that God gave man life at first, cannot possibly doubt of his power to restore it when lost.

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

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

On the other side it was answered, that many of these objections are founded on a mistaken sense of the passages referred to; particularly of the passage in which Christ is thought to forbid

Mary Magdalene to touch him; of another, in which he calls to Thomas to examine his wounds; and probably of a third, relating to Christ's conversation with his disciples on the road without being known by them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In answer to this, it is said that the angels are not properly reckoned among the witnesses of the resurrection; they were not in the number of the chosen witnesses, or sent to bear testimony in the world; that they were indeed ministers of God appointed to attend the resurrection; that God has such ministers, cannot be reasonably doubted; nor can it be objected, that they were improperly employed, or below their dignity, in attending on the resurrection of Christ; that we believe them to be angels, not on the report of the women, but on 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 argu

ment.

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

The counsel 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," (Acts i. 22.) If you look further, to the preaching of the apostles, you will find this was the great article insisted on, (Acts ii. 22, &c.; iii. 15; iv. 10; v. 30.) And Saint Paul knew the weight of this article, and the necessity of teaching it, when he said, "If Christ be not risen, our faith is vain." You see, then, that the thing which the apostles testified, and the thing for which they suffered, was the truth of the resurrection, which is a mere matter of fact.

Consider now how the objection stands. The counsel 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