natural consequence of such a wound; and is, under all the circumstances, decisive evidence of the actual death of Christ. Medical writers are, indeed, not quite agreed whether by blood and water be meant the small portion of water found in the pericardium, called lymph, or (which is more probable) the sanguineous and aqueous liquor found in the cavities of the pleura after a mortal wound, or that follows a stab in the pleura, when the pericardium has been pierced, which is always mortal; consequently, a proof that if Christ had not been. already dead, this wound would certainly have extinguished the last remains of life; which was doubtless the intent of the soldier.'

The adversaries of the apostles virtually admitted the reality of his death, when they had the strongest possible inducements to deny it. When it had become notorious that his body was missing from the sepulchre, and the apostles were proclaiming his resurrection, and multitudes were daily admitting its reality and becoming his followers, nothing could have answered their purpose so well as a

prevalent doubt whether he had really been dead. If they could have made the story appear at all plausible, that he had only fainted on the cross, and afterwards revived, immense numbers would have been satisfied with it, and would have been kept from joining themselves to his disciples. But they never even hinted such a suspicion. Instead of it, they circulated the story that his disciples had stolen away his body; they arrested and imprisoned the apostles, and forbade them to speak in the name of Jesus. Their whole conduct shows that they well knew the reality of his death to be too notorious to be denied.

But enough under this head; especially as additional proof will come before us, while considering the next.

2. The body of Christ was raised from the dead.

It is admitted by all parties, that on the morning of the third day after his crucifixion, the body was missing from the sepulchre where it had been placed. How shall we account for its absence? Was his body stolen

by his disciples, or was it raised from the dead?

If the disciples stole the body, they doubtless did it for the sake of making the people believe that he had risen from the dead, according to his own prediction. If they did this, they were dishonest men; they laid and executed a deliberate plan for deceiving the people; they knew that the story of his resurrection was a deliberate lie, of the worst kind, and for the worst of purposes, the purpose of religious deception. If so, then doubtless God never "confirmed" their lying "word by signs following," and all they tell us of miracles, wrought in the name of Jesus, and in proof of his resurrection, is false; and all their assertions that they had seen him alive after his crucifixion, are also false. Certainly no one will take this ground, and still have the impudence to call himself a Christian. We are driven, therefore, to the only remaining supposition-that he rose from the dead. Still, let us look at the positive testimony concerning his resurrection.

We learn from Mat. 27: 62-66, that the question of the continuance of the body in the sepulchre was not treated with neglect at the time. The Chief Priests and Pharisees were afraid that it would be missing. They feared, or pretended to fear, that his disciples would steal the body, and then say that he had risen. At their request, a guard of soldiers was set to watch the sepulchre, and the stone by which it was closed, was sealed, so that none could enter without breaking the seal, and thus leaving evidence of the intrusion. And here it is natural to remark, that the men who were so careful to guard against any appearance of his resurrection, would not fail to make sure of the reality of his death.

On the morning of the third day, the body was found to be absent. The disciples, who visited the sepulchre; the guard, who needed to produce the body as a proof of their own faithfulness, to screen themselves from punishment, and the Chief Priests, who were so anxious to have it as a proof that he had not risen, all concur in the fact, that the dead

body was not to be found. How came it to be absent? The Roman soldiers, who had been placed there on purpose to watch the sepulchre and to prevent any deception, gave two different accounts of the transaction. First, as we learn from Mat. 28: 11, they "showed unto the Chief Priests all the things that were done," as related in the beginning of that chapter; that "there was a great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow; and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men;" and that afterwards the sepulchre was found to be empty. This Matthew gives as the true account. Whoever believes this, will believe that he rose from the dead. Afterwards, being hired with money and encouraged by promises of protection, they said, "His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept." Certainly, if they were asleep, they did not see the disciples steal the