We only propose to examine minutely the evi dence for one of the miracles recorded in Scripture; but it is one of principal importance; for if it be false, none of the rest can be true; or if they be true, they arc of no avail. We allude to the mira cle of our Lord's resurrection, on which lie stakes the credit of his pretensions and the truth of his religion. The Scribes and Pharisees said to him, " Master, we would see a sign from thee." But he answered and said unto them, " an evil and adulter ous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas; for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Mat. vii. 38, 59. On another occasion, the Jews said to him, " What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou dolt these things?" Jesus answered and said unto them, " destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John ii. 18, 19. And to show what importance the apostle assigns to this miracle, he says, " If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." I Cor. xv. 14. If this miracle, then, be well ascertained, it renders all the rest credible, and may, indeed, be considered as the crowning evidence by which the truth of the gospel miracles and the gospel doctrines is attested.
There is reason to doubt if the best accredited facts in the history of the world be attested by such full and satisfactory evidence as the miracle of Christ's resurrection. It is seldom that we have the concurring testimony of four contemporary his torians respecting any one event, of which they de clare themselves eye-witnesses. The history of the world is not written in general by eye-witnesses, but by persons who have derived their information from various and uncertain sources ; sometimes taken up from common report, or from documents which cannot be authenticated, and generally tinc tured in its course by the imagination or prejudices of the writers and reporters. On these accounts a great degree of scepticism is allowable with regard to the commonly received history of the world. But should we meet with four ancient historians who declare that they had all been present during a war or a campaign, and who write accounts of the trans actions agreeing in all essential particulars, and not positively contradicting each other in any, we would not hesitate for a moment to yield implicit credit to the general facts which they have recorded. But, if we except the account of the resurrection, and of the other occurrences in the life of our Lord, there is no event or ancient history which comes down to us thus attested.
We receive, with implicit confidence, Sallust's account of Catalinc's conspiracy, because he was a contemporary, though not particularly engaged either on the one side or the other; we never enter tain a doubt as to the events which occurred in the expedition of Cyrus, and the retreat of the ten thou sand, because they are recorded by Xenophon who was present, and who conducted the retreat. We
have no doubt whatever as to the exploits of C-xsar, because he himself recorded them ; we scarcely allow ourselves to entertain the very natural suspi cion that his statements may be distorted a little by self•partiality. WTe believe the short account which Eutropius gives of Julian's expedition against the Parthians and Persians, because he tells us that he himself served in that campaign. But in all these cases there is only one competent witness, on whose evidence we depend ; and, generally speaking, we arc sufficiently liberal in allowing its clue weight to human testimony. We only ask the same candour to be extended to the history of the resurrection. This event is recorded by the four evangelists who saw and conversed with Jesus after his resurrection. Some have supposed that Luke ought to be except ed. But this is not certain; and his own words seem to imply the contrary; for he says he " had perfect understanding of all things from the very first." Here, then, are four authors writing sepa rate and independent accounts of a wonderful event, of which they declare themselves to have been eye witnesses ; their statements as to time and circum stances agree in all material points ; with such shades of difference, however, as prevent all suspi cion of collusion or preconcerted design. Nobody can doubt that they were amply qualified as wit nesses, from the opportunities of observation which they enjoyed ; and there can be no possible reason for rejecting their evidence, unless some suspicion can be cast on their motives.
There arc only two grounds on which suspicion can rest ; it may be said either that they wished to deceive others, or that they themselves were de ceived. Before we fix upon them a charge of de siring to impose upon the world, it will be but fair to show some reason for their entertaining such a design. That they had no such design must be ap parent to every one who candidly examines their account. They all agree in declaring that Christ's resurrection was an event which they did not ex pect, and that they all doubted its reality after it was first announced to them. This is very unlike the language of impostors ; it shows that they did not believe, or did not understand, the repeated in timations which their master had given respecting his resurrection. Had they been impostors and fabricated the accounts, the best way would cer tainly have been to set a bold face to the business at once, and to have declared that the resurrection of their master was an event which they had, from the first, confidently expected. But their declara tion that they did not expect it corresponds exactly with the idea which they had formed of Christ's character and kingdom. They never allowed them selves to believe that he was to die, and, of course, they could not possibly understand the hints which he bad given respecting his resurrection.