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. Confequently, that it is not enough to prove any thing to be contrary to the laws of nature, to say that it is ufually or conftantly to our obfervation otherwise. Andtherefore, though men in the ordinary course die, and do not rife again, (which is certainly a prejudice against the belief of a refurrection,) yet is it not an argument against the poffibility of a refurrec

tion.

Another objection was against the reality of the body of Chrift after it came from the grave. These objections are founded upon fuch paffages as report his appearing or difappearing to the eyes of his difciples at pleasure; his coming in among them when the doors were fhut; his forbidding fome to touch him, his inviting others to do it; his having the very wounds whereof he died fresh and open in his body, and the like. Hence the council concluded that it was no real body, which was fometimes vifible, fometimes invifible; fometimes capable of being touched, fometimes incapable.

On the other fide it was anfwered, that many of these objections are founded on a mistaken fense of the paffages referred to; particularly of the paffage in which Chrift 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 Chrift's converfation with his dif ciples on the road, without being known by them.

As to other paffages, which relate his appearing and disappearing, and coming in when the doors

were fhut, it is faid, that no conclufion can be drawn from them against the reality of Chrift'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, fomething miraculous; but nothing more wonderful than what happened on another occafion 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, juft 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 faid, that his commiffion related to them in an especial manner; and that it appears ftrange that the main proof of his miffion, the refurrection, should not be laid before them, but that witneffes fhould 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 commiffion to the Jews expired at the death of Chrift, and therefore the Jews had, on this account, no claim for any particular evidence. And it is infifted, that Chrift, before his death, declared the Jews should not see him till they were better difpofed to receive him.

Secondly, that as the whole world had a concern in the refurrection of Chrift, it was neceffary to prepare a proper evidence for the whole world; which

Ff

was not to be done by any particular fatisfaction given to the people of the Jews, or their rulers.

Thirdly, that as to the chofen witneffes, it is a mistake to think that they were chofen as the only perfons to fee Chrift after the refurrection; and that in truth many others did fee him: but that the witneffes were chosen as proper persons to bear teftimony to all people; an office to which many others who did fee Chrift were not particularly commiffioned. That making choice of proper and credible witneffes was so far from being a ground of just sufpicion, that it is in all cafes the most proper way to exclude fufpicion.

The next objection is pointed against the evidence of the angels and the women. It is said, that hiftory reports that the women faw young men at the sepulchre; that they were advanced into angels merely through the fear and fuperftition 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 faid, that the angels are not properly reckoned among the witneffes of the refurrection; they were not in the number of the chofen witnesses, or sent to bear teftimony in the world: that they were indeed minifters of God appointed to attend the refurrection. That God has fuch minifters cannot be reasonably doubted; nor can it be objected, that they were improperly employed, or below their dignity, in attending on the resurrection of Chrift: that we believe them to be angels, not on the report of the women, but upon the credit of the

Evangelift who affirms it. That what is faid of apparitions on this occafion may pass for wit and ridicule, but yields no reafon or argument.

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

It was answered, that women have eyes and ears, as well as men, and can tell what they fee and hear. And it happened in this cafe, that the women were fo 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 witneffes; and if they were, the evidence of the men cannot be fet afide, because women faw what they faw.

This is the fubftance of the objections and anfwers.

The counsel for the Apoftles infifted further, that they gave the greatest affurance to the world, that poffibly could be given, of their fincere dealing, by fuffering all kind of hardship, and at laft death itself, in confirmation of the truth of their evidence.

The counsel for Woolfton, in reply to this, told you, that all religions, whether true or falfe, have had their martyrs; that no opinion, however abfurd, can be named, but fome have been content to die for it; and then concluded, that fuffering is no evidence of the truth of the opinions for which men fuffer.

To clear this matter to you, I muft obferve how this cafe ftands. You have heard often, in the course of this argument, that the Apoftles were witneffes chofen to bear teftimony to the refurrection;

and, for that reafon, had the fulleft evidence themfelves of the truth of it; not merely by feeing Chrift once or twice after his death, but by frequent converfations with him, for forty days together, before his afcenfion. That this was their proper business, appears plainly from hiftory; where we find, that to ordain an Apostle was the fame thing as ordaining one to be a witness of the refurrection. If you look further, to the preaching of the Apostles, you will find this was the great article infifted on. And St. Paul knew the weight of this article, and the neceffity of teaching it, when he said, If Chrift be not rifen, our faith is vain. You fee then, that the thing which the Apostles teftified, and the thing for which they fuffered, was the truth of the refurrection which is a mere matter of fact.

Confider now how the objection ftands. The counfel for Woolfton tells you, that it is common for men to die for falfe opinions; and he tells you nothing but the truth. But even in those cases their fuffering is an evidence of their fincerity; and it would be very hard to charge men who die for the doctrine they profefs with infincerity in the profeffion. Miftaken they may be; but every mistaken man is not a cheat. Now if you will allow the fuffering of the Apostles to prove their fincerity, which you cannot well difallow; and confider that they died for the truth of a matter of fact which they had feen themselves, you will perceive how ftrong the evidence is in this cafe. In doctrines and matters of

Acts i. 22.

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