it is no amazement to him, surely, that a true 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