him if, in his opinion, there can be the least doubt that the author in his two last verses, did not intend to be understood, that it was also the last.

Now for Luke's statement. He tells us, that on the same day that Jesus rose from the dead, two men who had followed him from Galilee, were going to Emaus-he fell in company with them--they did not know him-when they arrived there, (not yet knowing him,) they asked him to take a late dinner or an early supper with them--he finally assented--at the table they recognized, him, and immediately, "that same hour" they returned to Jerusalem, where they found the eleven, (who according to Matthew, had started for Galilee,) and began to tell them, what they had seen, and while they were making this communication, to wit. on the day and year aforesaid; to wit. on the day of his resurrection; to wit. at Jerusalem; Jesus appeared, and stood in the midst of them; and they were affrighted and supposed they had seen a spirit. Does not Luke mean to be understood, that this was the first interview with the disciples, after the resurrection?

As I am arguing this question on the supposition, that a resurrection is not a miracle, being satisfied there is not sufficient testimony in this case, to establish any disputed fact; I am bound to admit that he may have risen from the dead, notwithstanding this discrepancy; but you must also admit, that this testimony has not the least tendency to establish the fact. The burden of proof lies on you-the man must be supposed dead, till your witnesses prove him alive. They make their statements all averring from hearsay, except one, (John) that the body was missing from the sepulchre. But this is not sufficient to prove that it was reanimated; nor would the general averment, that he was alive, be sufficient. The witnesses appear to be aware of this, and therefore each of them goes into a detail of the particulars, as to the time when, the places where, and the persons by whom Jesus was seen alive, after his crucifixion. We have seen how two of them directly conflict with each other, as to the place where he was first seen, and whence he ascended. I say, whence he ascended: for it is manifest that Matthew intends us to understand that he ascended immediately after his interview wrth the eleven, at Galilee. Luke is express, that he ascended from Bethany, a suburb of Jerusalem, and on the very night after his resurrection. The statements of these persons therefore prove nothing. Their confliction destroys the force of both.

Take a familiar case, by way of illustration. Doctor A is charged with cutting up a body, that had been buried. Two witnesses appear against him-they both state that the grave was opened, and the body missing but do not pretend they saw the doctor open the grave, or take the body

away. (You will bear in mind, that no one, not even the angel, avers he saw Jesus rise, or come out of the tomb.) But one says he saw the doctor cutting up the identical body in Georgetown, D. C.-that he (the witness) waited there till the doctor had finished the operation, and boiled the bones; and that he (the Doctor) then packed them in a trunk, and took them to Baltimore. The other says as positively, that he saw him cutting it up at Bordentown, N. J., and boil the bones, &c., and then start with them for Philadelphia. Would any jury convict upon this testimony; both witneses being upon an equality, as to reputation? They would not be authorized to believe even that the grave had been broken open; much less, that the doctor was guilty of the charge alleged against him.

We will now take up Mark. He appears to be a writer of great brevity ---despatches things at once-seldom lays venues, or gives dates. I have agreed for the present, to admit that he wrote the book bearing his name, but he certainly must have had some one to help him write the last chapter; or he must have copied from two manuscripts, as he has given us two distinct versions of this affair of the resurrection; for we find two distinct headings or commencements. Thus far I must qualify my admission. In the first account, he appears (appearance only) to follow Matthew, till the close of it; when he contradicts him and Luke, the latter, in so many words a flat negation.

ters.

Let us compare the first few verses of Matthew's and Mark's last chapMatthew says: "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre." Mark says: "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary, the mother of James and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and annoint the body; and very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun." Both agree; in fact, they all say that Mary Magdalene was along. Matthew says the two Marys went to see the sepulchre. Mark says, they went to spice the body. Both say, that these women saw it put in the tomb. Then why did they want to go to see it? for you assert, and quote John to support you, that none of his followers expected him to rise.

If hard pushed, you may quote from Luke, for the same purpose. True, he asserts that Jesus told these disciples that he would be put to death, and rise again; but he takes special pains to add, that they did not understand a word he said. Was there ever the beat of this? Jesus, it is said, spake as never man spake! Luke certainly wrote as never man wrote. He makes Jesus hold the following language to his disciples:

"Then he took unto him the twelve; and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be acomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: and they shall scourge him, and put him to death; and the third day he shall rise again."

Nothing can be more plain and intelligible than this; yet in the following verses he tells us, that these disciples understood none of these things -that this saying was hid from them; neither knew they the things that were spoken. (See Luke 18. 31-35.)

Luke does not intend to be understood, as attributing their inability to know these things, to their natural stupidity; but to some charm brought over them by Jesus. He represents this son of God, as converting his auditors into mere blocks of wood, or figures of wax; and then making or pretending to make important communications to them.

Who could have told Luke what Jesus said on this occasion? Certainly no one of these spell-bound disciples, from whom the whole speech was hid. None else were present to hear this saying; for, Jesus took unto him the twelve, and spake to them, and them only. This is a hard question to answer; is it not?

What trick, what device, what starting hole can you here find out, to shield your evangelist from the open shame of asserting, without the least proof or testimony whatever, except the impudent assumption that this holy man wrote at the dictation of the divine spirit?

To resume the argument, let me ask, why this visit on the part of these women, at this unseasonable hour, merely to see a tomb they had seen before? Let us see, if Mark's pretence, for this untimely visit, will bear the test of examination. He also admits, that these same women had seen the body laid away; yet they went on Sunday morning to spice it. Why want. to buy spices to anoint it, when according to John, they must have seen it wrapped up in a hundred pound weight; enough in all conscience, to perfume any corpse of common dimensions.

Matthew in continuation, "And behold there was a great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door; and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment as white as snow; and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and become as dead men."

Mark: "And they, the women, said among themselves, who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? and when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away, for it was very great; and entering

into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted."

Matthew gives us to understand that the earthquake happened, and the angel descended and rolled away the stone and sat upon it, at the time the women were approaching the sepulchre; so that they saw the descent of the angel, and removal of the stone, as well as the shining garments.You cannot change the tense of these verbs into what is called the pluperfect, so as to make the text read, “and behold there had been a great earthquake the angel had descended-had rolled," &c.; for neither the Greek text nor the sense will authorize it, as you must continue the same tense throughout; and then it would read: “and had sat upon it, his garments had been shining," &c. Mark represents the women as having arrived after the descent of the angel, and the rolling away of the stone, and sitting upon it; for he says, they found it rolled away, and the angel had changed his position, and was sitting within the sepulchre, and not upon a stone, on the out side of it. Mark's, as well as Luke's and John's silence, as to the earthquake and setting of the guard, does not poisitively disprove them; but I ask, if it is not probable, they would have mentioned such important facts; important to their cause, if they had happened.— Matthew again: "And the angel said unto the women, fear not ye, for I know ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here, for he is risen, as he said; (foretold) come see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and behold he goeth before you into Galilee, there shall you see him." Mark puts almost the same words into the angels mouth. Tis true, he adds the name of Peter. "Tell his disciples and Peter," &c. One of your standard writers explains, by saying: "it is a notorious fact, that Mark wrote under this

apostle's direction-from his information," &c. How came this notorious, and how does this author know it. Some men pretend to know more about the evangelits, than they ever intended they should.

Matthew again : "And they (the women) departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy, and did run to bring the disciples word.” Luke: (24. 8.) "And they (these same women who had been to the sepulchre, and had the interview with the angel,) remembered his (the Lord's) words, and returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." Mark: "And they (these same women, (went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre, for they trembled and were amazed; neither said they anything to any man, for they were afraid." Here is a flat contradiction-a technical issuee-an affirmation on the one side, and a negation on the other.

I have now quoted all of Mark's first version, and will proceed to his second; or what I say, is his second, commencing at the 9th verse of his last chapter. It is as follows: "Now when Jesus was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils; and she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept."

Now if the reader will refer back to the first two verses of this same chapter, he will be convinced that Mark is commencing in the 9th, an account of the resurrection de novo. I proceed to show, that the first eight verses of his last chapter have either been interpolated, or that he must have been a compiler merely, and misplaced them. This 9th verse, just quoted, should have been the first, in other words, should have followed the last verse of the 15th chapter, to which it has immediate relation. The reader will observe that the most important word in this verse, to wit, Jesus, is in italics, and therefore not found in the original-a strong circumstance to show that the verse is out of its proper place. If the translators had supplied the word he instead of Jesus, they could with propriety have been asked to whom this pronoun he, related; for it is certain there is no immediate connexion between this verse and the preceding 8th verse; and the only antecedent of the pronoun he, in this 8th verse, is the indefinite any.

It will be necessary to inform those unacquainted with the Greek and Latin languages, that it is not necessary in those languages, to use the pronouns I and he, as we do in English. The ending of their verbs indicates what pronoun must necessarily be understood. For example: Amo in Latin, and agapao in Greek, mean I love; but there is no Latin or Greek word in either instance for I. Ego is in both languages, the word for I. We will take the case before us for proof. The last verse of the 15th chapter, is, in English in these words: "And Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Joses, beheld where he was laid." Now there is no word for he in the original, in this verse, but the very ending of the verb was laid, in the Greek, indicates or carries with it (ex vi termini,) the pronoun he; and it was not necessary for the translators to have intimated that this pronoun was not in the Greek, by putting it in italics. So, if this 9th verse of the 16th chapter, had followed the one just quoted, there would have been no necessity of italicising any word in it. It would have commenced thus: "Now when he was risen," &c,-the pronoun he relating to the same person, that it did in the last verse of the 15th chapter, viz: Jesus. Again. I assert that the 9th verse upon its face, is a commencement of a narration de novo. Inspection is all that is necessary. Argu

ment is useless.

R