Page images
PDF
EPUB

Gospel; because it shows that the writer, from his time, situation, and connexions, possessed opportunities of informing himself truly concerning the transactions which he relates. I have little difficulty in applying to the Gospel of Saint Luke what is proved concerning the Acts of the Apostles, considering them as two parts of the same history; for though there are instances of second parts being forgeries, I know none where the second part is genuine, and the first not so.

I will only observe, as a sequel of the argument, though not noticed in my work, the remarkable similitude between the style of Saint John's Gospel and of St. John's first Epistle. The style of St. John's is not at all the style of Saint Paul's Epistles, though both are very singular; nor is it the style of Saint James's or of Saint Peter's Epistles: but it bears a resemblance to the style of the Gospel inscribed with Saint John's name, so far as that resemblance can be expected to appear, which is not in simple narrative, so much as in reflections, and in the representation of discourses. Writings so circumstanced prove themselves, and one another, to be genuine. This correspondency is the more valuable, as the Epistle itself asserts, in Saint John's manner indeed, but in terms sufficiently explicit,

the writer's personal knowledge of Christ's history: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of Life; that which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you." Who would not desire, who perceives not the value of an account delivered by a writer so well informed as this?3

2 Ch. i. 1-3.

3 The reader will find many similar examples of undesigned agreement drawn from the Gospels and Acts in Professor Blunt's work (Veracity of the Gospels, &c., 1828), a useful supplement to Paley's Horæ Paulinæ.-EDITOR.

CHAPTER VIII.

OF THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION.

THE history of the resurrection of Christ is a part of the evidence of Christianity: but I do not know whether the proper strength of this passage of the Christian history, or wherein its peculiar value, as a head of evidence, consists, be generally understood. It is not that, as a miracle, the resurrection ought to be accounted a more decisive proof of supernatural agency than other miracles are; it is not that, as it stands in the Gospels, it is better attested than some others; it is not for either of these reasons, that more weight belongs to it than to other miracles, but for the following: namely, that it is completely certain that the Apostles of Christ, and the first teachers of Christianity, asserted the fact. And this would have been certain, if the four Gospels had been lost, or never written. Every piece of Scripture recognizes the resurrection. Every Epistle of every Apostle, every author contemporary with the Apostles, of the

age immediately succeeding the Apostles, every writing from that age to the present, genuine or spurious, on the side of Christianity or against it, concur in representing the resurrection of Christ as an article of His history, received without doubt or disagreement by all who called themselves Christians, as alleged from the beginning by the propagators of the institution, and alleged as the centre of their testimony. Nothing, I apprehend, which a man does not himself see or hear, can be more certain to him than this point. I do not mean, that nothing can be more certain than that Christ rose from the dead; but, that nothing can be more certain than that His Apostles, and the first teachers of Christianity, gave out that He did so. In the other parts of the Gospel narrative, a question may be made, whether the things related of Christ be the very things which the Apostles and first teachers of the religion delivered concerning Him? and this question depends a good deal upon the evidence we possess of the genuineness, or rather, perhaps, of the antiquity, credit, and reception of the books. On the subject of the resurrection no such discussion is necessary, because no such doubt can be entertained. The only points which can enter into our consideration are, whether the Apostles

knowingly published a falsehood, or whether they were themselves deceived; whether either of these suppositions be possible. The first, I think, is pretty generally given up. The nature of the undertaking, and of the men; the extreme unlikelihood that such men should engage in such a measure as a scheme; their personal toils, and dangers, and sufferings in the cause; their appropriation of their whole time to the object; the warm and seemingly unaffected zeal and earnestness with which they profess their sincerity; exempt their memory from the suspicion of imposture. The solution more deserving of notice, is that which would resolve the conduct of the Apostles into enthusiasm; which would class the evidence of Christ's resurrection with the numerous stories that are extant of the apparitions of dead men. There are circumstances in the narrative, as it is preserved in our histories, which destroy this comparison entirely. It was not one person, but many, who saw Him: they saw Him not only separately, but together; not only by night, but by day; not at a distance, but near; not once, but several times; they not only saw Him, but touched Him, conversed with Him, ate with Him, examined His person to satisfy their doubts. These particulars are decisive; but they stand, I do admit, upon the

« PreviousContinue »