case excluded all human testimony and that men could not possibly
discern , whether one with whom they conversed familiarly was alive or
no? Upon what ground could you say this? A man rising from the grave
is an object of sense, and can give the same evidence of his being
alive, as any other man in the world can give. So that a resurrection
considered only as a fact to be proved by evidence, is a plain case; it
requires no greater ability in the witnesses, than that they be able to
distinguish between a man dead, and a man alive: a point in which I
believe every man living thinks himself a judge.

I do allow that this case, and others of like nature, require
more evidence to give them credit than ordinary cases do. You may
therefore require more evidence in these, than in other cases; but it
is absurd to say, that such cases admit no evidence, when the things
in question are manifestly objects of sense.

I allow further, that the Gentleman has rightly stated the
difficulty upon the foot of common prejudice; and that it arises from
hence, that such cases appear to be contrary to the course of nature.
But I desire to consider what this course of nature is. Every man,
from the lowest countryman to the highest philosopher frames to himself
from his experience and observation, a notion of a course of nature;
and is ready to say of everything reported to him that contradicts his
experience, that it is contrary to nature. But will the Gentleman say,
that everything is impossible or even improbable, that contradicts the
notion which men frame to themselves of the course of nature? I think
he will not say it. And if he will, he must say that water can never
freeze; for it is absolutely inconsistent with the notion which men
have of the course of nature, who live in the warm climates. And hence
it appears, that when men talk of the course of nature, they really