they saw it, and sometimes knew it, at other times knew it not. In a
word, it seems to be a case exempt from human evidence. Men have
limited senses, and a limited reason: when they act within their
limits, we may give credit to them; but when they talk of things
removed beyond the reach of their senses and reason, we must quit our
own, if we believe theirs.
Mr. B. My Lord, in answering the objections under this head I
shall find myself obliged to change the order in which the gentleman
thought proper to place them. He began with complaining, that Christ
did not appear publickly to the Jews after his resurrection, and
especially to the chief priests and rulers; and seemed to argue, as if
such evidence would have put the matter in question out of all doubt:
but he concluded with an observation to prove that no evidence in this
case can be sufficient; that a resurrection is thing in nature
impossible, at least impossible to be proved to the satisfaction of a
rational inquirer. If this be the case, why does he require more
evidence, since none can be sufficient? Or to what purpose is it to
vindicate the particular evidence of the resurrection of Christ, so
long as this general prejudice, that a resurrection is incapable of
being proved, remains unremoved? I am under a necessity therefore to
consider this observation in the first place, that it might lie as a
dead weight upon all I have to offer in support of the evidence of
Christ's resurrection.


The gentleman allows it to be reasonable in many cases to act
upon the testimony and credit of others; but he thinks this should be
confined to such cases, where the thing testified is probable,
possible, and according to the usual course of nature. The Gentleman
does not, I suppose, pretend to know the extent of all natural