of the doctrine of futurity, as to raise a perfon from the dead, on purpose clearly to evince the poffibility and certainty of a future refurrection to life eternal; and then, as it were, to let it rest there, without taking all proper care to have this fact rendered as publick and notorious, as evident and certain as the nature of the thing would admit, and as the great importance of the case obviously required, but let it remain in the perplexed uncertain state as above; this is fuch a conduct as is not eafily to be accounted for, and were it found in human affairs, the practitioner would certainly be impeached for acting below his character as a wife man, in using means so very difproportionate to the end proposed to be obtained by them. As Chrift, after his refurrection, appeared but to a few friends only; fo those whom he didappear to have left no teftimonies upon record with regard to this fact (except St. Peter and the historians;)and therefore, with refpect to pofterity, they are no witneffes at all. The hiftorians, indeed, fay, that Chrift, after his refurrection, appeared feveral times to several perfons; but then it does not appear that those perfons themselves have made any fuch declarations; and therefore, the

weight

weight of this evidence refts wholly upon the authority of thofe hiftorians, who (as fome learned men fay) did not put their names to their hiftories; and therefore, it must be a little uncertain whether those books were written by the persons whose names are now fixed to them. To fay, that the witneffes of Chrift's refurrection conftantly gave teftimony concerning this fact, whilst they were alive; and likewife laid down their lives to maintain it, tho' they left no teflimony upon record concerning it; this, perhaps, is building without a foundation, and averring what may not be clearly made out. St. Peter, in his first epiftle, fuppofes the fact of Chrift's refurrection to have taken place, but does not charge himself with the proof of it; and in his difcourfe with the Jews, Acts ii. he makes himself and the brethren to have been witneffes of that fact; but then, that St. Peter delivered fuch a difcourfe to the Jews, refts only, and wholly on the authority of one fingle nameless Hiftorian, the author being unknown; which circumstance, in any other cafe, would be looked upon as weakning it's credit. All these things being put together, one or other of thefe conclufions,

;

I think, will follow from them; either, firft, that the refurrection of Christ was not defigned clearly to evince the poffibility and certainty of a refurrection to life eternal ; or if that was the defign, then, fecondly, it was not wifely conducted to answer that end or if it was wifely directed to answer that purpose, then, thirdly, it is a very lame account of that affair which has been tranfmitted to us; and whether it be one, or another of these, the fubject, in our present view of it, is greatly perplexed, and is thereby rendered the more uncertain with respect to us. If it should be faid, that whatever difficulties may attend this fubject; yet it is a certain truth that Chrift did really rife from the dead. Upon which I observe, that if this point is to be taken for granted, without being brought to a fair trial; then there is nothing farther to be faid upon the queftion. Befides, the prefent question is not whether Chrift did really rife from the dead? But only, whether the evidence held forth to us yields proper proof that he did? Or rather, the queftion is, whether the refurrection of Chrift is fo clearly and fully proved, as to render it a proper foundation to build the doctrine of futurity upon? Or,

in other words, whether it is fo fully proved, as thereby clearly to evince both the poffibility and certainty of a refurrection to life eternal?

PERHAPS, it may be further urged, that St. Paul has given a much larger and fuller account of this matter. I Cor. xv. But then, the question is, whether St. Paul's account firengthens, or weakens the cause it is brought to fupport? Of which I fear it is the latter, rather than the former. The Supernumerary witneffes mentioned by St. Paul, or thofe who are over and above the witneffes mentioned by the feveral hiftorians who professedly undertook to give an account of the refurrection of Chrift, are St. Paul himself, and above five hundred brethren, to whom Chrift appeared at one time, of which those to whom he had appeared at other times might, or might not be a part; but then, as St. Paul is filent as to that point, therefore, they may all be confidered as other evidences, and that is making the most of the account. As to St. Paul, it does not appear that he had ever seen, or had any personal knowledge of Jefus Chrift, either before his death, or after his refurrection; I mean, in those forty days in which

he

he is supposed to have remained upon earth after his refurrection, and before his afcenfion into heaven. And tho', when St. Paul was travelling from Jerufalem to Damafcus, he heard a voice, faying, Saul, Saul, why perfecuteft thou me, I am Jefus whom thou perfecuteft; yet it does not appear that he faw the perfon who fpake, but rather the contrary; because, when a great light from heaven shone round about him, he fell to the earth, and was ftruck blind by that light, and therefore, probably, faw the perfon of no man. Indeed, St. Paul faith of himself, 2 Cor. xii. 2. that he was caught up into the third heaven; but then, whether the third heaven into which St. Paul was caught, be that fame heaven or place where Chrift is feated on God's right hand, St. Paul has not informed us; and if it was, it is quite uncertain whether he faw Christ's body, or not, because it was quite uncertain to him whether he was in the body, or out of the body, when he was there; and if the latter was the cafe, then, as he had left his bodily eyes behind him, fo he could not poffibly have feen Chrift's body with them, and therefore, could not therefrom be a proper evidence of the truth and certainty of Christ's refurrection. St. Paul has alfo informed us, Acts xxii. 17. that, B b 2 being