the Considerer seems to imagine, but to be burnt both before and after it was laid in the sepulchre, and to be spent in a manner well known to those who are at all ecquainted with antiquity. The sepulchre in which the body was laid, was probably not that in which it was to be finally deposited. It was wrapped up with some of the spices, and laid there for present convenience only, because it happened to be near the place of crucifixion; (John xix. 41.) and because the Sabbath was so near, that it was impossible to carry it further. The funeral ceremonies were reserved to be performed after the Sabbath, had not Providence prevented it by a more wonderful event.

Whether the women were acquainted with the little that had already been done to the body is indeed nothing to the purpose. They knew where it had been deposited, and they knew probably that it was afterwards to be removed. They came therefore early in the morning to pay their last respects to it by anointing and perfuming it; a common method of showing respect to persons of dignity and distinction both living and dead. (John xii. 3.)

What possible foundation then is there for the Considerer's absurd suggestions, "that there is no dependence on gospel history; that the evangelists contradict one another in this point; that the women had seen the body laid in spices, and that there was no occasion for more?" Instead of convicting the evangelists of contradicting one another, he has only betrayed his own extreme ignorance in Scripture and antiquity; and that too in a case so common and obvious, that a man must take some pains to mistake it.

His next demonstration against Saint Matthew's

66

66

account of guarding the sepulchre, is from these words of the women, "Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?" (Mark xvi. 3,) which," he observes," they would not have said if they had known it was sealed, and a guard placed." And he thinks if there was indeed a watch, it is impossible the women should be ignorant of it. I have considered the account given by the evangelists, and cannot see the least foundation for these imaginations. The body was laid in the sepulchre in the evening of Friday; the women went from thence and brought spices, and on the Sabbath (or Saturday) they rested without stirring from home, (Luke xxiii. 56.) On the Sabbath, while the women were confined at home, the guards were placed. Early the next morning the women go directly from home to the sepulchre, expecting to find it as they left it, with a stone at the mouth too large and heavy for them to move; and therefore they say, "Who shall roll away the stone?" The Considerer says, 66 If these things (that is, placing a guard, &c.) had been done, how is it possible but they must have known them?" I cannot apprehend how it was possible they should know them. I suppose he does not imagine that either the Roman governor or the chief priests thought it necessary to inform these poor women what they were doing. But he thinks so public an action must needs come to their knowledge. Who should carry it to them? It was the Sabbath day, when others, as well as they, staid at home; for which reason it is very probable that this action was not publicly known on that day.

The Considerer goes on: "Besides, nothing could be hid from the disciples; Saint Matthew

knew what the chief priests and rulers said in their privy council.' How does this appear? Why, Saint Matthew, ten or more years afterwards, when the secret was divulged, relates what the chief priests did in council; and from thence he infers that Saint Matthew knew every thing done in council at the time of doing it. I am quite ashamed to spend my own and my reader's time thus impertinently.

"But why do these evangelists tell different stories?" What does the Considerer mean? Saint Matthew alone tells the story of guarding the sepulchre. The rest are quite silent on that point, but say nothing that is inconsistent with it. How then do they differ? Is it not the most usual thing in the world for historians, in reporting the same fact, to relate some of them more, and some fewer circumstances, that attended it? and did ever any man of common sense charge them with inconsistency on that account? Suppose that in telling the story of Edward II. one historian should conclude with saying that he resigned the crown; and another should be more particular, and give an account of a deputation sent to him in form to take his resignation: would the Considerer question the truth of the principal fact, that he resigned the crown? The case is the same here. The principal facts, the death, the burial, the resurrection of Christ, are attested by all the evangelists. Of the circumstances of the history some relate more, some fewer: does this invalidate their testimony in reporting the principal facts, in which they entirely agree?

The account given by Saint Matthew, of guarding and sealing the sepulchre, is a very material circumstance, and was particularly so to the Jews;

who had by this means, of their own contrivance, the most evident demonstration of the only sign intended them, the sign of the prophet Jonas. Our Lord told them that they should have this sign, and should know that the Son of man was three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Had they been contented with seeing him crucified and buried, and concerned themselves no further, I know not how they would have had the evidence of his being three days in the earth. But by the secret working of Providence, they themselves furnish out the evidence. They guard the sepulchre, and their own guards report, that it was, by irresistible power from above, opened, and the prisoner released on the third day.

Saint Matthew, by the concurrent testimony of all antiquity, wrote his gospel for the use of the Hebrews particularly; and this story of guarding the sepulchre, being an evidence of the completion of a prophecy given to that nation in particular, seems to be the reason why he relates it so punctually. Whoever will read Saint Matthew's gospel, and compare it attentively with the other gospels, will see so many internal marks to confirm the report of antiquity that he wrote for the use of his countrymen, that he will have little reason to doubt it. And since one evangelist only has mentioned this circumstance of guarding the sepulchre, how providential was it that we have the account in that gospel, which was written for the Jews particularly! When this gospel was published, there were thousands living in that country who knew and could inform others of the circumstances reported by Saint Matthew; and is it credible that Saint Matthew would have published this account in Judea itself, where, if false, it must

undoubtedly have been detected? If this story had appeared first in a history published among the heathens at a great distance from Judea, the infidels would have triumphed, and told us that the historian took the advantage of telling the people a strange story, but took care to lay the scene of it at a place where it was not likely they should send to make inquiries. We should then have been asked, why the story was not told in the gospel intended for the use of the Jews particularly, who had proper means to examine the truth of it. Well then; the story happily was published in Judea itself, and being found in Saint Matthew's gospel, is an appeal to the whole nation of the Jews for the truth of the fact, and probably made whilst many were living who were concerned in the transaction.

That Saint Matthew reports this story, and the other evangelists omit it, is not a singular case. Saint Matthew's view in writing for the Jews shows itself in other like instances. The massacre of the infants by Herod is reported by Saint Matthew only, and for the same reason; because it was a fact of peculiar moment to the Jews, as it showed the sense of the nation in expecting the Messiah at the very time when Christ was born, as it was the completion of a prophecy set forth in their own Scriptures, and as it was a fact that happened at their own door, in which they could not be imposed on.

For a like reason, Saint Matthew quotes many prophecies, and applies them to the Messias in a way well known and understood by the Jews, but in a way unknown to the Gentiles, and therefore they appear not in the other gospels.

So, again, the genealogies of Christ in Saint