JOHN KENNEDY, M.A., I). D. ' I S£$ <% IlcsiitTcttioit of festts fljjrist. BY THE SAME AUTHOR. Each 3j., cloth boards. The Divine Life. A Book of Facts and Histories. Work and Conflict : or, The Divine Life in its Progress. A Book of Facts and Histories. Rest under the Shadow of a Great Rock. A Book of Facts and Principles. fcefc Untcts, 10r. fer 100, or lid. each. No. 118. Our Lord’s Teaching concerning the Sabbath. No. i2i. Shall we Pray, or Shall we not? For Young Men. -KX- Lo.\ix)\': The Religious Tract Society. scs Resurrection of Jesus Christ historical Fact, WITH AN EXAMINATION OF NATURALISTIC HYPOTHESES. By JOHN KENNEDY, M.A., D.D., HONORARY PROFESSOR, NEW COLLEGE, LONDON. THE RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETY: 56, Paternoster Row; 65, St. Paul’s Churchyard; anp 164, Piccadilly, Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/resurrectionofjeOOkenn PT^E FACE. • -+ 0 4 - fiat might be said, by way of preface to this volume, will be found said already in the introductory chapter and in other parts. It remains only that I bespeak the candid study of the course of argument which I have endeavoured to trace. I am very far from imagining that I have done justice to the subject, or that I could, even if the limits of the volume allowed greater fulness and expansion. But such as it is, it at least indicates evidence which, in amount and character, has never yet been fairly met by those who have laboured to prove it invalid or insufficient. But for the ci priori determination not to accept the supernatural as historical, the evidence for the Resurrec¬ tion of Jesus Christ would be held to be overwhelming. The importance which Christians attach to the subject has its justification in the relation in which the fact of the Resurrection stands to the religion of Christ, that is to Himself and to the mission which He professed to have, and of which His apostles were the authorised expositors. It were a sheer waste of time and reason to argue for or against the historical credit of ten thousand alleged facts which have found a place in the story of mankind. The determination of ordinary historic questions, whatever intellectual interest may attach to it, in no wise affects the moral well-being of the world. And if the question whether Jesus rose from the dead was one of mere history, if it had not vital and influential vi Prefart. relations to both God and man, we might dismiss it without much concern whether the answer should be yea or nay. But Strauss was right in describing this as a “burning question,’’ and in rebuking critics who evade it, or who decline to consider themselves bound to answer it. To the Christian it is a question of life or death. There is nothing the Christian advocate desires more earnestly than that men should sift and sift every part of the evidence on which his faith rests. And there is nothing he has oftener to complain of than the indifferent and superficial, and not unfrequently supercilious, way in which men skim over and reject it. If he is bound not to accept lightly so mysterious a fact as that of the resurrection of Christ, others are bound not lightly to deny it or leave it undetermined. As to the mysteriousness of the fact, the ground taken in this book is, that what we have to prove is not merely the restoration to life of a dead man. “ We have to do with One particular Man. And we contend that when we look at the circumstances and character of this Man, while the wonderfulness of His resurrection remains, its unlikelihood vanishes.” That He should not rise from the dead, would be more mysterious than that He should. It is with no misgiving that we challenge the world to find a spot in the character of Jesus Christ, or a flaw in His claims to be accepted as the Son of God and the Saviour of men. The storms of the present age around and against the Christian faith, are only such, however loud and severe, as have often raged before. “But history holds its ground. The wave with its froth passes away; the rock stands firm.” JOHN KENNEDY, Stepney Green. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. iUhe ^010 of gsjbtorji mxb the ^ntc f)nnaple0 of ^bioric Criticiom. FAGE What we mean by the Resurrection of Christ . . . 9 What tests shall we apply to a Historic fact ? . . .11 Is the Supernatural ipso facto unhistorical ? . .11 The duty of science to ascertain facts . . . .12 The Resurrection not to be rejected on abstract grounds . 13 Dr. Thomas Arnold on Historic evidence . . . 15 Sir George Cornewall Lewis on same . . .16 Canon Rawlinson on same . . . . .18 Mr. Isaac Taylor on same . . . . .21 Demonstration not applicable . . . . 23 Dr. Whately’s “Historic Doubts” . . . -23 Illustration from Dr. Johnson . . . .23 The amount of evidence cannot be pre-determined . . 24 Historic documents on which we rely . . . *25 Four Epistles by Paul . . . . . 25 The Four Gospels . . . . . .26 Even if of later origin . . . . .28 The Acts of the Apostles . . . . .30 Paley’s Horcz Paulina . . . . . 31 No radical difference between Peter and Paul. . *32 CHAPTER II. ^Itc |Jer0on*tl Tc0ttmonii oi the fhrnl. The testimony of Paul partly personal and partly secondary . 34 His words quoted . . . . . <35 Significant points inferred . . . . .38 Paul’s testimony : What and Who ? . . . *39 Contents . viii FAGS Renan on character of Paul’s Writings . . .40 The Author of “ Supernatural Religion” on Paul . . 40 How he would reduce the value of Paul’s testimony . *41 Paley and Lord Lyttelton . . . . . 41 Paul not careless or indifferent as to evidence . . .44 The Author of “ Supernatural Religion ” answered by himself 46 Keim more appreciative . . . . .48 Paul’s own averment of sincerity . . . . 51 Paul’s personal testimony . . . . ,52 Story of his Conversion three times told . . *53 Differences and Harmony . . . . .54 The form in which Christ appeared to Paul . . . 56 Could Paul be mistaken? . . . . *57 Was he given to seeing Visions? . . . . 58 The attempt to explain Paul’s conversion on natural prin¬ ciples examined . . . . . *59 1. No evidence of mental struggle . . -59 2. The idea of convulsions scouted . . .60 3. Misuse of the word “ Vision ” . . .61 4. Paul’s “seeing Christ’’not to be confounded with ■ his “Visions” . . . . .63 Baur’s acknowledgment . . . . .64 CHAPTER IIL ^hc 'vEestimoity repvrteb bn the JVycrstlc fj.tul. The words of the Apostle recalled . . . *65 Some preliminary objections . . . . .65 1. The Appearances to the Apostles and to Paul of the same character . . . .66 How far this is true . . . .66 But the differences . . . -67 2. Paul was only “told” that Jesus had appeared to others . . . . . .68 3. Paul gives us no particulars . . .68 Paul’s statements reviewed . . . . .69 1. He was seen of Cephas . . . .69 Christ’s Resurrection a constant and ruling idea in Peter’s mind . . . . .70 2. “Then of the Twelve” . . . *73 3. Seen by Five hundred . . . -73 Matthew’s Eleven in Galilee . . . 74 No attempt to make out a case . . *75 4. Seen by James . . . . *75 5. Then of all the Apostles . . . *76 Contents. IX PAGE The principles of Dr. Arnold and Sir G. Cornewall Lewis recalled ....... 77 The testimony of Paul to be dated from the period of his conversion . . . . . , 78 CHAPTER IV. me mstimcmt) of the (gospels artii ef the Jlcts. The passages which contain this testimony The end of Luke and beginning of Acts compared Summary of the facts recorded Probable order of the appearances The Disciples going to Emmaus The same evening in Jerusalem . . One week after, Thomas being present “ My Lord and my God ” . By the Sea of Tiberias Two things to be noted of all these appearances (a) Something Supernatural Explanations (1 b ) Evidence of Identity Corporeal and Mental . . 79 79 80 85 80 87 88 89 9c 91 92 92 94 94 CHAPTER V. doiToborntitic (Ebibciuc. We admit that so extraordinary a fact needs extraordinary evidence . . . . . . .98 Mere prodigies scarce worth study . . . .98 The Resurrection of Christ has many relations and bearings . 9S I.—The wonderful change in the Apostles . . .99 Dates from “the Third Day” . . . .99 Illustrated in history of Peter .... loo The Resurrection alone not the cause . . .101 IT.—The place of the Resurrection in Christianity . . 103 1, Its Foundation ..... 103 The “Fact” not the mere “Belief” in it the foundation ..... 104 If “ Belief ” merely, what follows ? . . . 106 Dr. Caipenter’s distinction between the Resurrection and other miracles .... 107 2. Incorporated with both the historic and doctrinal teaching of the Apostles . . . 108 Its reflex light on the Supernatural Life . . 108 X Contents. The miraculous birth and the sinless character Reflex light on the work of Christ . What was His special work Connection of the Resurrection with it We do not assume what has not been proved . Prophetic light on the future ..... In three particulars ...... Unanswered questions ..... Strauss saw the importance of the Resurrection Not Paul’s doing ...... The keystone of a mighty arch .... The bearing of all this on the evidence of the fact 1. The Apostles could not but take the utmost pains to be assured of its reality .... 2. Difficult to suppose that a mistaken belief could be worked up into such a system At best such a belief could only restore the Apostles to what they had been before the Death of Christ 3. Helps to correct the impression that what we have to do with is simply the restoration of a dead man to life ...... 4. Suggests the presumption which may be drawn from the harmony of all the parts of Christianity PAGK 109 110 112 112 1 13 114 115 115 116 117 118 118 118 1 iS 120 120 121 CHAPTER VI. (Exceptions taken to the (Ehibence. I. —It was an age of ignorance and superstition . . 123 An alternative . . . . . .124 First, Jesus Christ and His religion the natural products of that age. What follows? . . . 124 Second, Jesus Christ and His religion to be ascribed to the will and love of God. What follows? . .124 Easy to charge every age with ignorance and superstition 125 Another aspect of the age of Christ . . . 126 Nothing “ puerile or ignoble ” in the Gospels . . 126 II. —Objected that no one saw Jesus coming out of His grave. 127 The soldiers probably did . . . .127 The Apostles did not expect His rising . . .127 If the Apostles had assembled around the grave, what then? ...... 128 They saw Him risen though not rising . . .130 III. —The fragmentary character of the History of the re¬ surrection . . . . , .130 Suppose an elaborate and complete story , .130 Contents . xi PAGE Special evidential value as it is .... 131 Diversities, but substantial agreement . . .132 IV. —The Witnesses were all friends . . . .132 They were Christians because sincere • 133 Remember their mental attitude at the time . . 133 V. —Why did He not show Himself to His enemies ? .134 This not in keeping with the manner of His teaching . 136 His enemies not entitled to more evidence . .136 Might have produced tumult .... 136 Would not have believed . . . . 137 Not fit to be the witnesses to the world . . .137 VI. —More evidence demanded . . . . 137 Strauss’s mis-statement . . . . . 139 Confesses he would receive no evidence . . . 139 The argument of our first chapter . . .140 An honest desire for more evidence . . . 140 CHAPTER VII. ‘tEhc (Exhaustion of .Sceptical hypotheses. Strauss undertakes to explain the origin of the belief without Miracle ....... Objects to those who evade the question The “firm belief” of the Apostles the starting-point of inquiry ....... This implies their honesty and sincerity That the Gospel narratives are at least honest. I. —First Hypothesis, Jesus only in a swoon . Ignores the positive evidence of death Rejected by Strauss ..... Pronounced untenable by the author of “ Supernatural Religion; ” but to be preferred to miracle ! . II. —The Visionary Hypothesis .... Renan and Strauss quoted .... Assumptions— (1) The Disciples in a state of expectancy (2) That they went immediately into Galilee ; time being required to explain this . Violence to the Gospel narratives Emmaus and Sea of Galilee . The conversation with Peter a dream John deliberately makes it a fact The appearances in Jerusalem, how explained away Renan’s imagination . . . . . Difficult to suppose he believes his own imaginings , 141 142 142 M3 143 147 147 148 148 149 149 150 iSo 150 151 152 153 153 153 154 Contents . Xll PAGE An insuperable difficulty. . . . 156 What became of the Body? . . . • r S 7 The pledge of Strauss unfulfilled . . . . 159 III.—A new visionary hypothesis, the spiritualistic . .160 A spiritual resurrection proved by “apparitions. 160 1. The term Resurrection utterly misapplied in this hypothesis . . . . .160 As well speak of the resurrection of Stephen . . 161 Peter’s argument from Psalm xvi. . . .161 If this hypothesis true, Peter and Paul both wrong in their interpretation . . . . .162 2. This hypothesis as irreconcilable with the Gospel narratives as the former . . .163 To be supported only by the arbitrary rejection of history 163 Paul must be got rid of as well . . .164 3. Leaves the ultimate destination of the body unac¬ counted for . . . .164 4. It fails to do what it proposes, to explain the belief in the Resurrection without a corresponding Miracle ...... 165 Apparitions not natural, but supernatural. . . 166 This hypothesis not harmless . . . .167 Paul’s strong assertion in 1 Cor. xv. 14-17 . .167 The “letter ” or “fact” gone, the spirit is not retained . 167 The “ spirit ” of the Resurrection is its moral significance 167 “Apparitions” of a glorified spirit do not answer the ends or teach the lessons of the Resurrection . 168 This hypothesis fatal to the spirit or meaning of the Resurrection . . . . . .168 CHAPTER VIII. (Conclusion. The tests of history recalled, and the result . . .170 Collapse of naturalistic hypotheses . . . .172 Our corroborative evidence not “ circumstantial ” . . 173 Godet on the central position of the Resurrection . .174 Blot not out the Christ . . . . ■ 1 75 THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST AN HISTORICAL FACT. CHAPTER I. Che Costs of Jfjistotn mib the Crne principles o t Historic Criticism. Y the Resurrection of Jesus Christ we mean what has been understood by it in all ages, •—with some recent exceptions, which we shall consider before we conclude, by believers and unbelievers alike,—namely, that the body which was taken down from the cross lifeless, and was laid in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, was restored to life, and that Jesus appeared to His disciples in that body, and remained on earth for forty days after He had left His grave. This is what the Gospels intend to set forth. Their state¬ ment is that Joseph “ besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus,” and that he and Nicodemus, having wound it in linen clothes, with spices, laid it in a rock-tomb belonging to Joseph. On the morning of the third day, the stone which closed the entrance to the tomb was displaced, 10 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. and the body which had been laid in the tomb with reverent care was not to be found. The explanation of the displacement of the stone, and of the disappearance of the body, had not to be waited for long. On that same day Jesus appeared to His disciples in bodily form. They were terrified and affrighted, we are told , 1 and He said unto 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 showed them His hands and feet. This, then, whether true or not, is the averment of the Gospels, —that the body of Jesus was restored to life, and that in this restored body He conversed with His disciples. We are not called on to determine what change, if any, the body of Christ underwent when restored to life. Whether it was still subject to all the limitations to which, like other bodies, it was subject before His death, or whether it was en¬ dowed with some new powers, anticipating, to some extent, the great change which took place when He was glorified, we need not determine. All that we are concerned with is, that it was the same body, the body that had been crowned with thorns, that had been nailed to the cross, out of whose side, when pierced by the soldier’s spear, came forth blood and water,—that this body was restored to 1 Luke xxiv, 37. II The Tests of History. life without seeing corruption, and that from the lips of this body Jesus spoke to His disciples gracious words, which have been preserved, and which we now cherish as a precious heritage. It is of this material or bodily rising again that we say : It is an historical fact. Now, by what means may an historical fact be established ? What tests shall we apply to it ? I. There is one test, boldly asserted by certain critics, which we consider unscientific and illegiti¬ mate—namely this, that all that is supernatural in any narrative is legendary and unhistorical. Before this test all the alleged miracles and revelations of both the Old and New Testaments are swept away : Judaism and Christianity perish together. The critics who adopt this test call themselves scientific, and call their ideas of history scientific, and look with something like compassion on those who will not or cannot rise to their high platform. And the air of superiority and self-complacence with which they write imposes on many. But their dogma— that what is supernatural is ipso facto unhistorical —is a sheer begging of the question. It has no basis in reason or philosophy. And, on this account, we, with boldness equal to their own, pronounce it unscientific. It would divert us too far from our present purpose to attempt anything like a general discussion of the question of miracles. But so long as we believe in God, we cannot believe 12 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. that a miracle is impossible. And if it be possible, it may be actual; and, if actual, it may be capable of proof. Even the improbability of a miracle may be turned into probability, by considerations arising from the character of God and the necessities of mankind. The first duty of science is to ascertain facts. And on these, when sifted and certified, it grounds its conclusions. The critics who, offhand and a priori , declare they will accept nothing as historical which is supernatural, not only prejudge the great question between them and those who believe in a Divine revelation, but incapacitate themselves to fairly estimate the evidence for such a revela¬ tion. They are in no true sense free-thinkers. They are the slaves of a foregone conclusion. Having made up their minds that certain things are impossible, they are compelled to reject every¬ thing that is presented in the form of evidence in support of these things. Per fas aut nefas , the evidence must be rejected. It ca7inot be true, they say, for the thing itself is impossible. Better to accept the most improbable hypothesis, than to accept a statement as true which implies anything supernatural. “Hypothesis,” says Renan, “is in¬ dispensable in histories of this character [the Gospels], where only the general effect is certain, and where almost all the details are more or less dubious, in consequence of the legendary nature of the authorities.” The “ authorities ” for the life of Jesus Christ are thus assumed to be “legendary,” because they contain supernatural narratives. And 13 The Tests of History. by a "hypothesis” Renan means not what is meant by the word either in scientific or in historic investi¬ gations, but any dream or fancy which his imagina¬ tion can substitute for the literal narrative which the first principle of his critical code requires him to reject. Guided by this principle, he has added fancy to fancy of the most extravagant, and, it is not too much to say, impossible kind, to get rid of the facts by which the resurrection of Christ is attested. Approaching these facts from his standpoint, he was incapable of estimating them aright, and assigning to them their proper evidential value. This incapacity is common to all who assume that the supernatural is of necessity legendary. "The belief that a dead man rose from the dead, and appeared to several persons alive,” says one of them, “ is at once disposed of on abstract grounds.” And having disposed, on abstract grounds, of the alle¬ gation that Jesus rose from the dead ; being satisfied, before, and without, any examination of evidence, that the thing could not be, and that the witnesses must be either deceivers or deceived, he proceeds to consider the narrative of the resurrection and the subsequent testimony of those who believed in it, not in an impartial or judicial spirit, but with all the eagerness of a detective to discover and expose the falsity of the witnesses. It could not be other¬ wise. Those who believe the resurrection of Christ to be in itself a thing impossible and in¬ credible, must reject all the evidence, of whatso¬ ever kind, or of whatsoever degree of strength, 14 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. that may be alleged in support of it. Let twelve men say that they saw Him dead, and laid in His grave—that they saw Him rise before their eyes to a new life, and conversed with Him for many days thereafter. Let these men show moral cause why, however improbable the restoration of a dead man to life may be in itself, yet in this particular case there was no improbability, but the reverse. Let them persevere to their dying day in telling the one tale that they saw Jesus die, that they saw Him dead, that they saw Him rising, that they saw Him risen; let them assert that the circum¬ stances in which they saw Him rendered mistake impossible; and let them die a martyr’s death rather than abate one iota of their testimony. All this, and much more, would not avail to shake the convictions of those who, “on abstract grounds ,” believe that the alleged resurrection was impossible. Even if they saw with their own eyes the grave opening and the dead coming forth, they could not believe. It was more likely, they would assert, that their eyes deceived them than that the dead should come to life again; more likely that a thousand eyes should be thus deceived, than that one dead man should live again. Some of the dilemmas which this position, at once sceptical and credulous, creates, will be considered at a later stage of our argument. The point insisted on now is, that those who, on abstract grounds,—that is on the assumption that all miracle is impossible or incre¬ dible,—prejudge the question of the resurrection Dr. Arnold on Historic Evidence. 15 of Jesus Christ, cannot fairly examine the evidence. They are bound to find it false or faulty. And they must study it, not to know what it amounts to, but to find out wherein its assumed fault or falsity consists. We, Christians, are willing to conduct our histo¬ rical investigations without any predetermination on the subject. Instead of presuming to say what God can or cannot do, what He will or will not do, we hold ourselves prepared to receive evidence of what He has, or may have, done. II. The question then returns— By what tests shall we determine the claim of an alleged fact to be accepted as historical? Let us hear what writers on history and historical science have said on the subject. Dr. Thomas Arnold says : “ In estimating whether any history is trustworthy I should not ask whether it was written by a contem¬ porary, or by one engaged in the transaction which it describes, but whether it was written by one who loves the truth with all his heart, and cannot endure error. For such an one, we may be sure, would never attempt to write a history if he had no means of writing it truly; and therefore though distant in time or place, or both, from the events which he describes, yet we may be satisfied that he had good sources of information at hand, or else he would not have written at all. Such an historian is not 16 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. indeed infallible, or exempt from actual error, but yet he is deserving of the fullest confidence in his general narrative ; to be believed safely, unless we happen to have strong reasons for doubting him in any particular point.” 1 Sir George Cornewall Lewis says: “Historical evidence, like judicial evidence, is founded on the evidence of credible witnesses. Unless these witnesses had personal and immediate perception of the facts which they report, unless they saw and heard what they undertake .to relate as having happened, their evidence is not entitled to credit. As all original witnesses must be con¬ temporary with the events which they attest, it is a necessary condition for the credibility of a witness that he be a contemporary ; though a contemporary is not necessarily a credible witness. Unless, there¬ fore, an historical account can be traced by probable proof, to the testimony of contemporaries , the first condition of historical credibility fails.” 2 Sir Cornewall Lewis says further : “ The credibility of a witness to a fact seems to depend mainly on the four following conditions, namely, i. That the fact fell within the reach of his senses. 2. That he observed or attended to it. 3. That he possesses a fair amount of intelligence and memory. 4. That he is free from any sinister 1 Lectures on Modern History, Lect. viii. 2 Credibility of Early Roman History, p. 16. Sir C. Lewis on Historic Evidence. 17 or misleading interest; or, if not, that he is a person of veracity. If a person was present at an event, so as to see or hear it; if he availed himself of his opportunity, so as to take note of what passed ; if he has sufficient mental capacity to give an accurate report of the occurrence ; and if he is not influenced by personal favour or dislike or fear, or the hope of gain, to misreport the fact; or if, notwithstanding such influence, his own conscience and moral or religious principle, or the fear of public opinion, deters him from mendacity, such a person is a credible witness.” 1 Of certain reconstructors of ancient history, Sir Cornewall Lewis says : “ Instead of employing those tests of credibility which are consistently applied to modern history, they attempt to guide their judgment by the in¬ dications of internal evidence, and assume that the truth can be discovered by an occult faculty of historical divination. Hence the task which they have undertaken resembles an inquiry into the in¬ ternal structure of the earth, or into the question whether the stars are inhabited. It is an attempt to solve a problem, for the solution of which no sufficient data exist. The consequence is, that in¬ genuity and labour can produce nothing but hy¬ potheses and conjectures, which may be supported by analogies, and may sometimes appear specious and attractive, but can never rest on the solid 1 On Authority in Matters of Opinion, pp. 21, 22 . 18 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. foundation of proof. There will therefore be a series of such conjectural histories ; each successive writer will reject all or some of the guesses of his predecessors, and will propose some new hypothesis of his own. It is not enough for a historian to claim the possession of a retrospective second-sight, which is denied to the rest of the world, of a mysterious doctrine revealed only to the initiated. Unless he can prove as well as guess ; unless he can produce evidence of the fact, after he has intuitively per¬ ceived its existence, we have no certainty that these ‘green spots in memory’s waste,* may not be mere mirage and optical delusion.” 1 Canon Rawlinson describes “ the laws of the modern historical criticism, so far as they seem to be established ” thus : “ I. When the record which we possess of an event is the writing of a contemporary, supposing that he is a credible witness, and had means of observing the fact to which he testifies, the fact is to be accepted, as possessing the first or highest degree of historical credibility. Such evidence is on a par with that of witnesses in a court of justice, with the drawback, on the one hand, that the man who gives it is not sworn to speak the truth, and with the advantage on the other, that he is less likely than a legal witness to have a personal in¬ terest in the matter concerning which he testifies. 1 Credibility ofEarly Roman History , p. io, etc. Canon Rawlinson on Historic Evidence. 19 “ 2. When the event recorded is one which the writer may be reasonably supposed to have ob¬ tained directly from those who witnessed it, we should accept it as probably true, unless it be in itself very improbable. Such evidence possesses the second degree of historical credibility. When the inquiry appears to have been carefully con¬ ducted, and the judgment of the writer seems sound, we give very nearly as full credence to his statements founded upon inquiry as to those of an eye-witness. “ 3. When the event recorded is removed con¬ siderably from the age of the recorder of it, and there is no reason to believe that he obtained it from a contemporary writing, but the probable source of his information was oral tradition ; still, if the event be one of great importance and of public notoriety, if it affected the national life, or prosperity,—especially if it be of a nature to have been at once commemorated by the establishment of any rite or practice,—then it has a claim to belief as probably true ; at least, in its general out¬ line. This, however, is the third, and a compara¬ tively low, degree of historical credibility. “4. When the traditions of one race, which, if unsupported, would have had but little claim to attention, and none to belief, are corroborated by the traditions of another, especially of a distant or hostile race, the event which has this double testi¬ mony obtains thereby a high amount o f probability 20 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. and if not very unlikely in itself, thoroughly deserves acceptance. The degree of historical credibility in this case is not exactly commensurate with that in the others, since a new and distinct ground of like¬ lihood comes into play. It may be as strong as the highest, and it may be almost as weak as the lowest, though this is not often the case in fact.” 1 “ Historical materials,” we are reminded by Canon Rawlinson, “ may be divided into direct and in¬ direct—direct, or such as proceed from the agents in the occurrences; indirect, or such as are the embodiment of inquiries and researches made by persons not themselves engaged in the transactions.” We are further reminded of “the force of cumu¬ lative evidence.” “ No account of the grounds of historic belief would be complete, even in outline, which failed to notice its application to this field of investigation, and its great weight and importance in all cases where it has any plan. ‘ Probable proofs/ says Bishop Butler, ‘by being added, not only increase the evidence, but multiply it.’ 2 When two independent writers witness to the same event, the probability of that event is increased, not in an arithmetical but in a geometrical ratio, not by mere addition, but by multiplication. ‘ By the mouth of two or three witnesses,’the word to which such witness is borne is ‘establishedl And the agreement is more valuable if it be, so to speak, 1 Bampton Lectures on the Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records , Sect i. 2 Analogy, part II. chap. vii. Mr. Isaac Taylor on Historic Evidence. 21 incidental and casual; if the two writers are con¬ temporary, and their writings not known to one another; if one only alludes to what the other narrates; if one appears to have been an actor, and the other merely a looker-on; if one gives events and the other the feelings which naturally arise out of them ; in these cases the conviction which springs up in every candid and unprejudiced mind is absolute; the element of doubt which hangs about all matters of mere belief being re¬ duced to such infinitesimal proportions as to be inappreciable, and so, practically speaking, to dis¬ appear altogether.” Canon Rawlinson rejects, as we have done, the principle which modern Rationalism would exalt into a law of historic criticism—the impossibility or incredibility of miracles, and the consequent rejection of all supernatural narrative as legendary —a principle which would put a stop at once to any inquiry respecting an alleged revelation. Canon Mozley describes this principle as “the shallowest and crudest of all the assumptions of unbelief.” It is “ unphilosophical,” as Dean Milman says, “ because it assumes dogmatically the prin¬ cipal point in dispute.” To these statements of the accepted laws of historic criticism, we may add the following prin¬ ciples which Mr. Isaac Taylor lays down as a defence against “the artifices of sophists I. Facts remote from our personal observation 22 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. may be as certainly proved by evidence that is fallible in its kind , as by that which is not open to the possibility of error. By certain proof is here meant, not merely such as may be presented to the senses, or such as cannot be rendered obscure, even for a moment, by a perverse disputant; but such as when once understood, leaves no room for doubt in a sound mind. II. Facts, remote from our personal knowledge, are not necessarily more or less certain in pro¬ portion to the length of time that has elapsed since they took place. III. The validity of evidence in proof of remote facts is not affected, either for the better or the worse, by the weight of the consequences that may happen to depend on them. IV. A calculation of actual instances, taken from almost any class of facts, will prove that a mass of evidence which carries the convictions of sound minds, is incomparably more often true than false. V. The strength of evidence is not proportioned to its simplicity, or to the ease with which it may be apprehended by all persons; on the contrary, the most conclusive kind of proof is often that which is the most intricate and complicated. 1 III. While prepared to be bound even by the most stringent principles of historic evidence, in weighing the evidence for the alleged fact of the 1 On the Transmission of Ancient Books, etc. chap, xiii. Demonstration Impossible. 23 Resurrection of Jesus Christ, it must be distinctly remembered that historical facts are not capable of demonstration. Demonstration is possible only in the science of mathematics, or of numbers, or in argument based immediately on intuitions or ne¬ cessary truths. The absence of demonstration, however, does not imply uncertainty. But it admits of degrees, as Bishop Butler has said, from the lowest presumption to the highest moral certainty —a certainty on which men are prepared to stake both this life and the next. For this very reason, that historic facts are not provable by demonstration, their evidence is ne¬ cessarily of a kind that may be doubted, questioned, or denied. And it forms no presumption against any alleged fact that it has been denied, and that persistently. A persistent denial may originate in other causes than insufficiency of evidence. Dr. Whately’s well-known pamphlet, Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleo 7 i Buonaparte, shows what a plausible case ingenious reasoning may make out against the most notorious facts. Dr. Johnson, talking to Boswell of those who deny the truth of Christianity, said, “ It is always easy to be on the negative side. I deny that Canada is taken, and I can support my denial by pretty good arguments. The French are a much more numerous people than the English, and it is not likely that they would allow us to take it.” “ But the ministry have assured us in all the formality of a gazette, that it is taken.” 24 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. “ Very true. But the ministry have put us to an enormous expense by the war in America, and it is their interest to persuade us that we have got something for our money.” “But the fact is confirmed by thousands of men who were at the taking of it.” “Ay, but those men have still more interest in deceiving us. They don’t want that you should think the French have beat them, but that they have beat the French. Now suppose you should go over and find that it is really taken ; that would only satisfy yourself, for when you come back we will not believe you—we will say you have been bribed.” Not only must we not expect demonstration in matters of history or morals—a form of proof which is impossible—but we have no right to de¬ termine for ourselves beforehand, or a priori , what shall be the amount or the character of the evidence which we shall accept in any case as sufficient. “ It is not for us to say, If God willed us to be¬ lieve in Him, He would have made the evidence of His Being stronger, more palpable, more conclusive than it is. If Christ was really the Son of God, He would have done what the devil urged Him to do, He would have cast Himself down from the pinnacle of the temple, and overwhelmed the worshippers in the sacred courts with the proof of His Divinity. If Christ really rose from the dead, or would satisfy the world that He did, He should have shown Himself openly to His enemies, and should have demanded an official investigation, The Sources of Gospel History. 25 first to prove that He had been really dead, and then to prove that He who now called Himself Jesus was the same Jesus who had died. We have no right to determine by what evidence facts or truths like these shall be certified to our satisfaction. In each of the cases supposed the hypothesis is at least admissible—and this is enough for the present —that there may have been good reasons why such evidence should not be given. We have to deal with facts or alleged facts, proofs or alleged proofs, and it is for us to face these, to sift them, and to form our judgment on such evidence as is actually available. This is the dictate of common sense.” 1 IV. Our argument in proof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ will be found to include much mere than the mere recital of the facts recorded in the New Testament. But at this point it will be con¬ venient to mention the historic documents on which we rely, and to state some of the grounds on which we vindicate our right to appeal to them. We place in the forefront four universally ac¬ knowledged Epistles of the Apostle Paul: Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and Galatians. We believe the other Epistles ascribed to the Apostle to the Gentiles to be genuine and authentic, as well as these. But inasmuch as the apostolic authorship of the four named is admitted by the most hostile 1 See the Author’s Popular Handbook of Christian Evidences. Chap. I., on “Fundamental and Guiding Principles.” 2 6 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. critics, we are content to limit our argument, so far as Paul is concerned, to the four. Now these four contain many facts relating to the character, the life, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ; and for the most part the references to these facts are incidental, and such as imply that they were already known to those to whom the letters were addressed, and that they were “ most surely believed by them.” “ The most important documents for history,” Renan says, “are those which possess in the least degree the historic form. The authority of chron¬ icles must give place to that of an inscription, medal, charter, or authentic letter. Viewed in this light, the epistles of undoubted authors and well- authenticated dates form the basis of all the history of Christian origins.” We do not admit that the Epistles of Paul form “ the basis of all the history of Christian origins,” but we believe in their extreme value, and are thankful that we possess them. We further subscribe to Renan when he says, “ An old writing can make us acquainted not only with the exact epoch when it was composed, but with the epoch which preceded it. Every written work suggests, in fact, retrospective inductions upon the state of society whence it proceeded. Though dictated for the most part from the year 53 to about 62, the Epistles of St. Paul are replete with information about the first years of Christianity.” Next to the extant letters of the Apostle Paul we place the four Gospels. In what may be called The Four Gospels. the order of nature, the Gospels should come first. But it is probable that some, at least, of Paul’s letters were written before any of the Gospels were given to the world. And for this reason, and because the letters are admitted by those who do not admit, or do not fully admit, the Gospels, we place the letters first in order. Fully to vindicate our right to appeal to the Gospels as historic autho¬ rities, we should have to write a volume. But for our present purpose, a brief argument must suffice. 1 The letters of Paul presuppose a history, they are based on a history, not necessarily a history written , but a history transacted, events widely published to the world orally, if in no other way. And we naturally inquire whether any written history of these events can be found, and where,-— whether written before or after the letters which have induced our inquiry does not matter. Now, we find four narratives, bearing the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which profess to contain the record we are in search of. We find these alone, and no others. There is no fifth, no rival history of the life of Jesus Christ. Our first inquiry, then, is, whether these four narratives can be traced back to the age of the personal followers of Jesus Christ. We believe they can. But for the proof of this as a fact the reader must be referred to other books. There is another inquiry which can be compressed into 1 See The Gospels: their Age and Authorship, traced from the Fourth Century into the First; by the Author. 23 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. narrower limits: Is the history of the life of Jesus, contained in the Gospels, in harmony with the incidental facts contained in Paul’s letters, and we may add, with the important theological de¬ ductions which the apostle draws from them ? To this question an explicit answer can be given. The Christ of the four Gospels is the Christ of Paul’s four letters. So far as the Gospels and the letters refer to the same facts, they are in most entire agreement; and the facts to which they refer in common are the main facts of the great life to which they belonged ; while on no one point, great or small, is there any discordance between the Gospels and the Apostolic Epistles. More than this, the details contained in the former are necessary to the full understanding of the brief statements and casual allusions contained in the latter. It follows from all this that even if the Gospels could be proved to have been written at a period later than that to which we think they are right¬ fully ascribed, they would be entitled to be accepted as a true history. Being the only history extant, and being in accord with what is known from other than directly historical sources, there would be no ground for questioning it. It could not have been accepted by the universal Church, as we know it was, unless it was in general accordance with the widely published, and therefore well-known facts, of the life and death of Jesus Christ. It is self- evident that any material discordance between the written story and the known facts would at The Four Gospels. 29 once have discredited the story, and led to its rejection. We may add that no written history of Christ could have been accepted by His followers as authoritative that had not, at least, an apostolic imprimatur. It was known, and it is not denied now, that Christ had chosen certain men who had been His personal disciples, to represent Him and His claims and mission to the world. When, at a later period, another was called to the apostle- ship in an unexpected manner, his claims had to struggle with doubt because he had not been an eyewitness of the life of Christ. And throughout his life, illustrious as his Christian labours and conquests were, this doubt was used as a weapon against him. He had the painful duty thrust upon him of defending his apostleship, not for his own honour’s sake, but for the gospel’s sake. The history of Paul, the history of the opposition to him, shows the importance and authority that were attached to the apostleship in the primitive Church. And in view of it we conclude that it was scarcely possible for a history of Christ to gain the confidence of the Churches without the sanction, direct or indirect, of an apostle. Such history might be in itself most credible, in perfect harmony with all that was known of Christ, but it could not claim to be authoritative. Let it be known, how¬ ever, that a history was written by an apostle, or by one who had the confidence of an apostle, and this would be an immediate passport to accept- 30 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. ance as an “ authorised version ” of the life of the Great Master. That our four Gospels gained credence and acceptance with the first Christians, and that no others did, is certain. And the inference is obvious, both that their story was in general accordance with the facts of Christs life as already certified by eyewitnesses, and already “ surely believed ” by the Churches; and that the recital of the story in these Gospels had the sanction, explicit or implicit, of some of the apostles. A somewhat similar argument may be used in support of the historical authority of the book known as the Acts of the Apostles. The four Epistles of Paul contain, indirectly, much history relating to the spread of the Christian faith. Three of them are addressed to Churches in two of the most important cities of the Roman empire, Rome and Corinth, and one to Churches in a province of Asia Minor. They are full of references to the labours of other apostles, as well as to those of Paul. When they were written, it is evident that the Gospel, which had begun its course in the very heart of Judaism, had travelled far and wide through the empire, and had won converts to Christ in many Gentile lands. See, for example, Rom. xv. 18-29. Now where shall we find a history of the emergence of Christianity from its cradle in Jerusalem, and of its diffusion among nations, civilised and uncivilised, the Greeks and barbarians, of whom Paul speaks in Rom. i. 14 ? Was such 31 The Acts of the Apostles. a history ever written ? And if it was, where shall we find it ? There is only one known book that professes to be of this character, and there is no evidence that there ever was any other. In the oldest Christian writings that have come down to us, there is not a line, not an allusion, that would suggest that their authors have ever heard of any other history of the beginning of their faith than that contained in the “Acts.” This being so, the question arises, Is the story contained in the Acts in accord with the story implied in the Epistles ? The question was answered conclusively by Paley in his Mores Paulines , and more than answered. In this work the author traces coincidences which are manifestly undesigned ’ between the statements of the letters, and the records of the history, and builds on them an argument in favour of the genuineness of both which is little short of irresistible. He puts the matter thus : “ The volume of Christian Scriptures contains thirteen letters purporting to be written by St. Paul; it contains also a book, which, amongst other things, professes to deliver the history, or rather memoirs of the history, of this same person. By assuming the genuineness of the letters, we may prove the substantial truth of the history ; or by assuming the truth of the history, we may argue strongly in support of the genuineness of the letters. But I assume neither the one nor the other. The reader is at liberty to suppose these writings to have been lately discovered in the library of the 32 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Escurial, and to come to our hands destitute of any intrinsic or collateral evidence whatever; and the argument I am about to offer is calculated to show, that a comparison of the different writings would, even under these circumstances, afford good reason to believe the persons and transactions to be real, the letters authentic, and the narration in the main to be true.” An attempt has been made, but in vain, to show that there was a radical and irreconcilable difference between Peter and Paul, and that the Acts of the Apostles was written, not as a true and impartial history, but for the purpose of reconciling the parties which had followed Peter and Paul respectively. The critics who maintain this theory have no means of information respecting the mutual relations of Paul and the three “ Pillars ” of the Church in Jerusalem—Peter, James, and John—that are not accessible to ordinary readers of the New Testament. And the passage to which appeal is specially made, instead of supporting the theory, is conclusive against it. In the passage Paul says, “When they [Peter, James, and John] saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter ; for He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles; and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas 33 Peter and Paul agreed. the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.” 1 And the rebuke which was administered by Paul to Peter at Antioch, as recorded in the same chapter, instead of indicating any doctrinal dif¬ ference between them, is based upon the fact that there was no such difference : “ We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law ; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Even if it could be shown, which it cannot, that there was any fundamental difference between Peter and Paul, they were certainly one in their faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And this is the subject on which at present we claim a right to appeal to the Acts of the Apostles. 1 Gal. ii. 7-9. D 34 CHAPTER II. < \Lh£ ^stimonj) of the .Apostle JPuil. I. :HESE things being premised, we are now | prepared to submit the evidence for the ) resurrection of Jesus Christ to the severest tests which have been indicated by Sir Cornewall Lewis and others. For reasons which will appear, we begin with a witness who, in one respect, may be called only secondary, but whose testimony, in addition to what is personal in it, is really the testimony of many primary witnesses, and possesses, on many accounts, a value which can scarcely be over-estimated. The Apostle Paul, as is well known, was not one of the personal followers of Jesus Christ, either before His death or during the forty days which are said to have intervened between Plis resurrection and His ascension. But his letters tell us what he himself believed, and some of the grounds on which his belief was based, respecting the resurrection of Jesus Christ. First of all we shall quote his words: “ Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which The Testimony of the Apostle Paul. 35 also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures : and that 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. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.”—1 Cor. xv. 1-9. “Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead ? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen : and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God : because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ: whom He raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised : and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins.But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that glept.”—1 Cor. xv. 12-20. Knowing that He which raised up the Hotel 2,6 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.”—2 Cor. iv. 14. “Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.”— Rom. i. 3, 4. “Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was de¬ livered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.”— Rom. iv. 23-25. “Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him; knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more ; death hath no more dominion over Him. For in that He died, He died unto sin once : but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God.”— Rom. vi. 8-10. “ Who is He that condemneth ? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.”— Rom. viii. 34. “ Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven ? that is, to bring Christ down from above : or, Who shall descend into the deep ? that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead. The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach ; that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”— Rom. x. 6-9. The Testimony of the Apostle Paul. 37 “ To this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living,”— Rom. xiv. 9. “ Paul, an apostle,—not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead.”— Gal. i. 1. In all the other letters ascribed to Paul, with one or two exceptions, the resurrection of Christ is referred to as a fact which no Christian doubted : “And what is the exceeding greatness of His power to usward who believe, according to the working of His mighty power, which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places.”— -Eph. i. 19, 20. “That I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection.”— Phil. iii. 10. See also ver. 21, where Christ’s “ glorious body ” is spoken of. “The firstborn from the dead.”— Col. i. 18. “Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the opera¬ tion of God, who hath raised Him from the dead.”— Col. ii. 12. “To wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus, who delivered us from the wrath to come.”—1 Tiles, i. 10. “ If we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him.”—1 Tiles iv. 14. “Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of 3 8 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel.”—2 Tim. ii. 8. There are several points of much significance brought to view by these passages, to which refer¬ ence may be made with advantage now, although some of them will require further consideration. I. The resurrection of Christ was proclaimed by the Apostle Paul everywhere. There is not one Church addressed by him in the letters which he wrote, which had not received from him this fact as a part of his “ gospel ” to the world. 1 2. This part of Paul’s gospel was accepted by all the Churches as truth. The incidental manner in which the apostle refers to it in all the passages quoted, is the best proof of this. It was not necessary for him to insist upon it or to rebuke any denial of it. Even in Corinth, it was not the resurrection of Christ that was doubted, but the final resurrection of mankind. And the chief argument by which Paul repelled this doubt was, that logically it led to a doubting or denying of the resurrection of Christ Himself. 3. Paul attached the utmost im¬ portance to the fact of the resurrection of Christ. The whole fabric of the redemption which he preached must fall, if it was not true. 2 Paul was convinced that he could give such evidence of the fact, that men must believe it; or, if they did not, they must count him and the other apostles to be liars. “Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God ; because we have testified of 1 2 Tim. ii. 8. 2 I Cor. xv. 14, 4. The Testimony of the Apostle Paul. 39 God that He raised up Christ: whom He raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.” “ He does not leave room one moment,” says F. W. Robertson, “ for supposing the possibility of a mistake. There was no mistake. It was either true or it was a falsehood. The resurrection of Christ was a matter of fact; James, Cephas, the twelve, the five hundred, either had or had not seen the Lord Jesus; Thomas either had or had not put his finger into the print of the nails; either the resurrection was a fact, or else it followed with the certainty of demonstration that the apostles were false witnesses before God.” This is the position which the apostle took—and he took it boldly. But we must look more clearly into the matter. Our examination of Paul’s testimony to the resurrection of Jesus Christ resolves itself into two questions—what is said ? and who says it ? What is it exactly that Paul tells us on the subject ? And who is Paul? What manner of man is he? In other words, what does the testimony amount to ? and who and what manner of person is the witness ? We shall take the second question first. II. As to the character of Paul there cannot be two opinions. Let us hear what those say of him whose theory would lead them to detract as much 40 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. as possible both from his moral trustworthiness and from his intellectual competency. Of the Epistles of this apostle, Renan says that “ they possess absolute authenticity, thorough sincerity, and freedom from legendary corruption.” As are the Epistles, so, therefore, is their author— “ thoroughly sincere, and free from legendary cor¬ ruption.” Renan being judge, then, the witness whose testimony we are about to consider is a man “of thorough sincerity,” and the writings which contain his testimony are “ free from legendary corruption,” and “ are replete with information about the first years of Christianity.” The most unscrupulous rejecter of “supernatural religion ” which these times have seen, says, “ Paul was singularly independent; and at every turn we perceive in his writings that he disclaims all in¬ debtedness to the elder apostles. He claims that his gospel is not after man, nor was it taught to him by man, but through revelation of Jesus Christ.” “ As to the Apostle Paul himself, let it be said in the strongest and most emphatic manner possible, that we do not suggest the most distant suspicion of the sincerity of any historical statement he makes. We implicitly accept the historical state¬ ments, as distinguished from inferences, which proceed from his pen. It cannot be doubted that Paul was told that such appearances [those men¬ tioned in I Cor. xv.] had taken place. We do not question the fact that he believed them to have 4i Objections to Paul's Testimo7iy. taken place.” “ That his convictions and views of Christianity were based upon the reality of the resurrection, is undeniable.” But this author finds the means of reducing the testimony of this “singularly independent” man, the “ sincerity ” of whose historical statements is above suspicion, and who, he alleges, “concentrates all interest in the death and resurrection of his Messiah,” to an absolute nothing. And these means are twofold. I. We find in Paul a “ keenly impressionable nature, apt to fall into the ecstatic state when brought under the influence of active religious emotion.” The proof alleged is his rapture into the third heavens, recorded in 2 Cor. xii. “ If a person making such an affirmation [as the restora¬ tion of a dead man to life], although of the highest honour, were known to suppose himself the subject of constant revelations and visions, and if, perhaps, he had a constitutional tendency to nervous ex¬ citement and ecstatic trance, his evidence would have no weight at all.” And such being the Apostle Paul, according to this writer, his evidence must go for nothing ! Paley and Lord Lyttelton formed in their time a far more correct estimate of the character of the apostle. The former says : “ St. Paul’s letters furnish evidence—and what better evidence than a man’s own letters can be desired ?—of the soundness and sobriety of his judgment; and his morality is 42 The Resurrection cf Jesus Christ. everywhere calm, pure, and rational ; adapted to the condition, the activity, and the business of social life, and of its various relations ; free from the over-scrupulousness and austerities of super¬ stition, and from what was more perhaps to be apprehended, the abstractions of quietism, and the soarings and extravagances of fanaticism. His judgment concerning a hesitating conscience, his opinion of the moral indifferency of many actions, yet of the prudence and even the duty of compliance, where non-compliance would produce evil effects upon the minds of the persons who observed it, is as correct and just as the most liberal and en¬ lightened moralist could form at this day. The accuracy of modern ethics has found nothing to amend in these determinations.” 1 To the same effect is the judgment of Lord Lyttelton : “ In his First Epistle to the Corinthians [xiii. 1-3], St. Paul hath these words, ‘Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge ; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.’ Is this the language of enthusiasm ? Did ever enthusiast prefer that universal benevo- 1 I I ora Paulina’, chap. xvi. Palcy and Lord Lyttelton. 43 lence which comprehendeth all moral virtues, and which, as appeareth by the following verses, is meant by charity here ; did ever enthusiast, I say, prefer that benevolence (which is attainable by every man) to faith and to miracles, to those religious opinions which he had embraced, and to those supernatural graces and gifts which he had imagined he had acquired ; nay, even to the merit of martyrdom ? Is it not the genius of enthusiasm to set moral virtues infinitely below the merit of faith, and, of all moral virtues, to value that least which is most particularly enforced by St. Paul, a spirit of candour, moderation,and peace? Certainly neither the temper nor the opinions of a man subject to fanatic delusions can be found in this passage.” 1 It is scarcely necessary to point out that the root of the inference respecting Paul which the author of Supernatural Religion draws from the rapture into Paradise is the assumption, which we cannot allow, that Paul’s “ revelations and visions ” were not of God, but were the fruit of his own “constitutional tendencies.” “Now,” says Lord Lyttelton, “ had it been the effect of a mere enthusiastical fancy, can it be supposed that in so long a period (fourteen years) he would not have had many more raptures of the same kind ? Would not his imagination have been perpetually carrying him to heaven, as we find St. Theresa, St. Bridget, and St. Catherine, were carried by theirs ? And if vanity had been predominant in him, would he have 1 Observations on the Conversion of Si. rant. 44 The Restirrection of Jesus Christ. remained fourteen years in absolute silence upon so great a mark of the Divine favour ? No, we should certainly have seen his Epistles filled with nothing else but long accounts of these visions, conferences with angels, with Christ, with God Almighty, mystical unions with God, and all that we read in the works of sainted enthusiasts. But he only mentions this vision in answer to the false teachers who had disputed his apostolical authority, and comprehends it all in three sentences, with many excuses for being compelled to make any mention of it at all .” 1 2 . The other method by which the author of Supernatural Religion , following closely in the steps of Strauss, would nullify the testimony of the Apostle Paul, is by ascribing to him an amount of indiffer¬ ence and carelessness which is simply incredible. “ It might have been reasonably expected,” we are told, “ that Paul should have sought out those who could have informed him of all the extra¬ ordinary occurrences supposed to have taken place after the death of Jesus. Paul does nothing of the kind. He is apparently quite satisfied with his own convictions.” The ground of this statement is that he did not return at once from Damascus to Jerusalem, and did not see any of the apostles for three years after his conversion . 2 “ Is there,” we are asked, “ that thirst for information regard¬ ing the facts and doctrines of Christianity displayed 1 2 Cor. xiii. 1-5, n. s Gal. i. 18. 45 Defence of Paul's Testimony. here, which entitles us to suppose that Paul eagerly and minutely investigated the evidence for them ? We think not,” is our author’s reply. “ Paul having made up his mind in his own way, and, having waited three years without asking a question, it is not probable that the questions he then asked were of any searching nature.” But on what authority, we demand, is it alleged that Paul “ waited three years without asking a question ” respecting the death and resurrection of Christ, and that, as to “seeking out those that could inform him,” he “ did nothing of the kind ” ? The facts of the case are plain enough. Paul’s call to the “ apostleship ” did not need the confirmation of those who were apostles before him, and he began to exercise it without waiting for their consent. But the apostles in Jerusalem were not the only persons who could tell him of the “ facts of Christianity.” There were many in Damascus who “called on the name of Jesus,” and to one of them he was instructed by the Lord, who had appeared to him in the way, to go, by whom it should be told him what he was to do . 1 Thus while the revelation he received on the way to Damascus gave him assurance that the Jesus whom he was persecuting was indeed the Christ, he was left to be further instructed by those who were in Christ before him. And the things with reference to which such instruction was possible, and which did not need to be communicated by revelation, were the facts concerning the life and 1 Acts ix. 6, io. 4 6 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. death and resurrection of Jesus Christ—facts which were the common property of all Christians, not the peculiar property of the apostles—facts respect¬ ing which Ananias and others could give him the fullest and most minute information. Now, is it credible that a man who is confessed to have been “singularly independent/’ and the “sincerity” of whose “ historical statements ” is above all suspicion, could have contented himself with passively listen¬ ing to any hearsay tale that might come to his ears ? and that all he could say to the Corinthians or to others on the subject was, that he “ had been told” that Jesus appeared to His disciples on several occasions after His death? The author who would have it so, may be answered by himself. “We can well imagine,” he savs, “ the conflict which went on in the ardent mind of Paul when doubts once entered it; his resistance and struggle for the faith of his youth ; the pursuance as duty of the course he had begun, while the former conviction no longer strengthened the feverish energy; the excitement of religious zeal in the mad course of persecution, not to be arrested in a moment, but become, by growing doubt, bitterness and pain to him ; the suffering inflicted sending its pang into his own flesh. There was ample preparation in such a situation for the vision of Paul.” On which we remark that there is no evidence of any such “ preparation ” for the vision, or whatever it was, by which Paul was con¬ verted. But the rocm whose spirit could be de- Defence of Paul's Testimony. 47 scribed in the words just quoted, to whom “grow¬ ing doubt” of his position as an enemy to Christ and a persecutor of His followers, could be “ bitter¬ ness and pain/’ was not the man to listen idly to what might chance to be “ told ” him respecting Christ, and to receive it credulously, without asking any questions. “Paul,” according to our author, “eminently combined works with faith in his own life. When he believed Jesus to be an impostor, he did not content himself with sneering at human credulity, but vigorously persecuted His followers. When he came to believe Jesus to be the Messiah, he was not more inactive, but became the irrepressible Apostle of the Gentiles. He acted upon his con¬ victions in both cases ; but his mere persecution of Christianity no more proved Jesus to be an impostor, than his mere preaching of Christianity proved Jesus to be the Messiah. It only proved that he believed so. He was as earnest in the one case as in the other.” Our contention is, not that Paul’s or any other man’s preaching of Christianity, irrespective of the circumstances, proves Jesus to be the Messiah,—but, that a man, such as Paul is here described to have been, “earnest” and “irrepress¬ ible,” could not have contented himself, as this author represents him to have done, with mere hearsay, and without asking questions of those who could give him information. This would be an utter anomaly in the experience of human nature. On his conversion he preached Jesus in the syna- 48 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. gogues of Damascus, that He was the Son of God. 1 Now, according to the letter written long afterwards to the Romans, it was by His resurrection from the dead that the claim of Jesus to be the Son of God was finally established. 2 Paul the persecutor must have known that the disciples of Jesus de¬ clared everywhere, and boldly, that their Master had risen from the dead. And the supernatural appearance of Jesus to him as he approached Damascus must have satisfied him at once that their testimony was true. But this, instead of superseding all further inquiry, would be to his soul, confessedly “earnest” and “irrepressible,” the beginning of inquiry, minute and thorough, respecting a fact on which must rest before the world the claim of Jesus to be the Messiah and the Son of God. 1 In Keim, we have a more candid and appreciative, though still rationalistic, critic of Paul as a witness of the resurrection. His words contain an explicit answer to the attempt which the author whom we have just quoted makes, to detract from the evidence of one whom he acknowledges to have been “ singularly independent.” In reply to “ subtle critics who have objected to arguments based upon Paul’s writings, on the ground that such arguments translate scraps of thought into facts,” Keim says : “ Paul was not indifferent to historical facts. It should be remembered that information concerning 1 Acts ix. 20. 2 Rom. i. 4. Keim on Paul's Testimony. 49 the life of Jesus sometimes forced itself upon him, in Jerusalem, in Damascus and Antioch, in the person of an Ananias, a Barnabas, a Silas, a Philip, a Mnason, as well as in the persons of the apostles and Christians of the Holy City; and it is by no means a proof of a long-continued indifference to the history with which he had from the beginning been partially acquainted, that at the close of the third year after his conversion, he travelled to Jerusalem with the express object of becoming acquainted with Peter, and of learning from him, certainly not merely his principles, but the details of his intercourse with Jesus. It is, however, quite enough to know what his Epistles reveal. In them importance is attached to Christian tradition ; from them it appears as if he was by no means satisfied with the general facts of the crucifixion, the burial and the resurrection. Upon the most decisive points of Christian doctrine—the questions as to the significance of the death of Jesus and the reality of His resurrection—Paul has given such an amount of faithful historical information and weighty his¬ torical evidence, that his contributions rank with the Gospel histories, and are superior to the earliest conceptions of the apostolic age concerning the death of Jesus. The life of Jesus must have been far more richly at his command than is now apparent ; for, in his Epistles, he always assumes that the elements of tradition, the delineation of the figure of Christ, stand before the eyes of his readers.” 1 1 Jesus of Nazara, vol. I. p. 50. E 50 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Again Keim says : “ It would even be easy to show that Paul was compelled to satisfy his own mind, historically and critically. His conversion had to struggle into existence through doubt and denial, and his mental character was pre-eminently logical; he was never happy until his ideas were firmly established, until he had arrived at positive conclusions, and had anticipated all objections. Shall we suppose that he believed in the Messiah, and yet had troubled himself either not at all, or only superficially and generally, about those facts which must support or overthrow his faith f We are thus led to two important conclusions. In the first place, the apostle’s faith must have rested, not upon the meagre notices of the person of Jesus which we find in his writings, but upon a knowledge of His life sufficiently comprehensive to justify all the results of his reasoning, and to present to his mind, either on the ground of his own observation or that of others, the picture of a character without spot and full of nobility. And, in the second place, this knowledge of the apostle is not the fruit of a blind acceptance of unexamined Christian tra¬ dition, picked up here and there, but, as the case of his inquiry into the evidences of the resurrection shows, was arrived at by means of a lucid, keen, searching, sceptical observation, comparison, col¬ lection and collation of such materials as were accessible to him.” How the man who can maintain all this, and much more which we cannot quote, should fall Keim on Pauls Testimony . 51 short of a full acceptance of Paul’s Gospel, it is not for us to divine. But his position as only a semi-believer renders his tribute to Paul as a competent and trustworthy historical witness all the more important. Even in Paul’s theological system he sees only an additional sign of the concern with which he must have scanned the traditional, that is, the historical facts of the life of Jesus. “The apostle’s independent system of ideas,” he says, “ resting as it does upon the tradi¬ tional facts of the life of Jesus, is itself a new and eloquent testimony to the immense interest felt in the person of Jesus immediately after His de¬ parture, and even while the bloody traces of a criminal death were still fresh.” Setting aside both friendly and unfriendly critics, 'the ordinary reader of the extant letters of Paul can judge for himself what manner of man the apostle was. “ Seeing we have this ministry,” we read in 2 Cor. iv. 1, 2, “as we have received mercy, we faint not; but have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor hand¬ ling the word of God deceitfully ; but by mani¬ festation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” That he was justified in speaking thus of his own absolute honesty and sincerity, his whole life attests. Nor does that life, nor do his writings, allow us for a moment to entertain the idea that there was any weakness about him which would leave him in any 52 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. danger of being imposed on by others. Everything we know of him points the other way. And Keim does not speak too strongly when he says that the knowledge he possessed respecting the life of Jesus Christ “ was arrived at by means of a lucid, keen, searching, sceptical observation, comparison, col¬ lection and collation of such materials as were accessible to him.” Here, then, we have a witness who comes up to the standard set by Dr. Thomas Arnold, a man “who loves the truth with all his heart and cannot endure error ”—a man of whom “we may be satis¬ fied that he had good sources of information at hand, or else he would not have written at all.” And we have now to examine what he says re¬ specting the resurrection of Jesus Christ. III. Paul’s personal testimony to the fact must be examined first. In the passage already quoted he says: “ Last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.” 1 The occasion referred to, when the risen Jesus “ was seen ” by Paul, must have been at the very commencement of his apostleship. For it was essential to the apostleship that he who held the office should be a witness of the resurrection. So said Peter. 2 And Paul acknowledges this, when, 1 i Cor. xv. 8, 9. 2 Acts i. 22. The Risen Jesus “ seen ” by Paul. 53 defending his own apostleship, he says: “ Am I not an apostle ? am I not free ? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord ?” 1 This “seeing” of Jesus, which must have been at the beginning of his ministry, and without which he could not have been an apostle, is, therefore, not to be confounded with spiritual “ revelations,” such as those to which he said he owed his knowledge of the gospel, 2 or with such events, visions or trances, as are referred to in 2 Cor. xii., when he was rapt up into the third heavens, and Acts xxiii. 11, when the Lord stood by him and said, “Be of good cheer, Paul,” and Acts xxvii. 23, 24, when the angel of God brought him a Divine message on the eve of the shipwreck at Melita. On none of these occasions is it said that he “saw” Jesus. This zvas his privilege once , and only once. The occasion referred to can be identified beyond reasonable question. It is that which is related in the ninth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. The same story is related in Paul’s own words in the twenty-second and twenty-sixth chapters of the Acts; on the first of these occasions to a tumultuous crowd in Jerusalem, and on the second to King Agrippa and the Roman governor Festus at Caesarea. Between these several accounts there are minute differences, which, instead of militating against the truthfulness of the narrative, serve, as do the unimportant differences of independent witnesses, to confirm it. It would have been easy 1 1 Cor. ix. 1. 2 Gal. i. 11, 12. 54 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. for an author, or editor, who had the slightest consciousness of error, intentional or unintentional, to remove, by a touch of his pen, the slightest appearance cf discrepancy. But the historian writes in the ninth chapter, and Paul speaks in the twenty-second and twenty-sixth, with the freedom of men who were conscious of truth. The only variations which can with any reason be called dis¬ crepancies, are these : First, we are informed that the men who journeyed with Paul stood speechless ; whereas Paul says in ch. xxvi. 14, that they all fell to the ground. Secondly, we are told that they heard the voice, but saw no one; whereas, according to ch. xxii. 9, they saw the light, but heard not the voice of Him who spoke. Now, in cross-examining witnesses who are pre¬ sumptively honest, we are content to accept any reasonable hypothesis which will reconcile what at first sight may seem contradictory. In this case we have not far to go for such hypotheses. As to the posture of Paul’s companions, we have only to suppose that the phrase, “ they stood speechless,” does not refer to posture at all, but merely intimates that they became speechless, that they remained fixed, were panic-struck, were overpowered by what they heard and saw. It is only natural to suppose that they would all fall to the earth through fear; and Paul informs us that they actually did so. The second apparent discrepancy relates to the voice from heaven. Luke says, “hearing the voice,” 1 whereas Paul says, “they 1 Acts ix. 7. 55 The History and Speeches agree. heard not the voice of Him who spoke to me.” 1 The solution of this difference is very simple. According to Luke, those who travelled with Paul •heard the sound of the words that were spoken, but according to Paul they did not understand what was spoken. The words spoken by the Lord were heard both by Paul and his companions, but were understood only by Paul. We have a similar circumstance in the life of Christ; where a voice from heaven to Him was heard in a threefold manner; those who were believers recognized it as the voice of God, and heard the words; some, hearing it, said it thundered; others, hearing it, said an angel spake to Him. 2 When two narratives which are manifestly independent of each other, supplement the one the other, and thus throw light the one upon the other, they furnish mutual confirmation. Thus the historian in the Acts tells us that a light shone round about Saul on his way to Damascus, and that Saul heard a voice; and he reports the words which the voice addressed to Saul, and which Saul addressed to Him from whom the voice came. But he does not say expressly that Paul saw the person who spoke to him. But Paul himself tells us that he “saw” Jesus. The words which Luke reports, then, were spoken, not by an unseen, but a seen person. And when Paul said, “ Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do ?” he spoke to one whom he was seeing. The voice to Saul did not come out of a cloud, but from the lips of One who was 1 Acts xxii. 9. 2 John xii. 28-30. 56 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. visible at the time to the eye of Saul. This is implied not only in the words of Paul in i Cor. xv. 8, but in the words addressed to him by Ananias in Damascus—“The Lord, who appeared to thee [literally, who was seen by thee], in the way as thou earnest.” 1 The argument of Paul to the Corinthians, the personal testimony which he bears to the resurrec¬ tion of Christ, would have no force or relevancy, if there was no corporeal manifestation of Christ to him, — as real, though in circumstances very different, as those to the other witnesses whom he names. Of the form in which Christ appeared to him we may gather something from his own words. In Phil. iii. 21, he speaks of Christ’s “glorious body,” the “body of His glory,” the body in which He is now manifested in glory, as the body like unto which ours shall be fashioned at the last. And in 1 Cor. xv. 49, he says, that “ as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” It was in His glorified body that Jesus was seen on the way to Damascus. It was a real body, though with those differences between the “body of our humiliation,” 2 in which Christ condescended to live on earth, and that body “that shall be” when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, which are described in 1 Cor. xv. It was the risen body of the Lord Jesus, perfectly and permanently “transfigured” when He ascended to heaven. 1 Acts ix. 17. 2 Phil. iii. 2 1. 57 Exceptions to Pauls Testimony . This, and nothing less, is what Paul says, whether truly or not. He gives himself forth to the world as a personal witness of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And so confident is he in the reality of his own seeing of the risen Christ, that, as we have shown, he will listen to no explanation which implies that he might possibly be mistaken. If it was not true that Jesus was risen, he and others were false witnesses : in plain words, they were liars. But, now, is it possible that after all Paul was mistaken ? Can any reasonable explanation be given of the alleged circumstances of his con¬ version, without acknowledging the reality of Christ’s appearance to him ? Those who will not believe in miracles, whose philosophy binds them to reject everything that cannot be accounted for naturally , must find some such explanation—an explanation that shall not compromise the honour of Paul on the one hand, or on the other admit anything that is supernatural. The attempt, as commonly made, is to this effect —Saul of Tarsus was moved to resist the growing power of Christianity by seeing all that he held most dear and most holy endangered. He under¬ took the journey to Damascus with all the fiery zeal of his nature. But he had been staggered in his faith by what he saw of the calm spirit and forgivingness of the martyr Stephen. His Phari¬ saism did not bring tranquillity to his spirit. But in the Christians he saw a state of mind which put 58 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. to shame his own restless and joyless zeal. Still, he felt it his duty to persecute, and by increased ardour hoped to quiet the doubts which haunted him. It was in this spirit he left Jerusalem—in moments of despondency asking himself, “ Who, after all, is right, thou or the crucified Galilean, about whom these men are so enthusiastic?” but resolute to do what he still believed it his duty to do. Before he reached Damascus, he was thrown somehow into an “ ecstacy,” to use the words of Strauss, “in which the very same Christ, whom up to this very time he had so passionately persecuted, appeared to him in all the glory of which His ad¬ herents spoke so much, showed him the perversity and folly of his conduct, and called him to come over to His service.” To strengthen this explanation, it is argued, in vague and general terms, that Paul was given to seeing visions. Suggestions are gravely made as to his being possibly subject to convulsions, perhaps to epilepsy. And his constitution, it is asserted, was manifestly nervous. All which may have aided in producing the “ vision ” which led to his conversion ! Readers may be excused if they resent such suggestions as an insult to their under¬ standing. But we are content to say that how a convulsion or an epileptic fit, or even a nervous constitution, could contribute to the conversion of Saul, or to the circumstances in which it took place, passes our knowledge. It may be, however, it is said, that there was a sudden flash of lightning and Confirmation of Paul's Testimony. 59 a sudden peal of thunder, “ which, coinciding with the inward struggles of his mind, was considered by the apostle as the appearance and angry voice of the Christ whom he persecuted.” We can understand how a thunderstorm might produce awe and lead to solemn reflection, as in the case of Martin Luther; but how Saul could convert the sound of thunder into a conversation between himself and Jesus Christ, we cannot understand. IV. On this whole attempt to account on purely natural principles for the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, we remark— I. There is no historic authority for the sup¬ position that Saul’s faith in his Judaism had yielded to doubt and struggle before, or at the time of, his journey to Damascus. All the references to his state of mind which we find in his own letters, and in the Acts of the Apostles, point rather to the fact of an undoubting and unwavering conviction that he was in the path of duty. His zeal against the Christians was inspired not by their affirming that Jesus was the Messiah, but because he saw “the law ” endangered by their teaching. “ I was the more exceedingly zealous of the traditions (i.e., the law) of my fathers.” 1 The hypothesis of mental struggles in Saul, when he left Jerusalem for Damascus, is not only without historic foundation, but is contrary to all that he tells us himself of his 1 Galatians i. 14. 60 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. state of mind in this great crisis of his life. See espe¬ cially Acts xxii. 3-6 ; xxvi. 9-13, and Gal. i. 13, 14. 2. The suggestion of convulsions and epilepsy does not deserve any serious refutation. As to Paul’s being “of a nervous constitution,”the notion is based on his statement respecting speaking with tongues, in 1 Cor. xiv., such speaking with tongues being regarded as a mere hallucination or the effect of a blind fanaticism. The nervousness inferred from this gift of tongues can mean only excitability. And yet in none of the apostle’s writings do we find clearer evidence of a sober, sound, and self- possessed mind than here. “ I thank my God,” he says, “ I speak with tongues more than ye all ; yet in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. Brethren, be not children in understand¬ ing ; ... but in understanding be men.” Inculcating orderliness in the worship of the Church, he says, “ The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets ; for God is not the author of confusion.” In all this we have the very opposite of nervousness or excitability, which could make him an easy prey to his own imagination, or to any form of delusion. Here, as everywhere else, he appears as a man gifted with the clearest perception and the most perfect self-control. 3. Those who ascribe the conversion of Paul to a “ vision,” or who regard the event which took place near Damascus as a “vision,” use the word 6i Paul's Idea of a Vision. in a sense altogether different from that in which Paul uses it. Paul does speak of himself as having had “visions.” “I will come to visions and revela¬ tions of the Lord,” he says, in 2 Cor. xii. I. But whatever may have been the mental state of the apostle in a vision, this is common to all his visions that they had, or at least that he believed they had, an external cause, or were produced by an agency external to himself. Thus we read : “ Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace.” 1 And again : “ A vision appeared to [or was seen by] Paul in the night: There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.” 2 From this vision the apostle “gathered assuredly” that the Lord had called him to preach the gospel in Macedonia. So in Damascus, after the conversion of Saul, we have two visions—one to Ananias, and one to Saul. 3 'In all these visions, and in all others, there was an external or objective cause. In no case was the vision the mere outcome of the man’s own mind. But it is in this latter sense that the term is em¬ ployed by unbelievers, when they ascribe Saul’s conversion to “ a vision.” There was no external cause for it, they suppose, no external occasion even, unless it be the imaginary thunderstorm. The vision was, though unconsciously to himself, his own act, the product of his own inner life. We need not trouble ourselves with any inquiry into either 1 Acts xviii. 9. 2 Acts xvi. 9. 3 Acts ix. 10-12. 62 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. physical or metaphysical explanations of visions of this order. One thing is certain—that what the vision-seer, if the vision is of himself, sees and hears, must have lain previously within him. “The vision-seer’s imagination produces nothing wholly new, it only reproduces that which lived before in his consciousness. What he sees is no¬ thing new; it is only the embodying of that which he had long been meditatively carrying about with himself; and what he hears is only the voicing of that with which he was long inwardly agitated.” It is not pretended, it cannot be, that the vision ascribed to Saul was a reproduction, in this peculiar form, of what was already in him. This would be equivalent to saying that his conversion was the fruit of his conversion, he being already in¬ wardly that which he became manifestly after his vision. The utmost that is pretended is, that his soul was in a state of conflict, that he was agitated between the old and the new, the subject of con¬ tradictory emotions. But it has been well said that such a thing as a self-originated vision can occur only when one thought with full certainty fills the whole soul. “ Doubtful-minded persons have no visions, but believers who with their whole souls are wrapped up in what they believe. Be¬ cause the Maid of Orleans already believed with the fullest certainty in her mission, she saw sights and heard voices which conveyed the mission to her.” To bring the event with which the conversion of Saul of Tarsus is connected within the possi- Paul's “seeing ” Christ not a Vision . 63 bility of being catalogued among natural visions, it must be proved, not that doubts had entered his mind respecting the course he was pursuing, but that all doubt had yielded to a full persuasion that he was wrong, and that Jesus of Nazareth was all that the martyr Stephen and other Christians believed Him to be,—in other words, it must be proved that he was already a converted man. 4. Paul distinguishes the one “ seeing ” of Christ by which he was called to the apostleship, as something entirely different from the “visions” with which he was favoured. His “visions ” were regarded by him not as in any sense the product of his own imagination, but as Divinely produced. But even then he makes a grand distinction between what happened to him on the way to Damascus, and the most Divine, if the expression may be used, of all his visions. What happened to him on the way to Damascus was never repeated. He “saw” Christ then ; he never saw Him after. “ Last of all,” he says, “ He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.” This, as Meyer says, “ concludes the series of bodily appearances, and thereby separates these from later appearances in visions or some other apocalyptic way.” With deep humility the apostle speaks of himself as “ born out of due time,” not born either into the faith or into the apostleship as the other apostles were, during the earthly ministry of the Saviour, but still really born into both by his having “seen” the Lord as certainly as Cephas and the 64 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. twelve had seen Him. Paul distinguishes the appearances of Christ to the apostles which he sets forth as evidences of the resurrection, from all revelations of Christ to them after His ascension. And in like manner he distinguishes his own “ seeing ” of Christ, without which he could not have been an apostle, from all after “ revelations and visions of the Lord.” Accept the apostle’s own version of the great crisis of his life, and all is plain. All other ex¬ planations fail. Baur, the founder of the Tubingen school, found himself necessitated to acknowledge, that “ by no analysis, psychological or dialectic, can the inner mystery of the act in which God revealed His Son in Paul be disclosed.” Nothing but such an event as the appearance of the glorified Christ, as an objective actual fact, can explain the change or the circumstances in which the change took place. For be it remembered (1) that this strong- minded and sober-minded man believed most un¬ hesitatingly, and to the end of his life, that he had seen Jesus, and that he had heard words from His lips. So much is admitted by the most sceptical. Be it remembered (2) further that with this belief, as a consequence, was connected an entire revolu¬ tion of conviction and life. Admit the history, and you have a perfect solution of both those facts. And the only reason why the history is not admitted is that it records a miracle ■—a reason which has no force with those who believe in the living God. 65 CHAPTER III. ‘{Ehe ‘Testimony gUpmicb Jbii the Jtpostlc |3anL must recall the words in which the Apostle Paul reports the testimony of the personal followers of Christ to the resurrection of their Master: “ Brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand : by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures ; and that He was buried ; and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures; and that 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.” 1 I. Before examining the particulars of this witness¬ bearing, we must dispose of certain preliminary objections. 1 I Corinthians xv. 1-8. F 66 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I. First of all, it is alleged that Paul regards the appearances of Jesus to Peter, to the apostles and others, as of the same character as His appearance to himself. And inasmuch—such is the allegation —as the appearance of Jesus to Paul was in a vision, a vision, moreover, begotten of his own soul, such, and such only, were His appearances to the earlier apostles. The visionary hypothesis, as an explanation of the facts recorded in the Gospels, will be matter for discussion at a later stage of our argument. Meantime we admit that Paul treats the appearances of Christ to the apostles and to himself as of the same character. That is, in their case as in his, and in his as in theirs, there was a real seeing of the person of the Lord Jesus. They saw Him ; he saw Him. And so assured was he of the fact, that he said, as will be remembered, that whoso denied their word called them and him together liars. To this extent the appearances were alike in all the cases specified. But when it is further alleged that in Paul’s case it was a visionary seeing, and then inferred that it was a visionary seeing in the other cases as well, we deny both the allegation and the inference. We have shown, we think conclusively, that it was not in a vision, in any sense of the word, that Paul saw Jesus, but that the appearance of Jesus to him on the way to Damascus was a real objective fact. And if it was, the inference that it was in visions Jesus appeared to the other apostles falls to the ground. While the appearances of Jesus to the earlier Difference between Panl and others. 67 apostles and to Paul were of the same kind, so far as their reality is concerned, there were manifest differences in the circumstances. And Paul recog¬ nises these. He had not been a disciple of Jesus during His earthly ministry. And it was not till long after Jesus had finished His earthly ministry, and was no longer the visible associate of men, that His person was seen, and His voice heard by Paul. It was otherwise with the other apostles. They had been His personal followers for three years ; they could identify His person ; and they saw Him at times and in ways which left no doubt on their minds that He who had died and who was buried had returned to life. Their testimony, therefore, was more significant and convincing to men than his. And satisfied, as he was beyond all doubt, that he had himself seen Jesus, his testimony was but an appendix to theirs. He was “ born out of due time.” It should not be overlooked that from the time when Jesus ceased to be seen by the apostles as recorded in the Gospels, till the time of Paul’s conversion, no human eye on earth had seen Him. And from the time of Paul’s conversion to the time when he wrote the First Epistle to the Corin¬ thians, no eye had seen Him. There were no events in the history of the Church, as known by Paul, that could be classed with his own one seeing of Jesus, and with the seeings of Him by the apostles immediately after His resurrection. His and theirs were alike, we repeat, in their reality, 68 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ but different in time and circumstances. It was “ last of all ” that Paul saw Him. 2. After all, it is said, all we know is that Paul was told that Jesus appeared to Cephas and to others. We have answered this objection by antici¬ pation. It was simply impossible that a man of his cast of mind, and in a matter which involved such tremendous issues to himself and to mankind, should receive idly and unquestioningly what chance might bring to his ears. As to his opportuni¬ ties of inquiry, they were abundant, even before his first visit to “ them that were apostles before him.” During that visit he spent fifteen days with Peter and James “the Lord’s brother.” During those fifteen days the whole story of Christ’s life must have been talked over—Peter and James delighting to tell it and Paul to hear it. In his intercourse with Peter and James on this occasion, these brethren would naturally speak with special interest of the Lord’s appearing to themselves. And hence, doubtless, the special mention which Paul makes of Cephas and of James—of which more hereafter. 3. It is further objected that Paul gives us no particulars of the appearances of the risen Christ, by which, it is said, we might form some judgment of their credibility. To which we answer, that there was no reason why he should enter into particulars on the subject in this letter. Pie had done so, we are entitled to infer, when he had preached the gospel in Corinth. He had now only “He was seen of Cephas .” 69 to remind the Corinthians of what he had already “delivered unto them,” touching the death and resurrection of Christ, and the appearance of the risen Christ to Cephas and others. He must have been strangely and mysteriously reticent if, when he “ preached ” to the Corinthians that which they “ received,” and “ by which they were saved,” he merely announced in a single sentence, and without any explanation, “Jesus was seen by Cephas, by the twelve, by five hundred brethren, by James, and by myself.” This sentence, it is evident, is but the barest summary of what he had “preached and it was all that the circumstances in which he wrote required. We find elsewhere the particulars of several of the appearances of Christ to which Paul refers ; and those who complain that Paul does not give them, try to get rid of them by suppositions so fanciful that it is difficult to suppose that their authors themselves consider them credible. We have seen how they deal with Christ’s appearing to Paul on the way to Damascus. And we shall soon see how they trifle with the statements in the Gospels respecting His appearances to others. II. Let us now look at the instances which Paul mentions. 1. “ He was seen of Cephas .” Paul, after spending fifteen days in the company of Peter, could not have made this statement if he had not been told 70 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. the fact, and with the fact the circumstances, by- Peter himself. To Peter, who had so recently- denied his Lord, the appearance of Christ to him personally must have been an unspeakable privilege. And on the mind of Paul the impression of Peter’s tale must have been deep and lasting. The appearing of Christ to Peter is mentioned in the Gospels only in the most incidental manner; and yet it is in the very position in which Paul places it, as occurring before His appearing to the apostles generally or collectively. When the two disciples returned from Emmaus, they found the eleven gathered together, and were at once informed,—• “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.” And, according to the Gospel, 1 while the Emmaus travellers were in the act of telling their tale, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them. How absolutely certain Peter was that the Lord had risen—his certainty not grounded on the one special manifestation to himself, but on all His appearances, we know. The one idea predomi¬ nant in his mind, in his subsequent addresses to the Jews and their rulers, seems to be the re¬ surrection of Jesus from the dead. Every speech that he utters proves that of this one great event his mind was full. The fact seems to haunt him in every place, before every audience, in every argument. 2 When the apostles meet to advise re¬ specting a successor to Judas, Peter is the chief speaker; and he defines the qualification necessary 1 Luke xxiv. 36. 2 See Blunt’s Hulsean Lectures , p. 225. Peter's Interest in the Resurrection. 71 for a twelfth apostle to be that he should be a witness with the eleven, of the resurrection of Jesus. 1 On the day of Pentecost, after quoting from the sixteenth Psalm what he regarded as a prediction of the resurrection of the Christ, he said, “ This Jesus hath God raised up , whereof we all are witnesses.” 2 When the people are wondering at the cure of the lame man at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple, Peter said to them, “Ye killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.” 3 This is the turn which his argument always takes, be its beginning what it may. On the day after this cure, Peter maintains before the council what he had asserted to the multitude: “Ye rulers of the people and elders of Israel! be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by Him doth this man stand here before you whole.” 4 And we are told soon after, that “ with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.” 5 Still heedless of the threatenings of the council, when charged with disobeying the command to speak no more in the name of Jesus, Peter’s reply is prompt: “ The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give 1 Acts i. 22. 2 Acts ii. 32. 3 Acts iii. 15. 4 Acts iv. 10. B Acts iv. 33 72 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” 1 To Cornelius and his friends, Peter said: “ We are witnesses of all things which Jesus did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree. Him God raised up the third day, and showed Him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with Him after He rose from the dead!’ 2 Thus is the resurrection of Jesus the beginning and the end of every speech of Peter, the single theme that eclipses every other. And the fact is the more striking that it was with Sad- ducees that Peter had chiefly to contend, and that it was before men who believed in no resurrection that he persistently declared that Jesus had risen from the dead. 3 Nor was Peter’s interest in the fact of the re¬ surrection of Jesus Christ limited to those early days when the memory of it was fresh. In the very beginning of a letter written twenty years after the conversion of Cornelius, we read : “ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to His abundant mercy, hath be¬ gotten us again unto a lively hope, by the resurrec¬ tion of Jesus Christ from the dead." 4 And we do not proceed far in the letter when we read : “ Christ, a Lamb without blemish and without spot, manifest in these last times for you, who by Him do believe in God, that raised Him up from the dead, and gave 1 Acts v. 30, 31. 3 Acts x. 39-41. 3 Acts iv. 1, 5, 6. 4 1 Peter i. 3. Seen by Five hundred Brethren. 73 Him glory.” 1 And in the same letter there are at least two other references to the resurrection of Christ. 2 Such was the hold which this great fact took of the mind of Peter, and such his certainty of its literal reality: “ Jesus was seen of Cephas.” 2. “ Then of the Twelve!' Paul says, “ The Twelve,” which is evidently a designation of the apostolate as a whole, although the number was reduced to eleven when the risen Lord appeared to them. Of the Lord’s appearances to the apostles it will be more convenient to speak when we ex¬ amine the narratives of the Evangelists. 3. “ After that He zvas seen of above five hundred brethren at once , of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.” This is no random statement. Paul must have had good grounds for his assertion. His character forbids the supposition that he credulously accepted some idle rumour that Jesus had once been seen by a great multitude simultaneously. His specification of the number, “ above five hundred,” and his dis¬ tinction between the “ greater part ” of this number who were still alive to attest the fact, and the “ some ” who had fallen asleep, points to the exactness of the knowledge which he had of the circumstance. The only occasion mentioned in the Gospels which can be that referred to by Paul, is that mentioned by Matthew : “ Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they I Peter ii. 19, 21. 3 1 Peter iii. iS, 21. 1 74 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. saw Him, they worshipped Him; but some doubted.” 1 In the original there is no note of time such as is indicated in “then”—the proper translation being “but,” sometimes “and.” The original, too, says, not “ a mountain,” but “ the mountain.” The narrative in Matthew suggests other appearances which it does not record, for it contains no record of any appointment by Jesus to meet Him in a specified mountain in Galilee. As for the omission of all reference to the five hundred who were present, it seems to arise from the object which Matthew had in view, namely, to record the commission which Jesus gave to “ the eleven.” It was with the eleven and their com¬ mission that Matthew was concerned. But one does not see why Jesus should appoint the eleven alone to meet Him in a mountain. It is more natural to suppose that Jesus chose a central place, one probably where the multitude had often heard Him, among the mountains of Galilee, for the con¬ venience of “ brethren,” believers in Him, scattered through the villages in which He had so often preached the Gospel of the Kingdom. This most natural supposition accounts both for Matthew’s description of the place, and for Paul’s statement of the number. Here, then, we have an averment on which the character of Paul justifies us in relying, that more than five hundred brethren saw Jesus on one oc¬ casion after He was risen, and that the greater 1 Matthew xxviii. in, 17. 75 Seen by James. part of the five hundred were alive when he wrote. The statement of Matthew, that on that occasion “some doubted,” instead of suggesting any reason why we should doubt the reality of Christ’s ap¬ pearance, increases our confidence in the candour and truthfulness of the historian. There is here an entire absence of any attempt to make out a case. Matthew could afford, if the expression may be used, to tell the whole truth. The fact of the resurrection was so well attested and so universally believed, that it was not necessary to conceal the first uncertain impression of some of the five hundred or of the eleven, when they saw Jesus approaching. And some uncertainty having been felt, it was only after the manner of all the Gospel writers to mention it, without troubling themselves as to how it might be interpreted. In our mind it creates no difficulty at all. The doubt may have arisen when Jesus was seen drawing near from a distance, or before “some” had the oppor¬ tunity of distinctly recognising Him. But it is not suggested that the doubt continued, or survived that interview of Christ with His disciples on the Galilean mountain. It is certain that all the eleven of whom Matthew speaks preached boldly and in no hesitating terms, that their Lord had risen to die no more ; and equally certain that the five hundred of whom Paul speaks believed, according to him, that they had really seen the risen Christ. 4. “ After that He was seen of James The appearing of Christ to James personally, after the 76 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. appearing to the five hundred, and before a later appearing to the apostles, is mentioned only by Paul. But Paul cannot have been mistaken in the matter. He must have received the information from James himself during that visit of fifteen days to Jerusalem. And if James himself had not told a fact of so much interest and significance, we cannot believe that Paul would afterwards have accepted the tale from any one else. As there was a special reason why Jesus should grant to Peter a personal or private manifestation of Him¬ self—namely, to assure him of forgiveness and to restore his faith, we can imagine a special reason in the case of James likewise. The '‘brethren ” or “brothers” of Jesus, whether they were the sons of Joseph and Mary, or only near relatives, were slow to believe in Him as the Christ of God. And a per¬ sonal manifestation to James, called His “brother,” would be, as it was to Peter, a sign of forgiveness and a means of increase of faith. Godet remarks well, “ If tradition had invented, would it not, above all, have imagined an appearance to John ?” 5. “ Then of all the apostles .” This must allude to, or at least, include, Christ’s final appearing to the apostles when He led them out towards Bethany, and was parted from them. It will come to be examined when we turn to the Gospels. III. The words of Sir Cornewall Lewis and Dr. Thomas Arnold may be recalled with advantage Application of Historical Principles. 77 at this stage of our argument. “Unless,” says the former, “ a historical account can be traced by probable proof, to the testimony of contem¬ poraries, the first condition of historical credibility fails.” We have more than “ probable proof” that the historical account which we are now examining “ can be traced to the testimony of contemporaries.” The writing which contains it is admitted by all to be the writing of Paul, who was not merely the contemporary but the fellow-labourer of those whose testimony he records. “ In estimating whether any history is trustworthy,” says Dr. Thomas Arnold, “ I should not ask whether it was written by a contemporary, or by one engaged in the transaction which it describes, but whether it was written by one who loves the truth with all his heart, and cannot endure error. For such an one, we may be sure, would never attempt to write a history if he had no means of writing it truly ; and, therefore, though distant in time or place, or both, from the events which he describes, yet we may be satisfied that he had good means of information at hand, or else he would not have written at all.” Now, we venture to say that no man has ever lived who might be trusted more implicitly as a truth-seeker and truth-teller, than the Apostle Paul. Though not himself one of the original witnesses, in the sense in which those were who had seen Christ before His death, he was in the most intimate association with them. He had not to ransack old documents, or to sift traditions which had been yS The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. handed down through the uncertain medium of many generations. The witnesses were all around him, and from their own lips he heard the unvary¬ ing tale that the Lord had risen, and that they had seen Him and conversed with Him. The testimony of Paul, it should be observed, is not to be dated from the date of his extant letters. It goes back much farther. His conversion is now generally believed to have taken place between A. D. 36 and A. D. 38. According to Iveim’s opinion Jesus died in the year 35, and Paul was converted in the year 37, only two years lying between. But even if we place three or five years more between the death of Christ and the conversion of Paul, his testimony carries us back to the very morrow of the alleged resurrection. From the hour of his conversion his lot was cast among those who could say ,—“ That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the word of life, declare we unto you.” Now, as to what became of their Master after He was laid in His grave, there was but one story,—“The Lord is risen indeed.” And from the beginning of his ministry to the year 64, the year of his death under the Emperor Nero, Paul preached Jesus, the risen Christ, to the Roman w'orld, from Damascus in the east to the shores of Spain in the west, with the most perfect conviction that the fact of the resurrection was one which could not be challenged, and which it greatly concerned the world to know. 79 CHAPTER IV. Wx c VTstimcmg erf the Gospels mth of the JUte. E directly historical account of the re- urrection of Jesus Christ is to be found n the four Gospels and in the first chapter xts of the Apostles. 1 The Book of the Acts is a continuation of the Gospel by Luke ; and there has been not a little speculation ex¬ pressed on the question why the Evangelist did not relate in his Gospel the facts which he relates in the Acts. Some imagine that when he wrote the Gospel, Luke was under the impression that the ascension took place on the day on which Jesus first appeared to His disciples, 2 and that the version given in the Acts was designed to correct this impression. But it is simply impossible that a writer who had taken pains to acquire “ a perfect understanding of all things from the first” 3 should have fallen into any mistake in the matter. The facts narrated by Paul, whose com¬ panion he was, must have been well known to Luke; and in his second book he refers to the first, not as incorrect, but as being in itself complete. “ Is it probable,” Godet asks, “ that an author, when beginning the second part of a history, should 1 Matt, xxviii. ; Mark xvi. ; Luke xxiv. ; John xx. xxi. ; Acts i. 2 Luke xxiv. 50. 3 Luke i. 3. 8 o The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. modify most materially, without in the least ap¬ prising his reader, the recital of facts with which he has closed his first ? Would it not have been simpler and more honest on the part of Luke to correct the last page of his first volume, instead of confirming it implicitly as he does in Acts i. i, 2?” May it not be supposed that Luke, having reached the end of the first part of his history, and having the intention of repeating those facts (regarding the forty days) as the point of departure for his second, thought it enough to state them in the most summary way ? From ver. 44 of the last chapter of the Gospel, Luke abandons the exact form of narrative, to give, as he closes, the substance of the last sayings of Jesus, reserving to himself to develop later the historical account of those last days. I. The reader will be able to verify for himself the following summary of the facts recorded by the four Evangelists. 1. They all record that Joseph of Arimathaea asked, and obtained possession of, the body of Jesus, when it was taken down from the cross. 2. They all record that the body of Jesus was wrapped in linen clothes, preparatory to burial; John adding that Nicodemus joined Joseph of Arimathaea in thus tenderly caring for the body of Jesus, and that with the linen clothes “ spices ” were used, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Summary of Gospel Statements. 81 3. They all record that the body of Jesus, thus hurriedly prepared for burial, was placed in a sepulchre, described by one as Joseph’s “own new tomb ; ” by two as a tomb “ wherein man before was never laid by two as a tomb “ hewn out of a rock ; ” by one as “ hewn in stone/’ more literally, “ stone-hewn,” or “ rock-hewn; ” and by one as a “ new sepulchre ” in a garden. 4. Two Evangelists, Matthew and Mark, record that there was a “ great stone rolled unto the door of the sepulchre,” that is, to the passage or entrance- aperture that led into the sepulchre. 5. Three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, record that certain women beheld where Jesus was laid ; Matthew and Mark naming Mary Magdalene and another Mary. 6. One Evangelist, Matthew, records how that the chief priests (who were Sadducees) and the Pharisees asked of Pilate that precautions should be taken, lest the disciples should come by night and steal the body of Jesus. And precautions were taken accordingly. 7. They all record that on the morning of the third day the tomb in which the body of Jesus had been laid was found open—the great stone having been rolled away—and empty; the body which Joseph and Nicodemus had placed in it not being there. 8. They all record that certain women went to the grave of Jesus at daybreak of the third day; one Evangelist specifying their intention to complete G 82 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. the embalming, which had been hastily performed when the body was taken down from the cross ; another specifying their anxiety as to how they should be able to remove the stone from the door of the sepulchre; all recording the fact that they found the stone removed and the grave empty. 9. Matthew records a “ great earthquake,” and the descent of an angel from heaven, who “ came and rolled back the stone.” 10. Matthew, who records the precautions which were taken to prevent the surreptitious removal of the body of Jesus, tells us that some of the watch who had been set to guard the grave, went into the city and told the chief priests “the things that had been done,” the earthquake, probably, the re¬ moval of the stone, the resurrection of Jesus, and perhaps the vision of angels ; and they were bribed to say that the disciples of Jesus had stolen His body by night. 11. The whole narrative shows that the disciples were utterly unprepared for the resurrection of their Master. The women who went to the grave on the morning of the third day expected to find the body of their Lord there. When Peter and John went to the sepulchre, they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. 1 12. Before the close of the first day of the week, the third day after His death, the disciples were satisfied that the Lord had risen indeed, all but Thomas, who was not with his brethren when Jesus 1 John xx. 9; Luke xxiv. 24-26. Summary of Gospel Statements. 83 appeared in the midst of them. And before He finally departed from them, He gave them what Luke calls “ many infallible proofs,” 1 sure signs of His resurrection. 13. Jesus did not live with His disciples after He was risen, as He had done before. The ex¬ pression, “ while I was yet with you,” 2 proves that His separation from them was, if not consummated, at least begun. He was with them only excep¬ tionally—His abode was elsewhere. 14. But while Jesus did not now live with His disciples as He had done before, when He led them from place to place, and was always with them, “He showed Himself openly” to them, sometimes to individuals, sometimes to the disciples collectively. 15. The order of Christ’s appearances to His disciples, especially of the earlier of them, those on the morning of the resurrection, cannot be stated with absolute certainty,—no one Evangelist recording them all. But this creates no real diffi¬ culty as to the truthfulness of the separate naratives —the difficulty being only such as is inevitable when several honest historians or witnesses report only parts of a whole. Putting all the narratives together, the following is at least a probable order in which the events recorded by the Evangelists took place. Jesus appeared— (a) To the women returning from the sepulchre. Reported only by Matthew. 1 The Revised Version says, too feebly, “many proofs.” a Luke xxiv. 44, 84 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. (b) To Mary Magdalene at the sepulchre. Re¬ ported by Mark 1 and John. ( c) To Peter, perhaps early in the afternoon. Reported by Luke and Paul. (d) To the two disciples going to Emmaus to¬ wards evening. Reported by Luke and Mark. 1 (