ble, sometimes invisible; sometimes capable of being touched, sometimes incapable.

1

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

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

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

The next objection is taken from hence, that Christ did not appear publicly to the people, and particularly to the chief priests and rulers of the Jews; it is said, that his commission related to them in an especial manner, and that it appears strange, that the main proof of his mission, the resurrection,

should not be laid before them, but that witnesses should be picked and culled to see this mighty wonder; this is the force of the objection.

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

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

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

and

The next objection is pointed against the evidence of the angels and the women. It is said, that history' reports, that the women saw young men at the sepulchre; that they were advanced into angels, merely

through the fear and superstition of the women; that, at the best, this is but a story of an apparition; a thing in times of ignorance much talked of, but, in the days of knowledge, never heard of.

In answer to this it is said, that the angels are not properly reckoned among the witnesses of the resurrection, they were not in the number of the chosen witnesses, or sent to bear testimony in the world; that they were indeed ministers of God, appointed to attend the resurrection; that God has such ministers cannot be reasonably doubted, nor can it be objected that they were improperly employed, or below their dignity in attending on the resurrection of Christ; that we believe them to be angels, not on the report of the women, but upon the credit of the evangelist who affirms it; that what is said of apparitions, on this occasion, may pass for wit and ridicule, but yields no reason or argument.

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

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

saw.

This is the substance of the objections and an

swers.

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

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

To clear this matter to you, I must observe how this case stands. You have heard often in the course of this argument, that the apostles were witnesses chosen to bear testimony to the resurrection, and for that reason had the fullest evidence themselves of the truth of it, not merely by seeing Christ once or twice after his death, but by frequent conversations with him for forty days together before his ascension; that this was their proper business appears plainly from history, where we find, that to ordain an apostle was the same thing as ordaining one to be a witness of the resurrection.* If you look further to the preaching of the apostles, you will find this was the great article insisted on.†

* Acts i. 22.

And St. Paul knew the

Acts ii. 22, &c. iii. 15. iv. 10. v. 30.

weight of this article, and the necessity of teaching it, when he said, If Christ be not risen, our faith is vain. You see then, that the thing which the apostles testified, and the thing for which they suffered, was the truth of the resurrection, which is a mere matter of fact.

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