valuable to mankind, rather than deny the truth of what they have testified. And where all these concur, it is hardly possible to suppose greater evidence to be given of the truth of a thing; and now I shall shew that all these do exactly agree to the Apostles' testimony concerning the resurrection of Christ.

1. They testified nothing but what they saw themselves. The laws of nations do suppose that greater credit is to be given to eye-witnesses than to any others; thence the rule in the civil law, Testimonium de auditu regulariter non valet. Because, say the civilians and canonists, witnesses are to testify the truth, and not barely the possibility of things. That which men see, they can testify whether they are or not: that which men only hear, may be or not be; and their testimony is not of the fact, but is looked on as more uncertain, and ought to have greater allowances given it; but the Apostles testified only what they saw and handled, and that after the most scrupulous inquiry into the truth of Christ's body, and after many doubts and suspicions among themselves about it; so that they did not seem hastily and rashly to believe what they afterwards declared to the world. Now a body was a proper object of sense, and no trial could be greater or more accurate than theirs was, nor any satisfaction fuller than putting their fingers into the very wounds of the pierced side.

2. They did not stay till the circumstances might have slipt out of their memories, before they testified these things, but very soon after, while the impression of them was fresh upon them. If they had let these matters alone for any long time, the Jews would have asked them presently, If these things were true, why did we not hear of them as soon as they were done? Therefore we see the Apostles on the very day of Pentecost, a little after Christ's ascension to heaven,

openly and boldly declare the truth of these things, not in private corners among a few friends, but in the most solemn meeting of their nation from all parts; which was the worst time that could have been chosen, if they had any intention to deceive.

3. They testify it in as plain a manner as is possible, on purpose to prevent all mistakes of their meaning. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are Acts ii. witnesses; therefore let all the house of Israel know 32, 36. assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Men that had a mind to deceive, would have used some more general and doubtful words than these were.

4. If this had been testified by one single witness, the world would have suspected the truth of his testimony; for, according to the rule in the civil law, in the case of testimony, Vox unius, vox nullius est: but this was testified by very many; not merely by the twelve Apostles, but by five hundred at once; among whom some might be supposed to have so much honesty, or at least capable of being persuaded to have discovered the imposture, if they had in the least suspected any.

5. But that which adds the greatest weight to all this is, that there was not one of all the Apostles, and scarce any one of the rest, but exposed themselves to the utmost hazards and dangers, rather than deny or retract the truth of what they had witnessed. If the people had been careless and indifferent about religion, it is possible men might have gone on in a lie so long, till they had gotten interest enough to maintain it; but no sooner did the Apostles appear, witnessing these things, but they met with an early and vigorous opposition, and that from the chiefest men in power, who made it their business to suppress them. Now in this case they were put to this choice, if they would renounce

or conceal the truth of what they testified, they might presently enjoy ease, and, it may be, rewards too; but if they went on, they must look for nothing but the sharpest persecution; and this they met with almost in all places: and is it conceivable that men should be so fond of a lie to forsake all and follow it, and at last to take up their cross for it? If credit and interest in the hearts of people might carry a man on a great way in the delusion, yet he would be loth to die for it; and yet there was never a one of the Apostles but ventured his life for the truth of this; and all but one, they tell us, did suffer martyrdom for it. I pray, Sir, consider, where you ever meet with any thing like this, that so many men should so resolutely die for what themselves at the same time knew to be a lie: and that they must certainly do, if it were all a contrivance of their own heads.

2. But although in these things they went as high as it was possible for human testimony to go, yet they had something beyond all this; which was a concurrence of a Divine testimony, in the miraculous gifts and operations of the Holy Ghost. And this we assert to be the highest testimony that can be given in the world of the truth of any thing; because God will not employ his power to deceive the world. And as all other truth hath a criterion proper to it, so this seems to be the proper criterion of a Divine testimony, that it hath the power of miracles going along with it. For if we do suppose God to make known his mind to the world, it is very reasonable to believe there should be some distinguishing note of what is immediately from God, and what comes only from the inventions of men; and what can be more proper to distinguish what comes from God, and what from men, than to see those things done which none but God can do? But against this

you object several things, which I shall easily and briefly answer.

1. You cannot tell what it is that miracles do attest; not all their doctrine, since Paul said, some was not from the Lord. Answ. Miracles do attest the veracity of the speaker, and by consequence the truth of the doctrine; not that you should believe that to be from the Lord, which he said was not; but that which he said was from the Lord. But when he makes such a distinction himself, it is very unreasonable to urge that as an argument, that he had nothing from the Lord: it is much rather an argument of his candour and ingenuity, that he would not pretend to Divine revelation when he had it not.

2. You would have it signified what doctrine it is which is attested by miracles, since the doctrines of Scripture lie in heaps and confusion. Answ. To what purpose should any doctrines be singled out to have the seal of miracles set to them, since it is their Divine commission to teach and declare the will of God, which is sealed by it? And what they did so teach and declare, is easily known by their writings.

3. But why do not miracles still continue? Answ. Because there are no persons employed to teach any new doctrines; and no promise of Scripture doth imply any more for the signs which were to follow them that believe, were such as tended to the first confirmation of the Christian faith; which being effected, their use ceased: and so to ask why God doth not continue a gift of miracles, to convince men that the former were true, is to the same purpose as to ask why God doth not make a new sun, to satisfy atheists that he made the old.

4. But doth not the Scriptures say, that wonders are not always to be taken as confirmations of the truth

of doctrine, since false prophets may work wonders, Deut. xiii. 1. Answ. That signifies no more than that wonders are not to be believed against the principles of natural religion, or revealed religion already confirmed by greater miracles; and that those who would value such a particular sign above all the series of miracles their religion was first established by, may be justly left to their own delusions. You might as well object the lying wonders of the man of Sin, against all the miracles of Christ and his Apostles. If God hath once done enough to convince men, he may afterwards justly leave them to the trial of their ingenuity; as a father that hath used great care to make his son understand true coin, may afterwards suffer false to be laid before him, to try whether he will mind his being cheated or no.

5. But you may yet farther demand, What the testimony of miracles doth signify to the writings of the New Testament? Answ. 1. The miracles do sufficiently prove the authority of that doctrine which was delivered by those who wrought miracles, as Christ and his Apostles. 2. If there had been the least ground to question the truth and authority of these writings, they had never been so universally received in those ages, when so many were concerned to inquire into the truth of these things; for we see several of the books were a long time examined, and at last, when no sufficient reason could be brought against them, they were received by those churches which at first scrupled the receiving them. And I am so far from thinking the doubts of the first ages any argument against the authority of a book, that, by the objections of some against some of them, I am thereby assured that they did not presently receive any book, because it went under the name of an Apostolical Writing: as I am the more confirmed in