tion of wilful deception. But if this supposition be true, why did not the Sanhedrin bring contempt and ridicule upon the Apostles when they preached Christ risen, by producing the body, by pointing to its whereabouts, or by declaring that such removal had been effected by themselves? Yet no such action was taken, and we know that only a few weeks had elapsed when the disciples preached the Resurrection. And here it may be well to deal with some objections that have been alleged against this story of the guards, which is alike a Jewish and Christian tradition. It has been argued against the probability of this account that the chief priests and Pharisees would never have desecrated the Sabbath Day by entering Pilate's court or sealing the tomb. They need not have violated that day by such an action, as it was not necessary for all to enter Pilate's house, and besides, here was a case of urgent necessity which in their opinion was of profound religious importance, and the obtaining of their request and the sealing of the tomb were a duty which they owed to their religion. And in any case, when men are profoundly moved by some dominant idea, they will rarely fail to find means of satisfying their consciences in the quest of the object they have in view. But it is urged: "It is impossible to imagine Roman guards sleeping at their posts". We have no evidence that they were Roman soldiers. Rather the contrary. Pilate tells the Jews that they have a guard and that they are to send it. He was not interested in a Hebrew squabble, and whereas, in a judicial punishment he sends the Roman soldiers and does not tell the Jews that they are to superintend the crucifixion, when it comes to a matter so insignificant for him, his mode of action changes. He is not going to waste his soldiers' time in idly watching by a supposed malefactor's grave, on the wild supposition that He might rise again, or that His followers might steal His body. The guards, moreover, make their report to the priests, and not to Pilate as the Roman soldiers would have had to do. The priests promise them immunity, because, though Jewish soldiery, they had acted under orders from the Roman governor, and to say they had slept at their post was at least to incur the contempt, if not the punishment of Pilate. And again it is urged that if the Sanhedrin had learned from the guard this remarkable story of the Resurrection, we cannot believe that so learned and dignified a body would have acted in such a manner, or even refused some measure of credence to the story. But most probably all the members did not so act. And even those who did, may have been in perfectly good faith-although the Gospel narrative would seem to cast doubt upon it. it. They ridiculed the story, but fearing that it might influence the populace, did what in their opinion was the best thing to prevent the people from being imposed upon by the silly terrors of the soldiers. How then, it is asked, did the story get out, seeing that the soldiers had been bribed to silence and were in fear of reprimand? That is a matter of everyday experience, even when the strictest measures of secrecy are employed. Even Cabinet secrets leak out sometimes. And it is quite conceivable that some of the Sanhedrin may have been influenced by the story, investigated it, and found it true, and become Christians as Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had done, and then such converts would speak of the matter. And the same may have been the case with some of the soldiers, and it is quite conceivable that it was from some one or other of these soldiers that St. Matthew heard the story, both of the particulars of the Resurrection, and of the action of the Jewish authorities. In the presence of all these facts we are at a Evidence for loss to understand the position of those persons Resurrection who declare that the Resurrection is without reasonable evidence. On the contrary, no fact of by-gone history has so much and such striking testimony in its support. If it be lawful and just to form a judicial decision which involves the taking away of life, on circumstantial evidence, how much strong Assertion that Resurrection of body not vital more so is it in a case like the present, where we While we believed, on Earth He went, Men call'd from chamber, church and tent; And Christ was by to save. Now He is dead! Far hence He lies In the lorn Syrian town: And on His grave, with shining eyes The Syrian stars look down. built on physical But such writers, and those who side with them, can hardly claim to be Christians, for the very meaning of the Resurrection, as preached from the start of Christianity, has been the actual rising of the once lifeless body, reunited to the soul, and its Christianity reappearance to the Disciples. On this Christianity is built. There is not a particle of evidence to Resurrecshow that God reunited the soul to the body, and then removed the living Jesus direct to Heaven. It is a mere supposition. And that the lifeless body did not remain in the tomb and there decay, is evident from what we have already said, and will be more so from what we shall have to say still later. tion Pagan evid Beyond the reference to Pagan authorities by No definite early Christians implying a knowledge on the part ence, and of the former of the story of the Resurrection, we the reason have no direct non-Christian evidence, at least none is known to exist. Pagan witness to the fact of the Resurrection without the conversion of its writer would of course appear ridiculous and insincere. Christian testimony Of course, as we have pointed out, the numerous Early conversions of Pagans who afterwards wrote in defence of the Resurrection, is really the best nonChristian evidence we can adduce, for it is the proof that the fact became known to these people, who verified, and accepted it. As Pagans they |