regard to common facts, is equally suited to authenticate those that are extraordinary.

The question which I now propose, is not, Whether the resurrection of Jesus be a natural event? but, whether this fact, supposing it to have taken place, be attended with proper evidence, and with such a degree of proper evidence as ought to satisfy a reasonable mind? The truth of a fact which involves in it no contradiction or absurdity, depends not on its nature, but on its proofs. The reason is obvious for, what is styled nature is invisible, but proofs are open to investigation. In natural philosophy improbabilities, arising from our ideas of the nature of things, are often overruled by direct positive proofs.

:

If, indeed, we were fully acquainted with the secret economy of the universe,-if we knew the full extent of that power which created all things, and were competent to affirm that a resurrection is impossible, testimony would not operate conviction in our minds but if we admit that God can raise the dead, a resurrection is not a thing incredible. For if we believe that there is a power sufficient to effect it, the natural possibility of the event is granted. Now, though the resurrection of a dead person be really a stupendous work, it is not too hard for Omnipotence. That He who gave life, can, if he please, restore it, reason, independently of revelation, directs us to acknowledge.

What is there, then, in a resurrection that shocks our feelings? "It is a wonderful event." True. But is not the natural world full of the Creator's wonders ? Is it not wonderful that, after the death of winter, the spring should come forwards in all her beauty, health, and fragrance? Is it not wonderful that the principle of vegetative life should break

66

forth from the dead and corrupted mass that lay buried in the earth, and rise to a beautiful plant? Is it not wonderful that the little insect, which to all appearance died, should come forth into new life, and take its flight into regions to which, in its former grovelling state of animated existence, it could not soar? 66 'These," it may be said, are common events." They are so; and it is because they are common that they excite little or no surprise; though they are really as mysterious as the resurrection of a man. Is it not evident that the power which can effect these familiar events is able also to raise the dead?

As the natural attributes of the Deity render a resurrection possible, so, if it can be made to appear that the resurrection of Jesus is eminently conducive to the glory of God, and to the happiness of men, it must be considered as perfectly compatible with the moral excellences of the Divine character. Let us, then, briefly state the evidence we have of this singular fact.

That there was such a person as Jesus Christthat he was crucified, dead, and buried-and that his tomb was found empty on the third day-we have no occasion to prove; as these particulars are admitted by Jews and Gentiles. Christ must, then, have been taken away, or he arose. If taken away, his removal must have been effected by either friends, or foes; for an indifferent person, if, indeed, any one at that time in Jerusalem could have remained indifferent, cannot be supposed to have interfered. If his enemies secured the body, why did they not produce it, to confound the disciples, to vindicate themselves from the heavy charges exhibited against them, and to stop the progress of a story, which could not fail to prove, in the highest degree,

mortifying to their national pride? Incapable of producing the dead body to public view, they maintained that it was in possession of the disciples. The soldiers, they said, affirmed that while they slept, the disciples stole the body from the sepulchre, with a view to impose upon the credulity of the simple by a pretended resurrection.

The story of the soldiers, which the Jewish priests and rulers invented, is a series of improbabilities. Every one conversant with ancient history, knows that the vigilance of Roman sentinels was secured by the strictest discipline. To sleep on guard was death. Is it, then, probable that these soldiers should sleep on the present occasion; and that they should all sleep at the same time? Is it probable that the disciples should know the precise time? Is it probable that a few timid men, who fled with terror when they might have rescued their Master's life, would venture in the face of an armed guard, to ascend the hill, to roll away the stone which closed the mouth of the grave, and to convey away the corpse? What motive could induce them to undertake such a perilous enterprise? I call it perilous; for, if the removal of the stone should awake a soldier, or, if any one of that vast multitude of people which crowded Jerusalem at the passover, should, by aid of the moon, which, being then full, shone all night, detect them in the cheat, their scheme is destroyed, their hopes are blasted, and their ruin is inevitable. But, if they escape detection, what is their object? What will they do with the body? What scheme could they mean to support? Will they say that he is risen? They had no steady expectation that he would arise; or, if they had, why should they act the part which the soldiers attributed to them?

After all, what confidence can be placed in this story? It has the complexion of a fraud. The soldiers were taught to say, that while they were asleep, the disciples stole the body of their Master: but they were not instructed to inform us how they ascertained what was transacted while their senses were locked up in sleep. Such a tale, unsupported by evidence, would not be regarded in any court of justice. It has not even the air of probability. It is calculated only to excite ridicule. If they who framed it, meant to display the strength of their prejudice, the baseness of their hearts, and the weakness of their cause, we should, in this instance, give them credit for the wisdom they discover in adapting the means to the end.

But let us leave this absurd story, and inquire whether a consistent account can be given of a fact which was not then disputed, I mean the removal of Christ's body from the sepulchre. Let us hear what those who call themselves the apostles of Jesus have to relate. They say, that, "scarcely expecting the event, though their Master had himself foretold it, but in language which at the time he spake they did not fully comprehend, they were surprised with an account that his body was gone; and that they found afterwards, to their great joy, that he was alive; that he appeared to them at different times, and in various places, eating and drinking with them, and speaking to them of the things which concern the kingdom of God; that Thomas, one of their company, would not credit the relation of those who saw Christ on the day when he arose; that he carried his incredulity to the length of saying, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe,' John xx. 25; that

Jesus, on the first day of the following week, condescended to offer him the very evidence which he required; that Thomas, fully convinced, exclaimed, My Lord and my God; that Jesus Christ afterwards appeared in Galilee to above five hundred brethren at one time; that, of those who saw him before and after his death, he selected twelve, including Matthias, to be witnesses of his resurrection; that a principal article in the destined employment of these chosen witnesses, called apostles, was to give testimony to a fact of which they were assured by many infallible proofs, during his residence with them for forty days, before he, in their sight, ascended into heaven; and that, about ten days after his ascension, the Holy Spirit came upon them, agreeably to their Master's promise, enabling them. to speak in many languages, which they had never learned by study, that they might bear witness to men of all nations, and to confirm their testimony by signs following."

This, which is the substance of the apostolic report, is a plain, consistent, and apparently artless narrative. If we do not credit it, we must suppose either that the apostles were themselves deceived, or that they studiously endeavoured to deceive the rest of the world. Now there seems to be no rational ground for either of these suppositions.

Here are twelve men who agree in their testimony, though in general, two or three witnesses are thought sufficient. They say, "That which we have seen, and heard, and handled, declare we unto you," 1 John i. 1, 3. They affirm that the fact, of which they are witnesses, fell under the examination of their senses. This circumstance is material, and demands notice. For, if these unlearned and ignorant men had been required, without Divine aid, to trace the etymology