pealing not to an inward teftimony of the Spirit, in the sense of some modern enthufiafts, but to the powers of the Spirit, which believers received, and which were seen in the effects that followed.

It was objected, that the Apostles feparated themfelves to the work of the miniftry, and one went into one country, another to another; and confequently, that the belief of the refurrection was originally received every where upon the teftimony of one witness. I will not examine this fact: fuppofe it to be fo. But did this one witnefs go alone, when he was attended with the powers of Heaven? Was not every blind man restored to fight, and every lame man to his feet, a new witness to the truth reported by the firft? Befides, when the people of different countries came to compare notes, and found that they had all received the fame account of Chrift, and of his doctrine; then furely the evidence of these diftant witneffes, thus united, became ftronger than if they had told their story together: for twelve men feparately examined form a much stronger proof for the truth of any fact, than twelve men agreeing together in one ftory.

If the fame thing were to happen in our own time: if one or two were to come into England, and report that a man was raised from the dead, and in confequence of it teach nothing but that we ought to love God and our neighbours; if, to confirm their report, they should before our eyes cure the blind, the deaf, the lame, and even raise the dead to life; if, endued with all these powers, they should live in poverty and distress, and patiently fubmit to all that fcorn, contempt, and malice could contrive to dif

Бе

trefs them; and at laft facrifice even their lives in juftification of the truth of their report; if upon inquiry we should find, that all the countries in Europe had received the fame account, fupported by the fame miraculous powers, attefted in like manner by the fufferings, and confirmed by the blood of the: witneffes: I would fain know, what any reasonable. man would do in this cafe? Would he despise such evidence? I think he would not; and whoever. thinks otherwife, muft fay, that a refurrection, though in its own nature poffible, is yet such a thing, in which we ought not to believe either God or

man.

Judge. Have you done, Sir?

Mr. B. Yes, my Lord.

Judge. Go on, Mr. A. if you have any thing to fay in reply.

Mr. A. My Lord, I fhall trouble you with very little. The objections and answers under this head I fhall leave to the judgment of the court; and beg leave only to make an observation or two upon the laft part of the gentleman's argument.

And firft, with refpect to the fufferings of the Apoftles and Difciples of Jefus ; and the argument drawn from thence for the truth of their doctrines and affertions; I beg leave to obferve to you, that there is not a false religion or pretence in the world, but can produce the fame authority, and fhew many inftances of men who have fuffered even to death for the truth of their feveral profeffions. If we confult only modern story, we shall find Papists suffering for Popery, Proteftants for their religion; and among Proteftants, every fect has had its martyrs; Puri

tans, Quakers, Fifth-Monarchy Men. In Henry the Eighth's time, England faw both Popish and Proteftant martyrs; in Queen Mary's reign, the rage fell upon Proteftants; in Queen Elizabeth's, Papists and Puritans were called fometimes, though rarely, to this trial. In later times, fometimes Churchmen, sometimes Diffenters, were perfecuted. What must we say then? All these fufferers had not truth with them; and yet, if there be any weight in this argument from fuffering, they have all a right to plead it.

But I may be told, perhaps, that men by their fufferings, though they do not prove their doctrines to be true, yet prove at least their own fincerity; as if it were impoffible for men to diffemble at the point of death! Alas, how many inftances are there of men's denying facts plainly proved, afferting facts plainly difproved, even with the rope about their necks! Muft all fuch pafs for innocent fufferers, fincere 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 fo much ftrefs is laid. It has hitherto been infifted on, that the refurrection was a matter of fact, and such a fact as was capable and proper to be fupported by the evidence of sense. How comes it about, that this evidence, this which is the proper evidence, is given up as infufficient, and a new improper evidence introduced? Is it not surprising, that one great miracle fhould want an hundred more to prove it? Every miracle is itself an appeal to sense, and therefore ad

mits no evidence but that of fenfe. And there is no connection between a miracle done this year and last year. It does not follow therefore, becaufe Peter cured a lame man, (allowing the fact,) that therefore. Chrift rofe from the dead.

But allowing the gentleman all he demands, what is it to us? They who had the witnefs within them did perhaps very well to confult 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 firft ages of the church faw all the wonders related by the gentleman, and believed, it fhews at leaft, in his opinion, that this ftrong evidence was neceffary to create the belief he requires; why then does he require this belief of us, who have not this ftrong evidence?

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

Here the gentlemen whispered together, and the Foreman ftood up.

Foreman. My Lord, the cause has been long, and confifts of feveral 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 confider, you appointed this meeting, and chose your office. Mr. B. and I have gone through our parts, and have some right to infift on your doing your part.

Mr. B. I muft join, Sir, in that request.

Judge. I have often heard, that all honour has a burden attending it; but I did not fufpect it in this office, which I conferred upon myfelf. But fince it

must be fo, I will recollect, and lay before you, as well as I can, the fubftance of the debate.

Gentlemen of the jury; the queftion before you is, whether the witneffes of the refurrection of Chrift are guilty of giving falfe evidence, or no.

Two forts of objections, or accufations, are brought against them. One charges fraud and deceit on the tranfaction itself; the other charges the evidence as forged, and infufficient to fupport the credit of fo extraordinary an event.

There are also three periods of time to be confidered.

The firft takes in the miniftry of Chrift, and ends at his death. During this period the fraud is fuppofed to be contrived.

The fecond reaches from his death to his refurrection. During this period the fraud is fuppofed to be executed.

. The third begins from the refurrection, and takes in the whole miniftry of the Apostles. And here the evidence they gave the world for this fact is the main confideration.

As to the first period of time, and the fraud charged upon Jefus, I must observe to you, that this charge had no evidence to fupport it; all the facts reported of Jefus ftand in full contradiction to it. To fuppose, as the council did, that this fraud might poffibly appear, if we had any Jewish books written at the time, is not to bring proof, but to wifh for proof; for, as it was rightly observed on the other fide, how does Mr. A. know there were any fuch books? And fince they are loft, how does he know what was in them? Were fuch books extant, they