Christ are guilty of giving false evidence, or no?

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

There are also three periods of time to be considered.

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

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

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

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

You were told, that the Jews were a very superstitious people, much addicted to prophecy; and particularly, that they had a strong expectation about the time that Christ appeared, to have a vic

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

But as ill supported as this charge is, there was no avoiding it; it was necessity, and not choice, which drove the gentleman. to it: for since Christ had foretold his resurrection, if the whole was a cheat, he certainly was conscious to it, and consequently the plot was laid in his own time. And yet the supposing Christ conscious to such a fraud in these circumstances, is contrary to all probability. It is very improbable, that he, or any man, should, without any temptation, contrive a cheat

to take place after his death. And if this could be supposed, it is highly improbable that he should give public notice of it, and thereby put all men on their guard; especially considering there were only a few women, and twelve men, of low fortunes, and mean education, to conduct the plot, and the whole power of the Jews and Romans to oppose it.

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

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

For the better understanding the charge here, we must recollect a material circumstance reported by one of the evangelists; which is this: after Christ was buried, the chief priests and pharisees came to Pilate, the Roman governor, and informed him, that this deceiver (meaning Jesus) had in his lifetime foretold, that he would rise again after three days; that they suspected his disciples would steal away the body, and pretend a resurrection; and then the last error would be worse than the

first." They therefore desire a guard to watch the sepulchre, to prevent all fraud. They had one granted; accordingly they placed a watch on the sepulchre, and sealed up the stone at the mouth

of it.

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

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

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

themselves, had found that it prevailed among the people; and, to secure the people from being further imposed on, they used the caution they did. This is the substance of the argument on both sides.

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

The gentleman builds this observation on these words, "So the last error shall be worse than the first.' But is there here any thing said about Lazarus? No. The words are a proverbial form of speech, and probably were used without relation to any particular case. But if a particular meaning must be assigned, it is more probable, that the words being used to Pilate, contained a reason applicable to him. Now, Pilate had been drawn in to consent to the crucifixion, for fear the Jews should set up Jesus to be their king in opposition to Cæsar; therefore say the chief priests to him, if once the people believe him to be risen from the dead, the last error will be worse than the first; that is, they will be more inclined and encouraged to rebel against the Romans than ever. This is a natural sense of the words, as they are used to move the Roman governor to allow them a guard. Whether Lazarus were dead or alive;