them? His death was witnessed by the whole nation; every one knew that he was laid in the grave. Had the fact of his death been the point in question and he had died only in the presence of a few, the many would have believed. That which was common to all would be credited on ordinary testimony, but the resurrection of the dead being contrary to universal experience, demanded something like universal testimony to establish the fact. But while he died before the many, his appearance after his resurrection was testified only by the few. Again, these few were interested persons; they were his friends committed to his cause, and having their reputations at stake on the success of his mission. So far therefore from the resurrection being the subject of universal belief, there was ample room for universal doubt. The evidence was not written with a sunbeam, but penned in the illegible characters of the assertions of a few obscure followers.'

Before we proceed to answer these plausible objections, let us examine more particularly the special importance of the resurrection as a great historical fact, as well as its connection with collateral truths. The infidel has rightly judged it to be worthy of his sharpest assaults. He has not formed a conclusion wide of the truth, when he has determined in his own mind that the resurrection is the corner-stone of the Christian system. The Apostles were impressed with a like conviction when they 'preached Jesus and the resurrection.' To investigate, therefore, how the fact of the resurrection is established, may be presumed to throw much light on the mode of revealing the truth as it is in Jesus.' The first revelation given to man involved this great fact. The language addressed to the serpent is, I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.' The bruising of the heel conveys the idea of injury of partial extent, or else of short duration. It would not be possible to determine beforehand which of these it might be, but when the seed of the woman was apparently bruised on the head, when he had died on the cross and was laid in the tomb, it was clear that unless the victory of the grave should be reversed and death's sting withdrawn, the prophecy would be unfulfilled. Moreover it was pronounced as a merciful alleviation of the curse: Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return,' was the dismal sentence pronounced on sinning man. Here was a mantle of gloom spread over a world framed originally for happiness. The serpent's wiles have been fatally successful, sin has gained a hold, and death is permitted to reap its harvest. The intimation, however obscure, that the defeat is not hopeless, that though cast down mankind is not destroyed, that the doors of the grave are not

6

eternally

eternally shut, this is the hope that, like a sunbeam, pierces the thick darkness. If the seed of the woman rises from the conflict wounded but not crushed, bruised in the heel but not bruised in the head, if there be a resurrection from the sepulchre in which he is entombed, then the word of God stands sure and the hopes of man are established.

It scarcely requires proof to show that the hopes of man with respect to a general deliverance from the grave, are coupled with our Lord's rising again. Leaving out of view the evangelical doctrine that he rose again for our justification,' it is obvious on yet more simple grounds that the raising one rendered probable the resurrection of all. St. Paul argued with Agrippa on general grounds when he asked (Acts xxvi. 8) Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?' It was therefore remarked that if the divine power were manifested in one instance it might be expected in more. Besides, the raising up and the ascension to heaven no more to return to corruption imply certain capabilities of that nature which all of us possess in common. If death could not retain dominion over our Lord,-if the grave was a place unfit for the body in which his soul had taken its habitation,-if there was a place prepared for that body of a more glorious character, we infer that death is an anomaly in this our world; that to lie in the grave is contrary to our nature; that to escape the trammels of the tomb and enter a happy abode is alone that which is consistent with our state and will be fulfilled accordingly, unless any divine command should interfere.

These we conceive to be reasonable inferences from the bare fact of our Lord's resurrection, but they will be abundantly confirmed to us by revelation itself. I am he that liveth and was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore. Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.' (Rev. i. 18.). In these terms does the risen Saviour lay claim to the power of raising the dead. He has the key of that great charnel-house in which the sons of Adam lie in silent gloom, bearing sad testimony to the results of sin and the unerring certainty of divine vengeance. But as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. (John v. 21.) 'Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.' (John v. 29, 30.)

Moreover the resurrection was the main fact verification of all that our Lord said and taught. were by no means confined to moral maxims or

essential to the His instructions abstract reasonings,

ings, the truth of which did not depend on him who uttered them. Truth delivered in such a form would have the same weight whoever he be that enunciates it. But our Lord ever spake with authority. His own mission and office and future sovereignty were mixed up with his teaching, and if he failed in establishing his divine character, the greater part of his declarations were rendered void. If the immortality of the soul may be inferred from the Old Testament Scriptures from the dignity imputed to man by the relation declared to exist between him and God, how much more does the authority of Christ require to be vindicated by the establishment of his subsequent existence. If 'I am the God of Abraham,' is a saying that proves the future resurrection of the patriarch, how much more does the saying "This is my beloved Son,' require that he should rise from the dead. Now our Lord assumed his own resurrection in the allusions he conOne such declaration will tinually made to his own death. suffice as an example. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.' (John iii. 14, 15.) He does not here predict his rising; but how are men to live by believing in one who dies and continues among the dead? Men believe in a risen Saviour: therefore the Apostle says, "If when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.' (Rom. v. 10.)

Our Lord, however, did more than indirectly imply his resurrection, he predicted it in express terms. 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' (John ii. 19.) This is one among several expressions in which he foretold the great event, but it is distinguished from the others by its reference to the demand of the Jews for a sign. It was a reply to the question, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?' Now, although our Lord constantly worked signs (onuɛia), it would appear that he applied the term emphatically to certain events which in their own nature were calculated to force conviction on those who witnessed them. It was the Jewish disposition to seek such extraordinary manifestations of heavenly power, whilst the Greek mind craved (copía) wisdom. The Jew was captivated by what was external to sense, the Greek took delight in the subtleties of philosophical speculation. This peculiarity of the Jewish character often showed itself. The miracles of our Lord were not deemed sufficient, something yet more astonishing was demanded. He feeds five thousand with a few loaves, nevertheless they ask for a sign from heaven; with his own hand he clears the temple of a vast multitude, together with

the

the oxen and sheep which they had introduced, yet a sign is demanded; and the thing asked is promised-the sign of the prophet Jonas. Three events relating to our Lord are specially termed signs: his conception by a virgin (Isa. vii. 14), his resurrection, and his return in the clouds of heaven. (Mat. xxiv. 30.) Each of these was intended to carry special conviction with it. The resurrection in particular was pointed to as the divine manifestation that should meet every Jewish objection, that should convince all men that Jesus was he of whom Jehovah had said, "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.'

It is sufficiently evident that the resurrection, viewed as an historical event, is a central fact in the divine economy; as such, therefore, it requires the most accurate evidence, it needs to be substantiated so clearly that no hostile assault shall be able to shake the foundations on which it rests. Directly or indirectly, all Scripture points to it, all Scriptural teaching presupposes it, the hopes of man are built upon it. It is the antithesis to Adam's fall; it rolls back the tide of Satan's triumph. The reality of Christ's mission depends upon its truth, and all his teaching requires its seal to its validity. As he announced it to his persecutors and proclaimed the fearful judgment that he himself would come to execute, their fears were awakened and every motive to jealous watchfulness for the result called into play. It was the turning-point in the great struggle between the powers of light and those of darkness; not a few soldiers only watched the sepulchre, but the hosts of heaven, yea and the powers of hell. These considerations will suggest what has already been hinted, that this event had in it the nature of a revelation. Before it was chronicled by an evangelist or commented on by an apostle, when it transpired as a bare fact, it was a declaration of God's will; it suggested man's future state; it gave a new meaning to the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke xxiv. 44), and especially contributed new force to all the Saviour's teaching. Therefore we are justified in regarding it as a prominent example of the communication of heavenly truth, and the evidence on which it rests may be classed with all other evidence that has been given to mankind, enabling them to know the will of God.

The historical evidence of the fact of which we are now speaking lies within a small compass. A vast multitude saw him die; Roman soldiers pronounced him really dead, and forbore in consequence to break his legs. His body was placed in the sepulchre by Pilate's permission, was seen there by the women who had prepared spices wherewith to embalm it, a stone was rolled to the entrance of the cave and sealed by his jealous foes. Every precaution was taken that fear and hatred could suggest; and lastly,

soldiers

soldiers were set to watch who could not have slept at their post without incurring the penalty of death. Hitherto his enemies have been eye-witnesses, but now friendly eyes alone are permitted to gaze on the Saviour. The angel that removed the stone was seen by the soldiers, but the fearful vision laid them prostrate. Nevertheless they were witnesses to the fact of the resurrection, and came into the city and showed unto the chief priests the things that were done. We say that friendly eyes saw him after his resurrection. The angel who came from hea

ven to roll away the stone was no unimportant witness. And when the women wept at the cave's mouth over the very circumstance that was so fraught with joy, and they saw two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain, to them they gave their testimony, Why seek ye the living among the dead? he is not here, but is risen. But Mary Magdalene herself was the first to see Jesus, and the sound of his voice drew from her a cry of recognition, Rabboni! The Apostles then at different intervals were admitted as eye witnesses of the risen Saviour, 'to whom he showed himself alive after his passion, by many infallible proofs.' (Acts i. 3.) St. Paul speaks thus of this accumulated evidence. (1 Cor. xv. 3-8.) 'He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen of James; then of all the Apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.'b It will be unnecessary to dwell at greater length on that kind of

66

b Bishop Pearson's enumeration of the peculiar evidence afforded by each of the successive personal manifestations of our Lord is worthy of notice :- He sufficiently assured the apostles of the verity of his corporeity, saying, "Handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." He convinced them all of the identity of his body, saying, Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself" (Luke xxiv. 37-39); especially unbelieving Thomas: "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." The body, then, in which he rose must be the same in which he lived before, because it was the same with which he died. And that we might be assured of the soul as well as of the body, first, he gave an argument of the vegetative and nutritive faculty, saying unto them, "Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of broiled fish and of a honeycomb, and he took it and did eat before them." Secondly, of the sensitive part, conversing with them, shewing himself, seeing and hearing them. Thirdly, he gave evidence of his rational and intellectual soul, by speaking to them and discoursing out of the Scriptures, concerning those things which he spake unto them while he was yet with them. Thus did he shew that the body which they saw was truly and vitally informed with a human soul. And that they might be yet farther assured that it was the same soul by which that body lived before, he gave a full testimony of his divinity by the miracle which he wrought, in the multitude of fishes caught, by breathing on the apostles the Holy Ghost, and by ascending into heaven in the sight of his disciples.'-PEARSON, On the Creed, Article V.

evidence