the faith upon the credit of his single evidence.  We have followed our ancestors without inquiry; and if you examine the thing to the bottom, our belief was originally built upon the word of one man.  I shall trouble you, Sir, but with one observation more; which is this:  That although in common life we act in a thousand instances upon the faith and credit of human testimony; yet the reason for so doing is not the same in the case before us.  In common affairs, where nothing is asserted but what is probable, and possible, according to the usual course of nature, a reasonable degree of evidence ought to determine every man:  for the very probability, or possibility of the thing, is an support to the evidence; and in such cases we have no doubt but a man’s senses qualify him to be a witness.  But when the thing testified is contrary to the order of nature, and, at first sight at least, impossible, what evidence can be sufficient to overturn the constant evidence of nature, which she gives us in the uniform and regular method of her operations?  If a man tells me he has been in France, I ought to give a reason for not believing him; but if he tells me he comes from the grave what reason can he give why I should believe him?  In the case before us, since the body raised from the grave differed from common natural bodies, as we have before seen; how can I be assured that the apostles’ senses qualified them to judge at all of this body; whether it was the same, or not the same which was buried?  They handled the body, which yet could pass through doors and walls; 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.