who were comforting her, and with this assemblage he proceeds to the grave. "It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it." Lazarus had at this time been dead four days, and a short demur was made to the removing of the stone. But when it was removed, "Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always but because of the people which stand by, I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. And when he had thus spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave clothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him and let him go." d That this too was a miracle, if performed as related, must beyond all doubt pass wholly unquestioned.

We now come to the miracle of our Saviour's own resurrection, which is declared to us in detail by all the evangelists. They all declare that he predicted his crucifixion, and that he should

rise again on the third day from the dead'. They all record his actual death on the cross, an event witnessed by intent and numerous spectators, and we are informed by St. Matthew, that, after his burial, the chief priests and Pharisees being aware of the prediction that after three days he would rise again, took their own precautions to baffle deceit, that they "went and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone and setting a watch."-It is declared to us farther, that on the third day, Christ did rise, as he had predicted, that on the morning of that day the grave was found empty, that the watch were bribed to say that the body was stolen, and that Jesus himself appeared at various times to his disciples, that he talked with them, ate with them, that he convinced their incredulity by showing them his hands, his feet, and his side: or, as the whole history is briefly recapitulated in the beginning of the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, that "he showed himself alive

a See the references, note, p. 76.

b Matt. xxvii. 66.

e Matt. xxviii. 1-9. Mark, xvi. 4. Luke, xxiv. 1-12.

Luke, xxiv. 39.

after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of" the Apostles "forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." a

The formal establishment of the certain truth of these miracles would divide into the same three branches, which, in the case of the Mosaic miracle of the pillar of fire and cloud, I thought might be ranked as separate heads of inquiry. It might be proved, first, that at least something took place, that at least there was a person who called himself Christ, and who performed certain acts in ancient Judea, and that the acts of this person, whether or no he worked miracles, that his doctrines, whether they be true or false, were the foundation of that religion which we profess. But it is so very unlikely that this will ever be contested; if contested, we may apply to Christ so easily what has been said already of Moses; and it is also so clear that Christ asserted himself to possess the power of miracles, and that the sacred historians bear testimony to the exercise of it, that all formal proof of such points as these would be thrown away.

It remains only to show, therefore, that the

facts related must have been performed in the manner related: that it is impossible to suppose that they can be essentially mis-stated to us in those evangelical records which we have received; or that they could be anything else than real miracles. Of the evangelical records, as in the former case of the Pentateuch, we, of course, assume either the absolute authenticity; that is, their being the actual compositions of the immediate disciples and companions of Christ; or at least that they were received in the very first ages of the church as a true representation of our Saviour's history.-Assuming this; could these records have been received, could they have been allowed to subsist without any refutation of the miraculous facts which they relate, and which they relate not incidentally, but as their main subject and business, could this have been, unless those facts had been true, and incontrovertible? The jet of these facts was to gain converts to a religion, which taught the Jew that he must unlearn all those prejudices which had wound themselves most intimately about his heart, and his religion; prejudices which, like most men, he loved better than his religion itself, and which required him to embrace con

tempt and persecution: which taught the Gentile, not a moral explication of the superstitions and fallacies of Gentile worship, a sort of philosophy he might, perhaps, have willingly received, but that he too must submit himself to the scandal of the cross.-The question I ask is whether persons so circumstanced could ever have been prevailed upon to believe doubtful facts, those facts carrying with them such practical consequences, and involving the admission, and even the zealous assertion, of doctrines so uninviting and perilous?

Or even could this happen, we are still but little advanced in accounting for the credit which these miracles obtained. Grant that friends may still have been made to the religion, on some unknown and incomprehensible principle, or rather in defiance of the strongest principles of our nature, and that the friends of the religion might have been naturally disposed to admit even on defective evidence the truth of the miracles on which it was said to depend.— Grant this of its friends. Where all this time were its enemies? In this great question were the Jews idle, or were they indifferent? Could the Scribes and Pharisees see a reformer of their