That we may duly estimate this story, it is necessary to consider the circumstances attending our Lord's burial. He was deposited in a sepulchre hewn out of a rock. This circumstance rendered it impossible for his disciples to undermine the sepulchre and convey away his body privately. His predictions that he should rise, had been reported to the rulers, who, in consequence of this information, commanded a watch to be stationed at the tomb, at the mouth of which was rolled a large stone. Now let us consider the improbability of the body's being removed. Why did not the guard prevent such removal? The story is that they fell asleep. This is highly improbable, because of the danger into which their lives would be brought by such inattention. When the jailor, at Philippi, supposed that Paul and Silas, then his prisoners, had escaped, he was so confident of being required to answer for it with his life, that he drew his sword with design to kill himself immediately, and thus anticipate a capital punishment. How then would the whole watch dare to indulge in sleep on such a post? But suppose they did fall asleep, how could they give any information as to the manner in which the body was removed? They might testify that the body was in the tomb, when they that it was absent at the time of their waking. But how it was removed, whether living or dead, they could give no better account, than persons at the distance of a thousand miles. Again, when Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were going to the sepulchre, they inquired who should roll away the stone, knowing that they themselves were unable to do it. Now, it is incredible that centinels should not have been awakened by the rolling of so large a stone, together with the bustle of descending into the sepulchre, and taking thence a dead body.

fell asleep, and

But there is another way in which the Jews might have shown the story of the resurrection false, if it indeed were so. I mean, the requiring of proof. When any preached that Jesus had risen, the hearers must have asked immediately, who saw him. after his resurrection? If none saw him, the story would have Vol. I.

38

been rejected, and those who spread it, would have been covered with confusion. But witnesses were not wanting. The religion prevailed in spite of every obstacle. The work was of God, and could not be impeded.

LECTURE XX.

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

In the last lecture, mention was briefly made of the resurrection of Christ, as proving the Christian religion. Considering the importance, attached to this event both by Christians and infidels, it may seem to require a more lengthened and minute examination.

This I am the more inclined to attempt for having perused, in a posthumous work of Bishop Horsley, four discourses on our Lord's Resurrection, which not only exhibit, in a luminous manner, the arguments which are commonly used on that subject, but contain others, which so far as I know, originated with that illustrious prelate.

The resurrection of our Lord, like other events of former times, must be supported by evidence. In proportion to the strength of this evidence must be our confidence in the fact. The witnesses, who testify to this fact, are his eleven disciples. Written testimony has been transmitted from two of them. Similar testimony is received from two witnesses who were not of this number.

The confidence which we have in testimony depends, it is well known, on the three following conditions; 1. The number of witnesses. 2. Their testimony, i. e. their knowledge of the subject, to which their testimony relates. 3. Their integrity.

In reference to all these particulars, the evidence of our Saviour's resurrection is conceived to be plenary.

1. The number of witnesses. Facts are thought to be well established, before civil tribunals, when two or three persons of

honest character, and competent knowledge, appear to support them. In the present case, the number of witnesses is eleven. If the fact is not proved by the testimony of such a number, neither would it be were the number increased. If these persons are competent and upright, the fact is proved; if they are wanting in either of these respects, or if they were dishonest, or if not dishonest, yet if, through want of acquaintance with the matter in hand, they were incompetent to give testimony concerning it, a greater number would be of no advantage.

2. We are in the next place, then, to consider whether the witnesses were competent, i. e. whether they had sufficient knowledge of the subject concerning which they testified.

As to the resurrection of Christ, under whose instruction they had been, and whose intimacy they had enjoyed for three years, they were amply qualified to bear witness. Their long intimacy with Jesus rendered them fully acquainted with his works, doctrines, habits, and places of resort, with his person, motions, countenance, voice, and gestures. If they were not, it is certain that no persons could have been competent to bear witness as to the fact of our Lord's resurrection. Their competency to testify on this subject, should, I think, be viewed in. connexion with the knowledge which they must have had, of their Master's works, and doctrines. If they deposed falsely in the one case, they must have done the same in the other, notwithstanding the impossibility of their being deceived as to his character, and as to the nature and reality of those works, which he claimed to have wrought by the finger of God. The only remaining question must therefore relate to their integrity. Did the eleven disciples believe their own testimony; or were they wittingly and deliberately, false witnesses of God, in testifying that he raised up Christ from the dead, whom he raised not up?

Some opinion, I believe, is always formed concerning the veracity of a witness, by the manner in which his deposition is made. There may be an appearance of art, a fear of falling into self-contradictions, an apprehension of being suspected, or

disbelieved. On the other hand there may be an air of frankness, a simple, unsuspecting manner; the absence of precaution, or fear of being discredited. That the latter, and not the former, is the manner of the evangelists, will be allowed by every candid man, whatever may be his opinion of the Christian faith. If these writers did exhibit their testimony artfully, it was art so consummate, as to have from beginning to end, and without a single exception, the aspect of simplicity. Such dexterity, especially where the testimony is of great length, and involves many facts, and often alludes to places, names, dates, customs, and events, whether public or private, is allowed to be of no easy acquisition, even to persons of superior address and education. That the evangelists, educated and circumstanced as they were, should all have acquired this dexterity, is what no man, who values his character for observation and judgment, would readily assert.

When any person reads the evangelical history, it is next to impossible to resist the conviction, that the writers themselves, believed what they wrote.

But the principal argument by which we would establish the veracity of these eleven witnesses, who testified the resurrection of their master, is, that to have given false testimony in this particular case, would have been opposite to every known principle in our natures. Men do not utter a falsehood merely for its own sake. They do not lie in order to procure for themselves present, inevitable loss. Good, and not evil, is the object of human search. But the witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus, did, in consequence of their testimony, not only maintain lives of eminent virtue, but exposed themselves to opposition, reproach, persecution, torture, and death. To propagate the story of the resurrection, they relinquished all which human nature loves. They encountered all, which it cannot view with other emotions than those of aversion and terror. Nor were these sufferings in any degree unexpected. The adventure, in which they engaged, was not one which had, at first, an alluring aspect, but which was more hazardous in its nature,