The prisoner.

His accusation and trial.

Not long after I had taken my seat, the clerk said that the next cause was the trial of a prisoner for house-breaking. The judge commanded an officer to bring the accused into court. The officer went to the iron door which I have described, unlocked it, and brought out of the room into which it opened, a prisoner; he looked guilty and ashamed, and his face was pale-though the paleness was apparently not that of fear, but such as is caused by the debility and disease resulting from a life of dissipation and vice. The officer brought him into the middle of the room, and placed him in a small inclosure near the center of the room, and shut him in. He leaned against the railing in front, looked at the judge, and began to listen to his trial.

The

The clerk read the accusation. It was, that he had broken open an unoccupied house once or twice, and taken from it articles belonging to the owner of the house. judge asked him if he pleaded guilty or not guilty. He said, not guilty. The judge then asked the jury at the side to listen to the evidence, so that they might be prepared to decide whether this man did break open the house or not.

Men, not accustomed to speak in public assemblies, could not easily give their testimony in such a case, so that it would be fully understood on all the important points. In fact, very few know fully what the important points are. Hence it is proper that there should be lawyers present, who can ask questions, and thus examine the witnesses in such a manner as to bring out fully all the facts in the case. There is one lawyer appointed by the government, whose business it is to bring to view all the facts which indicate the prisoner's guilt; and another appointed by the prisoner, who takes care that nothing is omitted or lost sight of which tends to show his innocence. When the prisoner has not appointed any counsel, the judge appoints some one for him. This was done in the case before us

Testimony of the owner.

Testimony of the watchman.

Lawyer's question.

The first witness called was the owner of the house. It is necessary that each witness should be a man of good character, and that he should testify only to what he saw or heard. No one is permitted to tell what some one else told him; for stories are very likely to be altered in repetition; so that, even in a complicated case, each man goes only so far as his own personal knowledge extends. And, in order to be sure that the jury shall have his own story, he is obliged to come personally into court, and tell the story in presence of all. The owner of this house was probably a man of business; and a great deal of valuable time would have been saved, if he had been permitted to write down his account, and send it in. But no; every witness, where it is possible, must actually come into court, and present his evidence with his own voice. This remark it is important to remember, as the principle will come into view, when we consider the other case.

The witness testified, that he owned a certain house; that he moved out of it, and locked it up, leaving some articles in an upper chamber; that one day he went in, and found that the house had been entered, I believe by a window, and that the chamber-door had been broken open, and some of the articles taken away. He said that he then employed a

watchman to sleep in the house, and to endeavor to catch the thief.

Here this witness was obliged to stop; for, although he knew how the watchman succeeded, he was not permitted to state what he knew, for he did not see it. No man testifies except to what he has seen or heard.

The watchman was next called. The lawyer for the government asked him,

"Were

you employed by the owner of this house to watch for a thief in it ?"

Watchman's story.

The prisoner convicted.

"What did he say to you, when he engaged you?"

“He told me that his house had been broken open, and he wished me to watch for the thief."

'Did you do it?"

Yes, sir."

· Well, relate to the jury what occurred that night."

I watched several nights. For some nights nothing occurred. All was quiet till morning."

66 In the room under the chamber from which the articles had been stolen."

Well, go on with your account."

“At last, on the 15th of June, as I was then watching, about three o'clock in the morning I heard a noise. Some one was coming softly up stairs. He went up into the room over my head, and after remaining a few minutes there, he began to come down. I immediately went out into the entry, and seized him, and took him to the watch-house. The next morning he was put in prison."

The lawyer then pointed to the prisoner at the bar, and asked if that was the man. The witness said that it was. The judge then asked the counsel for the prisoner, if he wished to ask any questions. He replied that he did, and he immediately proceeded to question the witnesses very minutely in respect to the whole transaction. He, however, elicited nothing favorable to the prisoner. The jury finally consulted together, and all agreed that the prisoner was proved guilty; and the judge ordered him to be sent back to the prison, till he should determine what punishment must be assigned.

This is substantially the way in which all trials are conducted. Three or four points are considered very necessary. 1. That the witnesses should be of good character. 2. That they should have actually witnessed what they describe.

Points secured on trial.

Three points to be attended to.

And, 3. That the precise account which they themselves give, should come into court. These points the judge or the lawyers secure. The latter they obtain by having the witness himself always come, if it is possible, even if he has to leave most important business for this purpose. If from sickness, or any other similar cause, he can not come, his testimony is, in some cases, taken down in writing, and signed by himself, and that paper, the very one which he signed, must be brought into court, and read there. This is called a deposition. The second point is secured by not allowing any man to go any farther in his testimony than he himself saw or heard. So that sometimes, when the case is complicated, a very large number of witnesses are called, before the whole case is presented to the jury. The first point they secure, by inquiring into the character of the witnesses. If any man can be proved to be unworthy of credit, his testiis set aside.

mony

Now all these points must be looked at in examining the evidence of the Christian miracles. I alter the arrangement of them, however, in the following discussion, placing them now in the order in which it is most convenient to consider them. In examining the evidence relating to the Christian miracles then, we must ascertain,

1. That we have the actual account given by the original testifiers themselves.

2. That these testifiers were actual witnesses of the facts

to which they give testimony,

3. That these witnesses are credible; that is, that they are honest men, and that their word can be relied upon.

These three points I shall examine in order, in reference to the Christian miracles. The witnesses are the four evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; and the first inquiry, according to the list above presented, is to determine whether we have exactly the account which they themselves give.

G*

Irruption of the barbarians.

Dark ages.

Witnesses are commonly called into court to tell their own story, and then there can be no mistake. If that is impossible, as I remarked above, their deposition is taken, with certain forms, and the very paper which they originally signed is brought and read in court. But neither of these courses can be taken here. For, in the first place, the witnesses have been for a long time dead, so that they can not come forward to give their testimony; and although they wrote, at the time, a full account of the events which occurred, so long a period has since elapsed that none of the original manuscripts now remain. Time has long since destroyed all vestiges of the writings of those ancient days.

I presume that most of my readers are aware that not long after the time of our Savior, barbarians from the north, in innumerable hordes, began to pour down upon the Roman empire, until at last they subverted and destroyed it. Very many of these barbarians became nominal Christians, and preserved some copies of the Bible, and in fact, they saved many extensive and valuable libraries, consisting of course, of manuscript works, in the form generally of parchment rolls, the art of printing not being then known. They however subverted most of the institutions, and destroyed the accumulated property of civilized life, and brought a long period of ignorance and semi-barbarism, called the dark ages, upon the world. After some time, however, there began to appear in various parts of Europe signs of a gradual improvement. The monks in the various convents, having no other employment, began to explore the old libraries, and to study the books. They made themselves acquainted with the languages in which they were written, and when the art of printing was invented, they published them. In consequence, however, of the immense number of manuscripts collected in some of the libraries, a long time elapsed before they were fully explored, and even now the work is not absolutely completed. New