has more employment for them before he has done, I desire to defer the consideration of their abilities and conduct till I hear what work he has for them to do. I would only observe, that thus far this plot differs from all that ever I heard of. Impostors generally take advantage of the prejudices of the people; generally too they make choice of cunning dexterous fellows to manage under them; but in this case Jesus opposed all the notions of the people, and made choice of simpletons, it seems, to conduct his contrivances.

But what design, what real end was carrying on all this while? Why, the gentleman tells us, that the very thing disclaimed, the temporal kingdom, was the real thing aimed at under this disguise. He told the people there was no foundation to expect a temporal deliverer, warned them against all who should set up those pretensions; he declared there was no ground from the ancient prophecies to expect such a prince; and yet by these very means he was working his way to an opportunity of declaring himself to be the very prince the people wanted. We are still on the marvellous; every step opens new wonders. I blame not the gentleman; for what but this can be imagined to give any account of these measures imputed to Christ? Be this never so unlikely, yet this is the only thing that can be said. Had Christ been charged with enthusiasm, it would not have been necessary to assign a reason for his conduct: madness is unaccountable: Ratione modoque tractari non vult. But when design, cunning, and fraud are made the charge, and carried to such a height as to suppose him to be a party to the contrivance of a sham resurrection for himself, it is necessary to say to what end this cunning tended. It was,

we are told, to a kingdom: and indeed the temptation was little enough, considering that the chief conductor of the plot was to be crucified for his pains. But were the means made use of at all probable to attain the end? Yes, says the gentleman, that cannot be disputed; for they had really this effect, the people would have made him king. Very well: why was he not king then? Why, it happened unluckily that he would not accept the offer, but withdrew himself from the multitude, and lay concealed till they were dispersed. It will be said, perhaps, that Jesus was a better judge of affairs than the people, and saw it was not yet time to accept the offer. Be it so: let us see then what follows.

The government was alarmed, and Jesus was looked on as a person dangerous to the state; and he had discernment enough to see that his death was determined and inevitable. What does he do then? Why, to make the best of a bad case, and to save the benefit of his undertaking to those who were to succeed him, he pretends to prophesy of his death, which he knew could not be avoided; and further, that he should rise again the third day. Men do not use to play tricks in articulo mortis ; but this plot had nothing common, nothing in the ordinary way. But what if it should appear, that after the foretelling of his death (through despair of his fortunes it is said) he had it in his power to set up for king once more, and once more refused the opportunity? Men in despair lay hold on the least help, and never refuse the greatest. Now, the case was really so. After he had foretold his crucifixion, he came to Jerusalem in the triumphant manner the gentleman mentioned; the people strewed his way with boughs and flowers, and

were all at his devotion; the Jewish governors lay still for fear of the people. Why was not this opportunity laid hold on to seize the kingdom, or at least to secure himself from the ignominious death he expected? For whose sake was he contented to die? for whose sake did he contrive this plot of his resurrection? Wife and children he had none; his nearest relatives gave little credit to him; his disciples were not fit even to be trusted with the secret, nor capable to manage any advantage that could arise from it. However, the gentleman. tells us, a kingdom has arisen out of this plot, a kingdom of priests. But when did it arise? Some hundred years after the death of Christ, in opposition to his will, and almost to the subversion of his religion. And yet we are told this kingdom was the thing he had in view. I am apt to think the gentleman is persuaded, that the dominion he complains of is contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; I am sure some of his friends have taken great pains to prove it so. How then can it be charged as the intention of the Gospel to introduce it. Whatever the case was, it cannot surely be suspected that Christ died to make Popes and Cardinals. The alterations which have happened in the doctrines and practices of churches, since the Christian religion was settled by those who had an authentic commission to settle it, are quite out of the question, when the inquiry is about the truth of the Christian religion. Christ and his apostles did not vouch for the truth of all that should be taught in the church in future times; nay, they foretold and forewarned the world against such corrupt teachers. It is therefore absurd to challenge the religion of Christ because of the corruptions which have spread amongst Chris

tians. The gospel has no more concern with them, and ought no more to be charged with them, than with the doctrines of the Koran.

There is but one observation more, I think, which the gentleman made under this head. Jesus, he says, referred to the authority of ancient prophecies to prove that the Messias was to die and rise again: the ancient books referred to are extant, and no such prophecies, he says, are to be found. Now, whether the gentleman can find these prophecies or no, is not material to the present question. It is allowed that Christ foretold his own death and resurrection; if the resurrection was managed by fraud, Christ was certainly in the fraud himself, by foretelling the fraud that was to happen: disprove therefore the resurrection, and we shall have no further occasion for prophecy. On the other side, by foretelling the resurrection, he certainly put the proof of his mission on the truth of the event. Whether it be the character of the Messias, in the ancient Prophets, or no, that he should die, and rise again; without doubt Jesus is not the Messias, if he did not rise again for, by his own prophecy, he made it part of the character of the Messias. If the event justified the prediction, it is such an evidence as no man of sense and reason can reject. One would naturally think, that the foretelling his resurrection, and giving such public notice to expect it, that his keenest enemies were fully apprised of it, carried with it the greatest mark of sincere dealing. It stands thus far clear of the suspicion of fraud. And had it proceeded from enthusiasm, and an heated imagination, the dead body at least would have rested in the grave, and without further evidence have confuted such pretensions: and

since the dead body was not only carried openly to the grave, but there watched and guarded, and yet could never afterwards be found, never heard of more as a dead body, there must of necessity have been either a real miracle, or a great fraud in this case. Enthusiasm dies with the man, and has no operation on his dead body. There is therefore here no medium; you must either admit the miracle, or prove the fraud.

Judge. Mr. A. you are at liberty either to reply to what has been said under this head, or to go on with your cause.

Mr. A. My Lord, the observations I laid before you were but introductory to the main evidences on which the merits of the case must rest. The gentleman concluded, that here must be a real miracle or a great fraud; a fraud, he means, to which Jesus in his lifetime was a party. There is, he says, no medium. I beg his pardon. Why might it not be an enthusiasm in the master which occasioned the prediction, and fraud in the servants who put it in execution?

Mr. B. My Lord, this is new matter, and not a reply. The gentleman opened this transaction as a fraud from one end to the other. Now he supposes Christ to have been an honest, poor enthusiast, and the disciples only to be cheats.

Judge. Sir, if you go to new matter, the counsel on the other side must be admitted to answer. Mr. A. My Lord, I have no such intention. I was observing, that the account I gave of Jesus was only to introduce the evidence that is to be laid before the court. It cannot be expected, that I should know all the secret designs of this contrivance, especially considering that we have but short accounts of this affair, and those too convey