Mr. A. The instance of Dr. Emmes is so far to the purpose, that it shews to what lengths enthusiasm will carry men.  And why might not the same thing happen at Jerusalem, which happened but a few years ago in our own country?  Matthew and John, and the rest of them, managed that affair with more dexterity than the French prophets; so that the resurrection of Jesus gained credit in the world, and the French prophets sunk under their ridiculous pretensions.  That is all the difference.

Mr. B. Is it so?  And a very wide difference, I promise you.  In one case everything happened that was proper to convince the world of the resurrection; in the other, the event manifested the cheat:  and upon the view of these circumstances, you think it is sufficient to say, with great coolness, That is all the difference.  Why, what difference do you expect between truth and falsehood?  What distinction _____

Judge.  Gentlemen, you forget you are in a court, and are falling into dialogue.  Courts don’t allow of chit-chat.  Look ye, the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus is before the court, recorded by Matthew, Mark, and others.  You must take it as it is; you can neither make it better, or worse.  These witnesses are accused of giving false evidence.  Come to the point; and let us hear what you have to offer to prove the accusation.

Mr. B. Is it your meaning, Sir, that the objections should be stated and argued all together, and that the answer should be to the whole at once? or would you have the objections argued singly, and answered separately by themselves?

Judge.  I think this court may dispense with the strict forms of legal proceeding; and therefore I leave this to the choice of the jury.

        After the jury had consulted together, the foreman rose up,

The Foreman of the Jury.  We desire to hear the objections argued and answered separately.  We shall be better able to form a judgement, by hearing the answer while the objection is fresh in our minds.

        Judge.  Gentlemen, you hear the opinion of the jury.  Go on.

Mr. A I am now to disclose to you a scene, of all others the most surprising.  “The resurrection has been long talked of, and, to the amazement of everyone who can think freely, has been believed through all ages of the church.”  This general and constant belief creates in most minds a presumption that it was founded on good evidence.  In other cases the evidence supports the credit of the history; but here the evidence itself is presumed only upon the credit which the story has gained.  I wish the books dispersed against Jesus by the ancient Jews had not been lost; for they would have given us a clear insight into this contrivance:  but it is happy for us, that the very account given by the pretended witnesses of this fact, is sufficient to destroy the credit of it.

The resurrection was not a thing contrived for its own sake.  No! it was undertaken to support great views, and for the sake of great consequences that were to attend it.  It will be necessary therefore to lay before you those views, that you may be the better judge of this part of the contrivance, when you have the whole scene before you.