was no direct proof of the doctrine they delivered. It was not such proof as would satisfy a mind accustomed to sensible demonstrations and argumentative inductions, and entirely unacquainted with the first rudiments of religious knowledge. The doctrine might or might not be true, for miracles could do no more than imply its credibility. They could not substantiate the fact.

St. Paul seems to have been well aware of this, and, therefore, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, having laid down the resurrection of Christ as an undoubted fact, and related various manifestations of him made to different persons, and to himself among the rest, he goes on to prove the credibility of the resurrection both philosophically and morally, showing, by a train of the soundest argument, that it is agreeable both to nature and reason, as well as to religion.

To the Jews this doctrine was objectionable, not so much on its own account, as because it was immediately connected with Jesus whom they had put to death. They admitted it, for the most part, as a general truth, but denied it in the particular instance before us. It was, in fact, the popular doctrine, for none but the Sadducees rejected it. Of the extent to which it prevailed, we have a striking proof furnished us in the history of St. Paul, who, on one of his visits to Jerusalem, being in imminent danger of his life from a tumult, saved himself by asserting the doctrine, "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee of the hope and resurrection of the dead

I am called in question." This brought the Pharisees over to his side, for they, who formed the great body of the nation, held the resurrection as an article of faith. But in consequence of the disturbance, he was made a prisoner and was brought successively before the governors Felix and Festus, and before King Agrippa. In the presence of each of these distinguished persons he maintained and defended the doctrine with great ability, and not only commanded their respect, but made a visible impression upon their hearts. Agrippa was a Jew, though of the sect of the Sadducees, and they, it is well known, were materialists: they believed that the whole man, soul and body, was utterly destroyed by death. When, therefore, St. Paul said to the king, "Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?" he was speaking to a Jew, who, with the Holy Scriptures in his hand, denied a doctrine which those Scriptures entertained, though they did not expressly declare it. In a Heathen such denial had a reasonable excuse, but none at all in a Jew. For the Holy Scriptures contained many facts and revelations quite as supernatural and astonishing as the resurrection of the body, though, because they were of a less personal character, they were not therefore disbelieved.

But without going farther into the state of times and of circumstances, let us proceed to consider the objections to the doctrine itself, First, as to the general credibility of a resurrection at all;

and, Secondly, as to that particular branch of it which relates to the appearance of Christ.

I. Now, it is no good argument against this doctrine, that it is repugnant to any natural notions we have of such an occurrence. Have we any natural notions of the animation of a lump of clay? Can any two things be more dissimilar than a living body, and the dust of the ground? If Adam had never been told of what materials his body was composed, and if he had never found out, by sad experience, its frail and mouldering nature, would it ever have entered into his imagination to conceive that his flesh was made of earth?

Again, what a wonderful phenomenon is the formation of a child, or the production of an animal from an egg. In the latter case all that is required to give life to the embryo, is a moderate degree of heat. Can a man who sees such a wonder before him, for a wonder and almost a miracle it unquestionably is, as to the operation of the quickening principle, doubt about any thing similar because it exceeds his comprehension ? Is he to say that the re-production of one body from another, which is the method of the resurrection, is a doctrine more irreconcileable with human nature, than the continuation of one body from another, which is the ordinary course of the generation of nature? When the remains of a man are cast into the ground, can there be greater presumption than to affirm, that the Creator's wisdom, or power, or goodness stops

here? or that it is more unworthy of God to raise him again to life, than to create him at first? No one can deny that it was a mere act of gratuitous mercy in God to call man into being at all, unless he deny God's agency in the production of the human species. If, then, a creation be admitted, where is the difficulty of granting a resurrection? The acts, as to power, are the same. As to mercy and goodness, the latter has the preponderance; for, surely, it is a greater instance of benevolence, and far more consistent with what we understand of the divine nature and attributes in general, to raise a man to an eternal and immortal existence in heaven, than to give him only a few short years of life on earth? Why, then, should it be objected to the resurrection, that it is an incredible doctrine, when it makes entirely on the side of the Creator's goodness, and is, altogether, so compatible with his attributes, that we know not how to reconcile them to our sufferings without it? There would, I think, be no difficulty in showing, that if a life after this be denied, the present state of things, becomes inconsistent with the justice and mercy of a perfectly wise and good being. For it is only on the ground of a future state that we can account for the distresses of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked. This world, evidently, is not the theatre of God's impartial and retributive justice. Rewards and punishments do not follow any fixed and unerring standard of right. If this world be not such a theatre and yet God

is perfectly just, there must be another world, where his interposition will be visible, and all that is now irregular and wrong shall be set right. And, therefore, the foundation for the belief of such a world, rests on the apparent necessity of the case, independently of what is specially set forth by revelation.

II. Having considered the objection to the doctrine at large, we come now to examine that particular branch of it, which relates to the return and re-appearance of Jesus from the grave.

One of the earliest writers against Christianity objected to it, that the account of the resurrection was a partial one, as it rested on the testimony of a few of Christ's intimate friends and adherents; and this is admitted by the Evangelists themselves. "Him," says St. Peter, "God raised up the third day, and showed him openly: not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead." But the reason of this choice may be satisfactorily explained.

When Christ was condemned and slain, he had done with the Jews. They had filled up the measure of their iniquities, and his future appearance among them was only to be in clouds and judgments. This he expressly declared when he wept over the devoted city, "I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."