Mr. B. My Lord, I was unwilling to disturb the Gentleman by_Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus

Typescript converted to computer file by Lee Dunbar - July 2002

The TRIAL

of the

WITNESSES

of the

RESURRECTION

JESUS CHRIST

N.B. Not only Mr. Woolston's objections in his Sixth Discourse on our

Saviour's Miracles, but those also which he and others have published

in other Books, are here considered.

First Published about the Year 1729

THE

T R I A L

OF THE

WITNESSES

OF THE

Resurrection of Jesus

We were, not long since, some Gentlemen of the inns of court together,

each to other so well known, that no man's presence was a confinement

to any other, from speaking his mind on any subject that happened to

arise in conversation. The meeting was without design, and the

discourse, as in like cases, various. Among other things we fell upon

the subject of Woolston's trial and conviction, which had happened some

few days before. That led to a debate, How the law finds in such

cases? what punishment it inflicts? and, in general, whether the law

ought at all to interpose in controversies of this kind? We were not

agreed in these points. One, who maintained the favorable side to

Woolston, discovered a great liking and approbation of his discourses

against the miracles of Christ, and seemed to think his arguments

unanswerable. To which another replied, I wonder that one of your

abilities, and bred to the profession of the law, which teaches us to

consider the nature of evidence, and its proper weight, can be of that

opinion: I am sure you would be unwilling to determine a property of

five shillings upon such evidence, as you now think material enough to

overthrow the miracles of Christ.

It may easily be imagined, that this opened a door to much

dispute, and determined the conversation for the remainder of the

evening to this subject. The dispute ran thro' almost all the

particulars mentioned in Woolston's pieces; but the thread of it was

broken by several digressions, and the pursuit of things which were

brought accidentally into the discourse. At length one of the company

said pleasantly; Gentlemen, you don't argue like lawyers; if I were

judge in this cause, I would hold you better to the point. The company

took the hint, and cried, they should be glad to have the cause

reheard, and him to be the judge. The Gentlemen who had engaged with

mettle and spirit in a dispute which arose accidentally, seemed very

unwilling to be drawn into a formal controversy; and especially the

Gentleman who argued against Woolston, thought the matter grew too

serious for him, and excused himself from undertaking a controversy in

religion, of all others the most momentous. But he was told, that the

argument should be confined merely to the nature of the evidence; and

that might be considered, without entering into any such controversy as

he would avoid; and, to bring the matter within bounds, and under one

view, the evidence of Christ's resurrection, and the exceptions taken

to it, should be the only subject of the conference. With such

persuasion he suffered himself to be persuaded, and promised to give

the company, and their new-made judge, a meeting that day fortnight.

The judge and the rest of the company were for bringing on the cause a

week sooner; but the council for Woolston took the matter up, and said,

Consider, Sir, the Gentleman is not to argue out of Littleton,

Plowden, or Coke, authors to him well known; but he must have his

authorities from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and a fortnight is time

little enough of all conscience to gain a familiarity with a new

acquaintance: and, turning to the Gentleman, he said, I'll call upon

you before the fortnight is out, to see how reverend an appearance you

make behind Hammond on the New Testament, a concordance on one hand,

and a folio Bible with references on the other. You shall be welcome,

Sir, replied the Gentleman; and perhaps you may find some company more

to your own taste. He is but a poor council who studies on one side of

the question only; and therefore I will have your friend Woolston,

T____l, and C___s, to entertain you when you do me the favor of the

visit. Upon this we parted in good humour, and all pleased with the

appointment made, except the two Gentlemen who were to provide the

entertainment.

The Second Day

The company met at the time appointed: but as it happened in

this, as in like cases it often does, that some friends to some of the

company, who were not of the party the first day, had got notice of the

meeting; and the Gentlemen who were to debate the question, found they

had a more numerous audience than they expected or desired. He

especially who was to maintain the evidence for the resurrection, began

to excuse the necessity he was under of disappointing their

expectation, alledging that he was not prepared; and he had persisted

in excusing himself, but that the strangers who perceived what the case

was, offered to withdraw; which the Gentleman would by no means consent

to: they insisting to go, he said, he would much rather submit himself

to their candour, unprepared as he was, than be guilty of such

rudeness, as to force them to leave the company. Upon which one of the

company, smiling, said, It happens luckily that our number is

increased: when we were last together, we appointed a judge, but we

quite forgot a jury: and now, I think, we are good men and true,

sufficient to make one. This thought was pursued in several allusions

to legal proceedings; which created some mirth, and had this good

effect, that it dispersed the solemn air, which the mutual compliments

upon the difficulty before mentioned had introduced, and restored the

ease and good humour natural to the conversation of Gentlemen.

The judge perceiving the disposition of the company, thought it a

proper time to begin, and called out, Gentlemen of the jury, take your

places; and immediately seated himself at the upper end of the table.

The company sat round him, and the judge called upon the council for

Woolston to begin.

Mr. A. Council for Woolston, addressing himself to the judge,

said,

May it please your Lordship, I conceive the Gentleman on the

other side ought to begin, and lay his evidence, which he intends to

maintain, before the court; till that is done, it is to no purpose for

me to object. I amy perhaps object to something which he will not

admit to be any part of his evidence; and therefore I apprehend, the

evidence ought in the first place to be distinctly stated.

Judge. Mr. B What say you to that?

Mr. B. Council on the other side:

My Lord, If the evidence I am to maintain, were to suppose any

new claim; if I were to gain any thing which I am not already possessed

of, the Gentleman would be in the right: but the evidence is old, and

is matter of record; and I have been long in possession of all that I

claim under it. If the Gentleman has anything to say to dispossess me,

let him produce it; otherwise I have no reason to bring my own title

into question. And this I take to be the known method of proceeding

in such cases: no man is obliged to produce his title to his

possession; it is sufficient if he maintain it when it is called in

question.

Mr A. Surely, my Lord, the Gentleman mistakes the case. I can

never admit myself to be out of possession of my understanding and

reason; and since he would put me out of this possession, and compel me

to admit things incredible, in virtue of the evidence he maintains, he

ought to set forth his claim, or leave the world to be directed by

common sense.

Judge. Sir, you say right, upon supposition that the truth of

the Christian religion were the point in question. In that case it

would be necessary to produce the evidence for the Christian religion.

But the matter now before the court is, Whether the objections produced

by Mr. Woolston, are of weight to overthrow the evidence of Christ's

resurrection? You see then the evidence of the resurrection is supposed

to be what it is on both sides; and the thing immediately in judgement

is, the value of the objections; and therefore they must be set forth.

The court will be bound to take notice of the evidence, which is

admitted as a fact on both parts. Go on, Mr. A.

Mr. A. My Lord, I submit to the direction of the court, I cannot

but observe, that the Gentleman on the other side, unwilling as he

seems to be to state his evidence, did not forget to lay in his claim

to prescription; which is perhaps, in truth, tho' he has too much skill

to own it, the very strength of his cause. I do allow, that the

Gentleman maintains nothing, but what his father and grandfather, and

his ancestors, beyond time of man's memory, maintained before him: I

allow too, that prescription in many cases makes a good title; but it

must always be with this condition, that the thing is capable of being

prescribed for: and I insist, that prescription cannot run against

reason and common sense. Customs may be pleaded by prescription; but

if, upon showing the custom, anything unreasonable appears in it, the

prescription fails; for length of time works nothing towards the

establishing anything that could never have a legal commencement. And

if this objection will overthrow all prescriptions for customs; the

mischief of which extends perhaps to one poor village only, and affects

them in no greater a concern, than their right of common upon a ragged

mountain: shall it not much more prevail, when the interest of mankind

is concerned, and in no less a point than his happiness in this life,

and all his hopes for futurity? Besides, if prescription must be

allowed in this case, how will you deal with it in others? What will

you say to the ancient Persians, and their fire-altars? nay, what to

the Turks, who have been long enough in possession of their faith to

plead -----

Mr. B. I beg pardon for interrupting the Gentleman, but it is

to save him trouble. He is going into his favorite common-place, and

has brought us from Persia to Turkey already; and if he goes on, I know

we must follow him around the globe. To save us from this long journey,

I'll waive all advantage from the antiquity of the resurrection, and

the general reception the belief of it has found in the world; and am

content to consider it as a fact which happened but last year, and was

never heard of either by the Gentleman's grandfather, or by mine.

Mr. A. I should not have taken quite so long a journey as the

Gentleman imagines; nor, indeed, need any man go far from home to find

instances to the purpose I was upon. But, since this advantage is

quitted, I am as willing to spare my pains, as the Gentleman is

desirous that I should. And yet I suspect some art even in this

concession, fair and candid as it seems to be. For I am persuaded,

that one reason, perhaps the main reason, why men believe this history

of Jesus, is, that they cannot conceive, that any one should attempt,

much less succeed in such an attempt as this, upon the foundation of

mere human cunning and policy; and 'tis worth to go round the globe, as

the Gentleman expressed himself, so see various instances of the like

kind, in order to remove this prejudice. But I stand corrected, and

will go directly to the point now in judgement.

Mr. B. My Lord, the Gentleman, in justification of his first

argument, has entered upon another of a very different kind. I think

he is sensible of it, and seeming to yield up one of his popular

topicks, is indeed artfully getting rid of another; which has made a

very good figure in many late writings, but will not bear in any place

where he who maintains it may be asked questions. The mere antiquity

of the resurrection I gave up; for, if the evidence was not good at

first, it can't be good now. The Gentleman is willing, he says, to

spare us his history of ancient errors; and intimates, that upon this

account he passes over many instances of fraud, that were in like

circumstances to the case before us. I would not have the main

strength of his case betrayed in complaisance to me. Nothing can be

more material than to show a fraud of this kind, that prevailed

universally in the world. Christ Jesus declared himself a Prophet, and

put the proof of his mission on this, that he should die openly and

publickly, and rise again the third day. This surely was the hardest

plot in the world to be managed; and if there be one instance of this

kind, or in any degree like it, by all means let it be produced.

Mr. A. My Lord, There has hardly been an instance of a false

religion in the world, but it has also afforded a like instance to this

before us. Have they not all pretended to inspiration? Upon what foot

did Pythagoras, Numa, and others set up? Did they not all converse

with the gods, and pretend to deliver oracles?

Mr. B. This only shews, that revelation is by the common consent

of mankind the very best foundation of religion; and therefore every

imposter pretends to it. But is a man's hiding himself in a cave for

some years, and then coming out into the world, to be compared to a

man's dying, and rising to life again? So far from it, that you and I

and every man may do the one, but no man can do the other.

Mr. A. Sir, I suppose it will be allowed to be as great a thing

to go to heaven, and converse with angels, and with God, and to come

down to earth again, as it is to die, and rise again? Now, this very

thing Mahomet pretended to do; and all his disciples believe it. Can

you deny this fact?

Mr. B. Deny it, Sir? No. But tell us who went with Mahomet? Who

were his witnesses? I expect, before we are done, to hear of the

guards set over the sepulchre of Christ, and the seal of the stone.

What guard watched Mahomet in his going or returning? What seals and

credentials had he? He himself pretends to none. His followers

pretend to nothing but his own word. We are now to consider the

evidence for Christ's resurrection, and you think to parallel it, by

producing a case for which no one ever pretended there was any

evidence. You have Mahomet's word; and no man ever told a lie, but you

had his word for the truth of what he said: and therefore you need not

go round the globe to find such instances as these. But this story, it

is said, has gained great credit, and is received by many nations.

Very well. And how was it received? Was not every man converted to

this faith with the sword at his throat? In our case, every witness to

the resurrection, and every believer of it, was hourly exposed to

death. In the other case, whoever refused to believe, died; or, what

was as bad, lived a wretched conquered slave. And will you pretend

these cases to be alike? One case indeed there was, within our own

memory, which, in some circumstances, came near to the case now before

us. The French prophets put the credit of their mission upon the

resurrection of Dr. Emmes, and gave publick notice of it. If the

Gentleman pleases to make use of this instance, it is at his service.

Mr. A. The instance of Dr. Emmes is so far to the purpose, that

it shews to what lengths enthusiasm will carry men. And why might not

the same thing happen at Jerusalem, which happened but a few years ago

in our own country? Matthew and John, and the rest of them, managed

that affair with more dexterity than the French prophets; so that the

resurrection of Jesus gained credit in the world, and the French

prophets sunk under their ridiculous pretensions. That is all the

difference.

Mr. B. Is it so? And a very wide difference, I promise you. In

one case everything happened that was proper to convince the world of

the resurrection; in the other, the event manifested the cheat: and

upon the view of these circumstances, you think it is sufficient to

say, with great coolness, That is all the difference. Why, what

difference do you expect between truth and falsehood? What

distinction _____

Judge. Gentlemen, you forget you are in a court, and are falling

into dialogue. Courts don't allow of chit-chat. Look ye, the evidence

of the resurrection of Jesus is before the court, recorded by Matthew,

Mark, and others. You must take it as it is; you can neither make it

better, or worse. These witnesses are accused of giving false

evidence. Come to the point; and let us hear what you have to offer to

prove the accusation.

Mr. B. Is it your meaning, Sir, that the objections should be

stated and argued all together, and that the answer should be to the

whole at once? or would you have the objections argued singly, and

answered separately by themselves?

Judge. I think this court may dispense with the strict forms of

legal proceeding; and therefore I leave this to the choice of the jury.

After the jury had consulted together, the foreman rose up,

The Foreman of the Jury. We desire to hear the objections argued

and answered separately. We shall be better able to form a judgement,

by hearing the answer while the objection is fresh in our minds.

Judge. Gentlemen, you hear the opinion of the jury. Go on.

Mr. A I am now to disclose to you a scene, of all others the most

surprising. "The resurrection has been long talked of, and, to the

amazement of everyone who can think freely, has been believed through

all ages of the church." This general and constant belief creates in

most minds a presumption that it was founded on good evidence. In

other cases the evidence supports the credit of the history; but here

the evidence itself is presumed only upon the credit which the story

has gained. I wish the books dispersed against Jesus by the ancient

Jews had not been lost; for they would have given us a clear insight

into this contrivance: but it is happy for us, that the very account

given by the pretended witnesses of this fact, is sufficient to destroy

the credit of it.

The resurrection was not a thing contrived for its own sake. No!

it was undertaken to support great views, and for the sake of great

consequences that were to attend it. It will be necessary therefore to

lay before you those views, that you may be the better judge of this

part of the contrivance, when you have the whole scene before you.

The Jews were a weak superstitious people, and, as is common

among such people, gave great credit to some traditionary prophecies

about their own country. They had, besides, some old books among them,

which they esteemed to be writings of certain Prophets, who had

formerly lived among them, and whose memory they had in great

veneration. From such old books and traditions they formed many

extravagant expectations; and among the rest one was, that some time or

other a great victorious prince would rise among them, and subdue all

their enemies, and make them lords of the world. In Augustus's time

they were in a low state, reduced under the Roman yoke; and as they

never wanted a deliverer more, so the eagerness of this hope, as it

happens to weak minds, turned into a firm expectation that he would

soon come. This proved a temptation to some bold, and to some cunning

men, to personate the prince so much expected. And "nothing is more

natural and common to promote rebellions, than to ground them on new

prophecies, or new interpretations of old ones; prophecies being suited

to the vulgar superstition, and operating with the force of religion."

Accordingly, many such imposters rose, pretending to be the victorious

prince expected; and they, and the people who followed them, perished

in the folly of their attempt.

But Jesus, knowing that victories and triumphs are not things to

be counterfeited; that the people were not to be delivered from the

Roman yoke by sleight of hand; and having no hope of being able to cope

with the Emperor of Rome in good earnest, took another and more

successful method to carry on his design. He took upon him to be the

prince foretold in the ancient Prophets; but then he insisted that the

true sense of the prophecies had been mistaken; that they related not

to the kingdoms of this world, but to the kingdom of heaven; that the

Messias was not to be a conquering prince, but a suffering one; that

he was not to come with horses of war, and chariots of war, but was to

be meek and lowly, riding on an ass. By this means, he got the common

and necessary foundation for a new revelation, which is to be built and

founded on a precedent revelation.

To carry on this design, he made choice of twelve men of no

fortunes or education, and of such understandings, as gave no jealousy

that they would discover the plot. And, what is most wonderful, and

shews their ability, while the master was preaching the kingdom of

heaven, these poor men, not weaned from the prejudices of their

country, expected every day that he would declare himself a king, and

were quarreling who should be his first minister. This expectation had

a good effect on the service; for it kept them constant to their

master.

I must observe further, that the Jews were under strange

apprehensions of supernatural powers: and as their own religion was

founded on the belief of certain miracles said to be wrought by their

lawgiver Moses; so were they ever running after wonders and miracles,

and ready to take up with any stories of this kind. Now, as something

extraordinary was necessary to support the pretensions of Jesus, he

dextrously laid hold of this weakness of the people, and set up to be a

wonder-worker. His disciples were well qualified to receive this

impression: they saw, or thought they saw many strange things, and

were able to spread the fame and report of them abroad.

This conduct had the desired success. The whole country was

alarmed, and full of the news of a great Prophet's being come among

them. They were too full of their own imagination, to attend to the

notion of a kingdom of heaven. Here was one mighty in deed and in

word; and they concluded that he was the very prince their nation

expected. Accordingly they once attempted to set him up for a King;

and at another time attended him in triumph to Jerusalem. This natural

consequence opens the natural design of the attempt. If things had

gone on successfully to the end, it is probable that the kingdom of

heaven would have been changed into a kingdom of this world. The

design indeed failed, by the impatience and over-hastiness of the

multitude; which alarmed not only the chief of the Jews, but the Roman

governor also.

The case being come to this point, and Jesus seeing that he could

not escape being put to death, he declared, that the ancient Prophets

had foretold, that the Messias should die upon a cross, and that he

should rise again on the third day. Here was the foundation for the

continuing this plot, which otherwise had died with its author. This

was his legacy to his followers; which, having been well managed by

them and their successors, has at last produced a kingdom indeed; a

kingdom of priests, who have governed the world for many ages, and have

been strong enough to set Kings and Emperors at defiance. But so it

happens, the ancient Prophets appealed to are still extant; and there

being no such prophecies of the death and resurrection of the Messias,

they are a standing evidence against this story. As he expected, so it

happened, that he died on a cross; and the prosecuting of this

contrivance was left to the management of his disciples and followers.

Their part is next to be considered-----.

Mr. B. My Lord, Since it is your opinion that the objections

should be considered singly, and the Gentleman has carried his scheme

down to the death of Christ, I think he is come to a proper rest; and

that it is agreeable to your intention that I should be admitted to

answer.

Judge. You say right, Sir. Let us hear what you answer to

this charge.

Mr. B. My Lord, I was unwilling to disturb the Gentleman by

breaking in upon his scheme; otherwise I would have reminded him that

this court sits to examine evidence, and not to be entertained with

fine imaginations. You have had a scheme laid before you, but not one

bit of evidence to support any part of it; no, not so much as a

pretence to any evidence. The Gentleman was, I remember, very sorry

that the old books of the Jews were lost, which would, as he supposes,

have set forth all this matter; and I agree with him, that he has much

reason to be sorry, considering his great scarcity of proof. And since

I have mentioned this, that I may not be to return to it again, I would

ask the Gentleman now, how he knows there ever were such books? And

since, if ever there were any, they are lost, how he knows what they

contained? I doubt I shall have frequent occasion to ask such

questions. It would indeed be a sufficient answer to the whole, to

repeat the several suppositions that have been made, and to call for

the evidence upon which they stand. This would plainly discover every

part of the story to be mere fiction. 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 hands, and to work the

whole into a consistent scheme; I will, if your patience shall permit,

examine this plot, and see to whom the honour of the contrivance

belongs.

The Gentleman begins with expressing his "amazement, that the

resurrection has been believed in all ages of the church." If you ask

him, Why? he must answer , Because the account of it is a forgery; for

it is no amazement to him, surely, that a true account should be

generally well received. So that this remark proceeds indeed from

confidence rather than amazement; and comes only to this, that he is

sure that there was no resurrection. And I am sure that this is no

evidence that there was none. Whether he is mistaken in his

confidence, or I in mine, the court must judge.

The Gentleman's observation, That the general belief of the

resurrection creates a presumption that it stands upon good evidence,

and therefore people look no farther, but follow their fathers, as

their fathers did their grandfathers before them, is in great measure

true; but it is a truth nothing to his purpose. He allows, that the

resurrection has been believed in all ages of the church; that is, from

the very time of the resurrection: what then prevailed with those who

first received it? They certainly did not follow the example of their

fathers. Here then is the point, How did this fact gain credit in the

world at first? Credit it has gained without doubt. If the multitude

at present go into this belief through prejudice, example, and for

company sake, they do in this case no more, nor otherwise, than they do

in all cases. And it cannot be denied, but that truth may be received

through prejudice, (as it is called), i.e. without examining the proof,

or merits of the cause, as well as falsehood. What general truth is

there, the merits of which all the world, or the one hundredth part has

examined? It is smartly said somewhere, That the priest only continues

what the nurse began. But the life of the remark consists in the

quaintness of the antithesis between the nurse and the priest; and owes

its support much more to sound than to sense. For is it possible that

children should not hear something of the common and popular opinions

of their country, whether these opinions be true or false? Do they not

learn the common maxims of reason this way? Perhaps every man first

learned from his nurse that two and two make four; and whenever she

divides an apple among her children, she instills into them this

prejudice, That the whole is equal to its parts, and all the parts

equal to the whole: and yet Sir Isaac Newton, (shame on him!) what work

has he made, what a building he has erected upon the foundation of this

nursery-learning? As to religion, there never was a religion, there

never will be one, whether true or false, publickly owned in any

country, but children have heard, and ever will hear, more or less of

it from those who are placed about them. And if this is, and ever must

be the case, whether the religion be true or false; 'tis highly absurd

to lay stress on this observation, when the question is about the truth

of any religion; for the observation is indifferent to both sides of

the question.

We are now, I think, got through the common-place learning, which

must forever, it seems, attend upon questions of this nature; and are

coming to the very merits of the cause.

And here the Gentleman on the other side thought proper to begin

with an account of the people of the Jews, the people in whose country

the fact is laid, and who were originally, and in some respects

principally concerned in its consequences.

They were, he says, a weak superstitious people, and lived under

certain pretended prophecies and predictions; that upon this ground

they had, some time before the appearance of Christ Jesus, conceived

great expectation of the coming of a victorious prince, who should

deliver them from the Roman yoke, and make them all kings and princes.

He goes on then to observe, how liable the people were, in this state

of things, to be imposed on, and led into rebellion, by any one who

was bold enough to take upon him to personate the prince expected. He

observes further, that in fact many such imposters did arise, and

deceived multitudes to their ruin and destruction.

I have laid these things together, because I do not intend to

dispute these matters with the Gentleman. Whether the Jews were a weak

and superstitious people, and influenced by false prophecies, or

whether they had true prophecies among them, is not material to the

present question: it is enough for the Gentleman's argument if I allow

the fact to be as he has stated it, that they did expect a victorious

prince; that they were upon this account exposed to be practised on by

pretenders; and in fact were often so deluded.

This foundation being laid, it was natural to expect, and I

believe your Lordship and every one present did expect, that the

Gentleman would go on to shew, that Jesus laid hold of this

opportunity, struck in with the opinion of the people, and professed

himself to be the prince who was to work their deliverance. But so

far, it seems, is this from being the case, that the charge upon Jesus

is, that he took the contrary part, and set up in opposition to all the

popular notions and prejudices of his country; that he interpreted the

prophecies to another sense and meaning than his countrymen did; and by

his expositions took away all hopes of their ever seeing the victorious

deliverer so much wanted and expected.

I know not how to bring the Gentleman's premisses and his

conclusion to any agreement; they seem to be at a great variance at

present. If it be the likeliest method for an imposter to succeed, to

build on the popular opinions, prejudices and prophecies of the people;

then surely an imposter cannot possibly take a worse method, than to

set up in opposition to all the prejudices and prophecies of the

country. Where was the art and cunning then of taking this method?

Could anything be expected from it but hatred, contempt, and

persecution? And did Christ in fact meet with any other treatment from

the Jews? And yet when he found, as the Gentleman allows he did, that

he must perish in this attempt, did he change his note? did he come

about, and drop any intimations agreeable to the notions of the people?

It is not pretended. This, which, in any other case which ever

happened, would be taken to be a plain mark of great honesty, or great

stupidity, or of both, is in the present case art, policy, and

contrivance.

But, it seems, Jesus dared not set up to be the victorious prince

expected, for victories are not to be counterfeited. I hope it was no

crime in him that he did not assume this false character, and try to

abuse the credibility of the people; if he had done so, it certainly

would have been a crime; and therefore in this point at least he is

innocent. I do not suppose the Gentleman imagines the Jews were well

founded in their expectation of a temporal prince: and therefore when

Christ opposed this conceit at the manifest hazard of his life, as he

certainly had truth on his side, so the presumption is, that it was for

the sake of truth that he exposed himself.

No. He wanted, we are told, the common and necessary foundation

for a new revelation, the authority of an old one to build on. Very

well. I will not inquire how common, or how necessary this foundation

is to a new revelation; for, be that case as it will, it is evident,

that in the method Christ took, he had not, nor could have the supposed

advantage of such foundation. For why is this foundation necessary? A

friend of the Gentleman's shall tell you "Because it must be difficult,

if not impossible, to introduce among men (who in all civilized

countries are bred up in the belief of some revealed religion) a

revealed religion wholly new, or such as has no reference to a

preceding one; for that would be to combat all men on too many

respects, 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 made." You see now the reason of the

necessity of this foundation: it is, that the new teacher may have the

advantage of old popular opinions, and fix himself upon the prejudices

of the people. Had Christ any such advantages? or did he seek any

such? The people expected a victorious prince; he told them they were

mistaken: they held as sacred the traditions of the elders; he told

them those traditions made the law of God of none effect: they valued

themselves for being the peculiar people of God; he told them, that

people from all quarters of the world should be the people of God, and

sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom: they thought

God could be worshipped only at Jerusalem; he told them God might and

should be worshipped everywhere: they were superstitious in the

observance of the sabbath; he, according to their reckoning, broke it

frequently: in a word, their washings of hands and pots, their

superstitious distinctions of meats, their prayers in publick, their

villanies in secret, were all reproved, exposed, and condemned by him;

and the cry ran strongly against him, that he came to destroy the Law

and the Prophets. And now, Sir, what advantage did Christ have of your

common and necessary foundation? What sufficient number of principles

owned by the people did he build on? If he adhered to the old

revelation in the true sense, or (which is sufficient to the present

argument) in a sense not received by the people, it was in truth the

greatest difficulty he had to struggle with: and therefore what could

tempt him, but purely a regard for truth, to take upon himself so many

difficulties, which might have been avoided, could he have been but

silent as to the old revelation, and left the people to their

imaginations?

To carry on this plot, we are told, that the next thing which

Jesus did, was, to make choice of proper persons to be his disciples.

The Gentleman has given us their character; but, as I suppose he has

more employment for them before he has done, I desire to defer the

consideration of their abilities and conduct till I hear what work he

has for them to do. I would only observe, that thus far this plot

differs from all that ever I heard of. Imposters generally take

advantage of the prejudices of the people, generally too they make

choice of cunning dextrous fellows to manage under them; but in this

case Jesus opposed all the notions of the people, and made choice of

simpletons, it seems, to conduct his contrivances.

But what design, what real end was carrying on all this while?

Why, the Gentleman tells us, that the very thing disclaimed, the

temporal kingdom, was the real thing aimed at under this disguise. He

told the people there was no foundation to expect a temporal deliverer,

warned them against all who would set up those pretensions; he

declared there was no ground from the ancient prophecies to expect such

a prince: and yet by these very means he was working his way to an

opportunity of declaring himself to be the very prince the people

wanted. We are still upon the marvelous; every step opens new wonders.

I blame not the Gentleman; for what but this can be imagined to give

any account of these measures imputed to Christ? Be this never so

unlikely, yet this is the only thing that can be said. Had Christ been

charged with enthusiasm, it would not have been necessary to assign a

reason for his conduct: madness is unaccountable: Ratione modoque

tractari non vult. But when design, cunning, and fraud are made the

charge, and carried to such an height, as to suppose him to be a party

to the contrivance of a sham resurrection for himself, it is necessary

to say to what end this cunning tended. It was, we are told, to a

kingdom: and indeed the temptation was little enough, considering that

the chief conductor of the plot was crucified for his pains. But were

the means made use of at all probable to achieve the end? Yes, says

the Gentleman, that can't be disputed; for they had really this effect,

the people would have made him King. Very well: Why was he not King

then? Why, it happened unluckily that he would not accept the offer,

but withdrew himself from the multitude, and lay concealed until they

were dispersed. It will be said, perhaps, that Jesus was a better

judge of affairs than the people, and saw that it was not yet time to

accept the offer. Be it so; let us see then what follows.

The government was alarmed, and Jesus was looked on as a person

dangerous to the state; and he had discernment enough to see that his

death was determined and inevitable. What does he do then? Why, to

make the best of a bad case, and to save the benefit of his undertaking

to those who were to succeed him, he pretends to prophecy of his death,

which he knew could not be avoided: Men do not use to play tricks in

articulo mortis; but this plot had nothing common, nothing in the

ordinary way. But what if it should appear, that after the foretelling

of his death (through despair of his fortunes it is said) he had it in

his power to set up for King once more, and once more refused the

opportunity? Men in despair lay hold on the least help, and never

refuse the greatest. Now, the case was really so. After he had

foretold his crucifixion, he came to Jerusalem in the triumphant manner

the Gentleman mentioned; the people strewed his way with boughs and

flowers, and were all at his devotion; the Jewish governors lay still

for fear of the people. Why was not this opportunity laid hold on to

seize the kingdom, or at least to secure himself from the ignominious

death he expected? For whose sake was he contented to die? for whose

sake did he contrive this plot of his resurrection? Wife and children

he had none; his nearest relations gave little credit to him; his

disciples were not fit even to be trusted with the secret, nor capable

to manage any advantage that could arise from it. However, the

Gentleman tells us, a kingdom has arisen out of this plot, a kingdom of

priests. But when did it arise? Some hundred years after the death of

Christ, in opposition to his will, and almost to the subversion of his

religion. And yet we are told this kingdom was the thing he had in

view. I am apt to think the Gentleman is persuaded, that the dominion

he complains of is contrary to the spirit of the gospel; I am sure some

of his friends have taken great pains to prove it is so. How then can

it be charged as the intention of the gospel to introduce it? Whatever

the case was, it cannot surely be suspected that Christ died to make

Popes and Cardinals. The alterations which have happened in the

doctrines and practices of churches, since the Christian religion was

settled by those who had an authentick commission to settle it, are

quite out of the question, when the inquiry is about the truth of the

Christian religion. Christ and his Apostles did not vouch for the

truth of all that should be taught in the church in future times; nay,

they foretold and fore warned the world against such corrupt teachers.

It is therefore absurd to challenge the religion of Christ, because of

the corruptions which have spread among Christians. The gospel has no

more concern with them, and ought no more to be charged with them, than

with the doctrines of the Alcoran.

There is but one observation more, I think, which the Gentleman

made under this head. Jesus, he says, referred to the authority of

ancient prophecies to prove that the Messias was to die and rise

again; the ancient books referred to are extant, and no such

prophecies, he says, are to be found. Now, whether the Gentleman can

find these prophecies or no, is not material to the present question.

It is allowed that Christ foretold his own death and resurrection; if

the resurrection was managed by fraud, Christ was certainly in the

fraud himself, by foretelling the fraud which was to happen: disprove

therefore the resurrection, and we shall have no further occasion for

prophecy. On the other side, by foretelling the resurrection, he

certainly put the proof of his mission on the truth of the event.

Whether it be the character of the Messias, in the ancient Prophets, or

no, that he should die, and rise again; without doubt Jesus is not the

Messias, if he did not rise again: for, by his own prophecy, he made

it part of the character of the Messias. If the event justified the

prediction, it is such an evidence as no man of sense and reason can

reject. One would naturally think, that the foretelling his

resurrection, and giving such publick notice to expect it, that his

keenest enemies were fully apprised of it, carried with it the greatest

mark of sincere dealing. It stands thus far clear of the suspicion of

fraud. And had it proceeded from enthusiasm, and an heated

imagination, the dead body at least would have rested in the grave, and

without further evidence have confuted such pretensions: and since the

dead body was not only carried openly to the grave, but there watched

and guarded, and yet could never afterwards be found, never heard of

more as a dead body, there must of necessity have been either a real

miracle, or a great fraud in this case. Enthusiasm dies with the man,

and has no operation on his dead body. There is therefore here no

medium: you must either admit the miracle, or prove the fraud.

Judge. Mr. A. You are at liberty either to reply to what

has been said under this head, or to go on with your cause

Mr. A. My Lord, the observations I laid before you, were but

introductory to the main evidences on which the merits of the cause

must rest. The Gentleman concluded, that here must be a real miracle

or a great fraud; a fraud, he means, to which Jesus in his lifetime was

a party. There is, he says, no medium. I beg his pardon. Why might

it not be an enthusiasm in the master which occasioned the prediction,

and fraud in the servants who put it in execution?

Mr. B. My Lord, This is new matter, and not a reply. The

Gentleman opened this transaction as a fraud from one end to the other.

Now he supposes Christ to have been an honest, poor enthusiast, and the

disciples only to be cheats.

Judge. Sir, if you go to new matter, the council on the