attempt? A dead body is not to be removed by sleight of hand: it requires many hands to move it; besides, the great stone at the mouth of the sepulchre was to be removed; which could not be done silently, or by men walking on tip-toes to prevent discovery; so that if the guards had really been asleep, yet there was no encouragement to go on in this enterprise; for it is hardly possible to suppose, but that rolling away the stone, moving the body, the hurry and confusion in carrying it off, must awaken them.

But supposing the thing practicable, yet the attempt was such as the disciples, consistently with their own notions, could not undertake. The gentleman says, they continued all their master's lifetime to expect to see him a temporal prince; and a friend of the gentleman's* has observed, what is equally true, that they had the same expectation after his death. Consider now their case. Their master was dead; and they are to contrive to steal away his body. For what? Did they expect to make a king of the dead body, if they could get it into their power? Or did they think, if they had it, they could raise it to life again? If they trusted so far to their master's prediction, as to expect his resurrection, (which I think is evident they did not,) could they yet think the resurrection depended on their having the dead body? It is in all views absurd. But the gentleman supposes, that they meant to carry on the design for themselves, in their master's name, if they could but have persuaded the people to believe him risen from the dead. But he does not consider, that by this supposition he strips the disciples of every part of their character at once, * Grounds, p. 33.

and presents to us a new set of men, in every respect different from the former. The former disciples were plain, weak men; but these are bold, hardy, cunning and contriving. The former were full of the superstition of their country, and expected a prince from the authority of their Prophets; but these are despisers of the Prophets, and of the notions of their countrymen, and are designing to turn these fables to their own advantage for it cannot be supposed that they believed the Prophets, and at the same time thought to accomplish or defeat them by so manifest a cheat, to which they themselves at least were conscious.

But let us take leave of these suppositions, and see how the true evidence in this case stands. Guards were placed, and they did their duty. But what are guards and sentinels against the power of God? An angel of the Lord opened the sepulchre; the guards saw him, and became like dead men. This account they gave to the chief priests, who, still persisting in their obstinacy, bribed the guards to tell the contradictory story of their being asleep and the body stolen.

I cannot but observe to your Lordship, that all these circumstances, so much questioned and suspected, were necessary circumstances, supposing the resurrection to be true. The seal was broken, the body came out of the sepulchre, the guards were placed in vain to prevent it. Be it so: I desire to know, whether the gentleman thinks that the seal put God under covenant; or could prescribe to him a method of performing this great work; or whether he thinks the guards were placed to maintain the seal in opposition to the power of God. If he will maintain neither of these points, then the opening the seals, notwith

standing the guard set on them, will be an evidence, not of the fraud, but of the power of the resurrection; and the guards will have nothing to answer for, but only this, that they were not stronger than God. The seal was a proper check on the guards: the Jews had no other meaning in it; they could not be so stupid as to imagine, that they could by this contrivance disappoint the designs of Providence. And it is surprising to hear these circumstances made use of to prove the resurrection to be a fraud, which yet could not but happen, supposing the resurrection to be true.

But there is another circumstance still, which the gentleman reckons very material, and on which I find great stress is laid. The resurrection happened, we are told, a day sooner than the prediction imported. The reason assigned for it is, that the execution of the plot at the time appointed was rendered impracticable, because the chief priests, and probably great numbers of the people, were prepared to visit the sepulchre at that time; and therefore the disciples were under the necessity of hastening their plot.

This observation is entirely inconsistent with the supposition on which the reasoning stands. The gentleman has all along supposed the resurrection to have been managed by fraud, and not by violence. And indeed violence, if there had been an opportunity of using it, would have been insignificant; beating the guards, and removing the dead body by force, would have destroyed all pretences to a resurrection. Now, surely the guards, supposing them not to be enough in number to withstand all violence, were at least sufficient to prevent or to discover fraud. What occasion then to hasten the plot for fear of numbers meeting

at the tomb, since there were numbers always present sufficient to discover any fraud; the only method that could be used in the case?

Suppose then that we could not give a satisfactory account of the way of reckoning the time from the crucifixion to the resurrection; yet this we can say, that the resurrection happened during the time that the guards had the sepulchre in keeping; and it is impossible to imagine what opportunity this could give to fraud. Had the time been delayed, the guards removed, and then a resurrection pretended, it might with some colour of reason have been said, Why did he not come within his time? why did he choose to come after his time, when all witnesses, who had patiently expected the appointed hour, were withdrawn? But now what is to be objected? You think he came too soon. But were not your guards at the door when he came? did they not see what happened? and what other satisfaction could you have had, supposing he had come a day later?

By saying of this, I do not mean to decline the gentleman's objection, which is founded on a mistake of a way of speaking, common to the Jews and other people; who, when they name any number of days or years, include the first and the last of the days or years to make up the sum. Christ, alluding to his own resurrection, says, "In three days I will raise it up." The angels report his prediction thus, "The Son of man shall be crucified, and the third day rise again." Elsewhere it is said, "After three days;" and again, that he was to be in the bowels of the earth "three days and three nights." These expressions are equivalent to each other; for we always reckon the

night into the day, when we reckon by so many days. If you agree to do a thing ten days hence, you stipulate for forbearance for the nights as well as days; and therefore, in reckoning, two days, and two days and two nights, are the same thing. That the expression, "After three days," means inclusive days, is proved by Grotius on Matt. xxvii. 63, and by others. The prediction therefore was, that he would rise on the third day. Now, he was crucified on Friday, and buried; he lay in the grave all Saturday, and rose early on Sunday morning. But the gentleman thinks he ought not have risen until Monday. Pray try what the use of common language requires to be understood in a like case. Suppose you were told, "that your friend sickened on Friday, was let blood on Saturday, and the third day he died; what day would you think he died on? If you have any doubt about it, put the question to the first plain man you meet, and he will resolve it. The Jews could have no doubt in this case; for so they practised in one of the highest points of their law. Every male child was to be circumcised on the eighth day. How did they reckon the days? Why, the day of the birth was one, and the day of the circumcision another; and though a child was born towards the very end of the first day, he was capable of circumcision on any time of the eighth day. And therefore it is not new or strange, that the third day, in our case, should be reckoned into the number, though Christ rose at the very beginning of it. It is more strange to reckon whole years in this manner; and yet this is the constant method observed in Ptolemy's canon, the most valuable piece of ancient chronology, next to the