Another circumstance must be mentioned, not less extraordinary than the permanent nature of the testimony, which may be called the popularity of the evidence. It is not always the case that a proof built on true principles, and sound in every part, which, when it is narrowly examined, must of consequence be satisfactory to men of knowledge and discernment, is of a sort to be easily and generally understood. For the most part, perhaps, the proof of fact is a thing more remote from popular apprehension than scientific demonstration: for the connection of an argument is what every one naturally and necessarily perceives; but between a fact and the testimony of the witnesses who affirm it there is indeed no physical and necessary connection. A witness may speak rashly, without a sufficient knowledge of the fact which he pretends to assert, or he may speak falsely, contrary to his knowledge. Thus the folly and the vices of men have rendered it for the most part very difficult to perceive, how the certainty of a fact arises from the attestations given to it; and to appreciate the credibility of historical evidence is become a task for the highest and most improved abilities; requiring a certain dexterity and acuteness of the mind in detecting great fallacies, and in reconciling seeming inconsistencies, which is seldom to be acquired in any considerable degree but by a practical familiarity with the habits of the world, joined to an accurate and philosophical study of mankind. And, accordingly, we see, that men of the slowest apprehension, if they have had but a sufficient degree of experience to make them jealous of being imposed upon, are always the most averse to believe extraordinary narrations. But, in the case before us, no extraordinary penetration is

requisite to perceive the infallibility of the evidence. Every man has experienced the certainty with which he distinguishes the person and the features of a friend. Every one knows how dearly he loves himself; with what reluctance he would sacrifice his ease and expose his person in any project, from which he expected no return of profit or enjoyment. And with this experience and these feelings, every one is qualified to sit in judgment upon the fact of our Lord's resurrection, and to decide upon the evidence. And in this circumstance, no less than in the permanent nature of the evidence, we may see, and we have reason to adore, the hand of Providence. For to what can we ascribe it but to the over-ruling providence of God, that while the proof of historic facts is, for the most part, of the most intricate and embarrassed nature, the most extraordinary event which history records should be accompanied with a proof as universally perspicuous as the fact itself is interesting? Every man born into the world is interested in the event which has opened to us all the gate of heaven. And the evidence which accompanies the fact is such, that every man born into the world is in a capacity to derive conviction from it.

Notwithstanding, however, the solidity and the general perspicuity of the proof, considered in itself, it may seem to lie open to a considerable objection. Many objections have indeed been brought against it. Some have been taken from the varieties with which the four Evangelists relate the first declaration of the event by the angels to the Galilean women at the sepulchre. These I consider as cavils rather than objections. Every attentive reader of the Gospel knows that the female followers of our Lord were numerous.

He will easily discover that these numerous female followers had made an appointment to meet at the sepulchre at an early hour of the first day of the week, for the purpose of embalming the body ; a business which the intervention of the Sabbath had obliged them to postpone. He will easily imagine that these women would be lodged in different parts of the city, and of consequence would come to the sepulchre in several parties and by different paths; that they arrived all early, but not exactly at the same time. He will perceive, that the detachments of the heavenly squadron, the angels who attended on this great occasion, to whom the business was committed of frightening the Roman sentinels from their station, of opening the sepulchre for the admission of the women, and of announcing the resurrection, became visible and invisible at pleasure, and appeared to the women of the different parties, as they successively arrived, in different forms, and accosted them in different words; and in this way the first evidences of the fact were multiplied, which had been single, had the women all arrived in a body at the same instant, and seen all the same vision.* Each evangelist, it

* The company which saw what is related by St. Matthew (of which company Mary Magdalene, although mentioned by the Evangelist, was not, I think, included,) went by a path which led to the front of the sepulchre, and came within sight of it early enough to be witnesses to the descent of the angel, the flight of the guard, and the removal of the stone. While these things passed, Mary Magdalene with her party were coming by another path which led round the back part of the sepulchre, and came not within sight of the entrance of the sepulchre till the first party had left it. They, therefore, no sooner came within sight than they saw that the stone was removed, and Mary Magdalene immediately ran back to inform

VOL. II.

may be supposed, has confined himself to that part of the story which he had at the first hand from the women who had first fallen in his way, and each woman related what she herself had seen and heard, which was different from what had been seen and heard by the women of another company. These few simple observations, as they reconcile the narratives of the several evangelists with each other, and the particulars of each narrative with the general fact in which they all consent, dissipate any objections that may be raised from the varieties of their story. The objection which I purpose to consider, in the first face of it, is far more specious. It seems to arise spontaneously from the state of the evidence which is given in the text; and thus throwing itself in the way of every one who reads the Bible, or who hears it read, it seems to be a stumbling-block in the way of the believer, which it is our duty, if God shall give us the ability, to remove. "Him hath God raised up, and showed him openly; not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before of God."

Peter and John of her suspicions. The rest of the women of that party proceeded to the sepulchre, entered it, and were assured of our Lord's resurrection by the angel whom they found within the tomb in the manner related by St. Mark. Presently after these women had left the sepulchre, Peter and John arrived, followed by Mary Magdalene; for she hastened back to the sepulchre when she apprised the apostles of her fears. After Mary Magdalene, waiting at the sepulchre, had seen our Lord, and was gone away to carry his message to the apostles, Luke's women arrive, and are informed by two angels within the tomb. In the interval between our Lord's appearance at the sepulchre to Mary Magdalene, and the arrival of Luke's party, he appeared to St. Matthew's party, who were yet upon the way back to the city. For that the appearance to Mary Magdalene was the first, St. Mark testifies.

The selection of witnesses carries, it may be said, no very fair appearance. Jesus was seen alive after his crucifixion, but he was seen, it should appear, by those only who had been his early associates, who had been employed by him to travel over the country as his heralds, proclaiming him as the long-expected Messiah, who, by the event of his public and ignominious end, were involved in general contempt and ridicule. Why was he not shown to all the people, if the identity of his person would stand the test of a public exhibition? Was it not more likely, that the Jewish people would be sooner convinced by his own public appearance, than by the report of those who had long been considered as the first victims of his imposture, or the sworn accomplices of his fraud? The most incredulous of his enemies had declared they would believe in him, if they might but see him descend from the cross. Would they not much more have believed, had they seen him on the third day arisen from the grave? Were the Jewish people kindly treated when they were punished for their infidelity, of which they might have been cured, had the evidence been afforded them, which in so extraordinary a case they might reasonably demand? such a case, the CHOICE of witnesses brings a suspicion on their whole testimony; a surmise that they were chosen, not of God, but of themselves and their confederates. Perhaps they preferred persecution, with the fame attending it, to security accompanied with contempt; and they pretended a selection of themselves to be witnesses on the part of Heaven, to give the better colour to the lie, which they were determined, at all hazards, to maintain.

In

This imperfection, as it may seem, in the proof of our