CHAPTER XIX.SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOFS (AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE).

Holding, then, the objectors to the historical record, and keeping in mind that the question is narrowed down to the hypothesis of visions on the one hand, or to a true resurrection on the other,what evidence had the Apostles and immediate disciples that they were not deceived?

First and foremost, they had the empty tomb. They knew[1]that the body was neither left on the cross, in violation of the Jewish law, nor thrown to the “dust-heap,” in violation of the Roman law which required a delivery to the friends as soon as claimed, but was placed in the sepulchre, as attested by all the Evangelists, as also by Paul. They knew thattheyhad not taken it away, and that if the Jews had, they would have been but too ready to produce it when, only a few days after, it was boldly proclaimed, that that Jesus whom they had crucified, God had raised from the dead. It was the absence of the body that first arrested the attention of the women, and also of Peter and John, and which, with the orderly arrangement of the grave clothes, induced a conviction of the truth in the mind of John, before Jesus appeared to any, and sent Peter to his home “wondering.” And these same facts (the good faith of the disciples themselves being undoubted), can never be explained, in any rational way, otherwise than by the fact of the Resurrection. There is a great truth in Professor Keim’s expression[2]that: “It is upon an empty tomb that the Christian Church is founded.”

They hadfurtherproof, in subsequent appearances to individuals singly, to the collective body of Apostles, and to the multitude of believers, under circumstances that satisfied them, and should convince us, that they were not deceived.

There are several things to be considered, in determiningwhether they were deceived. First, in respect to time. There were no appearances till after the fact that the tomb was empty was fully understood,nor till some hours after. This lapse of time has been overlooked by most writers; and, from want of attention to it, inconsistencies as to occurrences at the sepulchre, as to the number and appearance of angels, the companies of women, the persons composing them, the messages received and carried, and the appearances to them, of our risen Lord, have been imagined, that are easily explained, upon the very natural hypothesis of several transactions of like character during the six hours or more[3]which elapsed before the journey to Emmaus. At that time no one had seen the Lord; for it cannot be doubted that his appearance would be reported as soon as possible after its occurrence. When Jesus joined the two disciples, their eyes were “holden,” until in a long discourse he had prepared them for a revelation of himself. Peter must have meditated some hours upon the absence of the body, before Jesus showed himself to him. It was not till after this, and after the return of the disciples from Emmaus, that he said to the others, “Peace be unto you.” Then a whole week, before he returns. Then, probably after a longer interval (for they returned to Galilee), he shows himself at the Sea of Tiberias. Then, after some days, to above five hundred brethren, at a place to which they had been directed to go by the angels, and by Jesus both before and after his resurrection. Then to James. And then at Jerusalem to the Apostles, whom he led out over against Bethany; and while he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.

In all this, we see how they were prepared to exercise a sober and intelligent judgment, so that neither they, nor we, should be in doubt whether what they beheld was their risen Lord, or a phantom of their own imagination.

And will any one tell us, right here, what better proof Jesuscouldhave given his disciples, of his Resurrection? If the evidence was sufficient for them, it may be sufficient for us,unless we are prepared to say that the miracle shallbe repeated whenever it is challenged! Was it essential to a reasonable conviction on their part that the Scribes and Pharisees should also be convinced? (Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea,wereconvinced.) It must be admitted that the disciples, of all others, were qualified to judge, if any persons could be qualified. What force could the belief of the Sanhedrim have added to the testimony of their own senses?

Assume, as a hypothesis, the reality of Christ’s resurrection, we again ask, What proof of itshouldhave been given his disciples that was not given? They had the same kind of proof, during forty days, that they had before his crucifixion. He walked with them, talked with them, instructed them, ate before them, and with them (Acts. x. 41), called things to their remembrance, opened to them the Scriptures, and gave them their great commission to disciple all nations; and, to preclude all questioning, said, “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me have. And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.” And to Thomas, eight days after, he said, “Reach hither thy finger and see my hands; and reach thy hand and put it into my side: and be not faithless but believing.”

We do not accept Origen’s[4]view that Jesus after his resurrection and before his ascension “existed in a body intermediate, as it were, between the grossness of that which he had before his suffering and the appearance of a soul uncovered by such a body,” although it now has the support of able writers. The general[5]sentiment of the Church from the beginning has been against it. It is not warranted by the record, and it involves more mysteries and difficulties than it escapes. We fully agree with Judge Waite[6]that, according to the Canonical Gospels, “The very body in which Jesus was crucified, and which was buried by Joseph of Arimathea, is raised from the dead, appears to the disciples, is not only seen but felt, and Jesus himself, in the flesh, as he was before he was crucified,calls for fish to eat to satisfy his disciples that he was not a spirit; that his body was not spiritual, but material and human like theirs;” and also with a very different man (Mr. Barnes), who, with his usual good sense, says: “It was necessaryfirstto establish the proof of his resurrection, and that could be doneonlyby his appearingas he waswhen he died;” and also with Drs. McClintock and Strong in their invaluable Cyclopedia, that: “According to the Scriptures the disciples were assured by the testimony of their own senses that the body of Christ after his resurrection was the same identical body of human flesh and bones which had been crucified and laid in the sepulchre.” (Vol. VIII., A.D. 1879.) Peter’s testimony (as recorded in Acts x. 41) that Jesus after he was raised up was made manifest, not to all the people, but unto witnesses that were chosen before of God, even to us “who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead,” seems just as decisive as the Canonical Gospels. And so of John’s testimony (1 John i. 1), “that which we beheld, and our hands handled.”

Our Lord was in the tomb less than thirty-six hours, and his flesh “did not see corruption.” His body, apparently, was as human as that of Lazarus after he was raised. The criticism that it is not said that there wasbloodseems frivolous, for there could be no living flesh or bones without blood-vessels and blood. Although for the time he forbade Mary Magdalene to touch, or rather to detain him, he permitted the other women to take hold of his feet, and directed the Apostles to handle him. Mary Magdalene saw him as a man, and supposed him to be the gardener, until he called her by name. The two disciples conversed with him as a man; and that they did not know him was only because their eyes were “holden.” His sudden disappearance after the repast, and equally sudden appearance in the midst of the Apostles, at most present no greater difficulties than his transfiguration, his walking upon the sea, his passing through his enemies when they were about to throw him down the cliff (all beforehis crucifixion), or the opening of the prison doors to two of the Apostles. The doors, even if bolted and barred, may have opened as to Peter, or those present may have been so preoccupied that a perfectly natural but silent withdrawal in the one case, and entrance in the other, were simply unnoticed.

As the man Christ Jesus, he rose from the dead, and angels, as porters, having rolled away the stone, he came forth in visible human form, and with the same body that was crucified. He would have been seen by his disciples, if they had been “watching and waiting” for him, and by the guard, if they had not become “as dead men;” perhaps in order that they might not behold him, for he had said, “Yet a little while and the world beholdeth me no more.” (John xiv. 19.)

As the man Christ Jesus, he showed himself to his disciples forty days; and then, with a body, until then, of flesh and blood, as human as that of Elijah, beforehewas taken up, ascended into the heavens.

Thus, in his rising from the dead, and in the changeat his ascension, he typified both the dead who shall be raised, and the living who shall be “changed.”

And any conception of him as less corporeal from his resurrection to his ascension than before, does not conform to the record, and, by so much as it makes him less corporeal and tangible, it impairs the force of the evidence.

Each one of the Apostles had as much evidence that Jesus was alive after his crucifixion, as he had that Peter or John or Thomas was alive, and evidence of just as high a character. And this proof by facts addressed to their own intelligence and bodily senses of sight, and hearing, and feeling, was continued forty days. There is no conflict in the evidence on this point.

Every lawyer knows that omission is not contradiction. Even when witnesses profess to give the whole, it rarely or never happens that some will not state something whichothers omit, and not unfrequently a witness is called to testify to a part only, and does not undertake to give the whole.

This is the precise truth in respect to the Evangelists. Not one of them professes to state all that occurred after the crucifixion, or all the instances of our Lord’s appearing to his disciples. Each writes for the particular object he has in view. And there is a great liability to mistake, if one forgets that it is true in narratives in respect to transactions subsequent to the crucifixion, as well as before, that there is often a passing from one event to another with nothing to indicate but that they were immediately connected in point of time, when, in fact, there was a considerable interval between them.[A]

Of the ten specified instances of his appearing, Matthew speaks of two, Mark of three, Luke of three, John of four, and Paul of five, or seven;[7]but neither contradicts the other, nor Luke’s statement in his subsequent “treatise,” that Jesus showed himself alive after his passion “forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God.”

The instances were sufficiently numerous, the time long enough, and the acts tangible enough, to afford as undoubted proof as that which they had of the existence and bodily presence of each other. Peter might as well have doubted the denial of which he had so bitterly repented, as to have doubted that it was his Master who said unto him the third time, “Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?” and all of them might as well have doubted that they had ever listened to his teaching, as to have doubted the commission which they received from him.

The evidence that was personal to themselves we cannot have. We know they had it, and were capable of judgingconcerning it, and we can see that it was of a character that might be justly deemed conclusive.

There is, besides, much that is common to us with them. The judgment was not of one but of many, and not from a single appearance to one of their number, but from many appearances to different persons, at various times, and under circumstances most favorable to a true apprehension, usually in open day; and it would be passing strange if each and all were deceived by their own senses.

These appearances were never repeated after the ascension. None of the disciples under any excitement ever again saw their Lord as the man Christ Jesus walking the earth as before; or saw him coming to the earth, although they all believed that he would speedily return in like manner as they beheld him going into heaven. Stephen saw him not upon the earth, but “standing on the right hand of God.” Paul saw him, and “was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision” (Acts xxvi. 19). John saw him, in vision, not only as “the Son of Man” in glorious array, but as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah,” and also as a “Lamb standing as though it had been slain,” in the “midst of the throne” (Revelation i. 12-20, and v. 5-8).

Their subsequent experience is consistent, if they had been dealing with realities. But if all their interviews during those forty days were a delusion, and the ascension a delusion, it is wholly inexplicable that their imagination or senses never played them false afterward. They believed that he would soon return, just as strongly as they believed that he had ascended, and yet they never saw him returning, or as having returned.

If delusions created the faith, how much more should the faith multiply the delusions, and such appearances (as Godet[8]has well put it) “go on increasing as the square of the belief itself.” Yet at the very time when they should have multiplied, if they werenotreal, they ceased altogether!

We have, as the disciples had, our Lord’s predictions[9]of hisdeathandresurrection (for the two events were generally referred to in the same discourse), and the prophecies concerning him.

The greatest obstacle to their acceptance of his resurrection was their inability to comprehend his death if he were indeed the true Messiah. And hence we find that Jesus in the walk to Emmaus, opens to the disciples the Scriptures concerning himself, and says, “Behoved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory?” We may well suppose that with other prophecies, he interpreted to them what Daniel had said (c. ix. 26) that “after three score and two weeks, shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself;” and that wonderful chapter in Isaiah (the fifty-third) so descriptive of his passion, that it seems “as if written at the foot of the cross;” and all the sacrifices for fifteen hundred years; and that it was not possible “that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins;” and as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so was the Son of Man “lifted up.” And so to the Apostles he explained the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day.” (Luke xxiv. 45, 46). He reminds them what he had said, that all things must needs be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms concerning himself (Luke xxiv. 44). The angels say to the women, “Tell his disciples and Peter he goeth before you into Galilee, and there shall ye see him as he said unto you” (Mark xvi. 7); and also, “Remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again” (Luke xxiv. 6, 7). And we find that when the disciples understood the mystery of his death, they joyfully accepted the proofs of his resurrection; and Peter, who had said, “Be it far from thee, Lord, this shall never be unto thee” (Matthew xvi. 23), on the day of Pentecost could explain that Jesus (whom God had “raisedup, having loosed the pangs of death”), was delivered up to be crucified and slain “by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God”; and that David spake of his resurrection. (Acts ii. 22-31.)

Not only do the prophecies point to his resurrection, but as already[9]shown, Jesus himself foretold it as well as the manner and circumstances of his death; and it is more rational to accept it, than to believe that such an One as is portrayed in the Gospels was either false or mistaken. “Which of you convicteth me of sin?” has found none to accept the challenge in eighteen hundred years! On the contrary, as Dr. Taylor has said,[10]“Before the portraiture which the Evangelists have painted, men of every age have stood in rooted admiration.” And as J. S. Mill concedes,[11]“It is of no use to say that Christ, as exhibited in the Gospels, is not historical: for none of his disciples or their proselytes were capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to him, or imagining the life and character revealed in the Gospels.”

His resurrection was a moral necessity from his own character as delineated in the Gospels, even our enemies themselves being judges. His could not have been “the richest of human lives,” as declared by Hooykaas,[12]nor his utterances “the most beautiful moral teaching that humanity has received,” as avowed by Renan, if his power to lay down his life and “to take it again” were at the best a mere delusion.

His predictions of his death and resurrection, as we have before shown, are so interwoven with the entire narrative, that it is impossible to set them aside and leave anything to which we can assent as true, of all his recorded acts and words; and there is no alternative except to believe that he uttered them, or else to arbitrarily set aside the testimony of the four Evangelists, as well as that of Paul.

That the Christ of the Gospelsshould rise from the dead, as he said,is in the highest degree probable. Only by his resurrection could he vindicate himself from the charge of blasphemy. Without it, the cross was a gibbet, a monument offolly if not of crime. Without it, the sacrament which he instituted on the eve of his crucifixion, keeps in perpetual remembrance the falsity of his pretensions, his impotency to save himself from his enemies. Without it, the taunt of those who mocked him, “He saved others, himself he cannot save,” was merited. Without it, while one might pity him for his sufferings, we should the more sympathize with the Sanhedrim in protecting the people from a visionary enthusiast, if not a wilful impostor, and inflicting (although by irregular methods) the penalty for blasphemy expressly commanded by the Mosaic Law.

It cannot be too strongly stated that there is no middle ground. If he was what he claimed, his resurrection was already assured. If he was not what he claimed, he could not have been the exalted character eulogized by those who deny his resurrection, and before which the world bows in reverence.

If he was what he claimed, we can see a grand and all-sufficient reasonwhyGod (if therebea God) should by miracle give the highest possible authentication to his mission.

He said, “I am the light of the world;” and the world was in darkness. He said that he came forth from God, and he ought to show his credentials. He said he was the Son of God, and that he always did those things that pleased Him; which he could not do, if he set up claims destitute of foundation. He said, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth, may have in him eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

The great central truths which he declared in all his teachings, were thefactof sin, the need of a Saviour, and that he is a Saviour.

If sin, as all experience testifies, is universal, alwaysdownward, and its end when finished death, the redemption of multitudes[B]of the human race from its power to holiness, and bliss, and endless progress, as “heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ,” was an objectworthyof divine interposition, and only an atheist should look upon such a miracle of redemption as impossible or improbable.

“’Twas great to speak a world from naught,’Twas greater to redeem.”

“’Twas great to speak a world from naught,

’Twas greater to redeem.”

Christ’s resurrection being established, the darkness over the land, the rending of the veil, the coming[13]out of the tombs, the ministry of the angels in the garden before his betrayal, and at the sepulchre, the earthquake, the rolling away of the stone, and the fear that came upon the watchers, were fitting accompaniments of the transactions which they surrounded.

Nor, if some of them are not mentioned by other historians, are they overthrown, for omission is not contradiction, in history any more than in courts. Why should Josephus, who was not born till some years after the crucifixion, and not a Christian, be expected to mention them? And as to Greek and Roman writers, even Renan[14]says that “it is not surprising that they paid little attention to a movement which was going on within a narrow space foreign to them. Christianity was lost to their vision upon the dark background of Judaism.”

And so his being seen by Stephen the first martyr, by John in the Apocalypse, and by Paul on the way to Damascus, are in harmony with the record of his resurrection and ascension, and may be said to confirm them.

Yet it may be questioned if Paul would have been so absolutely certain that Jesus (against whose followers he was breathing out threatening and slaughter) said to him, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” but for the previous appearances. If he would, he does not rest the case uponthe one to himself. He gives the others first, and then adds, “And last of all ... to me also.” While there is a mutual support, the most solid basis forourbelief is, in the incontrovertible and tangible appearances which preceded Paul’s conversion; and when John would declare thecertaintyof their faith, he says, “That which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we have beheld, and our hands handled.” (1 John i. 1).

And viewing the indubitable proofs of his resurrection, in their relation to the prophecies concerning him, the necessity for his advent, his predictions concerning himself, his character and works and teachings from his incarnation to his ascension, the lives and deaths of his Apostles, the wonderful enlargement of his little church, when the Apostles “with great power gave their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus,” and its equally wonderful continuance, extension, moral influence, inspirations and hopes, they rise to the sublimity of moral certainty.

These things cannot rationally be accounted for unless there is a God, and if there is a God, as all courts of justice everywhere assume, and universal conscience declares, to refuse assent to the conclusion to which they necessarily lead,—the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,—cannot be the exercise of right reason.

Least of all should lawyers, accustomed to weigh evidence, refuse to believe upon the testimony of others. As Gibson, the great chief justice of Pennsylvania, said: “Give Christianity a common law trial; submit the evidenceproandconto an impartial jury under the direction of a competent court, and the verdict will assuredly be in its favor.”

We have not the witnesses before us; but it is every day’s practice to prove historical facts by any approved and general history, and such are our Gospels and Epistles; and they are confirmed by sacraments and institutions that continue to our times, and will continue to the end of the world.

Nor does the sufficiency of the proofs depend upon anyquestion of thepreciseextent of the genuineness of the Gospels, or theirexactagreement. Men accustomed to weigh evidence know that it is enough if the substance of the issue is proved, and that a literal agreement is never to be expected in honest witnesses. In all the great facts of the Resurrection, the Gospels and the Epistles concur. This has been found satisfactory to such standard authors in the legal profession as Blackstone and Kent and Story, such masters of the rules of evidence as Starkie and Greenleaf, and such giants as Lord Brougham, John Marshall, Theophilus Parsons, Jeremiah Mason and Daniel Webster, and many others both of the dead and the living, and no historical event rests on a firmer basis.

Some of its logical results will be suggested in the concluding chapter.

[1]Seeante, c. 17,p. 101, and Godet’s Defence, etc., 1881, p. 106.[2]As quoted by Godet, p. 49.[3]Seeante, c. 17,p. 101.[4]Origen against Celsus, Book II., c. 42.[5]See editor’s note to Lange’s Life of Christ; McClintock and Strong, Vol. VIII., p. 1055; Abbott’s Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, p. 804; Barnes on John xx. 21; Scott on John xx. 19.An able article by Professor Robinson of the Union Theological Seminary, N. Y., on the Nature of Our Lord’s Resurrection-body will be found in theBibliotheca Sacrafor 1845, p. 292. He thus distributes the opinions on the subject: “On this subject three different opinions have prevailed more or less at various times in the church. Some have held that the body of Christ was changed at the resurrection as to itssubstance, so that it was in its substance a different and spiritual body. Others have regarded the Lord as having had after the resurrection thesamebody as before, but glorified; or, as the earliest writers express it, changed as to its qualities and attributes. The third and larger class have supposed that the body with which Christ rose from the dead was the same natural body of flesh and blood which had been taken down from the cross and laid in the sepulchre.”This article we had not read until after writing chapter 19, but our convictions are confirmed by his thorough discussion of the subject. He concludes that the evidence of the reality of our Lord’s human body, from the Resurrection to the Ascension, is even stronger than that for any other forty days, since Jesus was specially careful to assure his disciples of the fact.[6]History, etc., p. 335.[A]For example, it is an entire misconception of Luke’s Gospel to conclude from it that the ascension was the same day as the resurrection; and his account in Acts makes this certain, it being conceded that both works were by the same writer.[7]Paul seems to have grouped appearances. We may paraphrase thus: “And that he was seen of Cephas; then of the twelveon three occasions.”[8]Defence, etc., p. 105.[9]Seeante, c. 16,p. 89.[10]The Gospel Miracles, etc., p. 48.[11]As quoted by Dr. Taylor, p. 41.[12]The Bible, etc., p. 51; Renan, p. 135.[B]See Rev. vii. 9-17.[13]Those who came out of the tombs “after his resurrection,” it may be presumed, had recently deceased (for they were recognized, as it would seem), and they appeared only to those who, like Simeon and Anna the Prophetess, had been looking “for the consolation of Israel;” and not to those who had rejected him. Their coming was so overshadowed by the principal events to which it was merely an incident, that it is mentioned only by Matthew, and even he gives no information of who they were, or anything of their subsequent history.[14]The Apostles, by Ernest Renan, p. 227.

[1]Seeante, c. 17,p. 101, and Godet’s Defence, etc., 1881, p. 106.

[2]As quoted by Godet, p. 49.

[3]Seeante, c. 17,p. 101.

[4]Origen against Celsus, Book II., c. 42.

[5]See editor’s note to Lange’s Life of Christ; McClintock and Strong, Vol. VIII., p. 1055; Abbott’s Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, p. 804; Barnes on John xx. 21; Scott on John xx. 19.An able article by Professor Robinson of the Union Theological Seminary, N. Y., on the Nature of Our Lord’s Resurrection-body will be found in theBibliotheca Sacrafor 1845, p. 292. He thus distributes the opinions on the subject: “On this subject three different opinions have prevailed more or less at various times in the church. Some have held that the body of Christ was changed at the resurrection as to itssubstance, so that it was in its substance a different and spiritual body. Others have regarded the Lord as having had after the resurrection thesamebody as before, but glorified; or, as the earliest writers express it, changed as to its qualities and attributes. The third and larger class have supposed that the body with which Christ rose from the dead was the same natural body of flesh and blood which had been taken down from the cross and laid in the sepulchre.”This article we had not read until after writing chapter 19, but our convictions are confirmed by his thorough discussion of the subject. He concludes that the evidence of the reality of our Lord’s human body, from the Resurrection to the Ascension, is even stronger than that for any other forty days, since Jesus was specially careful to assure his disciples of the fact.

[5]See editor’s note to Lange’s Life of Christ; McClintock and Strong, Vol. VIII., p. 1055; Abbott’s Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, p. 804; Barnes on John xx. 21; Scott on John xx. 19.

An able article by Professor Robinson of the Union Theological Seminary, N. Y., on the Nature of Our Lord’s Resurrection-body will be found in theBibliotheca Sacrafor 1845, p. 292. He thus distributes the opinions on the subject: “On this subject three different opinions have prevailed more or less at various times in the church. Some have held that the body of Christ was changed at the resurrection as to itssubstance, so that it was in its substance a different and spiritual body. Others have regarded the Lord as having had after the resurrection thesamebody as before, but glorified; or, as the earliest writers express it, changed as to its qualities and attributes. The third and larger class have supposed that the body with which Christ rose from the dead was the same natural body of flesh and blood which had been taken down from the cross and laid in the sepulchre.”

This article we had not read until after writing chapter 19, but our convictions are confirmed by his thorough discussion of the subject. He concludes that the evidence of the reality of our Lord’s human body, from the Resurrection to the Ascension, is even stronger than that for any other forty days, since Jesus was specially careful to assure his disciples of the fact.

[6]History, etc., p. 335.

[A]For example, it is an entire misconception of Luke’s Gospel to conclude from it that the ascension was the same day as the resurrection; and his account in Acts makes this certain, it being conceded that both works were by the same writer.

[7]Paul seems to have grouped appearances. We may paraphrase thus: “And that he was seen of Cephas; then of the twelveon three occasions.”

[8]Defence, etc., p. 105.

[9]Seeante, c. 16,p. 89.

[10]The Gospel Miracles, etc., p. 48.

[11]As quoted by Dr. Taylor, p. 41.

[12]The Bible, etc., p. 51; Renan, p. 135.

[B]See Rev. vii. 9-17.

[13]Those who came out of the tombs “after his resurrection,” it may be presumed, had recently deceased (for they were recognized, as it would seem), and they appeared only to those who, like Simeon and Anna the Prophetess, had been looking “for the consolation of Israel;” and not to those who had rejected him. Their coming was so overshadowed by the principal events to which it was merely an incident, that it is mentioned only by Matthew, and even he gives no information of who they were, or anything of their subsequent history.

[14]The Apostles, by Ernest Renan, p. 227.

Back to Index Next