made, but it was of little weight, especially when brought forward by persons of inferior condition; but jurists, acquainted with the old laws, inform me that no such positive right existed, that it was not in the old Roman law, but that it was founded on the comments of their doctors. But against whom and by whom was this complaint to be preferred? against the soldiers?

I conceive they would have continued stedfast in their assertions of their having been asleep, especially when confirmed by the stimulus of money. Against the chief priests? but when they stood before the council, the chief priests do not allege against them the imputation of having purloined the dead body. All ground of complaint is, therefore, here done away. There remains, consequently, nothing but a local rumour against which they would have had to make their complaint, and a complaint of this kind would certainly have been most extraordinary.

And who is to make this complaint? "His disciples stole him!" This does not apply excusively to the eleven apostles, but generally to the disciples and adherents of Jesus. No one is mentioned individually, therefore no one can complain of his being the designated person.

If, for instance a dead body was missed in this town, and a rumour was circulated, that the surgeons had stolen it from the grave, and dissected it, would the students in medicine be justified in bringing forward a complaint against an individual? The answer would naturally

be,

It

"Your name has not been mentioned, nor is it alleged that you are the person.' would amount to this, that the whole college of surgeons, being an incorporated body, should make a regular official complaint, but which complaint no lawyer, except one who looked solely to his fees, would advise; and by analogy, that all Christians should have united against this report, at least all those who, previous to the death of Jesus, were either his avowed or his secret adherents. The Christians, however, were neither a corporate or a recognized body; and what a triumph it would have been for the enemies of Christianity to have been the object of a complaint, which a very little ingenuity or corruption on the part of the chief priests would have turned into ridicule? And, besides, it may be presumed that many who were privately disciples of Jesus, would not have eagerly seized this opportunity of uniting themselves so openly with the apostles, whilst on the other hand, the

apostles had nothing to lose by subjecting their persons and their faith to such a trial. Amongst the former, I include Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, upon whom suspicion would more probably have fallen; and even if the secret disciples of Jesus had not appeared, but only his recognized followers, still the answer would have been easy, We do not mean you, Jesus has other disciples." The enemies of Christianity little thought of the strong proof they were affording Christians of the truth of the resurrection, and of the necessity in which they placed Christians to examine and to use it.

66

If such a report was current in the city, (and that it was so is evident from Matthew having had the courage to record it in Palestine,) and if the soldiers circulated this report, it is inconceivable that the presiding authorities, that the chief priests did not institute an inquiry, and request an examination of the guard from the Roman general. The grave was empty, before which Roman soldiers had stood sentry, in order that the last error might not be worse than the first. It was worse now, for the apostles preached openly that Jesus was risen, and this preaching created a great revolution,

first in Palestine, and next in the whole world, But of this last I will not speak.

If such a deceit had been practised, and excited such a strong sensation, most civil magistrates possessed of common sense, attacked as they were in the tenderest point, would feel it their duty to call upon the Roman governors for an examination and punishment of the guard who had so slept upon their post. They would besides, in their own judicial capacity, (and the disciples of Jesus were completely within their jurisdiction) have instituted a very close investigation into "who stole the body, and to where the body was carried?" But if nothing of this kind takes place, the magistrates have a very bad case, they depend upon the report of a guard which, upon examination, may turn out to their disadvantage. One steady authentic examination, and a formal statement of the proceedings, together with the punishment of the soldiers, would have put an end to the whole history of the resurrection. Pilate, from the consciousness of his transgressions, was very dependent upon the Jews, and Vitellius was a warm friend to them; if the keepers had repeated upon examination

what they are reported to have said in their general intercourse with others, the disciples of Jesus, and even Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea must have been taken up, and, according to the custom of the Romans, put perhaps to the torture in order to discover the truth. But not a word of this do we find. There must have been some special reason, some mystery, peculiarly known to the chief priests, that they did not institute an inquiry, when it was so easy to have done it, and by these means, extinguish at once the fable of the resurrection, and the rising sect of Christians. The more public the investigation, the better it would have been for the chief priests.

5. Matthew alone relates the history, the other evangelists omit it.

I have never thought this extraordinary, for what connection is there between a local objection to the resurrection, founded upon a report current at Jerusalem, and the absence of such a report in distant cities, in which the others wrote ? Matthew is a most authentic witness to this point, namely, to the report prevalent in his time, that the disciples had stolen the dead body of Jesus, whilst the keepers were asleep. If the report had not been current in