In the meantime I cannot help expressing my indignation to you, at seeing the rude manner in which his grace the Duke of Somerset, our chancellor, is treated. When the doctor informs the world publicly that there is a report that his grace is to act a part beneath (as we are told) his honor and dignity, it is a poor salvo to add that he does not give credit to it. And when, in his zeal to charge the vice-chancellor, he sets him forth as attempting to involve his grace in those difficulties which his violence has brought on himself, he shows what an opinion he has of his grace's abilities; who, I assure your lordship, is too well known and too much esteemed here, for any vice-chancellor to dare to attempt to involve him in any action beneath his honor and dignity; and in this particular case he has acted a part so suitable to his own and the university's honor, that this place will ever retain sentiments of the highest respect towards him.

But indeed the doctor pays as little respect to his new patrons as he does to his old ones, when he endeavors to insinuate his cause into their favor, by telling them that if such a power be allowed as has been executed in his case, it will enable a vicechancellor to discourage all opinions that do not suit with his scheme. What opinions the vice-chancellor has power to restrain and discourage, your lordship shall have in the words of our statute. Prohibemus ne quisquam in concione aliquá, in loco communi tractando, in lectionibus publicis, seu aliter publice infra universitatem nostram, quicquam doceat, tractet, vel defendat contra religionem, seu ejusdem aliquam partem in regno nostro publica auctoritate receptam, et stabilitam, aut contra aliquem statum, auctoritatem, dignitatem seu gradum vel ecclesiasticum vel civilem hujus nostri regni Angliæ vel Hiberniæ. You see, my lord, that the vice-chancellor has authority to restrain no opinions but such as are contrary to the religion established, and the form of ecclesiastical and civil government. And the doctor has given a broad hint what use he would make of the professor's chair, if he may be but delivered from the fear of the vice-chancellor. But this insinuation is so opprobrious to the honorable persons whom he and his friends here publicly name as the espousers of his cause, that I shall

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 evidence 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 antagonist'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.