fence of a fact that they knew to be false, and where there. was no possible ground to expect advantage to themselves, even had they succeeded in imposing it on mankind. And if he cannot do this, I call upon him to produce an adequate cause for these men acting in a way which no other men ever did. But in the mean time, I will give him one, which, if admitted, settles the question at once.-They knew what they taught to be true, and that knowledge gave them confidence and courage to endure every thing that men could inflict upon them, from the hope of a future reward; and it appears to me that there is no other way of controverting, and no reason for doubting, their evidence, but upon the ground that they were either fanatics or impostors. As to the first, let the sublime and rational system they taught answer for them; or else let A. B. bring me an instance in which fanaticism has produced a system so uniformly rational as their's-a system so sublime and pure, that even admitting it to be false, A. B. cannot avoid wishing it might be true.

Impostors!-To be an impostor requires a mind callous to every feeling of virtue; one that would degrade the minds of others to the lowest possible pitch, that its imposture might succeed; but here are men without any possible interest in view (if we admit that they were impostors), establishing a system at the risque of their lives, whose sole end was to deliver men from gross superstition, to make them rational, and inspire them with the most exalted love of virtue. Is it in the power of A. B. to produce an instance of any impostor, or impostors, ever having acted in this manner? And if it is not, I again require him to assign an adequate cause for their so acting; but till he does this, the cause must be obvious-they knew they were not impostors; that the truths they inculcated were either facts they had seen, or instructions received from heaven; and being thus aided and instructed by the Deity, they were enabled to build a superstructure to virtue founded on the best wishes of mankind; such as all the learning and philosophy of all ages united have never exceeded, even if it has been equalled, and all this produced by acknowledged illiterate men. ask him for an adequate cause which should enable these men to devise a system so sublime and rational as A. B. admits Christianity to be, unless they had been convinced of the fact, and had received their instructions from the Supreme Being, seeing they do not lay claim to human learning. He cannot do this, for the only answer he could give, that would any way account for it, independent of supernatural aid, must be that which would establish the truth of Christianity immediately, viz. that such was the proof they had of a future state superior to all other men, that the important fact furnished motives

I

to action which none others possessed; and that having so good, so glorious, so superior a foundation to work on, it was not to be wondered at that, even without learning, they might -be led into the knowledge of a system more refined and exalted, than had ever entered the minds of other men, who did not possess the same advantage.

If A. B. can answer these queries, I shall be happy to hear from him again; and if he cannot do this, 1 ask what difficulties can he present so strong against the belief of Christianity as I have done against rejecting it? But as I have the highest opinion of A. B.'s integrity, and when a man enquires only from virtuous motives, I should wish to answer even the most trifling objections, I will endeavour to remove his by explaining them as far as I am able. He says, "with the Deist I contend that the resurrection of Christ's dead body is incompatible with all I know of nature." Now, Sir, I cannot see what this has to do with the truth of Christianity. Does the New Testament ever assert that it was compatible with what we know of nature? if it does not, then its incompatibility can form no objection. But it may be furthur objected, if it is incompatible with what we know of nature, what ground have we to believe it to be true? Let Mr. Paine, the champion of Deism, answer. (Age of Reason, part 2. p. 115)" We cannot conceive how we came here ourselves, and yet we know for a fact that we are here. We must also know that the power that called us into being can, if he pleases, and when he pleases, call us to account for the manner in which we have lived here; and therefore, without seeking any other motive for the belief, it is rational to believe that he will, for we know before hand that he can: the probability or even possibility of the thing is all that we ought to know." And the Scriptures, so far from deducing the resurrection of Jesus from natural causes, expressly say that he was raised from the dead by the mighty power of God. But A. B. says" admitting the fact, and that the testimony we have of it renders its veracity incontrovertible, still there are circumstances connected with it which in my opinion require explanation; for we might reasonably expect that the body, after it was reanimated, would again possess all the faculties and powers which it previously enjoyed, and would be able to exercise itself in all the functions of its former state.' True, and so it did; for the same persons who tell us that he was raised from the dead, inform us likewise that he was with them forty days, eating, drinking, and instructing them in the things relating to the kingdom of God.

But he again asks, "how it could with these combine all the supernatural powers it possessed? how it could perform

all those ghost-like actions which are recorded, and could become incorruptible? in what manner this corporeal substance could appear or vanish instantly, or transform itself, or enter a room, the doors being shut?" To all this I might answer, that the power which had raised him from the dead could certainly enable him to perform all these things; but as this would be assuming the fact of his resurrection, I will proceed to answer these objections; and first, is A. B. assured he did do all these things? has he rightly read and understood the meaning of all those parts he alludes to? may they not be mistranslated? is it not natural to expect that those who translated the New Testament, believing in ghosts, apparitions, angels, and devils, may even innocently, where a word was capable of two modes of translation, have adopted that, though not the true one, which suited their own system? for instance, angel instead of messenger; devil for adversary; another form for another dress; vanishing for departing; and when they say, the doors being shut, the original might mean only being closed, not fastened. Had he considered these things, I am inclined to believe a great part of his difficulties would have vanished from his sight, especially if we admit the fact, and that the testimony we have of it renders its veracity incontrovertible. Mark xvi. 12, to which he alludes as saying, that he changed his form, is translated by Wakefield, "after this he shewed himself to them in another dress ;" and Luke xxiv. 31, which A. B. considers as his ghost-like conduct, it is said by the same translator," and as soon as their eyes were opened, and they knew him again, he disappeared from them;" which, if the context is examined, will be seen to mean no more than that he continued with them while they were ignorant who he was, but directly he saw they knew him he left them. Again, John xx. 19, "In the evening of that day, which was the first day of the week, the doors were shut (not fastened), for fear, of the Jews; (v. 26) and eight days after, while the disciples were again in the house, and Thomas with them, Jesus came when the doors were shut, and stood in the midst, and said, peace." Here let it be observed, that it does not say the doors were fastened, or that the disciples expressed any surprise at seeing Jesus in the room, which they would undoubtedly have done, had they known the doors had been fastened, upon discovering a stranger in the room; nor is there any inquiry how he got there, but they enter into familiar conversation with him, as though nothing extraordinary had happened.

But it may be objected, that the doors were shut for fear of the Jews; and what would have been the use of shutting them if they were not fastened? I answer, that in those countries it was not common even to close the doors, and like many

of our country places they might consider it a sufficient preventive of intruders if the doors were closed and latched, without resorting to the security of locks, bolts, and bars. But at any rate, we have no right to say more than the writers themselves have said. If they have only said the doors were shut, we ought to be content with that, and not for the sake of an objection, add that they were fastened also.

A. B. concludes his series of difficulties by saying, "how could it (the body of Jesus) finally be carried up into heaven, and enjoy immortality ?" To this I answer, that the cause assigned by those who assert the fact is every way equal to the effect. It was the Deity that raised him from the dead; it was he that took him to heaven (whatever that place may be); it was he that gave him immortality. But, says A. B. "how all or any of these things could be I have not power to conceive, and how they can be reconciled to reason 1 have yet to learn." If he will admit that God is able to do these things, Paul will shew him the reasonableness of them..

:

"Man is sown unto corruption; he is raised in incorruption : he is sown in dishonour; he is raised in glory: he is sown in weakness; he is raised in power he is sown an animal body; he is raised a spiritual body. There is an animal body, and there is a spiritual body; and thus saith the scripture, the first man Adam became a living animal, but the last Adam is a spirit, that giveth life. The spiritual, however, was not first, but the animal; and afterward the spiritual. The first, a man from the ground, dust the second, a man from heaven, heavenly. They, that are carthy, are like the Adam of the ground; and they, that are heavenly, like him from heaven. And, as we have borne the likeness of the earthy man, we shall also bear the likeness of the heavenly. I mean this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit a divine kingdom; nor will this corruption inherit the incorruption thereof. Behold! I tell you a mystery: we shall not all die indeed, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the glance of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. But, when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality; then will that scripture be fulfilled, Death is swallowed up in victory.' "*" But we are citizens of heaven; whence indeed we are expecting a deliverer, our Lord Jesus Christ, who will change this lowly hody of our's into the form of his glorious body, according to that efficacy by which he is able even to make all things subject to himself."+

* 1 Cor. xv. 42-54.

Phill. iii. 20, 21.

Wakefield's Translation.

And that Paul's ideas respecting the fact of a future state of existence, or the manner of it are not inconsistent with reason, Mr. Paine himself has shewn (Age of Reason, part I. page 44), where he says, "1 trouble not myself about the manner of my future existence; I content myself with believing, even to positive conviction, that the power that gave me existence is able to continue it in any manner and form he pleases; either with or without this body and it ap pears more probable to me that 1 shall continue to exist hereafter than that I should have had existence, as I now have, before that existence begun." Now the only difference between Mr. Paine and the apostles of Jesus is, that they teach as a positive fact what he thinks extremely probable; and they produce the resurrection of Jesus as a proof. Ifthen God has the power to raise a dead man to life, and to change his form and manner to suit the state in which he is to exist for the future, where can be the difficulty of accounting for the ascension of Jesus, or for his enjoying immortality, especially when we consider him as a character of such exemplary virtue, and the founder of a system so sublime and rational? was it not consistent with reason that the Deity should distinguish such a person with peculiar regard? and in so doing, did it not furnish the strongest motive to virtue, by shewing how highly it was regarded and distinguished by Deity in the person of Jesus?

I have taken up so much of my paper in endeavouring to remove the objections of A. B. whom I should be proud to hail as a Christian brother, that 1. must defer my more direct evidences of the resurrection of Jesus to a future essay. But, Sir, allow me, to express my surprise that, notwithstanding my challenge to Mr. Burdon, I have not seen any answer from him in your Magazine to my evidences. He has been en gaged, it is true, in preparing " Materials for Thinking," and in replying to some others of your correspondents; but in my judgment he has done it in so trifling and evasive a manner, that I can hardly suppose it to be the original Mr. B. But should he yet condescend to notice them, I do hope that it will be in a more manly and direct manner; that he will not throw out declamatory sneers or unfounded assertions, nor ramble from Dan to Beersheba when the point is directly before him. I have called for adequate causes for facts and effects, which have adduced, the existence of which even he cannot deny; and I expect he will decidedly and unequivocally produce them; for any thing else, I shall not reply to, or even condescend to notice. 1 am, Sir, your's, &c.

CHRISTOPHILUS.