for but by the conclusion that the narrators were not eye witnesses of the scene, or that such a thing as they describe had no real occurrence. For example, persons actually present on such an occasion could not have mistaken the label of accusation so as each to report it in a different manner; they would surely have concurred in noticing the very remarkable confession of faith of the dying thief, and the gracious assurance he received at the time from their divine master. One who had the full persuasion that that very day his soul was to be translated to paradise, and who, as he expired, could resign his spirit with confidence into the hands of his heavenly father, could not also, at this very time, have been overtaken by a sense of utter abandonment by God; still less could a divine personage, knowing he was from God, and was returning to God, have been overcome by so debasing and so untrue a sentiment. Narrators, if spectators, would not have overlooked the very interesting communication made by Jesus to his mother and favourite disciple at the foot of the cross, and, on the contrary, have reported those so spoken to as standing too far off to be addressed. If the death of Jesus had produced a convulsion of the earth, a rending of rocks, and the resurrection of many holy persons from their graves, not one of them would have failed to record such wondrous demonstrations of the truth of their master's mission; nor could they have failed to notice the piercing of his side, or fallen into such error as has arisen respecting the embalming of his body.

It

This execution, as reported, is a very remarkable one. was that of a godly man, pronounced innocent by his judge, and yet given up to the senseless malice of his enemies, who had such influence as to commit the ruler to this desecration of his office. Is there any support for the event from contemporaneous history?

S.-There are many writers of that and of closely succeeding Historical times, in whose pages such an event should have had place, supports. had it really occurred. Mr Cooper, in his lectures, enumerates thirty, others than Christians, who lived from A.D. 40 to A.D. 176. I will particularly instance Philo, a devout Jew, of the time ascribed to Jesus, who was much occupied with Biblical literature and the interests of his people. He has not a word on the subject, and in fact has no note of Jesus or his followers.

Phenomena at

death of Jesus.

Among the others there are two, namely Josephus who lived A.D. 40, and Tacitus who was of A.D. 110, in whose writings passages speaking of the execution of Jesus appear. In that in Josephus his resurrection is also mentioned. Critics, however, see grounds for rejecting both as forged interpolations. Josephus was a Jew, and ever remained such, and yet in the passage in question is made to acknowledge that Jesus was the Messiah. The passage in Tacitus, had it been genuine, would not have been overlooked by all the early Christian writers in their various disputations with objectors, and especially by Tertullian, who quoted largely from his works, and the ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, who was zealous in his defence of the faith and greedy of materials with which to support it.1

P. It is suspicious, certainly, that the condemnation of Jesus by the Roman authority should be at once of so improbable a character, and destitute of support from independent sources, except in two passages which may be condemned as fabricated.

Who were the saints of whom Matthew speaks as having risen from their graves? To whom did they appear? And how was it that their graves were opened as Jesus died, while their bodies did not come out till after his resurrection? What also became of them afterwards?

S.—I am unable to give you any information on this subject. Their not appearing till after Jesus rose from death would seem to have been introduced so as not to give them the precedence over him in the exercise of the privilege of resurrection. He is said to be "the first that should rise from the dead" (Acts xxvi. 23); "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Cor. xv. 20); "the firstborn from the dead" (Col. i. 18).

P. The statement seems to me a very clumsy one. To mark and enhance the death of the Messiah, nature is said to be convulsed, and these graves thrown open, but the exit of the saints who were to come out of them is restrained till he should first have made his egress from his tomb three days later. And, after all, he had no such precedence in resurrection, for several persons are said to have been raised from the dead by the prophets of old and by himself, two passed into heaven without ever being in their graves, and one of these, namely Elias

1 R. Cooper's Lectures on the Bible, 51-54, 58-61.

appeared to him with Moses in risen life at the time of his transfiguration.

Are the disturbances of nature which are said to have occurred at the crucifixion, namely the preternatural darkness for three hours, and the earthquake, mentioned by historians of the time?

S. They are not. the elder Pliny and

Two of the writers of that period, namely Seneca, who both lived in A.D. 79, left works "recording all the great phenomena of nature, earthquakes, comets, eclipses," &c., and yet mention " nothing applicable to the narrative of Matthew."1

P. That seems to demonstrate that nothing of the kind could really have occurred. Moreover, had there been such phenomena, the other evangelists would not have failed to support their representations with these divine manifestations.

rection.

Let us pass to the next and concluding event, that of the The resurresurrection. I understand this fact to be the support of the crowning doctrine of the Christians, on which their hopes of eternal happiness absolutely depend.

S. It is so. The idea is that without the sacrifice of the Messiah all would perish, and that by participation in his resurrection life they get that new life which is free of sin and its penal consequences. "If Christ be not risen," says Paul, "then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ.-And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished" (1 Cor. xv. 1418). Should the resurrection of Jesus therefore fail of proof, the whole scheme falls to the ground as utterly baseless and void.

P. It is a momentous issue to launch upon the reliability of human testimony, and the capacity of the mind of man to investigate and appreciate it. The evidence, seeing how much hangs upon it, should certainly be of a most complete and convincing order.

How did the precaution of sealing the tomb, and setting a watch upon it, work to prevent the possibility of the disciples abstracting the body surreptitiously?

1 Hennell's Works, 230.

Ꮓ

S. It went for nothing. It is Matthew alone who speaks of such a measure being taken, and even according to him it was done in an incomplete manner, and was finally ineffectual. That is, he says that it was not till the day after the burial that the chief priests thought of setting the watch, so that during the intervening night the tomb had been left unguarded and might have been robbed of the corpse. And, after all,

when Jesus is said to have arisen on the third day, the chief priests and elders are stated to have consulted together how to falsify the event; and it ended in their giving "large money unto the soldiers, saying, say ye, his disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept." "And this saying," it is added, "is commonly reported among the Jews until this day” (Matt. xxviii. 11-15).

P. So that from the very outset the resurrection was considered on the spot an unreal thing! But Matthew's statement appears to me, on the face of it, to deserve no consideration. How could he have come to know of the secret treaty between the priests and the soldiers? What sort of testimony could the latter be expected to give of what had happened when their eyes were closed in sleep? And would they, for any sum, have subjected themselves to the penalty for sleeping on their posts, which, I presume, would be death?

Let me hear now what is said as to the resurrection itself. Be pleased, at the same time, to point out wherever there may be discrepancies in the statements made.

S. You have justly expected that the evidence on this vital point should be of a full and convincing nature. That, however, is far from being its character. No where, throughout these narratives, do inconsistencies of the most violent and irreconcileable description so much abound as in the accounts given of the appearances made by Jesus after his death.

Matthew begins by stating what occurred "in the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,” implying that the sabbath ended with the morning of the succeeding day. This shows that the writer, whoever he was, was not aware of the Jewish division of the days from sunset to sunset. In the same way John (xx. 19) speaks of the "evening, being (still) the first day of the week," whereas the evening ushered in a new day.

The earliest visitants to the tomb were certain females, one or more. Mark says they were there " at the rising of the sun;" John "when it was yet dark." All agree that Mary Magdalene was one of these females. John represents that she was alone; Matthew that another Mary accompanied her; Mark that there was a third female named Salome; and Luke that there was a plurality beyond three, his statement being that the party consisted of "Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them;" so that with him the number of the females must have been at the least five.

Matthew says there was at the time "a great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door;" adding, that, “for fear of him, the keepers did shake, and became as dead men." None of the other evangelists speak of the earthquake, or of the descent of the angel, or of the presence of the keepers. Such angels as they describe were on the spot when seen, and they agree that the stone had already been rolled away.

Matthew states that there was an angel who was seen seated on the stone outside the sepulchre; Mark that he was seated inside it; Luke that there were two who were standing, whether outside or in is not apparent; and John shows that none were noticed at this first visit.

Matthew says that the angel communicated to the women. the fact of the resurrection, and invited them to come and "see the place where the Lord lay," not representing that they entered. Mark says they entered the sepulchre of their own accord, and then only saw the angel, who thereon told them of the resurrection. Luke has it that they entered and discovered for themselves that the body was gone, and were "much perplexed thereabout," after which they observed the angels, who then spoke to them. John states that directly Mary Magdalene, the only female of whom he speaks, saw that the stone had been rolled away, she ran off to communicate the intelligence, showing thus that she did not enter the sepulchre, or see or converse with any one.

Matthew and Mark say that the angel directed the women to inform the disciples that Jesus was risen, and bid them go to Galilee where he would appear to them. Luke's report of