CHAPTER VIII.

RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.

MANY of the principal facts in the Christian religion may be introduced as instances of the fulfilment of the prophecies of Jesus, and as thus serving to illustrate the abundant measure in which the spirit of prophecy was given to that Great Prophet who had been announced from the beginning of the world. But two of these facts deserve a more particular consideration in a view of the evidences of Christianity, because, independently of their having been foretold, they bring a very strong confirmation to the high claim advanced in the Scriptures. The two facts which I mean are, the resurrection of Jesus, and the propagation of Christianity.

The first of these facts is the resurrection of Jesus. Had he never returned from the grave, his enemies would have considered his death as the completion of their triumph: and those who had admired his character, and had been convinced by his works that he was a teacher sent from God, must have considered his blood as only adding to the sum of all the righteous blood that had been shed upon the earth. His friends might have made a feeble attempt to transmit, with distinguished honour to posterity, the name of Jesus of Nazareth as a prophet mighty in word and in deed. Yet even they would have been stumbled when they recollected his pretensions and his prophecies. He had claimed a character and an authority very inconsistent with the notion of his being a victim to the malice of men; and he had foretold that after being three days, that is, according to the Jewish phraseology, a part of three days in the grave, he would rise from the dead on the third day: resting the truth of his claim upon this fact as the sign that was to be given. The resurrection of Jesus, then, is not merely an important, it is an essential fact in the history of Christianity. If the author of this religion did not return from the grave, he is, according to his own confession, an impostor: if he did, all who are satisfied with the evidence of this singular fact, must acknowledge, from the nature of the case, that he was the Son of God with power, by his resurrection from the dead.

It behoves you to examine with particular care the kind of evidence upon which the wisdom of God has chosen to rest a fact so essential. To the apostles, who were with Jesus when he was apprehended, who knew certainly that he was crucified, one of whom saw him on the cross, and all of whom were permitted to converse with him after he was risen, his resurrection was as much an object of sense, at least it was an inference as clearly deducible from what

they did see, as if they had been present when the angel rolled the stone from the door of the sepulchre, and when Jesus came forth in the same manner as Lazarus had done a little before at his command. But this evidence of sense could not extend beyond the forty days during which Jesus remained upon earth. And the first thing that meets you, in an inquiry into the truth of the resurrection, is the number of persons to whom this evidence of sense was vouchsafed. The time is limited. But there is no necessary limitation of the number that might have seen Jesus during that time, and, as the faith of future ages must in a great measure rest upon their testimony, it is natural to consider whether there be any thing in the particular number to whom this evidence of sense was confined, that serves to render the fact incredible.

The number is much greater than will appear at first sight to a careless reader of the gospels. The soldiers, the women, and the disciples only are mentioned there. But you will find it said, that Jesus went before his disciples into Galilee, where he had appointed them to meet him; and one of the appearances narrated by John is said to have been at the sea of Tiberias, which lay in Galilee. Now Galilee was the country where our Lord had spent the greatest part of his life, where his person was perfectly well known, where his mother's relations and the families of the apostles resided. His going to Galilee, therefore, after his resurrection, was giving to a number of persons deeply interested in the fact, an opportunity of being convinced by their own senses that the Lord was risen indeed, and thus crowned those evidences of his divine mission which they had derived from their former acquaintance with him. Accordingly, Paul says, that our Lord "was seen of above five hundred brethren at once," which must have happened in Galilee, for the number of disciples in Jerusalem after the ascension was but "an hundred and twenty." The testimony of this multitude of witnesses in Galilee was sufficient to diffuse through their neighbours and contemporaries a conviction of the fact which they saw.

But, it has been asked, Why did Jesus retire to a remote province, and show himself at Jerusalem only to a few witnesses? Why did he not appear openly in the temple, in the synagogue, in the streets of the holy city, as he was accustomed to do before his death, and overpower the incredulity of the Jews by an ocular demonstration of his divine power? It is admitted that he did not show himself to all the people. But the objection arising from this supposed deficiency in the evidence, has been completely answered by some of the best commentators upon the New Testament, and by writers in the deistical controversy. The heads of the answers are these. The Jewish nation, who had resisted all the evidences of our Lord's divine mission which were exhibited before their eyes during his ministry, were not entitled to expect that any further means should be employed by heaven for their conviction. The probability is, that the same narrow views and evil passions which had produced their unbelief while he lived, would have rendered his appearance in their city after his death ineffectual. Our Lord, who foresaw this inefficacy, seems to suggest it as the reason of his conduct in this matter, when he concludes one of his parables with saying, "If they hear not Moses and

the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." After our Lord spake these words, the experiment was made in the case of Lazarus. Many of the neighbours of Mary might know certainly that her brother had been raised by the power of Jesus. Yet some of them who had seen all things that were done, went and told the Pharisees; and the Pharisees, upon the report of this miracle, took counsel to put Jesus to death. It was not meet that his own resurrection should give occasion to similar plots again to take away his life. To all this it is to be added in the last place, that, whatever reception Jesus had met with in Jerusalem, the evidence for Christianity might have been injured by his appearing there after his resurrection. Had the Jews continued to reject and persecute him, the united testimony of the nation against the resurrection might have been represented as sufficient to outweigh the positive testimony of the apostles. Had they received him as their Messiah after he was risen, the Christian religion might have been represented as a state-trick devised by able men for the glory of the nation, which met with opposition at first, but to the faith of which, a well-concerted story of the death and resurrection of its author did at last subdue the minds of the people. From this specimen of the answers which may be made to the objection, it appears that God tries the honesty of our hearts by the methods which he employs to enlighten our reason, that the evidence of religion was not intended to overpower those whose minds are perverted, but to satisfy those who love the truth, and that, in examining any branch of that evidence, our business is not to inquire what God might have done, but to consider what he has done, and to rest on those facts which appear to our understanding to be sufficiently proven, although our imagination may figure other proofs by which they are not supported.

Having seen that the objection suggested by the limitation of the number of those who saw Jesus after his resurrection, may easily be answered, I proceed to state the different kinds of evidence which we, in these later ages, have for the truth of this fact. They are three. The traditionary evidence arising from the universal diffusion of the belief of this fact through the Christian world-the clear testimony of the apostles recorded in their writings-and the extraordinary powers conferred upon the apostles.

The lowest degree of evidence which we enjoy for the resurrection of Jesus, is that kind of traditionary evidence which arises from the universal diffusion of the belief of this fact through the Christian world. It appears from the earliest Christian writers, that it was the general faith of all who named the name of Christ, that he had risen from the dead. We are told that the first Christians, in that exultation of mind of which our familiarity with the great truths of religion makes it difficult for us to form a just conception, were accustomed to salute one another when they met with this expression, XerOS AVEOTY: and the first day of the week, which, from the beginning of the Christian church was called Kuga ega, and in all parts of the Christian world has been observed as the day upon which the followers of Jesus assemble for the exercises of devotion, is a standing unequivocal memorial of the truth of the fact which upon that day especially is remembered. It is impossible to conceive how so extraordinary a

fact should have been so universally propagated, if it had not been founded in the certain uncontradicted knowledge of those who lived near the time. But, strong as this presumption may justly be held, the faith of future ages in so essential a fact required a more determinate support. And this is found in

The clear precise testimony of the apostles, those witnesses chosen before of God, who did eat and drink with Jesus after he rose from the dead; a testimony transmitted to us in the authentic genuine record of discourses that were delivered before his murderers in the city where he suffered, six weeks after he rose; and of other discourses, and histories, and epistles, in which eye-witnesses declare what they had seen, and heard, and handled of the word of life. To this office Jesus separated the apostles, when he called them, as soon as he began to teach, to be always with him; and when he said to them a little before his death, "Ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning;" and a little before his ascension, "Ye shall be witnesses unto me to the uttermost parts of the earth." The apostles had this apprehension of the nature of their office; for when the place of Judas was to be supplied, Peter says to the disciples, "Of these men that have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." And to Paul, who was an apostle "born out of due time," Jesus appeared from heaven, that he might also be a witness of the things which he had

seen.

You may mark here an uniformity in the evidence of Christianity. The same persons, who are to us the witnesses of the signs which Jesus did in the presence of his disciples, are witnesses also of his having risen from the dead. In both cases they do not declare opinions upon doubtful points, but they attest palpable facts, level to the apprehension of the plainest understanding; and their clear unambiguous testimony to the miracles and the resurrection of Jesus, in which they agreed with themselves and with one another till the end, is written in the same books, that we may believe that he is the Christ, the Son of God.

We are thus led back to those circumstances which were formerly stated as giving credibility in our days to the miracles of Jesus; such as the character of the apostles, the scene of danger and suffering in which their testimony was given, the fortitude with which they adhered to it, and that simplicity, that air of truth, which pervades the evangelical history, and which falsehood cannot uniformly preserve. All these circumstances are common to the record of the miracles and to the record of the resurrection. But there are some internal marks of truth in the history of the resurrection, which are peculiarly fitted to impress conviction upon all who are capable of apprehending them. I shall mention the three following. The history of the resurrection, published during the life of the witnesses of that event, relates the consternation which it excited amongst the enemies of Jesus, the awkward attempts which they made to affix the charge of imposture upon the disciples, and the currency of that report among the Jews at the time of the publication of the history. Again, the historians exhibit the prejudices of the apostles, their slowness of heart to be

lieve, the natural manner in which their doubts were overcome, and the combination of circumstances by which a firm belief of the resurrection was established in the minds of the witnesses, and a foundation was laid for the faith of succeeding ages. There are, lastly, that apparent imperfection and inaccuracy in the several accounts of this transaction, and those seeming contradictions, which render it impossible for any person to believe that there was a collusion amongst the evangelists in framing their story, and which yet are of such a kind, that the ingenuity of learned men, by attending to minute and delicate circumstances which escape ordinary observers, has formed out of the four narrations a consistent, probable account of the whole transaction. It is not possible for me to enlarge upon these points. But they are so essential to this most interesting article of our faith, that they deserve your closest study. And for that purpose I recommend to you the four following books, which every student of divinity ought to read. The first is Ditton on the Resurrection. One part of this book is a general view of the nature of moral evidence, and of the obligation which lies upon every reasonable being to assent to certain degrees of moral evidence; the other part is an application of this general view to the testimony upon which the resurrection of Christ is received; and is calculated to show that this testimony has all the qualifications of an evidence obligatory to the human understanding. The second book is known by the name of the Trial of the Witnesses. There are a judge, a jury, and pleaders upon both sides of the question. The arguments are summed up by the judge, and the jury are unanimous in their verdict that the apostles were not guilty of bearing false witness in their testimony of the resurrection. The form of the book, as well as the excellence of the matter, has rendered it popular; and it will be particularly useful to you by making you acquainted with the objections and the heads of the answers. The third is, Gilbert West's Observation upon the History of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which you will find both as a separate book and also inserted in Watson's Tracts. This masterly writer lays together the several narrations, so as to form a consistent account of the whole transaction. He gives a very full view, first, of the order and the matter of that evidence which was laid before the apostles, and then of the arguments which induce us, in this remote age, to receive that evidence. His book, according to this plan, not only places in the strongest light those internal marks of credibility by which the history of the resurrection is distinguished, but also embraces most of the arguments for the truth of Christianity. The fourth is Cook's Illustration of the General Evidence of the Resurrection of Christ, a work which displays much acuteness, and a degree of novelty in the manner of stating that evidence. Even Dr. Priestley, an author whom I frequently mention in the following parts of my course, but whose name I seldom have occasion to quote in support of any doctrine of the Christian religion, and whose creed Mr. Gibbon has well called a scanty one, has said in one of his latest publications, "The resurrection of our Saviour, being the most extraordinary of all events, the evidence of it is remarkably circumstantial, in consequence of which, there is not perhaps any fact in all ancient