procured for this Purpose; not wholly to be employed in preparing the Body, as the Confiderer feems 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 acquainted with Antiquity. The Sepulchre in which the Body was laid, was probably not that in which it was to be finally depofited. It was wrapped up with fome of the Spices, and laid there for present Convenience only, because it happened to be near the Place of Crucifixion; and because the Sabbath was fo near, that it was impoffible to carry it further. The Funeral Ceremonies were referved 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 depofited, and they knew probably that it was afterwards to be removed. They came therefore early in the Morning to pay their last Refpects to it, by anointing and perfuming it; a common Method of fhewing Refpect to Perfons of Dignity and Distinction both living and deade.

What poffible Foundation then is there for the Confiderer's abfurd Suggestions? "That "there is no Dependance on Gospel History;

d John xix. 41.

a Ib. xii. 3.
L 2

" that

"that the Evangelifts contradict one another "in this Point; that the Women had feen "the Body laid in Spices, and that there was no "Occafion for more." Inftead of convicting the Evangelifts of contradicting one another, he has only betrayed his own extreme Ignorance in Scripture and Antiquity; and that too in a Cafe fo common and obvious, that a Man must take fome Pains to mistake it.

His next Demonstration against St. Matthew's Account of guarding the Sepulchre, is from these Words of the Women, Who shall roll away the Stone from the Door of the Sepulchre? Which, he obferves, they would not have faid, if they had known it was fealed, and a Guard placed. And he thinks if there was

indeed a Watch, it is impoffible the Women fhould be ignorant of it. I have confidered the Account given by the Evangelifts, and cannot fee the leaft Foundation for thefe Imaginations. The Body was laid in the Sepulchre in the Evening of Friday; the Women went from thence and bought Spices, and on the Sabbath (or Saturday) they refted without ftirring from home". 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,

f Mark xvi. 3. Luke xxii. 56.

& First Edit. p. 36. Third Edit. p. 27.

with

with a Stone at the Mouth, too large and hea vy for them to move; and therefore they fay, Who shall roll away the Stone? The Confiderer fays, If thefe Things (i. e. placing a Guard, &c.) had been done, how is it poffible but they must have known them? I cannot apprehend how it was poffible they should know them. I fuppofe he does not imagine that either the Roman Governor, or the chief Priests thought it neceffary to inform these poor Women, what they were doing. But he thinks fo public an Action muft needs come to their Knowledge. Who fhould carry it to them? It was the Sabbath Day, when others, as well as they, ftaid at home; for which Reafon it is very probable, that this Action was not publicly known on that Day,

The Confiderer goes on; befides, nothing could be hid from the Difciples; St. Matthew knew what the chief Priests and Rulers faid in their Privy Council. How does this appear? Why St. 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 St. Matthew knew every thing done in Council, at the Time of doing it. I am quite afhamed to fpend my own and Reader's Time thus impertinently.

But why do thefe Evangelifts tell different Stories? What does the Confiderer mean?

First Edit. p. 36. Third Edit. p. 27. k Ibid.

St.

St. Matthew alone tells the Story of guarding the Sepulchre. The reft are quite filent in that Point, but fay nothing that is inconfiftent with it. How then do they differ? Is it not the moft ufual thing in the World, for Hiftorians in reporting the fame Fact, to relate fome of them more, and 'fome fewer Circumstances, that attended it? And did ever any Man of common Senfe charge them with Inconsistency on that Account? Suppofe that in telling the Story of Edward II. one Hiftorian should conclude with faying that he refigned the Crown; and another fhould be more particular, and give an Account of a Deputation fent to him in form to take his Refignation, would the Confiderer queftion the Truth of the principal Fact, that he refigned the Crown? The Cafe is the fame here. The principal Facts, the Death, the Burial, the Refurrection of Christ are attefted by all the Evangelifts. In the Circumftances of the Hiftory fome relate more, fome fewer; does this invalidate their Testimony in reporting the principal Facts, in which they entirely agree?

The Account given by St. Matthew, of guarding and fealing the Sepulchre, is a very material Circumftance, and was particularly fo to the Jews; who had by this means of their own Contrivance, the moft evident Demonftration of the only Sign intended them, the Sign of the Prophet Jonas. Our Lord told them, that they fhould have this Sign, and fhould

3.

fhould know that the Son of Man was three Days and three Nights in the Heart of the Earth. Had they been contented with feeing him crucified and buried, and concerned themfelves no farther, I know not how they would have had the Evidence of his being three Days in the Earth. But by the fecret working of Providence, they themselves furnish out the Evidence. They guard the Sepulchre, and their own Guards report, that it was by irrefiftible Power from above opened, and the Prifoner released, on the third Day.

St. Matthew, by the concurrent Teftimony of all Antiquity, wrote his Gofpel for the Ufs 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, feems to be the Reason why he relates it fo punctually. Whoever will read St. Matthew's Gofpel, and compare it attentively with other Gofpels, will fee fo many internal Marks to confirm the Report of Antiquity, that he wrote for the Ufe of his Countrymen, that he will have little Reason to doubt it. And fince one Evangelift only has mentioned this Circumftance 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 Circumftances reported by St. Matthew.

And