lith fuch obvious lies; and I think it equally impoffible to fuppofe, that Matthew would have dared to publifh his account of what happened at the death of Jefus, had not that account been generally known to be true.

LETTER VIII.

THE "tale of the refurrection," you fay, “fol

lows that of the crucifixion."You have accuftomed me fo much to this kind of language, that when I find you speaking of a tale, I have no doubt of meeting with a truth. with a truth. From the apparent difagreement in the accounts, which the evangelifts have given of fome circumftances refpecting the refurrection, you remark-" If the writers of thefe, books had gone into any court of justice to prove an alibi, (for it is the nature of an alibi that is here attempted to be proved, namely, the abfence of a dead body by fupernatural means,) and had given their evidence in the fame contradictory manner, as it is here given; they would have been in danger of having their ears cropt for perjury, and would have justly deferved it" hard words, or hanging," it feems, if you had been their judge. Now I maintain, that it is the brevity with which the account of the refurrection is given by all the evangelifts, which has occafioned the feeming confufion; and that this confufion would have been cleared up at

H

once

once, if the witneffes of the refurrection had been examined before any judicature. As we cannot have this viva voce examination of all the witneffes, Jet us call up and question the evangelifts as witneffes to a fupernatural alibi.-Did you find the fepulchre of Jefus empty? One of us actually faw it empty, and the rest heard, from eye witneffes, that it was empty. Did you, or any of the followers of Jefus, take away the dead body from the fepulchre? All anfwer, No.-Did the foldiers, or the jews, take away the body? No.-How are you certain of that? Because we faw the body when dead, and we saw it afterwards when it was alive.-How do you know that what you saw was the body of Jefus? We had been long and intimately acquainted with Jesus, and knew his perfon perfectly.-Were you not affrighted, and mistook a spirit for a body? No; the body had flesh and bones; we are fure that it was the very body which hung upon the cross, for we faw the wound in the fide, and the print of the nails in the hands and feet. And all this you are ready to fwear? We are; and we are ready to die alfo, fooner than we will deny any part of it.-This is the teftimony which all the evangelifts would give, in whatever court of juftice they were examined; and this, I apprehend, would fufficiently establish the alibi of the dead body from the fepulchre by fupernatural

means.

But as the refurrection of Jefus is a point which you attack with all your force, I will examine minutely the principal of your objections; I do not think them deferving of this notice, but they fhall have it. The book of Matthew, you fay, "ftates that when Chrift was put in the fepulchre, the jews applied to Pilate for a watch or a guard to be placed over the fepulchre, to prevent the body being ftolen by the disciples."-I admit this account, but it is not the whole of the account; you have omitted

the

the reafon for the request which the chief priests made to Pilate-" Sir, we remember that that deceiver faid, while he was yet alive, after three days I will rife again."-It is material to remark this; for at the very time that Jefus predicted his resurrection, he predicted alfo his crucifixion, and all that he fhould fuffer from the malice of thofe very men who now applied to Pilate for a guard." He fhewed to his difciples, how that he must go unto Jerufalem, and fuffer many things of the elders, and chief priefts, and fcribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day." (Matt. xvi. 21.) These men knew full well that the firft part of this prediction had been accurately fulfilled through their malignity; and, instead of repenting of what they had done, they were fo infatuated as to fuppofe, that by a guard of foldiers they could prevent the completion of the fecond.-The other books, you observe,

fay nothing about this application, nor about the fealing of the stone, nor the guard, nor the watch, and according to these accounts there were none.'

-This, Sir, I deny. The other books do not fay that there were none of these things; how often muft I repeat, that omiffions are not contradictions, nor filence concerning a fact a denial of it?

You go on "The book of Matthew continues its account that at the end of the fabbath, as it began to dawn, towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to fee the fepulchre. Mark fays it was fun-rifing, and John fays it was dark. Luke fays it was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women, that came to the fepulchre. And John fays that Mary Magdalene came alone. So well do they agree about their first evidence! they all appear, however, to have known most about Mary Magdalene; fhe was a woman of a large acquaintance, and it was not an ill conjecture that the might

H 2

might be upon the ftroll."-This is a long paragraph; I will answer it diftinctly :-first, there is no disagreement of evidence with refpect the time

when the women went to the fepulchre; all the evangelifts agree as to the day on which they went; and, as to the time of the day, it was early in the morning, what court of Justice in the world would fet afide this evidence, as infufficient to substantiate the fact of the womens' having gone to the fepulchre, because the witneffes differed as to the degree of twilight which lighted them on their way? Secondly, there is no difagreement of evidence with respect to the perfons who went to the fepulchre. John ftates that Mary Magdalene went to the fepulchre ; but he does not ftate, as you make him ftate, that Mary Magdalene went alone; fhe might, for any thing you have proved, or can prove to the contrary, have been accompanied by all the women mentioned by Luke:-is it an unusual thing to dif tinguish by name a principal person going on a visit, or an embassy, without mentioning his fubordinate attendants? Thirdly, in oppofition to your infinuation that Mary Magdalene was a common woman, I wish it to be confidered, whether there is any fcriptural authority for that imputation; and whether there be or not, I must contend, that a repentant and reformed woman, ought not to be esteemed an improper witness of a fact. The conjecture, which you adopt concerning her, is nothing lefs than an illiberal, indecent, unfounded calumny, not excufable in the mouth of a libertine, and intolerable in your's,

The book of Matthew, you obferve, goes on to fay And behold, there was an earthquake, for the angel of the Lord defcended from heaven, and came and rolled back the ftone from the door, and fat upon it:-but the other books fay nothing about any earthquake,"-what then? does their

filence

L

filence prove that there was none?" nor about the angel rolling back the ftone and fitting upon it; -what then? does their filence prove that the ftone was not rolled back by an angel, and that he did not fit upon it?" and according to their accounts there was no angel fitting there." This conclufion I must deny; their accounts do not fay there was no angel fitting there, at the time that Matthew fays he fat upon the ftone. They do not deny the fact, they fimply omit the mention of it; and they all take notice that the women, when they arrived at the fepulchre, found the ftone rolled away; hence it is evident that the ftone was rolled away before the women arrived at the fepulchre; and the other evangelifts, giving an account of what happened to the women when they reached the fepulchre, have merely omitted giving an account of a tranfaction previous to their arrival. Where is the contradiction? What space of time intervened between the rolling away the ftone, and the arrival of the women at the fepulchre, is no where mentioned; but it certainly was long enough for the angel to have changed his pofition; from fitting on the outfide he might have entered into the fepulchre ; and another angel might have made his appearance, or, from the firft, there might have been two, one on the outside rolling away the ftone, and the other within. Luke, you tell us, " fays there were two, and they were both standing; and John fays there were two, and both fitting."-It is impoffible, I grant, even for an angel to be fitting and standing at the fame inftant of time; but Luke and John do not fpeak of the fame inftant, nor of the fame appearance-Luke fpeaks of the appearance to all the women; and John of the appearance to Mary Magdalene alone, who tarried weeping at the fepulchre after Peter and John had left it. But I forbear making any more minute remarks on ftill

minuter