opinion, men miftake perpetually; and it is no reafon for me to take up with another man's opinion, because I am perfuaded he is fincere in it. But when a man reports to me an uncommon fact, yet fuch a one as in its own nature is a plain object of fenfe; if I believe him not, it is not because I suspect his eyes, or his fenfe of feeling, but merely because I fufpect his fincerity. For if I was to fee the fame thing myself, I should believe myself; and therefore my suspicion does not arise from the inability of human fenfes to judge in the cafe, but from a doubt of the fincerity of the reporter. In fuch cafes therefore there wants nothing to be proved, but only the fincerity of the reporter; and fince voluntary fuffering for the truth is at least a proof of fincerity, the fufferings of the Apostles for the truth of the refurrection is a full and unexceptionable proof.

The counsel for Woolfton was fenfible of this difference; and therefore he added, that there are many, inftances of men's fuffering and dying in an obstinate denial of the truth of facts plainly proved. This obfervation is also true. I remember a ftory of a man who endured with great conftancy all the tortures of the rack, denying the fact with which he was charged. When he was afked afterwards, how he could hold out against all the tortures? he answered, I had painted a gallows upon the toe of my fhoe, and, when the rack ftretched me, I looked on the gallows, and bore the pain to fave my life. This man denied a plain fact under great torture, but you fee a reason for it. In other cafes, when criminals perfift in denying their crimes, they often do it, and there is reason to fufpect they do it always, in hopes

of a pardon or reprieve. But what are thefe inftances to the present purpose? All these men fuffer against their will, and for their crimes; and their obftinacy is built on the hope of escaping, by moving the compaffion of the government. Can the gentleman give me any inftances of perfons who died willingly in atteftation of a falfe fact? We have had in England fome weak enough to die for the Pope's fupremacy; but do you think a man could be found to die in proof of the Pope's being actually on the throne of England?

Now the Apostles died in afferting the truth of Chrift's refurrection. It was always in their power to quit their evidence, and fave their lives. Even their bittereft enemies, the Jews, required no more of them than to be filent. Others have denied facts, or afferted facts, in hopes of faving their lives, when they were under fentence of death: but these men attefted a fact at the expence of their lives, which they might have faved by denying the truth. So that between criminals dying, and denying plain facts, and the Apostles' dying for their teftimony, there is this material difference: criminals deny the truth in hopes of faving their lives; the Apostles willingly parted with their lives, rather than deny the truth.

We are come now to the laft, and indeed the most weighty confideration.

The counfel for the Apoftles having in the courfe of the argument allowed, that more evidence is required to fupport the credit of the refurrection, it being a very extraordinary event, than is neceffary ban

Acts iv. 17. v. 28.

in common cases; in the latter part of his defence fets forth the extraordinary evidence upon which this fact ftands: this is the evidence of the Spirit; the spirit of wisdom and power, which was given to the Apostles, to enable them to confirm their teftimony by figns, and wonders, and mighty works. This part of the argument was well argued by the gentleman, and I need not repeat all he said.

The counsel for Woolfton, in his reply, made two objections to this evidence.

The firft was this: that the refurrection having all along been pleaded to be a matter of fact and an object of sense, to recur to miracles for the proof of it is to take it out of its proper evidence, the evidence of sense, and to reft it upon a proof which cannot be applied to it; for feeing one miracle, he fays, is no evidence that another miracle was wrought before it; as healing a fick man is no evidence that a dead man was raised to life.

To clear this difficulty, you must confider by what train of reasoning miracles come to be proofs in any cafe. A miracle of itself proves nothing, unless this only, that there is a cause equal to the producing the effect we fee. Suppose you should fee a man raife one from the dead, and he fhould go away and fay nothing to you, you would not find that any fact, or any propofition, was proved or difproved by this miracle. But fhould he declare to you, in the name of him by whofe power the miracle was wrought, that image-worship was unlawful, you would then be poffeffed of a proof against imageworship. But how?. Not because the miracle proves any thing, as to the point itfelf; but because the

man's declaration is authorized by him who wrought the miracle in confirmation of his doctrine. And therefore miracles are directly a proof of the authority of perfons, and not of the truth of things.

To apply this to the prefent cafe: if the Apoftles had wrought miracles, and faid nothing of the refurrection, the miracles would have proved nothing about the refurrection one way or other. But when as eye-witneffes they attefted the truth of the refurrection, and wrought miracles to confirm their authority; the miracles did not directly prove the refurrection, but they confirmed and established beyond all fufpicion the proper evidence, the evidence of eye-witneffes. So that here is no change of the evidence from proper to improper; the fact ftill refts upon the evidence of fenfe, confirmed and ftrengthened by the authority of the Spirit. If a witnefs calls in his neighbours to atteft his veracity, they prove nothing as to the fact in question, but only confirm the evidence of the witnefs. The case is here the fame; though between the authorities brought in confirmation of the evidence there is no comparison.

The fecond objection was, that this evidence, however good it may be in its kind, is yet nothing to us. It was well, the gentleman fays, for those who had it; but what is that to us, who have it not?

To adjust this difficulty, I muft obferve to you, that the evidence now under confideration was not a private evidence of the Spirit, or any inward light, like to that which the Quakers in our time pretend to; but an evidence appearing in the manifeft and

visible works of the Spirit: and this evidence was capable of being transmitted, and actually has been transmitted to us upon unquestionable authority: and to allow the evidence to have been good in the first ages, and not in this, seems to me to be a contradiction to the rules of reafoning. For if we see enough

to judge that the first ages had reason to believe, we muft needs fee at the fame time that it is reasonable for us alfo to believe. As the prefent queftion only relates to the nature of the evidence, it was not neceffary to produce from hiftory the inftances to fhew in how plentiful a manner this evidence was granted to the church. Whoever wants this fatisfaction may eafily have it.

Gentlemen of the jury, I have laid before you the fubftance of what has been faid on both fides. You are now to confider of it, and to give your verdict.. The Jury confulted together, and the Foreman rose up. Foreman. My Lord, we are ready to give our ver

dict.

Judge. Are you all agreed?

Jury. Yes.

Judge. Who shall speak for you?

Jury. Our Foreman.

Judge. What fay you? Are the Apostles guilty of giving false evidence in the cafe of the refurrection of Jefus, or not guilty?

Foreman. Not guilty.

Judge. Very well; and now, gentlemen, I refign my commiffion, and am your humble fervant.

The company

rofe up,

and were beginning to pay

G g