fome, that they think it needless to inquire what Evidence there is for it, being perfuaded that the Thing itself is not capable of being supported by any Evidence. This Prejudice was a very early one; for the Apostle expoftulates this Cafe with King Agrippa, Why Should it be thought a Thing incredible with that God fhould raife the Dead?

you

Let us confider the Force of this Expoftulation, and fee whether it is ftrong enough to encounter the Prejudice.

Now, nothing can be faid to be incredible, if there is a Power in any Person able to effect it; for, if there is fuch a Power, that Power may bring into Existence that very Thing which you doubt of; and it cannot be incredible that a Thing fhould exift, which may poffibly really exift. If we confider only the Strength of Children, it is incredible that they fhould build Castles; but, if we confider the Strength and Ability of Men, it would be ridiculous to doubt whether they could, or no. So that the Credibility or Incredibility of any thing depends on knowing whether there is, or is not, a Power adequate to the Undertaking. The Refurrection of the Dead is in truth a very stupendous Work: But neither I am to undertake it: If it depended on us,

you nor

it

it would be incredible indeed. It is the Work of God, and of Him only: And furely I have named One of Credit and Power fufficient to be trufted in this great Affair. And this is St. Paul's Argument, Why fhould it be thought incredible that God Should raife the Dead? Whoever therefore affirms that a Refurrection is in itself a Thing incredible, muft affirm that it is incredible that God has Power to raise the Dead. And now confider who it is that can confiftently with the common and allowed Principles of Reason and Nature deny this Power to God. No one certainly, who admits that God made the World, can entertain this Doubt: For, if God has given us the Life we now enjoy, what should hinder him from reftoring Life again, after this is loft? Can there be more Difficulty in giving Life the fecond Time, than there was at firft? If there be any Contradiction therefore in the Notion of a Refurrection, there must be the very fame in the Notion of Creation. And therefore Natural Religion is just as much concerned in this Point as Revelation: For, though the Belief of the Fact, that the Dead fhall be raised, depends on Revelation; yet our Belief that God has Power to raise the Dead depends not on Revelation,

3

Revelation, but on the clear Dictates of Reason, of that Reafon by which we difcover him to be our Creator. And, if you doubt even of this his Power of Creation, you must bid adieu to all Religion at once: For, if God created not the World, how are you at all related to him? If he did not make us, what Right he has to govern us, or what Pretence to our Obedience, neither you from Nature, nor we from Revelation, can ever be fatisfied.

The Power of God being admitted to be equal to this Work, the Question of the Refurrection of Chrift comes to be a Queftion of Fact: And, though I propofe not to enter into the Evidence of the Fact, yet

it

may be proper to observe, That a Refurrection, confidered as a Fact, is a Fact as capable of Evidence as any whatever; it is an Object of Senfe, of every Senfe by which we judge of the Reality of Things without us.

We are told, that Chrift died, and rofe again. Of his Death, I fuppofe, there is no great Doubt: Die he certainly did: And furely there could be no more Difficulty to fee and know that he was dead, than in knowing when others were dead, from Adam to this Day. One would think therefore,

that

that those about him, who faw him crucified and buried, might be trufted when they report that he died.

But he came to Life again: Very true; and it was very eafy for those who converfed with him to know whether he was alive, or no. There was no more Difficulty in judging of his being alive, than of judging, in any other Cafe, whether those we converse with are alive, or no. His having been dead and buried could not poffibly alter the Cafe, or create any Difficulty in judging whether he was really alive, or no. So that the Refurrection, confidered as a Fact, was in every Part of it an Object of Senfe, and as capable of being well attefted as any other Object of Senfe whatever. Lay thefe Things together, the Promise of God to give us Life eternal, his Power to make good his Word, the Confirmation he has given us of our Hope by the Resurrection of Chrift; and what is wanting to make the Belief of this Article a rational Act of Faith?

The Promises of God have never borrowed Help from moral Probabilities. The Promifes to Abraham were not of this kind; fo far otherwife, that it is faid of him, that, against Hope, he believed in Hope; that is, he hoped, where, humanly speaking, there was

no

no Ground for Hope. There was no Probability that his Seed, who was a Stranger and Pilgrim on Earth, fhould inherit the Land of Canaan, poffeffed by great and powerful Nations.

The Promise of a Son to him, when he and his Wife were both too far advanced in Years to expect one in the ordinary Course of Nature, was contrary to Experience and to natural Probability. But what fays the Apostle? Abraham, not being weak in Faith, confidered not his own Body, now dead, when he was about an hundred Years old, neither yet the Deadnefs of Sarah's Womb.-But be Staggered not at the Promife of God, -being fully perfuaded that what he had promised he was able to perform. This Reliance on the Promises of God, againft all the Prefumptions of human Experience and Probability, was the very Thing, as St. Paul tells us, that was imputed to him for Righteousness.

Compare now this Cafe with the Cafe of Christians. We have great Promises made to us by God in Christ Jesus, the Promises of a Resurrection to Life. Inquire of the Worid; they know of no fuch Thing, the Ages past have afforded no Inftance of this kind, and, as far as they can fee and judge, daily Experience is a Witness against this Hope.

Under