came Mary Magdalen and the other Mary, the mother of James and Joses, to see the supulchre, and (as we learn from the other evangelists,) they brought with them the spices they had purchased to embalm the body of Jesus. And behold there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sate upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered, and said unto the women, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus which was crucified. He is not here; for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where our Lord lay; and go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there ye shall see him. Lo! I have told you. And they departed from the sepulchre with fear and great joy, and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold Jesus met them, saying, All hail; and they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, be not afraid. Go, tell my brethren, that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me."* This is the relation given by St. Matthew of our Lord's first appearance, after his resurrection, to the women who came to the sepulchre. The accounts. given by the other three evangelists are substantially the same, though differing in a few minute circumstances of no moment, which however have been very ably reconciled by many learned men. I shall therefore wave all discussions of this kind, and confine myself to the main fact of the resurrection, in which all the evangelists agree, and of which the proofs are numerous and clear. The principal and most obvious are those which arise from the various appearances which Jesus made after his resurrection to various persons, and at various times. The first was Mary Magdalen alone.† * Matth. xxviii 1-10. † Mark xvi. 9. The second, to her in company with several other women, as we have just seen.* The third, to Peter.† The fourth, to the two disciples going to Emmaus.‡ The fifth, to the apostles in Jerusalem, when they were assembled with the doors shut on the first day of the week; at which time he shewed them his hands and his feet pierced with the nails, and did eat before them. § The sixth, to the apostles a second time as they saté at meat, when he satisfied the doubts of the incredu lous Thomas, by making him thrust his hand into his side.l The seventh, to Peter and several of his disciples at the lake of Tiberias, when he also ate with them.¶ The eighth, and last, was to above five hundred brethren at once.** There are then no less than eight distinct appearances of our Lord to his disciples after his resurrection, recorded by the sacred historians. And can we believe that all those different persons could be deceived in these appearances of one, whose countenance, figure, voice, and manner, they had for so long a time been perfectly well acquainted with; and who now, not merely presented himself to their view transiently and silently, but ate and drank and conversed with them, and suffered them to touch and examine him thoroughly, that they might be convinced by all their senses that it was truly their beloved Master, and not a spirit that conversed with them. In all this surely it is impossible that there could be any delusion or imposition. Was it then a tale invented by the disciples to impose upon others? Why they should do this it is not easy to conceive; because it would have been an imposition, not only on others, but on themselves. It would have been an attempt to persuade themselves that their Master was risen when he really was not, from whence *Matth. xxviii. 9. Luke, xxiv. 13. John, xx. 26. +1 Cor. xv. 5. John, xx. 19. Luke, xxiv. 37-43. no possible benefit could arise to them, but, on the contrary, grief, disappointment, and mortification in the extreme. But besides this, the narratives themselves. of this great event bear upon the very face of them the strongest marks of reality and truth. They describe, in so natural a manner, the various emotions of the disciples on their first hearing of our Lord's resurrection, that no one who is acquainted with the genuine work. ings of the human mind, can possibly suspect any thing like fraud in the case.. -When the women were first told by the angel that Christ was risen, and were ordered to tell the disciples, they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy ;* with joy at the unexpected good news they had just heard; and with fear, not only from the sight of the angel, but lest the glad tidings he had told them should not prove true. They therefore " trembled, and were amazed, and ran to bring the disciples word; neither said they any thing to any man, for they were afraid." And when they told these things to the apostles, their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. When Jesus himself appeared to the apostles at Jerusalem, they were terrified and affrighted, and thought they had seen a spirit; and they believed not for joy, and wondered. When he appeared again unto the eleven as they sat at meat, they were so incredulous that he upbraided them with their unbelief; and Thomas would not be convinced without thrusting his hand into his side. T This certainly was not the behaviour of men who were fabricating an artful story to impose upon the world, but of men who were themselves astonished, and overpowered with an event which they did not in the least expect, and which it was with the utmost difficulty they could be brought to believe. The account therefore of the resurrection, given by the evangelists, may safely be relied upon as true. It may however be said, that this account is the representation of friends, of those who were interested in * Matth. xxviii. 8. § Luke, xxiv. 37. † Mark, xvi. 8, Luke, xxiv. 11. ¶ Jolin, xx. 27. asserting the reality of a resurrection; but that there is probably another story told by the opposite party, by the Jews and the Romans, which may set the matter in a very different point of view; and that before we can judge fairly of the question, we must hear what these have to say upon it as well as the evangelists. This is certainly very proper and reasonable. There is, we acknowledge, another account given by the Jews respecting the resurrection of Christ; and to shew the perfect fairness and impartiality of the sacred historians, and how little they wish to shrink from the severest investigation of the truth, they themselves tell us what this opposite story was. In the 11th verse of this chapter, St. Matthew informs us, "that as the women were going to tell the disciples that Jesus was risen, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, his disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they were taught. And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews unto this day." This then is the statement of our adversaries, produced in opposition to that of the evangelists, which the latter simply relate without any observation upon it, without condescending to make the slightest answer to it, but leaving every man to judge of it for himself. And this indeed they might safely do; for it is a fabrication too gross and too palpable to impose on any man of common sense. If any person can bring himself to believe that sixty Roman soldiers should be all sleeping at the same time on guard; that they should be able to tell what was done in their sleep; that they should have the boldness to confess that they slept upon their post, when they knew the punishment of such an offence to be death; and that the disciples should be so devoid of all common sense as to steal away a dead body, which could not be of the smallest use to them, and instead of proving a resurrection, was a standing proof against it; if any man, I say, can prevail on himself to listen for a moment to such absurdities as these, he may then give credit to the tale of the soldiers; but otherwise must treat it, as it truly deserves, with the most sovereign contempt. This senseless forgery then being set aside, and the body of Jesus being gone, and yet never having been produced by the Jews or Romans, there remains only the alternative of a real resurrection. But besides the positive proofs of this fact which have been here stated, there is a presumptive one of the most forcible nature, to which I have never yet seen any answer, and am of opinion that none can be given. The proof I allude to is that which is drawn from the sudden and astonishing change which took place in the language and the conduct of the apostles, immediately after the period when they affirmed that Jesus had risen from the dead. From being, as we have seen, timorous and dejected, and discouraged at the death of their Master, they suddenly became courageous, undaunted, and intrepid and they boldly preached that very Jesus, whom before they had deserted in his greatest distress. This observation will apply, in some degree, to all the apostles; but with regard to St. Peter more particularly it holds with peculiar force. One of the most prominent features in the character of St. Peter (a character most admirably pourtrayed by the evangelists) is timidity of disposition. We see it in the terror that seized him when he was walking on the sea: we see it in his deserting his divine Master when he was apprehended; then turning back to follow him, but following at a distance; not daring to go into the council chamber when he was examined, but staying in the outer court with the servants; and at length, when he was challenged as one of his disciples, denying three times with the most dreadful oaths and impre cations, that he knew any thing of him, or had the slightest connexion with him. |