evidence of the resurrection by which they who receive the inspired Scriptures are convinced. No one takes his stand on the Bible as a true record, to attack the received doctrine of the resurrection; but we have to deal with those who entrench themselves in an alleged inconsistency in the facts for the purpose of assailing the record itself. Our object is now to point out an additional proof of the consistency of Scripture with itself, and thus to strengthen the internal evidence of the sacred canon.

The enemies of Christianity complain that our Lord did not personally appear to those who crucified him; but we ask, 'Had they not sufficient data to infer the certainty of his resurrection ?' At least they had enough to render it highly probable. The soldiers who saw the angelic apparition could have entertained no doubts. Indeed, the very falsehood which they were bribed to promulgate, demonstrated what were the real convictions even of the Jewish Sanhedrim. Besides, the empty sepulchre, the abandoned grave clothes, the stone rolled away, each of them supplied its proof. And if the disciples had concealed the body, they did not conceal themselves. On the contrary, they courted publicity, they openly avowed the facts which had taken place, they were prepared to confront their adversaries and establish the truth of their own statements. Had Jesus lived altogether in obscurity, had he not predicted the events which were to happen, had prophecy been silent concerning him, had he died under ordinary circumstances, had there been no earthquake, no darkness, no rent vail, none of those things which drew the cry from the centurion, Truly this was the Son of God,' the fable invented by the priests and circulated by the soldiers might have been more plausible, and the resurrection more safely disbelieved. Now, when Peter and the rest of the disciples asserted the contrary, they openly appealed to the rulers of the people and the elders of Israel' (Acts iv. 8.), they referred them to their own Scriptures and to the facts of which they were conversant,- "This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner' (ver. 11). The Pharisees might have remembered these very words as having been applied by the crucified One to himself (Matt. xxi. 42), for on that occasion they were reluctantly convinced, and now they were unable to reply. "They saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men,' and consequently could find little hope that the imputation of subtlety and fraud would obtain credence. We conclude, therefore, that the evidence given to the enemies of Christ, though indirect, was sufficient to establish in their minds the belief of the resurrection.

In examining the historical account of this event, it has sufficiently

VOL. VI.-NO. XI.

D

ciently appeared that the friends of our Lord were alone admitted into his presence. It is from this circumstance that the sceptical objection has taken rise to which we have alluded, and which is the subject of this article. Some have replied to that objection by observing that it does not follow from the silence of the Evangelists, that others were not allowed to behold him. But St. Peter's words are conclusive on this point; for he asserts expressly that he appeared οὐ παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, ἀλλ' ἡμῖν (the disciples, Acts x. 40, 41). Now if, as we have endeavoured to show, there was sufficient indirect proof of the resurrection afforded to the people, what further end, may we ask, would have been obtained by our Lord's openly showing himself? Assuming that he had done so, we may glance at two opposite hypothetical results differing from what actually took place. We may suppose a more open manifestation to have produced a widely extended belief in the miraculous events, or the reverse. The latter supposition is not únreasonable, and if so, the objection is at once met. We say it is not unreasonable, for in the excited state of the public mind there would appear to be ample inducement for an impostor to come forward and proclaim himself the risen Messiah. Had our Lord, therefore, appeared to the people, he might have placed himself in a false position by doing that which an impostor could readily have imitated, and so brought upon himself the charge of fraud, and thereby confirmed the unbelief of his adversaries. But to take the first supposition as the more plausible one, we may conceive a public appearance to have been coupled with miraculous attestation. In this case the multitude might have been brought to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. But it was clearly inconsistent with our Lord's mission to establish his Messiahship by the acclamations of the public voice. Such a belief on the part of the nation of the Jews would be hastily formed, and might as hastily be abandoned. On the spur of the moment, they would have lifted up their Hosannas, and cut down once more the palm branches from the trees. They would have hastened to proclaim him their King, and adopt Pilate's superscription and the soldier's purple robe not as a mockery, but as a declaration of the popular conviction. On a less exciting occasion (see John vi. 15), the people were disposed to take similar measures, to come by force and make him a King. Now, the nature of our Lord's kingdom required that it should be established on a different basis. Sovereignty is a mutual relationship. The man who governs a warlike race must himself be warlike; and on the other hand, a reign of righteousness and peace presupposes a harmony of the ruler and the subject in respect of these holy principles. Except a man be born again,' our Lord had told Nicodemus, 'he could not become

become a subject of this kingdom,' and the Jewish nation in general were far from coming under this description. They were the very reverse of spiritual, and therefore unfit for spiritual sway.

As a nation, they had so far belied the principles of their own law as to crucify Him who came to establish it; it was therefore improbable, yea, unreasonable, that he should appear among them to receive their applause, while their hands were as yet imbrued with his blood. In fact, our Lord's humiliation ceased when he rose from the tomb. During the days of his condescension, he submitted to be rejected, vilified, despised. He wrought miracles which were imputed to Beelzebub; he associated with men at their festal boards, and was called gluttonous and a wine-bibber. But after he had risen he screened himself from hostility, he hid his face from shame and spitting. He saw his foes before, and they rejected him; he sees them but once again, and then he will reject them. During his ministry, our Lord had stood as it were in the attitude of a suppliant; he had implored Jerusalem to learn the things which belonged to its peace; but now they were hid from its eyes. Men must henceforth be the only suppliants. Jesus turned away his face in the flesh; and they can only be made worthy to gaze on him henceforth by faith, and the road to faith is through the tearful valley of repentance. In other words, the riddle of the vacated sepulchre was not to be solved by wonders wrought to gratify the curious, nor made a matter of idle speculation; but to attest a momentous truth that the nation had sinned, that God's anger was roused, and that they must repent and believe, or perish in their unbelief. And it is to be remembered that the most glaring evidence has in itself no power of producing conviction. Men were determined to reject the Saviour, and by whatever testimony his mission was commended to them unbelief would be equally the result. They would never lack a loophole for their scepticism. It seemed as if our Lord knew that among the Jewish nation some would believe and some would believe not; that those who believed would do so though evidence, was scanty, and that those who believed not would persist in unbelief though evidence abounded. Yea, he had said, "Neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.'

Now, when we turn to the narrative of our Lord's interviews with the disciples, we infer ample reasons why his personal presence should have been restricted to so small a number. In the first place, it was needful, in order to his recognition, that he should have been previously well known. None could identify him but those who had been well acquainted with his features. We may take a familiar illustration. If an impostor had appeared in France in the year 1816, and announced that he was

D 2

Napoleon,

Napoleon, and had escaped from St. Helena, he might have chanced so far to resemble the emperor in feature and appearance as to obtain credit from the mass of the French nation. Those who knew the exile only by his portraits, or by having seen him on certain occasions, would easily be deceived as to the identity. The general belief arising from this would be no satisfactory proof to posterity that the great man had returned among his countrymen. But let the pretender go amongst the old marshals of the empire, the secretaries, and court officials, those who knew every peculiarity of the person and manner of their former emperor, and if they pronounced him to be the man in question, their evidence might be safely relied on. Now our Lord submitted himself precisely to this test. He appeared among those who had often watched his countenance and listened to his voice; he showed himself to them by many infallible proofs (év Toλhoïs Tεxunpios). To Mary the sound of his voice was sufficient, and drew forth the exclamation, Rabboni. Thomas was not convinced by his features, his voice, or his person, but must needs examine the wounds that had been inflicted on the cross. And it is the evidence of Mary, and of Peter, of Thomas, and of John on which we rely, that he who rose was he who had wrought miracles, and preached for three years the glad tidings of the kingdom.

We have described two opposite results, arising from the hypothetical case of our Lord showing himself to the people; the one a universal rejection and allegation of imposture; the other a wide-spread but shallow belief. With regard to the effect on the disciples hypothesis is excluded, since we know as a fact that they were slow to believe' that it was he. The avowal of this prolonged scepticism on the part of the inspired narrators is one of the most remarkable instances to which we can point of their honesty as writers. What an amount of blindness, of ignorance of the Scriptures, of want of confidence in the word of that very Saviour they are now so anxious to exalt have they to apply to themselves! It would almost seem to bar their own preaching, to afford an excuse to the unbelieving; but it has, in the providence of God, served an important end. It indicates to what a searching test the statement of the resurrection was subjected, and leaves that event as the most clearly established of any in the whole range of history. Now may we not infer from this difficulty of convincing the friends of our Lord, that it would have been immeasurably increased had he by his personal presence sought to convince his enemies? Christ did nothing in vain: but

C

Gregory the Great remarks justly and happily, 'Dubitatum est ab illis, ne dubitaretur a nobis.'

assuredly,

assuredly, had he made his public appearance with this view, the effort would have been thrown away.

We have yet one more reason to give in reply to the sceptical inquiry which has suggested this investigation, and to this we would attach special importance. We state it in the very words of Scripture: Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God (μάρτυσι τοῖς προκεχειροτονημένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ), Acts x. 40, 41.) This is the most satisfactory solution, if there be any difficulty to the devout mind, that God saw how the truth would best be established, and chose his own witnesses to receive and his own heralds to proclaim the momentous fact. We have already seen that human reason may discover many particulars in which the course pursued appeared to be expedient; we now see that it was proclaimed as the deliberate result of a divine plan. We know that the divine dealings have a unity of design: consequently to discover the fundamental points of mutual resemblance is to supply the best explanation of occasional apparent incongruities. The principle we here discover is that the most important revelations have been made to the few, and not to the many. But the few are not told to keep their knowledge to themselves, but to spread it far and wide. And we have seen that it was better that the few should individually be enabled thoroughly to sift the evidence, that others might receive the truth on their testimony. This is a necessity springing from the very nature of things. Had all Jerusalem seen the risen Saviour, Samaria and Galilee would still have been left to receive the fact by hearsay. Had a whole generation been made eye-witnesses, succeeding generations would have failed to share in the privilege. There is a law of isolation existing in the world which confines every man to his own kindred and country, to his own language and laws, to the age in which he lives, and the events in which he takes a part. The barriers of space and time can be but imperfectly removed. We may run to and fro as we will, and knowledge may be increased to the utmost stretch of human ability, and we are still unacquainted with the thoughts that fill the minds of men who belonged almost to our own time or to our own birthplace.

There were a few witnesses to our Lord's resurrection, and these his own friends; there were still fewer that beheld his transfiguration, and these the nearest of his friends. The former amounted to more than five hundred, the latter were confined to three, and these chosen disciples, an election out of the electPeter, James, and John.

It would seem as if many of those events in the Saviour's life which had the deepest significance were, for some unexplained

cause,