not explain it for fear of making myself a sharer in the crime of the author.

But what your lordship informs me of is still more surprising, that he is making application to the king and council in this cause. How is it possible? Can it enter even into Dr. Bentley's head to appeal to that very board to protect him in his contempt of the university authority, where there has been an appeal lodged for many months against himself, for his great abuse of authority in Trinity-College: does the doctor think that honorable board has leisure to attend to his complaint, which, according to his own account, can relate only to the legal methods of our proceeding; the cause itself being such that I dare venture to say he will not appeal to any court on the merits of it

SUMMARY.

ACCOUNT given of the origin of the undertaking, arising out of Woolston's trial and conviction. Second meeting of the party who had agreed to discuss the subject: proceedings preparatory to the discussion stated. Counsel for Woolston proposes that his antagonist should lay before the court the eviIdence which he intends to maintain. Counsel on the other side objects, inasmuch as he has no new claim to support, and has no reason to bring his own title into question: it is sufficient if he maintains it when called in question. Counsel for Woolston rejoins, that, since his antagonist requires him to admit things incredible, in virtue of the evidence he maintains, he ought to set forth his claim, or else leave the world to be directed by common sense. Decision of the judge, that counsel for Woolston would be right, if the truth of the Christian religion were the point in judgment, but is not in the present instance. Counsel for Woolston proceeds to observe on his antago nist's claim to prescription, but insists that prescription cannot avail against reason and common sense. Counsel on the other side waives all advantage from the antiquity of the resurrection, and the general reception which the belief of it has found in the world. Counsel for Woolston suspects some art even in this concession, conceiving that a main reason why men believe the resurrection arises from their not conceiving it possible that any one should attempt, much less succeed in, such a scheme, on the mere foundation of human cunning: is pressed by his antagonist to show what fraud of this kind ever prevailed universally in the world. Counsel for Woolston instances the

pretensions to inspiration set up by Pythagoras, Numa, &c. This answered: it only shows that revelation is by common consent the very best foundation of religion: difference of the cases stated. Case of Mahomet instanced: this also is answered, and the case of Dr. Emmes recommended to consideration. Counsel for Woolston observes that this case is so far to the purpose, that it shows to what lengths enthusiasm will carry men this answered with regard to the resurrection. Counsel on both sides are called to the point in question by the judge. It is settled, by appeal to the jury, that the objections shall be argued and answered separately. Counsel for Woolston argues to the contrivance of the fraud from the beginning of Christ's ministry to his death: his arguments answered seriatim by the counsel for the resurrection, who observes in conclusion, that there must of necessity have been either a real miracle or a great fraud in the case; there is no medium; we must either admit the miracle, or prove the fraud. Counsel for Woolston asks, why might it not be enthusiasm in the master which occasioned his prediction, and fraud in the servants who put it in execution? Answer: this is new matter, and not a reply this transaction was represented as a fraud throughout; now it is supposed that Christ was an honest enthusiast, and his disciples only cheats. Counsel for Woolston professes himself ready to go on to prove the fraud. Particulars of our Saviour's crucifixion, death, and burial, allowed to have been accurately recorded. Counsel for Woolston goes on with his arguments to prove that the fraud was executed in the period intervening between the burial and resurrection of our Saviour. These arguments answered by his antagonist. Whatever credit his objections may gain in this age, it is shown that they had none when they were first spread abroad; and that the very persons with whom the story of our Saviour's body being stolen originated, did not believe it themselves. Counsel for Woolston offers a few words in reply to his antagonist's

observations on the case of Lazarus, the seal of the sepulchre, the character of the disciples, King Agrippa's complaisance to Paul, and Gamaliel's advice. Last period of time considered, beginning from the resurrection and taking in the ministry of the Apostles. The last and main article of the case entered on, namely, the nature of the evidence which they gave to the world in favor of the resurrection. Preliminary complaint, that evidence, which relates to the most essential point of Christianity, was not put beyond all exception. Objections to the representation of facts and to the testimony of those who were appointed to be witnesses. Answer by the counsel for the resurrection to a concluding observation of his antagonist, that no evidence can be sufficient to prove a case like this, which is in its nature impossible, or at least impossible to be proved to the satisfaction of a rational inquirer. Answers to his objections against the representation of things and the testimony of witnesses. Concluding observations, by counsel for Woolston, on this reply. Address to the jury by the judge. Summing up of the evidence given on both sides. Verdict of the jury, that the disciples are not guilty of giving false evidence in the case of our Saviour's resurrection.

THE TRIAL

OF THE WITNESSES OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS.

WE were, not long since, some gentlemen of the inns of court, together, each to other so well known, that no man's presence was a confinement to any other from speaking his mind on any subject that happened to arise in conversation. The meeting was without design, and the discourse, as in like cases, various. Among other things we fell on the subject of Woolston's trial and conviction, which had happened some few days before; that led to a debate how the law stands in such cases, what punishment it inflicts; and, in general, whether the law ought at all to interpose in controversies of this kind. We were not agreed in these points. One, who maintained the favorable side to Woolston, discovered a great liking and approbation of his discourses against the miracles of Christ, and seemed to think his arguments unanswerable. To which another replied, I wonder that one of your abilities, and bred to the profession of the law, which teaches us to consider the nature of evidence, and its proper weight, can be of that opinion; I am sure you would be unwilling to determine a property of five shillings on such evidence as you now think material enough to overthrow the miracles of Christ.

It may easily be imagined that this opened a door to much dispute, and determined the conversation for the remainder of the evening to this subject. The dispute ran through almost all the particulars mentioned in Woolston's pieces; but the thread of it was broken by several digressions, and the pursuit of things which were brought accidentally into the discourse. At length one of the company said, pleasantly, Gentlemen, you do not argue like lawyers; if I were judge in this cause, I would hold you better to the point. The company took the