IT has been the fate of many great and illustrious characters, to be misrepresented; and to have different opinions formed of them by persons of different parties and prejudices; but there never was a person on earth who has, for so long a time been a subject of controversy as JESUS CHRIST. The controversy has assumed various forms, and has been stimulated by various pas­sions and interests; but it has never been discontinued, or, if silent awhile, it has broken out again from its re­straint.

[Page 8]The opposition to the gospel at this time, appears in a different form from that in the early days of christianity. Then the followers of Christ, were ac­cused before magistrates, or insulted by mobs, or anathematized by synagogues and councils; now, our persons are safe, and our religious worship is undis­turbed; but we hear our master defamed, and the writers of his life abused. The extraordinary facts which they have re­corded, are either represented as incre­dible; or made the subject of profane wit. A species of vulgar infidelity, founded partly in pedantry, partly in debauchery and partly in ill manners, is insinuating itself into the minds of the thoughtless; and the most sacred truths are rejected and ridiculed, with­out an examination of their evidence, or a consideration of their importance.

Among other ebullitions of this spe­cies of infidelity lately presented to the "Citizens of America" by a popular writer, I find the following. ^*

[Page 9]"THOMAS did not believe the resurrection; and would not believe, without having ocular and manual de­monstration himself. So neither will I; and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas."

It is true that Thomas did not believe the report of the resurrection from his brethren; but it is equally true that when he had satisfactory evidence of its truth he did believe it. At the same time that Jesus condescended to give him all the "ocular and manual demonstra­tion," which it was necessary for him as an apostle to have, he accompanied the condescension with this memorable declaration. "Thomas, because thou hast seen me thou hast believed, blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed." ^* Plainly giving him to un­derstand that the actual sight which he demanded, and with which he was in­dulged, is not equally necessary for all, [Page 10] as for him; but that there may be a true faith without it; that persons who have not enjoyed it, and who cannot enjoy it, may have such evidence offered to them as will be a sufficient ground of faith, and give them a title to true bless­edness. What this evidence is, may be learned from the remark of the evan­gelical historian immediately following.

^*"Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written, that ye might believe, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life, through his name."

Whilst the apostles lived, their testi­mony delivered in their public or pri­vate discourses amounted to credible evidence of this great event; but as they knew themselves to be mortal, they were directed by the same influence which conducted them through all their evangelical labours to commit to writing [Page 11] such things as were necessary to be a proper foundation for faith. Though they did not record every discourse, or every sign, or action of their master, yea though they might omit some cir­cumstances of those things which they have recorded; yet there is enough written to convince every serious and candid inquirer, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God and therefore that there is a sure foundation for the hope of salvation by him.

The gospel, and particularly that capital part of it, the resurrection of Jesus, is proposed to us, not barely as an object of faith; but as containing the hope of eternal life. It is set before us, not merely to be believed as a mat­ter of fact; but to be trusted in as a mat­ter of importance to us; as that on which our everlasting interest depends. This is a just view of the gospel, and we cannot rightly estimate its value, without taking both these ideas into the account. For if the gospel, or the re­surrection [Page 12] of Jesus, were proposed mere­ly as an object of belief, without any consideration of our interest in it, some person might say, "What is this to me? It may be true, or it may not be true. I have no leisure for inquiries, but into those things with which I have some concern. I must attend to my business, and leave subjects of speculative inqui­ry to men who have time and genius to pursue them." Or, on the other hand, if it were proposed to us, as a ground of expectation, without any rational evidence of its truth, some might say, "How can I entertain hope, without some evidence which satisfies my mind? I cannot place my expectation, where I can see no reason for confidence. My eternal interest is an object too precious to be committed to any person as a savi­our, but to one, concerning whose cha­racter and qualifications I can be satisfi­ed on reasonable evidence."

To prevent objections of either kind, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and particu­larly [Page 13] the doctrine of his resurrection, is proposed to us in a twofold view; as an object of faith, and therefore supported by proper evidence; and as an object of vast importance to us and therefore de­serving attention. It is an object of so much importance, that if we do not in­quire into its truth with a view to enter­tain the hope which it contains, we are criminal in the highest degree; and can­not escape the severest reprehension of our own conscience in a solemn hour. If the gospel be of any importance, it is of the highest; it not only gives us di­rections for our conduct in this life; but it points the way to immortality. It proposes to us as a most serious truth, that this life is but the first stage of our existence, and that though we must die and return to the dust, yet that there shall be a resurrection. It proposes to us immortality, as the reward of well doing; and this immortality is said to be a state of the highest enjoyment which rational beings can expect or desire; an eternal enjoyment of the chief good, [Page 14] and an eternally increasing conformity to God as the basis of that enjoyment; and the resurrection of Jesus shows us in the clearest light, how we are to ar­rive at this immortality.

Now, what can be of more impor­tance to mankind than such a doctrine? Is there any higher or nobler truth with which we have any concern? Is there any thing, about which we can or ought to be more solicitous than to secure our happiness in the future state? And can we have any satisfaction concerning this most important of all considerations, equal to what is given to us in the gos­pel?

As the gospel professes to have in view our eternal interest; there is something to excite our inquiry. We cannot look upon it with indifference; if it be true, it deeply and intimately concerns us. We must feel ourselves interested in the inquiry, whether it be true or not; and this consideration ought to lead us to a serious and thorough inquiry into that evidence, by which it is supported. [Page 15] Men will not put themselves to the trouble of inquiry, without some pros­pect of advantage: They must be per­suaded that there is some good to be ob­tained, before they will enter on any thing which has the appearance of la­bour. He who constituted our minds knew this; and therefore he has adapt­ed his gospel to our moral constitution: He has proposed to us, the highest good to be obtained, by a due regard to the revelation which he has given; that our attention might be excited toward it as a valuable and important object

But he has not only given us a proper motive to make the inquiry; he has also afforded us such evidence as is sufficient to convince us of the truth, that is, of such kind of truth as is thus highly in­teresting to us. If physical truth were the object of our inquiry, we might look for such kind of evidence as is equal to mathematical demonstration. But our search is after moral truth, and therefore we must admit moral evidence. What I mean, is, that we must admit [Page 16] such evidence as we do in other cases, where our interest is concerned; such evidence [...] we think it prudent to ad­mit and to depend on in matters which we esteem of great importance to us. Let us take an example.

Let us suppose, (as most people real­ly do) that the acquisition of wealth is one of the most desireable and impor­tant things in the world; and that it is the part of wisdom to obtain as much riches as we can by our own industry; and at the same time, that there is a ne­cessity of trusting to other men, for their information and assistance to accomplish our desires. Do we not think it ration­al and prudent to put this confidence in them? Do we not depend on their abil­ities, their veracity, their fidelity? And what reason have we to think it safe for us so to do.?

Suppose there is a report of a newly discovered country, containing abundant supplies of merchandize, the means of wealth; and that by adventuring our substance thither, there is a great pros­pect [Page 17] of advantage; what evidence do we require as a ground of that conduct which is prudent and rational? Must we actually see that country with our own eyes? No. Must we see the per­sons who have been there, and hear the story from their own mouths? No. Must we examine their invoices and count the gains which they have made? No. We content ourselves with an in­ferior kind of evidence: We depend on testimony, which we think credible. If there are books or letters written by persons of proper information and cre­dit, we depend on that evidence: We believe that such a country exists; and that there is such a way of getting wealth; and we take the most prudent methods to obtain it. We put our confidence in such persons as are best acquainted with the business; and, venture our substance on the credit of their abilities and information. Who does not think this, rational and pru­dent conduct?

[Page 18]Well, just such kind of evidence is exhibited to us to support our hope of immortality! Evidence, on which it is rational and prudent to build our expec­tations, and form our conduct. I say, such kind of evidence, because it is the evidence of testimony; but it is much higher in its degree. For, the one is subject to some deduction, because the most probable means have sometimes failed: The adventurer has in some in­stances been disappointed: His confi­dence has been misplaced, or his oppor­tunities lost: Some accident has inter­vened to blast his expectations however well grounded; but the other can suffer no deduction from any such circum­stances: No instances can be produced, that any have failed of salvation, if they have fought it, in the way pointed out in the gospel; and, therefore, there is no counter evidence to detract from the cre­dibility of the gospel hope. It ought then to have that place in our minds which belongs to the highest degree of moral evidence. It is said that "faith ^* [Page 19] is the evidence of things, not seen; the substance of things hoped for." Here are the same ideas held out, a prospect of advantage to be a ground of hope; as well as evidence of truth, to be a ground of faith. Where there is a pros­pect of advantage, and of such vast un­speakable advantage as the happiness of a future state; a subject which has en­gaged the attention of good men in all ages; surely, it is rational to admit that degree of moral evidence, which is founded on credible testimony; on testimony which cannot be contradicted by any testimony of equal credibility; and, from the certainty of which, no de­duction can be made by any reasonable evidence of a contrary truth.

Such is the kind of evidence; and such is the degree of that kind of evi­dence on which the facts which involve the gospel hope of eternal life are grounded. It is the evidence of testimony; the testimony of Jesus Christ and his apostles. Jesus Christ came from heaven into this world and pointed out to us the path of life by [Page 20] his doctrine and example. Having de­livered his testimony and confirmed it by a series of the most wonderful and beneficial works, which were ever seen and known in this world; having vo­luntarily yielded himself to the power of death and submitted to be laid in the grave; he hath resumed his life and re­turned to heaven. Of all this, there is sufficient evidence; there is written evi­dence; there is evidence from the writ­ten testimony of credible witnesses who could not be mistaken, because they did not believe it themselves, until after doubting, they were convined by the most infallible and demonstrative proof; and who could have no interest in de­ceiving us, because they have ventured their own happiness, on the credibility of the same truths. If then, we have any idea of the benefit, which is propos­ed to us, by believing in Jesus Christ, and obeying his gospel; if we have any value for that salvation, which is there revealed; ought we not to attend to this evidence? And if it appears reason­able, [Page 21] and we have no contrary evidence, to detract from its credibility, is it not wise and prudent for us to admit the truth of the facts, and the importance of the consequences deducible from them: And when we have admitted it, to build our hope and expectations on it? Ought we not to exercise the same judg­ment, and caution on this subject, which we do every day on things of less conse­quence? And at the same time, to place that confidence, and entertain that hope which shall animate us to exertion? Hope is the life of all business; and what nobler hope can we have than the hope of eternal life? Being persuaded of this truth and possessed of this hope, we shall pursue with vigour the path of duty, and the farther we advance in the way of gospel obedience the more com­fort and satisfaction shall we find; "the righteous shall hold on his way and he that hath clean hands shall be stronger and stronger." ^*

[Page 22]If what is said should fall into the hands of any who are yet wavering and unsettled in their belief of christianity, let me say to them; that the middle state you are in, between a full belief of the gospel and a total disbelief of it. lays you a strong obligation to pay a strict regard to the evidence by which it is supported. For why do you doubt, unless you have some idea of the impor­tance of the gospel and that your inter­est may be involved in it? Had you no apprehension of its value, you would not think it worthy of a doubt. But your present state of suspence, implies a persuasion that if the gospel be true; it is of the utmost consequence to you. Let this persuasion operate as a strong motive, to examine it, with the same attention that you would bestow on books or letters which direct you how to secure your most valuable interest. Be sure to admit the same kind of evi­dence for the truth of christianity which you would admit for the truth of those facts, upon which you would ground [Page 23] that conduct, which in other cases would be thought rational and prudent. You can by no means be excused from the duty of making the most serious in­quiry. In such a case, negligence is criminal. Indifference will have the same consequence as actual infidelity. When you have evidence presented to you in support of the most momentous truth, and you do not believe it because you will not examine it, who must bear the blame? When you acknowledge the importance of christianity and yet re­main in doubt of its truth, you are guilty of a criminal disregard to your own interest, and a want of reverence to the authority of your maker, who has a right to require this of you. If christi­anity should finally prove to be true, and you should be found among those who have had a price put into their hands, and have neglected to improve it, what can you expect but the fate of the unprofitable servant who hid his Lord's talent in the earth? "Bind him hand [Page 24] and foot and cast him into outer dark­ness!"

IF the book of nature and the book of scripture be the work of the same hand, we may expect to find the same marks and characters in both. A­mong human artists, there is a similari­ty in the style and manner of books written by the same pen, of pictures drawn by the same pencil, and of build­ings erected by the same architect. May we not then expect to find in the works of the divine author, a style and manner peculiar to himself? And, if he hath impressed the peculiar mark of incom­prehensibility on some of his works, is [Page 25] it not reasonable to expect that the same mark should be found, on some of the truths of his word? "Canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection? How small a portion is known of him!"

We find by experience that we are unable to solve many of the appearances in the natural world, to trace their causes and discover the connection between the the cause and the effect. Let us look over a few objects with which we are familiarly acquainted, and see how im­perfect our knowledge is, of those things, which of all we should think most ob­vious.

If we attempt an inquiry into the pro­perties of inanimate matter, we shall find some things beyond our comprehension. Why does the needle touched by the magnet point to the poles? Why is the lightning conducted in a harmless stream through a small wire, when it rends the firmest oak, and breaks the rock in pieces?

If we view the [...] serve the various in [...] [Page 26] of the brutal creation; we may ask, why is one ferocious and destructive, whilst another is mild and docile? Why is one faithful and another deceitful? Why is one artful and another stupid? Why is one provident and indus­trious, whilst another is indolent and torpid? Look at "the spider, which taketh hold with her hands, even in kings palaces;" the ant, "which prepareth her meat in the summer;" the bee, which gathers liquid sweets from every flower; the silk-worm, which weaves a delicate web, and en­closes itself within a shroud of its own con­struction; the beaver, which stops the current of rivers, and makes them sub­servient to his domestic purposes; the birds of passage, which traverse oceans and continents on the wing, and explore the remotest regions for their summer and winter residence. Look on these, and say, why are they thus endowed, and why do they thus labour and toil, when others live at their ease and scarce­ly [Page 27] move from the spot where they first came into being?

If we look up to the superior regions and behold the shining glories of the heavens; what countless myriads of wonders present themselves to our view! why does the sun shine by his own lus­tre, and the moon and planets borrow their light from him? How immense­ly swift and universally diffused are his rays! but what connects the particles of them together, or what force drives them to the utmost limits of heaven? What power confines the celestial globes to their orbits? What hinders them from rolling at large in the etherial space? Or keeps them from falling in­to the Sun, the centre of their attrac­tion?

To descend from this elevation into ourselves; what enlivens and animates this portion of matter? Why does an act of the mind give motion to a limb or a joint of the body? Why does a ray of light falling on the eye, present to us a distant object? And why when [Page 28] the eye is shut do we retain the impres­sion? Why do we on certain occasions, recollect ideas which had been long for­gotten? Why do some disorders of the body deprive the mind of memory, re­flection and judgment? And why are these faculties at some times more live­ly and active, than at others?

When we ask such questions, what answer can we give, but, such is the will of God. Or, if we take the inter­mediate step, and say, such are the laws of nature, such is the constitution of the material world; what is this, but in other words to say the same thing? For if we ask who framed the laws of nature? Who settled the constitution of the ma­terial world? The answer is, GOD. Here we are at a stand: We cannot pro­ceed a step farther in our inquiry. If it be asked, why did he thus ordain the frame of nature? Why did he choose this, rather than any other possible sys­tem? We are puzzled and lost in the depth of the subject; and we can only say, that this appeared best to divine [Page 29] wisdom, but for what reasons, we know not. God giveth no account, and his ways are past finding out.

Thus, the incomprehensibility of GOD is the end of all our inquiries into his works. And if we presume to examine his essence; or the mode of his subsis­tence; or his way of operating on mat­ter, or on intelligent minds, we are ab­sorbed and confounded; our faculties are totally unequal to the subject; and, we must lay aside the inquiry as too deep for human penetration.

Ought we not then, to learn modesty and humility in our inquiries into the works of God? True philosophy al­ways tends to make us humble. The more we search into the works of God, the more do we discover of our own weakness and imperfection, and of our incapacity to penetrate the mysteries of nature. The true philosopher often finds himself at a nonplus; and is never ashamed to confess his ignorance. And why should he? What is the language [Page 30] of such a confession, but this, that God is wiser than man?

May we not also trace the analogy between the works and word of God, and learn the same modesty in judging of the latter as of the former? And, if we find the peculiar mark of incompre­hensibility on some of the truths which are delivered to us as divine, is it ration­al to reject them on this account? If there were no appearance of this peculiar distinction, attending the truths which claim a divine original, we might say, "all this we are able to discover by our own faculties; we need no divine revela­tion to bring this to our knowledge." But when the revelation is attended with this mark, that some parts of it are at present impenetrable, how can we con­sistently reject it? Must we not for the same reason reject all that knowledge of God which is derived from the works of nature? For there are impenetrable depths in both. To be consistent, therefore, such persons must join with the fool who saith in his heart "there [Page 31] is no GOD." But if we acknowledge that God is incomprehensible in his works, why should we scruple to admit, that he is equally incomprehensible in his word?

By this, it is not meant, that all the truths of God's word are past finding out, any more than that all the works of nature are so. There are many things in nature of which we know the use, though we are ignorant of the cause; and if we knew the cause, we should receive no more benefit from the things themselves than we do now. We know the use of the magnetic needle and its variation, and can guide ourselves through the pathless ocean, by means of it; though we cannot solve the ques­tion, why does it point toward the poles? Or why does it deviate from the true meridian? But if we were to find out the true mechanical cause of its polarity or its variation, either by the exercise of our own faculties, or by information from above, what greater benefit could we derive from the needle than we now [Page 32] have? So there are many truths contain­ed in the scriptures of which we know the practical use, though we may be ignorant of their metaphysical relations and connections. They may be found­ed in principles abstruse and remote from human comprehension, and yet may be very useful and necessary to us in a practical view; and the testimony which accompanies them may be a sufficient reason for our belief and practice.

Besides, though they be at present in­comprehensible to us, that is no reason why they will always be so. And, here we have also the analogy of nature to support the argument, even in the instance just now mentioned. For how many ages was the magnetic needle un­known, and the mariner afraid to ven­ture out of sight of the land? Had any person then foretold, that the time would come, when men might steer their ships, not only out of sight of the land, but without sight of the sun, moon and stars; in the darkest night, and in the most tempestuous weather, by means of [Page 33] a candle and a card, doubtless some would have derided the prediction as an impossibility. For how many ages was it supposed that the torrid and frigid zones were uninhabitable? But now it is known, that the human body is capa­ble of bearing the utmost extremes of heat and cold, to which our globe is subject. Less than half a century age, it was deemed impossible to circumna­vigate the globe, without losing great numbers of seamen by the scurvy; but now methods have been found to pre­serve the lives and health of this useful class of men in the longest voyages, and in all climates, subject only to the com­mon casualties of human life.

These discoveries have been made in the book of nature: What was once deem­ed impossible, is now known to be true. And, why may not discoveries be made in the volume of divine inspiration? Why may not close study and devout and humble inquiry, bring to light ma­ny things which have been deemed in­scrutable? For how many ages did the [Page 34] Bible itself lie neglected and unknown in the dark recesses of monastic libraries, till the active zeal of Luther brought it to light? How many advantages do we now enjoy since the discovery of the art of printing, which were before un­known? How many illustrations of dif­ferent parts of scripture have been made by inquiring into the genius, manners, arts and sciences of the people among whom the sacred writers lived; and in­to the natural and political histories of those countries, the scene of those events which they relate! And how much more might we have known, if it had not been for the destruction of ancient books and their repositories by the barbarous policy of conquerors, and the moulder­ing hand of time! When all these things are considered, is it strange or incredi­ble, that in a book of great antiquity, and which claims the honour of contain­ing divine communications, there should be some things, which at present are be­yond the reach of human comprehen­sion, but, which ought to be believed [Page 35] on such testimony, as is deemed suffi­cient to support other truths, which are confessed to be advantageous to man­kind, though we may not be able to comprehend some of their causes and relations? Or, is it agreeable to our maxims of prudence to reject such a book, or any part of it, on account of certain sublime and impenetrable things contained in it; when it evi­dently appears to be calculated for our benefit, and to contain other things, which we do understand and to which we can conform our hearts and lives? Does it not rather become us, with modesty and humility to admit the whole for truth, because it bears the same marks of the divine author as do the works of nature, which are evident­ly the workmanship of an almighty hand?

Here, we know but in part; and this imperfection of our knowledge is one of those modes of trial, which God hath appointed for us in the present state. The reason that we have any [Page 36] opportunity and advantage for acquir­ing divine knowledge is that we may reduce that knowledge to practice, and thus improve ourselves in true virtue. All the knowledge which we shall gain in this or the future world is intended to make us wiser and better. Let us then study to employ our minds in ac­quiring as much knowledge of God and divine things as we can obtain; and im­prove our hearts and lives in those vir­tues and graces which will form our preparation for the most sublime degrees of intellectual and moral perfection in the regions of eternal felicity.

NOTWITHSTANDING all the confidence with which it has been asserted, that "the word prophet was the bible word for poet, and that the word prophesying meant the art of making poetry, and setting poetry to music;" ^* yet, nothing is more certain, than that, a prophet, in the Hebrew Church, was understood to mean a person commis­sioned by God, to deliver truth, and to predict future events; otherwise the dis­tinction between a true and a false pro­phet would have been impertinent, and the rules for distinguishing them use­less. ^† Their discourses were delivered, either in poetry or prose; often in the [Page 38] hieroglyphic style, but sometimes with remarkable perspicuity and even mathe­matical precision. ^*

Of this last kind is the prediction in Daniel, (chap. ix.24,) respecting the time of the appearance of the Messiah, which limits it to " seventy weeks," from the time when the decree was giv­en, for the restoration of the Jewish gov­ernment, and the rebuilding of Jerusa­lem, after the expiration of the captivity of the Jews in Babylon.

That such a person as the Messiah, was the subject of many predictions, de­livered to the Jewish Church, by the ministry of their prophets, is a truth in which both Jews and Christians agree. He was predicted under different ti­tles; all of which were expressive of the dignity of his person, the characters which he should assume, and the bene­fits which he should confer. He was called the seed of the Woman, the seed of Abraham, in whom all the families [Page 39] of the earth should be blessed, the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Son of David, a prophet like Moses, a priest after the order of Melchisedec, a king in Zion, a redeemer, a deliverer, a saviour and the desire of all nations.

As the time of his advent approached, the predictions became more clear and distinct; and the series of prophecy was not closed, till he was so particularly de­scribed, and the time of his appearance was so distinctly fixed, that unless JESUS CHRIST were the Messiah, no such per­son has yet appeared in the world.

The name by which he is familiarly known fully expresses the character, in which he appeared; JESUS signifies a Saviour, and CHRIST, the anointed; THE ANOINTED SAVIOUR, or the per­son commissioned by GOD to be the sav­iour of the world.

"The ancient Jews were led by their prophecies, as interpreted by themselves, to expect that they would be completed at the time in which, the christians say, they were completed; and it was not [Page 40] till after the coming of Christ that they began to interpret them differently, and to look out for another completion of them. Judge then, if they, or we, are likely to have erred most; through pre­judice, in expounding and applying the prophecies. Judge, if the natural and proper sense, is not that, in which we take them; for that sense occured first to themselves, and was their sense before we adopted it. I mean, especially in respect to the time which they had fixed, for the accomplishment of the prophecies concerning the Messiah." ^*

It is well known, that the Jews num­bered not only weeks of days but weeks of years. Not only every seventh day was a sabbath, or day of rest; but, every seventh year was a sabbatical year, or year of rest. Besides these, every seven times seven years there was a grand sabba­tical year, called the jubilee, in which lib­erty was proclaimed through the land, and every man returned to the possession of his paternal inheritance. ^† The weeks [Page 41] spoken of by Daniel are weeks of years, each containing the space of seven years; which, being multiplied by seventy, will give four hundred and ninety years, and if to these we add the nine years of ju­bilee which intervened, the period will be five centuries. ^*

In addition to this chronological pre­diction, the coming of the Messiah, is limited by the prophet Haggai, to the time in which the second temple should be standing. For whilst the aged Jews who had returned from the captivity in Babylon, saw the erection of the second temple, and compared it with the mag­nificent structure which had been built [Page 42] by Solomon, they could not refrain from weeping at the disproportion. Be­sides the gold and other rich furniture, several things were wanting in the se­cond temple, which were accounted part of the glory of the first; viz. the ark of the covenant, the shekinah or vis­ible token of the divine presence, the perpetual fire, the sacred oil, the Urim and Thummim; but notwithstanding the absence of these, it was predicted by Haggai, [chap. ii.7, 8, 9,] for the con­solation of his countrymen, that "the glory of the latter house, should be great­er than the glory of the former; because the desire of all nations should appear in in it, and by him it would be filled with glory." These predictions limited the appearance of the Messiah, by the expi­ration of the fifth century, from the res­toration of the Jews, and by the exist­ence of the temple which they rebuilt after their return from Babylon. Noth­ing could be to them, more certain and definite, than such predictions.

[Page 43]Accordingly it is evident, from the books of the new testament, that in the latter part of the fifth century, there was a general expectation of the appearance of an illustrious person among the Jews. Wise men came from the east to inquire "where is he that is born King of the Jews, for we have seen his star and are come to worship him." ^* Simeon was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and it was revealed to him, that he should not see death, till he had seen the Lord's Christ. Anna the prophetess was in the same expectation, and spake of him to all them who looked for redemption in Jerusalem. ^† When John the bap­tist, began his ministry, the Priests and Levites sent messengers to him, to in­quire whether he were the expected Messiah. ^‡ The same expectation pre­vailed among the Samaritans, ^‖ as is evi­dent from the conference which Jesus had with a woman of that country. Several impostors taking advantage of [Page 44] this general expectation, "drew away much people after them," and one of them Judas of Galilee, "in the days of the taxing," when Jesus was born. ^* These instances I trust are sufficient to prove that there was a general expectation, among the Jews, and the neighbouring nations, of the appearance of the Mes­siah, about the time when Jesus was born and lived; and this expectation was grounded on the predictions above men­tioned, which they could not but under­stand in their most obvious and literal meaning. Jesus began his ministry by saying " the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand." ^† In his discourse, of the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem, ^‡ he quoted a part of the prediction of Daniel; and in a remarkable parenthesis (" whoso read­eth let him understand") plainly intimat­ed that the whole was very intelligible and worthy of their attention, as con­taining one of the plainest of the signs of the times.

[Page 45]It is also to be considered as one cor­roborating proof, that in all the cavils and objections, which the Jews brought against Jesus, to invalidate his claim to be the Messiah, they never once pretend­ed that it was not the proper time for his appearance. The truth is, that there was then no controversy; but, all were agreed on that point. We may then safely conclude, that the time lim­ited for the appearance of the Messiah has elapsed, and that it must have elap­sed before the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans.

The great difference between those of the Jews who rejected Jesus, and those who received him, was respecting the nature of that redemption or salva­tion, of which the Messiah was to be the author. The former regarded it in a political sense; they had been redeem­ed from the Egyptian bondage by the ministry of Moses and Aaron; and from the Babylonish captivity, by the media­tion of Ezra and Nehemiah; they were then in subjection to the Romans; and [Page 46] they looked for the Messiah, as their national redeemer, from that yoke; as one who should be a temporal prince, like David, and raise their nation to the same degree of independence, wealth and honour; but they saw no traits of such a character in Jesus, and therefore rejected him. The latter were induced by various degrees, to overcome the na­tional prejudice, in which they had been educated, and to regard the salvation of the Messiah in a moral and spiritual sense; not as respecting this world but extending to the future ages; not as con­fined to the Jews, but comprehending all mankind. "The Jews in rejecting a spiritual sense of those prophecies (which yet is admitted by them on other occasions) have been driven to the ne­cessity of supposing a twofold Messiah, a new conceit, without warrant from their scriptures and against the ideas and expectations of their fathers; the chris­tians by the help of that moral and spi­ritual sense, which they have put on the same prophecies, are able to explain [Page 47] them, of one and the same Messiah, conformably to the event, and to the time which the ancient Jews had prefix­ed for the completion of them." ^*

The conduct of the ruling part of the Jewish nation, toward those of their brethren who embraced the doctrine of Jesus, in the first age of the christian church shows the force of prejudice over the human mind in a most affecting view. They had been subjected by the Romans; but had expected a Messiah to redeem them, and the time limited by the prophets had elapsed. Instead of being able to recover their own indepen­dence, to subdue all the nations who had oppressed them, and to reign as sov­ereigns over the whole earth; they not only continued tributary to the Romans, but saw a number of their own nation, under the full persuasion that Jesus whom they had crucified was the Mes­siah, travelling over the world, teach­ing this doctrine, and inviting all men to partake of the blessings of God's [Page 48] kingdom, without first becoming Jews; or being proselyted to the laws of Moses. They saw the apostles and ministers of Jesus submitting to the Roman govern­ment, teaching obedience to it, as a moral duty; endeavouring to make peo­ple easy in their subjection, and promis­ing the rewards of heaven to their pa­tience and meekness. This was more than the temper of the Jews could bear. They were the most restless, uneasy peo­ple in the world ^*; and were frequently exciting sedition and rebellion against the Romans. On the contrary, the christians taught quietness, obedience and the payment of tribute. The Jews were looking for temporal dominion, but the christians were expecting no kingdom but what was moral and spirit­ual and would extend to the future in­visible world.

The posterity of those Jews have liv­ed to see, not only that they as a nation were never delivered from the Roman yoke; but that the Roman empire, [Page 49] which subjected their fathers, is itself broken to pieces; and yet that they are not redeemed nor restored. They are however preserved as a distinct people notwithstanding their dispersions; and this preservation is one of the strongest, visible evidences of the truth, both of the Jewish and christian revelations.

AMIDST the wit and ridicule which have been played off against chris­tianity, there is sometimes an appear­ance of respect to the character of Jesus Christ; which, however plausible at first view, yet is accompanied with such other sentiments, as render the sincerity of it very questionable. We are grave­ly told "that such a person as Jesus Christ existed, and that he was cruci­fied; that he was a virtuous and amiable man; that he preached most excellent [Page 50] morality; that the morality which he preached and practised was of the most benevolent kind; and that the grand trait in his character was philanthropy." ^* But, at the same time, it is said, that "he wrote nothing himself; that the history of him is altogether the work of other people; that his historians brought him into the world in a super­natural manner, and were obliged to take him out again in the same manner; that the story of his resurrection is a wretched contrivance, which has every mark of fraud and imposition upon it; that it is now impossible for us to know who were the authors of it, or to be as­sured that the books in which the ac­count is related were written by the per­sons whose name they bear." ^† Thus, by flattering us into an idea that they are friendly to the moral character of Jesus, they would destroy the grand evi­dence of the real character in which he appeared in the world, and sap the foun­dation of that hope of immortality [Page 51] which we derive from his death and resurrection.

To expose the weakness and inconsist­ency of such an attack on christianity, let us attend to the following consider­ations.

1. If it be allowed that there was such a person as Jesus Christ, that he was virtuous and amiable, that he preach­ed the most excellent morality and prac­tised the virtues which he taught, from what source is the knowledge of this derived? How do we know that there was such a person, and that his doctrine and life were so good? Must not this knowledge be derived from the testi­mony of ancient authors? And are not those authors most to be depended on, who were eye witnesses of the facts and events of his life, and ear-witnesses of the discourses and instructions which he delivered? Though something credible might have been said by persons at a distance who had known him by report and hearsay, who were not his contem­poraries, but had received their know­ledge [Page 52] by tradition, and who did not profess to write his life, nor to be his disciples and who were far from being particular in their accounts of him; yet, is not greater credit due to those who personally knew him, who fre­quently conversed with him, and who could not mistake in their testimony concerning him? This is a rule which holds good in all other cases, and why should it not be allowed equally good here? We cannot violate this rule with­out supposing that the nearest friends of a virtuous and amiable man were the greatest liars; and that those who knew him only by a distant report, were the only honest and credible historians. This supposition would not be admitted in any other case; because it is contrary to the nature of testimony and the rules of evidence universally acknowledged among mankind.

2. If Jesus Christ taught the purest morality and practised what he taught, who were more likely to learn of him and to imitate his example than his own [Page 53] disciples? And would not the morality which they learned of him induce them to speak the truth concerning him? Socrates was an eminent teacher of moral philosophy among the Greeks, but he wrote nothing himself; Plato and Xenophon were his disciples and wrote memorable things concerning him. Doth any person suspect them of insin­cerity in their relations of their master? Why then should the disciples of Jesus be less worthy of credit? What kind of morals can we suppose they had learned of Jesus? What kind of morals do they recommend in their own writings? Do they not enjoin the same virtues and duties as did their master? and would not candor lead us to sup­pose that they practised what they taught? Are there not evident marks of simplicity and sincerity in their writings? Do they not give us the most plain and undisguised accounts of the actions and sayings of their master? Of their own faults and imperfections? Of their own absurd reasonings, vain expectations [Page 54] and false prejudices, and of the manner in which they were led to correct them? Do they not relate the most grand and solemn events, in a style as simple and unaffected, as they relate the most com­mon occurrences? Do they not plainly show that they had no fondness for em­bellishing their narratives? But that they aimed only at giving a simple history of such facts and events as fell under their observation? And, are there any seeming disagreements in their narra­tions but what may be reconciled, by the exercise of the same candor which we should use in reconciling other wri­ters of equal antiquity, who agree in the most material points? Why then are not the disciples of Jesus entitled to our credit in what they have related con­cerning him?

3. If Jesus taught and practised the best morality, and if he accounts given of his life and character, by his biogra­phers, be true, then it must be allowed, that he was a person of strict integrity, one who spoke the truth and had no in­tention [Page 55] to deceive. Admitting this, let us attend to what is related by them res­pecting his miracles. A question arose among the disciples of John the Baptist, whether Jesus were he that should come or they should look for another? With this question John sent them to Jesus; and at the time of their arrival, Jesus was employed in healing the sick, giv­ing sight to the blind, and performing other miraculous and benevolent works. Instead of giving any direct answer to their inquiry, he said. "Go and shew John the things which you hear and see: The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised and the poor have the gospel preached to them." ^* Was not this an appeal to the miracles which he wrought? Did he not rest the proof of his divine mission on that evi­dence? And wherein consisted the force of the evidence? It had been foretold by the ancient prophets, that this should be one of the characters of the Messiah; ^† [Page 56] John was acquainted with these prophe­cies; the answer therefore was perti­nent and the argument conclusive. And would a person of a truly virtuous character have used an unfair argument on so solemn an occasion?

4. In the same manner did he appeal to his resurrection, as a proof of his di­vine mission. When the Jews asked him, "what sign showest thou to us, seeing thou dost these things?" He an­swered, "destroy this temple, (meaning his body,) and in three days I will raise it up." ^* If at first they did not under­stand the figure contained in this answer, yet they did afterward; for at his buri­al, they told Pilate, "Sir, we remem­ber that this deceiver said while he was yet alive, after three days I will rise again." ^† The resurrection of Jesus was an event which he foreknew, which he foretold, to which he appealed, and to which his apostles appealed as a deci­sive proof of his divine character and mission. If he were a truly virtuous man, he would not have foretold such event, [Page 57] unless he had a well grounded faith that it would come to pass; and if his dis­ciples learned their morality of him, they would not have related such an event, unless they had known it to be true. To pretend that the story of his resurrection was fabricated by his disci­ples as a counterpart to the story of his miraculous conception is a reproach as weak and malicious as the old calumny of the Jews, "that his disciples came by night and stole him away;" to pretend, at the same time, a respect to the charac­ter of Jesus as virtuous and amiable, is a palpable inconsistency; and, to insinu­ate that the authors of the story are un­known, and that the time when it was invented, is unknown; is nothing more than "a wretched contrivance," to pal­liate a false and groundless pretence.

It is in vain to attempt to seperate things which are so intimately connect­ed as the virtuous character of Jesus, and the truth of his miracles and resur­rection. They rest on the same evidence and must stand or fall together. It is [Page 58] impossible to believe that Jesus was vir­tuous and good, and yet that he wrought no miracles and did not rise from the dead; for a good man would not have ap­pealed to such facts, and to such an event, as the proofs of his divine mission, un­less they had been realities.

If therefore we would be consistent with ourselves, and treat those ancient and venerable historians, who have writ­ten the life of Jesus, with the same can­dor and respect, as other historians of equal antiquity; we must not only be­lieve, that such a person as Jesus Christ did exist, and that he bore a virtuous and amiable character; but we must be­lieve that he was sent by God, to be the Saviour of the world; that he answered in all respects the characters which had been given of the Messiah, in particular, that he went about doing good; and though he was put to death, yet that he rose from death to immortality. Why should not these facts be believed on the same testimony with that which supports the virtue and goodness of his character? [Page 59] Were not his miracles one part of the proof of his benevolence? And did they not gain him the love as well the vene­ration of the people? Those works were, to the people who saw and receiv­ed benefit by them, the most demonstra­tive proofs of the goodness and power of the person who wrought them; they proved that he was a prophet sent from God. To us, these miracles have [...] that same direct and intuitive evidence; but still they are of use. The relation of them is credible; the nature of them was beneficial; they were a fulfilment of ancient prophecy; and, they serve to confirm our faith in the virtuous and amiable character of the person who wrought them. If we believe that he was virtuous, certainly he was not the less virtuous for doing so much good, as the evangelists have reported of him.

His resurrection may be considered in one view, as the reward of his virtuous and amiable conduct, and of the patience with which he endured his last suffer­ings. Is it not credible, that virtue [Page 60] should be rewarded with immortal life and happiness? Why should it be thought incredible, that God should raise the dead? But there is a farther use to be made of this great event. For as Je­sus hath set us an example of virtue, which we are bound to imitate; so God hath, by the resurrection of his Son, given us an assurance, that our virtue shall be rewarded, in the same manner. And what is the design of this, but to encourage us to persevere in a close imi­tation of the character of Jesus Christ, trusting in his promise, "because I live, ye shall live also?"

Upon the whole, let every one who is acquainted with history and chronolo­gy, or who may be easily informed, if he thinks it worthy his inquiry, be ask­ed these questions. Do you believe that there was such a person as Jesus Christ? That he was born and lived in Judea, in the latter part of the fifth century, after the return of the Jews from the Babylon­ish captivity? In the reigns of Augus­tus and Tiberius, Emperors of Rome? [Page 61] that he was a person of a virtuous cha­racter, that he practised what he taught, and that the writers of his life learned their morality of him? If he answers these questions in the affirmative, he must, to be consistent with himself, be a christian: He cannot reasonably doubt the truth of the miracles, nor the resur­rection of Jesus Christ; he cannot rea­sonably doubt of the doctrines, the duties nor the tendency of the whole gospel system through time and eternity.

IN any matter of consequence, which engages our attention, it is very desireable to have the opinion of sensi­ble, observing and judicious persons in our favour. This serves to keep as in [Page 62] countenance, and give an additional satisfaction to our minds. For when those, who have no interest to serve and no prejudice to gratify, give their judg­ment on any matter of importance, ac­cording to reason and evidence, it is pro­bable that they will judge right.

There is no question of more impor­tance to us, than whether the Christian religion be true or not; and there is no human being who is unconcerned in this question. But a person may be really concerned in a matter on which he is to give an opinion, and yet not know it, at the time. The case of David is full to the point. When Na­than delivered the parable of the rich man who had taken away the poor man's lamb, David knew not that he was the person, but he gave a just deci­sion, on the merits of the cause. The Centurion who attended the crucifixion of Jesus, did not know that he had any other concern in the transactions of the day, than that he was to do his duty as the officer of the guard. He was not a [Page 63] Jew; and therefore had no tincture of the prejudice which the Jewish nation had against Jesus. Nor was he one of his disciples and therefore had no expec­tation of honour and preferment in his kingdom, as the best of them, at that time had. He was to all intents an im­partial, unprejudiced person. Yet, from the observations, which he had opportu­nity of making on that singular event, the death of Jesus Christ, and its atten­dant circumstances, he deliberately and voluntarily pronounced him to be the SON of GOD; and the soldiers of the guard joined with him in the same tes­timony. ^*

This testimony is of great weight and importance in the cause of christianity [...] that we may view it in its just light, we should examine, what were the cir­cumstances in which this man was placed, and what advantages he had for making observations at that time.

The Centurion with his company were appointed by Pontius Pilate the [Page 64] Roman Governor of Judea, to attend the execution of Jesus and the two thieves. Mark says that he "stood over against him;" ^* a situation extreme­ly favourable for his observations; being within sight and hearing of all things that occurred, or were said or done on that occasion. Hence it appears, that [...] must have been a witness to the fol­lowing facts and occurrences.

1. The cruel hatred and enmity of the Jews to Jesus. It is not usual among any people, who make pretences to civil­ization, to treat a person with insult, when he is going to suffer death by a judicial sentence; be his crimes ever so odious and detestable and his sentence ever so just. Those who have any de­gree of humanity will, on such an occa­sion, be satisfied with leting the law take its course; and though they acqui­esce in the execution as lawful and just, yet they will have compassion on the suffering criminal, and view his exit with a solemn silence. But here, the [Page 65] case was far otherwise. Jesus was ac­cused of no crime, which the Centurion could judge deserved death. Nor, did any thing appear in his character or con­duct which merited outrage and vio­lence. But the Jews had wrought them­selves up to a furious passion, and vented themselves in the most bitter, scornful, reproaching and insulting language. This was not done by the common peo­ple only, from whom no better treat­ment could be expected; but by the priests, the elders and the scribes; the ecclesiastical rulers, the most sacred and dignified characters.

2. He must also have observed, the mild, meek and patient behaviour of Jesus; "who when he was reviled, re­viled not again;" and, instead of show­ing any displeasure against them for their cruel and abusive treatment, pitied his persecutors, and in his last agonies prayed for them, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

There was a most surprizing contrast between the temper of the persecutors [Page 66] and of the sufferer. The former was harsh, unreasonable, abusive and inso­lent in the highest degree. There was nothing in him which appeared to de­serve it; and if there had been, still it would have been base and ungenerous to insult a person when he was in their power, and they were inflicting on him the extreme punishment of the law: No brave, candid mind could approve such conduct. On the contrary, the temper of Jesus was all meekness, patience and benevolence; not an angry resentful word or look proceeded from him; but he manifested a calm, com­posed, resigned, dignified deportment, and a tender concern for his enemies when they were loading him with re­proaches. This contrast could not but have been observed by the Centurion and his company.

3. Another circumstance was the uncommon darkness, which over­spread the land, at the time of the cru­cifixion. The account of this dark­ness, given by the evangelical historians, [Page 67] like all their accounts of extraordinary facts, is very short and simple. "From the sixth hour, there was darkness over all the land, till the ninth hour." They relate the event, but not the secondary causes, which produced it; for their writings were designed, not to solve phenomena in the natural world, nor to teach us philosophy; but to give us a true account of the christian religion and the means by which it was introduced into the world.

4. The darkness, having continued three hours, was succeeded by an earth­quake. "The earth did quake, and the rocks rent," i. e. the rocks of mount Calvary, where the Centurion and his company were performing their duty. An earthquake naturally excites terror; and this event must have given an addi­tional solemnity to the scene, and made a deep impression on the minds of the Centurion and his company. Accord­ingly it is remarked by the historian, that when they "saw the earthquake" and its effects, "they feared greatly."

[Page 68]5. Another circumstance as remark­able as any, was the conversation which Jesus had with the penitent thief, and which passed within the hearing of the Centurion. Jesus was crucified between two thieves, one of whom joined with the Jewish priests, in reviling him, and was reproved for it by the other, who said; "Dost thou not fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, but this man hath done nothing amiss." Having thus borne his testimony to the innocency of Jesus, he turned himself to him and said, "Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." To which Jesus answered, " Amen, I say to thee, this day shalt thou be with me in Para­dise." ^* Both these persons were then apparently going out of this world, in­to the invisible state, yet the thief had an idea, that Jesus was a King, and was going to the possession of his kingdom; and though dying, he prayed that Jesus would remember him, when he should [Page 69] come into his kingdom. What kind of a kingdom must this have been? Not a kingdom of this world, but a spiritual and a heavenly kingdom. The thief therefore, might be supposed to pray to Jesus for an admission into a state of happiness after death. This prayer was immediately answered by Jesus, with a voice full of majesty and dignity, promising him admission into Paradise. What must an impartial spectator think of such a conversation? Must he not conclude that Jesus really had a power over departed spirits, to appoint them to a state of happiness, and that the thief had a full persuasion of this truth, and ventured his salvation upon it?

6. Another circumstance was the cry which Jesus uttered as he was ex­piring. "Father, into thy hands, I commend my spirit." ^* These words it is said, he cried with a loud voice; which was an evidence of the inward strength and vigour, both of his body and mind, notwithstanding his pain and [Page 70] and the loss of blood from his wounds. It was also an indication, that he died at his own time, that no man took his life from him, but that he laid it down of himself, and resigned his spirit into the hands of his father. It is observed, by one of the historians, that when Joseph of Arimathea, begged of Pilate, the bo­dy of Jesus, "Pilate marvelled if he were already dead," and would not be­lieve it, till he had called the Centurion, and was assured of it by him; ^* whence it appears that Jesus died much sooner than it was usual for persons in those circumstances to die; and indeed soon­er than the companions of his suffer­ings.

This loud expiring cry, joined with the other circumstances abovementioned, drew from the Centurion and his compa­ny that honest confession. ^† "Truly this man was the Son of God." The penetration and sensibility which were discovered by these military characters, [Page 71] did them much honour. They were greatly affected with the singularity and solemnity of the scene; their confession was the result of conviction; it was vo­luntary and sincere, and they could have no inducement to make it, but the force of truth.

The Centurion's expression as given by Luke is, "certainly this was a righteous man;" ^* which amounts to what the penitent thief had said, "This man hath done nothing amiss," or to what Pilate had said before, "I find no fault in this man." These are full and sufficient proofs of the innocency of the character of Jesus; but the testimony, "that he was the SON of GOD," rises still higher and proves that the Centu­rian did believe him to have been a per­son of extraordinary dignity, honoured with a special commission from God. He had doubtless learned this phrase from his acquaintance with the Jews, it being one of the names, by which they were used to call the Messiah, whom [Page 72] they expected. ^* He probably knew that Jesus was put to death, for assuming this character; he had heard him re­peatedly pray to God, on the cross, call­ing him Father; "Father, forgive them." "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit;" and he had rea­son to believe from the extraordinary behaviour of the sufferer, and the so­lemn appearance of the face of nature, on that memorable day, that Jesus was sincere in these addresses, and that God had heard him; whence it was natural for him to conclude, that there was some special union and relation between God and him, as between a father and a son; that he was invested by the father, with a power over death and the future state; that he had a kingdom beyond the grave, in the unseen world, and could dispose of departed souls at his pleasure. Such a testimony, coming from such a person, at such a time, reflects the high­est honour on the character of Jesus, and is a striking evidence in favour of [Page 73] the christian revelation. Could any person more deservedly receive such un­sought, unbiassed testimonies? Can we wonder that his disciples loved him, when those who had no particular con­nection with him, but to assist in his execution, have expressed such a full conviction of his dignity and glory and the spotless purity of his character? Who, judging only by the light of na­ture, and attending to the evidence be­fore their eyes, were fully persuaded that his pretensions were just and his character divine?

Permit me, here to introduce a fine passage, from the late excellent Bishop Sherlock; where he compares and ex­amines the different characters of Jesus and Mahomet; both of whom are be­lieved by their respective followers to have been messengers from GOD. ^*

"Go to your natural religion. Lay before her MAHOMET and his disciples, arrayed in armour and blood; riding in triumph, over the spoils of thousands [Page 74] and ten thousands who fell by his vic­torious sword. Show her the countries which he ravaged and destroyed; the cities which he set in flames; and the miserable distress of all the inhabitants. When she has viewed him in this scene, carry her into his retirement; show her the prophet's chamber, his concubines and wives; let her see his adultery, and hear him alledge revelation and a divine commission, to justify his lust and op­pression. When she is tired with this prospect, then show her the blessed JESUS, humble and meek, doing good to all the sons of men; patiently instruct­ing both the ignorant and the perverse. Let her see him in his most retired pri­vacies; let her follow him to the moun­tain and hear his devotions and suppli­cations to GOD. Carry her to his table, to view his poor fare and hear his hea­venly discourse. Let her see him, in­jured but not provoked. Let her attend him, to the tribunal, and consider the patience, with which he endured the scoffs and reproaches of his enemies. [Page 75] Lead her to his cross and let her hear him pray to his enemies. "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." When natural religion has viewed both; ask, which is the pro­phet of GOD? But her answer we have already; when she saw part of this scene through the eyes of the Centurion who attended at the Cross; by him, she spoke and said, "Truly this man was the Son of God."

THE dignity and solemnity of this grand event, and the infinitely mo­mentous consequences of it to us and to all mankind, may justly strike our minds with awe and reverence; yet if we would entertain a just idea of it, we must enter familiarly into all its circum­stances; [Page 76] and even into the affections, the weaknesses and the prejudices of those who were first acquainted with it; for they were human beings like our­selves, having reason and passion in exer­cise at once; and the tumult of both produced those effects; which we are now to contemplate.

It is impossible to read the history of the life and death of Jesus Christ, with­out observing the constant, zealous and respectful attention of his female friends. We find among them singular instances of attachment to a worthy and amiable character in the most distressing scenes. They gave the strongest proofs of their love to him, even when most of his chosen disciples forsook him; they kept as near to him as the circumstances he was in would allow; and, they would gladly have ministered to him and com­forted him in his last moments, had they been permitted.

Among the friends of Jesus were two persons who had hitherto kept them­selves concealed; but an occasion of his [Page 77] death appeared openly and boldly in the character of disciples. These were Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus both members of the Jewish council, but who had not been concerned in the proceedings against him. The provi­dence of God so directed the manner of their expressing their regard to Jesus, as to make them instrumental of fulfilling two remarkable prophecies respecting the Messiah. One was that he should not "see corruption;" ^* the other was that he should "make his grave with the wicked and with the rich". ^† The two thieves were doubtless buried in Golgotha, the common burying ground, in or near the place of crucifixion; but the body of Jesus, after Joseph had ob­tained leave of Pilate, was conveyed in­to his own garden, nigh at hand, in which was a new sepulchre hewn out of a rock; and because it was the day of preparation before the Sabbath, and it was near night, he thought it best to deposit the body in that new sepulchre. [Page 78] To preserve it in the most decent man­ner which circumstances would then ad­mit, Joseph and Nicodemus who were both men of wealth, brought fine linen with a large quantity of myrrh and aloes. "Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in the linen cloth, with the spices, as the manner of the Jews was to bury." Thus by means of the rich drugs applied to the wounded body, and the linen wrapped around it, togeth­er with the coolness of the rock in which the sepulchre was hewn, the body of Jesus was effectually preserved from corruption, during the time appointed for its continuance in the grave. The entrance of the sepulchre was closed with a great stone; and the body being thus secured by his friends, they retired and "rested the seventh day according to the commandment."

But his enemies could not rest. They remembered what his disciples had for­gotten, that he had foretold his own re­surrection on the third day; and they were afraid that something might take [Page 79] place which should give countenance to such a report. They feared that those of his disciples who had buried him, with the assistance of others, would come by night and take away his body and would so effectually conceal it, that there would be sufficient ground to say that he was risen from the dead; and thus "the last error would be worse than the first." i. e. the people would be more ready to profess their regard to him af­ter the report of his resurrection than they were during his life. Filled with this idea, they assembled on the Sabbath and went in a body to Pilate, desiring that the sepulchre might be secured till the third day. He granted them a guard which they placed in Joseph's garden, to watch the sepulchre. Having as may well be supposed, first looked into it to see that the body was there, they closed the entrance and sealed the stone; and it is probable that their design was to keep the body till after the third day, and then publicly expose it to view; that they might at once ruin the credit [Page 80] of the prediction and the character of Jesus.

Thus it appears that divine provi­dence overruled the designs of his ene­mies, as well as the endeavours of his friends, to give the utmost strength to the proof of his resurrection. All pos­sible care was taken to preserve and se­cure his body; by his friends, to pre­serve it from corruption▪ and by his ene­mies, to secure it from removal. It be­came necessary then for a special divine agency to be manifested, in accomplish­ing that glorious event; on which the truth of the gospel and our hope of sal­vation essentially depend.

The space of time in which Jesus had foretold that he should lie in the grave, is in one place, said to be "three days and and three nights;" ^* in other places, the prediction is that he should rise "on the third day." ^† According to the Jewish mode of reckoning the, evening belonged to the day which followed it, and not to the day which preceeded it. [Page 81] The day ended at the setting of the sun; and then the next day began. The day on which Jesus died, according to our mode of reckoning, was Friday at three of the clock in the afternoon. The re­maining part of that day, viz. from that hour to the setting of the sun, the Jews would call the first day of his death. Then the next twenty four hours, which ended at sunset on the Jewish Sabbath, was the second day; and the following night and day, belonged to the third day. The several phrases "three days and nights," or "after three days," or "in three days," signi­fy the same as, "on the third day;" and thus the Jews understood it. For they went to Pilate on the second day, which was the Sabbath, and asked for a guard to watch the body till the third day, lest his disciples should come by night and take him away. It is evident then that they understood the first day of the week, to be the day limited by Jesus for his resurrection; and if he rose on [Page 82] that day then the prophecy was com­pleted. ^*

The friends of Jesus were so far from intending such a thing as the removal of his body, to favour the supposition of a resurrection, that they neither under­stood nor believed what he had several times told them of his rising from the dead. They had so deeply imbibed the Jewish idea of a Messiah, who should "abide forever," that when Jesus was dead, all their hopes were dead also. They had seen that he did not deliver himself from the power of his enemies; but was fallen a sacrifice to their malice; and with the ideas of temporal domin­ion which they entertained, what could they think of his being the king of Israel? As they knew his pious, hum­ble and benevolent character, it must [Page 83] have filled them with perplexity to ac­count for his being put to death as a criminal. As the Jews had gratified their malice against him, it was natural to expect that the same vengeance would be executed on his followers. The terror of this, made them at first desert him; it caused Peter to deny him; and it operated so strongly on all, that when they came together, to confer on the strange things which had happened, they shut themselves up for fear of the Jews. Such was the state of their minds; and hence it is easy to conclude that the apprehension of the Jews, lest these men should steal the body of Jesus, and then raise a report of his resurrec­tion, was entirely groundless. All which the most zealous and forward of them intended, was to embalm it, in the most respectful and honourable manner, on the day following the Sabbath. For this, they had begun their preparations in the evening, and with an attempt to put this design in execution, the morn­ing of the third day was opened. But [Page 84] the providence of God disappointed that design and introduced a new, surprising and magnificent scene, of which they had not any idea or expectation. The particular circumstances of it, I shall now recite, in the order, in which, from a comparison of the four Evangelists, I conceive them to have happened.

When the Sabbath was past, i. e. in the evening following the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the moth­er of James, with Salome and Joanna and other women, bought sweet spices that they might anoint the body of Je­sus, in the preparation of which they employed themselves during a part or perhaps the whole of the night. Very early in the morning, just as the dawn began to appear, Mary Magdalene went from home, with the other Mary and Salome, to see the sepulchre, leaving Joanna and the other women to bring the spices. As they were pro­ceeding toward Joseph's garden, near Mount Calvary, they said among them­selves, "who shall roll away the stone [Page 85] from the door of the sepulchre? For it was very great." It is evident from this conversation, that some of them had seen the stone placed there by Jo­seph and Nicodemus, two evenings be­fore; and the removal of this stone, was the only difficulty, of which they had any apprehension; the guard hav­ing been placed there in the evening preceeding, without their knowledge. But, when they approached the sepul­chre, they saw the stone removed; and it had been removed in a manner of which they had not the least expecta­tion. For, about the time of their set­ting out from home, there was an earth­quake; the noise of which would pro­bably have awakened the guard, if they had been asleep; and an angel of the Lord had descended from heaven, and came into the garden, and removed the stone from the door of the sepulchre, and sat upon it. "His countenance was like lightning," flashing around him; "and his raiment white as snow; and for fear of him" the guards trem­bled [Page 86] and became as dead. At the in­stant of this majestic appearance of the angel, and the terror of the guards; Je­sus, being awakened from the sleep of death, probably by another angel, arose and came out of the sepulchre; his bo­dy being transformed in such a peculiar manner, as to be visible or invisible at his pleasure; and, the same peculiarity at­tended the angels also. It is probable that the guards, as soon as they had re­covered from their surprize, and seen the sepulchre open, fled from the garden; for there is no account, that any of them were seen by the friends of Jesus, at their approach.

As soon as Mary Magdalene, who was the foremost of the company, per­ceived that the stone was taken away, and the sepulchre open, she left her companions, and ran to inform Peter and John, of what she had discovered; and said to them, "they have taken away the Lord, out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him."

[Page 87]Whilst she was gone on this errand, the other women advanced to the sepul­chre, and went in; where they saw an angel in the likeness of a young man, sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment, and they were af­frighted. But he said to them, "be not affrighted, ye seek Jesus of Naza­reth, who was crucified; he is risen, he is not here; behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples, and Peter, that he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him, as he said to you." Having distinctly heard these words, they went out and fled; and it is remarked, that they said nothing to any person whom they met by the way; though probably they met some of their own friends.

After they were gone, Peter and John, who had heard the report of Mary Mag­dalene, came running to the sepulchre. John out ran Peter and came first; and stooping down, he looked in and saw the linen cloths, in which the body of Jesus had been enclosed, but he went [Page 88] not in. When Peter came, he went in and made a further discovery; that the napkin which was about his head did not lie with the other linen, but was wrapped together in a place by itself. Then John went in and saw the same, and he believed, i. e. he was the first of the disciples who believed the resurrec­tion of his Lord. For as yet, the others knew not the meaning of the scripture, and of his own prediction▪ that he should rise from the dead. These two disciples having examined all the objects presented to their view, went away and probably called together the rest of the eleven, to tell them what they had seen.

But Mary Magdalene, who had come back to the sepulchre, with, or soon af­ter Peter and John, stayed without, at the door, weeping; and as she wept, she stooped down, and saw two angels, who had been invisible, whilst Peter and John were there. They were cloth­ed in white, and were sitting one at the head, the other at the feet of the place [Page 89] were the body of Jesus had lain. They said to her, "Woman, why weepest thou?" She answered, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him." When she had said this, she turned herself back and saw Jesus, but knew not that it was he. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou?" She supposing him to be the Gardener, said, "Sir, if thou hast borne him hence tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away." Observe, she did not name the person, for whom she was looking, but concluded that the keeper of the garden must know whom she meant. Jesus then assuming his usual familiar voice, called her "Mary!" In­stantly, she knew the joyful sound, and flew to embrace him, crying "Rabboni! or my Master." But Jesus said "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father." The meaning was, do not now spend time in embracing me, I shall not yet leave the world, and go to my father; you will have opportunity to [Page 90] see me again; "but go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my father and your father, to my God and your God." This was the first appearance of Jesus.

His next appearance was to the other Mary and Salome, and, probably the other women, Joanna and her company who were bringing the spices and had turned back also. For as the women were going to deliver to the disciples the message which the angels had given them: Jesus met them, saying "All hail!" And they, came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus to them, "Be not afraid, go tell my brethren, that they go before me into Galilee and there shall they see me."

Should any difficulty arise from the account given by Luke of the women's visit to the sepulchre; where he speaks of two men in shining garments who gave them a message to the disciples of the same import, though not precisely in the same words, as that which Matthew and Mark have recorded; candour will [Page 91] oblige us to solve it, by supposing, either that some of them saw but one, and others both the angels; who might make themselves visible at one time and not at another, to one person and not to another or else, that different women came in succession to the sepulchre and that the angels, repeated the message to them.

When these women came into the city, they went to the eleven, who had met together. To them they reported what they had seen and heard; but their words seemed as idle tales and they be­lieved them not. This observation must be applied only to the major part of the eleven; for John had been to the sepul­chre, and had observed so much, as in­duced him to believe the resurrection of Jesus; and Peter was wondering in his heart at the things which had happened. On this report of the women, who said that they had seen a vision of angels, Luke says that "Peter arose and ran to the sepulchre." This is supposed to have been a second visit, which he [Page 92] made; but, at this second visit, he saw no angels; he only looked in, and saw the linen cloths lying as they were be­fore. Either with Peter or soon after, some others of the eleven went thither and found the sepulchre in the same situation; but they saw not the angels, nor their risen Lord.

About this time, Cleopas and ano­ther of the disciples departed from the city to go to Emmaus; in which jour­ney they had an interview with Jesus, which completely satisfied them that he was risen from the dead. The design of this appearance of Jesus was to im­press on the minds of these two disci­ples, an argument for the truth of his being the Messiah which had not been considered by any of them as it ought to have been, I mean the argument from prophecy. That they might under­stand this argument properly and exer­cise their reason in judging of it, he did not discover himself at once; but dis­guised himself in the habit of a traveller and entered into familiar conversation [Page 93] with them, on the subject. Having thus in a rational way prepared their minds for the belief of his resurrection, of which they had heard some report; but were in doubt and sadness on ac­count of it, her presented himself before them as their risen Lord, and gave them sensible evidence of the truth of what the women had reported.

On their return to the city, they found that the evidence of this great event had gained ground during their absence, by an appearance of the Lord to Simon, the particulars of which are not record­ed; but neither the report of this ap­pearance nor of his being seen of them at Emmaus was satisfactory to the eleven, until Jesus himself came into the midst of them, and did eat and drink before them; and made them handle him and judge on the most sensi­ble and demonstrative proof, that, the same body which had been crucified, dead and buried was alive again. The same kind of demonstration was given to Thomas at their next meeting, and [Page 94] thus the whole number were fully satis­fied by the most infallible evidence.

It is now proper to turn our attention to the enemies of Jesus, and see what effect this extraordinary event had on them. It is said by Matthew, that " some of the watch came into the city, and told the chief priests all things that were done," as far as they were acquainted with them. These soldiers doubtless told the truth, and probably others of them might tell the same truth to other people. Such an event was an occasi­on of surprise and concern to the Jewish priests, whose interest it was to ruin the credit of the miracle. When they had assembled and consulted among them­selves, they found no other means in their power to do this, but to bribe the soldiers with a large sum of money, to tell this lie, "that the disciples of Jesus had come by night and stolen him away, whilst they slept," and when the soldiers objected, that they should be punished for breach of duty, they gave them this assurance, "if it come to the Governor's [Page 95] ears, we will persuade him, and secure you." This argument prevailed; they took the money, and did as they were commanded. This report became cur­rent among the Jews, and continued so till the time when the gospel of Mat­thew was written, in which their arti­fice was detected, and exposed.

Such were the circumstances attend­ing the resurrection of Jesus Christ; and from the whole, we may fairly de­duce this observation; that if there had been such a pre-concerted plan among the disciples, as the Jews pretended, we should have found them watching for the event, and seizing the first report as incontrovertible evidence. But in fact, it was a matter of prophecy, which none of them understood or expected. The news was received by them with surprise; and it was a long time before they could overcome their prejudices. Their incredulity in such a case, is the strongest evidence, that there was no fraud, no design, no artifice. Nothing but the most demonstrative proof could [Page 96] convince them; and when this was of­fered, they finally yielded themselves to its force, and believed, that they had seen not a spectre as at first they imagin­ed; but the real risen body of their be­loved master.

AMONG the objections which the wisdom of this world hath made to the system of christianity, it hath been alledged that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was witnessed by none but his own disciples; and the credibility of the fact hath been supposed to be greatly injured by this circumstance. It is said, that "the resurrection, supposing it to have taken place, admitted of public and ocular de­monstration, [Page 97] to all Jerusalem at least. A thing which every body is required to believe, requires that the proof of it should be equal to all, and universal. Instead of this, a small number of persons are in­troduced as proxies for the whole world, to say that they saw it; and all the rest of the world are called upon to believe it." ^*

In answer to this objection, I will now endeavour to show why this great and capital fact is attested in this particular manner; or, why the apostles and other disciples of Jesus Christ were the only witnesses of his resurrection. To vindi­cate this part of the conduct of divine providence let the following things be considered.

First. The Jewish priests and rulers had sufficient evidence of his resurrection without being eye witnesses of it. They were persons endowed with consummate art and policy: They were fully aware of the consequence of what Jesus had fore­told concerning his own resurrection: [Page 98] They saw that the cause of christianity would be successful if this point were to be believed; and, they took all imagina­ble care to prevent all which they expect­ed could or would be done to favour such a report. They procured a guard and placed it at the sepulchre, and sealed the stone, to prevent the disciples from com­ing by night to steal the body. There was but one night in which there could be any apprehension of such an event, and that night consisted of not more than ten hours, from the close of one twilight to the dawn of the next. Now, who can believe that a company of Ro­man soldiers, in such circumstances, would not do their duty, for one night? Or if they had not done their duty, who can, believe that they would not have been punished for their negligence? What the Roman discipline was in such cases we may learn from a similar circumstance. Peter was imprisoned by the command of Herod, and was miraculously delivered in the night by the ministry of an angel. ^* [Page 99] "As soon as it was day there was no small stir among the soldiers, what was become of Peter; and when Herod had sought for him and could not find him, he examined the keepers, and command­ed that they should be put to death." This was agreeable to the martial law of the Romans; and can any person be­lieve that the Jewish priests would have behaved, with so much tenderness and delicacy toward these soldiers, as not to have complained to the governor and had the martial law executed upon them, if they had been really guilty of sleeping on guard? The acknowledged fact is, that the sepulchre was opened and the body gone. Had there been really a suspicion that it was stolen, they would have argued, that it must have been done either by force or by fraud. The guard was set to prevent force, and there would have been resistance made, the evidence of which would have appeared on trial, in vindication of the soldiers. The seal on the stone was to prevent fraud; which could not have been prac­tised [Page 100] without connivance; and in this case, the broken seal would have been evidence against them. Sleeping on guard was a breach of trust, and if urg­ed as an excuse, could not have acquit­ted them. But the truth is, that the soldiers were not brought to a trial, and therefore had no opportunity to justify themselves by declaring what they knew to be fact, and the reason of their not having been brought to trial was that no complaint was made against them; nor did it consist with the policy of the Jew­ish rulers to make such a complaint, be­cause it would have brought the truth to light and defeated their own design.

That such a report, viz. of the steal­ing the body of Jesus by his disciples was current among the Jews, is allow­ed; it is equally true, that the apostles knew how it came to be current. Should it be asked, how could such an artless set of men as the apostles are represented to be, have penetrated this secret? It may be answered; we are informed by Luke, the writer of the Acts of the a­postles [Page 101] ^* that after some time "the word of God increased and the number of the disciples was greatly multiplied in Jeru­salem, and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." These priests were probably acquainted with the artifice, the fiction and the bribery which had been practised by their brethren; and upon their conversion would naturally communicate it to the apostles, of which number Matthew was one, who published it in his gospel. The Jewish rulers had no means in their power to contradict what was thus pub­lished. They did not attempt to prove, that the body was stolen; nor to account for its being missing; nor to produce it from its concealment, though they had sufficient power to make a search and suf­ficient inducement to detect the fraud, if any had been really suspected.

The conclusion then is, that they were conscious to themselves of the truth of the resurrection of Jesus. They knew that they had bribed the soldiers [Page 102] to make a false report, and why should they have done this, if they had not been convinced that Jesus was risen? Let any one who is acquainted with the motives and principles of human actions judge, whether, if the charge of bribery and for­gery thus brought against the Jews by the christians, had been false, the Jews would not have taken some method to vindicate themselves. There was an open controversy between the christians and the Jews on that question, whether Jesus were risen from the dead. The christians boldly and publicly asserted it, and declared themselves witnesses of it. And how did the Jews manage their part of the controversy? They contra­dicted and blasphemed: They threatned and persecuted: They did all which power and malice could do, to hinder the doctrine from being propagated. And what kind of proof is this? It is a species of argument which has often been used in a bad cause; but never produced conviction in the mind of any sincere inquirer. Since no other argument but [Page 103] violence was by them opposed to the christian doctrine, we may safely con­clude that they had no other to use; and there is sufficient ground for us to believe that the Jewish rulers knew that Jesus was risen; but endeavoured to conceal the truth and substitute a falshood in its place.

Secondly. It will follow, then, that they were of all men most unworthy to be indulged with any other evidence or mode of conviction. They had discov­ered the greatest enmity and malice a­gainst Jesus Christ, his person, his doc­trine, his miracles and the success of his public ministry: Their prejudice against him was so strong; that they were dis­posed to resist the plainest evidence, which could be offered. To what pur­pose then would have been any other evidence than what they already had? Would it have produced an alteration in their temper or behaviour? What was their conduct toward Lazarus, af­ter Jesus had raised him from death?" "They gathered a council, and said, [Page 104] what do we? For this man doth many miracles, if we let him alone, all men will believe on him. And they consult-that they might put Lazarus to death, because that by reason of him, many of the Jews believed on Jesus." ^* Now would not the same enmity have operat­ed in the same way against Jesus him­self? Would not the same malice, which put him to death once, have attempted to kill him again? Should it be said, that Jesus might easily have escap­ed out of their hands, as he did several times, during his life and before his hour was come; suppose he had, what use would such malicious enemies have made of this circumstance? They would have said, that it was a ghost or spectre, which appeared, and not the real risen body of Jesus: They would have said that the senses of the people were impos­ed upon by magic; that they were de­luded with a fictitious appearance, and thus they would have evaded the proof of his resurrection. Did they not treat [Page 105] his miracles in this manner? These were open and public. The witnesses were so many, that the facts could not be denied; but how did the enemies of Jesus evade this proof of his divine mis­sion? "He casteth out devils, by Beel­zebub prince of the devils." If such was their malicious disposition, how easy would it have been for them to invent some such reason for the appearance presented to the view of the people, and ascribe it to some infernal artifice?

Thirdly. It may be inquired, if Jesus had appeared openly and publicly to the Jews, his enemies, after his resurrec­tion, what additional evidence could we have derived from it? How should we have known that he thus appeared? If the Jews were so full of malice as to try all in their power to destroy christianity, is it probable that they would have given their testimony and left it on record, that they had seen Jesus alive again, af­ter his death? Such a thing could not have been expected. If they had left no such testimony, then we must have [Page 106] received it from his friends and disci­ples, as we do now: We must have de­pended on their credibility as we do now; and what addition could have been made to the evidence from their testify­ing that he had appeared to his enemies?

Besides, the malice of his enemies might have induced them to deny that they had seen him: They were certain­ly wicked enough to have done this. And, what if it had been recorded by some Jewish historian; that the priests and rulers of his nation, had openly de­nied that they had ever seen the risen Je­sus, when the apostles had testified the contrary? Here would have been a clash­ing of evidence, and the proof would have been weakened by it. For, if one witness appeals to another for the truth of any fact, and that other person de­nies it, the appeal is so far from helping, that it injures the evidence very materi­ally, because it will naturally be con­cluded, that one or the other is in the wrong. It is plain then, that the credibili­ty of this fact could not have been better [Page 107] established, but might have been essenti­ally injured, if the apostles had said that the enemies of Jesus had seen him after his resurrection.

The truth is, that not the number, but the character of the witnesses is most to be regarded. If a few men can make it sufficiently appear that what they say is true, there is as full evidence to a rea­sonable inquirer, as if the number were ever so great. And, the case before us is of such a nature, that we could not rea­sonably expect any evidence, but what is given us by the friends of Jesus; nor is there the least necessity for any other. For the further illustration of this point, let it be considered.

Fourthly. That the disciples of Jesus were competent witnesses of his resurrec­tion; both in regard to number and cha­racter.

The number of the apostles was eleven; the number of disciples who kept togeth­er in a body at Jerusalem, was one hun­dred and twenty; ^* and the number by [Page 108] whom Jesus was seen at once, was above five hundred; of whom the greater part were alive at the time when Paul wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians. ^* Had there been any doubt of the fact, by any serious inquirer, during the first age of the church, how easy would it have been to find one or more living witnesses, of whom satisfaction might have been obtained? Suppose there were now, any doubt respecting an event, which hap­pened in this country, forty or fifty years past; would it not be an easy matter to inquire, who is now living that remem­bers it, and was then of sufficient age to notice it, who had seen and heard what was the foundation of the report? And could not full satisfaction be gained by such an inquiry? Would an event thus established by the concurrent testimony of several witnesses, lose its credit with the next generation▪ when all those who had been eye and ear witnesses should be dead? Especially, if care had been tak­en by them, to commit the story to writ­ing [Page 109] and thus preserve the memory of it? And, more especially, if there had been a particular day set apart to celebrate the event and perpetuate the remembrance of it? Let us take an example, familiar to ourselves. Do not we know, that on a certain day, in a certain year, of the present century, the delegates of these American states, in Congress assembled, declared them independent? Should any person now, or within a few years hence doubt this fact, may not an appeal be made to those persons who were then living and acting in that great affair? Or, should any doubt be made a century, or several centuries hence, when all the present generation will be in their graves; may not an appeal be made to public re­cords, or to approved histories, or to the annual celebration of the day on which the act was passed? And, will not this be reasonable and convincing evidence? Just such evidence we have that Jesus rose from the dead. It was a fact, seen and known, witnessed and believed, by persons who could not have mistaken [Page 110] the fact; by numbers, by great numbers of them. There has been an authentic history of it written by eye-witnesses, and preserved by their successors, There has also been a familiar monument of it preserved among them; the first day of every week is regarded as a day of reli­gious rest and worship; it has been, for almost eighteen centuries, invariably kept, and understood to be kept sacred, in memory of that great event. If any person in this age of the world should doubt the resurrection of Jesus Christ, let him seek some other reason for the observation of the Lord's day: Let him tell us when it began to be kept, and by whom, and for what purpose; and if he can give no other, or no more satis­factory account of it, than is given in the books of the evangelical historians, let him be ashamed of doubting or hesitat­ing to admit the truth of that account.

As to the character of the witnesses, let it be observed, that they not only had full opportunity to know the truth and satisfy themselves of it; but it was a [Page 111] matter which they did not at once believe. They did not understand the predictions of the prophets nor of Jesus himself; and therefore did not expect and were by no means prepared to believe the re­surrection of their Lord before it hap­pened. It was as new and surprizing to them, as if there had not been a word spoken concerning it. And, when the evidence of it was presented to them, it was a long time before they were all con­vinced. They needed the most sensible, demonstrative proof: They exercised their senses and their reason in examin­ing it; and after the most full and criti­cal inquiry, they were convinced by "many infallible proofs."

The evidence seems to have been com­municated to them, in proportion to the respective strength and capacity of their minds. The first appearance of Jesus was to Mary Magdalene; the second, which immediately followed it, was to the other Mary and her companions. These women were the most zealous and affectionate friends of Jesus; and the [Page 112] first discovery of himself to them was doubtless intended as a reward for their faithful attention to him in his last hours before his death. But, there might be another reason for it. The female mind is well known to be sudden in its deci­sions: It does not stay to inquire, to com­bine and compare ideas, and deduce con­clusions from various premises; but it seizes its object at once, or in want of it, falls into agony and distress. In conde­scention to this habit of acquiring truth, Jesus did not leave his female friends in doubt, but satisfied them immediately of the truth of his resurrection; and they received it with a transport of joy. Not so was it with his other friends. John, the beloved disciple was indeed the first who believed the resurrection; but he was left to draw his conclusion from several premises: He saw no angel, he heard no voice, he had no actual sight of the risen Jesus; but, from comparing the state in which he found the sepul­chre, with what he remembered to have read in the scriptures, and with what [Page 113] Jesus had spoken when he was alive, he drew his conclusion in favour of the re­surrection of his master. Others had their doubts removed by degrees, and by different representations of the evi­dence to their minds. Thus there was an exercise of reason in judging of the evidence, and the result was conviction and faith. This is the right way of be­coming true believers.

If it be admitted that they believed the resurrection and could not have been deceived in gaining this belief, the next inquiry is, what reason could they have for propagating the knowledge of it? Was it conducive to their temporal in­terest? No, they were poor before, and they had no prospect of making them­selves rich, by opposing the general sen­timent, of the ruling party among their nation. Was it calculated to make them famous and respected in the eyes of the world? For enough from this! Their doctrine was to the Jews a stumb­ling-block▪ and to the Greeks, foolishness. Was there any hope of their enjoying [Page 114] ease and tranquility? No, their apostolio character exposed them to labour and travel; to be persecuted and imprisoned; to endure all kinds of sufferings, to which human nature submits with the utmost reluctance. Were they overheat­ed with enthusiasm? No men were more prudent and cautious and took more pains to avoid giving offence. Indeed their doctrine was contrary to the lusts and passions of mankind; and the spirit by which they were animated, obliged them honestly and boldly to maintain their principles and testify what they knew to be the truth; and by these means much opposition was excited a­gainst them. The fault however lay not in them, but in their enemies. The religion which they preached and prac­tised was full of love and good will to men; but it tended to disturb and over­throw the false opinions, the idolatrous worship and the licentious morals, which had been long established in the heathen world; as well as the formality and hypocrisy which reigned in the [Page 115] Jewish nation; and therefore, all the policy and power of the priests and ru­lers, first among the Jews, and afterward among the Gentiles were opposed to it. In these circumstances, what inducement could these men have to undertake such a mighty work as to preach the gospel to all nations? What, but a full convic­tion of its truth and importance, and a full expectation of receiving their re­ward, not in this but in a future state? That they had this expectation, and this alone to support and comfort their minds in the midst of their apostolic labours and sufferings, we have the testimony of one of the most indefatigable of them, who in his admirable discourse on the resurrec­tion, says of himself and his brethren, "If in this life only, we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most misera­ble." ^*

If the apostles were competent and credible witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, we have only to inquire.

[Page 116] Fifthly. In what manner and with what degree of credibility is their testi­mony handed down to us? In answer to this inquiry, it may be observed in gene­ral, that there is as good historical evi­dence of the truth of what is delivered to us on this subject, as there is of any fact or went whatever, and he who scruples to admit this truth must deny all history and all testimony respecting any past event.

1. There is sufficient evidence from Roman historians, that there was such a person as Jesus Christ; that he lived and died in the reign of Tiberius Cesar, and under the administration of Pontius Pi­late Governour of Judea; that the religi­on which he taught was maintained by his followers; that it spread first in Ju­dea, where if it had contained any error or imposture it must have been soonest and most easily detected; that it was propagated in Rome; the most learned and enlightened city then in the world; that the believers of this religion were despised and persecuted; but, that the [Page 117] opposition which they met with, instead lessening, increased their numbers. There is therefore, as good evidence of the existence of the christian religion, as of any fact or event of equal antiquity. There is evidence that it began in the reign of Tiberius; and there is no evi­dence that it began sooner. Thus far the Roman and Christian histories agree.

2. The books which are handed down to us as the wirtings of the first disciples of Jesus Christ, bear as evident marks of genuine antiquity as the books of Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny and other Roman historians of the same age. They give the chronology of the events which they relate; they tell us in whose reign they happened, and who were Governours of the Roman Provinces, and they are found to agree in these circumstances with contemporary writers, as far at least, as those writers agree with each other.

3. If the evangelical historians have testified things which no other histori­ans have testified, it was because no other [Page 118] historians had the same opportunities and advantages to examine and be convinc­ed of such facts. That such facts and events are possible, no one who believes the wisdom and power of God can doubt; and if they were real, and were transact­ed in such an age and such a part of the world as they are said to have been, by what other, what better evidence could they have been supported than the testi­mony of persons who were themselves eye-witnesses of them? If then, we give any credit to ancient history; if we be­lieve any facts or events of equal anti­quity with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, how can we reject the evi­dence of these great and important facts without being chargeable with inconsist­ency and folly?

The same thing may be said respec­ting the gospel, which Moses said con­cerning the law; "Set your hearts to all the words which I testify to you, for it is not a vain thing, it is your life." Our eternal life depends on the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ, of which the [Page 119] grand decisive proof is, his resurrection from the dead. If Jesus be not risen from the dead, then we have no other assurance of immortality than Socrates or Cicero had, whose best expectations were founded on conjecture and proba­bility; and whose hope extended no far­ther than to the future existence of the soul, in a state of separation from the body, of which they had but vague and indistinct conceptions. But, if Jesus be risen, then "immortality is brought to light," we have a clear and definite idea of it, and a well grounded hope of its certainty in God's due time. To pre­pare us for the enjoyment of this bles­sedness, we must believe in this saviour, and our hearts and lives must be con­formed to his precepts and example. Though we have not seen him, yet we may love him and follow him; and we shall then partake of that blessing, which he has pronounced on them" who have not seen and yet have believed."

JESUS Christ appealed to his resurrection as the decisive proof of his divine mission and his apostles followed his example. They were so sure of the truth of this fact and so fully persuaded of its importance, that they scrupled not to risque the whole credit of their reli­gion upon it. They believed it, on the best evidence; they exhibited that evidence to others; they required the belief of this extraordinary fact as a necessary term of discipleship; and, they had such a view of the connection between this and the other doctrines of christianity, that they scrupled not to allow, that if this were false, all the rest was not worthy of regard. "If Christ be not risen, [Page 121] (said Paul ^*) then is our preaching vain and your faith also is vain." These words fairly imply that if the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ be true, then the preaching of the gospel and the faith of christians are of the highest importance, connected with and condu­cive to our eternal salvation.

Having stated and vindicated the evi­dence of this illustrious fact, let us at­tend to the consequences which follow from it.

I. If the doctrine of the resurrec­tion of Jesus Christ be true, then he was the promised Messiah, the Saviour of the world.

In the same books which contain the evidence of his resurrection, we have many of his discourses, in some of which he declared in the most solemn manner, that his doctrine was not his own, but his who sent him; that he spake to the world those things which he had heard of the father; that as the father had taught him so he spake; and in his last [Page 122] prayer with his disciples he appealed to the father in these words "I have given to them the words which thou gavest me." Not only was his doctrine de­livered but his miracles were wrought by the same divine commission. "The works which I do, bear witness of me that I came from God." These mira­cles were wrought to prove the truth of his doctrine: They were direct appeals to the senses of mankind. Those who saw them, and especially those who ex­perienced the benefit of them must have been forcibly convinced, that the person who wrought them was endowed with more than human power; and must have been induced to attend to his teaching as the most serious and important truth.

If we regard the death of Christ as that of a martyr, confirming his testi­mony with his blood, this must be ad­mitted as a weighty evidence of the truth of what he taught; especially when we take into view his holy and exemplary life, and the wisdom, meek­ness and humility which he discovered [Page 123] in his whole conduct. We cannot be­lieve, that such a person as he appears to have been would have ventured to die, in any cause but that of truth; and if we had no other testimony than what arises from his miracles and his death, yet that would have been sufficient to give credi­bility to the doctrines which he deliver­ed; but when in addition to this, we are assured that God did, by a special act of his power, raise this extraordinary person from death to life, exactly as he himself had predicted, we have the high­est possible evidence, that he was sent by God to enlighten and reform the world both by his doctrine and his example.

But there was something beyond this in the design of his death; something which was prefigured in the Levitical sacrifices, where an innocent creature, without spot or blemish, was offered to God in behalf of trangressors. In al­lusion to this he is said to have been of­fered to God, to be sacrificed for us and to die for our sins. It is certain that he did not die for any sin of his own; and [Page 124] it is equally certain that no man could have taken away his life, and that death could have had no power over him, with­out his own consent. But he offered him­self to God, that he might so take away sin, as that God might be "just and yet justify the sinner who believes in him."

This great event, the death of Christ, and the particular purpose for which he died▪ were foreknown and predetermin­ed by God, before the world was made. This eternal purpose was revealed as early as the days of Adam; it was the substance of the Levitical sacrifices; it was the subject of several direct prophe­cies; it was as capital and essential a truth in the scriptures of the old as it is in those of the new Testament. It may therefore be truly said "that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures."

Among the enemies of Christ and his religion, his death was reckoned a dis­grace to the christian cause. That the founder of a religious system, who pro­fessed that he was sent from God, should be put to death as a malefactor, was a [Page 125] thing which in their opinion disgraced his character and overthrew the merit of his pretensions. This cavil of the ene­mies of christianity had such an effect on some weak professors, as to induce them to deny the death of Christ, and to invent some fabulous and absurd in­terpretations of that part of the gospel history, to remove the scandal, which they imagined was cast on their religion by that event. But the apostles, who were perfectly instructed in the religion of their divine master, were so far from wishing to deny or evade this matter, that they established the fact, and open­ly preached that Christ died, and that he died for our sins; without this, there could not be any foundation for the par­don of them; and without the ignominy of the cross, there could be no founda­tion for the glory of the resurrection.

The crucifixion and death of Jesus then are to be considered as the direct way to his exaltation. "Because he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross [Page 126] therefore God hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, and every tongue confess him Lord, to the glory of God the father."

II. It follows from the truth of our Lord's resurrection, that his apostles were divinely commissioned, to preach the gos­pel through the world. The same books, which contain the evidence of his resur­rection, give us an account of the com­mission which he gave to his apostles; by which he provided in the most proper and effectual way for the continuance of his religion in the world. It was not intended that his visit to this world should be of any longer continuance than was necessary to establish and con­firm the truth of his divine mission, and lay a sure foundation for our hope of enjoying the benefits of pardon and im­mortality. It was fit and right that his voluntary humiliation should be reward­ed with the highest honours, and that he should return in triumph to that glo­rious [Page 127] world from whence he came. But it was equally necessary that his religion should be propagated in this world. His personal ministry was confined to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel;" but he had "other sheep which were not of that fold," and it was necessary that "they also should be brought in, that there might be one fold and one shepherd." Accordingly when he spake of the effect of his death he said, "If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to me." The commission given to his apostles was expressed in the most universal terms, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." "Go ye and teach all na­tions." "As my father hath sent me so send I you." The apostles under­stood their commission in this extensive sense and accordingly each one took his district and travelled over that part of the world which fell to his lot. Whence we may conclude, that it was the will of Christ, that during the first and purest age; the knowledge of the truth should [Page 128] be propagated through the world, ac­companied with the same evidence which was exhibited before the eyes of the Jews. The impartial regard which God had to all men would not suffer him to confine these "glad tidings of great joy" to any particular nation. As he is no respecter of persons, and would have all men saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, so the messen­gers of truth were sent forth to com­mand all men every where to repent

Different people treated the gospel differently. To some it was a "savour of life to life; to others of death to death." Some have preserved some parts of the religion of Jesus pure, whilst they have corrupted other parts; some have preserved what others have corrupt­ed, and some have lost both the name and the power of it. These differences are to be ascribed to various causes; ignorance, superstition, imposture, bigo­try, covetousness, pride, invasion, per­secution and tyranny have in their res­pective degrees contributed to mar the [Page 129] glory of the christian religion and deface the purity of its institutions; but not­withstanding the combination or preva­lency of these causes, yet we may rest assured that as the christian religion has not been lost, so "the gates of hell shall never prevail against it."

III. From the truth of the resurrec­tion of Jesus Christ we deduce the divine authority of the books of the new Testa­ment. The apostles were mortal as well as other men. Had there been no provision for a succession of teachers, nor any authentic standard of doctrine, pre­served and established in the christian church, the religion of the gospel would not have survived the first age; but it was intended for a durable religion; not to be worn out or disused, but to last forever. It was not designed for any one age or place, or for any one parti­cular class or denomination of men; but for mankind universally. It has its foun­dation in the rational nature of man: It applies to his understanding, judgment, conscience, will and affections; and it [Page 130] regards all men equally. It is a religion which has produced converts from heathenism and judaism; from every species of idolatry and superstition in the world: It is adapted to all countries and to all climates: It teaches mankind every where, the same truths to be believed; the same duties to be practised; the same examples to be imitated; the same mo­tives to influence their conduct; and, it sets before them the same hopes and prospects to animate them in doing and suffering the will of God.

This being the nature and design of the religion of Christ it was highly pro­per and necessary that it should be com­mitted to writing; and that copies of what was written should be preserved; so that succeeding ages might enjoy the benefit of what was delivered by Christ and his apostles.

Accordingly we find that there are books preserved and handed down to us, which have been acknowledged as au­thentic by christians of ancient and mo­dern times; by christians of different [Page 131] sects and parties; who, though they have differed widely in their sentiments, respecting some of the doctrines taught in these writings, yet have constantly appealed to them as the standard of truth; and their mutual jealousy has made them so watchful of each other, that no material alteration could have been introduced into these books, with­out being detected, by one party or a­nother. Since the art of printing has been discovered, the most scrupulous care has been taken to have these books correct; and whilst there is a spirit of inquiry prevailing and opportunity given to all, to search, and judge for themselves, there can be no danger of any person be­ing imposed upon, with regard to the sense of scripture.

From these considerations, we may be satisfied on good grounds, that the books delivered to us as the writings of the apostles and evangelists are genuine and authentic; written as they were di­rected by the spirit of truth; which Jesus Christ promised to send into the [Page 132] world after his ascention to the right hand of the father.

It is not however pretended that the in­spiration by which the new Testament was written extended to particular words and phrases, and modes of speech. There is a diversity of style among the sacred writers, according to each one's natural gift and particular genius and dispo­sition. But what is meant by inspira­tion is, that there was such a superin­tending divine influence with the sacred writers as brought to their remembrance what they had seen and heard of our Lord's discourses and of his life and actions; and preserved them from committing any material error in the representation which they have given us of the truths of christianity. Nor is this idea of divine inspiration to be understood as if every matter or thing which is occasionally mentioned in the writings of the apostles, were guided and governed by the divine spirit. It is evident that sometimes the apostles give their own private opinions, on certain points; at other times they [Page 133] introduce salutations to their friends; or give directions about common affairs; as particularly where Paul directs Timothy to bring the cloke which he left at Troas, with the books and parchments; and advises him to drink wine with water for the sake of his health. These things are brought in incidentally, in familar epistles, and show that the apostles were men in similar circumstances with other men; having the same infirmities and wants as ourselves. But these small matters do not detract from the value and importance of those dignified senti­ments, and sublime descriptions which are given in other parts of the same writings; of which there is one of the most noble specimens in the 15th chap­ter of the 1st, Epistle to the Corinthians. No person can read this chapter, with any proper degree of attention, without being forcibly struck with the singular­ity and sublimity of the subject, and the eloquence and pathos of the language; all which together strongly mark it as a discourse written under the direction [Page 134] of that holy spirit which searcheth the deep things of God; which unveils the glories of the future state; and penetrates into those things which eye could not have seen, nor ear heard, nor could have entered into the heart of men, unless God had taught them to us by the ministry of his Son and his spirit.

IV. Another deduction which we make from the doctrine of the resurrec­tion of Jesus, is, that the scriptures of the Old Testament contain divine reve­lations.

If there were no other proof of this, it would be sufficient to rest the truth of it upon the credit of Jesus Christ and that of his apostles. For if it be allow­ed that he came with a divine commis­sion to declare the truth of God, and that he commissioned them to propagate the same truth; and if it be certain that both he and they appealed to the writings of Moses and the prophets, as sacred, au­thentic books, acknowledged as such by the Jewish church; if he and they quot­ed the predictions therein contained, and [Page 135] applied them to occasions and events, in that age in which they lived; then we have the highest authority for believing that those books contain revelations of the mind and will of God, who spake at sundry times and in divers manners, to the fathers, by the prophets. These predictions refer to a multitude of events, some of which are so singular and unex­ampled, that no human penetration could have foreseen or even imagined them; but yet we have the most credible evi­dence of their exact fulfilment. One of them is that great event, the resurrection of Jesus Christ; for the language of the New Testament is, that he rose again, according to the scriptures. If therefore he rose from the dead, then the prophecies of the Old Testament, which foretold this among other great events, were writ­ten by inspiration of God. Besides this, it is to be observed, that there is such a connection between the christian and the Jewish religions, that if one be true the other is true also. They are both parts of one plan, the one contains the shad­ow [Page 136] and the other the substance; one is the letter and the other the spirit. The Jewish religion cannot be properly un­derstood without the christian; which shows the fulfilment of many things, pre­dicted and typified, under that ancient dispensation; as any one may be fully satisfied by perusing the epistle to the Hebrews, written by a learned Jew, brought up in the school of Gamaliel, but better instructed by Jesus Christ.

V. It also follows from the resur­rection of Jesus Christ, that the resurrection of the dead is the only true doctrine of immortality.

The heathen world had no clear ideas of futurity. Some of their wisest men had a notion of the immortality of the soul, considered as separate from the body or of its passing into and animating oth­er bodies; but they had no idea of the resurrection of the body to life. So ig­norant were the wisest of them on this point, that when Paul preached Jesus and the resurrection at Athens, they cal­led him "a setter forth of strange Gods," [Page 137] supposing Jesus to be the name of one, and Anastasis (the Greek word for re­surrection) to be the name of another. And even with respect to the immortal­ity of the soul, their notions were confus­ed, and their proofs vague and inconclu­sive. Socrates, though he used a varie­ty of arguments in support of this doc­trine yet told his disciples, "that if the proofs which he offered, should appear insufficient, it would be necessary for them to search for others that would be more satisfactory." Cicero, though he endeavoured with all the force of his genius to assert the doctrine of immor­tality, yet declared "that his belief of it was founded more on the pleasure of the prospect, than on the conviction of his mind from the arguments used in its favour." ^* The truth is, they had some sublime ideas of God, and of the nature of the human soul; and they could not bear to think that God would create such a noble being, to live only a short time, in this world and then die [Page 138] with the body. Hence they were led to frame arguments and conjectures, res­pecting the probability of the soul's fu­ture existence and immortality, which they wished might prove true; and it is said that Plato intimated his expectation that God would some time or other make this matter certain, by a revelation to mankind. Such were the ancient Deists; "they set themselves to prove the reali­ty of a future state; and caught at every thing which had the shadow of proba­bility; they were sensible of the need of such a doctrine, and gave a degree of plausibility to the arguments in its favour." Yet it is certain that the true doctrine, of immortality was never brought to lights, but by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. By that great event we are instructed, that the gospel hope of immortality is a resurrection of the body from death; and a reunion of the soul to it, never more to be separated; "that this corruptible shall put on in­corruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality and then shall be brought to [Page 139] pass the saying that is written, death is swallowed up in victory."

The gospel indeed does not give us a circumstantial and particular detail of the employments and entertainments of the future state, as did some of the an­cient poets who believed the soul's im­mortality, and as did Mahomet; who framed his system agreeable to the taste and disposition of the people who were to receive it for truth. Divine revelation gives us an assurance and a pledge of im­mortality, by which the certainty of it is established; but its blissful scenes are so transcendently sublime and glori­ous as to surpass the power of descrip­tion, and therefore we are only told "it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but when he, who is our life, shall ap­pear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is!"

Our business then is not to pry into the secrets of the future state, but to pre­pare for it; to imitate those graces and virtues which appeared in Christ, if we expect to have "our bodies fashioned [Page 140] like his glorious body," and to comfort ourselves, and one another with the blessed hope of being "changed into his image from glory to glory." Amen.