The Trial of the Witnessses of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ | Page 7

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