RESURRECTION OF CHRIST (rez'Ur-rele shim ov krist).
After our Lord had completed the work of redemption by his death upon the cross, he rose victorious from the grave, and to those who through faith in him should become members •of his body, he became 'the prince of life.' 1. Sicepticism Concerning. Since this event, however, independently of its importance in re spect to the internal connection of the Chris tian doctrine, was manifestly a miraculous occur rence, the credibility of the narrative has from the earliest times been brought into question (Celsius, aped Origen, cont. Cels. i. 2; Woolston, Discourses on the Miracles, disc. vi; Chubb. Posth. Works, i. 33o; Morgan, The Resurrection Considered, 1744). But others have admitted the facts as recorded to be beyond dispute, yet have attempted to show that Christ was not really dead; but that, being stunned and palsied, he wore for a time the appearance of death, and was afterwards restored to consciousness by the cool grave and the spices. Objections of this kind do not require notice here.
The arguments for the resurrection arc ad mirably summed up by Saurin as follows: 2. Answers to Skeptics.
(1) Theft Impossible. If the body of Jesus Christ were not raised from the dead, it must have been stolen away. But this theft is incred ible. Who committed it? The enemies of Jesus Christ? Would they have contributed to his glory by countenancing a report of his resurrec tion? Would his disciples? It is probable they would not, and it is next to certain they could not. How could they have undertaken to remove the body? Frail and timorous creatures, who fled as soon as they saw him taken into custody; even Peter, the most courageous, trembled at the voice of a servant girl, and three times denied that he knew him. People of this character, would they have dared to resist the authority of the governor? Would they have undertaken to oppose the determination of the Sanhedrim, to force a guard, and to elude or overcome soldiers armed and aware of danger? If Jesus Christ were not risen again (I speak the language of un believers), he had deceived his disciples with vain hopes of his resurrection. How came the disciples
not to discover the imposture? Would they have hazarded themselves by undertaking an enter prise so perilous in favor of a man who had so cruelly imposed on their credulity? But were we to grant that they formed the design of re moving the body, how could they have executed it? (2) The Disciples Could Not Resist Roman Power. How could soldiers be armed, and on guard, suffer themselves to be overreached by a few timorous people? Either, says St. Au gustine, they were asleep or awake; if they were awake, why should they suffer the body to be taken away? If asleep, how could they know that the disciples took it away? How dare they then depose that it was stolen? (3) Credibility of Witnesses. The testimony of the Apostles furnishes us with arguments, and there are eight considerations which give the evi dence sufficient weight : The nature of these witnesses. They were not men of power, riches, eloquence, credit, to impose upon the world; on the contrary, they were poor and mean.
The number of these witnesses. (See i Con xv; Luke xxiv :34 : Mark xvi :14 ; Matt. xxviii:to). It is not likely that collusion should have been held among so many to support a lie, which would be of no utility to them.
The facts themselves which they avow ; not suppositions, distant events, or events related by others, but real facts which they saw with their own eyes (I John i).
The agreement of their evidence; they all de posed the same thing.
Observe the tribunals before which they gave evidence; Jews and heathens, philosophers and rabbins, courtiers and lawyers. If they had been impostors, the fraud certainly would have been discovered.
The place in which they bore their testi mony. Not at a distance, where they might not easily have been detected, if false, but at Jeru salem, in the synagogues, in the pretorium.