The difficulties therefore, which attach to the opinion of the glorification of the Lord's body by the resurrection, may be set aside, and are not of such a character, as to lead us away from the essential point in this event, that the Savior must have risen with the impossibility of dying again, which could take place only by the glorification of his body. A very dif ferent view is held by those, who are not merely in doubt as to the precise moment of the glorification, but who mistrust, if they do not deny the resurrection itself. Modern philosophy, alas! in its prevailing idealism, has not been able to acknowledge the idea of a glorification of body and of matter in general; only a few men, who have been as much distinguished for naturalists, as philosophers, like Schubert in Munich and Steffen, in Breslau, have profoundly recognised the truth and importance of this idea. The Holy scriptures know nothing of that dualism which insist upon an absolute separation of spirit and matter. As spirit appears in man united with matter, it is apparent, that the former can defile or consecrate the latter, and in fine can glorify it. Instead of acknowledging this very striking idea and examining into it by their speculative penetration, the attempt has been made to place the whole concern in the realm of mythic parable, and to interpret the language of the passage in the Gospel, as expressing symbolically the idea of a return from the world of spirit. But the plain narratives of the evangelists, which originated in a period purely historical and were composed by eye witnesses, stand in most decided contrast with the mythic theory.

Ac

After these observations, that view is yet to be examined, which does not put a peculiar meaning upon the resurrection, so much as plainly deny it. One class of the defenders of this view (Dr. Paulus and Henneburg,) hold to the fact, but see in the resurrection nothing but a recovery from a swoon. cording to the view first touched upon, which supposed Jesus to have risen with his mortal body, this last opinion is with great difficulty refuted on mere external grounds; for the medical proof of the reality of the death of Christ, even from the wounds, which the spear inflicted, is at the least not imperative. But on the contrary according to our view, this hypothesis of Paulus has not the slightest importance. Since even supposing the Savior only apparently dead, this does not change the import of the event; since this importance does not depend on the mere return to life (this has taken place in regard to others, without any such great weight being laid upon their case,) but on the glorification of body attending that return and on the consequent impossbility of again

dying. This, our view, supposes a peculiar influence of the Deity to have been exercised in the resurrection, and cannot be eluded by the untenable hypothesis of an apparent death. Setting aside all uncertain medical proof, we have, besides these, in the predictions of Christ before his death, a foundation, that cannot be shaken, upon which to rest our conviction of the reality of his death. As in the case of Lazarus, and all the other dead, who were raised, we have only the word of Christ to assure us, that they were dead, since he openly declares, that they merely sleep, in instances where death had not ensued; so in regard to Christ's resurrection, his word is the only sure testimony, the only firm rock, on which the certainty rests; He was dead, and is again made alive.(Rev. I. 18).

No effort indeed has been wanting in the attempt to remove the clear unequivocal declarations of Jesus of his approaching death and resurrection. But the grounds, upon which they have sought to make it probable, that these expressions were placed in our Lord's mouth by the disciples after the event, are so weak, that nothing but the earnest conviction, that in this way alone, the great fact itself can be made doubtful, could persuade those engaged in such attempts to attach any importance to them.

It only remains to touch upon the view, which has been so noised abroad, by those who use the contradictions between the four Evangelists, to show a falsehood in the whole affair. But the narration would be far more liable to suspicion on this ground, if it were entirely devoid of contradictions in unimportant particulars, than at present, where there is some deviation in collateral particulars and perfect coincidence in the great essential points. Even if the contradictions were irreconcilable, this would not impair the credibility of the essentials of the narration. But the explanation of a single one will prove, that the differences are but independent statements of the same proceedings, and such as always must occur, where several independent witnesses testify of the same event.

SECTION FIRST.

HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION.

[Matt. 28, 1, 15—Mark 16, 1, 11-Luke 24, 1, 12—John 20, 1, 18.]

The act of the resurrection itself, like every new process of creation, is veiled in obscurity. The writers of the New Testament merely state what they saw, after the grave had

become empty. Silent and unobserved, the creative energy did its work, and hovered around the person of the Lord, like a heavenly robe of light, worthy to array the king of the world of light. While the Lord was resting from his labour upon that great Sabbath, his friends, both male and female, passed the day in hallowed communion, still thinking they had lost the beloved of their soul. But this error, according to which they must have concluded, that Jesus was not the Messiah, did not deprive them of their love. They hastened, at early day break to finish the anointing of the Lord's body.

In the description of the approach of the woman to the grave, some remarkable differences between the evangelists present themselves. As to the synopsists or Matthew, Mark and Luke, they, on the whole, coincide. Mary Magdalena and Mary, the wife of Cleopas, (Luke speaks of Joanna, the wife of Chusa, and Mark introduces Salome,) go with spices to the grave at sunrise. On the way they talk of the difficulty of removing the stone from the grave. But when they approach, they see the stone already moved away, and behold an angel near the grave. (Here Luke first differs from Matthew and Mark, in naming two angels, while they name but one). These angels address the woman, inform them of the resurrection, and charge them to make it known to the disciples. (Marks states 'neither said they any thing to any one.") Here Luke breaks in, and says, that the disciples did not believe the report of the women, while Peter hastened to the grave. But the two others add, that Christ himself appeared; Matthew observes that he met the women returning; Mark speaks only of Mary Magdalena, without stating that she had separated from the other women. If we had only these accounts of the synopsists, the relation might be regarded as being entirely harmonious. As to the number of angels, it is easy for him who wishes unanimity in such minute particulars, to suppose that Matthew and Mark spoke only of the angel who addressed the women, but Luke made mention of both heavenly messengers. The expression of Mark also 'they said nothing to any one' may be easily reconciled by limiting its application to that immediate moment-a meaning, which, the following remark, 'for they were afraid' plainly sanctions. The departure of Mark from the other evangelists, who mentions only Mary Magdalena and remarks that Jesus first appeared to her, seems most important. But if we had not the

narrative of John, this difference would not be essential, since we may consider Mary to have withdrawn from the other women without any mention being made of it, and thus

may rec

oncile the seeming contradiction. But the whole matter is entirely changed when we compare the narrations of the synopsists with the statement of John. According to the latter, Mary Magdalena went alone, while it was yet dark, to the grave. When she found the stone rolled away, she hurried back to Peter and John, and express to them her anxiety, lest the body had been stolen away. Hereupon both these hastened to the grave; John arrived first, but Peter ventured before him to enter the grave. After they had convinced themselves, that the body of the Lord was not there, they returned; but Mary remained by the grave weeping, and as she sat there, she saw two angels and soon after Jesus himself, whereupon she hastened back to the disciples, and told them what she had seen. Upon first sight, there appears no resemblance between this statement and that of the synopsists; only in the cursory observation (Luke. 24, 12) about Peter, who entered the grave, there is an agreement with John's record, and also in the statement of Mark, that Jesus appeared first to Mary. But upon a more full consideration, is is manifest, that this apparently great discrepancy is resolved into a perfect harmony, and the statements bear such a relation to each other, as must always be the case, when several persons speak of the same event, according to what they have seen. Even the accounts, which various witnesses give of present events,are almost always different, since each must see differently, according as he looks from a different point of view. Griesback and Hess have already formed the following harmony of the evangelists in opposition to those unphilosophical objections, which have been raised against the truth of the resurrection on account of these discrepancies.

The narrations of the synopsists form two courses of events connected with each other; John tells merely what he experienced, the synopsists learned what they relate probably from the women. By the simple supposition, that Mary Magdalena separated from the other women, came first to the grave, and then called Peter and John, the parallel character of the two narratives becomes clear and evident. The course of the events is then as follows. Early in the morning, Mary Magdalena and the other women go to the grave together, but Mary outstripped her companions, and found the grave empty to her great astonishment. Immediately Mary hastens to Peter and John, and meanwhile the other woman arrive, see the angels, and hear their words. After their withdrawal, Mary returns with the two disciples; after they look into the grave, they return to the house, but Mary still remains at the grave,

weeping, and hereupon the angels appear to her and then the Lord himself. After this appearence to Mary alone, the Saviour revealed himself to the heart stricken women, on their way back. By this view, all contradictions disappear; there is but one difficulty remaining; how it is, if the events were so near each other, that Mark could so expressly and decidedly declare, that the Lord appeared first to Mary; the other women saw him about the same time, only a very little later, so little, that it was not to be peculiarly remarked that he appeared first to Mary. If we consider, that here Mark departs from Matthew, and that the latter only relates, that Jesus showed himself to the returning women, it then appears in regard to this point more likely, that Matthew has somewhat unsatisfactorily extended to all the women, Christ's appearance to Mary alone. But this discrepancy is so trifling, that it only serves to confirm the freedom and independence of the evangelists, whose statements are satisfactory in all important points.

The day in which the women went to the grave is declared unanimously by the evangelists, to have been the first day of the week, or Sunday. According to Matthew and Mark, the women were told to inform the disciples, that Jesus would meet them in Galilee. The purpose of this direction was doubtless, none else, than the Lord's idea, that the retirement of Galilee would be a more appropriate place for the disciples to receive his last charge, than the tumultuous city of the Capital. The first appearances of the Lord were only intended to convince the disciples, that he had arisen. Mark mentions the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalena, with the remark, that he had cured her of seven devils. This takes away our sur prise, that the gracious Savior should reveal himself first to the poor and miserable, who had most needed his aid, and who by receiving it had been most inflamed with love for him. But the disciples were so utterly deprived of their presence of mind by Christ's death, that they could give no credence to the glad tidings of his resurrection, of which he had so often forewarned them.

When Peter and John looked into the grave and found it empty, their first impulse probably was to believe like Mary that the body had been stolen away. But when they saw no marks of violence, but the grave clothes lying in perfect order, they probably believed in the Lord's resurrection. At least John bélieved.

When Mary sat weeping by the tomb and saw the angels, and soon after the Lord, she did not probably recognise them as such. She certainly did not recognise the Lord, but seeing