Had we never read this chapter in our childhood, the position for which I am contending, would be readily admitted. I will, however, state a similar case:

"On the first day of January, early in the morning, 1835, the ship Good Intent, got under way at the port of New York, bound for Liverpool, having on board as passengers, Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, and was capsised in a squall soon after leaving the Hook, when all on board perished, except the two Marys, who swam to shore; but were so exhausted, that they could not and did not relate to any one the least particular of the shipwreck.

"Now when the ship Good Intent, left the port of New York, early in the morning, on the first day of January, 1835, she was lost just out side the Hook, and all on board perished, except Mary Magdalene, who caught the long-boat, and returned safe to port, and related all the particulars of the shipwreck, to all the persons concerned in the vessel or cargo."

It reminds me of the Yankee witness, who, on being interrupted by the counsel, would commence his story anew: "Capt. Rice he gin a treat."To the credit of the Yankee, it should be remarked, that his tale as far as he was suffered to proceed, was, in each instance, most provokingly identical.

Your standard writer, Mr. West, acknowledges that there is an apparent discrepancy between Matthew and Mark, as to the time of the arrival of the women at the sepulchre. But he, of course, contends it is only apparent; and that Matthew's account should be read as if in the pluperfect tense, thus: "And there had been a great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord had descended and had rolled away the stone from the door, and had sat upon it;" for he labors to prove that the appearance of the angel sitting on the stone, mentioned by Matthew, was to the keepers only; that is Matthew must be understood to say, that the angel's garments had been as white as snow, and his face like lightning while frightening the soldiers, but that he had gone into the sepulchre, and had assumed a milder aspect at the time the women came up. As lord Mansfield has said in another case: "This is a matter of construction merely-all men can judge of it;' and (I add,) ought to treat with contempt him who will assert, that Matthew intended to be understood as saying, that the angel was not sitting on the stone, when he addressed the women. But we will examine this writer's arguments a little further. He says the expression of the angel in Matthew: "Come (dute, which might more properly be translated come hither) see the place where the Lord lay;" is proof that he was in the sepulchre when he used it; and therefore he argues there is no disagreement between Matthew and Mark-the latter of whom says expressly, that the angel was in the sepulchre. This is presuming that the women could not

have looked into the sepulchre from the stone on which the angel was sitting, or from any place outside of it; yet John says that he, while on the outside, by stooping, saw the linen clothes lying, and when he entered it, he saw nothing but the napkin. And Luke tells us that Peter "stooping down saw the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed wondering;" though John says that Peter "entered in," &c. The expression "Come and see the place where the Lord lay," cannot help him out of . the difficulty.

To end this argument and show that there is a discrepancy in this small matter, let Mark be heard. He says expressly, that the angel was in the sepulchre, and in a sitting posture, when he addressed the women, and that he did not address them until they had also entered into the sepulchre. Matthew says come and see, clearly showing that the women were outside when he addressed them. Mark says see or behold only, they having already entered.

Our author also lays great stress upon the Greek word exelthousai, translated in Matthew departing, and in Mark going out of, as if this word must or does always mean going out of a tomb or a cellar.

This writer speculates upon the objects the angel had in view, and tells us he assumed a most terrific aspect, a face like lightning, in order to frighten the soldiers into fits of swooning; and when this was effected, he clothed his face with smiles, that he might not terrify the women and other disciples, who were to flock there that day. And he adds "This supposition is neither presumptuous nor unreasonable." Why did they wish to flock there that day? Can this author tell us? As a specimen of the mode of reasoning of your champions and standard authors, I will copy several sentences from this writer.

2

"In the latter, (Matthew's gospel,) indeed, this angel is also painted with a "countenance like lightning," and the keepers are said to have trembled, &c., for fear of him. The purpose of this angel's descending from heaven seems to have been, not only to roll away the stone from the mouth of the sepulchre, that the women who were on their way thither might have free entrance into it, but aiso to fright away the soldiers who were set to guard it; and who, had they continued there, would certainly not have permitted the disciples of Jesus to have made the necessary in quiries for their conviction, could it be supposed that either they or the women would have attempted to enter into the sepulchre, while it was surrounded by a Roman guard. For this end it is not unreasonable to suppose he might not only raise an earthquake, but assume a conntenance of terror, and after it was accomplished, put on the milder appearance of a young wan, in which form the women, as St. Mark says, saw him 'sitting within

the sepulchre, on the right side.' This supposition, I say, is neither unreasonable nor presumptuous. For, although to argue from the event to the design or intention may, in judging of human affairs, be deceitful or precarious, yet in the actions of God, the supreme disposer of all events, it is most certain and conclusive."

He describes the angel, as playing his several parts, like Matthews in the stage coach, or Alek Drake in Three & One, and all for the purpose of frightening the soldiers, so that they would not prevent the women and disciples from entering into the sepulchre, and seeing-Seeing what? not the reanimated body of Jesus, but his grave clothes; and believing-Believing what? not that Jesus was alive, from seeing and handling him, but from the report of the angel, which report and the circumstance of the body being missing, would not have been sufficient to have convinced them that he had risen; for, from the accounts of all the evangelists, it was deemed requisite that Jesus should show himself to the disciples, in order to their belief in his resurrection. This stage trick at the sepulchre, on which our author lays so much stress, and to which he attaches so much importance, was all to no purpose. He himself believes, that Jesus rose from the dead, because it is said the apostles saw him alive after his death, and not because this angel is reported to have said he was risen. But it is the last sentence of the quotation, to which I wish to call the attention of the reader. "To argue," says the writer, "from the event to the design or intention, may in judging of human affairs, be deceitful or precarious, yet in the actions of God, the supreme disposer, &c.; it is most certain and conclusive." For whom or to whom is this man writing? With whom is he debating? With christians? They must necessorily believe in the resurrection. No, he is debating with infidels; and behold his impudence. I have no other name to give his bare faced petitio principii here; as he takes for granted that this being that is said to have rolled away the stone, was an angel of heaven, and that what he is reported to have said and done, were the saying and doings of God, the supreme disposer of all events. How can we argue with such men, who trample upon all rules of logic, and settle questions by their own ipse dixits? The writer has here settled the question. Why then write hundreds of pages to prove the resurrection, after he has taken for granted, that a being, who, he says or takes for granted, was an angel from heaven and mouth-piece of God Almighty, had declared that Jesus had risen from the dead. It is by such argumentation, that your system of facts has ever been, and still is supported, as is plain and manifest to him who reads your standard authors.

Mark in his second version follows Luke-alludes to the two who went to Emmaus-says that Jesus after that, appeared to the eleven as they sat

at meat-no day or place mentioned. After giving us Christ's parting injunction to his disciples, he concludes as follows: "So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God." He here speaks of these heavenly transactions in the same positive and confident manner, that he does of the events that occurred in our week-day world. the right hand or left hand?

How did he learn whether he sat upon What did he know about heaven or its lo

cality? You apply the universal solvent here, namely, inspiration, which puts an end to all argument, and by the application of which you confess your inability to support your cause by sound logic.

Another argument, common in the mouths of all of you, even of your learned bishops, is this: "What, not believe that he rose, when he was seen by so many?" Which is equivalent to: "What, not believe he rose, when he did rise?" For if he was actually seen alive, by even one person, he certainly must have risen. After being driven from this assumption, they change the question to something like this form: "What, not believe that he rose, when we have so many witnesses, namely, the. one, two, three, four or five women; the men that went to Emmaus, the rest that were with the eleven at Jerusalem, and the five hundred that Paul speaks of. All these are witnesses? wltnesses to us? from not one of whom have wa a scrip of a pen; and of the eleven, there are but five who can be called witnesses, viz: Matthew, John, Peter, James and Jude. In this manner, witnesses can be increased to any number. If I should tell you, that a perfect orange grew and ripened at the end of my finger, which I plucked and ate, you would not believe. Should I affirm further that five hundred men saw it, you would still be sceptical, and ask me to bring forward my five hundred, that you might inquire of them.

Had my father once acted on the principle for which you contend, I should, when quite a lad, have escaped a flogging. I told him that I could not find the cows, for which I was sent; and fearing him more than I ought, (he was a good man though,) I told him that Ben Remington helped me look for them, and that he could not find them. My father did not yet consider Ben as a witness, that they could not be found in their usual range; but went and inquired of him, when lo, Ben told him, he had not seen me that day. The consequence I have already intimated.

We will now give Luke's last chapter a more particular examination, with a view to ascertain the time of Christ's ascension. Here, as in Mark, it is a matter of construction merely-all men can judge of it. I am justified in the assertion, that this chapter is a well connected and a continuous narration. We have his positive assertion, that the two men went out to Emmaus on the day of the alleged resurrection, that they ate or

Was

sat down to a late dinner or an early supper at Emmaus with Jesus.-Was not this dinner or supper on the day of the resurrection? While at this meal Jesus was made known to them, and they rose up that same hour, and returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven gathered together. not this returning and finding on the day or evening of the resurrection?— And they told what things were done on the way, and how he was known of them in the breaking of bread, and as they thus spake or while they were thus speaking, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith: Peace be unto you; but they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit." Was not this relation of the things that happened on the way, this standing in the midst and fright of the persons present, on the day of his resurrection? And he said unto them, why are ye troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts; behold my hands and my feet; that it is I, myself-handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Is not this a continued speech, all made at one time; and was not that time the day of or the evening after the resurrection? And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. Was not this exhibition of his hands and feet, on the day of or evening after the resurrection? And while they yet believed not for joy and wondered, he said unto them: have ye here any meat? and they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honey comb, and he took it and did cat before them. Were not this inquiry for meat, and their presenting him with fish and honey and his eating, all on the day and year aforesaid? And he said unto them, these are the words that I spake unto you while I was with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets and in the Psalms, concerning me. Is there any break here? Was not this speech made on the day and year aforesaid?— Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures; and said unto them: Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins might be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem; and ye are witnesses of these things. Was not this speech made on the day and year aforesaid; to wit, on the day of the resurrection? And behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye here in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. Is not this a continuation of the speech last quoted, and was it not made on the day and year aforesaid? And he led them out as far as Betheny, and he lifted up his hands and blessed them. And it came to pass while he blessed them, he was parted from them and carried up into heaven. Is there any break here? Is there the least intimation that this leading out and ascension, were not on the day and year aforesaid? Can any ma