nected with facts, and men might admit the facts, and question the opinions. As touching his birth and his death, therefore, the controversy was not concerning the facts, but concerning the opinions connected with the facts.

But, now, look at the resurrection: here was a strange thing. This was not according to the experience of mankind; the experience of mankind ran the other way. Here was a strong fact, which could not be admitted like the others. The enemies of Christ might admit the birth and the death of Christ, and deny the doctrines; but they could not admit his resurrection, and then deny the doctrines. Whereas, in the other cases, the controversy turned upon opinions connected with facts; in this, the controversy turned on the fact itself. And therefore it is, we find the Apostle reiterating with such earnestness the fact of the resurrection of the Lord. God raised him from the dead: it was not possible that he should be holden of death. This is the preaching throughout the Acts. The fact of the resurrection was the grand theme of the Apostles' discourses; they could not substantiate the doctrines connected with it, unless they first substantiated the fact of the resurrection; and, therefore, you will find, if you trace the history of the apostolical preaching, that the grand theme was the resurrection. That was what peculiarly belonged to the apostolical preaching, for the reason already assigned. The Apostles could not exhibit the doctrines connected with the common facts of Christ's birth and death, until they had made good the uncommon fact of his resurrection.

Now, it is remarkable to observe how the enemies of the Lord Jesus had already pledged themselves on this point respecting the resurrection. When they saw him hanging on the cross, the Chief Priests and Scribes mocked him, and challenged him to come down if he were the Son of God: "Let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. We have heard of his birth, and his preaching, and his death; and what then? We admit all these things, and we do not believe him: but now that he is nailed to the tree by the Roman soldiers—now, if he will extricate himself—now, if he will come down-now, it will be such a manifestation of divine power that we will no longer withhold our belief." Now, on their own principles, they were still more pledged to believe if he rose from the grave; because he was more holden there than on the crosshe was further gone when he was buried, than when he was on the tree. If it would have been such a proof of his power, if he had descended from the cross, still more should they yield when he ascended from the tomb. It is a common feeling amongst mankind, that if one rise from the dead, all our prejudices give way at once. It is to this common feeling among men that our Lord addressed himself, when he wished to show the sufficiency of the Scriptures: he told them that if they would "not believe Moses and the Prophets, neither would they believe though one rose from the dead;" as though that was the chief thing which man pants after, and desires as the acme and climax of evidence that a friend should return from the dead, and tell him of the eternal world. But if the evidence laid before you, or if the sufficiency of Scripture be not sufficient overcome your unbelief; if you receive not Moses and the Prophets-the penta teuchal history, and the doctrines connected with them; neither would you elieve though one rose from the dead. This wish of man's heart, that a man should rise from the dead-this liberty, or rather this pretext of unbelief, was granted in the case of Jesus Christ. God went to the very extremity of what nar. says he wants for evidence; and he has pat man on his trial by this last sign. This is the last sign that he gave the sign of the Prophet Jouas: that

vol.1

D

"as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." And he said at the same time, " Verily, the men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it; because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and behold a greater than Jonas is here."

It is evident, then, my brethren, (to resume our argument) that the fact of the resurrection is the grand turning point of revealed religion. Now, I am desirous of shewing, that our Lord did not require immediate belief of that fact without giving proofs of it. Many things he said for which he has advanced no proof; but upon what authority were these things to be received? We must be well satisfied what he is, before we can rely with confidence upon what he said. And this is a most important distinction, a distinction that lies at the very root of all reasonable religion; to distinguish between that for which we must demand reasonable proof, and that which it then becomes reasonable to receive by proof, is a most important distinction. Now, I say, before the Lord Jesus Christ required implicit confidence in what he said, he supplied his disciples with infallible proofs of what he was; that is, before the contents of his communications from heaven were pressed upon the faith of the disciples, the origin of that communication was demonstrated to the reason of his disciples. We must distinguish between the origin of a communication, and the contents of that communication. If we can once be satisfied of the origin of a communication, that it is really from God, then it becomes most reasonable to submit our reason to the contents of that communication. There must be evidence of the origin, and then faith in the contents.

Now, to establish the divine origin of the communication that he made, he must give infallible proofs of who and what he was. This he had all along rested on his resurrection. The works that he worked in life would not prove what he was, because other men, by the power of the Spirit of God, had wrought miracles before: but he rests the grand proof upon his resurrection; here it was to hang. If he be not risen we are yet in our sins, our preaching is vain, our faith is vain. All turns on this point, Is Jesus Christ risen from the dead, or not? "If he be not risen I have no proof of what he was, and without proof of what he was, I can have no confidence in what he said: of the one point, I demand reasonable proof before I can place in the other the acquiescence of faith. Now, it is said in the text, that Jesus Christ "shewed himself to the Apostles alive after his passion, by many infallible proofs:" let us examine for a moment of what description these proofs were.

as

In John xx. we learn, that Jesus came to them when they were sembled together, and shewed himself to them as their old friend and companion, and invited them even to examine the wounds which he bore from the crucifixion, in his hands and in his side, and said to Thomas, who was lingering in unbelief, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side, and be not faithless, but believing." In Luke xxiv. 38, we learn, that he said to them, "Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and feet." And as if that had not been sufficient, as though their eyes might have deceived them so far, he proceeded to give them another infallible proof: "And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye any

meat? And they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me." Now, observe the nature of the proofs he gave them of his resurrection, that it was he himself. They were proofs addressed to their senses and to their reason. They had known him before; they had every opportunity of examining him now again. They saw it was the same person who was submitted to their senses; he had opened their memory; there was a mingled appeal to their reason and their senses. Memory is a part of our reason; he called upon them to exercise that memory; and this, but a few days after they had been going out and in with him. They knew him perfectly, they had seen him put to death, they had seen him buried, they had seen the precautions of his enemies to take care that his body should not be stolen. They knew perfectly well, that stealing his body never entered into their heads; for had they stolen his body, they would have known he did not rise, and that by such deceit and fraud they would gain persecution and contempt. They saw his enemies were desirous to hinder his being raised, and now there was an appeal to their senses, a reasonable proof given to them, applying itself to what was in them already as God's people, to what was already in them as natural men, giving them an infallible proof that Jesus Christ was alive after his death. On this, when their understandings were opened, to recollect what he had said on this would depend the whole proof of what he was. When this was reasonably established, and they had thus a conclusive and infallible proof of what he was, then, but not before, he could most appropriately demand faith from them in all he said.

My brethren, this is a principle of the very deepest importance; it appeals to the Holy Scriptures themselves for its proofs. The proofs offered of the origin of the Holy Scriptures are reasonable proofs, addressed to our judgment and our understanding, to our capacity of examining evidence, to our historical information, and our powers of comparing one historical statement with another; so that the proof which can be laid before you of the origin of the Holy Scriptures, is an infallible and reasonable proof addressed to that which is in you, even the natural man. Having so proved the origin of the Scriptures, then it becomes most reasonable to submit to the contents, because it belongs to man's reason to know, that if God speak, what he says must be right. If God speak, the utterance is infallible; if God speak to question the truth or the propriety of the utterance, to question for a moment, and deny obedience, is opposed to the reason of man itself. Even the Deist will acknowledge, that if, indeed, God should speak (he denies he has spoken to man), it would become instantly reasonable to submit to what he says.

Now, it is for this reason, that we ask faith in the contents of these Scriptures, and on this principle we refuse to give evidence of all the contents of the Scriptures. There are many things in the book which we cannot prove, neither is it necessary that we should prove them: we can prove the divine origin of the book itself, and having so proved the divine origin, we ask you most reasonably for faith in the contents; for if we have proved that God spoke, we have made a reasonable appeal to you to submit to what God says. I declare to you, that I stand here to speak as a minister of God's word, to read the Scriptu res, and pray for the enlightening power and grace of the

Holy Ghost to show the proof, convinced and satisfied that God has taught me truth, and that I attempt to teach you truth as it is taught me; yet that it is stiil taught through the medium of a fallible man, and that in receiving it I may have marred some of it, and in teaching it I may have marred more of it; and that, therefore, though you are called upon to hear, and respect, and without fail to examine what is said, and to honour and fear, yet still there is no claim to infallibility; if I say so, you may admit such a pretension as that, because you have not by admitting it involved yourselves in any awful consequences; you may still receive what I say, and compare it with the Scriptures, to see if these things are so. But if I tell you that the Holy Ghost speaks by me, without using my flesh at all, that I am but a mere organ-that I do not know what I am going to say-that it is the Spirit that speaks, not I—and that I am (to use a phrase that is common now) that I am "made to speak," and that the Holy Ghost speaks, and not me; now, then, mark—there is an assumption that it is God that speaketh. What is the consequence? The utterance is infallible; you are involved in all the consequences of entire submission to what follows. Mark the difference between the origin and contents. If you believe the origin is from God, you are bound to receive the contents: the first step is the chief step; and if you will allow the first step to be taken, if you will allow merely the first step of the argument to be slurred over, you will involve yourself in all the consequences of what may follow in the utterances, or rejecting what you have already acknowledged God is the speaker of.

You see the importance of this distinction, then: the Lord Jesus gave infallible proof of the first step of the argument. The first step is to substantiate who he was, and that was done by his resurrection: that being done, it covered all he said. First, let us know what he is, and then we shall receive what he says; first let us know the origin, and then we will bow to the contents. First let us know, is it God that speaks? That is the question; for if that be settled, we shall not hesitate about receiving the contents of what is uttered.

Now I beseech you, my friends, patiently and quietly with yourselves, to examine this matter. It is not merely to form an opinion ex parte on it, as you hear me speak it. Some may commend it to their judgment, others may doubt it; but take it home fairly with you, and I think you will find it commend itself more and more to you in the distinction between the origin and contents of the communication; and that, while we are bound to demand the proof of that origin-supposing that proof given that the origin is divine, then it becomes reasonable to receive the contents without any further proof.

I need not apply this closely to some matters in hand at the present time in the Church; you will readily apply them yourselves so far; and I may advance, therefore to the second clause of the text, which tells us, that after Jesus had given such proofs, such infallible proofs of his resurrection, he spoke “ of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God."

The "kingdom of God," is the reign of righteousness, of goodness, of truth, of holiness, and love: it is the supremacy of all that is good. The kingdom of God in its bursting principle, struggling for triumph, is lodged in the bosom of every saint, producing righteousness, and peace, and joy, in the Holy Ghost. The kingdom of God is within you. The kingdoin of God in its full triumphant manifestation is what is understood by the Millenium: it is the manifested triumph of all that is good under the manifested Son of God, in the new birth wherein dwelleth righteousness. So that the kingdom of God is a large expres

sion, including the whole scheme, both as to the present dispensation-where the beginnings of the kingdom are entrusted to the guidance of the Holy Ghost, so that it is a dispensation of the Spirit-and the coming dispensation, when the triumph of a kingdom will be manifested in a present king. It is, therefore, called a kingdom itself by pre-eminence; and all those who have now the principle of the kingdom within them, are called "children of the kingdom:" they are translated out of the kingdom of Satan, and brought into the kingdom of God's dear Son. And they are children of the light and children of the day. The kingdom of heaven, therefore, is an expression, including the whole subject; and that what our Lord spake about did include the manifestation of the kingdom in its triumph appears very plainly from the inquiry which the Apostles made of him after the resurrection: they said, “Wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom unto Israel?" They had mistaken him; still it proves that that formed a part of what he spake of; and his answer proves that they were only wrong as to the time, and not as to the subject-matter after which they inquired.

But it is to the spiritual dispensation that I would now address a few observations, as to what the Lord says, "pertaining to the kingdom of God." We are not instructed as to what he said after his resurrection; yet we have a few hints, a few intimations, and those few intimations do so identify themselves with that longer discourse which he addressed to his disciples before his crucifixion, that we are proceeding on good evidence, when we say, that the 14th, 15th, and 16th chapters of John contain the substance, though not perhaps so plainly as was afterwards revealed, of his communications respecting the spiritual dispensation. Now by comparing John, xx. 21, with the whole scope of the discourse contained in the preceding chapter, we find a very remarkable coincidence. Jesus said to his disciples when he appeared to them after his resurrection, "Peace be unto you." We find him previously to his death, saying, "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth give I unto you." And again, here he said to them, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." He breathed upon them, and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." This is the whole genius of the discourse referred to. "I will send you another Com forter: I will not leave you comfortless; but I will give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." And when he spoke to them of it after his resurrection, he breathed upon them and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost," intimating, as I judge, that they were to receive the Holy Ghost through the medium of his human nature; that was the link and channel, through which the fulness of God was opened unto man; so that every man who should afterwards, by the faith of God's elect, be united to that human nature of Jesus, should, in that bond of union, imbibe the Holy Spirit of God. 66 "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." Peace," and "the Holy Ghost," were the legacies that he left as regarded this present dispensation of the kingdom of God. That is, not peace in the worldly sense: he told them, that in the world they should have tribulation; but, said he, " in me ye shall have peace."

Now, this is another remarkable feature, which is connected with these discourses, and to this I would wish to direct your attention. In John, xiv, 12, after referring to his works as a proof of what he was, he says to them, “ Verily,