CHAPTER III. THE CANDOUR OF THE WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. I MAKE this candour to consist, in their putting down many passages and noticing many circumstances, which no writer whatever was likely to have forged; and which no writer would have chosen to appear in his book, who had been careful to present the story in the most unexceptionable form, or who had thought himself at liberty to carve and mould the particulars of that story, according to his choice, or according to his judgment of the effect. A strong and well-known example of the fairness of the Evangelists offers itself in their account of Christ's resurrection, namely, in their unanimously stating, that, after He was risen, He appeared to His disciples alone. I do not mean that they have used the exclusive word alone; but that all the instances, which they have recorded of His appearance are instances of appearance to His disciples; that their rea sonings upon it, and allusions to it, are confined to this supposition; and that, by one of them, Peter is made to say, "Him God raised up the third day, and showed Him openly; not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with Him after He rose from the dead."1 The most common understanding must have perceived that the history of the resurrection would have come with more advantage, if they had related that Jesus appeared after He was risen, to His foes as well as to His friends, to the Scribes and Pharisees, the Jewish council, and the Roman governor; or even if they had asserted the public appearance of Christ in general unqualified terms, without noticing, as they have done, the presence of His disciples on each occasion, and noticing it in such a manner as to lead their readers to suppose that none but disciples were present. They could have represented in one way as well as the other. And if their point had been to have the religion believed, whether true or false; if they had fabricated the story ab initio; or if they had been disposed either to have delivered their testimony as witnesses, or to have worked up their materials and infor 1 Acts x. 40, 41. mation as historians, in such a manner as to render their narrative as specious and unobjectionable as they could; in a word, if they had thought of anything but of the truth of the case, as they understood and believed it, they would, in their account of Christ's several appearances after His resurrection, at least have omitted this restriction. At this distance of time, the account as we have it is perhaps more credible than it would have been the other way; because this manifestation of the historians' candour is of more advantage to their testimony, than the difference in the circumstances of the account would have been to the nature of the evidence. But this is an effect which the Evangelists could not foresee; and I think that it was by no means the case at the time when the books were composed.2 2 There were good reasons for Christ's not showing Himself publicly after His resurrection. Would it have produced a salutary effect on the Jewish people? They had rejected the strongest evidence of His mission-the miracles which He wrought in His lifetime. They had accused Him of acting in concert with Beelzebub; and their rulers had refused to receive the testimony of competent eye-witnesses to the fact of His resurrection. What probability was there that if He had showed Himself to them they would have abandoned their unbelief? They would, doubtless, have had recourse to every species of evasion to deny or explain away the fact, and would have succeeded in thus Mr. Gibbon has argued for the genuineness of the Koran, from the confessions which it con imposing upon themselves and the nation at large. But in that case the evidence would have come down to us burdened with the grave objection that our Lord did "show Himself openly to all the people," and yet failed to convince them that He had really risen from the dead. How eagerly would a captious adversary have laid hold of the circumstance! But let us take the other alternative-that they had been convinced, and, as a consequence, became nationally converted to the Christian faith. In that case we should have been deprived of the involuntary testimony which, as adversaries, the Jews bore to the truth of the history, in that, with every desire and motive to invalidate it, they could not do so. By heathen opponents the story would have been treated as the result of combination and fraud. The adhesion of those who had sealed the stone, and placed the guard, and possessed complete power over the sepulchre would have carried little weight. The Roman government would probably have regarded the movement as a symptom of national rebellion, and stifled Christianity in its cradle. Prophecy, too, would have failed of its accomplishment. To the Christian believer other reasons for this seclusion from public view will be suggested by such passages as 2 Cor. v. 16. Earthly communion with the Saviour was now to give place to the fellowship of the Spirit; hence, though He enabled His disciples to bear ample witness to the reality of His resurrection, He appeared to them but seldom, and only for a short time it was a transitional state between the earthly and the heavenly life of Christ. How much more inappropriate would it have been to display Himself openly to the unbelieving world! Sufficient evidence was given of the fact; and that was all that any one had a right to expect.-EDITOR. tains, to the apparent disadvantage of the Mahometan cause.3 The same defence vindicates the genuineness of our Gospels, and without prejudice to the cause at all. There are some other instances in which the Evangelists honestly relate what they must have perceived would make against them. Of this kind is John the Baptist's message, preserved by Saint Matthew (xi. 2), and Saint Luke (vii. 18): "Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto Him, Art thou He that should come, or look we for another?" To confess, still more to state, that John the Baptist had his doubts concerning the character of Jesus, could not but afford a handle to cavil and objection. But truth, like honesty, neglects appearances. The same observation, perhaps, holds concerning the apostasy of Judas.1 3 Vol. ix. c. 50, note 96. I had once placed among these examples of fair concession, the remarkable words of Saint Matthew, in his account of Christ's appearance upon the Galilean mountain: "And when they saw Him, they worshipped Him, but some doubted."* I have since, however, been convinced by what is observed concerning this passage in Dr. Townson's discourse † upon the resurrection, that the trans * Chap. xxviii. 17. + Page 177. сс |