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 favourite commonplace, and has brought us from Persia to Turkey already; and if he goes on, I know we must follow him round the globe. To save us from this long journey, I will 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 on. 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, on the foundation of mere human cunning and policy; and it is worth the while to go round the globe, as the gentleman expressed himself, to 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 judgment.

Mr B. My Lord, the gentleman, in justification of his first argument, has entered on another of a very different kind. I think he is sensible of it, and seeming to yield up one of his popular topics, 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 cannot be good now. The gentleman is willing, he says, to spare us his history of ancient errors; and intimates, that on this account he passes over many instances of fraud, that were like in circumstances to the case before us. By no means, my Lord, let them be passed over. I would not have the main strength of his cause betrayed in complaisance to me. Nothing can be more material than to shew 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 publicly, 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.

us.

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 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 impostor 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 the 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 have 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 of 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 on the resurrection of Dr Emmes, and gave public 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 sank 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, every thing happened that was proper to convince the world of the truth of the resurrection; in the other, the event manifested the cheat and on the view of these circumstances, you think it 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 that you are in a court, and are falling into dialogue. Courts do not 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 nor 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 proceedings; 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 judgment, by hearing the answer whilst 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 every one 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 on 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 * Sixth Discourse, p. 17.

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

In

The Jews were a weak superstitious people, and, as is common among such people, gave great credit to some traditonary 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 victorous prince should rise among them, and subdue all their enemies, and make them lords of the world. 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 impostors 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, and riding on an ass. By this means he got the common and necessary § Ibid. p. 27

+Sixth Discourse, p. 4.

See Scheme of Literal Prophecy, p. 26.

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, whilst 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 farther, 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 dexterously laid hold on 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.

The

This conduct had the desired success. 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 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 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 laid 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, nas at last produced a kingdom indeed; a kingdom of priests, who have governed the world for many ages, and have been strong

* See Discourse of the Grounds, &c. ch. iv.

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 on his scheme; otherwise I should 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, I remember, was 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 on which they stand. This would plainly discover every part of the story to be mere fiction. But since the gentleman seems to have endeavoured 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.

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 on 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,) that is, 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 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 those 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 has he erected on the foundation of this nursery-learning? As to religion, there never was a religion, there never will be one, whether true or false, publicly 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, it is 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 for ever, it seems, attend on questions of this nature; and are coming to the 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 the influence of certain pretended prophecies and predictions; that on this ground they had, some time before the appearance of Christ Jesus, conceived great expectations 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 on him to personate the prince expected. He observes farther, that in fact many such impostors 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 on 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 on 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 premises and his conclusion to any agreement; they seem to be at a great variance at present. If it be the likeliest method for an impostor to succeed, to build on the popular opinions, prejudices, and prophecies of the people; then surely an impostor 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 any thing 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 credulity 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 that 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 on 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 every where they were superstitious in the observance of the sabbath; he, according

* Discourse of the Grounds, p. 24.

to their reckoning, broke it frequently: in a word, their washings of hands and pots, their superstitious distinctions of meats, their prayers in public, their villainies 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 had Christ 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 to truth, to take on 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. Impostors generally take advantage of the prejudices of the people; generally too they make choice of cunning dexterous 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 should 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 on the marvellous; 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 a 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