first day. At sunset the Jewish Sabbath commenced, during the whole of which he rested in the grave. This is the second day. When the sun set again, the third day commenced. On the ensuing morning, most probably between the dawn and sunrise, the soul of our Redeemer was re-united to his body, and he left the sepulchre of Joseph, the glorious conqueror of the king of terrors. It is common, in ordinary conversation, when we do not attend to logical accuracy, to put a whole day for only a part of it. According to this mode of speaking, Christ was three days in the grave. It would seem, that a revolution of the earth around its axis, which we call a day, the Jews sometimes called a day and a night. Retaining this form of expression, they would say of an event which took up a part of three days, that it was three days and three nights in accomplishing. It is in this way that we reconcile with the fact our Lord's own assertion, that "as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so should the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."* He used the language of his country; and his words were fulfilled, although he was not more than six or seven and thirty hours in the sepulchre, because these hours were made up of one whole day, and parts of two of those divisions of time, which the Jews called a day and a night. The time was long enough to show that he was really dead, but not so long as to permit his disciples to sink into despair. Their dejection was great, and their hopes were ready to expire, when he appeared to them, and turned their sorrow into joy: "Then were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord."t

But how do we know that Jesus Christ rose from the dead? The fact is denied by the Jews, and by infidels. Do we, who believe it, follow a cunningly devised fable, or does our faith rest upon a solid foundation? Persisting as we do, in maintaining the fact in the face of opposition, we should be able to give a reason of our hope to every man who asks us. We find an account of the resurrection in the Scriptures; but how do we know it to be true? on what grounds do we give credit to it? and what are the arguments by which we can demonstrate the reasonableness of our own faith, and repel the objections and cavils of unbelievers? I shall endeavour to lay before you a summary of the evidence upon which this important article of our religion depends.

First, The fact that the body of Jesus, which had been deposited in the sepulchre of Joseph, was missing, is undisputed. It has been acknowledged by all classes of men, by enemies as well as by friends, that by some means it was removed. Had it been in the power of the Jews to show it after the third day, the report of his resurrection would not have obtained circulation; or if it had gone abroad among the credulous vulgar, who remembered his prediction, it would have been instantly quashed. The story which was contrived to prevent the people from believing it, and which will be afterwards considered, was a confession that the body could not be found. This is the first step in the proof. Jesus, having been taken down from the cross, was buried, but when the sepulchre was examined on the third day, it was empty.

In the second place, The body was not carried away by the disciples. They were so alarmed and terrified when they saw him seized by the emissaries of the priests and rulers, that they cannot be conceived to have engaged in such an enterprise, which was manifestly full of danger; for it would be absurd to suppose that their fears had been allayed by his death, which was obviously calculated to increase them. But although, from some unaccountable cause, they had resumed their courage, and become bold at a moment when other men would have sunk into absolute despondency, the thing itself was impos† John xx. 20.

Matt. xii. 40.

sible, because the sepulchre was strictly guarded by a band of soldiers, whom the unarmed disciples, unaccustomed to violence and blood, would not have ventured to encounter; not to say that forcible means would have completely defeated their design, even if they had been successful, as it would then have been known that there had not been a resurrection, but merely a removal of the body by his friends. To evade the argument from the disappearance of the body, notwithstanding the guard upon the sepulchre, the Jews industriously circulated a report that it was stolen by the disciples while the soldiers were asleep. Nothing, however, is more improbable than that a whole guard of soldiers should be asleep at their post, and especially of Roman soldiers, who were under the strictest discipline, knew that a severe punishment awaited them if they should neglect their duty, and in the present case, had received particular orders to be vigilant. In these circumstances, it is incredible that they should have all fallen asleep, and slept so soundly as not to be awakened by the rolling of the stone which closed the door of the sepulchre, and to give an opportunity to the disciples to accomplish their design in the most deliberate manner; for the body was not carried away in haste, but was stripped of the grave clothes, which were not scattered up and down, but regularly deposited in the tomb. The soldiers had not endured any uncommon fatigue by which they might have been overpowered. The watch had continued only about thirty-six hours; and during that period the guard had no doubt been changed. The story clumsily contrived by the Jewish rulers, contains internal evidence of falsehood. It makes the soldiers confess that they were asleep, and at the same time affirm what they could only have known if they had been awake. If all their senses were closed, how could they know that the disciples had stolen the body? For aught that they could tell, the theft had been committed by some other persons. How could they know that it had been stolen at all? The only fact which they were competent to attest, if they were really asleep, was, that when they awoke, the stone was rolled away and the body was gone. Whether it had been restored to life and had removed itself, or had been removed by the agency of others, they were manifestly unqualified to say. The story therefore, although that part of it had been true, which supposed the soldiers to be asleep, proves nothing against the solemn declaration of the disciples, that their Master was raised by the power of God.

In the third place, Although it had been possible for the disciples to remove the body of our Saviour, we cannot conceive what should have induced them to make the attempt. The transference of his body from one place to another would not have restored him to life; and if he had continued under the power of death, it was of no importance to them in what spot his mortal remains were deposited. No place would have been more honourable than the sepulchre of Joseph. He was no longer their master, he was not the Son of God, he was not the messiah. He had excited hopes which he was not able to realize; he had completely deceived them, and was no more worthy of their attention. Why should they have put themselves to any trouble, or have exposed themselves to any danger on his account? Why should they have incurred the risk of being detected and punished by the Jews? It appears from the evangelical history, that the intention of taking him away had never entered into their minds. Several women visited the sepulchre early in the morning of the third day, when the Sabbath was past; but they came to weep over the body of their Lord, and to lay new spices upon it; and when they found that the body was not there, they were thrown into the greatest distress, considering its removal, perhaps, as the deed of his enemies, who envied him this honourable tomb. "Sir," said one of them to Jesus himself, whom in VOL. II.-14

her confusion she supposed to be the gardener," if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away."*

In the fourth place, If Jesus did not rise from the dead, and the whole was a fraud contrived by the disciples to save themselves from the reproach of having been the dupes of an impostor, it is astonishing that it was never discovered. It is astonishing that a few simple and uneducated men should have been able to devise and execute a plan, which has eluded all search, and has obtained credit among the wise and learned, as well as among the vulgar, for the space of eighteen hundred years. No person is able to produce a similar instance. How has it happened that the secret has not transpired? Was there no Judas among the disciples, who would go and tell the chief priests and rulers all that he knew? Was there not one honest man among them, who was compelled by his conscience to make a disclosure for the glory of God and the best interests of mankind? The disciples were strictly examined, and punished for preaching the resurrection, and threatened with severer treatment if they would not be silent; but they persisted in their original testimony. No flaw was ever discovered in the evidence, no contradiction, no hesitation. There was a boldness in their manner which confounded their adversaries, who, unable to refute their allegations, were compelled to supply the want of argument by violence and intimidation. Is this the character of false witnesses? Nay, there were traitors among them, men whom the fear of suffering and the love of the world prevailed upon to apostatise from the gospel; but not one of them was able to reveal a single circumstance, tending to impeach the truth of the resurrection. Had any such discovery been made, it would have been triumphantly published to check the progress of Christianity; but not a surmise of this kind is found in the records of antiquity. Many slanderous reports against the followers of Jesus were propagated; but there is not so much as a hint that the secret had been blabbed out, and the story of the resurrection had been proved to be an imposture.

In the fifth place, If Christ did not rise from the dead, it is impossible to account for the conduct of his disciples, who endeavoured to persuade the world that he had risen. Men, we know, may be very zealous in propagating a false opinion, which they themselves believe; there have been martyrs for error, as well as for truth. But who ever heard of a set of men, who devoted their time and talents, and exposed their life to hazard, with a view to establish a fact, of the falsity of which they were fully convinced? If Christ did not rise from the dead, the disciples knew that the story of his resurrection was an invention of their own. Why should they have been anxious to make others believe it? It appears, from what was formerly said, that it could not be from regard to their Master. The attachment to him, which they felt during his life, could not continue after his death, which had terminated his projects and their hopes, and proved irresistibly that in whatever way his miracles might be accounted for, he was not the Messiah. The natural tendency of this discovery, and of their bitter disappointment, was, by a violent revulsion, to turn their former love into fixed hatred, and, when the first emotions of surprise and shame were over, to make them the loudest in exclaiming against the deception which he had practised upon them. It could not be from a wish to support their own credit by perpetuating the imposture, for how could they expect to succeed in their design? Was the authority of fishermen and publicans so great, that their countrymen would be persuaded by their simple affirmation, of so great a miracle as the restoration of a dead body to life? Mankind are not commonly so credulous; and, in the present case, they were the less ready to give their assent upon insufficient evidence, because

• John xx. 15.

Wealth

they were strongly prejudiced against our Saviour, on account of his humble appearance and his ignominious sufferings, which were at variance with all their ideas of the character and state of the messiah. It could not be from the expectation of worldly advantages, of which there was no prospect. and honours could not be looked for, till they had gained a number of proselytes; and no man in his senses could have calculated on a single proselyte, except among the dregs of the people, to a cause so unpopular in itself, and supported by advocates so ill qualified to recommend it. Toil, and reproach, and perils, and death, stared them in the face. The world would rise up in arms against them. They would be derided and despised by the Gentiles, to whom the resurrection of the body seemed incredible and impossible. They would be persecuted by the Jews, who would transfer their hatred from Jesus himself, to those who were endeavouring to rescue his name from infamy, and to uphold the error which they were so eager to crush. In the absence of all the usual motives of action, we must attribute their conduct to a full conviction of the fact, "We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard."*

In the sixth place, Since it must be admitted, that there is no evidence of a design, on the part of the apostles, to impose upon the world by a fabricated story, it may be insinuated, that they were themselves deceived by the power of imagination, which, it is known, has sometimes subjected individuals to the most extraordinary delusions. They have fancied that they distinctly saw objects, which were mere phantoms of the brain. But there is not a single circumstance, in the present case, which will authorise us to account, in this way, for the conduct of the disciples. Their minds were not in that state of eager expectation which is favourable to the workings of fancy; for it appears that they were not looking for his resurrection, both from the visit of the women to the sepulchre, to see his body, and to lay fresh spices upon it, as if it had been to continue in the state of the dead; and from the incredulity of the rest, to whom, when they told them that he had risen, their words seemed as "idle tales." The two disciples, on the road to Emmaus, expressed themselves in the language of despondency, "We trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel;"‡ and, although they added, that some women who had been at the sepulchre, had reported that he was risen, they appear not to have believed them. In such a state of mind, there was no room for imagination to operate. It will be still more evident that they were not misled by it, if we consider that the appearances of Christ were frequent, not less than eight being recorded; besides, that many more may be supposed during the forty days between his resurrection and ascension; that some of them were made, not to a solitary individual, but to several of the disciples in company, in one instance, to five hundred, who could not all be deceived; that the appearances were not transient, but lasted for a considerable time, so that the spectators had full leisure to examine them; that, while some of them were sudden, or without warning, others were the consequence of previous appointment; that they took place, for the most part at least, not in the night, when the mind is more subject to illusion, but in the day, when the disciples were composed, and their senses were awake; and, that the interviews were not distant and silent, but intimate and familiar,-Jesus having mingled with his followers, conversed freely with them, and gave them all the satisfaction which the most incredulous could demand, saying to one of them in particular, who was slow in giving his assent, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing." When all these circumstances are considered, we • Acts iv. 20. + Ib. 21. § John xx. 27.

† Luke xxiv. 11.

may pronounce it to have been impossible that they should be deceived. The supposition, indeed, is so palpably absurd, that it would hardly be worth while to reason with a person who should seriously maintain it.

In the last place, To these arguments for the resurrection of Christ, founded on the competency and honesty of the apostles as witnesses, we may add the success of their preaching, which is inexplicable on any other hypothesis but the truth of their testimony. To what cause was it owing, that multitudes of Jews and Gentiles gave credit to their report, acknowledged a crucified man to be a Divine Person, and the Saviour of the world; embraced his religion, with its humiliating doctrines and holy discipline, made a sacrifice of ease, and honour, and life, in his service, and trusted in the promises of one whom they had never seen, for a recompense in the world to come? The apostles had no personal authority to overcome those whom they addressed; no learning to mislead, or eloquence to persuade them; no rewards to tempt their cupidity; no punishments to inflict on the incredulous. As men, they were contemptible in the eyes of the world; and the doctrine which they taught had no charms which might atone for the defects of the publishers. It is unnecessary to speak of their success, because it is universally acknowledged. They effected a mighty revolution in the state of human affairs, and established a religion which superceded all the ancient systems, and has been professed, for seventeen centuries, by all the enlightened nations of the earth. Every effect must have an adequate cause. The first missionaries of Christianity possessed no natural means of insuring its reception; they must, therefore, have been assisted by supernatural power. Unless they had been able to bring forward to view a higher authority than their own, the world would not have listened to them.

Now, the only way in which this could be done, was by the performance of such miracles as are ascribed to them in the New Testament; works evidently exceeding human ability, and wrought by the immediate interposition of Heaven. If a man should come and publish a new religion, and at the same time should give sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and the use of their limbs to the lame, and life to the dead, we should be authorised to conclude that it was not an invention of his own, but was a revelation from the Lord of Nature, who alone could controul its laws. The apostles were invested with the power of working miracles. Their Master had therefore risen from the dead, for they performed the miracles in his name, or referred to him as their author; and, consequently, he was alive, and had supernatural gifts at his disposal.

It is astonishing that any person who saw diseases cured, and demons dispossessed, by the name of Jesus of Nazareth, should have refused to give eredit to the report of his resurrection. Yet we know that there were men so obstinate in unbelief; and there is proof in the Scriptures, that the evidence of miracles is not irresistible. We must therefore proceed a step farther in accounting for the success of the disciples, in prevailing upon mankind to believe in their crucified Master. We must acknowledge an exertion of Divine power, in working internal as well as external miracles; in subduing their prejudices, fixing their attention seriously upon the subject, and disposing them to give their assent to the fact, notwithstanding the painful sacrifices which their conversion might require. We are thus presented with a new proof of the resurrection of Christ. If he had been in the state of the dead, he could have employed no power in favour of his religion. He could not have sent the Spirit, "to convince the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." The general success of the gospel, which, extending beyond

* John xvi. 8.