the spot at the crucifixion.' Yet John tells us, that he witnessed the whole scene, and received the orders of his dying Lord concerning his mother. We may 'infer from these circumstances, trivial as they are,' that this author knows very little about the subject on which he writes; and numerous other instances might be adduced, if it were worth while.

Peter denied his Lord with cursing and swearing; that is, he disclaimed all acquaintance with him: but he did not deny him to be the Messiah, the Son of the living God. How great soever his crime was; his ingenuous confession of it, and his subsequent labours and sufferings in the cause of Christ, sufficiently entitle him to credit, in his testimony both to the crucifixion and resurrection: but his testimony is a very. small part of the evidence on which our faith is surely founded.

Different methods have been taken to reconcile the sixth hour, mentioned by John, with the accounts of the time of our Lord's crucifixion, as stated by the other evangelists: but if it be allowed a trivial error in some transcriber, which might easily take place in a numeral letter; what doubt can that excite in a serious mind as to the authenticity of a narrative, attested in all its leading parts, by four distinct historians? Impostors would have avoided such observable inaccuracies.*

Matthew is generally allowed to have written before the other evangelists: had they not therefore credited his account of the miracles attending Christ's

death; they would have contradicted it: for the circumstances which he related were of so extraordinary and publick a nature, that they could not have escaped detection, if they had been false.*

It would have degraded the sacred history, to have noticed such subjects, as Mr. P. proposes in his ques.

tions, concerning the saints that arose, and came out of the graves after Christ's resurrection. Our Lord's reply to the frivolous objection of the Sadducees may suffice to answer them all. "Ye do err, not knowing "the Scriptures, nor the power of God." We may indeed add, that there is no reasonable doubt, but these risen saints accompanied their ascending Lord, to grace his triumphs, as the first-fruits of his resurrection. Mr. P. says, 'Had it been Moses and Aaron, and Joshua and Samuel, and David,' (supposing them to have appeared to the people,) not an unconverted Jew had remained in all Jerusalem.' It might be asked, how the Jews could have known these risen saints to have been Moses and Aaron, &c. except by their own testimony, or by immediate revelation? But waving this: the reader has his option, whether he will eredit this assertion of Mr. P. or the words of Christ, "If they believe not Moses and the prophets; neither "would they be persuaded though one rose from the "dead."

Matthew alone relates the account of the Roman soldiers who guarded the sepulchre: but does this prove, 'that according to the other evangelists there were none? Will not common sense determine, that

⚫ P. ii. p. 72.

their silence allows the truth of his narrative? By pub lishing his gospel, and relating the base conduct of the priests and rulers, Matthew had openly challenged them to disprove it if they could: but this they never attempted; and surely they would not have silently endured so disgraceful an imputation, if they had not had substantial reasons for their conduct.

The absurdity of the story, which the rulers put into the mouth of the soldiers, is sufficiently evident: but if men act absurdly, historians are not to blame for recording their actions. The evangelist appealed to the whole nation, that the story was notorious; that it had been propagated immediately after the body of Christ was missing; and that it had continued current till the time when he published his narrative. It is most evident that some of the soldiers had affirmed, they were paid for circulating it: none of them were called to account, that we know of, for this or any other part of their conduct: and no man stepped forth, to say, that such a story had not been propagated, or was not current; that the priests had not bribed the soldiers to spread it; or that they could give a more satisfactory account of the manner in which the body of Jesus had been removed. How could men have been persuaded that such a report had long been current, if they had never before heard of it? or that it was still current, if every body knew it was not so? Or how could an anonymous writer, or rather one who assumed another man's name, have thus appealed to facts, as well known when his work was published, and for some time before; if such facts had been mere forgeries?— Mr. P. indeed argues from the expression, "until this

"day," that Matthew did not write the gospel, and that it was manufactured long afterwards. But seven or eight years would suffice in this case, and warrant a man to use such words. We have abundant proof of the antiquity and genuineness of Matthew's gospel. But could it be shewn to have been published long afterwards, it would still further establish the fact in question: for an appeal to contemporaries some ages after, that the report concerning the soldiers was commonly circulated till that day must be an additional evidence of its truth.

The circumstances of our Lord's resurrection, as recorded by the four evangelists, have been long known to involve some difficulty, and to have the appearance of inconsistency: insomuch, that Celsus, in the second century, brings this as an objection to the christian religion. But Mr. P. by confounding things evidently distinct, and using various methods of embarrassing the subject, has given the whole an air of self-contradiction, very suited to impose on the incautious reader: and, as this subject is more likely to embarrass even a serious enquirer, than any other in

The Age of Reason,' I shall endeavour to give a compendious statement of the narrative, as it may be collected by carefully comparing the four evange

lists.

Mary Magdalene, the other Mary or Mary the mother of James and Joses, Salome, and Joanna, are the women named in the history: but Luke, having men. tioned all the others, except Salome, says, "there were "other women with them." This company, on the evening of our Lord's crucifixion, concerted the plan,

and bought the spices, for the anointing of his body: and then retiring, probably to separate lodgings, they "rested the sabbath-day, according to the command"ment." But early on the morning after, they proceeded according to appointment, to meet at the sepulchre; for there is no mention of their previous meeting at any other place; and thus they reached that spot at different times. Mary Magdalene seems to have set out with the other Mary and Salome, from one place; Joanna, and the other women with her, from another. But Mary Magdalene, being peculiarly fervent in spirit, appears to have out-gone her companions, and to have arrived first at the sepulchre, while it was yet dark, or day break;* and seeing the stone removed, she ran back to inform Peter. In the mean while the other Mary and Salome reached the sepulchre; and finding it open, they went in and saw the angel, or angels. Matthew and Mark mention only one angel, because only one spake to the women: but they do not say there was no more than one. Thus Matthew mentions two demoniacks, where Mark and Luke speak of but one; doubtless because that one was most remarkable, both before and after his dispossession. Though possibly Luke spake of Joanna, and her company. While these women returned into the city, Peter and John seem to have passed them by another road: and coming to the sepulchre they saw no angels. But Mary Magdalene, who had followed them, and staid at the sepulchre when they returned, saw two angels, and afterwards Christ himself; who di

* John xx. 1, 2.

† John xx, 3-18.