ces of men who have suffered even to death for the truth of their several professions. If we consult only modern story, we shall find papists suffering for popery, protestants for their religion; and among protestants every sect has had its martyrs; puritans, quakers, fifth-monarchy-men. In Henry the VIIIth's time, England saw both popish and protestant martyrs; in queen Mary's reign, the rage fell upon protestants; in queen Elizabeth's, papists and puritans were called sometimes, though rarely, to this trial. In latter times, sometimes churchmen, sometimes dissenters were persecuted; what must we say then? all these sufferers had not truth with them, and yet if there be any weight in this argument from suffering, they have all a right to plead it.

But I may be told, perhaps, that men, by their sufferings, though they do not prove their doctrines to be true, yet prove, at least, their own sincerity; as if it were a thing impossible for men to dissemble at the point of death! Alas! how many instances are there of men's denying facts plainly proved, asserting facts plainly disproved, even with the rope about their necks; must all such pass for innocent sufferers, sincere men? If not, it must be allowed, that a man's word at the point of death is not always to be relied on.

Another observation I would make, is with respect to the evidence of the Spirit, on which so much stress is laid. It has hitherto been insisted on, that the resurrection was a matter of fact, and such a

fact as was capable and proper to be supported by the evidence of sense; how comes it about, that this evidence, this which is the proper evidence, is given up as insufficient, and a new improper evidence introduced? Is it not surprising, that one great miracle should want an hundred more to prove it? Every miracle is itself an appeal to sense, and therefore admits no evidence but that of sense; and there is no connection between a miracle done this year and last year; it does not follow, therefore, because Peter cured a lame man (allowing the fact) that therefore Christ rose from the dead.

But allowing the gentleman all he demands, what is it to us? they, who had the witness within them, did, perhaps, very well to consult him, and to take his word; but how am I, or others, who have not this witness in us, the better for it? if the first ages of the church saw all the wonders related by the gentleman, and believed, it shews, at least, in his opinion, that this strong evidence was necessary to create the belief he requires; why then does he require this belief of us who have not this strong evidence?

Judge. Very well. Gentlemen of the jury, you have heard the proofs and arguments on both sides, and it is now your part to give a verdict.

Here the gentlemen whispered together, and the foreman stood up.

Foreman. My lord, the cause has been long, and consists of several articles; therefore the jury hope you will give them your directions.

Judge. No, no; you are very able to judge without my help.

Mr. A. My lord, pray consider, you appointed this meeting, and chose your office; Mr. B. and I have gone through our parts, and have some right to insist on your doing your part.

Mr. B. I must join, sir, in that request.

Judge. I have often heard, that all honour has a burden attending it; but I did not suspect it in this office, which I conferred upon myself; but since it must be so, I will recollect and lay before you, as well as I can, the substance of the debate.

Gentlemen of the jury, the question before you is, whether the witnesses of the resurrection of Christ are guilty of giving false evidence, or no?

Two sorts of objections or accusations are brought against them; one charges fraud and deceit on the transaction itself; the other charges the evidence as forged, and insufficient to support the credit of so extraordinary an event.

There are also three periods of time to be considered.

The first takes in the ministry of Christ, and ends at his death; during this period the fraud is supposed to be contrived.

The second reaches from his death to his resurrection; during this period the fraud is supposed to be executed.

The third begins from the resurrection, and takes in the whole ministry of the apostles; and here the

evidence they gave the world for this fact is the main consideration.

As to the first period of time, and the fraud charged upon Jesus, I must observe to you, that this charge had no evidence to support it; all the facts reported of Jesus stand in full contradiction to it. To suppose, as the council did, that this fraud might possibly appear if we had any Jewish books written at the time, is not to bring proof, but to wish for proof; for, as it was rightly observed on the other side, how does Mr. A. know there were any such books? And since they are lost, how does he know what was in them? Were such books extant, they might probably prove, beyond dispute, the facts recorded in the gospels.

You were told that the Jews were a very superstitious people, much addicted to prophecy; and particularly, that they had a long expectation about the time that Christ appeared, to have a victorious prince rise among them. This is laid as to the ground of suspicion; and in fact many impostors, you are told, set up upon these notions of the people, and thence it is inferred, that Christ built his scheme upon the strength of these popular prejudices; but when this fact came to be examined on the other side, it appeared, that Christ was so far from falling in with these notions, and abusing the credulity of the people, that it was his main point to correct these prejudices, to oppose these superstitions, and, by these very means, he fell into disgrace

with his countrymen, and suffered as one, who, in their opinion, destroyed the law and the prophets; with respect to temporal power, so far was he from aiming at it, that he refused it when offered; so far from giving any hopes of it to his disciples, that he invited them, upon quite different terms, to take up the cross and follow him; and it is observable, that after he had foretold his death and resurrection, he continued to admonish his disciples of the evils they were to suffer, to tell them that the world would hate them and abuse them; which, surely, to common sense, has no appearance that he was then contriving a cheat, or encouraging his disciples to execute it.

But as ill supported as this charge is, there was no avoiding it; it was necessity, and not choice, which drove the gentleman to it; for since Christ had foretold his resurrection, if the whole was a cheat, he certainly was conscious to it, and consequently the plot was laid in his own time; and yet the supposing Christ conscious to such a fraud, in these circumstances, is contrary to all probability; it is very improbable that he, or any man, should, without any temptation, contrive a cheat, to take place after his death; and if this could be supposed, it is highly improbable that he should give public notice of it, and thereby put all men on their guard, especially considering there were only a few women, and twelve men of low fortunes and mean educa