
culled and chosen out8  ,why8  ,for this
 reason1 that they might be good ones4  
,does not every wise men  chuse proper  
witnesses to his deed and to his will8  
and does not a  good choice of witnesses
 give strength to every deed8 ,how comes
 it to  pass1 then1 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      
itself8     ,what reason there is to    
make any complaints on the behalf of the
  ,jews1  may be judged1 in part1 from  
what has already appeared4  ,christ     
suffered openly in their sight2 and they
 were so well apprised of his           
prediction1 that he should rise again1  
that they set a guard on his  sepulchre2
 and from their guards they learned the 
truth4  ,every soldier  was to them a   
witness of the resurrection of their own
 chusing4  ,after  this they had not    

one apostle17which the ,gentleman       
observes was the case of other  people71
 but all the apostles1 and many other   
witnesses with them1 and  in their      
power4  ,the apostles testified the     
resurrection to them2 not  only to the  
people1 but to the elders of ,israel    
assembled in ,senate3 to  support their 
evidence they were enabled to work1 and 
did work miracles  openly in the name of
 ,christ4  ,these people therefore have 
the least  reason to complain2  and had 
of all others the fullest evidence2 and 
in some respects such  as none but      
themselves could have1 for they only    
were keepers of the  sepulchre4,i       
believe1 if the gentleman was to chuse  
an evidence to his  own  satisfaction in
 a like case1 he would desire no more1  
than to keep  the sepulchre1 with a     
sufficient number of guards4     ,but   
the argument goes further4  ,it is said1
 that ,jesus was sent  with a special   
commission to the ,jews2 that he was    
their ,messias2 and  as his resurrection

 was his main credential1 he ought to   
have appeared  publickly to the rulers  
of the ,jews after his resurrection3    
that in  doing otherwise1 he acted like 
an ambassador pretending authority  from
  his prince1 but refusing to show his  
letters of credence4     ,i was afraid1 
when ,i suffered myself to be drawn into
 this  argument1  that ,i should be led 
into matters fitter to be decided by men
 of  another profession1 than by        
lawyers4  ,but since there is no help   
now1 ,i  will lay before you what       
appears to me to be the natural and     
plain  account of this matter2 leaving  
it to others1 who are better qualified1 
to give a fuller answer to the          
objection4     ,it appears to me1 by the
 accounts we have of ,jesus1 that he had
  two distinct offices3 one1 as the     
,messias particularly promised to the   
,jews2  another1 as he was to be the    
great high priest of the world4  ,with  
respect  to the first office1 he is     
called ,heb4 #c3a the apostle  of the   

,hebrews2  the ,rom4 #ae3h minister of  
the circumcision2 and says  himself1    
,matt #ae3bd  ,i am not sent1 but unto  
the lost sheep of the  house of ,isreal4
 ,accordingly1 when he sent out his     
,apostles in his  lifetime to preach1 he
 expressly forbids  them to go to the   
,gentiles or ,samaritans2 but go1 ,matt4
 #aj3f says he1  to the lost sheep of   
the ,house of ,israel4  ,christ         
continued in the  discharge of  this    
office during the time of his natural   
life1 till he  was finally rejected by  
the ,jews4  ,and it is observable1 that 
the last  time he spoke to the people   
according to ,st4 ,matthew's account1 he
  solemnly took leave of them1 and      
closed his commission4  ,he had been    
long among them publishing glad tidings2
 but when all his preaching1  all his   
miracles1 had proved to be in vain1 the 
last thing he did was1  to denounce the 
woes they had brought on themselves4    
,the #bc;d chapter of  ,st4 ,matthew    
recites these woes2 and at the end of   

them ,christ takes  this passionate     
leave of ,jerusalem3 ,oh1 ,jerusalem1   
,jerusalem1 thou  that killest the      
prophets and stonest them which are sent
 unto thee1  how often would ,i have    
gathered thy children together1 even as 
a hen  gathereth her chickens under her 
wings1 and ye would not6  ,behold1 your 
house is left unto you desolate4  ,for  
,i say unto you1 ,ye shall not see  me  
henceforth1 till ye shall say1 ,blessed 
is he that cometh in the name  of  the  
,lord4 ,it is remarkable1 that this     
passage1 as recorded by ,st4  ,matthew  
and ,st4 ,luke1 twice over1 is          
determined1 by the circumstances1  to   
refer to the near approach of his own   
death1 and the extreme hatred  of the   
,jews to him3 and therefore those words1
 ,ye shall not see me  henceforth1 are  
to be  dated from the time of his death1
 and manifestly point out the end of    
his particular mission to them4  ,from  
the making this declaration1 as  it     
stands in ,st4 ,matthew1 his discourses 

are to his disciples1 and they  chiefly 
relate to the miserable and wretched    
condition of the ,jews1  which was now  
decreed1 and soon to be accomplished4   
,let me now ask1  ,whether1 in this     
state of  things1 any farther           
credentials of ,christ's  commission to 
the ,jews could  be demanded or         
expected8  ,he was  rejected1 his       
commission was determined1  and with it 
the fate of the nation was determined   
also3 what use then  of  more           
credentials8  ,as to appearing to them  
after his resurrection1  he could not do
 it consistently with his own           
prediction1 ,ye shall see  me no more1  
till ye shall say1 ,blessed is he that  
cometh in the name of  the ,lord4 ,the  
,jews were not in this disposition after
 the resurrection1  nor are they in it  
yet4     ,the resurrection was the      
foundation of ,christ's new  commission1
 which  extended to all the world4      
,then it was he declared1 that all power
 was  given unto him in heaven and in   

earth4  ,then he gave a new commission  
to his disciples1 not restrained to the 
house of ,israel1 but to go and  teach  
all nations4  ,this prerogative the     
,jews had under this  commission1 that  
the gospel was every-where first offered
 to them2 but  in no other terms than it
 was offered to the rest of the world4  
,since  then this commission1 of which  
the resurrection was the foundation1    
extended to all the world alike2 what   
ground is there to demand special  and  
particular evidence to the ,jews8  ,the 
,emperor and the ,senate of  ,rome were 
a much more considerable part of the    
world1 than the chief  priests and the  
synagogue2 why does not the ,gentleman  
object then1 that  ,christ did not shew 
himself to ,tiberius  and his senate8   
,and since all  men have an equal right 
in this case1 ,why may not the same     
demand be  made for every country2 nay1 
for every age8 ,and then the ,gentleman 
may  bring the question nearer home2 and
 ask1 ,why ,christ did not appear in    

,england in ,king ,george's reign8      
,there is1 to my apprehension1 nothing  
more unreasonable1 than to neglect and  
despise plain and sufficient  evidence  
before us1 and to sit down to imagine   
what kind of evidence  would have       
pleased us2 and then to make the want of
 such evidence an  objection to the     
truth2 which yet1 if well considered1   
would be found  to be well established4 
,the observation ,i have made upon the  
resurrection of ,christ1  naturally     
leads to another2 which will help to    
account for the nature  of the evidence 
we have in this great point4  ,as the   
resurrection was  the opening a new     
commission1 in which all the world had  
an interest2  so the concern naturally  
was1 to have a proper evidence to       
establish  this truth1 and which should 
be of equal weight to all4  ,this did   
not  depend upon the satisfaction given 
to private persons1 whether they  were  
magistrates or not magistrates2 but upon
 the conviction of those1  whose office 

it was to be1 to bear testimony to this 
truth in the  world4  ,in this sense the
 ,apostles were chosen to be witnesses  
of the  resurrection1 because they were 
chosen to bear testimony to it in the   
world2 and not because they only were   
admitted to see ,christ after his       
resurrection3 for the fact is otherwise4
 ,the gospel indeed1 concerned  to shew 
the evidence on which the faith of the  
world was to rest1 is  very particular  
in setting forth the ocular             
demonstration which the  apostles had of
 the resurrection2 and mentions others1 
who saw ,christ  after his resurrection1
 only accidentally1 and as the thread of
 the  history led to it4 ,but yet it is 
certain1 there were many others1 who    
had this satisfaction1 as well as the   
apostles4  ,st4 ,luke tells us1  that   
when ,christ appeared to the eleven     
apostles1 there were others  with them  
,luke #bd3cc2 who they were1 or how many
 there were1 he says  not4  ,but it     
appears in the ,acts1 when an apostle   

was to be chosen in  the room of ,judas2
 and the chief qualification required   
was1 that he  should be one capable of  
being a witness of the resurrection2    
that  there were present an hundred and 
twenty so qualified ,acts #a4 ,compare  
vv4  #ae1ba1bb together4  ,and ,saint   
,paul says1 that ,christ after his      
rising was seen by #ejj at once1 many of
 whom were living when he  appealed to  
their evidence4  ,so that the ,gentleman
 is mistaken1 when  he imagines that a  
few only were chosen to see ,christ     
after he came  from the grave4  ,the    
truth of the case is1 that1 out of those
 who saw  him1 some were chosen to bear 
testimony to the world2 and for that    
reason had the fullest demonstration of 
the truth1 that they might be  the      
better able to give satisfaction to     
others4  ,and what was there in  this   
conduct to complain of8 what to raise   
any jealousy or suspicion8     ,as to   
the witnesses themselves1 the first the 
,gentleman takes  notice of1 are the    

angels and the women4  ,the mention of  
angels led  naturally to apparitions3   
and the women were called poor silly    
women2  and there is an end to their    
evidence4  ,but to speak seriously3 will
  the ,gentleman pretend to prove1 that 
there are no intelligent beings  between
 ,god and man2 or that they are not     
ministers of ,god2 or that  they were   
improperly employed in this great and   
wonderful work1 the  resurrection of    
,christ8  ,till some of these points are
 disproved we  may be at rest2 for the  
angels were ministers1 and not witnesses
 of  the resurrection4  ,and it is not  
upon the credit of the poor silly  women
 that we believe angels were concerned1 
but upon the report of  those who wrote 
the gospels1 who deliver it as a truth  
known to  themselves1 and not merely as 
a report taken from the women4     ,but 
for the women what shall ,i say8 ,silly 
as they were1 ,i hope at  least they had
 eyes and ears1 and could tell what they
 heard and saw4  ,in this case they tell

 no more4  ,they report that the body   
was not in  the sepulchre2 but so far   
from reporting the resurrection2 that   
they  did not believe it1 and were very 
anxious to find to what place the  body 
was removed4  ,further they were not    
employed4  ,for1 ,i think1 the          
,gentleman in  another part observes    
rightly1 that they were not sent to bear
  testimony to any people4  ,but suppose
 them to be witnesses2 suppose  them to 
be improper ones2 yet the evidence of   
the men surely is not the  worse1       
because some wonen happened to see the  
same thing which they  saw4  ,and if men
 only must be admitted1 of them we have 
enow to  establish this truth4     ,i   
will not spend your time in enumerating 
these witnesses1 or in  setting forth   
the demonstration they had of the truth 
which they  report4  ,these things are  
well known4  ,if you question their     
sincerity1  they lived miserably1 and   
died miserably1 for the sake of this    
truth4  ,and what greater evidence of   

sincerity can man give or require8  ,and
  what is still more1 they were not     
deceived in their expectation of  being 
ill treated2 for he who employed them1  
told them beforehand that  the world    
would hate them1 and treat them with    
contempt and cruelty4     ,but1 leaving 
these weighty and well known            
circumstances to your  own reflexion1 ,i
 beg leave to lay before you another    
evidence1 passed  over in silence by the
 ,gentleman on the other side4  ,he took
 notice1  that a resurrection was so    
extraordinary a thing1 that no human    
evidence could support it4  ,i am not   
sure that he is not in the right4  ,if  
twenty men were to come into ,england   
with such a report from a  distant      
country1 perhaps they might not find    
twenty more here to  believe their      
story4  ,and ,i rather think the        
,gentleman may be in the  right1 because
 in the present case ,i see clearly1    
that the credit of  the resurrection of 
,christ was not trusted to mere human   

evidence4  ,to  what evidence it was    
trusted1 we find by his own declaration3
 ,the  ,spirit of truth1 which          
proceedeth from the ,father1 he shall   
testify of  me4  ,and ye also 7speaking 
to his apostles7 shall bear witness1    
because ye have been with me from the   
beginning ,john #ae3bf1bg4  ,and        
therefore1 though the apostles had      
conversed with him forty days after  his
 resurrection1 and had received his     
commission to go teach all  nations2 yet
 he expressly forbids them entering upon
 the work1 till  they should receive    
powers from above ,acts #a3ad  ,and ,st4
 ,peter  explains the evidence of the   
resurrection in this manner3 ,we 7the   
apostles7 are his witnesses of these    
things2 and so is also the ,holy        
,ghost1 whom ,god hath given to them who
 obey him ,acts #e3cb4     ,now1 what   
were the powers received by the         
apostles8  ,where they  not the powers  
of wisdom and courage1 by which they    
were enabled to  appear before rulers   

and princes in the name of ,christ2 the 
power of  miracles1 even of raising the 
dead to life2 by which they convinced   
the  world1 that ,god was with them in  
what they said and did8  ,with respect  
to this evidence1 ,st4 ,john says1 ,if  
we receive the witness of men1 the      
witness of ,god is greater4 ,i ,john    
#e3i ,add to this1 that the apostles    
had a power to communicate these gifts  
to believers4  ,can you wonder  that men
 believed the reality of those powers of
 which they were  partakers1 and became 
conscious to themselves8  ,with respect 
to these  communicated powers1 ,i       
suppose1 ,st4 ,john speaks1 when he     
says1 ,he that  believeth on the ,son of
 ,god hath the witness in himself3 ,i   
,john #e3aj  appealing1 not to an inward
 testimony of the ,spirit1 in the sense 
of  some modern enthusiasts2 but to the 
powers of the ,spirit1 which  believers 
received1 and which were seen in the    
effects that followed4     ,it was      
objected1 ,that the apostles separated  

themselves to the  work of the ministry1
 and one went into one country1 another 
to  another2 and1 consequently1 that the
 belief of the resurrection was         
originally received every where upon the
 testimony of one witness4  ,i  will not
 examine this fact4  ,suppose it to be  
so4  ,but did this one  witness go      
alone1 when he was attended with the    
powers of heaven8  ,was  not every blind
 man restored to sight1 and every lame  
man to his feet1  a new witness to the  
truth reported by the first8 ,besides1  
when the  people of different countries 
came to compare notes1 and found that   
they had all received the same account  
of ,christ and of his doctrine2  then   
surely the evidence of these distant    
witnesses thus united1 became  stronger 
than if they had told their story       
together3 for twelve men  separately    
examined form a much stronger proof for 
the truth of any  fact1 than twelve men 
agreeing together in one story4     ,if 
the same thing were to happen in our own

 time3  if one or two  were to come into
 ,england1 and report that a man was    
raised from the  dead2 and1 in          
consequence of it1 teach nothing but    
that we ought to  love ,god and our     
neighbors3 if1  to confirm their report1
 they should1  before our eyes1 cure the
 blind1 the deaf1  the lame1 and even   
raise  the dead to life3 if1 endued with
 all these powers1 they should live in  
poverty and distress1 and patiently     
submit to all that scorn1 contempt1  and
 malice could contrive to distress them2
 and at last sacrifice even  their lives
 in justification of the truth of their 
report3  if upon  inquiry we should     
find1 that all the countries in ,europe 
had received  the same account1         
supported by the same miraculous powers1
 attested in  like manner by the        
sufferings1 and confirmed by the blood  
of the  witnesses3  ,i would fain know  
what any reasonable man would do in this
  case8  ,would he despise such         
evidence8  ,i think he would not4  ,and 

whoever thinks otherwise1 must say1 that
 a resurrection1 though in its  own     
nature possible1 is yet such a thing1 in
 which we ought not to  believe either  
,god or man4     ,judge4   ,have you    
done1 ,sir8     ,mr4 ,b4  ,yes1 my      
,lord4     ,judge4   ,go on1 ,mr4 ,a41  
if you have anything to say in reply4   
,mr4 ,a4  ,my ,lord1 ,i shall trouble   
you with very little4 ,the  objections  
and answers under this head1 ,i shall   
leave to the judgment  of the court2 and
 beg leave only to make an observation  
or two upon the  last part of the       
,gentleman's argument4     ,and first1  
with respect to the sufferings of the   
apostles and  disciples of ,jesus1 and  
the argument drawn from thence for the  
truth of  their doctrines and           
assertions1 ,i beg leave to observe to  
you1 that  there is not a false religion
 or pretence in the world1 but can      
produce  the same authority1 and show   
many instances of men who have suffered 
even to death for the truth of their    

several professions4  ,if we  consult   
only modern story we shall find ,papists
 suffering for ,popery1  ,protestants   
for their religion4  ,and among         
,protestants every sect has  had its    
martyrs2 ,puritans1 ,quakers1           
,fifth-monarchy men4 ,in ,henry ,,viii's
  time ,england saw both ,popish and    
,protestant martyrs2 in ,queen ,mary's  
reign the rage fell upon ,protestants2  
in ,queen ,elizabeth's ,papists and     
,puritans were called sometimes1 though 
rarely1 to this trial4  ,in later       
times1 sometimes churchmen1 sometimes   
dissenters were persecuted4  ,what  must
 we say1 then8  ,all these sufferers had
 not truth with them2 and  yet1 if there
 be any weight in this argument from    
suffering they  have  all the right to  
plead it4     ,but ,i may be told1      
perhaps1 that men by their sufferings1  
though  they do not prove their         
doctrines to be true1 yet prove at least
 their  own sincerity3 as if it were a  
thing impossible for men to dissemble at

  the point of death4 ,alas6 how many   
instances are there of men's denying    
facts plainly proved1 asserting facts   
plainly disproved1 even with the  rope  
around their necks8 ,must all such pass 
for innocent sufferers1  sincere men8   
,if not1 it must be allowed1 that a     
man's word at the  point of death is not
 always to be relied on4     ,another   
observation ,i would make1 is with      
respect to the evidence  of the ,spirit1
 on which so much stress is laid4  ,it  
has been hitherto  insisted on1 that the
 resurrection was a matter of fact1 and 
such a  fact as was capable and proper  
to be supported by the evidence of      
sense4  ,how comes it about1 that this  
evidence1 this which is the  proper     
evidence1 is given up as insufficient1  
and a new  improper  evidence           
introduced8  ,is it not surprising1 that
 one great miracle  should want an      
hundred more to prove it8  ,every       
miracle is itself an  appeal to sense1  
and therefore admits no evidence but    

that of sense4  ,and there is no        
connexion between a miracle done this   
year and last  year4  ,it does not      
follow1 therefore1 because ,peter cured 
a lame man1  7allowing the fact71 that  
therefore ,christ rose from the dead4   
,but allowing the ,gentleman all he     
demands1 what is to us8  ,they  who had 
the witness within them1 did perhaps    
very well to consult1 and  to take his  
word2 but how am ,i1 or others1 who have
 not this witness is  us1 the better for
 it8  ,if the first ages of the church  
saw all the  wonders related by the     
,gentleman1 and believed1 it shews at   
least1 in  his opinion1 that this strong
 evidence was necessary to create the   
belief he requires2 why then does he    
require this belief of us1 who  have not
 this strong evidence8     ,judge4      
,very well4  ,gentlemen of the jury1    
,you have heard the  proofs and         
arguments on both sides1 and it is now  
your part to give a  verdict4     ,here 
the ,gentlemen whispered together1 and  

the ,foreman stood up4     ,foreman4    
,my ,lord1 ,the case has been long1 and 
consists of  several articles2 therefore
 the jury hope you will give them your  
directions4     ,judge4 ,no1 no2 you are
 very able to judge without my help4    
,mr4 ,a4 ,my ,lord1 ,pray consider1 you 
appointed this meeting  and chose your  
office4  ,mr4 ,b4 and ,i have gone      
through our parts1 and  have some right 
on your doing your part4     ,mr4 ,b4 ,i
 must join1 ,sir1 in that request4      
,judge4  ,i have often heard1 that all  
honour has a burden  attending it2 but  
,i did not suspect it in this office1   
which ,i  conferred upon myself4  ,but1 
since it must be so1 ,i will recollect1 
and  lay before you1 as well as ,i can1 
the substance of the debate4            
,gentlemen of the jury1 ,the question   
before you1 is ,whether the  witnesses  
of the resurrection of ,christ are      
guilty of giving false  evidence1 or no8
     ,two sorts of objections1 or       
accusations1 are brought against  them4 

,one charges fraud and deceit on the    
transaction itself2  the  other charges 
the evidence as forged1 and insufficient
 to support the  credit of so           
extraordinary an event4     ,there are  
also three periods of time to be        
considered4     ,the first takes in the 
ministry of ,christ1 and ends at his    
death4  ,during this period the fraud is
 supposed to be contrived4     ,the     
second reaches from his death to his    
resurrection4  ,during  this period the 
fraud is supposed to be executed4       
,the third begins from the resurrection1
 and takes in the whole  ministry of the
 apostles4  ,and here the evidence they 
gave the world  for this fact is the    
main consideration4     ,as to the first
 period of time1 and the fraud charged  
upon ,jesus1  ,i must observe to you1   
that this charge had no evidence to     
support it2  all the facts reported of  
,jesus stand in full contradiction to   
it4  ,to  suppose1 as the council did1  
that this fraud might possibly appear1  

if  we had any ,jewish books written at 
the time1 is not to bring proof1 but  to
 wish for proof3 for1 as it was rightly 
observed on the other side1  how does   
,mr4 ,a4 know there were any such books8
  ,and since they are  lost1 how does he
 know what was in them8  ,were such     
books extant1 they  might probably prove
 beyond dispute the facts recorded in   
the gospels4     ,you were told1 that   
the ,jews were a very superstitious     
people1  much addicted to prophecy2 and 
particularly1 that they had a strong    
expectation about the time that ,christ 
appeared1 to have a victorious  prince  
rise among them4  ,this is laid as the  
ground of suspicion2 and1  in fact1 many
 imposters1 you are told1 set up upon   
these notions of the  people2 and thence
 it is inferred1 that ,christ built his 
scheme upon  the strength of these      
popular prejudices4  ,but when this fact
 came to  be examined on the other side1
 it appeared1 that ,christ was so far   
from  falling in with these notions1 and

 abusing the credulity of the people1   
that it was his main point1 to correct  
these prejudices1 to oppose  these      
superstitions2 and by these very means  
he fell into disgrace with  his         
countrymen1 and suffered as one who1 in 
their opinion1 destroyed  the ,law and  
the ,prophets4  ,with respect to        
temporal power1 so far was  he from     
aiming at it1 that he refused it when   
offered3 so far from  giving any hopes  
of it to his disciples1 that he invited 
men upon quite  different terms3 ,to    
take up the cross1 and follow him4 ,and 
it is  observable1 that1 after he had   
foretold his death and resurrection1 he 
continued to admonish his disciples of  
the evils they were to suffer2  to tell 
them1 that the world would hate them1   
and abuse them2 which  surely to common 
sense has no appearance that he was then
 contriving a  cheat1 or encouraging his
 disciples to execute it4     ,but as   
ill supported as this charge is1 there  
was no avoiding it2  it was necessity   

and not choice1 which drove the         
,gentleman to it3 for  since ,christ had
 foretold his resurrection1 if the whole
 was a cheat1  he certainly was         
conscious to it1 and consequently the   
plot was laid in  his own time4  ,and   
yet the supposing ,christ conscious to  
such a fraud  in these circumstance1 is 
contrary to all probability4  ,it is    
very  improbable1 that he1 or any man1  
should1 without any temptation1         
contrive a cheat to take place after his
 death4  ,and if this could be          
supposed1 it is highly improbable that  
he should give publick notice of  it1   
and thereby put all men on their guard2 
especially considering  there were only 
a few women1 and twelve men1 of low     
fortunes1 and mean  education1 to       
conduct the plot1 and the whole power of
 the ,jews and  ,romans to oppose it4   
,mr4 ,a4 seemed sensible of  these      
difficulties1 and therefore  would have 
varied the charge1 and have made ,christ
 an enthusiast1 and  his disciples only 

cheats4  ,this was not properly moved1  
and therefore  not debated2 for which   
reason ,i shall pass it over with this  
short  observation2  that enthusiasm is 
as contrary to the whole character and  
conduct of ,christ1 as even fraud is4   
,besides1 this imagination1 if  allowed1
 goes only to ,christ's own part2 and   
leaves the charge of  fraud1 in its full
 extent1 upon the management from the   
time of his  death2 and therefore is of 
no use1 unless the fraud afterwards be  
apparent4  ,for if there really was a   
resurrection1 it will sufficiently      
answer the charge of enthusiasm4     ,i 
pass on to the second period1 to        
consider what happened between  the     
death and resurrection of ,christ4  ,and
 here it agreed that ,christ  died1 and 
was buried4  ,so far then there was no  
fraud4     ,for the better understanding
 the charge here1 we must recollect a   
material circumstance reported by one of
 the evangelists2 which is  this3       
,after ,christ was buried1 the chief    

priests and ,pharisees came to  ,pilate1
 the ,roman governor1 and informed him1 
that this deceiver  7meaning ,jesus7 had
 in his lifetime foretold1 that he would
 rise again  after three days2 that they
 suspected his disciples would steal    
away  the body1 and pretend a           
resurrection2 and then the last error   
would be  worse than the first4 ,they   
therefore desire a guard to watch the   
sepulchre1 to prevent all fraud4  ,they 
had one granted2 accordingly  they      
placed a watch on the sepulchre1 and    
sealed up the stone at the  mouth of it4
     ,what the event of this case was1  
the same writer tells us4  ,the  guards 
saw the stone removed by angels1 and for
 fear they became as  dead men3  when   
they came to the city1 they reported to 
the chief  priests what had happened3 a 
council is called1 and a resolution     
taken  to bribe the soldiers to say1    
that the body was stolen while they were
  asleep2 and the council undertook to  
excuse the soldiers to ,pilate1 for     

their negligence in falling asleep when 
they were on duty4     ,thus the fact   
stands in the original record4  ,now1   
the council  for ,woolston  maintains1  
that the story reported by the soldiers1
 after  they had been bribed by the     
chief priests1 contains the true account
 of  this pretended resurrection4       
,the ,gentleman was sensible of a       
difficulty in his way1 to account  for  
the credit which the ,jews gave to the  
prediction of ,christ2 for if1  as he   
pretends1 they knew him to be an        
impostor1 what reason had they  to take 
any notion of his prediction8 ,and      
therefore1 that very caution  in this   
case betrayed their concern1 and shewed1
 that they were not  satisfied that his 
pretensions were groundless4  ,to       
obviate this1 he  says1 ,that they had  
discovered before1 one great cheat in   
the case of  ,lazarus1 and therefore    
were suspicious of another in this case4
  ,he was  answered1 ,that the discovery
 of a cheat in the case before          

mentioned1  ought rather to have set    
them at ease1 and made them quite secure
 as to  the event of the prediction4    
,in reply he says1 ,that the chief      
priests1  however satisfied of the cheat
 themselves1 had found that it prevailed
  among the people2 and1 to secure the  
people from being further imposed  on1  
they used the caution they did4         
,this is the substance of the argument  
on both sides4     ,i must observe to   
you1 that this reasoning from the case  
of  ,lazarus has no foundation in       
history4  ,there is no pretence for     
saying1  that the ,jews in this whole   
affair had any particular regard to the 
raising of ,lazarus4  ,and if they had  
any such just suspicion1 why was  it not
 mentioned at the trial of ,christ8     
,there was then an opportunity  of      
opening the whole fraud1 and undeceiving
 the people4  ,the ,jews had a  plain   
law for punishing a false prophet2 and  
what could be a stronger  conviction1   
than such a cheat made manifest8  ,why  

then was this  advantage lost8     ,the 
,gentleman builds this observation on   
these words1  ,so the  last error shall 
be worse than the first4  ,but is there 
here anything  said about ,lazarus8     
,no4  ,the words are a proverbial form  
of speech1  and probably were used      
without relation to any particular case4
  ,but if  a particular meaning must be 
assigned1 it is more probable1 that the 
words being used to ,pilate1 contained a
 reason applicable to him4  ,now1       
,pilate had been drawn in to consent to 
the crucifixion1 for fear the  ,jews    
should set up ,jesus to be their ,king  
in opposition to ,caesar2  therefore say
 the chief priests to him1 ,if once the 
people believe him  to be risen from the
 dead1 the last error will be worse than
 the first2  i4e4 they will be more     
inclined and encouraged to rebel against
 the  ,romans than ever4  ,this is a    
natural sense of the words1 as they are 
used to move the ,roman governor to     
allow them a guard4  ,whether ,lazarus  

were dead or alive2 whether ,christ came
 to destroy the ,law and the  ,prophets1
 or to establish or confirm them1 was of
 little moment to  ,pilate4  ,it is     
plain1 he was touched by none of these  
considerations2  and refused to be      
concerned in the affair of ,christ1 till
 he was  alarmed with the suggestions of
 danger to the ,roman state4  ,this was 
the first fear that moved him2 must not 
therefore the second now  suggested to  
him be of the same kind8     ,the next  
circumstance to be considered1 is that  
of the seal upon  the stone of the      
sepulchre4  ,the council for ,woolston  
supposes an  agreement between the ,jews
 and disciples about setting this seal4 
,but  for this agreement there is no    
evidence2 nay1 to suppose it1           
contradicts the whole series of the     
history1 as the ,gentleman on the  other
 side observed4  ,i will not enter into 
the particulars of this  debate2 for it 
is needless4  ,the plain natural account
 given of this  matter1 shuts out all   

other suppositions4  ,mr4 ,b4 observed  
to you1 that  the ,jews having a guard1 
set the seal to prevent any combination 
among  the guards to deceive them3      
which seems a plain and satisfactory    
account4  ,the council for ,w4 replies1 
,let the use of the seals be what  they 
will1 it is plain they were broken2 and 
if they were used as a  check upon the  
,roman soldiers1 then probably they     
consented to the  fraud3 and then it is 
easily understood how the body was      
removed4     ,i must observe to you     
here1 that this suspicion agrees neither
  with the account given by the         
evangelist1 nor with the story set about
  by the ,jews2 so that it is utterly   
unsupported by any evidence4     ,nor   
has it any probability in it4  ,for what
 could move ,pilate1  and the ,roman    
soldiers1 to propagate such a cheat8    
,he had crucified  ,christ1 for no other
 reason1 but for fear the people would  
revolt from  the ,romans2  perhaps too  
he consented to place a guard upon the  

sepulchre1 to put an end to the people's
 hope in ,jesus3 and is it  likely at   
last that he was consenting to a cheat1 
to make the people  believe him risen   
from the dead2 the thing1 of all others1
 which he was  obliged1 as his          
apprehensions were1 to prevent8     ,the
 next circumstance insisted on as a     
proof of the fraud1 is1  that ,jesus    
rose from the dead before the time he   
had appointed4  ,mr4 ,a4  supposes that 
the disciples hastened the plot1 for    
fear of falling in  with multitudes1 who
 waited only for the appointed time to  
be at the  sepulchre1 and to see with   
their own eyes4  ,he was answered1 ,that
 the  disciples were not1 could not be  
concerned1 or be present at moving the  
body2  that they were dispersed1 and lay
 concealed for fear of the  ,jews3 that 
hastening the plot1 was of no use2 for  
the resurrection  happened whilst the   
guards were at the sepulchre2 who were  
probably  enow to prevent violence2     
certainly enow to discover it1 if any   

were  used4     ,this difficulty then   
rests merely upon the reckoning of the  
time4  ,christ died on ,friday1 rose    
early on ,sunday4  ,the question is1    
,whether  this was rising the third day1
 according to the prediction8  ,i will  
refer the authorities made use of in    
this case to your memory1 and add  only 
one observation1 to shew that it was    
indeed the third day1  according as the 
people of the country reckoned4  ,when  
,christ talked  with the two disciples  
who knew him not1 they gave him an      
account of  his own crucifixion1 and    
their disappointment2 and tell him1     
,today is  the third day since these    
things were done ,luke#bd3ba4 ,now1 this
  conversation was on the very day of   
the resurrection4  ,and the  disciples  
thought of nothing less than answering  
an objection against  the resurrection1 
which as yet they did not believe4      
,they recount only  a matter of fact1   
and reckon the time according to the    
usage of their  country1 and call the   

day of the resurrection the third day   
from the  crucifixion2 which is a plain 
evidence1 in what manner the ,jews      
reckoned in this and like cases4     ,as
 the objections in this case are founded
 upon the story  reported by the ,jews1 
and the ,roman soldiers1 ,mr4 ,b4 in his
 answer1  endeavored to shew1 from some 
historical passages1 that the ,jews     
themselves did not believe the story4   
,his first argument was1 ,that the ,jews
 never questioned the  disciples for    
this cheat1 and the share they had in   
it1 when they had  them in their power4 
,and yet who sees not that it was very  
much in  their purpose so to do8  ,to   
this there is no reply4     ,the second 
argument was from the treatment ,st4    
,paul had from ,king  ,agrippa1 and his 
saying to ,st4 ,paul1 ,almost thou      
persuadest me to be a  ,christian3 ,a   
speech which he reckons could not be    
made by a prince1 to  one concerned in  
carrying out a known cheat4  ,to this   
the ,gentleman  replies1 ,that ,agrippa 

never did become a ,christian2 and that 
no great  stress is to be laid upon his 
compliance to his prisoner4  ,but       
allowing  that there was something of   
humanity and civility in the expression1
  yet such civility could hardly be paid
 to a known impostor4  ,there is a      
propriety even in civility4  ,a prince  
may be civil to a rebel2 but he  will   
hardly compliment him for his loyalty3  
he may be civil to a poor  sectary2 but 
if he knows him to be a cheat1 he will  
scarcely compliment  him with hopes that
 he will be of his party4     ,the third
 argument was from the advice given by  
,gamaliel to the  council of the ,jews1 
to let the apostles alone1 for fear they
  themselves should be found to fight   
against ,god3  ,a supposition which  the
 ,gentleman thinks absolutely           
inconsistent with his1 or the council's 
being persuaded1 that the apostles were 
guilty of any fraud in managing  the    
resurrection of ,christ4     ,the       
,gentleman replies1 ,that ,gamaliel's   

advice respected only the  numbers of   
people deceived2 and was a declaration  
of his opinion1 that  it was not prudent
 to come to extremities till the people 
were in a  better temper4  ,this        
deserves consideration4     ,first1 ,i  
observe1 that ,gamaliel's words are     
express1 ,lest ye be  found to fight    
against ,god2 which reason respects     
,god1 and not the  people4  ,and the    
suppostion is1 that the hand of ,god    
might possibly be  in this work3 ,a     
saying which could not have come from   
him1 or have been  received by the      
council1 if they had believed the       
resurrection to have  been a cheat4     
,secondly1 ,it is remarkable1 that the  
miracles wrought by the  apostles after 
the death of ,christ1 those especially  
which occasioned  the calling of this   
council1 had a much greater effect upon 
the ,jews1  than even the miracles of   
,christ himself4  ,they held out against
 all  the wonders of ,christ1 and were  
perpetually plotting his death1 not     

doubting but that would put an end to   
all their trouble3 but when1  after his 
death1 they saw the same powers continue
 with the apostles1  they saw no end of 
the affair1 but began to think in       
earnest there  might be more in it than 
they were willing to believe4  ,and1    
upon the  report made to them of the    
apostle's works1 they make serious      
reflexion1 and doubted whereunto this   
would grow4  ,and though in their  anger
 and vexation of heart they thought of  
desperate remedies1 and  were for       
killing the apostles also2 yet they     
hearkened willing to  ,gamaliel's       
advice2 which at another time might have
 been dangerous to  the adviser4  ,so   
that it appears from the history1 that  
the whole  council had the same doubt   
that ,gamaliel had1 that possibly the   
hand of  ,god might be in this thing4   
,and could the ,jews1 if they had       
manifestly  discovered the cheat of the 
resurrection a little time before1 have 
entertained such a suspicion8     ,the  

last period commences at the            
resurrection1 and takes in the  evidence
 upon which the credit of this fact     
stands4     ,the council for ,woolston1 
among other difficulties1 started one1  
which1 if well grounded1 excludes all   
evidence out of this case4  ,the        
resurrection being a thing out of the   
course of nature1 he thinks the         
testimony of nature1 held forth to us in
 her constant method of  working1 a     
stronger evidence against the           
possibility of a resurrection1  than any
 human evidence can be for the reality  
of one4     ,in answer to this1 it is   
said1 on the other side1     ,first1    
,that a resurrection is a thing to be   
judged of by mens  senses2 and this     
cannot be doubted4  ,we all know when a 
man is dead2  and should he come to life
 again1 we might judge whether he was   
alive  or no1 by the very same means by 
which we judge those about us to be     
living men4     ,secondly1 ,that the    
notion of a resurrection1 contradicts no

 one  principle of right reason1        
interferes with no law of nature3 and   
that  whoever admits that ,god gave man 
life at first1 cannot possibly doubt  of
 his power to restore it when lost4     
,thirdly1 ,that appealing to the settled
 course of nature1 is  referring the    
matter in dispute1 not to rules or      
maxims of reason and  true philosophy1  
but to the prejudices and mistakes of   
men2 which are  various and infinite1   
and differ sometimes according to the   
climate men  live in2 because men form a
 notion of nature from what they see3   
and  therefore in cold countries all men
 judge it to be according to the  course
 of nature for water to freeze2 in warm 
countries they judge it  to be          
unnatural4  ,consequently1 that it is   
not enough to prove anything  to be     
contrary to the laws of nature1 to say  
that it is usually1 or  constantly1 to  
our observation1 otherwise4  ,and       
therefore1 though men  in the ordinary  
course die1 and do not rise again1      

7which is certainly  a prejudice against
 the belief of a resurrection72 yet is  
it not an  argument against the         
possibility of a resurrection8          
,another objection was against the      
reality of the body of ,christ  after it
 came from the grave4  ,these objections
 are founded upon such  passages as     
report his appearing or disappearing to 
the eyes of his  disciples at pleasure2 
his coming in among them when the doors 
were  shut2 his forbidding some to touch
 him1 his inviting others to do it2  his
 having the very wounds whereof he died1
 fresh and open in his body1  and the   
like4 ,hence the council concluded1 that
 it was no real body1  which was        
sometimes visible1 sometimes invisible2 
sometimes capable of  being touched1    
sometimes incapable4     ,on the other  
side it was answered1 ,that many of     
these objections  are founded on a      
mistaken belief of the passages referred
 to2  particularly of the passage in    
which ,christ is thought to forbid ,mary

  ,magdalene to touch him2 of another1  
in which he calls to ,thomas to  examine
 his wounds2 and probably of a third1   
relating to ,christ's  conversation with
 his disciples on the road1 without     
being known by  them4     ,as to other  
passages which relate his appearing and 
disappearing1  and coming in when the   
doors were shut1 it is said1 that no    
conclusion  can be drawn from them      
against the reality of ,christ's body3  
that these  things might happen many    
ways1 and yet the body be real2 which is
 the  only point to which the present   
objection extends3  that there might be 
in this1 and probably was1 something    
miraculous2 but nothing more  wonderful 
than what happened on another occasion  
in his lifetime1 where  the ,gentleman  
who makes the objection allows him to   
have had a real  body4     ,i mention   
these things but briefly1 just to bring 
the course of  the argument to your     
remembrance4     ,the next objection is 
taken from hence1 ,that ,christ did not 

appear publickly to the people1 and     
particularly to the chief priests  and  
rulers of the ,jews4  ,it is said1 that 
his commission related to  them in an   
especial manner2 and that it appears    
strange1 that the main  proof of his    
mission1 the resurrection1 should not be
 laid before them2  but that witnesses  
should be picked and culled to see this 
mighty  wonder4  ,this is the force of  
the objection4     ,to which it is      
answered1 ,first1 ,that the particular  
commission to  the ,jews expired at the 
death of ,christ2 and therefore the     
,jews had1 on  this account1 no claim   
for any particular evidence4  ,and it is
  insisted1 that ,christ1 before his    
death1 declared1 the ,jews should not   
see him1 till they were better disposed 
to receive him4     ,secondly1 ,that as 
the whole world had a concern in the    
resurrection of ,christ1 it was         
necessary to prepare a proper evidence  
for the whole world2 which was not to be
 done by any particular  satisfaction   

given to the people of the ,jews1 or    
their rulers4     ,thirdly1 ,that as to 
the chosen witnesses1 it is a mistake to
  think that they were chosen as the    
only persons to see ,christ after the   
resurrection2 and that in truth many    
others did see him3 but that the        
witnesses were chosen as proper persons 
to bear testimony to all  people2 an    
office to which many others who did see 
,christ1 were not  particularly         
commissioned4 ,that making choice of    
proper and credible  witnesses1 was so  
far from being a ground of just         
suspicion1 that it is  in all cases the 
most proper way to exclude suspicion44  
,the next objection is pointed against  
the evidence of the angels1  and the    
women4  ,it is said1 ,that history      
reports1 that the women saw  young men  
at the sepulchre2 that they were        
advanced into angels1 merely  through   
the fear and superstition of the women3 
that1 at the best1 this  is but a story 
of an apparition2 a thing in times of   

ignorance much  talked of1 but in the   
days of knowledge never heard of4       
,in answer to this1 it is said1 ,that   
the angels are not properly  reckoned   
among the witnesses of the resurrection2
 they were not in the  number of the    
chosen witnesses1 or sent to bear       
testimony in the world3  that they were 
indeed ministers of ,god appointed to   
attend the  resurrection3 that ,god has 
such ministers1 cannot be reasonably    
doubted2 nor can it be objected1 that   
they were improperly employed1 or  below
 their dignity1 in attending on the     
resurrection of ,christ3 that  we       
believe them to be angels1 not on the   
report of the women1 but upon  the      
credit of the evangelist who affirms it3
 that what is said of  apparitions on   
this occasion1 may pass for wit and     
ridicule1 but yields  not reason or     
argument4     ,the objection to the     
women was1 ,i think1 only that they were
  women2 which was strengthened by      
calling them silly women4     ,it was   

answered1 ,that women have eyes and ears
 as well as men1  and can tell what they
 see and hear4  ,and it happened in this
 case1  that the women were so far from 
being credulous1 that they believed not 
the angels1 and hardly believed their   
own report4  ,however1 that the  women  
are none of the chosen witnesses2 and if
 they were1 the evidence  of the men    
cannot be set aside1 because women saw  
what they saw44     ,this is the        
substance of the objections and the     
answers4     ,the council for the       
apostles insisted further1 ,that they   
gave the  greatest assurance to the     
world that possibly could be given1 of  
their  sincere dealing1 by suffering all
 kinds of  hardship1 and at last death  
itself1 in confirmation of the truth of 
their evidence4     ,the council for    
,woolston1 in reply to this1 told you1  
,that all  religions1 whether true or   
false1 had had their martyrs2 that no   
opinion1 however absurd1 can be named1  
but some have been content to  die for  

it2 and then concluded1 that suffering  
is no evidence of the  truth of the     
opinions for which men suffer4     ,to  
clear this matter to you1 ,i must       
observe how this case stands4  ,you have
 heard often1 in the course of this     
argument1 that the apostles  were       
witnesses chosen to bear testimony to   
the resurrection2 and1 for  that        
reason1 had the fullest evidence        
themselves of the truth of it2  not     
merely by seeing ,christ once or twice  
after his death1 but by  frequent       
conversations with him for forty days   
together1 before his  ascension4  ,that 
this was their proper business1 appears 
plainly from  history2 where we find1   
that to ordain an apostle1 was the same 
thing  as ordaining one to be a witness 
of the resurrection4,acts #a3bb  ,if    
you look further1 to the preaching of   
the apostles1 you will find this  was   
the great article insisted on ,acts     
#b3bb1 #c3ae1 #d3aj1 #e3cj4 ,and  ,st4  
,paul knew the weight of this article1  

and the necessity of teaching  it1 when 
he said1 ,if ,christ be not risen1 our  
faith is vain4  ,you see1  then1 that   
the thing which the apostles testified1 
and the thing for  which they suffered1 
was the truth of the resurrection2 which
 is a mere  matter of fact4             
,consider now how the objection stands4 
,the council for ,woolston  tells you1  
that it is common for men to die for    
false opinions2 and he  tells you       
nothing but the truth4 ,but even in     
those cases their  suffering is an      
evidence of their sincerity2 and it     
would be very hard  to charge men who   
die for the doctrine they profess1 with 
insincerity  in the profession4         
,mistaken they may be2 but every        
mistaken man is not  a cheat4  ,now1 if 
you will allow the suffering of the     
apostles to prove  their sincerity1     
which you cannot well disallow2 and     
consider that they  died for the truth  
of a matter of  fact which they had seen
 themselves1  you will perceive how     

strong the evidence is in this case4    
,in  doctrines1 and matters of opinion1 
men mistake perpetually2 and it is  no  
reason for me to take up with another   
man's opinion1 because ,i am  persuaded 
he is sincere in it4 ,but when a man    
reports to me an uncommon  fact1 yet    
such an one as in its own nature is a   
plain object of sense2  if ,i believe   
him not1 it is not because ,i suspect   
his eyes1 or his  sense of feeling1 but 
merely because ,i suspect his sincerity3
 for if ,i  was to see the same thing   
myself1 ,i should believe myself2 and   
therefore my suspicion does not arise   
from the inability of human  senses to  
judge in the case1 but from a doubt of  
the sincerity of the  reporter4  ,in    
such cases1 therefore1  there wants     
nothing to be proved1  but only the     
sincerity of the reporter3 and since    
voluntary sufferings  for the truth1 is 
at least a proof of sincerity2 the      
sufferings of the  apostles for the     
truth of the resurrection1 is a full and

  unexceptionable proof4     ,the       
council for ,woolston was sensible of   
this difference2 and  therefore he      
added1 that there are many instances of 
men's suffering  and dying in an        
obstinate denial of the truth of facts  
plainly proved4  ,this observation is   
also true4  ,i remember a story of a man
 who endured  with great constancy all  
the tortures of the rack1 denying the   
fact  with which he was charged4  ,when 
he was asked afterwards1 how he could   
hold out against all the tortures8 ,he  
answered1 ,i had painted a gallows  upon
 the toe of my shoe1 and when the rack  
stretched me1 ,i looked on  the gallows1
 and bore the pain1 to save my life4    
,this man denied a  plain fact1 under   
great torture2 but you see a reason for 
it4  ,in other  cases1 when criminals   
persist in denying their crimes1 they   
often do  it1 and there is a reason to  
suspect they do it always1 in hopes of a
  pardon or reprieve4  ,but what are    
these instances to the present  purpose8

  ,all these men suffer against their   
will1 and for their  crimes2 and their  
obstinacy is built on the hope of       
escaping1 by moving  the compassion of  
the government4 ,can the ,gentleman give
 any instances  of persons who died     
willingly in attestation of a false     
fact8  ,we have  had in ,england some   
weak enough to die for the ,pope's      
supremacy2 but do  you think a man could
 be found to die in proof of the ,pope's
 being  actually on the throne of       
,england8     ,now1 the apostles died in
 asserting the truth of ,christ's       
resurrection4  ,it was always in their  
power to quit their evidence and  save  
their lives4  ,even their bitterest     
enemies1 the ,jews1 required no  more of
 them than to be silent4 ,acts #d3ag1   
#e3bh  ,others have denied  facts1 or   
asserted facts1 in hopes of saving their
 lives1 when they  were under sentence  
of death3 but these men attested a fact 
at the  expence of their lives1 which   
they might have saved by denying the    

truth4  ,so that between criminals      
dying1 and denying plain facts1 and  the
 apostles dying for their testimony1    
there is this material  difference3     
criminals deny the truth in hopes of    
saving their lives2  the apostles       
willingly parted with their lives1      
rather than deny the  truth4     ,we are
 come now to the last1 and indeed the   
most weighty  consideration4     ,the   
council for the apostles having in the  
course of the argument  allowed1 that   
more evidence is required to support the
 credit of the  resurrection1 it being a
 very extraordinary event1 than is      
necessary in  common cases1 in the      
latter part of his defence sets forth   
the  extraordinary evidence upon which  
this fact stands4  ,that is1 the        
evidence of the ,spirit1 the ,spirit of 
wisdom and power1 which was given  to   
the apostles1 to enable them to confirm 
their testimony by signs and  wonders1  
and mighty works4  ,this part of the    
argument was well argued  by the        

,gentleman1 and ,i need not repeat all  
he said4     ,the council for ,woolston1
 in his reply1 made two objections to   
this evidence4     ,the first was this3 
,that the resurrection having all along 
been  pleaded to be a matter of fact1   
and an object of sense1 to recur to     
miracles for the proof of it1 is to take
 it out of its proper evidence1  the    
evidence of sense2 and to rest it upon a
 proof which cannot be  applied to it3  
for seeing one miracle1 he says1 is no  
evidence that  another miracle was      
wrought before it2 as healing a sick    
man1 is no  evidence that a dead man was
 raised to life4     ,to clear this     
difficulty1 you must consider by what   
train of  reasoning miracles come to be 
proofs in any case4  ,a miracle of      
itself  proves nothing1 unless this     
only1 that there is a cause equal to the
  producing the effect we see4  ,suppose
 you should see a man raise one  from   
the dead1 and he should go away and say 
nothing to you1 you would  not find that

 any fact1 or any proposition1 was      
proved or disproved by  this miracle4   
,but should he declare to you1 in the   
name of him1 by  whose power the miracle
 was wrought1 that image-worship was    
unlawful1  you would then be possessed  
of a proof against image-worship4  ,but 
how8  ,not because the miracle proves   
anything as to the point itself1 but    
because the man's declaration is        
authorised by him who wrought the       
miracle in confirmation of his doctrine2
 and therefore miracles are  directly a 
proof of the authority of  persons1 and 
not of the truth of  things4     ,to    
apply this to the present case3  ,if the
 apostles had wrought  miracles1 and    
said nothing of the resurrection1 the   
miracles would have  proved nothing     
about the resurrection one way or       
another4  ,but when as  eye-witnesses   
they attested the truth of the          
resurrection1 and wrought  miracles to  
confirm their authority2 the miracles   
did not directly  prove the             

resurrection2 but they confirmed and    
established beyond all  suspicion the   
proper evidence1 the evidence of        
eye-witnesses4  ,so that  here is no    
change of the evidence from proper to   
improper2 the fact  still rests upon the
 evidence of sense1 confirmed and       
strengthened by  the authority of the   
,spirit4  ,if a witness calls in his    
neighbors to  attest his veracity1 they 
prove nothing as to the fact in         
question1 but  only confirm the evidence
 of the witness4  ,the case here is the 
same2  though between the authorities   
brought in confirmation of the evidence1
  there is no comparison4     ,the      
second objection was1 ,that this        
evidence1 however good it may  be in its
 kind1 is yet nothing to us4  ,it was   
well1 the ,gentleman says1  for those   
who had it2 but what is that to us1 who 
have it not8     ,to adjust this        
difficulty1 ,i must observe to you1 that
 the  evidence now under consideration1 
was not a private evidence of the       

,spirit1 or any inward light1 like to   
that which the ,quakers in our time     
pretend to2 but an evidence appearing in
 the manifest and visible works  of the 
,spirit3 and this evidence was capable  
of being transmitted1 and  actually has 
been transmitted to us upon             
unquestionable authority4  ,and  to     
allow the evidence to have been good in 
the first ages1 and not in  this1 seems 
to be to be a contradiction to the rules
 of reasoning3 for  if we see enough to 
judge that the first ages had reason to 
believe1 we  must needs see at the same 
time1 that it is reasonable for us also 
to  believe4  ,as the present question  
only relates to the nature of the       
evidence1 it was not necessary to       
produce from history the instances to   
shew in how plentiful a manner this     
evidence was granted to the church4     
,whoever wants this satisfaction1 may   
easily have it4     ,gentlemen of the   
jury1 ,i have laid before you the       
substance of  what has been said on both

 sides4  ,you are now to consider of it1
 and  to give your verdict4     ,the    
jury consulted together1 and the        
,foreman rose up4     ,foreman4 ,my     
,lord1 ,we are ready to give our        
verdict4     ,judge4 ,are you all       
agreed8     ,jury4 ,yes4     ,judge4    
,who shall speak for you8     ,jury4    
,our ,foreman4     ,judge4 ,what say    
you8  ,are the apostles guilty of giving
  false evidence in the case of the     
resurrection of ,jesus1 or not guilty8  
,foreman4 ,not guilty4     ,judge4      
,very well4 ,and now1 ,gentlemen1 ,i    
resign my commission  and am your humble
 servant4     ,the company rose up1 and 
were beginning to pay their compliments 
to the judge and the council2 but were  
interrupted by a ,gentleman1 who  went  
up to the judge1 and offered him a fee4 
,what's this8 ,says the  judge4  ,a fee1
 ,sir1 said the ,gentleman4  ,a fee to a
 judge is a bribe1  said the judge4     
,true1 ,sir1 said the ,gentleman2 but   
you have resigned  your commission1 and 

will not be the first judge who has come
 from the  bench without any diminution 
of honour4  ,now1 ,lazarus's case is to 
come  on next1 and this fee is to retain
 you on his side4  ,there followed a    
confused noise of all speaking together1
 to persuade the judge to take  the fee3
 but as the trial had lasted longer than
 ,i expected1 and ,i had  lapsed the    
time of an appointment for business1 ,i 
was forced to slip  away2 and whether   
the judge was prevailed on to undertake 
the cause of  ,lazarus1 or no1 ,i cannot
 say4    ,,finis