first that should rise from the dead,' was a probable event.

Thirdly, the resurrection of Jesus was attested by persons capable of knowing the truth. Matthew, and John, and Peter, and James, who were the companions of our Lord, who witnessed his death, and who, during forty days after his resurrection, had frequent interviews with him, have each borne his testimony to the fact. The Evangelists Mark and Luke were companions of the Apostles, and fellow-labourers with them in diffusing the glad tidings of salvation; their accounts of the event may well be relied on, since they had access to the best sources of information.

Fourthly, those who published an account of the resurrection, were honest and faithful men, unbiassed by any view to self-interest.

Whatsoever charges may be brought against the companions of our Lord and the historians of his life, surely, dishonesty and faithlessness cannot be included amongst them. It is sufficient only to reflect for a moment on their conduct, in order to be convinced of their integrity. They left all for the sake of truth and a good conscience, and followed the most unpopular of teachers. And if it may be supposed, that worldly motives first induced them to attach themselves to Jesus, and that the expectation of temporal good caused them to adhere to him during his earthly ministry, these ́motives and expectations were totally destroyed at the crucifixion. Nevertheless, shortly after this event, they preached Christ and the resurrection: but, so far from deriving advantage therefrom,

A a

they were 'every where spoken against,' and lay, as it were, under the ban of society. What pos sible worldly interests could they have had in persisting to uphold the cause for whose sake they were deemed accursed; and for which, they were, hourly, in danger of being hurried to suffering and the tomb? If such constancy, and such devotion, and such endurance of evil, be a proof of dishonest and self-interested views, then, indeed, were the asserters of a resurrection deceivers and faithless.

Fifthly, could the account have been refuted at its first promulgation?

The opponents of the disciples, the priests and pharisees, had full opportunity to investigate, and every motive to disprove, the story of the resur➡ rection. But instead of investigating, they had recourse to misrepresentation; instead of disproving, they had recourse to authority. The disciples charged them with basely corrupting the soldiery with a bribe, to which no answer was returned. Christianity, founded upon the resurrection of Jesus, spread on every side. That which they could not refute, they endeavoured to destroy by force: We command you,' said they to the ministers of Jesus, 'not to speak at all nor to teach in this name.'

Sixthly, has the fact been uniformly asserted and believed?

It is completely certain,' says Dr. Paley, that the Apostles of Christ, and the first teachers of Christianity, asserted the fact. And this would have been certain, if the four Gospels had been

fost, or never written. Every piece of scripture recognizes the resurrection. Every Epistle of

every Apostle, every author contemporary with the Apostles, of the age immediately succeeding the Apostles, every writing from that age to the present, genuine or spurious, on the side of Christianity or against it, concur in representing the resurrection of Christ as an article of his history, received without doubt or disagreement by all who called themselves Christians, as alleged from the beginning by the propagators of the institution, and alleged as the centre of their testimony.'

Seventhly, has the account of the resurrection of Christ been duly investigated by honest and well qualified persons?

Of this there can be no doubt. Men of the greatest learning and integrity have closely and anxiously scrutinized the evidence in its favour, and have been satisfied of its truth. Many who had been hostile to the religion of Christ, have, on a serious examination of the subject, yielded up their prejudices and become its faithful advo→ cates. Not a few of these, in the very infancy of Christianity, when the means of ascertaining the truth were much greater than any which we at the present day possess, preached Christ and the resurrection, in the presence of the persecutor, and sealed their testimony with their blood. And when we turn our attention to the men of later times, and perceive Locke and Hartley, Mosheim and Lardner, Paley and Watson, Jebb and Priestley, and many others of equal talent and integrity, ▲ a 2

in the ranks of those who have firmly believed, and ably asserted, the truth of the great event which forms the basis of our holy religion, we shall not, surely, have reason to doubt that the subject has been closely, fully, and impartially investigated. We are not, indeed, obliged to believe whatsoever comes recommended to us from men of the greatest talent; but, that which wise and good men duly examine, and honestly believe, has, at least, a strong claim upon our respect and attention.

I pass on, briefly, to observe, that there is, in the scriptural account of the incidents connected with the resurrection, all that beautiful simplicity of relation, which is a sure mark of truth. Look, for instance, at that highly natural and interesting account of the interview between Mary Magdalene and our Lord in the garden of the tomb. Consider the surprise of the unbelieving Thomas: the conversation of the disciples on the road to Emmaus: the natural and truthful account of the first interview between Jesus and his disciples, when they believed not for joy and wondered:' the affectionate earnestness of Peter, on the shores of the sea of Tiberias, Lord, thou knowest all things-thou knowest that I love thee.' Look at these artless narratives, and say if they wear the garb of deception and the marks of fraudulent invention?

Once more; if, as the unbeliever asserts, the history of the resurrection be a fable, how shall we satisfactorily explain the devotedness of the Apostles and primitive Christians? Or if we

suppose it possible, that these latter might have been the victims of so base a delusion; and that they were devoted to every species of suffering, and to death itself, for a fable; how shall we account for the constancy of the former, who must have been either the authors of the fable, or well acquainted with its history? Did Paul leave the popular religion, and yield up friends, and worldly honour, and ease, and gain; did he endure hardships, and contumely, and want, and imprisonment, and death, for a fable? Was Peter erucified, and James stoned, and John exiled, for a fable? These questions, monstrous as it would be, must be answered in the affirmative, if the unbeliever's objections be valid. But it is utterly incredible that men should have thus exposed themselves to contumely, and suffering, and every species of evil, unless they had had the most undeniable evidence that the testimony for which they suffered was true.

I cannot but conclude, therefore, that the objections of the unbeliever, how plausible soever, are utterly insufficient to shake the faith of the Christian, and to throw discredit upon the great event which is the foundation and glory of his religion. On the contrary, when we perceive that the history of this most interesting fact presents all the internal marks of truth; when we consider the conduct of the men who gave that history to the world; when we consider that it is corroborated by more of circumstantial, yea, of positive evidence, than any other event of equal antiquity; we must be constrained to acknowledge the truth of the