sufficient matter to refute this casuistical but superficial assertion. I shall commence by observing, that Jesus distinctly foretold his death, and the manner of it: "Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified," Matt. xxvi. 2. Also, when the woman poured the precious ointment upon Him in the house of Simon the leper, He said, " For, in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial," Matt. xxvi. 12. or, in the words of St. Mark, "She is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying." There are also other passages to the same import, more or less explicit, in various parts of the Gospels, but, for the present purpose, be these sufficient. About the same time that Christ uttered these words, the chief priests and scribes, and elders of the people, were actually conspiring against Him, and concerting measures for His destruction. He likewise foretold that He should be betrayed by a friend and follower, and pointed out the person of the traitor as He sat at meat with His disciples: "He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me." He also prophesied the denial of Himself by Peter, at the very time when the latter was expressing the utmost zeal in His behalf. These, independent of other scriptural proofs, evidence his foreknowledge of events, consequently His Divinity, and thence an undoubted capability to accomplish His own resurrection at pleasure; or, even if Divine powers do not, unassisted by other confirmation, absolutely prove Divine nature, they at least are the credentials of a Divine Mission, as the ancient prophecies were of Divine inspiration, all power being from God, and from God alone. The Divinity of Christ is, however, too surely and immoveably fixed upon other pillars, to render it necessary or expedient to rest it upon the power of prophecy alone. After the crucifixion of our Saviour, Joseph of Arimathea, a believer in secret, though he dared not avow his opinions openly, begged that the body of Jesus might be given to Him. His request was complied with by Pilate; and Joseph, after performing the customary rites, laid it in a new tomb in a garden. A great stone was then rolled to the door of the sepulchre, and the Jews, to prevent the possibility of any fraud or deception being practised, set a guard of Roman soldiers over against the cemetery, and sealed the stone. When, on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the sepulchre whilst it was yet dark, to offer the tributes of affection, she saw the stone rolled away from the door, and she ran, and told two of the disciples, who came also to the tomb, and found that the body of Jesus was gone. Having arrived at the fact that the sepulchre was untenanted, the question arises, What became of the Lord's mortal remains? That the disciples cannot, with reason, be suspected of stealing the body of their heavenly Master, is proved by the following considerations. The disciples were not aware that Jesus was to rise again from the dead, and they looked not, therefore, for so wonderful a confirmation of their faith. Our Saviour had, indeed, spoken to them upon the subject, but in such mystical and parabolic language, that they were unable to penetrate his meaning. The prophecies of all ages were clothed in obscurity, and never rightly understood until the events occurred to which they related, in order that no impostors should provide for a false fulfilment. The reason, therefore, for this secrecy on the part of the Redeemer towards His chosen instruments was, I should conceive, (so far as human sagacity is allowed to penetrate the workings of Deity,) that they should not be accused, or with reason suspected, of surreptitiously making away with His body; and that the want of a foreknowledge of what was to occur, should shield them from the accusation of having promulgated a false report, in pretended fulfilment of a prophesied resurrection. Had they been pre-cognizant of the fact, or had it been in any way predicted by them, an outcry would have been raised against them by the Jews immediately on its accomplishment, that it was a vile fabrication, invented and spread abroad for the purpose of preserving an appearance of consistency, and misleading the people; and in all probability would have injured much the cause of christianity, by throwing an obstacle in the way of belief, in the shape of the possibility and strong likelihood of an imposture. The disciples, not being distinctly aware of the great event which was to take place, could have had no sinister motives in gaining possession of the hallowed clay, as, had they succeeded, they possessed not the power of reanimating it, or performing any thing miraculous by its means, and, if detected, the undertaking would have brought their doctrines into discredict, and their persons into the most imminent danger; as the Jews would not have hesitated in dooming them to the same fate as their heavenly Master, on the slightest ground On the other hand, if we suppose a foreknowledge, they could have had less reason for disturbing the temporary repose of the body, as they would have awaited with patient hope and reliance the fulfilment of the promise. If, therefore, an exhumation be still attributed to the apostles, their only actuating motive must have been the strength of their affection to their departed Lord and Master. This hypothesis will not, however, stand the test of examination, it being most unlikely that the same individuals, who "forsook him and fled," who, when their friend and benefactor was surrounded by his enemies, and in the utmost need, left him alone to contend with their malice and power, and sought not, by word or action, to rescue him from the fate which awaited him, would incur that personal risk for the sake of obtaining a lifeless piece of earth, which they dared not encounter for the sake of preserving their beloved Lord, when alive. Also, the body had been peaceably buried, with respect and decency, by a brother disciple, so that, considering the ignominy of his death, they had reason to be satisfied with the manner and place of interment. Moreover, the violation of the peace of the grave would, in any case, have been a mark of disrespect, inconsistent with the love and veneration borne by the apostles to Jesus. That they could possibly have had no motives for wishing to be possessed of the body, is therefore, I conceive, evident; but should the fact still be doubted, I shall proceed to produce proofs, 1st, that they had not the power, and 2nd, that they actually did not exhume the body of Christ, either forcibly or covertly, or by direct or indirect agency. That they had not the power to accomplish such a purpose, is proved by the numerical disproportion betwixt the apostles and the Roman guard set to watch the grave. Is it probable, nay, possible, that eleven men, men of peace, could succeed in overpowering a company of armed warriors, and bear away their charge by open force? or is it more probable that they could effect that purpose privily, with a numerous patrol stationed on the spot? Any attempt so abortive and ill-judged, would have been followed by the unsparing slaughter of all who engaged in it; and, moreover, had such an attempt been made or executed, the news would have been spread abroad through all parts of the then well-known world, and the record handed down to posterity as an unfailing argument against Christianity, an undeniable proof of imposture, and a mark for the finger of scorn to point at through every successive generation, till time should merge into eternity. Let us now turn to the book of St. John, whose account of the resurrection is fullest and most circumstantial. In the twentieth chapter of that Gospel we read that, on Mary Magdalene discovering that the tomb of Jesus was open, she told two of the disciples, saying, "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him." The two disciples then ran together, "and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he, stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter, following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie: and the napkin that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." In this narrative we find that there were in the grave no symptoms of that hurry which must, of necessity, have been the case, had the body been forcibly torn, or surreptitiously obtained from the tomb, under the influence of the agitation which a fear of detection would have excited in those perpetrating the deed. On the contrary, all things were in proper order; the linen clothes were lying, and the napkin that was about the Saviour's head "not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself: whereas, had the disciples removed the body, there is little doubt but that from motives of decency they would have carried away graveclothes and all. This is strong circumstantial evidence of the verity of our Lord's resurrection, as related by the Evangelists; and it is apparent that St. John attached much importance to the internal state of the tomb, as confirmatory of the main fact, from the minuteness with which he dwells upon it. We have also another convincing proof, in the circumstance of the guard being bribed by the high priests, to say that the disciples stole the body whilst they slept : now, had such been the fact, no bribe or persuasion could have been necessary to induce them to advance in their defence what was really the truth, although, by the way, it was the worst possible excuse they could have offered for neglect; sleeping on duty being considered, in all ages of warfare, according to ancient and modern tactics, a gross breach of military discipline; and it would require high power and influence to indemnify the culprits. Had the sacred corpse been really abstracted from the cemetery by the apostles, either with or without the connivance of the guard, it is most certain that both parties would have suffered punishment for the act, it being clear that the enemies of Christianity would not have let slip an opportunity so well calculated to throw discredit on the new and noxious doctrine. So far, however, from the apostles or guard being punished, they were not even accused or put upon their trial. The very fact of the guard being bribed to spread such a report, in itself negatives the assertion. The evangelists also candidly admit the incredulity of the apostles as to the reality of their Lord's resurrection, until convinced by actual ocular and tangible proof. Sufficient has, I think, been now advanced, to prove that the disciples of Jesus cannot, with the shadow of justice, be accused of abstracting His body; and I do not see that any argument can be advanced to shew that it was exhumed and removed by the enemies of Christ; simply because a guard was set by them to prevent such an attempt, and secondly, because they could have no motive for so doing, unless, indeed, to treat the hallowed remains of their victim with indignity; and, had such a circumstance occurred, it is evident that the record of it would have been transmitted to posterity equally and coeval with the history of the crucifixion, and no suppression or misrepresentation of the apostles could have succeeded in so completely blinding after ages, as to pervert the real truth of an indecent and ignominious exhumation of a body into a glorious and miraculous resurrection and ascension. If, therefore, a disinterment cannot be attributed either to friends or enemies, a resurrection must have been accomplished, and by Divine agency alone. But another objection which has been made to the verity of our Redeemer's resurrection, is the following: "Had Jesus Christ actually broke the trammels of the grave, and re-appeared upon earth, thus shewing himself the Son of God, He would not have contented himself with appearing to his disciples alone, whose testimony would be received by after ages with doubt, by reason of their statement being, as it were, wholly ex-parte, and vouched for and supported only by those interested in his cause; but he would have shewn himself to the people at large, to his most inveterate persecutors, and the most decided disbelievers in his Divinity, and thus at once have crushed every doubt, both contemporary and future." Such a line of conduct, as that suggested by the foregoing objection would have been a decided inconsistency in the character and method of our Saviour. Let it be observed, that during his whole career upon earth he refused to perform miracles, when they were demanded as testimony of the truth of his mission. He never performed a miracle with the view of creating faith, but with that of confirming and rewarding it. The means used by Jesus Christ to effect the great work of human redemption, were reason, persuasion, and example, acting upon the minds of men, and not a series of tremendous and super natural occurrences, terrifying them into a belief of what their minds were unwilling to admit by the former means. The hearts and understandings of men were to be convinced by precept and example, and not by demonstrations which could not fail of forcing conviction, even upon minds imbued with brutish stupidity, or the most determined and deeply rooted scepticism. Also, had the Redeemer manifested himself to the chief priests and elders of the people after his crucifixion, their disbelief, hardness of heart, and determined obstinacy were such, that, after the first agitation and alarm had subsided, and the Divinity had re-ascended into heaven, they would not have hesitated ascribing the apparition to an illusion of the Evil One. It would have been made a matter of speculation and conjecture, and the opinions upon the nature of the appearance would have been so diversified, from the proneness of man to measure sacred things by the inefficient standard of mere physical philosophy, that the subject would have been involved in tenfold obscurity, which would have thickened as the abyss of ages increased between the event and successive generations. Had the same favour of actual proof been granted to all men then existing (as some have thought it ought to have been, to substantiate the fact,) the evangelical testimony would have been received by descendants with no more credit than that of any contemporary; and the garbled statements, and misrepresentations made by designing men of the period, considered equally valid with the Gospel. Thus we should have had no one record more anthentic than another, and a diametrically opposite effect produced to that assumed by the advocates of the previous objections. Moreover, had Christ appeared openly to the whole world after his temporary decease, it would have rendered the after efforts of the apostles unnecessary and unavailing; as it would have been wholly superfluous for them to have travelled abroad to relate to men what they had all seen, and it is certain that no arguments they could have used would have instilled faith into those who were resolutely determined not to believe, in the face of a visible and miraculous proof. Such an universal demonstration would also have been at variance with the prophecies which it was the design of the Messiah to fulfil, and an unnecessary and undeserved condescension on his part. The Jews had the grandest and most perfect theory of religion and morality to contemplate that it was possible to imagine, and they had an example of its practical applicability in the course of an unblameable-a most holy-a completely perfect life. If that did not strike conviction to reasonable souls, they would not have believed-no," though one rose from the dead." Withal, it was absolutely necessary for the final fulfilment of the ancient prophecies, and completion of the grand work, that some individuals should be selected, to receive such proof of the resurrection as it would be morally and physically impossible to doubt, that they might bear testimony to all men; and who so proper for this as the apostles-men who had received the instructions of the Saviour, who had profited by his precepts and example, who had intimate personal knowledge of him, who were firm believers in the excellence and truth of his doctrine, and who were eye-witnesses of all that they attested? The Son of God was beheld by these favoured men forty days after his death and burial. He conversed with them, and expounded the prophets; he performed a miracle in their sight; he ate and drank before them, shewing that he had again temporarily put on the attributes of humanity; he afforded the surest evidence to their senses, of his identity, that they might believe; and to banish from their minds every lingering doubt that the appearance they beheld was a spectrum, or a phantasm, produced only by their heated and morbid imaginations. "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." Luke xxiv. 39. Christ was also seen by other brethren in the faith, to the amount of five hundred, (see 1 Cor. xv. 6.) but more particular manifestations were granted to the apostles, that evangelical testimony might be undisputed, and received by the then present, and future generations, as a veritable relation of facts. The resurrection of Christ was moreover in another point of view necessary to raise the desponding spirits of the apostles, to chase away the gloom which damped their zeal, and infuse into them that courage and devotedness necessary for the prosecution of the stupendous work to which they were destined: the standard around which they had rallied, was cast down into the mire, and they knew not that it was to be hoisted again with more resplendent glory than ever. The desired effect was produced by the appearance of their beloved Lord to them; and the same men who deserted the Saviour when arraigned before the rulers of the people, and who, after his crucifixion, shut themselves up for fear of their enemies, stood undauntedly forth, and preached the gospel in the synagogues and high places of the Jews. We now arrive at the last, the most sublime, and the most conclusive evidence of the validity of Christ's resurrection—his glorious ascension into heaven! when the Divine Being, who had appeared for upwards of thirty years under the form and likeness of man, departed from this lower world, and became lost to the senses of the awe-stricken apostles. The short-lived power of his murderers was at an end, and the last grand proof of the truths of Christianity made wonderfully and indubitably manifest. Let us then hear no more doubts as to the genuineness and authenticity of Christ's resurrection, for, to a firm belief in that event, belief also in the whole doctrine of Christianity, in the existence of the Messiah on earth, and the divinity of his nature, must be inseparably linked: all must stand or fall together. The resurrection and ascension are so obviously the grand conclusion of the redemption of mankind, as foretold by the prophets, and by Jesus himself; so completely in accordance with the doctrines taught by the Redeemer, as symbolical of our own revival after death, and a future state, that it is impossible to admit a belief in the separate event, unless accompanied with a denial of the whole system of Christianity. So far from a strict and minute investigation of abstract points of the gospel being productive of scepticism, from inconsistencies thereby discovered, as some have asserted; I apprehend that a kind of synthetic study of the Scriptures, and the life and actions of Christ, presented with a proper determination to ascribe effects to their proper causes, and a resolution to abandon such parts as are obviously beyond the limits of human reason, aud immeasurable by any scale of human philosophy, and concluded with a judicious estimation of them as a whole, would be the means of banishing doubt from the sceptic, and confirming the faith of the waverer. I will readily grant that a superficial examination of abstract or unconnected parts of Holy Writ, without reference to the spirit or intention, is dangerous, unprofitable, and productive of infidelity : but that mind alone which is previously willing, and prepared for the admission of doubt, will study the sacred volume in such a manner. We must not peruse the Bible as a lawyer would a deed or charter, for the declared purpose of finding a flaw or imperfection, but with the eye and heart of a Christian, with a prayer to Heaven for power to comprehend all that is necessary for our guidance in duties towards God and man, and grace to believe in the atonement of Christ for our sins. I am inclined to think that fewer are sceptics or Deists in heart and soul, than pretend to be so. Many are inclined to entertain infidel opinions, from the arguments of others, which they have not sufficient talent, faith, or learning, to controvert, and not having sufficient industry to enter into an investigation of the Scriptures to judge for themselves. Others profess heresy from the affectation of singularity, or superior wisdom and research; but I think I shall be borne out in the assertion, that Deists are generally more ignorant of the details of the Bible than those who embrace Christianity from conviction. Let such, however, as blindly follow the unholy standard of others, or profess what they do not feel, perhaps, neither understand nor care about, let such as these remember, that those who deny Christ before men, will be denied by Him at the last day before his Father in heaven. Was there ever a man in existence, or is there a man in existence, capable of imagining a religion so pure and exalted, or a system of ethics so perfect and irreproachable, as that bequeathed to us by the Redeemer of mankind? Is human nature capable of such vastness of conception, such purity of detail, such perfection of practice? No! Divinity alone could have shaped out the Christian religion, have formed the Christian code; and Divinity alone could have set the example of absolute moral perfection in actual perform ance. 2D. SERIES, NO. 30.-VOL. III. Let then our faith be built upon foundations that are unshakeable; our reliance placed firmly upon Christ, and that faith and reliance displayed by our good works; then, despite of the frailties incident to humanity, despite of our incapability of attaining perfection, we may justly hope to be partakers of the eternal blessings provided for us by the intercession, and through the death and resurrection, of Jesus Christ. London, 3d August, 1832. ANTIQUITY OF THE BRITISH CHURCH-UNCORRUPTED WITH POPISH ERRORS TILL THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. MR. EDITOR, SIR-It appears from the best authority, and the most authentic documents, that the British or Welsh church continued in a state of comparative purity, and resisted the errors and corruptions of the see of Rome, to a much later period than is generally supposed. In the year 1812, the learned and venerable Dr. Burgess, now Bishop of Salisbury, and then of St. David's, published some Latin hexameter lines, written by John Sulgen, in commemoration of his good and pious father Sulgenus, generally denominated by the Welsh, Sulien Ddoeth; that is, Sulien the Wise, who was Archbishop of St. David's from the year 1070 till his death in 1088. Two very material circumstances in ecclesiastical history may be clearly proved from these verses of the son of the Archbishop's, namely, 1st. That marriage was not then interdicted to the clergy. 2d. That the adoration of images and the intercession of saints had not at that time been introduced into the Welsh church; for we here find the son of a British metropolitan addressing himself immediately to Christ, without the intervention of departed saints, and protesting against prayers for the dead as unprofitable to salvation. "Arbiter altithrone nutu qui cuncta gubernas Recta Salutis, is a very significant expression, implying that there is only one right way of salvation, and that reliance on prayers for the dead, and on the intercession of departed saints, is not that right way. Here are no addresses to departed saints, not even to Saint David, for David was not canonized till after the Norman Conquest; nor is there a thought expressed 174.-VOL. XV. 2 M |