YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

Gift of

YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE

RESURRECTION

OF

JESUS CHRIST

THE
RESURRECTION

OF

JESUS CHRIST

AN EXAMINATION OF THE
SPECULATIONS OF STRAUSS IN HIS
'NEW LIFE OF JESUS'

AND AN INTRODUCTORY VIEW OF THE PRESENT POSITION
OF THEOLOGICAL INQUIRY IN REFERENCE TO THE
EXISTENCE OF GOD AND THE MIRACULOUS
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY

BY THE LATE
ROBERT MACPHERSON, D.D.
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN" THE UNIVERSITY
OF ABERDEEN

WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS
EDINBURGH AND LONDON
MDCCCLXVII

PREFACE BY THE EDITOR.

The first ten Lectures contained in this vol
ume were delivered by the Author at the
commencement of the past Session to the Stu
dents of Divinity in the University of Aberdeen.
The other five, in which the speculations of
Strauss on the Resurrection of Jesus are exam
ined, were prepared without any intention of
being delivered in the Divinity Hall, but with a
view ultimately to publication, and were fin
ished only a few days before the Author's
death. The Author considered it his duty, during
the last year of his life, to engage anew in a
careful and patient study of the great subject of
the Resurrection of Christ, as the fundamental
fact on which the whole of Christianity rests,
and as the point against which its most power
ful and popular assailants have in recent times

Vl PREFACE.
mainly directed their attacks. He became more
and more deeply impressed with the feeling that
all present discussions on the subject of Miracles
ought to be viewed with reference to this
event — the crowning manifestation of the mirac
ulous power of God. He was also convinced
that, while it may be well to expose the fallacy
of the general principles and methods by which
such writers as Baur, Strauss, and Renan strive
to undermine the Faith, it is likely to prove a
much more effectual process to examine calmly
and minutely some leading portion of their so-
called criticism, and to show how utterly unsup
ported it is by the only witnesses from whom
any knowledge whatever of the facts criticised
can be obtained, — how inconsistent with the
very facts admitted by those authors them
selves. In this way he believed the mind would
naturally, and without further argument, be
brought to perceive the groundless nature of
their theories.
He was thus led to think that a work con
taining a distinct statement, in a somewhat new
form, of the general argument regarding the
nature, possibility, and design of Miracles, with
a renewed and careful examination of the
Evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus, followed

PREFACE. vii
by an analysis of the reasonings of the princi
pal assailants of the truth of that Resurrection,
especially those of Strauss (the most import
ant, plausible, and acute in the literature of
modern infidelity), and some others, might prove
a useful and seasonable contribution to the sup
port of the Faith.
To the preparation of a work of this nature
the Author had accordingly resolved to address
himself. The Lectures now published contain
the materials he had so far arranged for the
first portion of his undertaking. The present
volume, therefore, although complete in itself,
is to be viewed as only a part of a larger and
somewhat modified work, to the completion and
publication of which the Author intended to
devote the approaching summer.
In the room of the first four Lectures the
Author had some intention of writing an intro
duction bearing more particularly on the special
design of the whole work. These Lectures,
however, are retained in the form in which they
were delivered, as standing in natural and
interesting connection with the rest of the vol
ume, and as forming part of the Author's last
effort on behalf of his Students and of the
Church of Christ. He also intended to intro-

Vlll PREFACE.
duce a Lecture on the Canon of the New Testa
ment, with special reference to the authenticity
and genuineness of the four Gospels ; and in
this he was prepared to consider particularly
the objections that have been recently urged
against the Gospel according to St John.
After finishing his examination of Strauss,
he was about to commit to writing his observa
tions on Renan's theory of the Resurrection ;
but of this portion of his design he has left
only a few guiding notes. Then, leaving the
region of unbelief and objections, he intended
to conclude with the consideration of a subject
which had a powerful hold on his thoughts and
feelings, — that of the Resurrection of the Sav
iour as the sure pledge of ours, and the power
of that Resurrection as the ground of religious
hope. Such was the expressed intention of the
deceased Author ; and the following Lectures
are, with the foregoing explanation, committed
to the press, in the hope that they may be the
means of fulfilling, as far as is now possible, the
purpose he had in view.
May He whose Name was sought to be hal
lowed by them make them the means of stab-
lishing the faith of His people, and of arrest-

PREFACE. ix
ing in some measure the bold efforts of those
who seek to rob us of our faith and hope !
Would that the work now humbly presented,
with feelings of deep sadness, to the Church
of Christ as a memorial of my father's faith
and labour, had been completed and perfected
by himself!
In the portion of the work that is devoted to
the examination of Strauss's views, each Lec
ture was intended to contain the full discussion
of a distinct topic. This will account for the
unusual length of some of the Lectures.
My sincere thanks are due to the Reverend
Dr Campbell, Principal of the University of
Aberdeen, and to the Reverend Dr Forbes
of Donaldson's Hospital, Edinburgh, for their
invaluable advice and assistance, so willingly
tendered in reference to this publication.
Their aid has, I know, been to them a labour
of love. To Principal Campbell's kindness I
am also indebted for the accompanying sketch
of my father's life and character. W. M. MACPHERSON.

Kennethmont, Aberdeenshire,
May 2, 1867.

CONTENTS.

MEMOIR, ....... xxm
INTRODUCTORY LECTURE. On the Si-irit of The
ological Inquiry.
Introductory remarks, ..... I
Caution' to be used in judging of the tendencies of an age, 2 .
Conflict between belief and unbelief is perpetual, . 3
Present tendency to subject all religious questions to scrutiny, 4
Two opposite modes of inquiry. .... 5
The conflict generally issues in the grand contest respect
ing the existence of God, .... 6
Jealousy of some professed friends of the Faith in regard
to received doctrines, ..... 7
Spirit in which to conduct Theological Inquiry —
I. The inquirer must feel the importance and real nature
of the subject, ..... 9
2. The Truth alone must be sought after, . . 12
3. The Word is the only source of the knowledge of
Divine Truth, . . . . .13
4. Need of prayer for the aid of the Spirit of Truth, 1 5
LECTURE II. On the Existence of God.
No intermediate ground between Theism and Atheism, . 17
Theism allows of examination into the claims of a Revelation, 18
Atheism involves the denial of all Revelation, . 18
It cannot entertain the Evidences of Christianity, . 19
Hence it forms various theories to account for the origin
of Christian belief, . . . . .21
The assumptions of Strauss, . . . .21
Renan's in essence the same, ... 23

CONTENTS. XI
From these it is seen that the present question regards the
existence of God, . .... 25
Caution to be observed in our inquiries on this subject, . 25
The great argument for belief in the existence of God, . 27
Exhortation, ...... 29
LECTURE III. On the Existence of God — (continued).
Widespread character of the present conflict, . . 31
Nature of the difficulties of Theism and Atheism, . . 33
General nature of the Theistic argument, . . . 33
Distinction between matter and mind essential, . . 35
Testimony of consciousness, .... 36
The argument from analogy irresistible, . 37
The mystery of Self-existence, . 39
No escape from this even in Atheism, ... 41
LECTURE IV. On Atheism.
Distinction between the Infinite and the Indefinite, . 44
Its importance, .... .47
The Atheistic Hypothesis, .... 47
A beginningless series of changes is impossible, 49
I . This is declared by our instinctive nature, . 50
2. What is from eternity must be immutable, . . 5 '
3. The material cannot be infinite, . 52
Contradictions inseparable from Atheism, . . S3
Contrasted with the difficulties of Theism, . 54
General thoughts on the subject, ... 56
LECTURE V. On the Evidences of Divine Revelation.
Proof from miracles one main object of infidel attack, 59
Hume's argument, ...... 59
Mistaken views of some professed friends of Revelation, . 60
1. Miracles the valid proof of a Divine Revelation ; their
relation to Internal Evidence, ... 60
2. Miracles possible : in what sense, impossible, . 64
3. Miracles dependent on the will of God, . . 68
4. Miracles, like ordinary events, objects of sensible per
ception, ...... 69
5. Miracles, like ordinary events, proper subjects of tes
timony, . . . . . .71
Reluctance to believe, unduly connected with incapacity to
comprehend, miraculous events, . . . . j6

Xll CONTENTS.
LECTURE VI. On the Mir aculous Evidence of C hristi anity.
Statement of the case of the Christian Revelation, . 78
Its claims to consideration, . . . -79
Jesus appealed to His Doctrine and to Prophecy in support
of His claims, ...... 82
1. Sensible miracles specially appealed to by Jesus as
the direct proof of His claims, ... 83
2. His alleged miracles, real miracles, ... 85
3. His miracles not mere displays of power, but acts of
mercy, ...... 87
(The two miracles of judgment. )
4. His miracles being openly wrought, eyewitnesses
could judge of their reality, . . 89
(Renan's demand.)
5. Eyewitnesses could also testify of them to others, . 93
Their testimony handed down in the fact of the exist
ence of the Church and in the New Testament, 95
The extraordinary claim of Jesus is thus supported by extra
ordinary evidence, .... 96
LECTURE VII. On the Resurrection of Jesus.
Importance of the subject recognised by believers and un
believers, .... .98
Quotation from Strauss to show this, . . 99
In entering on this discussion we must admit that, —
I. With God a Resurrection is possible, . . 100
2. Eyewitnesses may have satisfactory evidence of a Re
surrection, ...... 102
3. They may testify of it to others, . . . 104
Necessity of viewing the Resurrection of Jesus in combina
tion with its moral value, .... 106
The Infidel argument, both of Strauss and Renan, seeks
strength by ignoring this, .... 109
LECTURE VIII. On the Resurrection of Jesus — (continued).
The testimony of the Christian Church to the fact of the
Resurrection, . TTt
Opinions of Baur and Strauss on this matter, . . 113
Unfair treatment of the evidence by opponents of the Gospel, 115
Baur's decision "as a philosopher, not as an historian,'- . 118
Four possible suppositions respecting the origin of the
Apostles' belief, . . . .110

CONTENTS. Xlll
Only two of these worthy of consideration, . . 121
Origin and authority of the New Testament writings, . 121
The Resurrection is uniformly represented in them as an
objective fact, . . . . . .124
This shown by their general testimony, . . , 1 24
Also by special proof ( 1 Cor. xv. 3-20), . . . 125
Attempt of Strauss to set aside the latter argument, . 1 30
LECTURE IX. The various Narratives of the Resur
rection of Jesus.
Preliminary assumption restated, . . . 133
I. Pre-intimations by Jesus of His Resurrection, . . 134
(Perplexity of the Disciples in regard to them.)
II. Examination of the Narratives —
I. That of Matthew (Matt, xxvii. 57 — xxviii. 20), 139
2. That of Mark (Mark xv. 42— xvi. 20), . . 143
3. Those of Luke (Luke xxiii. 50 — xxiv. 53), . . 147
(Acts i. 2-12) . . . 153
4. That of John (John xix. 38 — xxi. 24), . . 155
Conclusion drawn from this narrative, . . 163
LECTURE X. Comparison of the various Narratives
of the Resurrection of Jesus.
General remarks relative to this subject, . . . 165
Views of the adversaries of the Gospel, . . .166
Mistaken views of two classes of defenders with regard to
the harmony of the different accounts, . . .166
Reasonable mode of procedure in this inquiry, . . 168
I. Narratives shown to be at one in respect to the death
of Jesus and the burial of His body (Matt, xxvii.
57-61 ; Mark xv. 43-47; Luke xxiii. 50-56; John xix.
38-42), . . . . . .169
Matthew alone records the setting of the watch : the
reason of this (Matt, xxvii. 62-66), . . . 171
2. Comparison of the Narratives as to the Resurrection
itself, and the events connected with the day on which
it occurred, . . . . . • r74
None of the Evangelists profess to know the moment
when the Resurrection took place, . . 1 74
Visit of Mary Magdalene and the other women to the
tomb (Matt, xxviii. I ; Mark xvi. 1, 2; Luke xxiv. I,
10; John xx. I, 2, 13), . . • • '75

xiv CONTENTS.
Particular circumstances in which all are agreed with
regard to it, . . . . . • '77
The rolling away of the stone (Mark xvi. 3, 4; Matt.
xxviii. 2-4, 11-15), ..... 178
When did the earthquake take place ? . . . . 179
Comparison as to the angelic appearance at and in the
tomb (Matt, xxviii. 2-7 ; Mark xvi. 3-8 ; Luke xxiv.
2-9; John xx. i.), . . . . • 180
Mary Magdalene left the other women without entering
the tomb, ...... 182
Proceedings of the other women after Mary Magdalene
left them, ...... 183
When did the Lord appear to them? (first clause of
Matt, xxviii. 9 is doubtful), . . .185
Peculiar state of Mark's narrative in chap, xvi., . 186
Luke (xxiv. 8-12) blends successive transactions;
bearing of the words of Cleopas (ver. 24) on the
question, ..... 187
Conclusion — Appearance to these women was after
their return from delivering the angels' message,
and after the appearance to Mary Magdalene, . 188
Proceedings of Mary Magdalene (John xx. 1, 2 ; Matt.
xxviii. 1 ; Mark xvi. 1-8, 9; Luke xxiii. 55, xxiv. 1,
10-12), ......
Visit of Peter and John to the tomb (Luke xxiv. 12 ;
John xx. 3-8), ....
The first appearance was to Mary Magdalene (John
xx. 11-18; Mark xvi. 9), ...
Appearance to the two going to Emmaus (Mark xvi.
12, 13; Luke xxiv. 13-33), • • • .192
Appearance to Peter (Luke xxiv. 33, 34; 1 Cor. xv. 5), 194
(State of the Disciples' minds at this time.)
Appearance to the assembled Disciples (Mark. xvi. 14 ;
Luke xxiv. 36-48 ; John xx. 19-23), . . . 195
Appearance when Thomas was present (John xx. 26-29), 198
Appearance to the seven at the Sea of Galilee (John xxi.
J"22). ...... 198
The appointed meeting in Galilee (Matt, xxviii. 16-20;
probably also 1 Cor. xv. 6), . . . 198
The Ascension (Mark xvi. 19, 20; Luke xxiv. 50-52;
Acts i. 6-12), .
Conclusion — Perfect harmony of the Narratives, as far as
they afford us information,

1S9191
192

199

CONTENTS.

XV

LECTURE XI. Strauss on the Burial of Jesus.
Objections to the Resurrection must be anxiously considered,
Strauss and Renan place these in the strongest light,
Objectors must be allowed to choose their own ground,
Strauss well aware of the importance of the subject,
" In his view, such an event as a resurrection is a priori im
possible, ......
His admissions regarding the life and deatli of Jesus and the
belief of the Disciples, ....
His question — What was the origin of the belief in the Re
surrection? .....
His view of the authorship of the Gospels,
His mode of reasoning as to the reality of Christ's death.
Meaning of ' ' tradition " as applied to St Paul's words in
I Cor. xv. 3, 4, .
Strauss's statement of the law regarding the burial of the
crucified, and of the circumstances of the burial of Jesus,
Statements in the Gospels are most explicit as regards the
burial, but are doubted by Strauss,
Without giving evidence, he says it is probable that Jesus
was buried with the malefactors,
Nature of his reasoning on this point,
Probability that the privilege under the Roman law of burial
by friends would be claimed,
Brief sketch of the plan of Strauss's whole work, .
The assumption upon which it is professedly based,
His theory that the idea of burial in Joseph's tomb sprang
out of the necessities of ' ' the earliest Christian conscious
ness," ......
As necessary to his mode of argument, he here rejects both
the plainest statements and the highest probability,
His opinion regarding Paul's statement that " He was
buried," ......
Answer to this, .....
His striking evasion of the question, How the idea of an
honourable burial could arise from a mere wish ?
He assumes that the wish caused the belief,
He gives no explanation of the particular mention of Joseph
of Arimathea, .....
His statements regarding Joseph being a rich man,
The Gospel account shown to be natural, .
Process by which the idea that the body was laid in a rich

20 1
202202203
204205 206
206 207210

213
2142'5
216217

218

220222223224225 226227

xvi CONTENTS.
man's tomb entered into the Christian belief (Isaiah
liii. 9), . . . . . . . 228
Strauss's view of the fulfilment of prophecy, . . 229
Inconceivable nature of his theory on this head, . . 231
Correct interpretation of Isaiah liii. 9, . . 232
Strauss's mode of accounting for the belief that the tomb
was in a rock and was a new tomb, . . 233
The true facts of the case, ..... 236
Strauss's statement regarding the closing of the tomb and
the setting of the watch, .... 238
His assumption regarding the first preaching of the Resur
rection, ....... 238
Its erroneous nature shown, .... 240
His mode of accounting for the " Jewish legend " that the
body was stolen, ..... 241
His alleged origin of the " Christian legend " that a watch
was set, so as to meet the "Jewish legend," . . 242
He declares it to be absurd that the High- Priests should
remember Christ's predictions of His Resurrection, while
His Disciples forgot them, . . . 243
The true explanation of this important point, . . 245
Reason why "the Christian consciousness" must seal the
stone, .... . 247
Strauss's discussion as to how the "Jewish legend" that
the body was stolen originated, .... 248
Answer to this, ...... 250
His argument as to the intended re-embalming : the answer
to it. • ¦ ¦ . . . .252
Conclusion, . 2C4
LECTURE XII. Strauss on the Evidence of the
Resurrection of Jesus.
Two discussions by Strauss on this subject, the first alone
of real importance, . . . , .256
His manner of stating the case, . . , 257
That all Christianity rests on the fact of the Resurrection is
admitted on both sides, .... 259
Strauss's dissatisfaction with even Baur regarding this sub-
iect>  260
The real question— Was the belief in the Resurrection
grounded on an objective fact or on a subjective impres-
sion?  .263

CONTENTS. xvii
Strauss right in saying that the evidence of such a fact
must be most satisfying, ..... 264
His assertion respecting the authorship of the Gospels, . 265
The testimony of the Apocalypse to the fact of the Resur
rection, ....... 266
Strauss's review of St Paul's statement of the evidence in
1 Cor. xv. 3-7, ...... 267
His admissions regarding it, and the natural conclusion to
which it leads, ...... 268
His unreasonable demand that St Paul should discuss the
weight of the evidence he states, . . . 270
He assumes that St Paul did not investigate the grounds
on which the belief of the Disciples rested, . . 272
Answer to his assertion that the Apostle was jealous as to
the admissibility of his so-called "subjective conviction,'' 273
For different purposes St Paul received both an objective
vision and a subjective revelation, . . . 273
His visit !to Jerusalem, and the Apostles' inquiry as to the
appearance of Christ to him, .... 276
His other visit also spoken of in the Epistle to the Galatians, 278
Strauss's conclusions from St Paul's statements — that there
is no evidence to show that the belief of the first Chris
tians rested on any real fact, .... 279
Strauss's ingenious mode of setting aside the evidence of
the Evangelists, ...... 282
His next attempt is to prove that they contradict St Paul
and one another, ..... 283
His failure to point out any real contradiction, . . 285
He attempts to show that John and Paul contradict one
another, ....... 287
His statement as to the place of the last appearance men
tioned in Matthew and in Mark and Luke, . . 289
His supposed discovery of contradiction in the accounts of
the appearances at Jerusalem and in Galilee, . • 290
Twofold answer to his argument, .... 292
The various narratives shown to be in harmony, . . 294
His alleged " secondary contradictions, " . . . 296
Answer to his objections, . . . . .297
Strauss's chief argument against the Resurrection, . . 299
His summary of the accounts showing the means by which
b

XV111 CONTENTS.
the Disciples were convinced of the reality of the presence
and Resurrection of Jesus, .... 301
The conclusion drawn from his argument on these statements, 303
His insinuations of artifice on the part of the Evangelists, . 304
Their accounts shown, on the contrary, to be natural, . 307
Their very silence a proof of their truthfulness, . . 308
Strauss's mode of argument shown to be unreasonable, . 308
His main argument founded on what he considers an abso
lute contradiction in the accounts respecting the Body of
the Risen Jesus, ...... 309
To escape this, the literal meaning of the accounts must
not be explained away, . . . . .310
The real defect of his argument lies in assuming that the
claims of Jesus to be more than Man are false, . . 311
He proceeds on the principle that Jesus, though claiming
to be the Son of God, must yet act as only the Son of
Man, ....... 312
We are bound to inquire whether, in the accounts regard
ing His power over His body, there be anything incon
sistent with such claims, . . . . 313
The alleged contradiction disproved, . . . 313
The silence of the Evangelists a proof of the truth of their
narratives, . . . . . .314
LECTURE XIII. Strauss on the Appearance of
Christ to St Paul.
Strauss refutes the Rationalistic theory of the Resurrection
being a natural revival, . . . . .316
Statement of his previous reasoning regarding St Paul's
evidence, ...... 318
His question— What was the nature of the appearance to
St Paul? ......
He admits that the threefold account of this event in the
Acts of the Apostles tells of an external appearance, . 322
: Difference between the appearances before and after the
Ascension disregarded, ..... -123
The appearance might be subjective, and therefore was so, 323
His charge of inaccuracy against the author of the Acts, . 324
Allegations in support of this charge, . . q2i-
Statement of the various accounts of the appearance 
1. St Luke's narrative (Acts ix. 3-8), . . . 326

321

CONTENTS.

XIX

2. St Paul's first account (Acts xxii. 3-21), . . 327
Distinction in the two accounts as to "hearing the voice," 328
In this address St Paul distinguishes between an ob
jective appearance and a subjective vision, . . 330
3. St Paul's second account (Acts xxvi. 4-23), . . 331
Statements regarding the position of the men who
were with him shown to be at one, . . 333
Reason why he adds in this account alone — "It is
hard for thee to kick against the pricks," . . 334
His instructions, received on separate occasions, are
here summed up without distinction of time or place, 335
Reason of this, ..... 337
Conclusion — The accounts are in harmony, and prove the
objective character of the appearance, . . . 338
Strauss next assails the authorship of the Acts of the
Apostles, ...... 339
His reasoning proved to be invalid, . . . 341

His attempt to show that St Paul's words in the Epistles
to the Corinthians and Galatians support only a subjec
tive appearance, .....
His unreasonable complaint respecting St Paul's statement
of the evidence of the appearances,
He attempts his proof by confounding supernatural visions
with objective appearances, ....
He misrepresents the Apostle's argument respecting his
vision, spoken of in 2 Cor. xii. 1-4, .
He next attempts to trace St Paul's visions to the peculiar
state of his body, .....
"The thom in the flesh" shown to have succeeded, not
preceded, the vision, .....
' ' The gift of tongues " did not spring from any peculiar
state of body, ......
Reason why St Paul hesitated to go to Jerusalem until sent
" by revelation, " .

343
345 346
34734935i
352
353

Strauss's theory to explain the origin of St Paul's belief that
the risen Jesus had appeared to him near Damascus, . 354
Contrary to his assumption, "Saul the persecutor" was
then full of hope, thinking he was doing God service,
and became more settled in this conviction, . . 356
According to the evidence furnished, his whole theory must
be rejected, ....¦• 359

XX CONTENTS.
LECTURE XIV. Strauss on the Origin of the
Belief in the Resurrection of Jesus.
Preliminary remarks, ..... 361
Strauss's hypothetical statement founded on his own previ
ous reasoning, ...... 362
His formula exhibiting "the causes which produced the
appearances " to St Paul and the Disciples, . . 363
According to it, the effect produced on the minds of the
Disciples was prior to its alleged cause, persecution, . 364
St Paul's state of mind and that of the Disciples not similar,
but opposite, when they came to believe in the Resur
rection, ....... 365
The formula is contrary to the workings of the mind and to
the evidence, ...... 367
Strauss's statement of the prevalent Jewish conceptions as
to the nature and duration of Messiah's kingdom, . 368
Actual state of the case : the Disciples till after the Resur
rection held the same carnal views, . . -37°
Strauss's theory as to how the Disciples came to reconcile
the idea of Jesus's violent death with His being the
Messiah, ....... 371
The false nature of Strauss's appeal to Luke xxiv. 25 sq.,
and Acts iii. 12-21, .....
His theory that after the death of Jesus the Disciples exa
mined the Old Testament for prophecies of the Messiah
passing through the grave to a higher life, . . 374
The real import of the Apostles' references to prophecy, . 375
Strauss's allegation that the Disciples connected words of
Jesus respecting His death with the prophecies, . 377
His theory shown to be insufficient to account for their
belief, ....
His statement of the case as between the unbelieving Jews
and the Disciples immediately after the Crucifixion, . 380
Actual state of the case at that time and shortly after the
Ascension, ...
Strauss's next theory, that from the idea that Jesus had
passed into a higher life with God the Disciples came to
believe in His Resurrection as a fact, . . 384
The effect His death had upon them the reverse of that
assumed by Strauss, .... .,05
The results of the ideas that, according to him, sprang up
simultaneously in their minds, . . . ,g7

372

379

381

CONTENTS. xxi
Their assumed mode of reasoning from the records of pre
vious ascensions, ..... 388
The idea of Jesus being an angel begat the belief that He
had appeared to them, ..... 389
Strauss's argument as to the voice heard by St Paul : its
relation to the " Bath Kol " of the Jews, . . 392
His rationalistic explanation of the appearances on the way
to Emmaus and at the Sea of Galilee : his reference to
the case of Duke Ulrich of Wurtemberg, . . 394
His misrepresentation of both these appearances, . . 397
His attempt to reduce the appearances to delusions, . 400
He assumes a state of excitement in Mary Magdalene and
the Disciples, contrary to nature and the evidence, . 402
He makes the appearance to Peter similar to his vision,
recorded in Acts x. 9-16, .... 404
Renewed consideration of the appearance at supper at
Emmaus, ...... 405
By evading all discussion of the appearance of the risen
Jesus to the five hundred, he implicitly admits that his
whole theory is baseless, .... 408
LECTURE XV. Strauss on the Time and Place
of the Appearances to the Apostles.
Strauss again misrepresents St Paul's argument in I Cor.
xv. 3-8, ....... 410
Seeing that on his theory no real appearances took place
on the third day, he attempts to explain how the third
day was fixed upon as the day of the Resurrection, . 413
His artful statement of the difficulty of his case, . . 415
His confused statement as to the body of Jesus being still
in the tomb, and the idea of the Disciples having appear
ances on the day of the alleged Resurrection, . . 417
His insinuation that if Jesus had risen on the third day the
Disciples must have at once declared it to the Jews, . 420
Their delay for seven weeks before declaring it prompted by
a belief that the Jews would not then be able to produce
the body, . . . . . .421
Mode in which the Jews actually met the announcement
when made, ...... 424
The real reason why the Disciples did not proclaim the fact
of the Resurrection till after Pentecost, . , . 426

XX11

CONTENTS.

Strauss's theory of a sudden reaction of mind in the Dis
ciples, resulting in their imagining that the Lord had
risen, .....•• 428
The relation between the Day of Pentecost and the giving
of the Law the reverse of what Strauss states, . . 430
His attempt to set the Evangelic narratives at variance, . 43 1
Their accounts are not contradictory, . . . 433
Allegation that immediately on the death of Jesus the Dis
ciples fled to Galilee, ..... 434
The records prove that they remained in Jerusalem, . 436
Theory of the origin of subjective appearances in Galilee :
based on mere conjecture, .... 437
Manner of accounting for the Disciples' returning to Jeru
salem : shown to be false, .... 441
Theory as to the time of the appearances : reasons why the
third day was fixed upon as the day of the first vision, . 445
Difficulties of this position,' .... 448
That the Resurrection took place on the third day is indis
putably stated, ...... 449
Alleged process of reflection by which the Apostles were
led to represent the Messiah as having been only a short
time in the grave shown to be absurd, . . .451
Strauss's proofs from Scripture in support of his view as to
the fixing of the day for the Resurrection, . . 453
His assertion that the third day was suggested by prophecy,
answered by the fact that no prophecy foretells the day
of the Resurrection, ..... 456
Strauss's theories irreconcilable with the moral character of
Christianity and the sanity of the Disciples, . . 459
Christianity, if resting on delusions, must have given way, 460
Nature of the discussions in the second part of Strauss's
work, ......'. 462
Contrast of belief in an Ideal and an Historical Christ, . 465

MEMOIR.

The Rev. Dr Robert Macpherson, author of the following
Lectures, was born on the 9th of January 1806, of parents
estimable for their piety and worth. His grandfather was
a native of Badenoch, in Inverness-shire — his father a trader
in Montrose. Dr Macpherson was no genealogist, but he
has been heard to relate the pleasure he once felt, in passing
through the country of his forefathers, when a gentleman of
high position in the clan, and well acquainted with its his
tory, pointed out to him the spot they had inhabited for
many generations, and informed him that they were still
remembered for their virtues. Along with something of the
sensitive pride and keen temper of his race, he inherited
many of its best characteristics — veneration, loyalty, great
depth of affection and strength of attachment, with a chival
rous readiness to espouse the cause of the unfortunate and
the oppressed.
He received his early training at the academy of his
native town, under Dr James Calvert, who long afterwards
spoke with affectionate admiration of the distinguished
appearance he had made at school, and particularly of " the
resolute and indefatigable spirit with which he used to en
counter and conquer difficulties." The same energy and
indomitable perseverance marked his character through life.

xxiv MEMOIR.
To prepare himself for entering the University and King's
College of Aberdeen, he became for some time a pupil of
the Rev. William Linton, Rector of the Grammar-School of
Brechin, who had attained great reputation in training young
men for the bursary competition, and profited so well that
at the beginning of the session of 1823-24 he gained one of
the most valuable bursaries. As a Student in Arts, he ob
tained high prizes in almost every class; and at his gradua
tion in 1827, he carried off the Huttonian prize for excellence
in all the branches of study, the highest reward the Univer
sity then had to bestow.
After spending a few years, chiefly near London, as a
private tutor, he entered in 1830 the Divinity Hall at Aber
deen. His course there was marked by the same exemplary
conduct and distinction as his previous career. At the close
of his first session in 1831, he was the successful competitor
for a prize given by Sir Charles Forbes, Bart., M.P., Lord
Rector of Marischal College, and open to all the Students
of Theology in Aberdeen, for the best essay on the ques
tion : — " Is there anything in the doctrines of Natural Reli
gion that would lead men to expect that God would bestow
a Revelation on the human race?"
The estimation in which Mr Macpherson's character and
attainments were held in the University, is attested by the
fact that, while yet a Student of Divinity, he was intrusted
for some time, during the illness of the respective Professors,
with the charge of the Greek classes, and (on two several
occasions) of the class of Natural Philosophy.
He was admitted a Licentiate of the Church by the Pres
bytery of Aberdeen, on the 5th of August 1834, and after
acting for a short time as assistant in the parish of North
Berwick, was ordained by the same Presbytery, on being
appointed Chaplain of the Garrison of Fort-George, on the
3d of November 1835. He had, in the interval, been
selected as one of the two Murray Sunday-Lecturers in

MEMOIR. XXV
King's College Chapel for the session 1835-36; but this
honour, highly esteemed by the young divines of the Uni
versity, his appointment to Fort-George compelled him to
resign. The duties of his chaplaincy, which were often of a diffi
cult and delicate kind, he discharged with great judgment,
fidelity, and acceptance; earning, as the recorded testimony
of a Commanding Officer declares, the respect and gratitude
of all — officers and men — by his exertions in promoting
their spiritual welfare.
While at Fort-George he married Anne, eldest daughter
of the Rev. Dr Mearns, Professor of Divinity in King's Col
lege, Aberdeen, who survives him, and by whom he has left
five sons and two daughters.
After the memorable Secession of 1843, he was presented
by the Earl of Moray to the church and parish of Forres.
Less confident than those who knew him of his fitness
for a charge, which, owing to the peculiar circumstances of
the time, presented unusual difficulties, and perhaps desirous
of a position that might allow more leisure for study, he
would fain have relinquished the offer for a less prominent
and smaller benefice in the neighbourhood. But this retreat
was closed against him; and the result more than justified
the opinion of the Patron, and of the friends who had urged
his acceptance of Forres. Of this no better evidence can be
desired than the following spontaneous tribute to his memory,
which appeared in the local newspaper a week after his
death : —
" The death of Dr Macpherson has excited a very gene
ral and profound feeling of regret in this town, where he was
greatly respected and beloved among people of every class,
and where the memory of his ministry is still fondly cherished
by many.
" He was appointed Minister of Forres in 1843. It
was a very trying time, and he entered upon his ministry

xxvi MEMOIR.
under very trying circumstances. The congregation which
had been wont to worship in the parish church was broken
up and very much scattered by the disruption which had
lately taken place, and which had caused the vacancy in
the parish; and party spirit was running high throughout
the town. But Dr Macpherson was eminently qualified in
many respects to encounter the difficulties with which he
had to contend, and the happy effects of the energy, dili
gence, and prudence with which he applied himself to
his ministry, were soon apparent in the increasing num
ber and flourishing condition of the congregation which
waited on his ministrations. As the angry passions en
gendered by the agitations of the time gradually subsided,
his merits came to be recognised and acknowledged beyond
the limits of the Church to which he belonged; and
long before he left the parish, he had won for himself such a
place as few ministers in these days are able to attain in the
esteem of the whole community.
" As a preacher, Dr Macpherson's talents were of a very
superior order. The subject-matter of his discourses always
consisted of sound expositions and faithful applications of
divine truth — the fruit of much study, of an extensive ac
quaintance with the Word of God, a deep knowledge of the
human heart, and much Christian experience. He had been
the subject, as we happen to know, of religious convictions
from his boyhood, and he was a preacher who could say,
' We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen.'
The chief features of his delivery were earnestness and im
pressiveness. His sermons might present few of the flowers
and embellishments of rhetoric, but they were pervaded by
the burning ardour of a godly zeal for truth and righteous
ness upon the earth, and an intense abhorrence of evil ; and
it was impossible to listen to him without being convinced
that he was speaking from the heart. He often preached
without the aid of notes, and, even when he had his sermon

MEMOIR. xxvii
written and the manuscript lying before him, he was fre
quently carried away from it by the overflowing fulness of
his mind and the fervency of his feelings.
" The duties of the pulpit, however, were the least part of
his ministerial labours. He visited assiduously from house
to house, especially among the poor, ministering not only to
their spiritual but also to their temporal necessities ; and
wherever there was sickness or trouble of any kind, whether
among rich or poor, there he was sure to be found doing the
office not only of a faithful minister, but also of a sympathis
ing friend.
" He felt a deep and lively interest in the education of
the young. Fraser's Female Industrial School will remain
a monument of his enlightened zeal in this respect, no less
than of the munificence of him whose name it bears ; and
one of the greatest disappointments Dr Macpherson met
with during his ministry in Forres, arose from the failure
of a plan which he proposed, and on which his heart was
greatly set, for the establishment of a parochial school in the
town. " He also took an active part in the management of the
provision for the poor, especially during the first years of
the operation of the present Poor Law Act, when his excel
lent business habits enabled him to give very efficient assist
ance in setting the new machinery in motion. In a word,
he was always ready, and could be relied on, to do all that
was in his power for the promotion of any public object that
seemed likely to benefit the town.
" He loved Forres very dearly, and retained his affection
for it to the last. It was always a source of extreme pleas
ure to him to meet with a person from Forres, and to hear
of his old parishioners. Students from the town and neigh
bourhood received much kind attention and hospitality at
his hands ; and he was occupied during the last day of his
life in writing a long letter addressed to a gentleman in this

xxviii MEMOIR.
town, which bears upon it striking evidence of the interest
which he continued to feel in the institutions of Forres."
In 1852 the Professorship of Divinity in the University
and King's College having become vacant by the death of
his father-in-law, Mr Macpherson was induced to become a
candidate for the Chair. This office, founded in 1620 by the
Synod of Aberdeen, is in the patronage of a body consist
ing of the Moderator of the Synod, and two Delegates from
each of the eight Presbyteries within its bounds, along with
the Principal of the University, the Dean of Theology, and
an elected member of the Senatus, and according to the
terms of the Charter, framed in times of public academical
disputations, is filled up by a competitive trial of the candi
dates in the learned languages, philosophy, and the various
branches of theology. On this occasion several candidates
were spoken of, but only two presented themselves for trial,
Mr Macpherson and the Rev. Samuel Trail, of Harray and
Birsay, in Orkney, also a distinguished alumnus and gradu
ate of the University. After an arduous contest of several
days, the choice fell upon Mr Macpherson ; but so strong
was the impression produced by the learning and abilities of
both candidates, that the Senatus Academicus, at the request
of the examiners, conferred simultaneously on both the
honorary degree of Doctor of Divinity.
Dr Macpherson entered on all the duties of his office
with intense zeal and devotion. He had always been a
laborious student and a close thinker, and never spoke from
the pulpit, from the academical chair, or on any important
matter of business, without the fullest possible examination
of the subject in all its bearings, and the most careful reflec
tion. No man could be more averse from offering, in any
capacity, "that which had cost him nothing." His students
had always the satisfaction of knowing that the instructions
of their Professor were the fruit of the most scholarly investi
gation and anxious thought. He seldom delivered a portion

MEMOIR. xxix
of his course without alteration, and frequently rewrote or
entirely recast his prelections, with special reference to the
tendencies of theological literature at the time. He was,
however, far from making any parade of his great reading
and research ; and in discussing the views of others, especi
ally of those still alive and of note in any branch of the
Church, he generally avoided, if possible, all mention of
their names. The Lectures in this volume may be taken as
a specimen of his unremitting activity as a theological teacher,
and of his care to arm his students against prevailing error.
While he neglected no branch of theological study or
instruction, his favourite department was the critical interpre
tation of Scripture. For several years he devoted to Sacred
Hermeneutics much more time and attention than is usually
done by Theological Professors. As a Biblical scholar his
attainments were of the highest order. His remarks in re
ference to the exercises of his students on the original text
of the Hebrew Scriptures showed how fully and successfully
he had for himself investigated the meaning of important
and difficult passages ; and in familiarity with the text of
the Greek New Testament, and with all questions relative to
the authenticity and criticism of its various parts, he had
probably no superior in Scotland. While naturally led in
this direction as a student and a teacher by his own turn of
mind and by the academical traditions of Aberdeen, he was
even more so by the consideration that such studies, at all
times necessary to enable the friends of Revelation to deter
mine its true import, have become in our day the chosen
battle-field of its most able and popular opponents.
After the institution in the University in i860 of a separate
chair of Biblical Criticism, he restricted himself mainly, in
accordance with the special designation assigned to his office
by the Universities Act of 1858, to Systematic Theology; and,
in addition to his regular courses of Lectures, he delivered a
weekly series of explanatory prelections on the Westminster

XXX MEMOIR.
Confession of Faith. The profound studies in which the
preparation of these prelections engaged him produced in
his case, as similar inquiry has often done in the case of
others, a strong sense of the moderate spirit and cautious
language of that great work — even on those topics on which
it has sometimes been represented as extreme — and of its
value as an embodiment of Scriptural truth. While lectur
ing on the Evidences of Christianity, he devoted one day
weekly to explaining and examining upon the Second Part
of Butler's Analogy.
In conducting his classes, he attached great importance to
examination, as well as to the special method of examining
which he had adopted, and in his opinion of the usefulness
of which his best students fully concurred. It was his prac
tice, at the close of a lecture, or when prescribing a portion
of an author for study, to dictate a short series of very care
fully prepared questions, and to require written answers to
be read in the class at a subsequent meeting. His public
criticisms of the exercises and discourses of his students
were always founded on a thorough perusal in private, and
were not only felt to be valuable on that account, but to be
just, considerate, and kind.
His great aim and spirit in discharging the duties of his
high office, and the manner in which these were appreciated,
may be inferred from the following expressions in a com
munication addressed to his family "in name of the Divinity
Students," after his death : —
"In losing Dr Macpherson we have lost both a wise
teacher and a warm friend. We know how deeply interested
he was in our welfare — not only in our general, but in our
individual welfare ; how specially interested in all that con
cerned our efficiency in the high office we aspire to fill ; how
untiring were his efforts, for this purpose, to give us intellep-
tually a firm grasp 'of Christian truth, so that we might not
only hold it ourselves free from error, but be able to defend

MEMOIR. XXXI
it ; and spiritually to guide us all, as the first step towards
such efficiency, to Christ Himself, that, being real partakers
of His grace and Spirit, we might preach from the heart with
that true zeal and earnestness which can spring only from
living communion with the Great Master. Brought daily
into contact with such a mind, so rich and varied in its
powers, yet withal so meekly bowing before the Supreme
Wisdom that speaks in Scripture, with a spirit so devout,
so earnest, so full of love to God and truth, with a heart so
warm and so much interested in all that concerned us, — it is
indeed little wonder that we all learned to love him, and
that we mourn his loss with unfeigned sorrow."
While thus devoting himself to the special work of his
chair, Dr Macpherson took an active and leading part in all
the business of the University, as well as of the Church
courts and of several important charities and trusts. He pos
sessed an aptitude for business rare in so close a student.
With him all labour was a pleasure, useful labour a passion.
His careful and conscientious premeditation of every matter
of business was highly valued, as securing a full considera
tion of the subject in hand in all its bearings, by those who
desired, as he did, to act only for the public good, even when
arriving at conclusions different from his. The conscious
ness, indeed, of his own laborious efforts to determine
what was right or expedient, the clear perception he thus
acquired of the difficulties of every question, and the tense
ness of mind resulting from recent severe and wakeful
thought, caused him sometimes to come to a discussion in a
mood unfavourable for listening with calmness and patience
to the reasonings and verba in labris nascentia of more hasty
thinkers. But in the later years of his life, this tendency,
which might well be excused by those who knew the value
of his counsels, had been almost entirely subdued, and even
when it was most strongly displayed no man was really
more open to conviction. Whenever he perceived that any

xxxii MEMOIR.
one had considered the subject under discussion more fully
than he had done, or that he himself had overlooked any
important element in the question, he would at once mani
fest a candour and humility which showed how much his
aim was not victory but truth.
He had an intense affection for his Alma Mater, and on
his return to Aberdeen, after an absence of seventeen years,
brought with him all his academical feelings fresh as ever in
his mind. In the mean time great changes had taken place.
Few of the Professors under whom he had studied survived
to be his colleagues. With the advancing age of its guar
dians, some good features of the old discipline had disap
peared. New men, a new spirit, new regulations, a new
system of examinations at the beginning and close of each
session, bearing on the tenure of bursaries and on graduation,
had been introduced. These changes, disturbing, as they
did, his old associations, and altering a state of matters
under which he had benefited so much, he viewed at first
with apprehension and dislike. But he soon came to admit
the value of many of them, and even where he did not do
so, he gave his help ungrudgingly wherever it could be of
use in carrying on the new arrangements. It was a remark
able trait in his character, that while showing great keenness,
warmth, and tenacity of purpose, in opposing what appeared
to him an improper or inexpedient course, no man could
accept a defeat with greater largeness of mind and freedom
from rancour — as was shown by his conduct after tlie union
of King's and Marischal Colleges, to which he had always
offered a strenuous resistance. Where great interests were
at stake, instead of watching for the fulfilment of his own
unfavourable prognostications, he would set himself to work
out a measure to which he had been strongly opposed, with
a heartiness, a public spirit, and a singleness of purpose,
exemplary even to its friends and authors.
In no department of University business did he take

MEMOIR. xxxiii
greater pleasure or a more useful part than in the examina
tion of the exercises at the competition for bursaries. The
annual return of this interesting scene carried him back to
the time when, himself a competitor, his success had opened
to him the path of an honourable and useful career; and
under the feeling that every Professor, of whatever Faculty,
ought, according to his ability, to assist in the work, he
shared cheerfully the vigils and labours of each successive
competition. The attention he had paid to the writing of
Latin, and his accurate acquaintance with the structure of
that language, rendered his services as acceptable and useful
as they were heartily bestowed.
From his appointment in 1852 till the union of the Uni
versities in i860, he discharged with earnestness and fidelity
the duties of the Lectureship on Practical Religion for the
Students in Arts, maintained in King's College by the trus
tees of Gordon of Murtle; and after that event he delivered
the weekly Lecture on the Evidences of Christianity, which
was substituted for the previous Lectureships, in triennial
rotation with the Professors of Church History and of Biblical
Criticism. This Lecture, as conducted by him and his col
leagues, has proved a valuable addition to the curriculum in
Arts; and the attendance, which is voluntary, shows how
highly it is appreciated by the students and those most in
terested in their welfare.
From i860, Dr Macpherson, as holding jointly with the
same colleagues the office of Murray Sunday - Lecturer,
regularly conducted Divine service in his turn in the Uni
versity Chapel during the whole winter session ; and being
often called upon for assistance by his clerical friends,
by whom and their congregations his services were greatly
appreciated, he was at all seasons much engaged in pulpit
duty. His character as a preacher has been well esti
mated in the account given above of his ministry at
Forres. Yet he himself has been heard in the intimacy of

xxxiv MEMOIR.
friendship to lament with unfeigned humility what he termed
his incapacity, " from want of imagination and of musical
ear," to impart to his preaching the attractions of style and
delivery, the use of which in engaging the attention he was
far from undervaluing. But if, in his sermons, there was-
any deficiency of gratification for the fancy or the ear, it was
well compensated by the unction of unaffected earnestness
and deep solemnity, and by the intense feeling produced of
the reality at once of the preacher's faith, and of the great
truths he was enforcing. His matter was always sound and
weighty; his reasoning clear and conclusive; his spirit in the
highest degree evangelical and devotional; but his chief
characteristic was the manifest subjection of his own whole
being to the theme of his address. One may wonder, in
contemplating the great realities of religion, that a preacher
should be able at all to think of himself or of what others
may be thinking of him, but few preachers have ever shown
so complete a forgetfulness of both, or have so little in
any respect preached themselves, as the subject of this
memoir. The solemnity which characterised his preaching he
manifested even more in prayer. The reverential awe with
which he approached the throne of grace, the simplicity yet
appropriateness and elevation of his thoughts and language,
powerfully enforced his instructions to his students in regard
to earnest preparation for the devotions of the sanctuary.
The value of his services in the courts of tlie Church was
very fully and generally acknowledged by the public press
after his death. As a member of the General Assembly, his
conscientious attention to business in committees, and the
active unostentatious interest he took in the missionary
schemes of the Church, had long given him an acknowledged
claim on public gratitude ; and his appearances of late years,
especially in the Assembly of 1864, as a prominent speaker'
his manifest freedom from party spirit, his moderation in

MEMOIR. XXXV
matters of secondary moment, combined with the most faith
ful orthodoxy, had gained for him the regard and confidence
of his brethren, and, in a very remarkable degree, of the in
fluential and pious laity of the Church. There can be little
doubt that, had he been spared for a few years, he would
have been offered the highest honour the Church has to be
stow — the chair of the General Assembly.
His position, and the estimation in which he was held, as
a member of the local Church courts, may be inferred from
the following terms in which the Presbytery of Aberdeen ex
pressed their grief for his removal : —
" The Presbytery consider the present to be a fitting occa
sion for placing on record an expression of the sense they
entertain of the great loss which they and the Church at large
have sustained by the death of the Rev. Dr Macpherson, late
Incumbent of the Chair of Systematic Theology in the Uni
versity of Aberdeen.
" By the decease of Dr Macpherson the Church has been
deprived of one who was indeed ' a master in Israel,' faith
ful in the inculcation of divine truth in accordance with her
evangelical standards; watchful to guard the youth under
his charge against error and heresy, whatever phase they
might assume ; and devoted to a degree beyond his strength,
in preparing and thoroughly furnishing them for the work
of the Holy Ministry. Though dead, he will long speak
to the edification of Christ's people through the mouths of
those who carried into the Church, from under his instruc
tions, minds stored with sound and wholesome Christian
views and principles.
" A man of solid judgment in ecclesiastical affairs, delib
erate in forming his conclusions, and well prepared to support
them, and truly devoted to the best interests of the Church
of Christ and the highest wellbeing of our establishments,
while at all times conciliatory in his counsels, the late Dr
Macpherson was deservedly looked up to with respect and

XXXVI MEMOIR.
confidence as a leading member of our Church courts, and
was rapidly commanding for himself a position of weight and
influence in the deliberations of our General Assemblies.
In view of imminent contendings for the truth, the Church
may have cause to lament his removal in the maturity and
vigour of his faculties.
" As a member of Presbytery, the Presbytery have to de
plore in Dr Macpherson the loss of one who at all times took
a lively interest in Presbytery business, and whose knowledge
of Church law and procedure was on frequent occasions of
eminent service in guiding them in their deliberations. And
especially will they miss his valuable assistance in conduct
ing the examinations of students and candidates for Licence.
In this important department of presbyterial work, for which
his biblical scholarship eminently fitted him, Dr Macpherson
ever took a warm interest and a steady part."
Of the benevolent institutions with which he was con
nected none engaged his affections and thoughts to such a
degree as "The Society at Aberdeen for the Benefit of
the Children of deceased Ministers arid Professors," of
which the chief management had for a considerable time
been in his hands, and of his connection with which the fol
lowing record was unanimously placed on the minutes of the
Society : —
" Before proceeding to the special business, the Society
feel called on, as their first duty, to put on record their sense
of the loss which they have sustained in the removal by
death, since their last meeting, of their late secretary and
treasurer, Dr Robert Macpherson, Professor of Systematic
Theology in the University of Aberdeen. Of the admirable
manner in which their departed friend discharged his duties
as a Professor and Minister this is hardly the occasion to
speak ; nor is it necessary, seeing a becoming tribute to his
memory has been already recorded in the books of the
Presbytery, of which he was so esteemed and valuable a

MEMOIR. xxxvii
member. Intimately associated with him, however, as most
of the members of this Society were, they cannot deny
themselves the mournful satisfaction of stating how fully
they concur in all that has been said of his extensive and
varied professorial acquirements, and his unsullied Christian
excellence and worth. Dr Macpherson became secretary
and treasurer of this Society on the death of his brother-in-
law, Professor Hercules Scott, with whom for some time pre
viously he had been associated in discharging the duties of
the office, to the successful fulfilment of which he brought a
combination of gifts and qualities rarely found in the same
individual. Tenderly sympathising with the numerous chil
dren of our manses and colleges who are left in poverty,
particularly when their father is early called from his earthly
labours, he gave a ready ear to every application that was
made to him ; yet so careful was he in administering the
funds under his charge, that with conscientious scrupulous
ness, and at great personal trouble, he sifted every case, and
the Society believe that during his time not a penny was
given but in exact accordance with the needs of the different
claimants. Such an administration inspired public confi
dence, and during his tenure of office the funds greatly
prospered ; and though he had often to regret that the grants
made were far short of the necessities of the case, yet he had
the gratification of being able, recently, to recommend an
addition to the allowances of the most destitute, when in
very advanced life. It was unanimously agreed that an
extract of this minute should be transmitted by the President
to the family of the late Dr Macpherson."
While freely giving his time and valuable services to the
business of various charities, he responded liberally, in pro
portion to his means, to public claims on his personal
bounty; and some of his private deeds of beneficence were
unknown till after his death. But his charity was not limited
to mere giving. It showed itself in unfeigned sympathy with

xxxviii MEMOIR.
the suffering, in lenient judgment of the erring. His tender
ness of heart was unbounded. He could not look upon
disappointment, broken hopes, or distress of any kind, with
out an attempt to afford relief or comfort ; and in affording
either, his delicacy was remarkable. He could not bear to
see any one the victim of injustice or of extreme measures.
He would not stand by and see a man run down. And
while, in University government, he favoured a strong pre
ventive discipline, he always shrank from the infliction of
severe punishment.
Dr Macpherson was a man of great simplicity of character.
Though reserved and cautious, he was truthful and honour
able in the highest degree, detesting all meanness and dupli
city. He was singularly devoid of vanity, affectation, and
display. Endowed with a strong feeling of personal inde
pendence, he would not step aside to seek applause, favour,
or sympathy, or even to justify himself if at any time mis
represented or maligned. The influence and respect he
acquired were the result not of any efforts of his to attain
them, but of the confidence reposed in his purity of motive,
his devotion to the public good, and his tried abilities. The
only reward he seemed to covet, and one which he indeed
appeared greatly to enjoy, was the feeling of having been
useful. While, however, entirely free from ambition and any
strong desire of personal distinction, he had much jealous
sensitiveness in all that related to the claims and dignity of
his office — a state of mind naturally resulting from the some
what changed position in the Universities, in recent times,
of his Church and Faculty, and from the too manifest ten
dency to degrade the greatest and most important of the
sciences— the science of man's relation to God — from the
place it has held in all great seminaries of learning.
His ardent love of truth, and his experience of the diffi
culty with which it is sometimes reached, inspired him with
a sincere respect for all who sought it with candour and

MEMOIR. XXX1X
diligence, although they might have arrived at views different
from his own. While holding firmly and ex animo the
tenets of his Church, and that after frequent and mature
examination, he possessed an uncommon catholicity of spirit
and charity in judging others. He had a kindly sympathy
with honest difficulties, and made large allowance for the
powerful influence of circumstances on opinion. He seemed
utterly incapable of sectarianism, and heartily loved and
praised all who, under whatever name, showed love to God
and man, and a desire to be followers of Christ. Severe in
scrutinising his own mental processes, he was in the case
of others tolerant of all, except superficial dogmatism, flip
pancy, and intolerance.
It was natural that one so scrupulously careful in forming
his opinions, and so unambitious of notoriety, should shrink
from placing his views before the public in a permanent
form. His only known publications, besides his pamphlet
on ' The Perpetual Obligation of the Revealed Moral Law
and of a Day of Holy Rest,' which he published last year,
were two able and elaborate articles in the ' British and
Foreign Evangelical Review' for January and July 1858,
on the Essays entitled 'The Study of the Evidences of
Natural Theology,' and ' Christianity without Judaism,' both
by the late Professor Baden Powell.
While more and more confirmed by time and study in his
attachment to the standard doctrines of the Church, and
grieving over all depreciation of those doctrines, he enter
tained moderate and catholic views on questions relative to
ecclesiastical government and worship, and contemplated
with sorrow and apprehension the disposition manifested by
opposite parties to invest such questions with undue import
ance. He always considered the devotional services of the
sanctuary deserving of far greater attention than they have
hitherto received, and, as his public conduct showed, would
not discourage attempts at the improvement of them, if

xl MEMOIR.
consistent with the paramount interests of truth and
peace. Although his state of health and studious habits prevented
his mingling much in general society, and necessitated his
evading or declining the hospitality of his neighbours and
acquaintance, he was very far from being of an unsocial dis
position. He took great pleasure in the intercourse of inti
mate friends; and although his mind was almost always
filled with an under-current of serious thought, he often dis
played a genial mirthfulness of a very attractive kind.
His habitual life was led under a deep and constant sense
of the Divine presence, 'ennobled by unceasing devotion to
duty of the highest kind, and adorned with all the graces of
domestic affection. It is enough to say that those who saw
him most nearly, and who knew him best, reverenced and
loved him most.
Dr Macpherson possessed a well-knit and vigorous frame,
his only natural defect being extreme shortness of sight,
which prevented his deriving much pleasure from external
objects. But there can be no doubt that he early laid the
foundation of injury to his health by excessive study, the
evil being aggravated by the stooping posture and continued
pressure against his desk, occasioned by weakness of vision.
The effects were manifested in frequent derangement of the
digestive functions, from which he suffered often and severely
at Forres, and in renal disease of an aggravated form. From
the time, however, of his removal to Aberdeen he en
joyed better health, and was scarcely ever laid aside from
duty, even for a single day, until within a fortnight of his
death. But towards tlie close of the autumn of 1865 he
had begun to be seized with sudden and violent attacks of
pain, the locality of which raised at first apprehensions of
serious organic disease of the heart or stomach, but which
proved to be angina pectoris. His sufferings during these
attacks were agonising, but as in the intervals, which were

MEMOIR. xii
often of many days' or some weeks' duration, he was free
from pain, he never intermitted his labours. The Lectures
which form this volume were composed within a short time —
the last of them within a few days — of his death. About
the middle of January last he was for the first time absent
from his class for a day or two, after which he resumed his
work. He lectured as usual on Tuesday, the 2 2d of that
month. About midnight he was seized as on previous occa
sions, and after about two hours of intense suffering, entered,
while yet in the full vigour of his faculties, into the eternal
enjoyment of that rest, of which the promise, sealed by
the Resurrection of Him who gave it, had been the theme
of his last meditation.
Of the many tributes to the memory of Dr Macpherson
which appeared in the public prints on the announcement of
his death, the following, from the columns of a metropolitan
newspaper, is worthy of preservation for its eloquence and
truth : —
" In Dr Macpherson the Church of Scotland has lost one
of her ablest scholars and most learned and valuable theo
logians. In neither capacity, indeed, was he so widely
known as he deserved to be ; for his modesty, his distrust
of himself, and his great conscientiousness, prevented his
coming before the public with such works as he was well
able to produce. It was by little else than his appearances
in Church courts that he was generally known, and so far,
at least, appreciated. In the Presbytery and Synod of
Aberdeen, and in the General Assembly, his views were
listened to with the greatest deference ; and in private con
sultations on points of difficulty, it may be doubted if any
Minister of the Church exercised a greater influence. He
was especially remarkable for the singular amount of con
scientious labour which he brought to every department of
his work, and to every inquiry which engaged him. He
spared no pains to reach the truth, and it is to be feared
d

xiii MEMOIR.
that he often injured his health by the anxious consideration
which he devoted, both by night and day, to any topic that
seemed to him important. This part of his character was
especially displayed in his later years, owing to the state of
theological opinion around him. He did not rest simply in
the views which he had adopted when a younger man. He
set himself to examine them anew ; and it was characteristic
of him that, if he did not modify them in any material degree,
he gained a deeper sense of the right and value of free
inquiry ; while the charity which was naturally characteristic
of him was greatly enlarged, and became ¦ a settled and
experimental principle of his life. Few men have felt more
keenly the value of what they believed to be the truth, or
have held it with a firmer grasp ; but still fewer who have
done so have been able to combine with this an equally
generous spirit of toleration to those who differed from them.
It would be easy to find partial illustrations of what has now
been said in the position taken up of late years by Dr Mac
pherson in the General Assembly, but we forbear speaking
of that. He was not a party man, and it is not a party but
the Church at large that has to mourn his death. We have
already said that Dr Macpherson's valuable qualities were
hardly of the kind which procures public fame. It was in
private that they were best seen. In the bosom of his
family, in the circle of his friends, in quiet conversation on
all the most important topics of the day, he gained for him
self an amount of love and confidence and esteem which it
is the privilege of few to enjoy. He fully deserved it all;
and however truly it may be said that his loss is a public
one, it is even more to his praise to say that his personal
character and labours were a constant lesson to all who' had
either been his pupils or who personally knew him." ,
University of Aberdeen,
30M April 1867.

THE

RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

ETC.

INTRODUCTORY LECTURE.

ON THE SPIRIT OF THEOLOGICAL INQUIRY.

Gentlemen, — You appear here not merely to engage
in the study of theological science, but specially to
prepare yourselves for the office of the Christian min
istry. And though it is not my intention at present
to dwell particularly on the nature, importance, and
responsibilities of that office, I would yet remind you
that it is one of divine institution ; that it is de
signed by the Great Head of the Church to be the
means of maintaining and spreading abroad through
out the world the knowledge of His Gospel, and of
building up His people on their most holy faith ;
and that as no office can in itself be more dignified,
so there is none to which greater or more solemn re
sponsibilities can attach, and for the proper discharge
of which more anxious preparation ought to be made.
Assuming, as I am bound to do, that you yourselves
believe in the Lord Jesus, and that it is after the most
A

2 INTRODUCTORY LECTURE.
serious consideration of its importance that you have
been led to form the resolution to devote your
selves to the work of the Christian ministiy- , I would
in one word exhort and encourage you to persevere
in your resolution, and to apply yourselves with
energv to the various studies in which you will
have to engage, in order that, with the blessing of
God on your labours, you may in some measure be
prepared for the office to which you aspire. Let
even,- one oi you aim at as high a state of pre
paration as vou can possibly reach : and whilst you
devote yourselves to the acquisition of extensive
and accurate knowledge of theological truth, aim
also at the attainment of those moral qualifications,
without which all knowledge, however extensive and
accurate, would be in vain. Cultivate assiduously
in your own minds and in your own lives those dis
positions and habits which alone become the Gos
pel, and which will manifest to yourselves as well
as to others the reality and strength of your faith.
Live habitually as the followers of tlie Lord Jesus.
and daily implore that grace which alone can direct
and uphold us in the way of truth and life.
My design on the present occasion is to draw
your special attention to some important points con
nected with the stud}- of Theology itself, and, in
particular, to certain points suggested by the manifest
tendencies ot the age in which we are living. But I
must premise that we are prone to take an exag
gerated view of what are called the tendencies of an
age ; the fact being, as the histoiy- of every age shows,
that there always exist to a greater or less extent
those very tendencies which we are prone to regard

ON THE SPIRIT OF THEOLOGICAL INQUIRY. 3
as peculiar to some one age. The manner, indeed, in
which opposing tendencies discover themselves, varies
in certain features with the circumstances of different
ages ; and the conflict may appear keener and more
determined in one age than in another, but the essen
tial character of these tendencies is in all ages the
same ; and, what also merits attention, our estimate
of the real state of things in any one age, and especi
ally in our own, is in no slight degree affected by our
own peculiar views and dispositions. Let me guard
you, then, against forming hasty opinions on such a
subject as this. One man, looking at certain manifes
tations in our own day of what cannot justly be other
wise characterised than as the spirit of Infidelity, if
not of Atheism, and overlooking other manifestations
which bear witness to the spirit of Faith, is apt to
represent this age as exhibiting a peculiar tendency
towards all that is opposed to religious belief, if not
also to sound morals ; whilst another man, taking a
different view of the state of matters, is disposed to
draw quite a different picture, and to represent the
age as one in which pure religion and sound morals
are on the whole making decided progress. Now, it
appears to me that we are not called upon, and are
scarcely qualified, to determine this question. There
are undoubtedly circumstances that characterise our
age, which, should we fix our attention on them alone,
might compel us to adopt the former view ; but there
are also circumstances not less manifest, which, if
they also were solely looked at, might encourage us
to embrace the latter and more favourable view.
The truth is, that belief and unbelief, truth and false
hood, holiness and sin, carry on a perpetual war in

4 INTRODUCTORY LECTURE.
our world, and that the servants of God have ever to
fight the fight of faith. In our own age, as well as in
preceding ages, these two opposing forces are strug
gling for the mastery. The weapons employed on
the side of infidelity may vary a little in their struc
ture from those formerly employed ; but even in
respect to these weapons, that may be said which is
applicable to so many other devices of the human
heart, — there is nothing essentially new. As for the
servants of God, the weapons of which in all ages
they can avail themselves are ever the same — sound
reason and the Word of God — weapons which have
stood the test in all former conflicts, and which can
never fail to gain the victory. And it becomes us
specially to remember that the cause of truth and
religion, though in one sense intrusted to human
agency, is conducted and maintained by Him who
reigneth over all, and whose counsel, we know, standeth
for ever. Whilst, then, we endeavour to take a com
prehensive view of the tendencies of our age, over
looking neither those which seem unfavourable, nor
those which may appear favourable, to the stability
and progress of religious belief, let us have faith in
God and in the goodness of His cause, and devote
ourselves in all earnestness to present duty, resting
assured that, in spite of all opposition, the cause of
God must and will prosper, and that He will compel
all opposition to be finally subservient to the ad
vancement of His kingdom ; for " He maketh even the
wrath of man to praise Him, and the remainder of
that wrath He will restrain."
It is, T would now observe, one of the marked ten
dencies of our times to subject all religious questions

ON THE SPIRIT OF THEOLOGICAL INQUIRY. 5
— even the primary or fundamental truths of religion
— to severe and prolonged, not to say sceptical, scru
tiny. Truth, of whatever order it may be, can never
suffer from inquiry. Religious truth, like all other
truth, invites such inquiry ; it rests its claims on our
belief upon grounds which are susceptible of investi
gation, and it calls on every man to examine these
grounds, and to build his faith on what is solid and en
during. It is also the case that every man must, with
perfect freedom, conduct this inquiry for himself, so that
his faith may possess the character of a well-founded,
a reasonable conviction. The knowledge of one man
or of one age cannot, without the expense of thought,
become the knowledge of another man or of another
age. Hence the necessity for inquiry must always con
tinue; and it may be a favourable or an unfavourable
symptom of a man or of an age when religious truth
is made a prominent subject of investigation, according
as the spirit with which the investigation is conducted
is essentially religious or irreligious. Two men, we
shall suppose, set to work to examine the claims of
Christianity. One of these terminates his inquiry in
the conviction that it possesses no valid claims to a
divine origin, but that its origin can be accounted for
by reference to the circumstances of the period when
it appeared ; whilst the other expresses it as his con
viction that Christianity possesses valid claims, and that
its origin can be traced only to a direct interposition
of the living God. Both these men, we shall further
suppose, make known to the world, not merely the
results of their respective inquiries, but also the modes
in which they carried on their investigations. Now, I
am convinced that, supposing we were to peruse these

6 INTRODUCTORY LECTURE.
two different inquiries, terminating as they do in
directly opposite results, we should discover that the
one man commenced his inquiry with the assumption,
expressed or unexpressed, of some principle or prin
ciples which exerted their influence on his whole mode
of thought, and contained in grentio the very conclu
sion at which he arrived ; and that the other man also
set out with certain principles in his mind, which,
though not necessarily embracing his conclusion, yet
led him, step by step, to discern the validity, and to
feel the force, of the Christian evidences. We shall
afterwards return to this subject.
Meantime we are drawing your attention to a
marked feature of our age, in stating the fact that all
religious questions or truths seem to be at present
once more thrown into the crucible, to undergo a fiery
trial. Not merely the truths of revealed religion, but
those truths which constitute what is termed natural
religion, are subjected to this trial. Not that former
ages have not had experience of the same ordeal.
Far otherwise : for in all ages the contest between
belief and unbelief in revealed religion has generally
issued in the contest between belief and unbelief in
natural religion. The grand contest is ever one in
essence — belief or unbelief in a Supreme Personal God.
Now, it is sad to reflect that a contest such as this
should be continually arising in our world ; that, age
after age, not only should no progress seem to be
made, but that the conflict should be perpetually
waged about the very foundation itself of all religious
belief; and that, instead of enjoying the privilege of
enlarged knowledge, and of devoting our energies to
the spread of this knowledge throughout the world,

ON THE SPIRIT OF THEOLOGICAL INQUIRY. 7
we should be called every now and then to resist
attempts, unceasingly renewed, to undermine the very
foundation of our faith. But such is the state of
things, and we must submit to the warfare to which
the course of events in God's providence summons us.
This tendency of the age to subject religious truth
of every kind to severe and prolonged discussion, is to
be found not only among the professed opponents of
religion, but also among its professed friends. There
is a manifest jealousy among the latter of all those
doctrines which have come down to us as the received
doctrines of former ages. If the doctrines themselves
are too evidently the doctrines of Scripture to be sum
marily questioned, then some fault or other is found
with the manner in which these have been expressed ;
the whole subject is spoken of as mere traditional
theology; and those who value and defend these ex
positions of our common faith are represented as sur
rendering their intellectual and moral freedom, and
binding themselves by the fetters forged by others in
bygone times. It is, indeed, doubtful whether those
who thus speak have for themselves undergone the
severe task of real investigation ; or whether, as is also
a marked feature of this as of some former ages, they
are merely giving expression to a peculiar spirit of
their own, which seeks to exalt itself by the easier
task of depreciating others. But it is not for us to sit
in judgment on those to whom we are here referring.
It is right, however, in us to observe that, even
among the professed friends of religion, there is
scarcely a doctrine peculiar to Christianity which is
not once more subjected to criticism, and that an ex
treme jealousy is manifested of every received doc-

8 INTRODUCTORY LECTURE.
trine, on the sole ground that it is the received doc
trine — just as if the Bible were such a book that no
doctrine whatever could be drawn from it to be held
by the Christian Church of all ages as fixed and perma
nent. Now, you will not fail to observe that we regard
it not as a bad symptom when religious truth is made
the subject of inquiry — I would add (only, however, in
the true sense of the word), oifree inquiry — of inquiry
unprejudiced, impartial, solemn, and earnest. Such in
quiry is due to the subject — the noblest on which it is
possible for the human mind to be engaged— and due
to ourselves ; for religious truth involves our highest
possible interests. Such an inquiry, also, is a most
salutary exercise for the human mind. It strengthens,
enlarges, and elevates all its powers, raising it above
the consideration of merely material and visible
things to the contemplation of those objects which
are spiritual, invisible, and everlasting. To such an
inquiry, conducted in the spirit to which we shall im
mediately refer, we earnestly exhort you to devote
yourselves. But what we regard as a bad symptom
is that captious, and, as it appears to us, half-scep
tical spirit in which, under the plea of freedom from
the influence of all hitherto received expositions of
doctrine, certain persons profess to conduct this in
quiry. I am anticipating, however, what I wish to say
respecting the spirit in which all theological study
should be conducted. And though I have really
nothing new to address to you on this subject, yet I
trust you will bear with me whilst I say a word or
two by way of exhortation. I do not mean to give a
formal discussion of the subject, as if you were wholly

ON ,THE SPIRIT OF THEOLOGICAL INQUIRY. 9
in ignorance respecting it, but to restrict my remarks
to a few leading points.
1. Theological inquiry should be conducted under
a profound conviction of the importance and in
comprehensible nature of the subject.
I need not dwell on a point so obvious as this,
for who can deliberately deny the vast importance
of religious truth, or affirm that this truth does not
exceed the finite grasp of the mind of man ? Our
highest interests are essentially connected with reli
gious truth, and therefore to attain to a correct know
ledge of it is of the highest moment. Hence it
becomes us, in all religious inquiries, to cherish a
solemn and earnest frame of mind — a frame of mind
in some measure corresponding to the nature of the
subject about which we are inquiring. Further, all
religious questions having a necessary connection
with the infinite and incomprehensible God, can be
apprehended by us only partially and imperfectly.
We cannot find out God unto perfection. Hence,
whilst we endeavour to know the truth so far as our
finite minds can attain to it, it becomes us ever to
remember that our highest knowledge can be only
partial and imperfect knowledge ; and that, in our
present state of existence, we must rest contented
with such knowledge. We are not to reject what we
do know, simply because there is much which as yet
we cannot know. A deep sense of our comparative
ignorance will keep us humble, and cause us to
restrict our inquiries within the sphere which lies
open to us.
Now, it is most painful to witness the tokens of an
opposite spirit in not a few discussions of the present

10 INTRODUCTORY LECTURE.
day on religious subjects. Not only the peculiar
doctrines of revelation, but even the very fundamental
truths of natural religion, are often discussed in a
spirit which seems to attach no importance whatever
to these doctrines or truths, and which also seems to
assume that they may be discussed and determined
with as much ease as matters which lie wholly within
our grasp. This flippant and self-conceited spirit is
hostile to all due inquiry, and therefore to the attain
ment of real and exact knowledge. The person who
enters on the inquiry with such a spirit may exhibit
acuteness, and appear to see much farther than others
into the great secrets of the universe ; but it is scarcely
possible for him, in such a frame of mind, to discern
the reality of spiritual things, and to aim at a correct
knowledge of these things so far as they have been
revealed to us. It is not the knowledge of divine
truth that he is aiming at, but the exhibition of self —
his own glory is the thing which he is seeking : self
is the idol which he is worshipping ; and therefore
the highest truths, however important or incompre
hensible, must all give way to this magnifying of
himself. Nor is it inconsistent with this spirit to
assume the appearance of coolness and impartiality,
and to make strong professions that truth is the sole
object aimed at. Quite otherwise : for it is often by
assuming this appearance and reiterating such pro
fessions that the end aimed at is sought to be gained.
Now, what we maintain is this, that all religious
inquiries should be conducted not merely with a pro
fession that truth is the object sought — for who indeed
would make any other profession ? — but in such a
manner as, apart from all profession whatever, will of

ON THE SPIRIT OF THEOLOGICAL INQUIRY. II
itself show that the inquirer is impressed with a pro
found conviction of the importance and incompre
hensible nature of the subject under his investigation.
Are the evidences of revealed religion to be inquired
into ? Then let them be investigated with all possi
ble scrutiny, with a fixed determination to know their
character and worth. But let them not be treated as
if the subject were one of no interest whatever to the
human race, or as if they merely furnished matter for
a display of intellectual acuteness. Are the peculiar
doctrines of Christianity the subject of investigation ?
Then let these be inquired into with all possible
freedom from the influence of mere human opinion :
but let the aim be to know what these doctrines really
are, as they are laid down in, or necessarily drawn
from, the only infallible standard of truth ; and let
them not be discussed as if it fell to us to ascertain
what all who have gone before us had failed to learn,
Are the fundamental truths of all religion made the
subject of inquiry ? Then it surely behoves us to
approach them with all possible reverence ; for what
other feeling should pervade the mind of that man
who ventures to inquire whether there is a God or
not ? As our faith, even in the reality of the divine
existence, must rest on solid ground, so even this
subject is one of legitimate inquiry; and the Divine
Being Himself will not, we apprehend, be offended
with us, His rational offspring, when we reverently
and humbly inquire into the reasons which He Him
self has given to make known to us the reality of His
existence. But such an inquiry, conducted in this
reverential and humble spirit, is very different from
that upon which he enters whose object is simply

12 INTRODUCTORY LECTURE.
to display with what acuteness he can perplex all
human reasoning even on so fundamental a truth as
this. In short, not to dwell longer on this part of
our subject, all sound theological inquiry is essentially
dependent on a right frame of mind. Endeavour,
then, always to enter upon it in such a spirit as will
be favourable to the attainment of truth, in a reve
rential, humble, and earnest spirit, for it is such a
spirit which alone it becomes us to cherish, and which
alone will lead us to the knowledge of the truth.
2. Let it be the truth alone which you seek to
know. After what has been said, I need do little more
than state this point. It is only truth on any sub
ject that constitutes knowledge. Falsehood or error
constitutes the very opposite. It is ignorance, and
worse than mere ignorance. As rational beings we
are possessed of faculties which, when duly exercised,
enable us to ascertain what is real and true ; and
there is in our nature an instinctive desire to know
what is real and true. It is necessary for us to have
confidence in these faculties, and to be influenced
by this instinctive desire to ascertain truth. We are
not to allow ourselves to fall into a distrust of our
rational nature, as if it were in itself insufficient to
enable us to conduct our inquiries, nor are we to
imagine that our instinctive desire to know what is
true is vain, because truth is unattainable. This is
scepticism ; and such a view of our nature would put
an end at once to all inquiry whatever, even in the
most common affairs of life. But it is generally in
reference to religion — to spiritual truth — that such
scepticism manifests itself. Now, religious or spiritual

ON THE SPIRIT OF THEOLOGICAL INQUIRY. 1 3
truth, like truth of every other kind, is open to in
quiry. We may be unable to know it to the same
extent that we are able to know some other kinds of
truth. But that is a question of the extent to which
our knowledge may reach, and does not affect the
main point at issue. Is religious truth to any extent
within the sphere of our knowledge ? This is the
essential question, and to this question there can be
only one just answer. Man feels himself compelled,
by the very constitution of his nature, to inquire into
what is called religious truth ; and however slight
may be the knowledge to which he is capable of
attaining, he is bound to use his faculties in order
that as far as possible he may know the truth. And
since the Supreme Being has, as we have good
grounds for believing, revealed unto us, His ignorant
creatures, the knowledge of Himself, so far as He has
deemed it necessary for His own glory and for our
good, we are also bound to apply ourselves to the
attainment of this divine knowledge, in the full con
fidence that the truth is not now far from us, but is
presented to us in that Word which is emphatically
the Word of Truth, and which is to be seen and read
of all men.
3. This leads me, in the next place, to exhort
you to study with all earnestness this divine Word
as the only source whence you are to draw your know
ledge of divine truth.
Whilst you do not undervalue the labours of other
inquirers into religious truth, but thankfully avail
yourselves of their aid, ever remember that it is to
the Word of God alone that we must have recourse
in order to know the mind of God. Even received

14 INTRODUCTORY LECTURE.
expositions of revealed truth — the creeds or confes
sions of Christian churches— are always to be regarded
as only helps to our right understanding of the truth
itself. Whatever value such documents may possess,
it is derived solely from their agreement with that
Word which is the only infallible standard of faith
and practice ; and they are to be valued by us only
in so far as they express the truth of Holy Scripture.
In your theological studies, therefore, you are to have
it ever present to your mind that the written Word
is to be your guide — the lamp to your feet and
the light to your path. And you are always to
study this Word with the anxious desire to know
what it would have you to believe, and with the
immovable resolution to follow wherever it directs
your steps. Only you must study it reverently,
humbly, and thoroughly — not coming to it with pre
conceived notions of your own, but approaching it
in a teachable frame of mind, that you may receive
even as little children the things which it reveals con
cerning the kingdom of God. Different conclusions
on weighty subjects have indeed been drawn by dif
ferent persons even from this divine Word itself ; for
it has not pleased God to reveal all things to us in
such a manner as to leave no room for the exercise of
our reason and the trial of our spirits. Still we are
persuaded that the great things of the kingdom of
God — those things which it is necessary for man to
know, to believe, and to do in order that he may be
saved — are all so revealed that no humble and earnest
mind can fail to arrive at the knowledge of them.
But it specially becomes you, as candidates for the
office of the holy ministry, to aim at the attainment

ON THE SPIRIT OF THEOLOGICAL INQUIRY. 1 5
of an enlarged and accurate knowledge of what the
Word of God contains. " Search," then, " the Scrip
tures " with all diligence and earnestness ; habituate
yourselves to a thorough study of their contents — to
a comprehensive view of that great scheme of mercy
which is revealed in them — and you will grow in the
knowledge and also in the grace of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ. You will find that this great
scheme to which I have just referred constitutes the
great subject of revelation, and that therefore to
know Christ — the Son of God and the Saviour of the
world — is to know the truth ; for He is Himself the
Truth ; in Him are laid up all the treasures of wisdom
and knowledge.
4. And now, in the last place, whilst you look to
the written Word as the alone source of theological
knowledge, and study it habitually that you may
grow in this knowledge, let me solemnly exhort you
to seek by frequent prayer the gracious aid of Him
who is revealed to us as the Spirit of Truth.
Whilst we must place confidence in our rational
faculties as the instruments by which we attain to
knowledge, and whilst we are also called upon to
use all diligence that we may acquire this knowledge,
most true it is that in our ignorance, weakness, and
proneness to err, we also need the guidance of one
who is able to conduct us into the knowledge of
truth. How thankful, then, ought we to be that there
is One revealed to us in Scripture, whose prerogative
it is to enlighten the darkened mind, and who is ever
willing to be our guide into all the truth ! With what
earnestness and frequency should we apply for His
guidance and direction, humbly beseeching Him to

1 6 INTRODUCTORY LECTURE.
keep us from all hurtful error, and to grant to us such
a knowledge of the truth as may save our own souls,
and enable us to be instrumental in teaching others
also ! Be frequent, then, and earnest in prayer for the
gracious aid of the Holy Spirit ; and thus devoting
yourselves to the work of study, and thus praying for
light from on high, you may pursue your inquiries in
cheerful confidence that you will not fail of your
desired end.
May these few and imperfect remarks be blessed
for your good, and may all that we have to address
to you here be made subservient to the furtherance of
your knowledge and the increase of your faith.
It is now my intention to address to you a few
lectures on several subjects which are at all times,
but especially in the present day, of peculiar moment ;
but these lectures will aim only at giving you the
chief features of discussion on each of the topics to
which I shall refer.

LECTURE II.
ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
In last Lecture a case was supposed, that of two
persons examining into the claims of Christianity, and
arriving at two directly opposite conclusions ; and it
was remarked that, since both these persons had the
same data before them, the difference between their
conclusions must have had its origin in the principles
assumed by each on entering upon the inquiry. I now
desire to draw your special attention to this subject.
And, first of all, I would observe that there are in
reality only two principles, the one or the other of
which must be assumed prior to all inquiry into the
claims of a professed revelation in general, or of the
Christian revelation in particular. The inquirer must
begin with the assumption of the existence of a living
personal God, or with the assumption that there is no
such Being. There is, and can be, no intermediate
assumption. Pantheism, which represents everything
as a mode of deity — as the development of a some
thing which in itself has no proper attributes and no
separate existence — is essentially only a mere form of
expressing what is called Atheism, according to which
the visible and tangible world is that alone which exists,
and, having had no origin, has the cause of its exist-
B

1 8 LECTURE II.
ence in itself. Theism implies that there is a self-
existent and personal Being, who gave origin to this
visible frame of things, and who consciously, and for
definite purposes formed in His own eternal mind,
governs all. Now, I beg you to observe that there
are, and can be, only these two opposite assumptions.
Either there is a God, a living personal God, or there
is not a God ; for it is a manifest perversion of lan
guage to call a mere abstraction of the human mind
by such a name.
If we suppose, then, that an inquirer into the
claims of a professed revelation sets* out with the
assumption or belief that there is a God, it is evident
that he begins with an assumption which renders a
revelation possible, and that therefore the claims of
any professed revelation form a subject of legitimate
investigation. It does not, you will observe, neces
sarily follow from his assumption that these claims
are valid. It is possible that he may discover them
to be wholly unworthy of belief, and that the professed
revelation has had its origin either in ignorance or
imposture ; and should he by valid reasoning come to
this conclusion, he will feel it to be his duty to reject
such a professed revelation. But you will at the
same time observe that this assumption or belief does
not preclude legitimate inquiry. It allows the evi
dences of a professed revelation from God to come
fairly before the mind, and to be discussed and weighed
according to their worth.
On the other hand, the man who assumes that there
is no God, no self-existent and personal Being who
created and governs the universe, has already, by his
very assumption, rendered all inquiry into the claims

ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 1 9
of a professed revelation wholly unnecessary ; for it is
clear that no revelation can possibly proceed from a
Being who does not exist. Such a person may avow
edly examine the proposed evidences of a professed
revelation ; but it is evident that such a task is for
him a work of supererogation. He has already settled
the question ; and his examination of the proposed
evidences can be to him only an exercise of curiosity,
with the view of ascertaining how the human mind
came to be deluded into the idea that there could be
such a thing as the particular revelation in question.
Religious belief under any form is to such a person a
mere phase of delusion, and, like other delusions, may
have a history ; and his sole object is to trace this
history. Beyond this, his investigation has to him no
value whatever. Viewed in this aspect, the Christian
revelation has to the atheistical inquirer an historical
value, and therefore he sets himself to discover in what
way, as he thinks, it sprang up and grew to that state
in which it has come down to us. But from the very
outset he, according to his assumed theory, knew that
this revelation had no valid claims to belief, and that
in whatever way it did originate, whether in mere de
lusion or in fraud, its origin was entirely human.
Hence he is compelled to call in question every
branch of its professed evidences. He questions the
genuineness of the writings in which the origin of
Christianity is recorded. Were these writings genuine,
he knows that the divine origin of Christianity would
be established ; but his assumption involves the denial
of such an origin, and therefore these writings cannot
be genuine. And he sets himself to work in order to
show that these writings were of later date than that

20 LECTURE II.
which they ascribe to themselves, and were, in fact,
the products of conscious fraud.
Again, is Christianity supported by the testimony
of miracles declared to have been wrought by its
Founder ? Is an appeal directly made by its Founder
to works such as no mere man ever wrought, in
confirmation of His high, His extraordinary claims ?
Then it becomes necessary to get rid of this peculiar
evidence, either by explaining away these professed
miracles ; or, if that is rather a difficult task, by at
once cutting the knot, and boldly affirming that such
works, such manifestations of superhuman power, are
impossible. And the atheist is. right, according to his
supposition ; for if there is no God — though then it
seems impossible for us to say what might or might not
be — yet assuredly, on such a supposition, a manifesta
tion of divine power becomes an absurdity. Hence
the atheistical inquirer has only to ascertain the par
ticular circumstances which induced men to imagine
that the miracles recorded in proof of Christianity
were performed. The invalidity of miracles as a proof
is already assumed, and the sole inquiry is how to
account, on the ground either of delusion or of fraud,
for the fact that they ever formed a subject of belief.
In like manner all the other evidences are disposed
of. Their worthlessness is already assumed, and the
inquirer's sole object is to give the most plausible
account which his ingenuity can suggest of their sup
posed origin. Hence you will further observe that,
though these atheistical inquirers all set out with
essentially the same assumption, and accordingly be
gin with an implied denial of the divine origin of
Christianity, yet they may differ among themselves

ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 21
as to the manner in which they endeavour to solve
the various particular questions which the Chris
tian evidences bring before them. Hence we have
a variety of theories on the origin of Christianity,
viewed as the mere product of the human mind — the
product of human superstition or of human fraud.
They differ also in their respective estimates of Chris
tianity, regarded as a mere system of human origin.
But the main thing to be observed by us at present
is, that they all begin with an assumption which in
volves the denial of its divine origin, and that all
investigation into its professed claims is to them a
matter of no value whatever — one of purely historical
interest. Without entering at length into the recent attacks
on the Christian revelation, we observe that these all
proceed from the atheistical school. The elaborate
works of Strauss are based on the assumption that
there is no God, no self-existent Being distinct from
the visible universe. A revelation is therefore to him
a contradiction in terms. A miracle, as a proof of
such a revelation, is nothing else than an absurdity.
Science knows nothing of the miraculous. Science,
therefore, rejects Christianity because it professes to
be miraculous, and to be established by miracles.
Historical science recognises only the ordinary laws
which govern the lives of men. The life of Jesus pro
fesses to lie beyond these laws, and therefore histori
cal science rejects this life as presented to us in the
Gospel narratives. Such are the declared assump
tions with which he commences ; and on these as
sumptions it needs no argument to show that there
can be but one conclusion.

22 LECTURE II.
We remark, however, that in these assumptions he
confounds two ideas which are essentially distinct.
Science, strictly so called, does not, it is admitted, re
cognise miracles ; but it only does not recognise them
as occurring in the ordinary course of things. A mir
acle is impossible so far as this ordinary course is con
cerned. That is a mere truism. But it by no means
follows that miracles — real miracles — are in them
selves impossible, when we take into view the power
of Him who has established this ordinary course. In
like manner, there are laws which govern the mani
festations of human character ; and when we inquire
into the life of any man, we proceed in our investiga
tion according to these ordinary laws. But it by no
means follows that the life of One who claims to be
more than man must be restricted to the operation of
such laws. His life rises above the sphere of their
operation, and therefore above the sphere of ordinary
historical investigation. To proceed in an inquiry
into the life of Jesus, and into the evidences of mira
culous interposition, on the assumption that this life
and these evidences must be reduced to the sphere of
ordinary historical and of ordinary scientific inquiry, is
manifestly to proceed on an assumption which, so far
as the subject is of real importance, precludes all in
quiry whatever, involving as it does a petitio principii
— an assumption of the very conclusion which it is
sought to establish. But to this important part of our
subject we shall return.
The whole elaborate work of Strauss rests on the
foundation that a miracle is impossible ; and the
whole design of his work— his former as well as his
recent work — is to give some plausible account, as he

ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 23
imagines, of the rise of Christian ideas as set forth in
the New Testament writings — ideas which he traces
either to mythical fancies or to conscious fraud, how
ever inconsistent with each other these suppositions
are. Strauss is professedly a Pantheist, and Panthe
ism is essentially Atheism ; for it recognises no living
God, but the mere idea of perfection as entertained by
the human mind, and as gradually advancing with
the development of the race. There is, in his view,
no distinct Supreme Being, no spirit in man distinct
from his material frame, no real immortality beyond
death and the grave. According to such a view,
a revelation is impossible, miracles are absurd, a
supernatural life such as that of Jesus is unreal :
there may be an ideal Christ, as there may be an
ideal God ; but there is, and can be, no reality in the
one or in the other. All is mere illusion, and man is
the sport of illusion, having a momentary existence,
but immediately vanishing, and vanishing for ever.
I would here, but only briefly, notice another recent
work, which when it appeared excited no small sensa
tion. I allude to the work of Renan on the ' Life of
Jesus.' Renan belongs to what is called the Historical
school of philosophy and religion — a school which
professes, not to determine what in itself is true or
false, but merely to trace the progress of philoso
phical or religious ideas as these have appeared in
the history of the human race. For example, this
school admits as facts or phenomena of the human
mind the various conceptions which have, in different
ages and among different nations, been entertained
respecting God, and also the feelings or sentiments
which accompany these conceptions ; but it restricts

24 LECTURE II.
itself to the mere history of these conceptions and
sentiments, and allows no inquiry as to the objective
reality of the existence of God. It employs, how
ever, religious terms, and often speaks loftily of moral
and religious feelings, and of those who have mani
fested such feelings in any high degree. Jesus is
described by Renan as one of the greatest of men,
because He attained to the highest religious concep
tions, and cherished and manifested the purest reli
gious sentiments. His language about the character
of Jesus sometimes rises to the loftiest admiration,
not to say adoration. His task was in many respects
different from that of Strauss, and hence he sometimes
admits what the other rejects. His work, however, on
the ' Life of Jesus,' is rather a romance than a strictly
critical inquiry, which is the character that the other
labours to give to his attack ; but in essence there
is no real difference between them. To Renan as well
as to Strauss there is no Supreme Being distinct from
the universe. Man is the highest intelligence in
existence ; and even man is but a shortlived deity,
for there is no immortality to the individual, but only
to the race ; and yet the romantic writer dedicates his
book to a deceased sister, whom he represents as en
joying rest in the bosom of God. Whilst he professes
not to reject miracles in a summary manner as things
impossible, yet he insists that miracles, should they
occur, must occur as ordinary events, and in this way
he virtually rejects them, and thus occupies, in this as
in other matters, the same ground as Strauss. The
denial of the objective reality of the supernatural is,
in short, the basis of his whole work ; and all his
arguments, so far as anything like real argument

ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 25
appears, are merely attempts to give some account of
the life of Jesus on the supposition that He was not
what He declared Himself to be.
My great design in these remarks on the late at
tacks upon Christianity is to show you that the ques
tion affecting divine revelation is once more thrown
back to that most fundamental of all questions— Is
there a God, or is there not ? However elaborate
these attacks may appear, they are all in reality based
on the assumption that there is no God. It is ex
ceedingly important that you should see that this
really is the question which lies at their basis. We
repeat, we do not affirm that the contrary assump
tion immediately and by itself establishes the divine
origin of Christianity. What we at present affirm is,
and the truth of the affirmation is beyond all question,
that, on the assumption that there is no God, neither
the Christian nor any other professed revelation can
be true. There can be no message unless there
exists one from whom the message may proceed. If
there is no God, there can be no revelation.
Now, it is most saddening and most painful to
think that this question about the existence of God
should be every now and then forced on our atten
tion, as if it were an undetermined question. And I
would here guard you against the danger of having
your thoughts continually employed about this fun
damental question, important as it is. There is, I
apprehend, very great danger to your moral and
spiritual state in dwelling exclusively on speculations
referring to such a question as this. We ought to be
going forward in our knowledge of God and Jesus
Christ our Lord, and must not be continually laying

26 LECTURE II.
the foundation of this knowledge. Our religious faith
is strengthened, not by ever contemplating the grounds
on which it rests, but by exercising and manifesting
this faith in a life of holiness and righteousness
and love. Our faith in God and in Christ can never
here be turned into sight. Our faith in an unseen
God and in an unseen Saviour must always be sub
ject to trial, and trial always implies the possibility of
doubts ; and when we know that our faith is well
founded, it is our wisdom to keep our faith alive by
actual communion with its unseen objects, and by
walking habitually in its light. Examine, indeed, to the
utmost the grounds on which your faith rests ; but when
you have found that these are real and solid, and that
therefore your faith is well founded, do not yield to
mere suggestions of the possibility of doubts, but
have confidence in your conclusions, and be steadfast
in the faith. If, then, I enter here on these fundamental
questions, it is simply because it is our duty here to
notice these things, so that you may discern on what
a solid rock our faith does rest. But I at the same
time exhort you to go on towards perfection — that
matured state of the spiritual understanding to which
it is our privilege, notwithstanding all the opposing
influences which would undermine our faith, to be
striving through divine help to attain.
The great question, then, which lies at the very
basis of this subject, is just this : Is there a God, or is
there not ? We believe that there is One Living Per
sonal God, a Being distinct from the visible universe,
a Being self-existent, possessed of all intellectual and
moral perfection, — the Creator and Governor of the
world. Such is our belief. On what grounds does

ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 27
this belief rest ? Does it rest on any grounds which
our reason can state and discuss ? Or is this belief a
blind belief — a mere notion formed by our minds,
and one of which we can give no account whatever ?
Such is our inquiry. Let us then with all possible
calmness contemplate the subject.
This Being, whom we denominate God, is not an
object of direct perception. " Behold, we go forward,
but He is not there ; and backward, but we cannot
perceive Him : on the left hand, where He doth
work, but we cannot behold Him ; He hideth Him
self on the right hand, that we cannot see Him."
This Being is not, then, an object of our immediate
perception ; He is the Invisible God. How, then, do
I know that there is such a Being ? I know it from
the traces — the visible tokens of His presence, His
power, and His intelligence ; for everywhere I see
the traces of a power and intelligence which I am
compelled, by the constitution of my mind, to ascribe
to a Being possessed of power and intelligence. Every
where — before me, behind me, on my left hand and
on my right — there are tokens of power and skill
which must belong, not to matter, but to mind ; not
to an abstraction, but to a Being, and to a Being who
must, from the very necessity of the case, be self-
existent, infinite, and eternal. This is, in brief, the
grand and enduring argument which my reason em
ploys in confirmation of my belief in the existence of
God. It is an argument old, and yet ever new ; an
argument level to the meanest capacity, and yet avail
ing to the highest intellect of man ; an argument
which sophistry may perplex, as it may perplex every
possible argument, but which it can never destroy.

28 LECTURE II.
The humblest peasant who looks abroad on the fields
of nature, and beholds the innumerable traces of
power, wisdom, and goodness which these present to
his view, or who looks upwards to the starry heights
and sees the wondrous display there revealed to him,
as well as the man of science, who can in some
measure contemplate the objects of earth and the
orbs of heaven with the eye of intelligence, is instinc
tively compelled by the very constitution of his nature
to recognise in all these things a manifestation of
power, and of wisdom, and of goodness, which can be
predicated only of that unseen but all-glorious Being
whose works these all are, and to whose existence
and attributes they all unite in bearing clear and
valid testimony. We pretend not to demonstrate as
by a mathematical process that God exists. We
point to the works of nature around us, of which
works we ourselves form a part, and we proclaim in
no hesitating or doubtful manner that these works
bear unequivocal witness to the divine existence.
However much the argument hence drawn may be
cleared up by reasoning and expressed in the lan
guage of philosophy, yet the argument in itself is
ever the same ; and it is the solid, immovable rock on
which faith in God ever rests. The argument, when
reduced to its elements, consists of principles fur
nished by the human mind, and of facts presented
to us in our own constitution and in the volume of
nature ; and so long as these principles form a part
of our mental possessions, and these facts are open to
consciousness and to sight, so long must the human
mind ascend as by a ladder fixed on earth, and having
its top amidst the heights of heaven, to the recogni-

ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 29
tion and belief of that Being who, Himself uncreated,
gave origin to us and to all nature. We are at pre
sent desirous to state the argument in its simplest, its
broadest, and most comprehensive form. It is an
argument of the strictest analogy, and meets with a
response in every unbiassed mind. We know, in some
measure, what is meant by power, intelligence, and
goodness ; and we know certain effects which these
attributes can accomplish. We behold in the uni
verse around us clear and decisive tokens of the
operation of such attributes. We are compelled to
ascribe such attributes to mind and not to matter,
and to a living personal mind — to a Being who has
power and intelligence and goodness ; and further, to
a Being who is supreme — to a self-existent, infinite
Being. I am sure that I need not specially exhort you to
meditate on this great argument. But I beg of you
not only to perceive its nature and validity, but to
exercise faith in the conclusion to which it leads.
Faith differs from reason, not because, as is some
times but erroneously imagined, it does not rest on
solid grounds, but because the conclusion which it
embraces is one which cannot be verified by mere
experience, but must, even when established, be an
object of our faith. God is an object of faith, not
because we have no reasons for our belief, but because
He is invisible and infinite, and cannot possibly be
an object of sensible experience. Hence it requires
an effort of mind to keep our faith in God in active
exercise ; and hence also it is that faith in God is a
subject of trial, and is capable of existing in a variety
of degrees. Seeing that the grounds of our belief in

30 LECTURE II.
God are real and strong, aim at the possession of a
firm faith in the living God : realise Him as ever
near you ; cherish the loftiest conceptions of His glo
rious attributes ; see His presence everywhere, and
live as in His presence ; and your faith will, through
His grace helping you, be proof against every assault.
In next Lecture we shall further consider this great,
this fundamental subject.

LECTURE III.
ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
{Continued})
You would be labouring under a great mistake were
you to suppose that the great contest in these days
lies between Christianity and what is called Natural
Religion. The contest has once more reached the
very foundation of all religion, whether natural or re
vealed. Not that there is anything essentially new
in this feature of our times, for often before has
the same conflict raged, though probably never with
greater vehemence than in our day. It is also a
characteristic of our times that this contest respecting
the foundation of religious belief is not confined, as it
used generally to tje, within certain circles of specu
lative men. All classes in society are taking part in
it. The press, now so powerful in its influence, has
involved rich and poor, learned and unlearned, in this
great conflict. And the apostles of a material and
atheistical philosophy are most zealous and vehement
in the spread of their views. At the same time there
is also in our day an unwonted zeal on the part of the
defenders of the truth. The faith of the Lord's people
is strong and zealous. It would be wrong not to look

32 LECTURE III.
at both these features of our time; and we must
always be on our guard against exaggeration on the
one side or on the other. But we may affirm with
truth that there never was a time when the Church of
God stood in greater need of men able to defend the
truth, and to put to silence the ignorance of foolish
men — in greater need of a well-trained and thorough
ly zealous ministry. Though God works when and
where and how He pleases, yet we know that it is
His ordinary course to employ the agency of men — of
men learned in the truth and devoted to His cause.
It is painful to observe that in our day fewer than
formerly of our Christian youth are willing to give
themselves to this service. Without attempting to
trace the apparent causes of this decrease, which is so
manifest in every section of the Church, let us rather
hope that those who do give themselves to the work
of the ministry will be found to be men in earnest,
men willing and able to go forth in the strength of
the Lord to fight the fight of faith, and to main
tain the cause of religious and moral truth amidst
all the opposition of its enemies; and let us more
and more fervently pray to " the Lord of the har
vest that He would send forth labourers into His
harvest." It is for the reasons which I have stated that I
am anxious to draw your special attention to the fun
damental truths of religion. It is not that I wish
formally to discuss them at present. My main
desire is to state and defend these truths as briefly
as I can, and thus to lead you to meditate on them
as the sure basis of our Christian faith. I for one am

ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 33
convinced that, to the man who thoroughly believes
in a living, personal God, the Creator and moral
Governor of the world, the evidences of Christianity
become clear and decisive. Difficulties, indeed, will
meet him, for it is not the purpose of God that our
faith should be free from trial ; but he will, I am per
suaded, encounter no difficulties which he will not, by
patient and serious thought, be able either to remove,
or to see that they are involved in the very nature of
a scheme which transcends finite comprehension. But
to the man who has no real, no steadfast faith in God,
as a living personal God, but who has involved him
self in the meshes of Atheism, under whatever form it
may appear, difficulties insurmountable occur at the
very threshold. No kind and no amount of evidence
can avail to such a man. A deceived heart has turned
him aside. The very eye of his natural reason is
darkened ; and since the light which is in him is dark
ness, how great must that darkness be ! Such a man
is without God, and therefore must be without Christ.
Now, it becomes you to know that all the chief oppo
nents of Christianity are in these days professed
Atheists or Pantheists ; and that between the two
systems of Atheism and Pantheism there is in reality
no difference. Pantheism is only a form of Atheism.
The one as well as the other denies the existence of a
living God. The whole question, then, is reduced to
the simple and fundamental question, Is there such
a Being, or is there not ? How important, then, it is
for you to give to this question your most serious
thought !
Now, I have endeavoured to state to you the argu
ment for our belief in God in the simplest and broadest
C

34 LECTURE III.
form. We do not require the aid of any profound
speculation in order to establish this fundamental
truth. We may be compelled to engage in specula
tion in order to meet the counter-speculations of the
opponents of the truth. But the truth itself rests
on a basis easily seen, and patent to every human
mind. And it will be your wisdom ever to employ
such an argument in confirmation of the truth. Belief
in God, if not innate in the human breast, is at least
so consonant to its most instinctive feelings, and so
much in harmony with the dictates of unbiassed
reason and the voice of conscience, that you have
only to appeal to these witnesses within us for a
clear and decisive testimony to the greatest, the most
glorious of all truths, — that we are not in a Fatherless
world, but are the offspring — the rational offspring —
of an omnipotent and loving God. You have only
further to appeal to the universe around us, to the
heavens above and to the earth beneath, and every
where you hear the voice of nature proclaiming the
existence and the glory of the great Creator. It re
quires no profound knowledge either of our own con
stitution or of the works of nature to arrive with full
conviction at the belief of this truth ; and you may
always have confidence in the native feelings and
perceptions of the human mind, darkened and cor
rupted as that mind has become through sin. Our
nature in its essence is still the same as when it pro
ceeded from the hands of the Creator. The image of
God has indeed become defaced, but is not wholly
removed from our souls. Have confidence, then, I
pray you, in the testimony of your own native feelings
and perceptions ; for if we abandon these as unworthy

ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 35
of credit, then all knowledge, all truth of every kind,
is impossible to us.
Let me now observe, without, however, dwelling on
the subject, that the great question immediately before
us involves the essential distinction between matter
and mind — a distinction to which our own conscious
ness bears witness, and which is therefore to be re
ceived as fundamental in this question. And here it
is that you must make your stand, if you would thor
oughly meet the sophistry of Atheism ; for a material
istic philosophy is the very cradle of Atheism. Even
then Atheism may be shown to be involved in manifest
contradictions ; but that would be all the length we
could go ; for a positive belief in a supreme Mind — a
living and personal Spirit — can rest only on the belief
that there is mind, — that we ourselves are living per
sonal intelligences, though dwelling as we do in these
tabernacles of clay. It is from the consciousness of
our intelligent and moral being — of our own person
ality — that we rise, however feebly, to the grand con
ception of a supreme, intelligent and moral Being — of
a living and personal God. Hence the unwearied
efforts which are once more being made to invalidate
man's consciousness of his own spiritual being, and to
represent thought and will and conscience as the
mere product of a material organisation. Let such a
view of our nature be established, and then, in what
ever absurdities we may land ourselves, there is no
escape from a withering Atheism into the clear and
warm atmosphere of a spiritual world. All is dark
and chilling. All is involved in deepest gloom and in
frightful absurdity. It is not mere mystery, then, but
absurdity, that reigns over all. The merely mys-

36 LECTURE III.
terious, the incomprehensible, must meet us ; for we,
the finite creatures of a day, cannot reach the heights
of heaven, or stretch back into the depths of eternity.
Mystery, the incomprehensible, must meet us in the
infinite realms of truth ; but on the theory we have
supposed, and which is, alas ! now so prevalent, it is
not, we repeat, such mystery as this — it is absurdity,
contradiction, that everywhere bursts on our view
and mocks our efforts.
Now, consciousness is that to which the last appeal
must be made. Beyond its testimony we cannot pro
ceed. The facts which it testifies must be received as
ultimate facts ; and if we set aside its testimony, all
knowledge, as we have said, becomes impossible. It
is, however, of the first importance that we read the
testimony of consciousness aright, and that we give
a sound interpretation to its statements. Of what,
then, as respects ourselves, are we conscious ? It is
that we, each one of us, are living, personal beings,
capable of feeling, thinking, and willing. We are
conscious, not merely of feelings, thoughts, and voli
tions, — not merely of operations or states, — but of
ourselves as feeling, thinking, and willing — of self as
exercising these operations or existing in these states.
Such is the clear testimony of consciousness respect
ing ourselves. Again, we are conscious of our bodily
frame, — of many of its functions, — and we at once
perceive that there is an essential distinction between
the matter of which it is composed and the mind
which, however connected with it, feels and thinks
and wills. The body we are forced to regard as the
instrument employed by the mind, but not as one
with the mind itself ; and when we look beyond our

ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 37
own bodily frame, we perceive material objects, pos
sessed, indeed, of various properties, but wholly void
of all power of feeling, thinking, or willing. Hence
we instinctively, without any conscious process of
reasoning, come to distinguish between mind and
matter. We know each only as it manifests itself;
but these manifestations are so distinct that we can
not recognise the one as identical with the other.
There is in our entire constitution a mysterious union
between the two. Still we instinctively recognise
them as essentially distinct, and the superiority of
mind over matter is at once acknowledged. Each has
a real existence. We must not deny the existence of
either ; and a sound philosophy, which must be based
on the testimony of consciousness and immediate
perception, embraces both as ultimate facts. Nor
must we form unwarranted speculations regarding
either. We must not regard matter as the necessary
product of mind, nor mind as the necessary develop
ment of matter. All that consciousness teaches us is
that matter and mind are both real existences, and
that the one is essentially different from the other ;
and also that it is mind alone which can feel and
think and will — that it is mind alone to which power,
intelligence, and goodness can be ascribed.
On this fundamental distinction, then, rests all reli
gious belief ; for it is in virtue of our own conscious
nature — of our own knowledge of ourselves as living,
intelligent, and moral agents — that we discern the
clear evidences in our own constitution and in the
world around us of a supreme conscious Nature, of
an intelligent and moral Agent, who transcends our
highest conceptions, and is the supreme, the self-

38 LECTURE III.
existent cause of all finite beings, of all finite exist
ence, whether animate or inanimate. We cannot
escape this conclusion without doing violence to the
dictates of our whole rational nature. The conclu
sion itself being so marvellous, so transcendent, it is
easy to raise questions which we cannot solve, and
which therefore only perplex our finite understand
ings. But that is not the point. The real point is,
whether the conclusion itself is warranted or not war
ranted. We beg of you to adhere to this point, and
to leave the transcendent nature of the conclusion to
speak for itself. Now, what we maintain is this, that
when we contemplate ourselves as living personal
beings, endowed with the capacities or powers of feel
ing, thinking, and will, we are forced to regard our
selves as finite and dependent beings, as beings who
owe our existence and all that we are to another, to
one who also must, though in an infinitely higher
sense, be a living Being, possessed of power to create,
and endowed with all intellectual and moral perfec
tion. We cannot, we maintain, but so regard our
selves ; and thus looking upon ourselves as created
beings, we at once, by the very constitution of our
minds, rise to the belief of a self-existent and omni
potent Creator. Such, we apprehend, is the process,
brief and decisive, by which we attain to the idea and
to the belief of the existence of God. The foundation
is laid in our own spiritual constitution ; and having
faith in its testimony, we have faith in God. In like
manner we contemplate matter, with its various pro
perties and in its manifold arrangements, and we can
not help regarding it as a thing created — as a thing
not existing by any inherent power of self-existence,

ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 39
but owing its existence and all its properties to one
possessed of power and able to arrange. And thus it
is that, contemplating the world around us, we behold
in the objects which compose it, and in the arrange
ments which everywhere meet our eye, evident tokens
of creative power, and intelligent design, and active
goodness. We at once ascribe all these manifesta
tions to One who is not matter, but mind — to a
self-existent, conscious, personal Being, infinite in
power, intelligence, and goodness. And as we dis
cern a unity in all things, manifold and widespread
as they are seen to be, so we arrive at last at the
sublime conclusion that there is One God, and only
one, the supreme Cause of all things, the Creator and
Governor of the world.
Let us for a moment dwell on this sublime, this
transcendent conclusion — a conclusion to which rea
son, in the view of our own spiritual being and of
surrounding nature, so clearly and so powerfully con
ducts us. It rests on an immovable basis ; and yet,
when we endeavour to look at it in its transcendent
greatness, and to realise in our minds, inadequately
as at the best we can, the sublime fact of a self-
existent, living, and personal God — a Being spiritual,
eternal, infinite, and unchangeable in His perfections —
a Being everywhere present, everywhere operating,
controlling, and reigning — we are apt not only to be
overwhelmed, as we well may, with a feeling of awe
at the very thought of such glorious majesty, but
even to startle at the very conclusion itself, and at
times to question whether it is possible for such a
conclusion to be correct — possible for such a Being to
exist. Now, I beg of you at once to face this diffi-

40 LECTURE III.
cuity, which springs, you will observe, not from any
flaw to be detected either in the basis of the conclu
sion or in the simple process by which our reason,
building on this basis, raises the conclusion, but solely
from the nature of the conclusion itself — its infinitely
sublime and transcendent nature. What is it, then,
in this conclusion respecting the existence of God,
which at times startles the human mind, and which,
unless guarded against, may lay the mind open not
merely to perplexities in speculation, but to doubts,
and, should these doubts be cherished, to scepticism,
and at last to blank Atheism ? What is it, I again
ask you to consider, which startles our minds in
respect to this conclusion ? I believe that it is mainly
one thing involved in it, and that this is the idea of
Self-existence. Now, may I again beg of you to give
to this matter your most intense consideration ? Whilst
infinitude, of whatever it may be predicated, must
ever surpass our limited conceptions, it appears to me
that we are specially prone to feel a sense of this
limitation of our faculties when we attempt to realise
the fact of a past eternal duration— of, in short, an eter
nal, a self-existent Being. Our reason is indeed com
pelled to ascribe all existences to a First, an Absolute
Cause — to a Being who Himself must have no cause
beyond Himself for His existence — who, in short,
possesses in His very being what we can only term
the cause of His own existence. We see clearly,
when we reflect on the subject, that such must be the
case ; for were it not so, we should have to disown
this supposed Being as the First Cause of all, and to
proceed in our reasoning till we did arrive at the
recognition of a beginningless Being — a Being un-

ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 41
caused by aught without Himself. Now self-exist
ence is, we apprehend, that one great mystery — that
one fact which overpowers the mind of man in its
attempts to realise it. The more you think about it,
the more incomprehensible will it appear to you. We
comprehend — or rather, I should say, we think that we
comprehend — the fact of the existence of one being
whose existence has been, as we say, caused by an
other. We seem to ourselves to have an adequate
reason for the existence of any being or thing when
we can trace this existence to the operation of another
being or thing. But uncaused Being — a self-existent
Being — though we know that such a Being must be,
is wholly incomprehensible by us ; and simply be
cause in this case the incomprehensible nature of the
fact appears to us in so vivid a light, we are apt to be
startled by the thought, and are, as I have said, in
danger of questioning our conclusion.
Now, let it be carefully noticed, that it is literally
impossible for us to get rid of this fact of self-exist
ence under any theory whatever. Here is that ada
mantine wall against which the Atheist as well as the
Theist beats in vain. The former, however absurdly,
as we shall endeavour to show you, only changes the
object that must be self-existent; or, if such lan
guage would in his case be contradictory, the object
which must have eternally been. No proposition can
be more evident than this : something now exists,
therefore some thing or some Being must always have
existed. Ex nihilo nihil fit is a proposition abso
lutely certain when taken in its literal, absolute sense.
Nothing, absolute nothing, must have for ever re
mained nothing. Atheism, then, is forced to assume

42 LECTURE III.
that matter in some form or other must have existed
from all eternity — matter, a finite thing, a thing
changeable in its forms at least, must have been
without a beginning. Apart from the absurdities in
volved in this supposition, beginningless existence —
that is, self-existence — is as essential to the atheistic
hypothesis as it is to the theistic conclusion. And
therefore, when the weak mind of man stumbles at
the idea of a self-existent spiritual Being, it stumbles
only to fall into the idea of a self-existent material
thing. There is, as I have said, no possible escape
from this incomprehensible fact — self-existence. The
human mind, when in a sound state, sees that such
must be the case ; and when overpowered by the vain
attempt to fathom the mystery of a self-existent God,
it sees only the more powerfully the transcendent glory
of His nature, and adores Him who dwells in light
unapproachable and full of glory. Here also we
behold at once the greatness and the littleness of the
human mind — its greatness in being able to arrive at
the knowledge and belief that such a Being must be
and is, and its littleness in its utter inability to con
ceive how such a Being can be ; and again, I would
say, its greatness in knowing that it is because we
are finite and He is infinite that we cannot conceive —
cannot comprehend His existence.
Have faith, then, I again pray you, in your spirit
ual constitution, and in your reason, which is the alone
instrument of all our thought. Have faith in the
basis on which you build, and in the process which
reason conducts, and in the conclusion, marvellous as
it is, to which reason leads. And then you will have
faith in God — in that uncaused, that self-existent

ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 43
Being, who has life in Himself, and is the Author of
life throughout His universe. Exercise your minds
in order to keep this faith alive ; and instead of
stumbling at the glorious conclusion, and yielding
yourselves a prey to scepticism and unbelief, you
will rejoice in Him who is from everlasting to ever
lasting God.

LECTURE IV.

ON ATHEISM.

BEFORE entering on a brief consideration of the
Atheistic hypothesis, I wish to draw your attention
for a few moments to what is strictly implied in our
idea of the Infinite. And, first, I would remark, what
indeed is so obvious as scarcely to require distinct
notice, that there is no such thing as " the Infinite " in
the abstract, but that the term must be applicable, if
applicable at all, to some being or thing which is in
finite. We are so apt to use words loosely, and to
argue about mere words, that it seems necessary to
remind you that this term is merely a predicate, which
can have no existence in itself, but can only be real
ised, if realised at all, as characterising some being or
real object — or rather the attributes of such being or
object. But the main point to be attended to by us
in respect to this matter is the strict meaning of this
term ; for there is another term, expressing an en
tirely different idea, with which we are apt to con
found it. There is what is called the Indefinite, and
there is what alone is the Infinite. For example, you
are contemplating a series of numbers, say the series
of fractional numbers tV + rsir + rrnnr and so on. The
law of this series is easily seen, and you can go on

ON ATHEISM. 45
increasing the number of its terms as long as you
please ; each separate fraction being of less numerical
value than the one immediately preceding, and yet no
one so small but there may still be a smaller. In
common language we call this an infinite series. Now
you will observe two things which distinguish such a
so-called infinite series as this : first, it has a begin
ning, the fraction TV ; and secondly, each number in
the series, however far you may carry it, may be
looked upon as a distinct number or fraction. More
over, the whole value of the series can be expressed
or summed up in a definite number or fraction. The
only thing which entitles you to apply the term in
finite to the series is this, that no fraction, however
small, can be assigned without your being able to
assign a smaller.
Strictly speaking, the series is only an indefinite
series — that is, a series of numbers, to which, although
it has a beginning, no limit can be assigned. But the
infinite, strictly viewed, is different from this. The
infinite has no limits whatever. It has neither a
beginning nor an ending. The indefinite has a be
ginning, and is indefinite only because you are not
able to reach its end. This distinction between the
indefinite and the infinite, the importance of which
distinction is fundamental in our subject, may also
be made obvious to you by borrowing an illustration
from geometry. A line is defined to be that which
has length without breadth ; and a point is defined to
be that which has neither length nor breadth. Take,
then, any line, and suppose it bisected. You know
that you can always suppose this bisection continued,
and that you can assign no limit to these continued

46 LECTURE IV.
bisections. The process of bisection could only stop
if you could reach to a line so small as that it should
be a point ; but this would, in the case supposed, in
volve a contradiction, for be the line never so small,
it must have length to constitute it a line, and it can
never become a point, which by the definition has no
length. You see, then, that any line of any definite
length whatever can undergo a series of bisections
without any assignable end. And yet a line may be
conceived, or rather supposed, to consist of a point
moving in a certain direction — that is, of a series of
mere points in contact with each other. You further
may say that any line consists of an indefinite number
of such points. The line is in itself of a definite
length ; but inasmuch as the geometrical points of
which it may be supposed to consist have no length,
the two things are really incommensurable ; the line
cannot be said to consist of a definite number of
points ; but when we suppose them to be commen
surable, we are forced to say that the line consists
of an indefinite, an unassignable number of such
points. In loose language, the line, whatever its
length as compared with other lines — with things of
its own order — is infinite when brought into relation
or comparison with a thing of a different order. The
finite line comes to be viewed as infinite relatively
to a point, which simply has position, but no mag
nitude whatsoever.
Now, what I wish you thoroughly to notice is this,
that in mathematical science, whether in arithmetic or
geometry, we deal only with the relatively infinite-
only with the indefinite, and never with the strictly
infinite. All the interesting and often most curious

ON ATHEISM.

47

processes which distinguish the science of mathe
matics through the introduction of the idea of the
indefinite or relatively infinite, are wholly excluded
when we attempt to reason on the strictly infinite.
The essential characteristic of the latter is, that it has
no limits whatever. It is the absolutely and not the
relatively infinite. It has no beginning and no end
ing. It is boundless in every possible aspect.
Now, I should not have troubled you with these
remarks, were I not convinced, first, that a correct
idea of the strictly infinite lies at the basis of our
great subject ; and, secondly, that often, far oftener
than _ one would at first imagine, the two distinct ideas
of the strictly infinite and of the merely indefinite are
confounded, especially by atheistical inquirers. You
will therefore excuse these remarks, and try to bear
them in your minds as we proceed to consider the
hypothesis of Atheism.
This hypothesis implies that the visible world — that
world which consists of material things, some of them
organised, others unorganised — is all that exists ; that
matter, with the various forces which we perceive to
be in operation according to certain methods or laws
which also may be known, is the only existence ; and
that we are not entitled to suppose the existence of a
spiritual Being, living and personal, distinct from this
matter and its properties or forces, to whom the ex
istence of the latter may be ascribed as its Author.
Atheism, therefore, proclaims the eternal, uncreated
existence, the self-existence of the material universe.
And, as I formerly remarked, it is unnecessary to
attempt to draw any distinction between this Atheism
and the other form of it which is called Pantheism.

48 LECTURE IV.
There is really no essential distinction between them ;
for there can be no intermediate supposition between
strict Atheism and strict Theism. To attempt any
such supposition is merely to play with words and to
trifle with the subject. There either is a God or there
is not. Let us, then, keep strictly to the subject, and
not allow our minds to be drawn away from it by
merely unmeaning verbiage. It is an awful reality
about which we are concerned, a reality of infinite
moment to every rational being ; and we must not
engage in the inquiry as if it were one merely for
exhibiting ingenuity in the use of words, or for exer
cising our skill in perplexing a problem which is. one
of life or death.
The atheistic hypothesis, then, declares that matter,
possessed of those properties which we see it pos
sesses, is a thing uncreated, eternal, and self-existent.
Now, observe that we do not reject this hypothesis,
because it represents something as having existed
from eternity, something uncreated and self-existent.
We have already remarked that self-existence is that
one great mystery which meets us on either supposi
tion — on the supposition of Theism as well as on that
of Atheism. We cannot possibly eliminate this fact
— for such it is — from the question on either view ;
and therefore, taken by itself, and altogether apart
from that which is supposed to be self-existent, this
fact cannot be made the ground for rejecting Atheism.
Only let us take care that, when we criticise the
hypothesis of Atheism, we do not allow its advocate
to substitute the idea of indefinite duration in the
room of the idea of a beginningless duration.
And now we must fix our thoughts as best we can

ON ATHEISM. 49
on this material world, and see whether its contents
and its condition will harmonise with the fact of self-
existence, of beginningless duration ; or whether it
is such, both in its contents and its condition, as
wholly to disprove the assumptions involved. Now,
I apprehend that, speaking generally, we shall be
allowed by the Atheist himself to contemplate the
visible universe as exhibiting a system or scene of
continual change, both in the relative position of its
various parts, and also in the condition of these parts
themselves. Change, unceasing change, is a manifest
characteristic of the world. The great end of all
scientific inquiry is to mark these changes, and to
ascertain the conditions under which they take place :
and the conclusion which science ever more and
more confirms is, that there is a system in operation,
a system proceeding in a way which can to some
extent be observed. It is of no consequence, as far
as our immediate subject is concerned, what are the
laws which are seen to regulate this system of things.
The only thing of importance to us at present is the
fact that there is such a system, — that, viewed as a
system, the world presents a series of changes, which
succeed one another in a definite manner. Atheism,
then, assumes that this series of changes in the mate
rial world has gone on for ever, — that it has been
going on, not merely, you will observe, for an inde
finitely long period, for millions and millions of past
years, but strictly for ever, without a beginning, from
all eternity. Now we maintain, not, you will observe,
that the fact of eternal, beginningless existence is im
possible, but that a series of changes or states, one
succeeding the other, without a beginning, is impos-
D

SO LECTURE IV.
sible, — is, in short, a contradiction in point of fact. A
series may begin and be supposed to go on indefin
itely, so that no limit can be assigned to it ; but it
must have had a beginning, otherwise it could not
exist. You may suppose the commencement of this
dependent series — for each change in it depends on
the one immediately preceding, and causes the one
immediately succeeding — to be as far back as you
please ; but a commencement somewhere it must
have had. It must, I say, have had a beginning;
and the reasons are as follows.
I. Wherever we see a series of changes in any sub
stance whatever, we are by the very constitution of our
minds compelled to believe that it had a beginning.
What, let us ask, is the grand end of all physical inquiry,
but, if possible, to find out this assumed beginning —
to reach to some primordial state of things — to some
supposed germ or other, from which, as by some law
or other, all successive changes or states have proceed
ed ? Science, it is true, can never reach this assumed
beginning, because science is restricted to the view of
a course going on. But whilst this is true, science
labours to push back its inquiries farther and farther,
in order that it may reach nearer and nearer to that
first state, the existence of which at the beginning
of the course it always assumes. The very ideas or
assumptions of a first or primordial state — of a germ,
of which we hear so much, — all of them necessarily
involve the idea of a beginning. But most evident it
is that on the atheistic hypothesis there never was a
first state of things — a primordial condition of matter
— a germ from which all succeeding things could have
proceeded. Our instinctive nature, then, so clearly

ON ATHEISM. 5 1
expressed in all scientific inquiry, rejects a beginning
less, an eternal series of past changes in the material
world. The two ideas are manifestly contradictory —
the idea of a past series of changes, and the idea that
this series had no beginning. Hence Atheism is
built on an imaginary basis. It contains a contra
diction in its very supposition regarding the material
world. 2. This absurdity in the hypothesis of Atheism might
be otherwise brought out. Always, however, keep in
mind the really infinite, and do not confound it with the
merely indefinite. The material world by supposition
had no beginning. It has been from all eternity.
This world presents to us changes in its condition.
We, for example, are living to-day. A few years ago
we were not living. Our fathers then lived, and now
they are no more. We shall soon be succeeded by
other living beings. Now, on the supposition of a
commencement of the course of things, whatever other
speculative difficulties may arise — and difficulties, you
will observe, are not to be confounded with real con
tradictions, — on the supposition, I say, of a com
mencement of the course of things, we can at least
understand why it has happened that we are living
now, and not a hundred years ago ; for as this begun
course, however long it may have gone on, consists of
a definite number of past changes, we see why it is
that we now live, for the present is our assigned place
in this course. A Being able to perceive the succes
sive changes which have taken place could tell, so to
speak, the number in the supposed series which we
indicate. But on the supposition that the course of
things had no beginning, but is strictly from eternity,

52 LECTURE IV.
there always has been from every definite point in
that course an eternity past — a duration strictly in
finite. A succession of changes is possible only when
the series has had a commencement ; but on the sup
position of a beginningless existence no succession is
possible. Every supposed change in the supposed
succession must have been from eternity, which is
manifestly absurd. Even supposing an infinite num
ber of changes, there has been an infinite duration for
them to have happened in. Every change must then
have happened infinitely long before any definite
point of duration. In other words, a beginningless
series of changes involves a contradiction, for such a
series must have had a beginning. Whatever is from
eternity — whatever is self-existent — must evidently,
from the very supposition, be ever the same, immut
able as well as eternal — the same yesterday, to-day,
and for ever. The material world, then, and all that
it contains, must have had a beginning, however re
mote from the present that beginning may have been ;
and therefore this material world cannot be an uncre
ated, a self-existent world. It must owe its existence
to a Power, to an almighty Being, distinct from itself;
to One who is really self-existent, eternal, and immut
able. Hence we again see that Atheism involves a con
tradiction in its very hypothesis.
3. In like manner, it might be shown that, though we
are apt to speak of the material world as boundless
in its extent, simply because it is boundless relatively
to us, the finite creatures of a day, it cannot, in strict
language, be regarded as infinite — as having no limits to
its extent. When we bring our minds calmly to reflect
on the subject, we cannot fail to conclude that matter,

ON ATHEISM. 53
whether in smaller or larger objects, is a thing pos
sessing only certain properties, and these only in a de
finite measure. We perceive that everything is stamped
with the mark of finiteness ; that subordinate systems,
such as our own, consist of bodies, which, though un
known to us in all their extent, are yet a definite
number ; and that, however numerous the stars of
heaven may be — however vast, in short, the universe
in its extent may be — still there can and must be a
limit to this extent,— that the material universe, con
sisting, as it does, of separate though connected
bodies, must still have limits, which, however unknown
to us, must somewhere exist ; for no possible number
of finite objects can ever constitute a strictly infinite
number. An infinite number of finite objects is,
indeed, a contradiction. Infinity is out of all propor
tion to the finite. It is an attribute sui generis, and
is predicable only of that incomprehensible Being
to whom alone eternity and immensity belong. He,
and He alone, is the Self-existent, the Eternal, the
Infinite. The material world must, we thus conclude,
be finite both in its past duration and in its extent.
Infinitude in any respect whatever cannot belong to
such a thing as matter.
Such, then, are the contradictions involved in the
atheistic hypothesis. Attempts have been made to
evade them, partly by using the term infinite in a loose
sense, and partly by bringing forward the difficulties
which necessarily cling to all our inadequate concep
tions of the strictly infinite. These difficulties are,
indeed, great — insurmountable, we should at once say,
by the finite mind of man. But a difficulty — an in
surmountable difficulty— is one thing, and a contra-

54 LECTURE IV.
diction is another. The human mind can contemplate
the one, and own its inability to remove it at the very
moment that it receives it as a fact ; but the other it
cannot contemplate as a thing to be received. A
manifest contradiction can never be acquiesced in by
our reason ; for we are satisfied that truth — the reality
of things — though reaching to the strictly infinite,
can never contradict itself, but must in all its parts
possess a unity and harmony as its essential char
acteristics. Atheism is based on a contradiction — on
a lie — and no lie is of the truth. It is a lie which,
alas ! seems to amuse some minds, and to furnish
scope for their ingenious and subtle disputations ; but
it is a lie which, wherever it prevails, darkens the
whole region of truth, and corrupts the whole nature
of man, and would render it impossible for him to
live. It is, however, a lie so manifest that reason and
conscience, and the very instincts of our nature, pro
test against it ; and against this ir°&rvi -^tZ&os — this fun
damental falsehood — the whole material universe, for
the deification of which it is invented, loudly reclaims.
For all nature bears its clear testimony to Him who
alone is God, and to whom reason and conscience
direct us as the source of all truth and goodness, and
before whose august presence our instinctive feelings
cause us to bow down and adore.
But we must now bring these remarks to a close.
Atheism, which means the denial of the existence of
God, represents matter as being eternal and infinite
in the strictest sense of these terms, and is thus in
volved not in mere speculative difficulties, but in real
contradictions ; whereas Theism— the belief in the
existence of God — whilst it presents to us speculative

ON ATHEISM. 55
difficulties which our finite reason cannot overcome, is
not only free from contradiction, but also accounts
for the origin of the world and the course of events.
Viewed as mere hypotheses, the .one is condemned by
our reason, while the other is accepted as the only
philosophical explanation of the facts before us. Ac
cording to Atheism, the visible world had no origin ;
there was no first or primordial condition ; no primary
germ to be developed ; for the world — matter with all
its forces and laws — is from eternity. And yet there
is a manifest system of things — a system having all
its various parts adjusted to one another — a system
advancing in an orderly course, one stage causing
another — a successive order of changes, movements,
and living creatures — a wondrous system of objects,
animate and inanimate — a system bearing all the
marks of having had an origin, and of having been
arranged by intelligence and will for the accomplish
ment of definite purposes — a system, therefore, which
contradicts the assumption that it is self-existent, un-
originated, eternal. According to Theism, there is a
spiritual Being, self-existent, and immutable in all His
perfections ; who, in Himself incomprehensible, gave
origin to the world, which He ever upholds and governs.
The idea of creation surpasses, indeed, our compre
hension, but it involves no contradiction. We ascribe
it to the will and power of this One self-existent God.
We therefore give a reasonable account of the exist
ence of the world, and of the orderly system of
things which it presents, when we trace that sys
tem, as respects both its contents and its order, to a
self-existent God, possessed of almighty power and
supreme intelligence. This Being Himself is indeed

56 LECTURE IV.
incomprehensible ; but this fact does not constitute a
contradiction, for there is nothing contradictory, but
altogether reasonable, in the fact that the finite cannot
comprehend the Infinite ; that to us who are but of
yesterday, He who is from everlasting should be an
object surpassing the limits of our knowledge. In
one word, our whole nature calls for such a Being — for
a living personal God. Our feelings of dependence
and worship direct us instinctively to Him. Our rea
son demands Him as the highest reality and truth.
Conscience points to Him as the alone moral
Governor of the universe. All surrounding nature
also demands His existence ; for everywhere we
behold proofs of His creative power, His perfect
intelligence, and His boundless goodness. If, then,
there is one truth on which the human mind may rest
with assured confidence, it is that there is a God ; and
we can only be astonished and saddened at the per
versity of the man, who, deaf to the voice within and
to the voice without, can bring himself even for a
moment to entertain the supposition that there is no
God. Yet, sad as the fact is, it is most certain that,
as we have said, never in any former age were such
strenuous efforts made to promulgate this supposition;
and to such a length have these efforts proceeded, that
it is now openly proclaimed by some that belief in
God is the chief hindrance to individual and social
progress and happiness; for it is this belief, they
allege, which stands in the way of those great schemes,
which, if realised, would free the world of all the
sources of its misery. Alas! alas! were this be
lief indeed removed from the mind of an individual,

ON ATHEISM. 57
or from the bosom of society, we need no prophetic
voice to tell us what would be the result. The very
foundation of morals would be sapped. Truth, Justice,
and Love would speedily take their flight ; man's
animal passions would soon assume the ascendancy ;
and the social state, hastening to dissolution, would
meanwhile be a scene of falsehood, injustice, tyranny,
and death. But let us not be over-alarmed. The
holy, righteous, and beneficent God reigns, and though
at times "the floods" of human impiety and passion
may " lift up their waves, yet Jehovah on high is
mightier than the noise of many waters, yea, than the
mighty waves of the sea." " Jehovah reigneth, let the
earth rejoice ; let the multitude of isles be glad
thereof." " This God is our God for ever and ever :
He will be our guide even unto death ;" yea, " He will
be our portion for ever."
Convinced then, as I am, that the great contest of
our day has come once more to be between Theism
and Atheism, and that the most strenuous efforts are
being made to spread the latter, subversive though it
be of all truth and goodness and happiness, whether
in the individual or in society, I have thought it pro
per to draw your attention to the subject ; and it is
hoped that the discussion, brief as it has been, may
not have been altogether useless, but may have
tended in some measure to strengthen your faith in
the greatest, the most sublime, and most fundamental
of all truths — the existence of a Supreme Being who
created and governs the world. No truth can pos
sibly be more important than this, for it is one which
comes home directly to each of us, affecting, as it
does, our highest duty and our most lasting interests.

58 LECTURE IV.
It becomes us to cherish this truth as the most pre
cious treasure of our souls, and to defend it with all
our energy. It is man's noblest privilege to be able
to rise to the conception of this All-glorious Being ;
and it is his highest duty to acknowledge, honour,
love, and obey Him ; as it is also his highest happiness
to enjoy communion with Him as his God. If you
firmly grasp and hold this truth, you will find the
way open to examine the evidences of that revela
tion which has been graciously bestowed upon us ;
and you will encounter no special difficulty in dis
cerning the validity and appreciating the worth of
these evidences. It is when a man vaguely discerns
or loosely holds the fundamental truth of a living
personal God, that he stumbles when he would in
quire into the evidences of revelation, and that he is
in danger of yielding to the sophistry by which these
evidences are assailed. Only be settled and grounded
in the faith of God, and you will find yourselves drawn
to believe on Him whom God has sent. On this
latter subject also we propose briefly to address you,
and specially on the validity of those miraculous
proofs which God has given in attestation of the mis
sion of His Son.

LECTURE V.
ON THE EVIDENCES OF DIVINE REVELATION.
In the remarks which I am at present to make on
the Evidences of Divine Revelation, it is not my in
tention to discuss these evidences at length, but to de
fend their validity as evidences, and specially to show
that miracles — real, genuine miracles — are and must be
the proper, the valid proof of a divine revelation. I
need hardly tell you that it is against the miraculous
proof that the efforts of infidelity have in all ages
been mainly directed ; and that the recent attacks
upon Christianity have aimed at throwing entire dis
credit on this branch of the evidences, as being that
without which all other proofs would in reality be of
no avail ; for it is only in conjunction with this, the
direct proof of a revelation, that these others exert their
due influence. Hence every effort has been and is
still made by the opponents of revelation in general,
and of Christianity in particular, to depreciate the value
of the miraculous evidence, and even to represent the
very idea of a miracle as an absurdity. The sceptic
Hume, who devoted the great talent with which he
was intrusted to the melancholy task of perplexing
those questions on which man's highest interests de
pend, did not attempt to prove the impossibility of a

60 LECTURE V.
miracle. He aimed rather at throwing discredit on
that testimony by means of which the evidence which
miracles furnish is conveyed to those who were not
eyewitnesses of the events. It was the validity of
this testimony which his sophistry directly sought to
destroy. No doubt, his argument, such as it was,
indirectly impugned the possibility of miracles them
selves. And his successors in this work have open
ly assailed miracles themselves, their whole efforts
seeming to be concentrated to accomplish this one
result — the entire disproof of the possibility of a
miracle. It is to be deeply lamented that, influenced
by the sophistry of these recent opponents of revela
tion, not a few of its professed friends have shown a
disposition not only to undervalue the miraculous
proof, but even to explain away by all sorts of inter
pretation the miracles alleged to have been wrought
in support of the claims of revelation, and to reduce
them by means of such interpretations to the level of
ordinary non-miraculous events. Miracles, it is now
sometimes said, are hindrances to our faith ; and these
professed friends of revelation seem to imagine that, if
we could in any way get rid of these alleged miracles,
we should remove a great stumblingblock out of the
way of many who but for them would willingly receive
the message of Heaven ! The subject, then, on which
we are entering, is one of the highest moment, and I
wish to bring together within a short compass those
points which on this subject demand your closest
attention. I. Miracles, as we have said, constitute the valid
proof of a divine revelation.
We do not mean that proofs of other kinds

ON THE EVIDENCES OF DIVINE REVELATION. 6 1
are not required, or that these, when given, are of
slight value. Far otherwise : Christianity, for ex
ample, is supported in its divine claims by manifold
evidence ; and every branch of this body of evidence
is important, and even necessary. The moral char
acter of Christianity, for instance, is absolutely essen
tial to the support of its claims ; for were this moral
character other than it is, no further proof would be
necessary to discredit these claims. But then you
will observe that the moral character of a system of
doctrine, however unexceptionable that character may
be, can only establish the truth of the system in itself,
and can never reach to the Divine authority of the
system. The question is still undecided, From whom
has this system of moral truth proceeded ? Directly
from God, or from man ? The moral character of a
doctrine proves that doctrine to be true, but it does not
logically determine that God is its immediate author.
Again, the adaptation of the scheme of redemp
tion, made known to us in the Gospel, to the na
ture and condition of man, is a powerful branch of
the evidence in support of its divine origin. The
more we contemplate this adaptation in all its
marvellous features, the stronger does the evidence
appear which it furnishes to this divine origin. It
constitutes — especially in connection with the moral
character of the Gospel, from which, indeed, it is in
separable — that internal evidence which appeals to
man's conscience as well as to his reason, and leads
him to conclude in no hesitating manner that such a
scheme as this bears on itself the impress of Heaven.
Still (for we must look at the matter with all
calmness and logical severity), had we nothing more

62 LECTURE V.
than this internal evidence, however strong might be
the presumption raised in our minds in respect to the
divine origin of the Gospel, and however much we
should feel it to be our wisdom to act on such a pre
sumption, it seems clear that there would still remain
an essential link wanting in the evidence — that link
by means of which the authority of God is brought
directly to establish the claims of the Gospel. " Re
velation itself," says the sagacious Butler, " is miracu
lous, and miracles are the proof of it." They are
the proof, you will observe, not directly of the truth
of the doctrine revealed, but of its authority — of this
truth having come from God. The doctrine may be
true, and yet God may not be its direct author.
Miracles prove that God is its author. A professed
messenger from heaven appears. He delivers a sys
tem of doctrine. If his doctrine presents aught in
consistent with the clear dictates of reason and con
science, we at once reject his doctrine, and we are
entitled and bound to do so, whatever proofs he may
profess to furnish in support of his claims ; for reason
and conscience constitute the last tribunal to which
all such claims must be referred. But should this
professed messenger make known to us a system of
doctrine, which in itself, so far as we can judge of its
character, is evidently true, and not only true, but of
importance to us, and which also, even when it tran
scends the sphere of our natural reason, unfolds to us
a scheme which, so far again as we can judge of it,
seems adapted to our moral condition, and capable of
conferring upon us real, practical benefits, then a pre
sumption of a high order indeed arises in favour of
the claims of this messenger ; the way is fully open

ON THE EVIDENCES OF DIVINE REVELATION. 63
for receiving such evidence as He may be able to give
in attestation of His claims ; and we feel an assurance
that if He really is what He claims to be, the all-wise
God will not leave the claims of His servant in a state
of doubt, nor place us, His rational creatures, to whom
He has sent this servant, in manifest perplexity, but
will, along with the message of truth and mercy, give
such tokens to His servant as when presented by
Him to us will enable us to know of a truth that this
is indeed a messenger of God to man.
The necessity for such evidence as bears directly on
the authority of the messenger is manifest. We dare
not, without satisfactory evidence, acknowledge any
one to be a direct messenger of Heaven. And the
evidence must be such as will at once establish his
authority — clear, palpable evidence — evidence not in
mere words or assertions, but in deed and in truth.
The only evidence which can answer this purpose is
that which consists in the manifestation of power ;
therefore of extraordinary, miraculous power. It is
the evidence of power which first leads the mind to
the recognition of and belief in creative power. The
evidences of wisdom and goodness combine with the
former, and give us the conception of an all-wise and
all-perfect, as well as of an almighty Creator. So it
is in respect to our recognition of and belief in an
extraordinary messenger from God. We demand in
him the tokens of wisdom and goodness ; but the
token of power is absolutely necessary, for it is that
token on which we can directly look, and which leaves
no possible room for evasion or doubt. Miracles,
then, are necessary to sustain the claims of a Divine
Revelation ; ' necessary not exactly to establish the

64 LECTURE V.
truth of doctrine, but to confirm its authority as being
from God. Miracles are, we repeat in other words,
essential as evidence, not to make that true which is
not true in itself, but to exhibit in clear light the fact
that this truth has come from God ; not, we again say,
to show the truth of the message, but to establish the
claims of the messenger, and therefore the authority
with which his message, true and important in itself,
is clothed. In these remarks we have assumed that miracles
are possible. Our object has been to show the place
which, on this assumption, they occupy among the
evidences of divine revelation. They are absolutely
necessary, for "revelation itself is miraculous," and
there can be no other direct proof of it than that of
miracles. 2. We now consider whether a miracle be a pos
sible event or not.
Here we must correctly understand what is meant
by a miraculous event. A real miracle is not merely
a rare or unusual event, but an event which cannot
possibly take place in what is termed the ordinary
course of things. There can be no question that
there is an established course of nature, in which
events take place in accordance with what we term
"the laws of nature." Matter is possessed of certain
properties, and these properties exert their force in a
uniform method established by the all-wise Creator.
Physical forces or causes have in themselves no power
to change the mode in which they severally operate.
Similar causes under similar circumstances invariably
produce similar results. In the ordinary course of
nature, then, an event may occur which surprises and

ON THE EVIDENCES OF DIVINE REVELATION. 65
astonishes our minds. We may have never before
witnessed or heard of such an event, and this new
event — new to us — may be inexplicable by us ; that
is, we may be unable to assign its physical cause or
causes — to classify it, in short, among events already
known to us. And a person ignorant of physical
science may be apt to regard the event as really ex
traordinary, as strictly miraculous. But the more
we become acquainted with the facts and laws of
external nature, the deeper does our conviction be
come, that however rare and surprising any event in
the ordinary course of things may seem, it is as ex
plicable as the most common event by the ordinary,
established laws of nature. The scientific mind
attains at length to the thorough conviction that a
miracle, a real miracle, is impossible in the ordinary
course of nature ; for a miracle is an event which
cannot be explained by a reference to mere physical
causes. It is the product of no mere physical law,
known or unknown, which rules the ordinary course
of things. The very supposition that it is or may be
so explicable, annihilates at once its character as a
miraculous event. A miracle implies the immediate
interposition of divine power — of the Supreme Being,
in short. It is an event beyond the ordinary course,
and is introduced into the ordinary course on purpose
to bear witness to an extraordinary interposition of
the almighty Creator.
There is a sense, then, in which the affirmation
now so common among the opponents of revelation
is true, that a miracle — an event not explicable by
the ordinary laws of nature — is impossible. This
affirmation is most true, when regard is had solely to
E

66 LECTURE V.
these laws of nature. It is most important that you
clearly perceive when this dictum is true, and why it
is that it is true. The affirmation, then, is ever true
when, as we have said, regard is had to the laws of
nature alone, to physical causes alone, to the ordinary
course of nature alone. And the reason why this is
true is just this, — that it would involve a contradiction
to suppose a physical cause, which as a cause tends
to produce one result, either failing to operate accord
ing to its nature, or of itself changing its own nature
and producing a different or opposite result. Physical
causes have only physical force. They have no effi
cient power, no intelligence, no will, no power of
choice. They operate blindly and mechanically, and
cannot possibly operate otherwise. Hence the Theist
maintains as firmly as the Atheist can do, that in the
ordinary course of nature, viewed solely as governed
by physical causes or laws, no real miracle is possible.
But now the great question comes into view, Is
there no sense in which a miracle is possible ? The
Atheist, by his very hypothesis, is compelled to reject
the possibility of a miracle in every sense. For to
him there is, by supposition, nothing but this material
course of things ; and it needs no argument to prove
that, if the visible course of things is all that exists,
no event can possibly happen but in harmony with
such a course. A miracle necessarily implies the in
tervention of a power distinct from and above the
course of things ; and since, according to the atheistic
hypothesis, there exists no such power, a real miracle
is in every sense impossible. But the Theist — the
man who believes in God, in a living personal Creator
— arrives at an entirely opposite conclusion. He con-

ON THE EVIDENCES OF DIVINE REVELATION. 6"J
templates the material world as the effect of divine
power, and he views the whole course of nature, not
as having in itself a necessary existence, but as a
course established, governed, and carried on by the
supreme Creator. The Theist admits as a legitimate
conclusion, that in this ordinary course, viewed in
itself, no events of an extraordinary kind can take
place ; but he does not admit that in no sense what
ever can such events take place, for he believes that
He who created the world and established the course
of nature has still the same power, the same intelli
gence, and the same will, and that it can never be
beyond the power of this almighty Being to interpose
in the course of events, and to do whatever to Him
seemeth good. We can have no adequate idea of
what is implied in creative power ; but we necessarily
ascribe such power to God, and therefore we are war
ranted in ascribing to Him power to interpose in His
own established course of things, so as to accomplish
a result which, but for His immediate interposition,
could never have taken place. Even man, with his
finite power and intelligence, can to some extent
interfere with the course of events. He cannot,
indeed, produce a strictly miraculous result, for he
is possessed of no creative power. But within a cer
tain sphere of operation he can so avail himself of
known physical causes and laws as to accomplish
results which these causes and laws, if left to their
own action, never could have produced. We cannot
limit the sphere of the Almighty's operation. He has
manifestly the power to interpose ; and therefore a
miracle, though impossible under the mere operation
of physical causes, and though impossible to the finite

68 LECTURE V.
power of man, must be possible to the almighty
power of God. We thus once more perceive that the
question affecting the possibility of miracles, really
resolves itself into the question respecting the exist
ence of God. Atheism denies, and must deny, their
possibility. Theism admits, and must admit, that
they are possible — possible to God.
3. And now, we would observe, that whether a
miracle shall take place or not must altogether de
pend on the will of God.
If God is pleased to interpose in the course of
events, He has power to do so ; and further, He has
intelligence to enable Him to do so without derang
ing that general course of events which He has estab
lished. We must ever be on our guard lest we
limit the perfections of the Almighty. He can work
when and where and how He pleases, and accom
plish His purpose in so working, and yet maintain
the appointed operation of ordinary causes and laws.
We cannot comprehend His mode of working. All
we can know is the effect produced, which effect we
are compelled to ascribe to an immediate interposi
tion of His power. Whether He will be pleased to
work a miracle is a question which we cannot a priori
determine ; for what created being can in this way know
the mind of the Lord ? But we may safely conclude
that, should it please Him to make an extraordinary
revelation of Himself to His creatures, He will ac
company that revelation with valid evidence — with
miraculous proof, which, as has already been shown, is
the direct, the proper evidence of a revelation. Paley
has, accordingly, justly observed, that "in whatever
degree it is probable or not very improbable that a

ON THE EVIDENCES OF DIVINE REVELATION. 69
revelation should be communicated to mankind at all,
in the same degree it is probable or not very impro
bable that miracles should be wrought." A miracle,
we may assume as certain, will not be wrought but
for a reason which will justify such an interposition ;
but should the divine wisdom see it meet to reveal
His will and purposes in an extraordinary manner to
the human race, who is there that can justly find
fault, or say unto the Almighty, What doest Thou ?
Attempts have been made to ridicule the very idea
of miraculous interposition, as if the Almighty were
supposed to have discovered some error in His work —
in the machinery of nature — and then to have found
it necessary to interfere in order to correct this ori
ginal defect. But it is an easy task first to misrepre
sent an idea or a proposition, and then to throw
ridicule on this fiction of the critic's own mind. It is
far easier to do this than to look at the subject fairly,
and to judge of it according to truth. Miracles are
not, we may rest assured, wrought for themselves as
mere displays of power; nor are they wrought to ac
complish purposes which may in their whole extent be
accomplished through the instrumentality of ordinary
means. If miracles are ever wrought, it is to accom
plish ends worthy of God — ends which cannot be
reached by the ordinary course of things ; for just as
miracles are the proper proof of a divine revelation,
so the converse also is true, that where miracles are
wrought, there a revelation will be found.
4 Assuming, now, that miracles are the proper
proofs of a divine revelation, and that they are
possible to God, and further, that their occurrence
depends entirely on His will, we remark that when

70 LECTURE V.
they are wrought they become objects of sensible
perception just as any other events are.
There is in this respect no distinction or difference
whatever between effects produced by immediate
divine interposition and effects produced in the or
dinary course of Providence. Eyewitnesses see the
effects in the one case just as they see them in the
other. It is admitted that in the one case there is
the danger of our being deceived by a pretence to
work miracles, which does not exist in the other
case ; but that is not the point before us. Suppose
a real miracle to be wrought before eyewitnesses,
that miracle is an effect which these eyewitnesses can
perceive just as they can perceive any ordinary effect.
It is indeed a grave question, which they are bound to
determine, whether the thing done is really a miracle
or not — whether sight was really given by a word of
command — whether thousands were really fed by
means of a few loaves— whether the dead were really
raised to life — whether, in -short, any professed miracle
was really a miracle, or only an ingenious device ; but,
supposing this question to be settled in the affirma
tive, what we maintain is, that a miraculous effect is
as truly an object of sensible perception as any other
effect. The essential difference between the two
classes of events does not lie in their relation to the
senses — the organs of perception — but in the manner
in which they respectively take place. It is our
Reason which in the one case proclaims the events to
be miraculous, and in the other case proclaims the
events to be non-miraculous — to be ordinary events.
That the events in the one case are miraculous, is a
conclusion not discerned by the senses, but drawn by

ON THE EVIDENCES OF DIVINE REVELATION. 7 1
our reason : whilst in the other case the events are at
once accepted by the same reason as ordinary events.
This distinction between the functions of our senses
and the operation of our reason is very obvious, and
yet it is not seldom overlooked in the discussion of
this great subject. We do not by our senses perceive
the miraculous power itself— we can witness only the
effects of this power. We do not immediately discern
physical causes themselves — we perceive only their
results. It is results only in both cases that we per
ceive. It is our reason which determines whether the
results are miraculous or not ; that is, whether they
are such as can be accounted for by reference to
known physical causes, or whether they are such as
at once bear testimony to an immediate exertion
of divine power. Whatever vigilance, then, is to be
employed by those in whose presence miracles are
professedly wrought, in order that they may not be
deceived by a mere pretence to perform such works,
these works, if really wrought, are and must be as
much within the sphere of our sensible perception as
any other works whatever.
5. This brings me to observe, further, that miracles
may, as much as ordinary events, become the subject
of testimony.
Let it, however, be here noted, that in discussing this
point we have strictly nothing to do with the danger to
which human testimony is always exposed, of adding
to or taking from what alone would be a true state
ment of an occurrence. The real question before us is,
whether an eyewitness of a miracle is competent to
testify of the event which he has himself seen to another,
so that this person also may be warranted in believing

72 LECTURE V.
in the reality of the event. It is in reference to this
question that Hume's celebrated sophism comes be
fore us. This sophism is in effect as follows : — ' I
have had experience of the ordinary course of nature,
and have never witnessed a departure from that course.
I have also had experience of the value of human
testimony, and have occasionally at least witnessed a
departure in such testimony from the truth. A man
comes to me and tells me that he has witnessed a
departure from the ordinary course of nature. Know
ing, as I do, so far as my own experience has gone,
that this course is uniformly the same, and knowing
also, as I do, that human testimony is not always to
be relied upon, I conclude that I ought to adhere to
the lessons of my own experience, and to reject this
testimony. In short, no amount of human testimony
can overcome my reluctance to believe that nature has
departed from her course.' Though we have, for the
sake of brevity, stated Hume's argument in our own
words, we believe we have given you a clear and full
view of it ; and it ought to be admitted that it is an
argument which at first sight assumes a formidable
appearance. But even Hume himself supposes a case
in which he allows that his argument would fail —
a case in respect to which he admits that it would
be a greater anomaly to suppose the testimony to be
unworthy of credit, than to suppose that the extra
ordinary event testified had happened. But the fact
is, that in all such reasonings we are exceedingly apt
to be led astray by means of mere words — of words
which may have a greater or a less extent of meaning.
The word " experience," for example, may refer to the
experience of one or more persons, or even to the

ON THE EVIDENCES OF DIVINE REVELATION. 73
experience of the whole human race. To say that a
miracle is contrary to experience, may mean that such
an event has not occurred within my experience ; and
such a statement may be perfectly correct. But to
say that a miracle is contrary to the experience
of the race — that is, that such an event has never
occurred at all — is to assume the very point under
discussion ; for the professed witnesses affirm that a
miracle has happened ; and the real question is, Is
their testimony to be believed or not ? Now it seems
most evident, that unless with the Atheist we can
pronounce a miracle impossible, we cannot a priori
determine whether a miracle has taken place or not.
And if we admit the possibility of a miracle, then
if competent witnesses should declare to us that such
an event has really taken place, we cannot fairly, upon
the mere ground that we ourselves have not been eye
witnesses of such an event, pronounce their testimony
to be unworthy of credit.
Now, what I wish to show you at present is, that
a miraculous event, which our argument must now
suppose to have really occurred, is a legitimate subject
of human testimony — as legitimate a subject of such
testimony as any the most common event. Ob
serve, we do not say that we are to be satisfied with
the same amount of testimony in the one case as in
the other. Far otherwise. The testimony which alone
can assure us that a real miracle has happened, must
be of the highest moral order ; a testimony given under
circumstances which can leave no reasonable doubt
either as to the competency of the witnesses or as to
their veracity. All that is true ; but the real point
before us at present is, whether a miraculous event

74 LECTURE V.
can be the subject of human testimony at all. We
maintain that it can be so, just as much as any. other
event. We remarked that the eyewitnesses of mir
acles observed only effects, and that it is the pro
vince of reason to decide whether the effects be
miraculous or not. In the same way, witnesses,
whilst they may no doubt state their own view of the
nature of any event, in reality only testify what they
themselves have seen. They are witnesses to us only
of the facts — of the facts which came under their own
sensible perception. It is by no means uncommon
for persons to testify things which they have seen,
and seen correctly, and which they imagine to be
exceedingly marvellous ; whilst others, to whom this
testimony may be given, admit the statements of the
facts, but know full well that they are far from being
marvellous. If a witness merely told us in general
terms that he had seen on some particular occasion
a miraculous event, and either could not or would not
tell us the event itself and all those circumstances
connected with it which are necessary to enable us
to judge for ourselves, we should at once reject his
testimony, or at least we should feel ourselves to be
under no obligation whatever to receive it as valid.
The witness must evidently furnish us with such an
account of the event, and its accompanying circum
stances, as shall enable us to determine by an exer
cise of our own reason whether the alleged event was
really a miracle or not. And what we affirm is, that
eyewitnesses of real miracles are fully competent to
relate to us what fell under their own sensible obser
vation ; and then it is for us to look at the facts so
related, and to judge for ourselves as to the nature

ON THE EVIDENCES OF DIVINE REVELATION. 75
of the events. There is nothing connected with the
mere sensible facts which take place when miraculous
power is exerted, to remove them from the sphere
of competent testimony, any more than there is any
thing connected with these facts to withdraw them
from the sphere of sensible perception. There is
nothing, in short, which can preclude us from looking
at the facts testified, any more than there is anything
to preclude an eyewitness from looking at the facts
when presented to his view.
We have, though labouring to be brief, dwelt at
some length on this general view of miracles ; because
we are convinced that it is by means of sophistical
statements on the subject in general, that infidelity
seeks to undermine our faith in those miraculous
works which our Lord wrought in support of His
divine claims. We have by no means exhausted the
subject ; but if we are correct in the remarks which
we have laid before you, they will perhaps induce you
to meditate more fully upon it ; and they may also
be the means of suggesting to you how to meet the
current objections to this great, this essential branch
of the evidence of divine revelation.
There is unquestionably in our minds a strong re
luctance to receive any account of a miraculous event.
The most ordinary testimony is generally sufficient to
obtain our belief in an ordinary event, or even in an
event which, though strange, may yet come under this
category. But even when we have examined the tes
timony in support of a miraculous event, we are liable
to entertain the thought that perhaps in some way or
other we may be deceived by this testimony. Now
this reluctance to believe in an apparently well-ac-

y6 LECTURE V.
credited narrative of miraculous events should be
treated fairly by us, and should lead us to examine
most thoroughly the testimony presented to us, and
to examine it under all the circumstances in which
it is given. The miracles of our Lord, for example,
bear witness to Him as the Messenger of God, and
are inseparably connected with His person and work.
The eyewitnesses of these miracles bore their testi
mony in connection with the office assigned them, and
under circumstances which tended to put their testi
mony to the severest test. We are, then, to look at
all the circumstances of the case, and after a fair,
full, and solemn examination of the subject, to deter
mine for ourselves whether we have sufficient grounds
for believing the Apostolic testimony to be true. If
we conclude that we have such grounds, then we are
called upon to exercise faith in these miraculous
events ; and we must not allow our general feeling of
reluctance to overcome our faith, any more than, when
we have come to the conclusion that there is a living
personal God, we are to allow the transcendent, the
incomprehensible nature of the conclusion, to disturb
a faith which we know to be built on the solid rock of
the most reasonable evidence. It is when we attempt
to realise, to conceive how a miracle can take place,
that we begin to stumble. Now, we cannot realise
this ; we cannot conceive how such an event can be
performed ; but then remember that we know not
how any event whatever takes place. There is a
mystery inscrutable by us in every event whatsoever.
All we know is, that under such and such circum
stances such and such events do take place. And in
respect to a miracle, though we know not, and cannot

ON THE EVIDENCES OF DIVINE REVELATION. J7
know, the mode of operation, we have present to our
minds a cause sufficient for its production — even the
power of Him who worketh all in all. Exercise faith,
then, in conclusions drawn by your reason from
sound premises ; for unless we do this, we shall never
come to the knowledge and belief of the truth on any
subject whatsoever.
In next Lecture I shall briefly consider the special
miraculous evidence furnished to us in support of the
claims of the Gospel.

LECTURE VI.
ON THE MIRACULOUS EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPEL.
In last Lecture we made some remarks on the general
subject of miracles as the proper evidence of a divine
revelation. We would now apply these remarks to
the particular case of the Christian revelation. We
may briefly state the case as follows : —
There appeared among the Jewish people, at a time
which for all practical purposes can be sufficiently de
termined, one Jesus, who claimed to be the special
messenger of God, not merely to the Jews, but to the
whole human race, and to have been sent not merely
to reform the systems of religious belief then prevail
ing in the world, or the moral codes adopted by the
several nations of the world, but to be the Author of
the world's redemption from that state of ignorance,
sin, and death into which it had fallen. Jesus claimed
to be not merely a Teacher of religion and morals,
but to be, in the strictest sense of the expression, the
Saviour of the human race. He declared His design
to be not to institute a school of philosophy, or
merely to reform man's social condition, but, as He
himself expresses it, " to seek and to save that which
was lost." In order to accomplish this, the declared
purpose of His mission, He went about throughout

MIRACULOUS EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPEL. 79
the land of Judea, teaching all classes of the people
the great doctrines of religion and morals, and ex
hibiting in His own life the practical power of those
doctrines. From among those who were led to ac
knowledge His claims He selected a few who accom
panied Him during His ministry, and who, after His
own ministry was closed, went forth in His name to
proclaim His message of truth and salvation to all
nations. The result was, that, through the instru
mentality of these chosen attendants, the claims of
Jesus were made known within a very brief period
throughout the vast empire of Rome, and even in
nations beyond that empire, and that Christian socie
ties or churches, composed of professing believers in
Jesus, were speedily formed. And to the present day
such societies or churches have continued, and are,
notwithstanding the strenuous opposition which the
religion of Jesus has had all along to encounter, still
spreading the knowledge of His name ; and there
appears to be every probability to lead to the belief
that this religion will, in course of time, become the
universal religion of mankind.
Such a moral phenomenon as this deserves the
earnest attention of every thoughtful mind. Be the
real merits of the Christian religion what they may,
there must be something in this religion which gives
to it a moral power such as no other system of religion
ever propounded to man possesses — something in it
which reaches man's feelings and reason and con
science, and draws him to acknowledge the claims of
Jesus. No doubt these claims have been all along
disputed and rejected by some in every class of
society ; and not a few who have been distinguished

80 LECTURE VI.
for intellectual talent and for great attainments in
science and literature, have openly disavowed these
claims, and laboured to disprove them. But many,
if not all of these, have done so upon grounds which
would equally set aside all religious belief whatever ;
upon grounds, therefore, which are wholly inadmis
sible excepting on the hypothesis that there is no God,
and therefore can be no messenger from God. With
such opponents of the Christian faith all argument
necessarily ceases, for there exists no common ground
on which they and we can stand in order to discuss
the real merits of the question. It is, however, to be
kept in mind that other men, not less distinguished
than those to whom we have specially alluded for
talent and attainments, have professed to have seri
ously examined the claims of Jesus, and to have ar
rived at the conclusion that these claims are in their
view worthy of all credit. In our own day, as well as
in former times, men of comparatively high talents
and learning are ranged on both sides of this question.
The conflict between these two classes is vigorously
going on ; and it would appear as if this conflict would
continue in future generations. Why it should be so,
is indeed, altogether apart from the practical conse
quences involved, a most marvellous phenomenon.
Why, if the claims of Jesus are really unworthy of
credit, the opponents of these claims, with all their
persistent ingenuity and indomitable labour, are un
able so to discredit them as to silence for ever the
advocates of these claims, seems indeed to be passing
strange. Why, on the other hand, the advocates of
those claims should fail so to establish them as not
to put their opponents to silence, must appear no less

MIRACULOUS EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPEL. 8 1
strange. It cannot be that this question is an in
determinable question, that it is one in respect to
which the human mind can arrive at no satisfactory
conclusion at all, and that therefore it would be our
wisdom to abandon it as one entirely beyond the
reach of man's reason. Such a view of this question
cannot be entertained, for it is one about a matter of
fact, and that fact is, whether Jesus supported His
claims or not by competent proof. The truth is, that
other considerations are allowed to enter into the
examination of this question — considerations which
involve the conclusion, and therefore prejudge the
question prior to all fair inquiry. We have repeatedly
alluded to this feature of the conflict, and it is no
mere assertion on our part, but a statement of plain
fact, when we affirm that the opponents of the claims
of Jesus do ultimately rest their argument on prin
ciples which of themselves render these claims wholly
absurd. Their argument ultimately rests on Atheism,
on the negation of God, and therefore on the negation
of the possibility of such claims as those which Jesus
preferred. There have indeed been professed Theists
who have yet denied the claims of Jesus. With
such persons we can legitimately discuss this ques
tion, and we are bound to bestow all attention on
what they allege ; for the possibility that the claims
of Jesus were not supported by competent proof must
be allowed. We must not begin our argument with
a foregone conclusion even in favour of these claims.
We must fairly inquire whether or not there are solid
grounds for our belief; and if we find that there are
no such grounds, then belief in the validity of the
claims cannot be, and ought not to be, entertained.
F

82 LECTURE VI.
On the other hand, should we ascertain that there
are such grounds, then we are bound to acknowledge
the claims of Jesus to be valid, and to believe in Him
as what He declared Himself to be, the Son of God
and the Saviour of the world.
Jesus appealed to a variety of evidence in support
of His claims. He appealed to the doctrine itself
which He taught, as containing in itself evidence of its
own divine origin. " My doctrine," He said, " is not
mine, but His that sent me. If any man will do His
will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of
God, or whether I speak of myself." He also ap
pealed to His own character, and especially to the
fact, which His life fully attested, that He had no
selfish or ambitious purpose to serve. " He that
speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory ; but He
that seeketh His glory that sent Him, the same is
true, and no unrighteousness is in Him." No one
who rightly understands the religious and moral
doctrine which Jesus taught, and forms an impartial
estimate of His character, as it is portrayed to us,
not in mere words, but in the habits and acts of His
life, can fail to perceive the powerful evidence which
both His doctrine and character furnish in support
of His claims. Even some of the opponents of these
claims admit the purity and sublimity of His doc
trine, and also the spotlessness and beneficence, if not
the perfectness, of His character.
Jesus also appealed to ancient predictions respect
ing a great Deliverer who was to come, — to predictions
recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, and fulfilled, as
He alleged, in His own person and mission. This is
a branch of evidence of a peculiar kind, involving as

MIRACULOUS EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPEL. 83
it does what may be termed a miracle of know
ledge, even although the events foretold and accom
plished may, when viewed in themselves, be classed
as ordinary events. " Search the Scriptures " — that
is, the Hebrew Scriptures — said Jesus ; " for in
them ye think ye have eternal life : and they are
they which testify of me." The evidence derived
from a comparison of these alleged predictions with
the recorded life and ministry of Jesus is of wide
extent, and most powerful in its force. The manifest
connection, also, of the various dispensations recorded
in these same Scriptures with that dispensation of
which Jesus was the Author, constitutes one great
prophetic proof that the last is the one dispensation
to which all the former were preparatory ; and the
unity of design pervading all these dispensations
furnishes a striking evidence that they all have one
Author, and that this. Author is none other than the
one true and living God.
But in addition to the internal evidence furnished
by His doctrine and character, and to the external
evidence to be drawn from the fulfilment of ancient
predictions, Jesus appealed to the miraculous works
which He himself performed as direct and immediate
proofs of His divine mission. " The works which the
Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I
do, bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me."
That Jesus in these words referred specially to His
miraculous works, there can be no question.
1. Now, let us here observe, first, that Jesus did
appeal to sensible miracles as the direct proof of His
claims. No doubt, He is represented as on certain
occasions speaking disparagingly of those who wished

84 LECTURE VI.
to witness miracles as mere displays of power, or
merely as affording relief from present distress, as
also of those whose faith seemed to be such as to
stand in constant need of such support. He also, on
a memorable occasion, warned His disciples against
the idea that faith in Him can be produced only
by the sensible perception of external evidence.
" Blessed," He said, " are they that have not seen,
and yet have believed." The meaning of these words,
which have been strangely misinterpreted by some, is
surely very obvious. Jesus pronounces those blessed
who shall believe in the absence, not of evidence
of every kind, but of sensible evidence — those who,
in short, believe in the testimony of eyewitnesses —
a testimony which the disciple whose conduct gave
occasion to these words had deliberately treated
as insufficient for faith. Whilst Jesus, then, guards
against the mere craving for miracles as ostentatious
displays of power, and warns against the idea that
sensible evidence is the only ground of faith, He yet
appeals to miracles as the direct proof of His divine
mission. He thus recognises the necessity for such
proof; and this is a point by no means undeserving
our notice, for such proof was not then always given
in support of the claims of a religious teacher, even
when there were other reasons for believing that the
teacher was raised up by the special providence
of God. John, the forerunner of Jesus, we are told,
assumed the office of at least a religious teacher — the
office of a prophet to the Jewish nation ; and though
we have reason to believe that he was raised up by
God to be a true prophet, yet he professed to be
nothing more than a human teacher and the pre-

MIRACULOUS EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPEL. 85
dieted herald of the coming Redeemer ; and it is
emphatically said of him that he " did no miracle."
Here, then, is a remarkable distinction between John
and Jesus ; for the latter appealed directly to miracles,
recognising in His own peculiar case their absolute
necessity in order to establish His claims, and ex
pressly admitting that, in the absence of such evi
dence, these claims would be justly rejected. " If I
do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But
if I do, though ye believe not me," — that is, my own
mere assertion — "believe the works, that ye may
know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in
Him." Can we now fail to perceive that Jesus enter
tained views respecting miracles as the direct evidence
of His extraordinary claims, which reason itself, v/hen
calmly considering this subject, pronounces to be
right ?
2. Having noticed this important point, we next
observe that the alleged miracles to which Jesus ap
pealed, were real, genuine miracles. Every one who
pays the slightest attention to the ordinary course of
nature, becomes so far acquainted with this course as
to be able at once to pronounce that there are certain
events which cannot possibly take place in this ordi
nary course, apart from the direct intervention of
divine power. There may, indeed, be certain things
respecting which it is difficult, and perhaps impossible,
for us to pronounce a decided judgment. Cures, for
example, of some bodily and also mental maladies
sometimes take place instantaneously, and under such
circumstances as would render it exceedingly doubt
ful whether they were effected through the instru
mentality of ordinary means or not. We need not

86 LECTURE VI.
refer to special cases of this kind; the -facts them
selves are well known. Had the alleged miracles
of Jesus consisted entirely of such cures, whether of
certain bodily or of certain mental maladies, however
beneficent such works would have been, and whatever
degree of mere presumptive evidence these works,
taken in connection with the internal evidence of His
doctrine and of His character, might have appeared
to afford, they could not, we apprehend, have con
stituted that strong direct proof which miracles of an
undoubted kind assuredly furnish.
But there are certain things in respect to which we
feel perfectly certain that they could not possibly
take place without an actual exercise of divine
power. And the question is, Did Jesus perform any
works of this kind ? Are any of His alleged miracles
really such as we must pronounce to be true miracles ?
And observe that, if we can answer this question in
the affirmative, the influence of the answer extends
beyond these true miracles to all those other works
which, taken by themselves, might have left us in
doubt as to their real nature. Now, the restoring or
giving of sight to the blind, the raising of the dead to
life, the feeding of thousands by means of a few loaves,
the walking on the sea, — these and suchlike works
and acts must be regarded by every one as real,
genuine miracles. It requires no scientific knowledge
to pronounce such a judgment. These are works
which every human being, whatever may be his
knowledge of the laws that regulate the course of
nature, at once declares to be strictly miraculous.
They are works which no mere power of man can
effect. They are results which physical causes, left to

MIRACULOUS EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPEL. 87
their own action, cannot produce. Such works are,
every one knows, impossible to the ordinary operation
either of physical causes or of human power. There
can be no reasonable question, then, as to the real
nature of such works. They are miracles in the
strictest sense of the word ; and if they take place,
they are clear, undoubted proofs of the immediate
interposition of superhuman— of divine power. " No
man can do " such works, " these miracles that Thou
doest," said one to Jesus, " except God be with him."
This is the testimony not merely of one man, but of
all mankind. It is important, then, to observe, not
only that Jesus appealed to miracles as the direct
proof of His mission, but also that the alleged
miracles of Jesus were really miracles — really proofs
of the immediate interposition of the power of God.
3. There is another feature of the alleged miracles
of Jesus to which, although it does not strictly
affect their reality or genuineness as a proof of the
immediate interposition of divine power, we may
here refer ; inasmuch as it connects these miracles
with the declared purpose of the mission of Jesus,
and in this respect shows a unity in His whole charac
ter and work. These miracles were not mere displays
of power — of extraordinary power. They were also
works of beneficence — works manifesting divine love
as well as divine power — works in perfect harmony
with the purpose for which Jesus affirmed that He
came into the world. Had these miracles been of a
different character, whatever proof they might have
constituted as respects the manifestation of power,
we could not but have felt that there was a moral
discord between them and the declared design of

88 LECTURE VI.
Jesus' mission. But there is no such discord. The
alleged miracles are miracles of mercy — miracles
which evince love as well as power on the part of
Him by whom they were wrought. The only excep
tions to this character in these miracles are seen in
one case, where a barren tree is doomed to speedy
decay, as emblematical of the fearful judgment which
was about to fall on the unbelieving Jewish nation ;
and in another, where, after delivering a human
soul from the tyranny of evil spirits, these are per
mitted to be the agents of destruction to a herd of
swine — a judgment which discovered the carnality of
their owners. These two cases have been eagerly
laid hold of by the opponents of the claims of Jesus.
In the one case the objection is manifestly frivolous ;
and in the other we are bound to suppose, in the view
of the general beneficence of all the other alleged
miracles of Jesus, that there were circumstances which
fully justified the judgment, such as it was, which He
then permitted, and only permitted, as is done every
day in the providence of God, to be inflicted. But
what man, looking at the whole character of Jesus,
and beholding His untiring efforts to relieve the dis
tressed — to proclaim glad tidings to the poorest, the
humblest, the most unworthy — to heal the broken
hearted — to give strength to the paralysed, sight to
the blind, and life to the dead, — what man can contem
plate such works as these and not adopt as his own
the words of an eyewitness of these works, when he
spake of Jesus as one who "went about doing good "?
The alleged miracles, then, of Jesus were at once real
miracles, and therefore direct proofs of His claims, and
also illustrations of the great purpose of His mission.

MIRACULOUS EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPEL. 89
4 We next remark that these alleged miracles
were wrought in such circumstances as enabled those
who were present to form a decided judgment respect
ing them. These things did not take place in a
corner. No preparation was made for the exhibition
of the alleged miraculous power. The works were
done openly, in the presence often of enemies as well
as friends, in public as well as in private — and just as
what we would term accidental circumstances gave
occasion. There was variety, great variety, in the
works themselves, in the places where they were
wrought, in the persons who were present, in all the
circumstances by which they were severally charac
terised. They were generally performed by the power
of a mere word or command, and only occasionally
was anything done in order to draw the special atten
tion either of those on whom the miracle was per
formed or of others to what was taking place.
It has been maintained by a recent opponent of
the claims of Jesus, that He should have laid these
claims formally before a judicial body, and should
have submitted His power to perform miracles to the
scrutiny of a scientific committee. Had the purpose
of Jesus been merely to display His possession of
extraordinary power, or to enlarge the boundaries of
mere science, such a mode as that which has been
suggested might have been deemed in harmony with
such a purpose. But this was not His declared design.
He came into the world, as He himself alleges, to
reveal God the Father, and to work out an everlasting
redemption for the fallen race of man. He came for
a high moral purpose — the highest which it is possible
for the mind to conceive. His miracles were wrought

90 LECTURE VI.
only to attest His mission, to accomplish this purpose,
and to illustrate its gracious character. The method
which He adopted in making known His claims and
the purpose of His mission was such as commended
itself to His wisdom, and also such as left no possible
room for reasonable objection. Those very rulers to
whom reference is made knew these claims, and often,
either by themselves or through others whom they
appointed, seated themselves in His very presence,
in order if possible to discover in His words or deeds
something of which they might accuse Him. It is
strange that men, in their anxiety to throw discredit
on the character and claims of Jesus, should represent
a method as not having been adopted by Him which
to all intents and purposes was virtually adopted.
The whole question surely is, Did these rulers know
or not know the claims which He preferred ? And
if they did know them, did they not of their own
accord adopt means to test the proof which He
offered in support of them ? They were beyond all
doubt aware of His claims, and they commissioned
persons to watch Him wherever He went. He knew
all this, and though not seldom brought into colli
sion with these commissioned spies, He pursued His
own sublime course, and went on doing good by
word and deed, till His watchful enemies were com
pelled to acknowledge the reality of His miracles,
and found no other way to evade their force than
by ascribing them, not to the power of God, but to the
power of the great enemy of God. No manifesta
tion of miraculous power can meet such a state of
mind, for if a man is determined not to believe when
proper evidence is set before him, it is not a display of

MIRACULOUS EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPEL. 91
mere power that will subdue his unbelief. Such a
man would not believe though one were to rise from
the dead.
But to return to our immediate point. The
miracles of Jesus were wrought under such circum
stances as enabled impartial eyewitnesses to be per
fectly satisfied that they were wrought. The facts in
each case were clearly before them. The withered
hand was known and seen to be withered ; the word
of Jesus was heard ; the restored hand was seen to
be restored. The change from the one state to the
other was manifest to the senses. That a miracle
was there and then wrought, was an instantaneous
conclusion of the reason. The senses do not attest
the miraculous power — they attest or rather give
knowledge of the facts. It is the reason which
ascribes the change to the immediate power of God.
And in such a case what other conclusion could have
been formed by an unbiassed mind ? Beyond all
question, if it is true that Jesus by His word did
restore a man's withered hand to a sound state, He
did what no mere man can do. He did what only
the power of God can do. He established His claims
by a direct and all-sufficient proof. And of the
reality of this proof those who were present were
undoubtedly competent witnesses, for the sensible
facts were before them ; that reason which belongs
to man was in them ; and hence no reasonable excep
tion can be possibly taken to their competency as
eyewitnesses of such a miracle.
The same remarks are applicable to the eyewitnesses
of all the alleged miracles of Jesus ; and it is wholly
unnecessary for our immediate purpose to apply them

92 LECTURE VI.
in detail. The essential facts connected with each
were within the sphere of sensible perception ; and
in each case also reason was competent to draw the
proper conclusion. But there is one miracle to which
I would specially draw your attention, for it was the
crowning proof of the claims of Jesus, and also that
miracle of which the commissioned apostles of Jesus
were the selected eyewitnesses. I purpose to draw
your attention specially to the consideration of this
miracle ; but I cannot omit all mention of it in this
general survey. I allude to the Resurrection of
Jesus Himself from the dead. At present, however,
it is enough to state that the facts connected with
this great proof of the claims of Jesus were such as
were within the sphere of sensible perception. The
disciples had sufficient reason to believe that He
really died upon the cross ; and after two or three
days they again saw Him alive. The conclusion,
then, was inevitable that He had risen from the dead;
and this effect they justly ascribed to the immediate
operation of that Power which alone gives life. The
disciples saw Jesus after He was risen — saw Him re
peatedly, and conversed with Him, for He abode with
them during forty days, at least appeared to them often
during that period, and instructed them more fully
than He had done before respecting the kingdom
of God. At length He gave them His last commands,
and constituted them His messengers to all nations,
promising to endow them after His return to the
Father with extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit.
And then in presence of them all He was lifted up,
and a cloud received Him out of their sight. Here,
indeed, were wonderful events ; but events not ex-

MIRACULOUS EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPEL. 93
ceeding the power of God to accomplish — events
which those who were present were fully qompetent
to perceive.
5. And now we have, in the last place, to observe
that these men were competent to testify to others
what they themselves had seen. We need not repeat
the remarks made on this subject in our last Lecture.
Those to whom their testimony was given might
well be astonished at the facts testified, and were
bound and fully warranted to subject such a testi
mony to the severest scrutiny. But, looking merely
at the competency of the testimony, we cannot but
admit that whatever a man has seen he may com
petently tell to another, and that this other, if he is
satisfied that the testimony is valid — that the witness
is a true witness — may receive and ought to receive
as true the information thus given him. Now, it is a
fact which can be ascertained, that the disciples who
were eyewitnesses of the life and ministry of Jesus
— eyewitnesses of His miracles, eyewitnesses of the
risen Jesus, and eyewitnesses of His ascension — did,
in terms of their commission, go forth, did proclaim to
Jew and Gentile the glad tidings of His kingdom,
and did bear witness to His miraculous works, and
specially to His resurrection as the crowning proof of
His claims. It is also a fact that they did all this
under circumstances which tried their veracity to the
very utmost. They had no worldly end in view.
They gained, and could gain, nothing by adhering to
their testimony. They had, in fact, to endure the
loss of all earthly things, and even to suffer and
die in confirmation of their testimony. And the
result was, that wherever they went, whilst some did

94 LECTURE VI.
not believe, others did believe, and that, within a few
years after the departure of Jesus, Christian churches
were formed in almost every quarter of the vast
empire of Rome. And not only was their testimony
orally proclaimed ; it was soon committed to writing;
and the Christian Church became early possessed of
a number of writings of various kinds, all of them
containing the Apostolic testimony respecting Jesus.
And this written testimony has been with the Church
from that time to the present, so that every genera
tion is virtually carried back to the first age of the
Church, and is privileged to hear, not a testimony
orally passing from one generation to another, and
therefore coloured or varied as it passes onwards, but
the original testimony of the eyewitnesses them
selves — of those very men who saw and heard Jesus
both before and after His resurrection.
Efforts — the most persistent efforts — have of course
been made by the opponents of the claims of Jesus to
bring discredit on these Apostolic writings ; and in
genuity has racked itself in order to give some account
which may seem plausible of their having a different
origin. But even the most determined and ingenious
of these opponents cannot deny the early rise of
Christian churches, nor the fact that these churches
were founded on the testimony of Apostles to the
alleged miracles, and specially to the alleged resur
rection of Jesus. They are compelled to admit that
these first messengers of Jesus actually believed in
His resurrection, and that others were led to believe
in the same alleged fact through their testimony.
They only insist that these Apostles were deceived
mainly by enthusiasm, that they thought they saw

MIRACULOUS EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPEL. 95
what they had not really seen, and that, in some
way or other, others were induced, but upon insuffi
cient grounds, to believe their statements. It is easy
—exceedingly easy — to assert all this, or anything
else. But the origin of the Apostles' own belief and
the rise of the Christian Church are wholly inexplicable
on any other hypothesis than one — namely, on the
hypothesis that the belief of the Apostles, rested on
sensible facts, and that their testimony was believed
by others, because it was seen to be valid, competent
testimony. This testimony is, as we have said, continued in a
twofold manner ; — by the continued existence of the
Christian Church, which is a perpetual witness to the
original testimony ; and by means of those writings
which compose the New Testament Scriptures, and
which embody this original testimony. We cannot
at present enter on the discussion of this part of our
subject, important as it is. It must suffice at present
to remark that the testimony of the eyewitnesses — of
the first ministers of the Word — is in this twofold
manner maintained in all its competency and force ;
and that, however much a sceptical criticism has
laboured to impair the value both of the traditional
or oral testimony, and of the written record especially,
these two witnesses — the Christian Church, with its
traditional belief and its peculiar institutions, and the
New Testament writings — defy all the efforts of such
criticism, and stand forth as firmly as ever, proclaim
ing in no doubtful manner the certainty of those
things which Jesus did and spake. The Church has
ever been a public institution, and no effort could or
can silence its voice. The New Testament writings

96 LECTURE VI.
were, with a few exceptions, public documents, at
first existing in separate parts, which were severally
intrusted to different sections of the Church, but soon
collected into one volume and spread throughout the
Church, and translated into different tongues, and
finally stamped as a whole with the seal of a unani
mous belief, being thus constituted the permanent and
alone authentic witness of the Apostolic teaching con
cerning Jesus. These precious writings are indeed
open to fair, legitimate criticism ; and there may
be questions raised respecting some of them which it
is now difficult or impossible for us to answer : but
taking all the known circumstances into consideration,
an unbiassed mind cannot fail to perceive and to own
that the evidence, both external and internal, in sup
port of their antiquity, their genuineness, and their
credibility, is clear and decided ; and that no other
satisfactory account can be given of the existence and
reception of these writings, than that which has from
the first been given — namely, that these writings had
for their authors those persons whose names they
respectively bear.
Such, then, being the case, we conclude that this
testimony which has come down to us is worthy of
credit, and that therefore we do well to believe it, and
consequently to believe in Him who, by His miracu
lous works as well as by His doctrine and character,
established His extraordinary claims — to believe, in
short, that this Jesus is indeed the Christ, the Son of
God, and the Saviour of the world. Extraordinary
indeed is the claim, but the evidence by which it is
established is also extraordinary. Apostles believed
because they saw and heard ; and we, though we have

MIRACULOUS EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPEL. 97
not seen and heard, also believe, because we have re
ceived the competent testimony of those who did see
and hear. Such is the ground of our faith, and it is a
ground which no assertions to the contrary can affect,
or ought to affect. Let us, then, hold fast our faith,
and we shall experience the fulfilment of the promise,
" Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have
believed."

LECTURE VII.
ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS.
THE resurrection of Jesus is, as we have said, the
crowning evidence of His divine mission. It is also
the great pledge of that hope which He has given to
all who believe upon His name. It is literally im
possible, therefore, to over-estimate the consideration
of the subject now before us, for upon the issue of
our inquiry depends whether we are to believe on
Jesus or not. If there is evidence to convince us that
He rose from the dead, then we must believe that
His claims were established, that He was declared to
be the Son of God with power, and that our hope
in Him as " the Resurrection and the Life," as the
Author of salvation to our souls, is sure and steadfast.
If, on the other hand, there is no satisfactory evi
dence of this alleged fact, then, in whatever way we
may account for the origin of the report, whether we
trace it to an enthusiastic imagination or to conscious
fraud on the part of its originators, faith in the claims
of Jesus becomes to us unreasonable, and indeed im
possible, and hope in Him, as the author of eternal
life to us, would be vain and absurd. Such was the
view entertained on this subject by one who was led
firmly to believe in the reality of the fact, and who,

ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 99
after he came to believe in it, devoted his life to the
spread of the Gospel. " If Christ be not raised," the
Apostle Paul wrote to one of the churches which he
had planted, " your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your
sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ
are perished." We shall have to recur to these words.
We refer to them at present merely in confirmation
of what we have said respecting the importance of the
subject. ,
But in respect to this view of the subject we can
also appeal to the adversaries of the Gospel. The
most determined of these adversaries in our day is
unquestionably David Friedrich Strauss ; and in his
recent work, in which he has restated his theory of
" the Life of Jesus for the German people," he has
given us his opinion in a passage which, though
somewhat long, we extract at length.
" Here then," he says, " we stand on that decisive point
where, in the presence of the accounts of the miraculous
resurrection of Jesus, we either acknowledge the inadmissi
bility of the natural and historical view of the life of Jesus,
and must consequently retract all that precedes, and so give
up our whole undertaking, or pledge ourselves to make out
the possibility of the result of these accounts — that is, the
origin of the belief in the resurrection of Jesus — without any
corresponding miraculous fact. The more immediately this
question touches all Christianity to the quick, the more.
regard we must pay to the sensibility with which every un
prejudiced word that is uttered about it is received, and
even to the sensible effect which such words may have upon
him who pronounces them ; but the more important the
point is, and the more decisive on the other side, for the
whole view of Christianity, the more pressing is the demand
upon the investigator to set aside all these considerations,

100 LECTURE VII.
and pronounce upon it in a perfectly unprejudiced, perfectly
decided spirit, without ambiguity and without reserve."*
The believer and the unbeliever thus agree in their
views of the importance of the subject. The whole
question as to the origin of Christianity is brought to
one decisive point : Did Jesus rise from the dead, or
did He not? In discussing this question, we shall
endeavour to proceed in that spirit which Strauss
justly demands — " in a perfectly unprejudiced and
decided spirit" — in a spirit, however, not prejudiced^
as his manifestly was, by a foregone conclusion, and
decided to maintain that conclusion in spite of all
evidence tending to a different result. We need hardly
observe that, in a full discussion of this subject, we
cannot avoid repeating remarks which have already
been made on the general question of miracles. But
anxious though we are that the discussion of so mo
mentous a point should be complete, we shall try as
much as possible to be brief.
I. First, then, we must enter on the discussion with
the clear admission that such an event as that of a
resurrection from the dead is possible with God.
We must begin with a clear admission, we say, on
this point, for otherwise all further discussion is
superfluous. We must assume that there is a living
personal God, who is the Creator of the world and
the Giver of life to all His creatures ; and also assume
that, as the Author of life, He possesses the power,
should it be His will, to restore the really dead to
life. We are not called upon now to establish these
against the contrary assumptions, for to do so would
be to enter once more on the question of Theism — a
* Strauss's 'New Life of Jesus,' Authorised Translation, vol. i. p. 397.

ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. lOI
question which we are now warranted in regarding as
settled, so far as our inquiries are concerned. But
though we cannot allow ourselves to be driven back
to the discussion of these fundamental points, we
would beg of you to remember that they have been
discussed, and are to us determined points ; and that
our present argument is not with the Atheist, and can
not be, but with the Theist — with the man who will
stand upon the same ground with ourselves, and fairly
inquire whether indeed Jesus did rise from the dead.
The possibility of such a resurrection does not imply
its reality. It only implies that His alleged resurrec
tion may have been a reality, but whether it was so
must depend on the evidence adduced. We enter
upon the inquiry, then, with no foregone conclusion as
to the reality of the alleged fact — we only assume its
possibility ; an assumption which no unbiassed mind
can refuse, for "why should it be thought a thing
incredible," or a thing impossible, "that God should
raise the dead ? " We admit, you will observe, as
firmly as any atheist can do, that a resurrection from
the dead is a thing impossible in the ordinary course
of nature, and a thing impossible to human power ;
but believing as we do, on grounds which to us are
most clear and decided, that there is a God, we be
lieve that the restoration of the dead to life is no
more impossible with Him, than it was to frame the
human body and to breathe into it life at first. The
ordinary course of nature — a course which this Su
preme and Almighty Being originated and sustains —
tells us clearly that the dead do not rise again, so far
as this course is concerned ; but it does not tell us
either that the power of God is exhausted in the

102 LECTURE VII.
establishing of this course, or that if His power is not
so exhausted — if there is still a residue of power in
Him who is omnipotent — it is not the purpose of His
will to put it forth in restoring the dead to life. Nay,
the spirit that is in man seems to suggest to him, as
by the force of instinct, that death does not wholly
terminate his being. The course of providence, which
is as truly of divine appointment as the course of
nature, gives startling intimations of a life to come.
And notwithstanding the fearful gloom which death
throws around the existence of man, his mind, both
through instinctive feelings, and the forebodings of
conscience, and the marked tendencies of God's moral
providence, is by no means unprepared to receive
intimations respecting a future state of existence,
in which this course of providence, to which that of
nature is manifestly subordinate, shall be carried out
to its full extent. The possibility, then, of such a
fact as that of the resurrection of the dead, is an
assumption which we are entitled to make in entering
upon our present inquiry.
2. We must next assume that it is possible for eye
witnesses to have satisfactory evidence that a person
has been raised from the dead.
Supposing such a fact to take place, we easily per
ceive the several elements which must enter into this
evidence. The witnesses must have known, inti
mately known, the person when he lived ; they must
have satisfactory evidence of his death, and they
must have equally satisfactory evidence that he is
again alive. Now it is admitted that there is no
slight risk of mistake, of delusion, or of being de
ceived, in such a matter as this, especially in respect

ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 103
to the second and third elements which enter into the
complex evidence. A person may be believed to be
dead who has only fallen into a swoon. In such a
case apparent restoration to life would not be a real
resurrection. Again, it is notorious that the power of
imagination has often played a strange part in respect
to supposed apparitions of the dead. Persons have
dreamed or fancied that the departed have appeared
to them, and some have actually believed in the ob
jective reality of such apparitions under circumstances
which leave us no room to doubt that these were
wholly the result of their own excited imaginations.
But whilst all this is true, and ought to be carefully
borne in mind in our inquiry into the truth, we are at
the same time not to rush into the opposite extreme,
and to assume that in such a matter it is impossible
for eyewitnesses to have competent evidence. If these
witnesses intimately knew the person in his lifetime,
if they also knew upon valid evidence that death took
place, and if afterwards they actually saw him alive
again under such circumstances as could allow no rea
sonable doubt to exist as to the fact of his being alive,
then all the evidence necessary to establish the fact
is afforded ; and the only conclusion warranted by
such evidence is, that a real resurrection from the
dead has taken place. Now, each branch of this
evidence is within the sphere of sensible perception.
Each consists of a fact which appeals to the senses.
The several facts, viewed in themselves, have nothing
peculiar, so as to remove them from the sphere of
ordinary perception. It is the combination of the
facts which causes the peculiarity ; and this combina
tion is the work of reason, and not, strictly speaking,

104 LECTURE VII.
of the senses. The latter are called upon to do
nothing but what they are constantly doing — to make
known facts to the mind within ; and it is the power
of reason, that great faculty which belongs to the
mind, which, combining the facts together, pronounces
the decision that a supernatural event has taken
place — that a miracle has been performed — and that
this event is to be ascribed to an immediate inter
vention of divine power. We are warranted, then,
in assuming that eyewitnesses may have competent
evidence of the reality of such a fact as that of a
resurrection from the dead.
3. Again, we also assume that the eyewitnesses
of such a fact may bear competent testimony of it
to others, who, on ascertaining the testimony to be
worthy of credit, are entitled and morally bound to
credit the same.
The importance of the subject must be our excuse
for dwelling on these points. You cannot be too
familiar with them ; and we are anxious that you
discern them thoroughly, and that they be impressed
indelibly on your minds. It is, we are persuaded,
from the want of clear and distinct views on these
preliminary and essential points that the mind is
prone to hesitate, if not to stumble, when the attacks
of the opponents of Christianity are skilfully directed ;
and never, we may affirm, were these more skilfully,
powerfully, and plausibly directed than in our own
day. The only way in which you can successfully
meet such attacks, is by patiently and calmly training
your minds to a thorough knowledge of the subject.
You will find that these attacks derive their power
from assumptions made by their authors — assump-

ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 105
tions involving the very conclusions which they then
seek to confirm by elaborate displays of argument —
of argument which, on their premises, is wholly super
fluous. I formerly remarked on the validity of testimony
in reference to miracles, and therefore only allude
to this point again in a brief manner. There is no
question, you will again observe, as to the importance
and necessity of our scrutinising in the severest way
possible any testimony bearing on such an alleged
fact as that of a resurrection from the dead. The
supposed witness may have been deceived or imposed
upon. We are not to credit a mere vague report on
such a matter, nor to believe every one who may
profess to have been a witness of such a fact. Even
a circumstantial account of such a matter is to be
thoroughly examined, for it is by no means un
common for a false story to be set afloat with a long
detail of supposed facts. The character of the wit
nesses must be thoroughly ascertained, and the mo
tives by which they may seem to be influenced most
carefully inquired into. The moral bearing of the
alleged fact ought also to be examined and ascer
tained ; for it is not to be supposed that the Supreme
Being will give useless displays of His power, and
that such a fact as that of the resurrection of one from
the dead can be an isolated fact, having no moral
bearing whatever. It is clear that when persons
appear to us, and testify that one rose from the dead,
we have a variety of circumstances to take into view,
and that only when all these harmonise and tend to
one conclusion we shall be justified in receiving the
testimony.

106 LECTURE VII.
We are not, however, at present discussing all
the circumstances which, meeting together, would ren
der such testimony" valid, but only stating the points
which we must assume in entering upon our inquiry ;
and the possibility that such testimony may exist is
evidently one which we are entitled to assume. The
witnesses are competent to state to us the facts which
they witnessed, and we are able to look at the facts
so stated, and to examine the witnesses, so as to deter
mine whether their testimony is worthy of credit ; and
if so, whether the facts are such as to warrant our
reason in concluding that a resurrection from the
dead has really taken place. Without adopting the
doubt implied in the following extract as to the possi
bility of miracles, we are willing to acquiesce in what
it expresses respecting the nature of the evidence
required to establish the reality of such a fact as that
of a resurrection from the dead. In the work already
referred to Strauss says —
" Whether we consider miracles in general as possible or
not, if we are to consider a miracle of so unheard-of a de
scription as having really occurred, it must be proved to us
by evidence in such a manner that the untruth of such
evidence would be more difficult to conceive than the
reality of that which it was intended to prove." — Vol. i.
P- 399-
Let us, then, now proceed to examine this evidence
with all possible fairness and earnestness, and with the
sole desire to ascertain the truth.
And, first of all, on entering upon this examina
tion, we must ascertain whether the alleged resurrec
tion of Jesus be presented to us as an isolated fact,
having no moral bearing, or whether it is represented

ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. I07
as essentially possessing a moral value, not merely to
Himself, but also to mankind in general.
We have already hinted at this question, and it is
one of essential importance in our inquiry. We do
not, you will observe, mean that the reality of any
fact whatever can be proved merely by showing that
such a fact, if real, possesses moral value. This is not
at all our argument. What we mean is this, that such
a fact as that of a resurrection from the dead — a fact
manifestly miraculous — could not be believed by us
as having really occurred, unless it had a moral value
of the highest order. If any person came to us and
said that he had seen one who had been raised from
the dead, and if this was the whole of his statement —
if the alleged fact was an isolated occurrence, having
no connection with any declared moral purpose of
God, or with man's highest interests — then I apprehend
we should be justified in giving ourselves no concern
about the allegation, and would be entitled to reject
the testimony as in some way or other originating
in fraud or delusion. The entire absence of moral
value would, I conceive, more than counterbalance any
amount of evidence proposed to us in the form of
testimony. There is an improbability against a mira
culous occurrence even after the proof of testimony
has been offered, which improbability can be counter
balanced only by the moral purpose to the accom
plishment of which the miracle is declared to be sub
servient. If this view is correct, we ought, previously
to all inquiry into the evidence itself, to ascertain this
important preliminary point. Now, the adversaries of
Christianity must themselves allow that the resurrec
tion of Jesus, whether it was real or not, is presented

108 LECTURE VII.
to us in the Gospel — in the Christian scheme— not
as an isolated fact, but as essentially connected both
with the high claims of Jesus himself, and with that
scheme of salvation of which He declared Himself to be
the Author. He claimed to be the Son of God, who for
a definite design had become the Son of Man. Now,
whilst, in consistency with this claim, He, as the Son
of Man, might die, yet we cannot conceive that death
should hold dominion over Him as the Son of God.
It is in perfect harmony, then, with this claim, that
He, the Son of God, should overcome the power of
death and be restored in His human nature to life.
We do not prove either the truth of His claim or the
reality of His resurrection by means of this harmony
between the two ; but this harmony goes to show
that the alleged fact of the resurrection has an im
portant moral bearing in regard to the person Himself
who is said to have been raised again.
But further, this alleged fact, the reality of which is
in question, is essentially connected with the scheme
of salvation which Jesus declared that He came into
the world to accomplish for the human race. No one
can deny the prevalence of death in our world. No
one can deny that death, universally prevalent, is
looked upon by man as an enemy, a tyrant, the very
king of terrors. No more can any one deny the uni
versal prevalence of sin ; and the connection between
sin and misery of every form is most manifest. Now,
the Gospel assumes and asserts as a thing absolutely
certain that sin and death are most closely connected;
that death is, in short, the penalty, the just conse
quence, of sin ; that " the wages of sin is death ; " and
that therefore the salvation of man implies deliverance

ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 109
from death. And the Gospel represents the death and
resurrection of Jesus as the means by which God, in
His infinite mercy, has been pleased to work out sal
vation for the human race. There can be no question
that such is the view given us in the Gospel, whether
that Gospel be from God or not, respecting the death
and the resurrection of Jesus. He by His death is said
to have died for us — to have suffered the penalty of
death due to us. He is also said to have risen again
for us — to have secured by His own resurrection our
resurrection to life everlasting. Be these things true
or false, such is the uniform testimony of the Apostolic
writings respecting the moral value of the death and
resurrection of Jesus. So close is the connection
between these alleged events and man's highest in
terests, that Jesus is said to have by His appearing in
our world " abolished death, and brought life and im
mortality to light by His gospel."
Now, we beg your earnest attention to this declared
view of the moral value of the resurrection of Jesus ;
for it is generally, and most unfairly, as we think,
overlooked or kept out of sight by the adversaries of
the Gospel. They would view the alleged resurrec
tion of Jesus merely as an isolated fact — as an event
which is reported to have occurred, but which has no
moral influence whatever. By thus isolating the fact,
they create a prejudice — a strong and natural preju
dice — against believing in such a fact. Now, in order
that the human mind may believe in the reality of
such a fact, it must have fully before it, not merely
the external evidence attesting the reality of the fact,
but the internal evidence also, — that moral evidence
which shows the fact, if real, to be one of the highest

1 10 LECTURE VII.
moral importance. It is the combination of these two
kinds of evidence which alone can satisfy our reason
that such a wondrous fact did take place. In such a
case, the consideration of the internal or moral evi
dence must always precede that of the external ; for
it is the consideration of the former which moves the
mind to enter on the consideration of the latter.
But such a mode of procedure, it is said, brings a
regard to our interests — to consequences — unduly into
play in an inquiry which ought to be conducted " in a
perfectly unprejudiced, perfectly decided spirit, with
out ambiguity and without reserve." We are, then, it
seems to be inferred, to conduct our inquiry with the
same coolness and indifference to results as if it were
an inquiry into the reality of some alleged physical
fact which had no moral bearing whatever. Now, we
maintain that, whilst we are to proceed in our investi
gation in the spirit here described, we do so, not by
keeping out of view the essential data of the problem,
but by bringing all these together, and then determin
ing the conclusion to which they legitimately lead.
Leave out the declared moral purpose to which a
miracle is subservient, and you deal unfairly with
your reason as well as with your inquiry ; for a mir
acle, which by hypothesis implies an immediate inter
vention of the Supreme Being, does not belong to the
class of ordinary physical events, but is necessarily to
be viewed as in connection with some high moral end
or other. Attempt to realise in your minds such a
fact as that of the resurrection of a human body
from the state of death, as a mere historical event,
without any moral bearing, and your minds will refuse,
instinctively refuse, to believe in the reality of such a

ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. Ill
fact, — not because the mind regards such an event as
impossible with God, but because it cannot believe
that God, whose power is ever directed by His wisdom,
would so intervene, unless He had some corresponding
moral end in view. It is evidently most unfair, in
point of mere argument, to ignore, as not essential to
the inquiry, the declared moral influence of the alleged
resurrection of Jesus. To do so is to foreclose the
inquiry. Whether this be entering upon it " in a per
fectly unprejudiced spirit," you may now judge. It is
certainly, we must admit, entering upon it " in a per
fectly decided spirit, without ambiguity and without
reserve." And herein lies, allow me to assure you, the strength
of the infidel argument, whether wielded by the pre
judiced but affectedly cool Strauss, or by the equally
prejudiced but enthusiastically warm Renan. It will,
when you thoroughly examine it, be found to lie in
the ignoring of the moral or spiritual value of the life
of Jesus — of His teaching, His example, His death,
His resurrection, His ascension, — of His whole work
as designed to accomplish an everlasting salvation for
us, perishing sinners. May I then exhort you to give
your most serious consideration to the view which I
have anxiously laboured to set before you — a view
which the subject legitimately requires — a view which
will not prejudice your minds unduly in favour of the
external evidence which confirms the reality of the
resurrection of Jesus, but only preserve you from
unfair prejudice against that evidence, and render
you more solicitous to test it by every legitimate
means in your power. And when at any time you
endeavour to place this external evidence before the

112 LECTURE VII.
minds of others, remember that it is due to the sub
ject and to your fellow-men to set it before them in
combination with that moral evidence which is indis
solubly connected with it ; and you will then find
that you are wielding a combined argument which
all the weapons of infidelity will fail to overturn.
Having dwelt at such length on the relation be
tween the moral or internal, and the external evidence
of the resurrection of Jesus, but not at greater length
than the importance of the subject appears to me to
demand, I must postpone entering on the external
evidence itself till next Lecture.

LECTURE VIII.
ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS.
{Continued})
In examining the external evidence in confirmation
of the resurrection of Jesus, we naturally turn our
attention first to the Christian Church, as by its very
existence and constitution bearing testimony to this
great fact.
It is allowed by the adversaries of the Gospel, and
especially by those recent adversaries to whom in
these Lectures we are specially referring, such as
Baur, Strauss, and Renan, that the Christian Church
was founded on the belief in the reality of the resur
rection, and that the disciples of Jesus — those men
who by their teaching founded this Church — did
themselves firmly believe in the reality of this fact.
These are most important admissions ; for the whole
question is thus reduced to the inquiry whether these
disciples, these first preachers of the Gospel, were
warranted in entertaining the belief which they pro
fessed. We might therefore at once proceed to the
discussion of this fundamental point.
Baur, perhaps the most learned of these modern
adversaries, endeavours, in his work on " The Chris-
H

114 LECTURE VIII.
tianity of the First Three Centuries," to trace what he
conceives to have been the history of the develop
ment of the Christian Church ; and he admits that
the first disciples of Jesus — the first propagators of
Christianity — believed that Jesus had risen from the
dead, and that the first Churches were founded on
the same belief. He affirms that this belief in the
resurrection of Jesus is that which historically ac
counts for the origin and rise of the Christian Church.
As to his views on the origin of this belief in the
minds of the disciples, these will by-and-by come to
be considered. Meantime it is important for you to
notice that it is conceded by him and others that the
Christian Church was founded on the belief that
Jesus had risen from the dead.
Referring to the opinion of Baur on this subject,
Strauss, who is far from being pleased with Baur's
avowed hesitation to pronounce decidedly on the
nature of that belief which the first disciples evidently
entertained, thus remarks : —
" It is something very different " — different, he means,
from what he had previously said respecting this belief, —
" and said by Baur in a genuinely historical spirit, when he
states, in connection with the same subject, that the neces
sary historical hypothesis for all that follows is not so much
the real element in the resurrection of Jesus, as the faith in
it. That," adds Strauss, " is a hint for the apologists who
would like to persuade the world that if the reality of the
resurrection is not recognised, the origin and rise of the
Christian Church cannot be explained. No, says the his
torian, and rightly, only thus much need be acknowledged,
that the disciples firmly believed that Jesus had arisen ; this
is perfectly sufficient to make their further progress and

ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. I15
operations intelligible ; what that belief rested upon, what
there was real in the resurrection of Jesus, is an open ques
tion, which the investigator may answer one way or another
without the origin of Christianity being thereby made more
or less conceivable." — Vol. i. p. 398-9.
Now, it is to be admitted that there is a certain
amount of truth in these statements, and they show
with what extreme caution we ought to proceed, lest,
in our haste to arrive at conclusions, we expose the
truth to the taunts of its adversaries. Apart from the
circumstances of the case before us, it is possible,
though extremely difficult, to conceive that the belief
which the disciples firmly held, and which through
their testimony to this belief others were led to enter
tain, was only one of those strange delusions which
the human mind is at times so easily induced to form.
Such a thing, we say, is possible ; and the question,
therefore, as to the real nature and origin of such a
belief may be regarded as so far an open question.
Apart, as we have said, from the peculiar circum
stances of the case, whether as affecting the belief of
the first converts or of the first disciples themselves,
we do not immediately conclude from the mere exist
ence of this belief that the resurrection of Jesus must
have been a real, an objective fact. But it must be
conceded to us that such a belief on the part of these
disciples, embraced also by others to whom they
declared their belief, is, so far as our question is con
cerned, in favour of the reality of the alleged fact.
Let the evidential weight of this belief be what it may,
its weight is altogether on one side — in one scale of
the balance. That, at least, is certain.
And here we have to complain most seriously of

Il6 LECTURE VIII.
what we cannot but term unfair treatment of this
momentous question on the part of the opponents of
the Gospel. We are in possession of no small amount
of information from various sources respecting the
circumstances under which the first disciples, who, it
is allowed, " firmly believed in the resurrection of
Jesus," made known their belief throughout the world,
and also respecting the circumstances under which
the first Churches were planted. We know for certain
that these disciples did not believe in the resurrection
of Jesus as a mere isolated fact, but in connection
with a system of religion,- and especially with a scheme
of salvation, of which this alleged fact was declared to
be a proof and an essential part ; and, further, that
these disciples proclaimed their belief and confirmed
their testimony in a manner which left no room for
doubt as to their own sincerity. We have unques
tionable evidence to prove that, notwithstanding the
opposition everywhere offered to them, these first
preachers of the Gospel persevered in their efforts to
make known the name of Jesus in every land ; that
within a few years after they entered on their labours,
Christian Churches were formed in all the chief towns
of the Roman Empire, and even in Rome itself; and
that in a short time the most terrible persecutions
were raised against the Christians. These are facts
fully established by heathen as well as by Christian
authors ; and these facts ought unquestionably to
enter into our estimate of the nature and value of
that belief, which the first converts, and especially the
first disciples, held and professed respecting the re
surrection of Jesus. Assuredly it is not fair in point
of mere argument to overlook entirely, or to regard

ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 117
as of little moment, such momentous facts, when we
would ascertain whether that belief rested on valid
grounds or not. It was not the mere belief of the
disciples in the resurrection of Jesus which moved
them to such unwonted efforts and sacrifices of tem
poral interests, even to the sacrifice of life itself ; nor
was it the mere profession of this belief which operated
so powerfully on the minds of others. It was this
belief, in connection with the glad tidings of salvation
which they had to communicate, that formed their
chief motive ; and it was this belief, as so connected,
and as manifested in the manner in which it was done,
that constrained others to accept their testimony and
to believe in Jesus. When, then, we take into con
sideration all the essential circumstances of the case,
we seem to have the strongest moral evidence which
can fairly be required, that it was no mere dogma, as
is said, but a fact, that was the object of the disciples'
belief, when they bore testimony to the resurrection
of Jesus. It is morally impossible, we apprehend, to
conceive that, had the fact not been real, men could
have been found to cherish such a belief as they did,
and to devote themselves amidst such privations, in
sults, and even tortures, to the propagation of their
story. And had it not been manifest that these
devoted and self-sacrificing men thoroughly believed
in the resurrection as a reality, we can give no rational
account of the origin and progress of the Church and
of those institutions which either directly or indirectly
witness to the death and resurrection of Jesus. Hence,
notwithstanding the assertion of Strauss, we maintain
that, when we look at all the circumstances of the
case, the apologists are right in trying " to persuade

Il8 LECTURE VIII.
the world, that if the reality of the resurrection is
not recognised, the origin and rise of the Christian
Church cannot be explained." It is easy, indeed, for
him and his fellow-labourer Baur, to distinguish in
general between the belief existing in the mind and
the reality — the objective reality — of the thing be
lieved. But Baur himself confessed his inability as
an historian to pronounce decidedly on the real nature
of the alleged resurrection, and that it was only as a
philosopher — that is, in his sense, as one who denies
the possibility of a miraculous fact — that he could
reject the resurrection of Jesus as an objective occur
rence. Baur thus acknowledged that his denial of the
resurrection as a reality rested not upon historical but
on philosophical grounds — that is, on an assumption
which he is pleased to style philosophical, but which
in truth is a mere begging of the question. The dis
tinction referred to is no doubt to be regarded as in
general a real distinction ; and as there are cases in
which the firmest belief existing in the mind does not
warrant the conclusion that the object believed in has
a reality beyond the mind itself, so there are cases in
which the mental belief is a sufficient warrant for the
external reality of the object ; and if ever there was
such a case, that of the first disciples was undoubt
edly one ; for, under all the circumstances, their belief
in the resurrection of Jesus could not have existed
unless that resurrection had been a real, historical
fact. The truth of this view of the nature of their
belief will be more and more confirmed as we pro
ceed. The question now before us, then, respects the origin
of the belief which it is admitted the disciples of Jesus

ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 1 19
entertained in His resurrection. Now, you will ob
serve that there are two suppositions, otherwise pos
sible as suppositions, which are excluded by this ad
mission. The one is that of fraud on the part of the
disciples ; and in truth this is a supposition, which,
though it has had its advocates, is under the circum
stances scarcely worthy of notice, not to say refuta
tion. That any number of men could have resolved
to go forth among the nations with the view of estab
lishing in the world a religion such as that of Christi
anity, embracing as it does a system of the highest
practical morality, of which a regard to truth, jus
tice, and benevolence are the very elements — that, in
order to accomplish their enterprise, they should con
sciously agree to proclaim this religion in the name of
One who had been publicly put to death, but whom
they resolved to represent falsely as having risen
again — and that, in prosecuting an enterprise distin
guished by such contradictory features as truth and
conscious falsehood, they should one and all submit
to the severest privations and sufferings — is indeed a
supposition which we may pronounce morally impos
sible, and which may therefore be set aside without
further consideration. In whatever the belief of the
disciples originated, it assuredly did not originate in
fraud. Indeed, to speak of belief on their part on
such a supposition would be a manifest contradiction.
The other supposition alluded to, as excluded by
the admission of their belief in the resurrection of
Jesus, is one which, strange to say, has found advo
cates even among professed friends of the Gospel.
These persons, having formed erroneous views re
specting the possibility of miracles, have laboured at

120 LECTURE VIII.
the manifestly impracticable task of vindicating Chris
tianity as they view it on the one hand, and of ex
plaining away the narratives of miracles on the other.
They have not seen that whilst miracles are impossible
to the power of man and to the operation of mere
physical causes, they are still possible to God ; and,
further, they have not seen that since a divine revela
tion is itself miraculous, visible miracles must consti
tute its proper evidence ; but looking on the recorded
miracles of Jesus as really hindrances to faith in Him,
they have sought by the strangest modes of interpre
tation to bring all these miracles within the sphere of
ordinary events. Hence, in respect to the alleged
resurrection of Jesus, these persons endeavour to make
out that His death upon the cross was not a real
death— that though the visible signs of life had ceased,
the vital powers had really not become extinct, and
that after His body was taken down from the cross
and laid in the tomb according to the record, He re
vived and was again seen alive by His disciples. Jesus
then, thus restored from a swoon, lived for some time
among His disciples, and soon after died a natural
death ; after which event these disciples, looking upon
His revival as a real resurrection, went forth and pro
claimed the Gospel to all nations, asserting at the
same time that He had risen from the dead. The
very statement of such a supposition destroys itself.
It would be difficult, indeed, to heap together a greater
mass of manifest absurdities. How could sane men
have regarded such a revival as a real resurrection ?
How, when He afterwards died a natural death, could
men, not bereft of their senses, have believed that He
was still alive ? How could any man in such a case

ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 121
have borne testimony to a real resurrection and been
ready to suffer for such testimony ? The supposition
is wholly worthless, and may therefore be at once
dismissed. There remain now only two possible suppositions,
and to these we must carefully direct your atten
tion. The one is, that the belief of the disciples
in the resurrection of Jesus was a belief which
had no other ground than that of a mere impres
sion produced in some way or other upon their
minds — an impression which, though it necessarily,
like all impressions, had a subjective reality, yet had
no corresponding objective reality. The other is, that
this belief, whilst in itself a subjective impression,
originated in an objective reality. In the one case
the disciples dreamed or fancied that they saw Jesus
risen. In the other they really saw Him risen. And
the question is, Which of these suppositions is the
one borne out by the facts so far as these are known
to us?
In order to determine this question we must go to
the New Testament writings, where alone the facts
are to be found which can enable us to answer the
question. As we formerly noticed, the greatest efforts
have been made by the adversaries of the Gospel to
throw discredit on these writings, so that their testi
mony may be of as little avail as possible. Theories
beyond number have been framed to give some other
account of the origin of these writings than that
which all the external and internal evidence known to
us warrants. These theories are discordant among
themselves, and we might leave them all alone until
their authors should agree among themselves, and tell

122 LECTURE VIII.
us with some measure at least, of unanimity, in what
way and by whom the Gospel narratives, the Apostolic
Epistles, and the other writings were formed. There
is another feature besides that of discord which char
acterises these theories : they all suppose a degree of
artifice in the composition of the writings which is
truly amazing — equal to the ingenuity, and that is not
saying little, displayed by the authors themselves of
these various and discordant theories. Whenever men
reject the obvious cause of any phenomenon, they are
driven to exert their ingenuity to give some plausible
account of it. Such we confidently affirm is the real
state of the case as respects the several documents
composing our New Testament. These documents,
written by the authors to whom they are ascribed,
were composed at different times and in different
places — composed, indeed, as the exigencies of the
Christian Church seemed to require ; they, therefore,
existed at first as so many separate documents ; but,
as was formerly observed, they were, with a very few
exceptions, from the very first public documents.
They were meant to be such, and were treated as
such by the respective Churches into whose possession
they first came. In course of time, as might natu
rally be expected, collections of these documents
were formed, some containing more and some fewer of
the whole number finally brought together. There is
evidence to show that the Church in its various sec
tions watched over these collections with jealous care.
Though fictitious or unauthenticated documents did
in course of time appear, and appear under Apostolic
names, yet these were always either wholly rejected
by the Church, or kept separate from the really au-

ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 1 23
thoritative writings. The origin and authority of our
four Gospels, and of by far the greater number of the
other writings composing our collected New Testa
ment, were never questioned by any portion of the
Church ; and there is no valid reason assigned by
any of the recent adversaries of Christianity, to show
that the Christian Church, from east to west and
from north to south, erred in its unanimous decision.
What, then, is the reason why such efforts are made
to lessen, if not to destroy, the value of these pre
cious writings ? The main reason is plain : it is
avowed — openly avowed. If these writings are what
they profess to be, and what the Christian Church
from the first held them to be, then the life and
ministiy of Jesus must have been such as is recorded
in them. Miracles, real miracles, must have been
wrought by Him. Not only His death, but His re
surrection also, must have been real. Christianity
must then be neither a mythical delusion nor a
cunningly devised fable : it must be true. And then
where is the so-called philosophy ? where is the con
clusion that a miracle is impossible ? that the life of
Jesus, when critically discussed, must be explained by
ordinary historical laws ? that there is no future ex
istence to man ? yea, that there is no real God ?
nothing in existence but this visible, this material,
this ever-changing scene of things — this eternal move
ment of material forces ? But this philosophy must
be maintained — things shall be as it decrees them to
be ; and, therefore, these writings, which condemn this
philosophy and tell us about a God, an immortality, a
salvation — which tell us that there is a supernatural
order to which this natural, this visible order is sub-

124 LECTURE VIII.
ordinate, must be decried and rejected as writings
which were not written by their alleged authors, but
appeared at a later date, though they, the opponents
of the Gospel, know not when ; and were composed by
men, they know not whom, and acknowledged by the
whole Church to be what they were not, they know
not how. Such, I affirm, is the basis of all these
theories which go to disprove the genuineness and
authenticity of the New Testament writings. The
basis is a foregone conclusion, and it is worthless as
the basis of a real argument.
As we formerly remarked, it would be impossible
for us at present to enter specially into this subject.
Assuming, then, the writings of the New Testament
to be what they profess to be and what they have
from the first been held to be, and the contrary of
which no critic, be he a Baur or a Strauss or a Renan,
has yet established except on the untenable basis of a
petitio principii, we proceed with our great question —
which is to determine whether the belief of the dis
ciples in the resurrection of Jesus was belief in a mere
dream, in a delusion, or belief in a reality, in an objec
tive fact. So far as our main purpose at present is
concerned, this question may be soon settled.
Not one of the adversaries of the Gospel, between
whom and us there is now any argument, denies the
reality of the death of Jesus upon the cross ; and we
appeal to the whole New Testament in general in con
firmation of the statement that His death and His re
surrection are represented as facts of the same order.
The objective reality of the one is as plainly declared
as that of the other. The same Jesus died and rose
again. It is unnecessary to adduce particular pas-

ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 125
sages to this effect ; for no one who reads the New
Testament with the slightest attention can for a
moment doubt our statement. Mere visions, as they
are termed, are spoken of in the New Testament, but
never is the resurrection of Jesus described as any
thing else than a real fact. " Who is he that con
demneth ?" says an Apostle ; " It is Christ that died,
yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the
right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for
us." And the same Apostle declares faith in the
reality of His resurrection to be essential to our sal
vation : " If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the
Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God
hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
It is declared to have been an Essential qualification
of an Apostle to be able to bear witness to this great
fact. " Wherefore," said the Apostle Peter on a me
morable occasion, " of these men which have com
panied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went
in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of
John, unto that same day that He was taken up from
us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of
His resurrection." In truth, the resurrection of Jesus
as a reality was the central subject of the Apostolic
teaching, as it is the foundation of our belief in His
divine claims and the basis of all our hope in Him.
Without further argument, we maintain that the uni
form general testimony of the whole New Testament
is to the reality of the fact.
But we have also the reality of this fact specially
proved and insisted upon. And, first, we appeal to the
testimony of the Apostle Paul as recorded in his First
Epistle to the Church at Corinth. We appeal to this

126 LECTURE VIII.
Epistle first of all, because it is one of the few docu
ments which even the most advanced school of scep
tical criticism has allowed to be genuine. And we
appeal to St Paul's testimony for another special rea
son, because attempts have been made to support the
theory of mere subjective impression by reference to
his words. In the 15th chapter of that Epistle the
Apostle Paul combats a false doctrine, which had crept
into the Church at Corinth, respecting the resurrec
tion of the dead. This false doctrine evidently was
that there was to be no real resurrection of the dead,
but that the only resurrection to be looked for was a
resurrection of the soul, so to speak, in the present
life. The resurrection of the body was the doctrine
which was assailed.' Now, observe that the main
purpose of the Apostle in this chapter is to expose
this erroneous view respecting the resurrection of the
body. He does this by first insisting on the real re
surrection of the body of Jesus. His main purpose
is not to establish this latter fact ; but by means of
this fact, which all professed to believe, to refute the
error respecting the general resurrection. And his
argument is, that if Jesus really rose from the dead,
so shall those who sleep in Jesus rise ; whereas, if
believers who die are not to be raised, it would follow
that Jesus did not rise — a conclusion which, since
Jesus did rise, would amount to a reductio adabsurdum.
It is only, then, for the sake of his argument that he
refers to the resurrection of Jesus, and shows its
reality by appealing to the sensible evidence which
established it. The idea that his words may imply a
mere subjective vision is altogether untenable, for his
argument demands the objective reality of the fact.

ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 1 27
No one who had not a foregone conclusion in his
mind could possibly suppose that a mere subjective
vision was all that the Apostle's words can mean. He
appeals to the sensible evidence given on various
occasions and to different persons in confirmation of
the reality of the fact. " For I delivered unto you," he
says, " first of all that which I also received, how that
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures ;
and that He was buried, and that He rose again the
third day according to the Scriptures." Observe that
the death and burial and resurrection of Christ are
all described as of the same order of facts. All were
real or all were visionary. There is no distinction,
and there can be none. They are all real facts. " And
that He was seen" — Seen ! how ? evidently not, as is
said, in a mere subjective vision, but as an objective,
living, real Being ; — seen with the bodily eye — " seen
of Cephas," that is, Peter — " then of the twelve," as
the eleven were still termed ; " after that, He was
seen of above five hundred brethren at once" (how
could this be if the vision was merely subjective ?),
" of whom the greater part remain unto this present,
but some are fallen asleep. After that, He was seen
of James : then of all the Apostles. And last of all,"
he adds, " He was seen of me also, as of one born out
of due time." It is argued that this vision of Paul's was
entirely subjective, and that therefore the other visions
spoken of were of the same character. But such is
not the meaning of the Apostle. He saw and heard
the risen Lord. He saw at least the objective mani
festation of His glory and heard His voice. He had,
consequently, sensible evidence that Jesus, who was
once crucified, was now alive. Therefore, whatever

128 LECTURE VIII.
peculiar distinction may be drawn under the circum
stances between the sensible evidence given to Paul,
and that which was given to the Apostles and others
who saw Jesus on earth after His resurrection, he had, as
well as they, sensible evidence that Jesus was now alive,
and alive in glory ; and therefore he could justly say of
himself, as well as of them, that he had seen the Lord.
In the 1 2th verse we have his argument: " Now, if
Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how
say some among you that there is no resurrection of
the dead ? " The objective reality of Christ's resurrec
tion is assumed as the ordinary subject of Christian
teaching ; and it is adduced as overturning the erro
neous doctrine which some were advancing that there
is no resurrection of the dead. " But if," he adds,
" there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ
not risen." The two doctrines are inseparably con
nected. And this verse contains the reductio ad ab-
surdum, for the very persons who introduced the
erroneous doctrine which the Apostle is combating
admitted that Christ had risen. The Apostle's argu
ment is just this : the reality of Christ's resurrection
must be denied, if you deny the reality of the resur
rection of the dead. And then he goes on to show
further consequences which would follow from the
supposition of Christ's resurrection not having been
real. " And if Christ be not risen, then is our preach
ing vain, and your faith is also vain." If there was
no reality in Christ's resurrection, the whole Gospel
which we preach collapses, and your faith is utterly
vain. " Yea, and we " — we the Apostles — " are found
false witnesses of God ; because we have testified of
God that He raised up Christ, whom He raised not

ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 1 29
up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead
rise not, then is not Christ raised." Is this like the
language of a man who had only experienced a sub
jective impression ? What clearer and stronger lan
guage could have been used by one when insisting on
the reality of what he testified ? His argument, as I
have repeatedly said, is in the form of a reductio ad
absurdum, and he continues it further. " And if Christ
be not raised, your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your
sins." There is, on this supposition, no salvation re
vealed. Mankind are still under the guilt and domin
ion of sin. " Then they also which are fallen asleep
in Christ are perished." Those who died in the faith
of Christ, and in the hope of a resurrection to eternal
life, are in the same state of condemnation with others.
And further, " if in this life only we have hope in
Christ, we are of all men most miserable." For we
renounce the pleasures of a present life, such as they
are, and we endure real privations and sufferings,
solely because of our faith in Christ — a faith which, on
the supposition that He did not rise from the dead, is
utterly vain. Observe here the thoroughly practical
sense of the Apostle. He was no blind or wild fanatic.
He was in full possession of his faculties, and of what
we term " common sense." He had no relish for
mere suffering, and he would not have submitted to
such a life of privation as that which he and his
fellow-labourers in the Gospel endured, if he had had
the slightest suspicion that his faith did not rest on
solid ground. But it did rest on such ground ; for he
thus concludes his argument, " But now is Christ
risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of
them that slept." The reality of Christ's resurrection
I

130 LECTURE VIII.
is all along the basis of his argument ; and just as the
first-fruits are the pledge of the coming harvest, so is
Christ's real resurrection the pledge of the reality of
the coming resurrection of all His people.
Strauss labours hard to show that, when we com
pare the passage on which we have commented, with
the threefold account given in the Book of Acts
respecting the appearance of Jesus to Paul, and also
with other statements in his Epistles referring to cer
tain visions with which he says he was favoured, we
have no valid reason for concluding that the special
appearance, mentioned in our passage and elsewhere
detailed, was anything else than a mere mental im
pression, occasioned by the peculiar state of Paul's
mind, and by the circumstances in which he was at
the time placed. Strauss further asserts that as Paul
in this passage regards the appearances to Cephas,
, to James, to the Twelve, and to the more than five
hundred brethren, as identical in kind with the one to
himself — so we can only infer that all these appear
ances were entirely subjective, and to be traced to
the power of imagination under highly exciting cir
cumstances. We cannot enter minutely into the
several accounts given of the appearance of Jesus to
Paul, nor is it necessary for us to do so at present.
It is admitted that such impressions are possible, and
we also maintain that it is in the power of God to
favour His servants with what may be termed " super
natural visions." He has access to the human mind,
and may, if He wills, employ its powers in such a way
that truth may be immediately revealed, or a vision
of some scene immediately produced. This is a
subject of most interesting and important inquiry,

ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 131
but it is not necessary for us to discuss it at present.
We observe, however, that such supernatural visions —
internal miracles, as they may be termed — are very
different in their nature from external miracles, which
are objects of distinct sensible perception. And the
question comes to be, "Was Paul favoured at any
time with mere supernatural visions ? And if so,
was he aware of the distinction between them and
the perception of external miraculous facts ? " Now,
it can be clearly proved from his own statements that
he was often favoured with such visions and revela
tions of the Lord, and that he was perfectly aware of
the distinction referred to. The mere use of the same
word " appeared " in reference to such visions, and to
the case of sensible perception, in no way identifies
these two distinct acts of the mind. We are said to
see an object in a mere dream, as well as to see it by
means of our sense of sight. It is not this word, but
the circumstances of the case, which must determine
the nature of the appearance.
Now, looking at the passage before us, and at the
accounts given in the Acts of the appearance of Jesus
to Paul, to which we shall refer in our next Lecture, we
can only state it as our conviction, that as the Apostle
evidently describes this appearance as a real, objec
tive occurrence, we must, believing his testimony, con
clude that it was such an occurrence. His whole
argument assumes the reality of the appearance to
the first disciples as well as to himself; and there
fore, in the view of the Apostle Paul, the resurrection
of Jesus was a real resurrection. True it is that the
Apostle does not, as Strauss would have had him
do, formally investigate the grounds which he and

132 LECTURE VIII.
the others tell us they had for considering the appear
ance as something " real." Had the Apostle done so
on an occasion when, strictly speaking, he was directly
combating, not the denial of the reality of Christ's re
surrection, but the denial by some philosophic persons
of the reality of the resurrection of Christ's believing
people, I humbly think that even Strauss would have
regarded such a discussion on such an occasion as not
altogether free from suspicion, and might, whether
fairly or not, have imagined he detected a latent
hesitation in Paul's own mind as to the reality of
Christ's resurrection. In short, there is no possible
way of convincing scepticism when it is bent on main
taining a foregone conclusion. Sad, indeed, is such a
state of the mind — all its ingenuity is turned to ward
off evidence, however clear and powerful, and to
strengthen by every possible means its own assump
tions. Such a state of mind would not yield "even
should one rise from the dead."
In our next Lecture we shall consider, however
briefly, the grounds on which the first disciples rested
their belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

LECTURE IX.
THE VARIOUS NARRATIVES OF THE RESURRECTION
OF JESUS.
WE are now to examine the Evangelic narratives
themselves, in order that we may still further deter
mine the momentous question, whether the admitted
belief of the first disciples in the resurrection of the
Lord Jesus originated in mere mental excitement,
occasioned by the circumstances in which they were
placed, or in an objective fact, for the reality of which
they had the evidence of their senses.
We assume, for reasons which have already been
stated generally, that these narratives, or Gospels, as
they are termed — the public documents of the Chris
tian Church, and recognised as such from the first
by every section of that Church — are genuine and
authentic documents, having for their authors those
to whom they have from the first been ascribed —
namely, the Apostles Matthew and John, and the two
companions of Apostles, Mark and Luke. The last
of these Evangelists, Luke, further gives us a supple
mentary account referring to the resurrection of Jesus,
in his introduction to his second treatise, commonly
called " The Acts of the Apostles." To this account
also we shall have to give attention. As the subject

134 LECTURE IX.
before us is one of great extent, and as we must com
press our remarks within as small a compass as possible,
we shall endeavour to avoid all irrelevant discussion,
and to bring before you only the chief points which
require to be noticed. Our plan will be, first, to notice
the pre-intimations, if any, which Jesus gave respecting
His resurrection; secondly, to consider the several
narratives of the resurrection by themselves ; thirdly,
to compare these narratives ; and lastly, to notice the
theories of those who deny the reality of the event.
I. First, then, as to the pre-intimations which Jesus
gave to His disciples respecting His resurrection, all
the four Evangelists inform us that such were given,
and that even the enemies of Jesus were aware of
some of them. St John relates that at a very early
period of His ministry, Jesus, when asked by the
Jewish rulers for what they called a sign (some visible
sign from heaven, as they meant by this word, in con
firmation of His authority to act as He had been
doing in respect to the sanctity of the Temple), re
plied, " Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up." This obscure intimation was at .first
understood literally by these rulers, but we learn from
another Evangelist that they afterwards attached the
true meaning to His words. The disciples also did
not at first understand their meaning; but they re
membered them after He was risen from the dead.
On another occasion, after Jesus had given evidence
which ought to have convinced the eyewitnesses of the
truth of His claims, we are informed by St Matthew
that the Scribes and Pharisees, rejecting this evidence,
persisted in demanding some further sign from Him,
when He declared that no sign would be given them

NARRATIVES OF THE RESURRECTION. 1 35
except one shadowed forth by what had happened to
the prophet Jonah : " 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." Several other expressions, more or less
obscure, were uttered by Jesus in the course of His
ministry, all bearing on His death and resurrection,
and the progress of His kingdom throughout the
world. But it was not till He was about to proceed to
Jerusalem for the last time that He plainly intimated
to His disciples the things which were about to happen
there. We cannot at present dwell on the peculiar
state of mind which these disciples cherished during
the whole course of His ministry. They grew more
and more in the belief that He was the Christ, the
Messiah promised to the fathers, and now universally
looked for by the Jewish nation ; but they, like the
rest of the nation, expected a temporal deliverer, one
who would rescue the nation from all foreign oppres
sion, and establish a universal empire of which the
earthly Jerusalem was to be the seat. Such a hold
had this view of the Messianic kingdom upon their
minds that they seemed incapable of understanding
even the plainest intimations which were opposed to
it, and it was only towards the close of His ministry
that Jesus deemed it expedient to give them such
intimations. The three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke,
inform us that after He had drawn from them a
decided confession of their belief in His Messiahship,
He announced to them in the plainest terms His
approaching death and resurrection. " From that

136 LECTURE IX.
time forth," says St Matthew, " began Jesus to show
unto His disciples how that He must go unto Jerusalem,
and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests
and Scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the
third day." But the Evangelists at the same time
tell us that the disciples were completely perplexed
by such an intimation ; not that they did not under
stand the meaning of the words, but that they could
not conceive how such things should happen to the
Messiah — how it could be that He, who was to restore
the kingdom to Israel, should be subjected to death,
even to a death that was to be followed by a resurrec
tion. " They understood not," says St Mark, " that
saying '' — that intimation about His death and resurrec
tion — " and were afraid to ask Him " — that is, to ask
how such things could be, consistently with His claims
to be the Messiah. St Luke informs us to the same
effect. " Let these things," said Jesus, " sink down
into your ears, for the Son of Man shall be delivered
into, the hands of men. But they understood not this
saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived
it not ; and they feared to ask Him of that saying."
It was evidently the intimation of His death — of His
death by a public execution — that disconcerted and
perplexed their minds. The intimation of His resur
rection was, of course, essentially connected with His
death ; but it perplexed them solely because the latter
event was one which they were unable to reconcile
with their deeply-seated convictions respecting the
Messiah. We have a proof that this is the correct
view of the matter in what St Peter, the spokesman
of the disciples on this as on other occasions, ventured
to do, when Jesus for the first time plainly told them

NARRATIVES OF THE RESURRECTION. 1 37
of His approaching sufferings and death. " Then
Peter took Him" — took Him, probably, by the hand, or
aside — " and began to rebuke Him, saying, Be it far
from Thee, Lord ; this shall not be unto Thee." How
strong must have been the prejudice in the minds of
the disciples against the very thought that the Messiah
should suffer and die, as Jesus had declared, when it
moved Peter to act in this manner, and when his con
duct on this occasion called forth from Jesus the
terrible rebuke : " Get thee behind Me, Satan ; thou
art an offence unto Me ; for thou savourest not the
things that be of God, but those that be of men ! "
You will observe, then, that it was the announce
ment, not so much of His resurrection, as of His
sufferings and death, that disconcerted the minds of
the disciples. Had they not stumbled at the very
idea of the latter, they would have rejoiced in the
assurance of the former ; and they did not understand
the saying about the resurrection merely because they
could not understand why He, the Messiah who was to
live for ever, should possibly need to be raised again.
It is important for you to have a distinct conception of
the state of mind thus manifested by the disciples, as
also of what it was in these announcements of Jesus
which really caused their perplexity — in fact, their un
belief that these announcements would be fulfilled.
Again, you will observe that in these intimations of
His approaching death and resurrection Jesus evi
dently speaks of both as facts of the same order. The
resurrection is to be as real a resurrection as the death
is to be a real death. Jesus clearly declares that
He is to suffer and die, and that He is to rise again
on the third day. It is impossible to regard His

138 LECTURE IX.
words as referring to any other kind of resurrection
than a real one. Now, I beg you to tonsider seri
ously the importance of this, the only fair — I might
say, the only possible — interpretation of the words of
Jesus ; for since it is of a real death that He speaks,
His words can be fulfilled only by a real resurrection
from the dead. It is universally admitted, by unbe
lievers as well as by believers, that He was put to
death, and that, so far, His pre-intimations were liter
ally fulfilled ; nor can it be denied — nay, it is not denied
even by the most decided adversaries of His claims —
that His disciples did afterwards firmly believe that
He rose again from the dead on the third day. We
are entitled, then, to infer that the resurrection, in
which they thus believed, corresponded in its nature
to that which was foretold — that it was, in their view,
a real resurrection.
It is, indeed, still possible to suppose that in this
view they were deceived, by mistaking the product
of an excited imagination for a real, a sensible fact.
And there is only one way in which we can pronounce
a judgment on this matter, and that is by calmly and
carefully examining those authentic narratives which
contain an account of the circumstances on which
their belief was founded.
Before proceeding to the examination of these
special narratives, it deserves to be noticed that, on
the very night in which, as He knew, He was to be
betrayed into the hands of His enemies, He renewed,
under the most affecting circumstances, the intimation
of His death, and also of His resurrection, and assured
the disciples that He would meet them again in Galilee.
On that night He also instituted that Supper which has

NARRATIVES OF THE RESURRECTION. 1 39
ever since been observed by the Christian Church, and
which is a standing memorial of His expiatory death,
and also indirectly of His glorious resurrection ; for
whilst it ever points back to the body that was broken
and to the blood that was shed for the remission of sins,
it likewise looks forward to the time when He, the
Risen Lord, will come again to complete the salvation
of all His people. " Then said Jesus unto them, All
ye shall be offended because of Me this night : for it
is written, I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of
the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am
risen again, I will go before you into Galilee."
II. Let us now proceed to consider separately each
of the four narratives of the resurrection, in the order in
which these are presented to us in the New Testament.
1. The Evangelist Matthew, after minutely detailing
the circumstances attending the trial and crucifixion
of Jesus, relates that when the even was come, Joseph
of Arimathea, a rich man, and a disciple of Jesus,
went to Pilate, the Roman governor, and begged the
body of Jesus ; that, on his request being granted,
he took down the body from the cross, and, wrapping
it in a clean linen cloth, laid it in his own new tomb
which he had hewn out in the rock ; and that he rolled
a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and then
departed. He also mentions that Mary Magdalene
and the other Mary whom he had named a little
before — namely, the mother of James and Joses —
were present at the interment. Matthew then relates
that on the next day, which he says was the day after
the preparation — that is, the preparation for the
Jewish Sabbath — the chief priests and Pharisees came

14a LECTURE IX.
in a body to Pilate, and called his attention to a saying
which they remembered that Jesus, whom they em
phatically designated as "that deceiver," had uttered, to
the effect that " after three days He would rise again."
They requested, therefore, that Pilate would " issue a
command to have the sepulchre made sure until the
third day, lest," as they said, " His disciples should
come by night and steal Him away, and say unto the
people, He is risen from the dead, and so the last
error should be worse than the first." Pilate listened
to their application ; a guard of soldiers was sta
tioned at the sepulchre ; and to prevent, as far as
could be done, the possibility of collusion even on the
part of the guard, the stone itself at the opening of
the tomb was formally sealed. " In the end of the
Sabbath," but not till the morning "began to dawn,
toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene
and the other Mary came to see"*- — carefully to look
at " the sepulchre. And, lo, there was a great earth
quake " 7 — a great shock — " for the *angel of the Lord,
descending from heaven, and coming to the sepulchre,
rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
His countenance"! — nis appearance — "was like light
ning, and his raiment white as snow. And for fear of
him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men."
But the angel addressed the women, and said, " Fear
not ye ; for I know that ye are seeking Jesus, the
crucified One. He is not here ; for He is risen, as He
said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And
go quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen
from the dead : and, behold, He goeth before you
into Galilee ; there shall ye see Him : lo, I have told
* Btapriasu. + (reloads. % t) iSe'o auToS.

NARRATIVES OF THE RESURRECTION. 141
you. And they departed quickly from the sepul
chre with fear and great joy ; and did run to bring
His disciples word."
There is a clause in the commonly received text *
which implies that " whilst they were now on their way
to tell His disciples" Jesus met them; but this clause
has been generally omitted in the best critical editions,
as not supported by sufficient authority. We can
therefore only regard Matthew as relating the simple
fact, that either then, or at a somewhat later time when
they again were on the same road, "Jesus met the
women and said, All hail ;" and that the women, "com
ing up to Him, held Him by the feet, and worshipped
Him." Jesus addressed them in soothing words, say
ing, just as the angel had done before, " Fear not. Go,
tell My brethren that they go into Galilee, and there
shall they see Me."
The Evangelist next relates that " whilst these
women were going," either on the first, or it may have
been on a second occasion, to the disciples, " some of
the guard went and reported to the chief priests the
things which had occurred ;" that after a consultation
had been held with the elders or members of the Coun
cil, the chief priests bribed the soldiers with a large sum
of money to spread a false report to the effect that
" the disciples had come during the night and stolen
the body whilst they, the soldiers, were asleep ;" and
that the chief priests gave the soldiers, who would no
doubt at once perceive the danger to themselves in
volved in such a story, an assurance that they would,
by their influence with Pilate, secure them against all
danger. The soldiers, we are told, took the money,
* as Be liroptvovro cbrayyeiXai rois iiaBnrais aiirov.

142 LECTURE IX.
and spread abroad the report, which, says the Evan
gelist, was "current among the Jews" even at the
time when he wrote his Gospel.
"The eleven disciples," it is then related, "went
to Galilee, to a mountain," which it would appear
Jesus had at some time or other mentioned as the
place where He would meet them. When they were
assembled on the mountain, " they saw Him, and
worshipped Him. But," the Evangelist adds, "some,"
whether of these eleven or of other disciples, " doubted "
— doubted, that is, at first, whether the person whom
they saw, probably at some distance, was really Jesus
or not. But "Jesus came" — came up to the as
sembled disciples — " and addressed them " in audible
words, "saying, All power" — all authority* — "is
given to Me in heaven and upon earth. Go ye there
fore, and make disciples 7 of all nations, baptising
them into the name"| — the one name — "of the
Father, and of the Son, and' of the Holy Ghost ; and
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you : and, lo, I am with you during all
the days " § — all the appointed days — " even unto the
consummation of the age."||
Such is the brief account which St Matthew gives of
the burial and the resurrection of the body of Jesus.
It is perfectly clear that, if his account is correct, the
resurrection was a real, though of course a miraculous,
event. It was evidently not his intention to record
more of the circumstances than were in his view suf
ficient to attest the reality of the fact, and to meet
the false report which he knew had been spread
* iraaa ll-ovo-la. + ^aflrjTeiitroTe. + els rb 6vo/j.a.
§ irdVas toj ri/iepas. II ems rr\s ovvreXtlas rov alwvos.

NARRATIVES OF THE RESURRECTION. 143
abroad among the Jews. There is every reason to
believe that he wrote his Gospel specially for the in
struction of Jewish converts, and hence he deemed it
necessary to expose the falsehood of this report, and
to show by a mere reference to two actual appear
ances of Jesus, the one to the women, and the other
to the assembled disciples in Galilee, that Jesus had
risen even as He had said beforehand, and that He
was now invested with all authority in heaven and
upon earth.
2. The Evangelist Mark — John Mark, the son of
Mary who was sister to Barnabas — was the companion,
first of Paul and Barnabas, then of the latter alone,
and after that of Peter, whose interpreter — that is,
amanuensis or secretary — credible testimony represents
him to have been. He wrote his Gospel specially for
the benefit of certain Gentile churches ; and we now
proceed to examine his account of the resurrection of
Jesus. After recording the events of the crucifixion, he also
details the circumstances attending the burial of the
body of Jesus. " On the evening" — that is, towards the
close of the day, which he also calls " the preparation,
the day immediately preceding the Sabbath, Joseph
of Arimathea," a member of the Jewish Sanhedrim,
and one " who was in longing expectation of the
kingdom of God," laying aside all timidity, " went
with boldness to Pilate and craved the body of Jesus.
Pilate was surprised to hear that Jesus was by this
time dead, and sent for the centurion," who com
manded the soldiers who had charge of the cruci
fixion, that he might ascertain " whether Jesus had

144 LECTURE IX.
been any time dead ;" and on receiving an affirmative
reply from the centurion, he ordered the dead body
to be given to Joseph. Joseph, purchasing a linen
cloth, took down the body and wrapped it in the
linen, and then laid it in a tomb which was hewn out
of a rock, and rolled a stone to the door or entrance
of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary of Joses*
that is, the mother of Joses, beheld,-f- carefully beheld,
" where He," Jesus, " was laid." Such is Mark's nar
rative of the burial of Jesus.
" And when the Sabbath was past " — that is, at sun
set of that day — " Mary Magdalene and Mary of
James," J the mother of James, the same Mary as was
mentioned before, " and Salome," whose name also
Mark had previously mentioned, " bought spices, with
the intention of going to the tomb and anointing the
body. Very early in the morning, which was the
morning of the first day of the week, they came to
the sepulchre ;" and the Evangelist adds another note
of time, " the sun having risen " — that is, not that the
sun was yet above the horizon, as the expression
might otherwise mean, but that the dawn was by this
time appearing. The time was just as the day was
about to break. The women, after setting out on the
way, began to consider how they were to reach the
body. " Who, they said one to another, shall roll us
away the stone from the door of the sepulchre ?" And
when they came nearer, but yet at some distance,
" looking up, they beheld the stone rolled away, for it
was very large." They advanced to the tomb, and
" entering in, they saw a young person sitting on the
right side, clothed in a long white garment, and they
* Mapla y 'la<rrjros. + iBedpovv. J Mapla n 'laKtifiov.

NARRATIVES OF THE RESURRECTION. 145
were affrighted. And the young person said to them,
" Be not affrighted : ye are seeking Jesus of Nazareth,
the crucified One. He is risen ; He is not here : see,
this is the place where they laid Him. But go your
way, tell His disciples and Peter that He goes before
you into Galilee ; there shall ye see Him, as He said
unto you." The women, " going out of the sepulchre,
fled from it ; trembling and amazement possessed
them, and they said not a word to any one, for they
were afraid."
Such is, so far, the unquestionable narrative of this
Evangelist. But we now come to a portion of the
received text, which, from its not being found in some
ancient manuscripts, and from its containing certain
words or phrases not elsewhere employed by Mark,
has caused considerable difference of opinion as to its
genuineness. We cannot enter on the discussion of
this matter. The sound conclusion seems to be, that
Mark could not have intended to finish his narrative
so abruptly as is done in the previous section, and
that this section was appended to it at a somewhat
later time, either by himself or by some one whose
testimony was undoubted in the Church. The section,
though omitted in some manuscripts, is found in others
of ancient date, and is also supported by other testi
mony. As to the use of peculiar words or phrases,
whilst such a matter is not to be overlooked, it is still
a very precarious ground on which to raise any solid
argument. We proceed, then, with the section, in full
confidence that if it did not proceed from Mark, it
had for its author some early disciple of undoubted
credit in the Christian Church. The subject of the
resurrection is, as it were, resumed in this section.
K

I46 LECTURE IX.
" And rising early on the first day of the week, He,"
that is, Jesus, "appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of
whom He had cast seven demons." There has been
some difference of opinion as to whether we are to
understand the Evangelist (for so we may justly de
signate the writer, whether he was Mark or some other
early disciple) as meaning that the risen Jesus ap
peared first, absolutely first, to Mary Magdalene, or
only first relatively to the next two appearances re
corded in this section. The writer mentions three
appearances, — the first to Mary Magdalene ; the second
to two disciples who were on a journey from Jerusalem
to the country ; and the third, or last, to the eleven
whilst they were sitting at meat. Either interpretation
we consider to be tenable, and we cannot at present
refer to the other Evangelic narratives to determine
which is the one that most agrees with their contents.
Confining our attention, however, to the section itself,
we regard the former interpretation as the one which,
apart from all other information, would be suggested
by the words of the writer. According to this view,
Mary Magdalene, who had in so remarkable a degree
experienced the saving power of Jesus, was the first
human being to whom He, after His resurrection, ap
peared. She also was the first herald of His resurrec
tion to others. She went, we are told, and " informed
those who had been with Him " — those who had ac
companied Him during His ministry, and whom she
found " mourning and weeping. And they, when hear
ing from her that He was alive and had been seen by
her, believed not : " they did not believe her testimony.
" After that He appeared, but in another," in a strange,
" form, to two of their number as they were walking,

NARRATIVES OF THE RESURRECTION. I47
going on a journey into the country. And these,
returning, reported to the rest " what had happened,
" but neither did they believe them. Lastly, He
appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and He
upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of
heart, because they believed not those who had seen
Him after He had risen. And He said unto them,
Go ye into all the world, and proclaim the Gospel to
the whole creation " * — to the whole race of man.
" He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved :
but he that believeth not shall be condemned." And
then He promises that those who would believe
should be endowed with miraculous gifts through
the power of His name. The section concludes by
representing on the one hand the Lord as " received
up into heaven, and as seated on the right hand of
God;" and on the other, the disciples "going forth
and proclaiming the Gospel everywhere, the Lord
working with them, and confirming the word with
signs following."
If this narrative is correct, no other conclusion can
be drawn than the one, that Jesus, who was crucified
and buried, rose again from the dead early on the
first day of the week, being the third after His
death ; and that the most unquestionable evidence
was given of the reality of His resurrection. The
disciples saw and heard the risen Jesus, and went
forth to proclaim His Gospel in virtue of the com
mission which they received from Him immediately
before He ascended on high.
3. We now come to the narrative of the Evan-
* irtiffy rr} KrltreL.

148 LECTURE IX.
gelist Luke. Of him we need only say at present,
that he was in all probability a Gentile convert, and
that he became the devoted companion of the Apostle
Paul. He tells us himself that he had not been an
eyewitness of the Lord Jesus, but had received his
information respecting Him from those who had been
eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word ; and that,
after tracing everything from the beginning onwards,
he had composed his treatise with the view of im
parting accurate knowledge of those things which had
been accomplished and were generally believed, to his
friend Theophilus, and, as we may conclude, through
him to other believers. Like Matthew and Mark,
Luke narrates in detail the circumstances which at
tended the trial, the condemnation, and the crucifix
ion of Jesus ; and then, as they also do, he relates
those which occurred at the burial of His body.
"Joseph of Arimathea," he informs us, "one of the
Sanhedrim, a good and just man, a man who," as
a member of the Sanhedrim, "had not consented to
the counsel and deed of the rest, a man also who was
waiting for the kingdom of God," the new era which
the promised Messiah was to introduce, "went to
Pilate and begged the body of Jesus ; and," having
obtained his request, "he took the body down and
wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a tomb hewn out in
stone," that is, in the rock, " where never before was
any one laid." The burial, he adds, took place on
" the day of preparation," that is, on the afternoon of
the day immediately before the Sabbath ; " and the
Sabbath drew on." It was near sunset. " And the
women also, who had come with Jesus from Galilee,
followed " those who with Joseph carried the body to

NARRATIVES OF THE RESURRECTION. 1 49
the tomb, " and observed the tomb, and how the body
was laid. And, returning to the city, they prepared
spices and ointments. On the Sabbath they rested,
according to the commandment; but on the first
day of the week, when it was deep dawn, they came
to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had
prepared." The Evangelist then relates that when these women,
some of whom he afterwards names, came to the
tomb, "they found the stone rolled away from its
entrance." It is worthy of notice that our Evangelist,
when narrating the burial, said nothing respecting
this stone — one instance out of many that occur to
teach us the important lesson which so many seem
to require, that silence on the part of a writer
does not always or necessarily imply ignorance of
facts. The women then, " finding the stone rolled
aside, entered the tomb, but found not the body of
the Lord Jesus." This circumstance threw them into
great perplexity ; and whilst they were in this state,
" lo ! two men appeared to them in shining garments ;
and as the women were afraid, and bowed their faces
toward the earth, they said to them, Why are ye
seeking the Living One among the dead ? He is not
here, but is risen. Remember how He spake unto
you when He was yet in Galilee, saying The Son of
Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men,
and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And
they remembered His words, and, returning from the
tomb, they reported all these things to the eleven and
to all the rest. These women were," says the Evan
gelist, " Mary Magdalene, Joanna" (that is, as we else
where learn from him, the wife of Chuza, Herod's

150 LECTURE IX.
steward), " Mary of James," the mother of James, " and
others," whose names he does not give. These were the
persons who reported to the Apostles what had taken
place. But the reports of these women "appeared to
them as idle talk, and they believed them not. Peter,
however," the Evangelist tells us without assigning any
reason, " rising up, ran to the tomb, and, stooping down,
sees the bandages* lying apart ; and he went away to his
place of abode,7 wondering at what had happened."
As yet the Evangelist has related no appearance of
Jesus to any one. But he now gives at great length
an account of His appearance to two of the disciples —
not, however, of the eleven, but of the rest — who hap
pened to be journeying on that day, the first day of
the week, to the village Emmaus, which was about
sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, and whose conversa
tion was wholly employed about the recent events.
" Whilst they were conversing with one another, and
reasoning about these things, Jesus Himself drew near
and walked with them. Their eyes, however, were
holden, so that they could not know Him." Whether
this withholding of their eyes from recognising Jesus,
whom, as is implied, they had previously known, was
owing to the engrossed state of their minds, or to a
supernatural power exerted over them, or to the
special form or appearance which Jesus assumed, is
not expressly stated by the Evangelist ; but it seems
not improbable that all these three causes operated
together to bring about the result. Jesus then " said
to them, What words are these which ye are uttering
to one another in such earnest disputation, J walking
* ra oSiivta. + airrjKSf irpbs iavrbv.
J 061 avTiPdWere irpbs dsAA-^Aous irepnrarovvres tricvBparirol.

NARRATIVES OF THE RESURRECTION. 15 1
and sad ? And one of them, Cleopas by name, an
swered, Art thou lodging in Jerusalem apart by thy
self,* and hast not known the things which have hap
pened there in these days? And He said, What
things ? And they said unto Him, Concerning Jesus
of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and
word before God and all the people : and how the
chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be con
demned to death, and crucified Him. But as for us,
we were hoping 7 that He was the One who was about
to redeem Israel. But indeed, even beside all this,
He is now in the third day j since these things took
place. But, moreover, certain women of our company
astonished us, having been at the dawn of the day at
the tomb, and not finding His body, they came, say
ing that they had seen a vision of angels, who said
that He is alive. And some of those with us went
away to the tomb, and found it so as also the women
had said, but Him they saw not. And He said unto
them, O void of understanding, § and slow in heart to
believe all that the prophets have spoken ! Ought
not the Messiah " — the Christ — • " to have suffered
these things, and to enter into His glory ? And be
ginning with Moses and with all the prophets in suc
cession, He explained unto them in all the Scriptures
the things concerning Him "|| — that is, the Messiah.
" And they drew nigh unto the village whither they
were going ; and He made as though He were going
farther, and they constrained Him, saying, Abide
with us, for it is toward evening, and the day is far
* 2i /i6vos TrapoiKcis 'Upovcra\iin. + ^/ie?s Be ^Airffouev.
% rplrnv ravrnv Tifiepav &yet. § av6vrot.
[| rb. Trepl avrov.

152 LECTURE IX.
spent. And He went in to abide with them. And it
came to pass whilst He was reclining with them,
taking the bread, He blessed, and, breaking it, He
gave it to them. And their eyes were opened, and
they recognised Him ; and, departing from them, He
disappeared from their sight. And they said one to
another, Was not our heart burning within us as Pie
spake to us in the way, as He opened to us the Scrip
tures ? And rising up the same hour, they returned
to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those with
them assembled together, saying, The Lord is risen
indeed, and has appeared to Simon " — to Peter.
" And they related the things which had taken place
in the way, and how He was known of them in the
breaking of the bread. And whilst they were speak
ing of these things,* He Himself stood in the midst of
them, and He says to them, Peace to you. But
being terrified and affrighted, they supposed that they
were beholding a spirit" — a spectre. "And He said
to them, Why are you troubled, and why do ques
tionings arise in your heart ? See My hands and My
feet, that it is I Myself : handle Me, and see ; for a
spectre has not flesh and bones, as ye behold Me
having. And having said this, He showed them His
hands and His feet ; and while they were yet unbe
lieving from joy, and wondering, He said to them,
Have ye here any meat ? And they gave Him a
piece of a broiled fish, and of a honeycomb. And
taking it, He ate before them. And He said unto
them, These are the words which I spake unto you,
while I was yet with you, that all things must be ful
filled which have been written in the Law of Moses,
* TauTa 5£ auTW AaA.oiWei;!'.

NARRATIVES OF THE RESURRECTION. 1 53
and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning
Me. Then opened He their understanding that they
might understand the Scriptures, and said to them,
Thus it has been written, that the Messiah should
suffer and rise from the dead the third day, and that
repentance and remission of sins be proclaimed in His
name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Ye
are witnesses of these things. And lo ! I send forth
the promise of My Father upon you ; but tarry ye in
the city until ye be clothed with power from on high.
And He led them out as far as to Bethany ; and lifting
up His hands, He blessed them. And it came to pass
while He was blessing them that He was parted from
them, and carried up into heaven. And they, wor
shipping Him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy,
and were continually in the temple, praising and
blessing God."
In his second treatise the Evangelist Luke gives, in
the introduction, a brief account of the resurrection
and ascension of Jesus. In that account, however,
which may be regarded as supplementary to the one
in his Gospel, there are some additional circumstances
of importance recorded. In particular, he there in
forms us of the exact length of the time which inter
vened between the resurrection and the ascension.
"Jesus," he says, "showed Himself alive to the
Apostles, after His passion, by many definite proofs,
during forty days, being seen of them, and speaking
of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God."
His last interview with them is thus minutely de
scribed : " And being assembled together with them,
He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem,
but to await the promise of the Father, which, He

154 LECTURE IX.
said, ye have heard of Me. For John baptised with
water, but ye shall be baptised in the Holy Ghost not
many days hence. They then, being come together,
asked Him, saying, Lord, wilt Thou at this present
time restore the kingdom to Israel ? And He said
unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the
seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power.
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy
Ghost is come upon you ; and ye shall be witnesses
unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in
Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
And when He had spoken these things, while they
beheld, He was taken up ; and a cloud received Him
out of their sight. And while they were gazing up
toward heaven, as He was going, lo ! two men were
standing by them in white apparel, who also said, Ye
men of Galilee, why stand ye looking toward heaven ?
This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into hea
ven, shall so come in the same manner as ye have
seen Him going into heaven. Then returned they
unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which
is from Jerusalem a sabbath-day's journey."
Such, then, are the narratives in which this Evan
gelist states the circumstances connected with the
burial, the resurrection, and the ascension of Jesus.
He records the evidence which overcame the unbelief
of the disciples in the reports that first reached
them — the evidence of sensible perception ; and he
particularly mentions the evidence which proved that
the body of the risen Jesus was a real body — that very
body which had been laid in the tomb, and which was
still a body having flesh and bones, though at the
same time it was a body over which Jesus possessed a

NARRATIVES OF THE RESURRECTION. 1 55
supernatural power. From these narratives what
other conclusion can be drawn than that Jesus, who
was put to death upon the cross, actually rose from
the dead on the third day — the first day of the week
— and that forty days after He ascended openly, in
the sight of the disciples, into heaven ?
4 We now come to the last Evangelic narrative,
written, as, notwithstanding the strong denial of the
adversaries of the Gospel, all existing evidence tends
to prove, by that Apostle who enjoyed the special
affection of Jesus, and was spared to a good old age
to watch over the infant Church, and to witness the
advancing progress of the Gospel. The Gospel narra
tive bears clear internal evidence of the authorship of
John ; and the main purpose for which it was written
is also expressly stated. It was not his intention,
says the beloved disciple, to attempt a complete record
of the life of Jesus, but to select such facts from
among those innumerable tokens which distinguished
His wonderful ministry as would . confirm the faith of
those who believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God, and would thus render them more and more
partakers of that life which is to be obtained through
faith in His name. We must avoid here all irrelevant
discussion of the characteristics of this Gospel, and of
its relation to the other Gospels. Whether the Apostle
John had seen these Gospels or not, it seems undeni
able that he was fully acquainted with the peculiar
cycle of teaching which the first preaching of the com
missioned Apostles embraced, and that whilst through
out his Gospel he kept his own main purpose in view,
which was the setting forth of the glory of the Incar-

156 LECTURE IX.
nate Word in the fulness of that grace and truth
which even in His state of humiliation shone forth in
all He said and did, he so constructs his record that
it becomes a record additional and supplementary to
the other three.
After relating at length the apprehension, the trial,
the condemnation, and the crucifixion of Jesus, and
specially the evidence which proved the reality of His
death, he records the circumstances attending His
burial. " Joseph of Arimathea, a disciple of Jesus,
but up to this time a secret one, for he feared the
unbelieving rulers, begged of Pilate to be allowed
to take the body away. Obtaining his request, he
came " to the place of crucifixion, " and removed the
body." Another disciple, Nicodemus, who also was a
secret one, and of whom on two other remarkable
occasions, especially on the first, previous mention has
been made in this Gospel, a member also, as well as
Joseph, of the Sanhedrim, was present, and assisted at
the interment. The latter had brought a large quan
tity of myrrh and aloes with the view of anointing the
body of Jesus ; and he and Joseph then, taking the
body, " wrapped it in linen clothes with the spices,
according to the usual Jewish mode of burying." The
tomb in which the body was laid was a new one ; it
was in a garden near to the place of crucifixion ; and
" no one," adds the Evangelist, " had as yet been laid
in that tomb." One reason, though not stated as the
only one, why Joseph and Nicodemus laid the body
of Jesus in this tomb, was because the day was the
preparation-day, and only a short time now remained
before the Sabbath would come on ; and " because
the sepulchre was nigh at hand."

NARRATIVES OF THE RESURRECTION. 1 57
" On the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene
comes early, while it was yet dark, to the tomb, and
sees the stone taken away from it." The Evangelist,
in narrating the burial, made no mention of this stone ;
but from what he now says, we learn that he was
aware of the fact that a stone had been rolled to the
entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene, on seeing
that this stone had been removed from its proper
place, immediately infers, not that Jesus was risen,
but that the body had been removed from the tomb ;
and, with a mind impressed with this thought, she
hastens in a state of excitement to Simon Peter and
to the other disciple, whom, without naming him, the
Evangelist repeatedly describes as " the disciple whom
Jesus loved" — for whom Jesus had, as the word* means,
a personal affection, and which disciple was evidently
no other than the Evangelist himself. To these two
Mary Magdalene runs, and tells them what she had
seen, and also states her own inference as a matter of
fact : " They have taken away the Lord out of the
sepulchre, and we " — not merely I, but we, evidently
inclusive of others — " know not where they have laid
Him." Then Peter and the other disciple immediately
set out to the sepulchre. " They ran together," so
full of anxiety were they, " and the other disciple out
ran Peter, and, coming first to the sepulchre, bends
down, and sees the linen clothes lying ; yet went he
not in. But Simon Peter, coming up after him, went
into the sepulchre, and," not merely sees, but " looks
atf the linen clothes lying." This strange fact, contra
dictory of Mary Magdalene's inference, evidently ar
rested his attention ; for whilst looking at the clothes,
* icpiKei. t ffetupe?.

158 LECTURE IX.
he observed that the napkin with which the head of
Jesus had been bound was not lying with the rest of the
linen clothes, but had been folded together, as if with
care, and left in a place by itself. " Then went in
also the other disciple, he who had come first to the
sepulchre, and on seeing these things he believed " — he
believed, that is, on the ground of what he then saw,
that Jesus had risen from the dead. The Evangelist,
who is, in fact, here speaking of himself, states, appa
rently with a feeling of self-reproach, that neither he
nor the other disciples as yet thoroughly " understood
the Scripture," when its predictions concerning the
Messiah implied " that He must rise from the dead."
These two, Peter and the other disciple, then " went
away to their places of abode."
" But Mary remained outside near the tomb, weep
ing ; and in this state of grief she bent down into the
tomb, and she beholds" — intently beholds* — "two
angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the
other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou ?
She saith unto them, Because they have taken away
my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him."
The other disciple, who saw and believed, had evidently
been as yet silent as to his own belief. Mary was still
impressed with the conviction that the body had been
violently removed. So overpowered was her mind
with this sad thought, that even the strange sight of
two men — not to say angels — sitting within the tomb,
failed to arrest her attention, except for the moment.
After replying to their question, "she turns round
and beholds Jesus standing," probably at no great dis-
* Beupei.

NARRATIVES OF THE RESURRECTION. 1 59
tance ; but she did not recognise Him, for the idea of
His having risen never entered her mind. One thought,
and only one, engrossed her whole soul, " His body
had been taken away." Jesus, addressing her, said, just
as the angels had said, "Woman, why weepest thou ?"
but He adds, " Whom seekest thou ? " Mary at once
imagines that this person is the keeper of the garden,
and that probably he had something to do with the
removal of the body ; she therefore says, " Sir, if thou
hast borne Him hence " — she does not mention the
name, but assumes that he knew whom she was seek
ing — " tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will
take Him away." The language of overwhelming
grief, true to nature, is above all cold criticism : Only
tell me where thou hast laid His body, and I will take
it away. " Jesus says to her, Mary." The sound of
her name, uttered, no doubt, in the well-known familiar
manner, at once reaches her soul ; and, turning full
round, she utters the equally familiar word in her
native tongue, " Rabboni, Master."
And now, as you may well suppose, a reaction of
feeling in no ordinary degree took place, especially
in such a mind as we have reason to believe that of
Mary Magdalene's was — a mind which at one time
had been fearfully disturbed, but had been reduced to
calm and self-possession by the power of Jesus. She
had received the evidence of sight and of hearing,
but she would also have the evidence of touch. But
this is at present withheld. " Touch Me not," said
Jesus ; " for," He adds, " I have not yet ascended to the
Father : but go to My brethren, and say unto them, I
ascend to My Father and your Father, and to My
God and your God." Strange interpretations have

160 LECTURE IX.
been given of these apparently simple words. These
we cannot at present detail and discuss. But looking
at the words themselves, and remembering Mary's
peculiar state of mind, we apprehend that, in order to
calm her excited feelings, and to disabuse her of the
idea which seems to have rushed into her mind, that,
now that He had risen, He would immediately
ascend, He deemed it wise to forbid her to touch
Him, at the same time assuring her that He has not
yet ascended, — that He is not immediately to ascend ;
and whilst thus withholding from her the evidence of
touch, He bestows on her the high honour of being
His messenger to His disciples, whom He lovingly
styles His brethren. " Go to My brethren, and say
unto them, I ascend" — I am now soon to ascend —
" unto My Father and your Father, and to My God
and your God." Thus calmed and thus honoured,
" Mary Magdalene," the first mortal herald of the
resurrection of Jesus, " comes and tells the disciples
that she has seen the Lord, and that He spake these
things unto her." What effect her report produced
on the disciples the Evangelist does not say.
He goes on to relate that, "on the evening of the same
day, the first day of the week, when the doors of the
room where the disciples were assembled were shut for
fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and
says to them, Peace be unto you." It seems evident
that the Evangelist represents this appearance as instan
taneous and supernatural, and that therefore he states
only the fact. The doors were closed, and yet Jesus all
at once stood before the disciples. He immediately
calmed their minds, naturally excited by so sudden
and miraculous an appearance, by uttering that word

NARRATIVES OF THE RESURRECTION. l6l
which assured them of His love : " Peace," every
blessing, " be unto you. And having thus spoken, He
showed them His hands and His side," still bearing
the marks of the nails and the spear. " Then," it is
added, "were the disciples glad when they saw the
Lord. Then Jesus again addressed them, saying,
Peace be unto you : as the Father sent Me, even so
send I you. And having said this, He breathed on
them, and says, Receive the Holy Spirit : whose sins
ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose
sins ye retain, they are retained." The Evangelist
then mentions that one of the disciples, Thomas, who
was also called Didymus, was not present at that
meeting ; and that when the rest told him they
had seen the Lord, he declared that "except he
should see in His hands the print of the nails, and
put his finger into the print of the nails, and put his
hand into His side, he would not believe."
On the next first day of the week the disciples
were again assembled, and Thomas was with them.
The doors were again closed, and Jesus again ap
peared in the midst of them, and addressed to them
His usual salutation, " Peace be unto you." Then
specially addressing Thomas, He said, " Reach hither
thy finger, and behold My hands ; and reach hither
thy hand, and put it into My side, and be not unbe
lieving, but believing." Thomas, the Evangelist says,
immediately exclaimed, " My Lord and my God " —
words which evidently expressed not only his belief
in the reality of the appearance of the risen Jesus,
but, along with this, his belief that He, who thus
appeared and thus manifested all knowledge, was
more than man — was indeed his Lord and his God.
L

1 62 LECTURE IX.
Jesus replied to His now convinced disciple in those
ever-memorable words : " Thomas, because thou hast
seen Me, thou hast believed : blessed are those who
have not seen, and have believed" — words which do
not mean, as some have alleged, that Jesus pronounces
those blessed who believe without any evidence what
ever, but that those are blessed who having not, as
Thomas now had, the evidence of sight, believe, as
Thomas had not done, the testimony of competent
and therefore credible witnesses.
The Evangelist seems to have at first concluded
his narrative here, and, for reasons which afterwards
occurred, to have added an appendix to it, in which
he records what he calls a third appearance of Jesus ;
that is, as he expressly says, not His third appear
ance absolutely, but the third to His disciples when
all or a number of them were present. I need not
detail the circumstances of this appearance, which, we
are told, took place at the Sea of Galilee, when seven of
the disciples had returned to their trade of fishing. The
whole circumstances are deeply interesting, especially
those which refer to what took place between Jesus
and Peter, who is now made to confess his love to Jesus
as often as he had formerly denied any knowledge
of Him, and who, after each confession, is solemnly
recognised as a commissioned Apostle: especially also
the prediction of Jesus respecting the martyrdom
which Peter would have to suffer, and the somewhat
obscure prediction respecting what was to happen
to the other disciple — " the disciple whom Jesus
loved, who also leaned on His breast at supper,
and said, Lord, who is he that betrayeth Thee ? It is
this disciple," says the Evangelist, " which testifieth

NARRATIVES OF THE RESURRECTION. 1 63
of these things, and wrote these things ; and, we
know," he adds, " that his testimony is true."
The conclusion to be drawn from the whole of this
narrative is very evident.
The dead body of Jesus is taken down from the
cross by Joseph and Nicodemus. It is laid by them
in a new tomb within a garden near to the place of
crucifixion. Early on the morning of the first day of the week
Mary Magdalene comes to the garden and finds the
stone rolled away from the entrance of the tomb.
She believes that the body has been removed, and
she immediately hastens to inform Peter and John.
These disciples run to the tomb, and John at last,
carefully noticing not only the linen clothes them
selves, but also how they are placed, concludes that
the body has not been removed, but that Jesus has
risen. He seems to be silent in respect to this con
clusion. Peter and he leave the tomb and return
home. Mary remains, overwhelmed with grief on account
of the removal, as she supposes, of the body of Jesus.
The idea that He has risen never enters her mind.
She sees two angels within the tomb. They speak
to her, and she answers them according to her grief.
She recognises them not as angelic messengers. She
partly turns round, and sees a person standing at a
little distance from her ; she supposes him to be
the gardener. The stranger asks her the cause of her
grief, and whom she is seeking. She at once sup
poses that this is the person who has removed the
body, and implores him to tell her where he has
laid it. Immediately she hears the well-known ut-

1 64 LECTURE IX.
terance of her own name, and at once recognises her
Lord. She would have the evidence of touch also,
but for wise and kind reasons is forbidden to touch
Him, and is sent with soothing words to bear the
tidings to the disciples. Whether they believed her
or not is not said ; probably they did not believe.
But Jesus appears to ten of them on the evening of
the same day. His appearance is real, but the mode
in which it is effected is supernatural. He gives them
full evidence of the reality of His appearance, and
of the identity of His body. They believe and re
joice. But one of them, Thomas, is not then pre-
'sent, and he refuses to credit the testimony of the
others. He demands for himself the evidence of
sight and touch.
Again the disciples are assembled, and Thomas
is with them. Again Jesus appears in the same
miraculous manner. He addresses Thomas, and offers
him the evidence which he had demanded. Thomas
is instantly convinced, and expresses his faith at once
in the identity and the divinity of the risen Jesus.
On a third occasion Jesus appears to a number of
the disciples in a different quarter. They see Him ;
they hear His words ; they experience His miraculous
power ; they know that it is the Lord.
What other evidence could be demanded to attest
the reality of His resurrection ? How could the
disciples believe aught else than that He who was
thus seen by them, and who thus spoke to them, had
indeed risen from the dead ? Such, then, is the testi
mony of an eyewitness— of John, that disciple whom
Jesus loved.

LECTURE X.
COMPARISON OF THE VARIOUS NARRATIVES OF
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS.
III. HAVING now examined at length the narratives
of the four Evangelists separately, we proceed to
bring these together, and, so far as we are able, to
ascertain whether they are consistent with each other,
and thus confirm each other's testimony.
If these narratives present us with true accounts of
facts, then, however diversified in details, and how
ever independent of each other they may be, they
must be consistent with one another, whether we
discern that consistency or not. That they are diver
sified in certain details, and are in one sense indepen
dent of each other — that is, that not one of them is
the source whence the others were drawn — must be
manifest to every reader. They evidently constitute
four distinct and independent witnesses to the one great
fact which is the subject of their testimony — the re
surrection of Jesus from the dead. But though this is
the manifest character of these four narratives, it is no
less certain that these witnesses must agree substan
tially in their testimony, and that we have a right to
demand such agreement, and are therefore entitled to
cross-examine them, so to speak, in order to ascertain

1 66 LECTURE X.
whether this is the case or not. Should we discover
that, notwithstanding an agreement in the mere asser
tion of the fact of the resurrection, their separate
accounts are not only diversified in details, but are
inconsistent with each other — contradictory, in short,
to one another — then their agreement in the mere
general assertion would be of no avail, however diffi
cult it might be for us to trace the origin of such an
assertion. No doubt the alleged fact is a miraculous,
a supernatural fact, and is therefore in itself incompre
hensible by our limited reason — incomprehensible,
that is, as to the mode of its occurrence. But that
is not the question before us. That question refers
solely to sensible occurrences ; to things seen and
heard and palpable ; to things within the sphere
of sense, and therefore so far within the sphere of
human reason.
We cannot, if we would, avoid the inquiry on
which we are now entering, and we ought not to
avoid it ; but we ought fearlessly, and yet humbly, to
engage in it under the full conviction that, though we
may not be able to discern the agreement of these
witnesses in every part of their testimony, yet we
shall not entirely fail, but shall see enough to con
vince us that, if we knew more than what they
have recorded, we should perceive their entire agree
ment. There are those, as we shall afterwards have to
show, who profess to discover contradictions in these
narratives, and who therefore conclude that they are
wholly unworthy of credit. These are the open — the
avowed adversaries of the Gospel.
Again, there are those who, believing in the truth

COMPARISON OF THE NARRATIVES. 1 67
of the narratives, endeavour to bring them into perfect
harmony with one another ; and, further, who, believ
ing that this result can be accomplished by what the
narratives themselves contain, deem it a failure unless
this result is arrived at. This is unreasonable ; for a
perfect agreement could be ascertained by us only on
the supposition that, taking the Evangelical narratives
as a whole, we knew that these contained a record of
every event that occurred from the resurrection to the
ascension of Jesus. Now, it is most manifest that
these narratives, taken either separately or together,
do not contain such a complete record ; and there
fore, to expect that from the partial accounts con
tained in them we can construct such a record, is, as
we have said, most unreasonable. All that ought to
be a priori expected is, that no real contradiction
shall emerge, and that an agreement to a certain
extent may be seen ; whilst difficulties also may arise,
which such partial accounts may occasion, but do not
enable us to remove.
Again, we must mention that there are some, and
these of no mean name in the Christian world, who,
whilst professing to believe in each narrative separ
ately, and therefore in the great fact to which each
bears its independent testimony, go the length of
utterly condemning all attempts to reconcile the dif
ferent accounts, and of declaring " all such attempts
to be fruitless." Such persons even profess to " see in
the failure of these attempts strong corroboration of
the truth of the Evangelic narratives," and seem to
consider it a mark of superior wisdom to speak con- ¦
temptuously of " the harmonisers." I cannot too ear
nestly guard you against such a hasty view as this,

1 68 LECTURE X.
which I regret to say is not a little current in our day.
Such a view, whilst it seems not only not to shake,
but even in some strange way to strengthen, the faith
of its advocates, does, in my humble but decided
opinion, tend to play into the hands of the adversaries
of the Gospel, and to overturn the whole credit of the
narratives in question. Avoid, I pray you, all hasty
and rash views, whether on the one side or the other,
on every subject, and especially on such a subject as
the one before us. Be calm and patient, and here as
elsewhere you shall find that, though you cannot know
everything as you would wish to know it, you shall yet
know enough to assure you that these accounts of the
resurrection of Jesus, however varied in their details,
present no contradiction, but being substantially at
one in respect to those details which they give in
common, are therefore such as to warrant us in con
cluding that they are equally at one even when we
are unable to discern this unity in all its complete
ness. In short, let us only deal fairly with these nar
ratives, not forcing them into agreement, but never
theless trying to see whether the witnesses do not
substantially agree.
Before entering on this comparative inquiry, there
is another observation which we have to make, and it
is this — that whilst we must avoid all attempts at
forcing, so to speak, an agreement between the ac
counts, we are entitled to propose what may be only
a conjecture, a mere supposition, when such conjec
ture is not unreasonable, in order to explain state
ments which at first sight seem to come into collision.
Such a mode of procedure is perfectly legitimate in
such a case as the present ; and if the result should

COMPARISON OF THE NARRATIVES. 169
only be to show that two apparently opposite state
ments may not be discordant or contradictory, even
such a result is valuable, for it is sufficient to disprove
the allegation of contradiction. Bearing these things,
then, in mind, let us now proceed to the inquiry itself.
1. As to the death of Jesus and the burial of His
body, these four narratives are in wonderful agree
ment — in such a state of agreement, indeed, that it
seems scarcely necessary to prove it.
That Jesus was put to death after a public trial,
and that He really expired on the cross, are facts ad
mitted by the adversaries as well as by the advocates
of the Gospel. A few persons, as we formerly re
marked, have attempted, in order to explain away the
reality of His resurrection, to broach the supposition
of a swoon — the mere visible cessation of vital power,
and not the cessation of life itself. But this supposi
tion, formed for a special purpose, has met with little
countenance even from the enemies of the Gospel,
and is in direct opposition to the facts as stated by
each Evangelist. We may therefore dismiss it as
altogether untenable.
Again, as respects the important matter of the
burial of the body, we have the most ample informa
tion ; and the narratives, though somewhat varied in
their details, are easily brought into agreement. Each
of the Evangelists relates that Joseph of Arimathea
was the person who went to Pilate and begged to
obtain possession of the body of Jesus. Taking all
the accounts together, we find that this Joseph was
secretly a disciple of Jesus — that he was a man of
wealth, a man of high character, and a member of the

170 LECTURE X.
Jewish Sanhedrim. Matthew tells us that the tomb
in which the body was laid belonged to Joseph; that it
was a new tomb — one recently made, and cut out in a
rock ; and that there was a large stone which exactly
fitted the entrance or door of the tomb. Mark
simply tells us that Joseph laid the body in a tomb
which was hewn out of a rock, and that he rolled a
large stone to the door of the tomb. Luke says that
Joseph laid the body in a tomb that was hewn in
stone, and adds, " wherein never man before was laid."
John gives us a little more information, — that Nico
demus, another secret disciple of Jesus, and also a
member of the Sanhedrim, took part with Joseph in
discharging these last offices to the body of Jesus, and
that the tomb was in a garden nigh to the place of
crucifixion — a circumstance which in some measure
influenced Joseph to lay the body there. He also
adds, that never man was yet laid in this tomb.
The day also, and the exact time of the day, are
mentioned by all the Evangelists. It was on the day
of preparation — the day before the Sabbath — and
towards the close of that day ; that is, a short time
before sunset. They all mention the wrapping of the
body in linen clothes ; and John informs us that Nico
demus brought myrrh and aloes, about an hundred
pound weight, and that he and Joseph wrapped the
body in linen clothes with these spices, according to
the Jewish custom in burying. Matthew tells us that
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary — that is, the
mother of James and Joses ; Mark, that Mary Mag
dalene and Mary the mother of Joses ; and Luke,
that the women also, who came with Him from
Galilee (some of whose names he afterwards as well

COMPARISON OF THE NARRATIVES. 171
as before mentions), witnessed the interment. John
does not mention the presence of any women. We
thus see that with slight variations, and sometimes
with the mention of more or fewer details, there is
perfect agreement among the Evangelists in respect
to the really momentous fact of the burial of the
Body. There is, however, one circumstance of an impor
tant nature which is recorded by Matthew alone. It
is that of the application of the Jewish rulers to
Pilate to set a watch or guard at the sepulchre. The
conduct of Pilate during the trial of Jesus had not
altogether satisfied these rulers, and they were, no
doubt, much displeased at his having granted the
body to Joseph, instead of allowing it to suffer the
usual fate of those who were crucified. And now they
either feared, or pretended to fear, from some things
which they had heard Jesus say, that His disciples,
having got possession of the body, would remove it
out of sight, and spread the story that He had risen
from the dead. Pilate allowed them to set a watch,
and to do anything else they pleased to render the
sepulchre sure. Now, since Matthew alone relates
this circumstance, and also the subsequent conduct of
the soldiers who formed the guard, and the means
which the Jewish rulers adopted in order to suppress
the testimony of the disciples about the resurrection
of Jesus, a difficulty has been raised affecting the
credibility of all the narratives'. If the Jewish rulers
had recourse to such means as Matthew mentions, to
prevent fraud on the part of the disciples ; if, notwith
standing the use of these means, Jesus really rose from
the dead ; and further, if such a story as that men-

172 LECTURE X.
tioned by Matthew was spread abroad, why, it is asked,
did not the other Evangelists take notice of a circum
stance bearing so powerfully on the evidence of the
Resurrection ?
Now, let it be observed that this matter respecting
the setting of a watch was certainly one of no slight
moment to the Jewish rulers. They had already re
sisted the clearest evidence of the claims of Jesus ;
and through their own suspicions, real or pretended
(probably partly both), they were once more to be put
on trial. They devised the very means for another
trial of their own hearts. Yet so hardened were their
hearts in unbelief, that instead of yielding to the tes
timony of the very men whom they themselves set as
a watch around the tomb, they bribed those men to
falsify their own testimony, and to spread, so far as
they could, a false account of what had happened.
But a little reflection will show that however impor
tant to the Jewish rulers the whole of this matter was,
it is really in itself of minor importance, as bearing
on the evidence for the reality of the resurrection of
Jesus. The disciples were to believe, and did believe,
in this fact on evidence presented to themselves, and
they were to be witnesses, and were witnesses, to
others, not of what others said, but of what they
themselves had seen and heard. As the whole of
this matter about the guard was one with which they
had no direct concern, but one which they as well as
others could know only by report ; and, further, as in
their narratives they evidently on purpose record only
what fell under their own cognisance, or was reported
to them by persons whom they knew ; and, again, as
the three Gospels in which no mention of this matter

COMPARISON OF THE NARRATIVES. 1 73
is found were written expressly for the Christian
Church in general, and chiefly for the Gentile Churches,
we may perceive some not invalid reasons why it did
not find a place in these Gospels. On the other hand,
there is satisfactory ground for believing that Matthew
wrote his Gospel specially for the Jewish converts ;
and as the false story set afloat was likely to affect
these converts in particular, we cannot but discern the
wisdom which guided this Evangelist to give to these
converts a correct view of a matter which was chiefly
to concern them. So far, I humbly think, we can meet
the objection which has been raised in connection
with this subject. We cannot always account for the
silence of an historian in respect even to matters which
appear to us of importance ; nor are we to infer from
such silence that the matters themselves were unknown
to him. Matthew evidently felt it necessary, for the
special purpose he had in view in composing his nar
rative, to meet the false report spread among the
Jews. It fell in with his design to do so. The other
three Evangelists wrote each with a purpose in view
different from that which specially guided Matthew ;
and any mention of the circumstance may not have
been called for by that special purpose. As to the
fact itself we have the testimony of Matthew ; and
it might be also shown from the evidently restrained
conduct of the rulers towards the Apostles, when
these first proclaimed in Jerusalem itself the resur
rection of Jesus, that they were not altogether easy
in their unbelief. That the false story referred to
by Matthew was spread abroad in an expanded form
by the Jewish rulers, we have other and sufficient
evidence.

174 LECTURE X.
2. We now proceed to compare the four narratives
in reference to the resurrection itself, and specially
the events connected with it on the day on which it
took place.
They all agree that this great fact took place early
on the first day of the week. None of the Evangel
ists professes to know at what particular moment on
that eventful morning the body of Jesus was restored
to life, or the manner in which He, once more quick
ening this body by His indwelling Spirit, came forth
from the tomb. The Evangelists Luke and John
alone mention that the linen clothes in which the
body had been wrapped were left in the tomb, and
John adds that these, and the napkin or bandage
with which the head had been bound, were left in such
a manner as to convince himself, when he and Peter
saw them, that the body had not been taken away,
but that Jesus Himself had risen from the dead, leav
ing these as tokens of His triumph over death and the
grave. We shall have special occasion to note the
power which the risen Jesus exerted over His risen
body, a power which even during His ministry He
had occasionally exerted, but now exerted more fre
quently and fully. It is not said that any mortal eye
witnessed the resurrection itself, and in all probability
no such eye did witness it. Nor was it necessary that
any human being should have witnessed this event in
order to establish the reality of the fact. The only
thing necessary was, that Jesus when risen should be
seen by competent witnesses ; and that He was seen
is what these four narratives unite in proving. But
we cannot avoid remarking that had these narratives
been based on fiction or delusion, we should in all

COMPARISON OF THE NARRATIVES. 175
probability have seen proofs of man's ever-restless
imagination in attempts to describe to us not merely
the fact, but how the fact took place. The absence
of all such attempts on such a theme furnishes no
slight evidence to a thoughtful mind of the complete
self-possession of the four Evangelical writers. The
fact itself became first known to certain women who
had, as we have already learned, carefully observed
where the body was laid, and who had resolved to
visit the tomb as early as they could on the first day
of the week, in order still further to anoint it.
And now in regard to the visit of these women we
require to observe with the utmost care every circum
stance related by the Evangelists. That one should
tell us more than the others — that each should give
us only a partial account — can occasion no surprise.
This diversity will only prove the independence of
the narratives ; and even should we experience some
difficulty in harmonising the statements of the various
circumstances which occurred, and which could not
but give rise to unwonted excitement, we need not be
astonished. But we may hope to bring the narratives
together so far at least as to convince us that they
are not irreconcilably at variance ; and if we succeed
even to this extent, we deprive the assertion of the
adversary of all its force.
Matthew simply tells us that Mary Magdalene and
the other Mary went on that day, as it began to dawn,
to see the sepulchre ; Mark says that when the Sab
bath was past — that is, after sunset on the previous
day — Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James,
and Salome, bought sweet spices, that they might
come and anoint Him, and that very early in the

176 LECTURE X.
morning on the first day of the week they came unto
the sepulchre at the rising of the sun — that is, as this
last phrase evidently here means, when the dawning
of the day was beginning to appear. Luke relates
that the women who came with Jesus from Galilee,
among whom were, as he aftenvards mentions, Mary
Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of
James, witnessed the burial of the body, which took
place towards the close of the preparation-day, and
on their return to the city prepared spices and oint
ments ; and that, resting on the Sabbath-day, they
came very early in the morning of the day after, the
first day of the week, with the spices. The clause in
the received text stating that there were certain other
women with them is now generally rejected, and is a
clause of no moment, for Luke afterwards expressly
says that there were other women with the three
whose names, as we have mentioned, he particularises.
John names only Mary Magdalene, who, he says,
came on the first day of the week early, when it was
yet dark, to the sepulchre. When indeed she hastened
to tell Peter and John what she had seen and what
she inferred, she uses the expression, " We know not
where they have laid Him." But in her reply to the
two men, as she supposed the persons to be whom
she saw within the tomb, and who asked her why
she was weeping, she uses a different expression, " I
know not where they have laid Him." Without at
taching any great importance to this point, I think
the fair interpretation is, that Mary included others
besides herself in the first expression, whilst in the
second, through the absorbing grief which more and
more possessed her soul, she refers to herself alone.

COMPARISON OF THE NARRATIVES. 1 77
It is, however, to be noticed that the Evangelist John
makes no mention of other women, and that it is only
in this expression of Mary's that we have any intima
tion in his narrative that there were others besides
herself. Observe, then, that all the four Evangelists are at one
in relating, that early, just as it was beginning to dawn,
when it might be said that it was either light or
dark, one or more women went to visit the sepulchre ;
that the first three name Mary Magdalene as accom
panied by others ; that Luke expressly names three
women, with whom he also says there were others ;
and that John mentions only Mary Magdalene.
Again, observe that Mark and Luke tell us the pur
pose which these women had in view — it was to
anoint the body of Jesus ; whilst Matthew and John
make no mention of this purpose. Observe, fur
ther, that none of these women doubted that they
would find the body of Jesus in the tomb. The idea
of His resurrection had passed away from their minds,
if ever it had found any real place there. The death
of Jesus had completely overwhelmed them. They
still believed in Him ; but how He, the Messiah,
should have died, was what confounded their minds,
preoccupied as these were with erroneous views of the
Messiah's kingdom. Why John restricted himself to
the sole mention of Mary Magdalene, will be noticed
by-and-by. Meanwhile, assuming that this Evangelist
does not contradict the other three in this matter, we
remark that a band of devoted women set out early
on the morning of the first day of the week to the
sepulchre, in order to anoint more carefully, than had
been done in the hurry of the evening of the burial,
M

178 LECTURE X.
the body of Jesus. Among these women was Mary
Magdalene. Mark alone informs us of a very natural
occurrence. These women had witnessed the placing
of the large stone by Joseph to close up the en
trance into the tomb ; and, as they were going, they
began to ask one another how they could get this
stone rolled aside, so that they might reach the body.
Mark, Luke, and John simply tell us the fact that the
stone had been rolled away. Mark, who describes
the women as asking one another the question now
mentioned, adds, that when they were yet at some
distance from the tomb, they looked up and saw that
the stone had been rolled away. They saw it at that
distance, " because it was very great." But Matthew,
inasmuch as the rolling away of this stone was con
nected with what he alone records, the stationing of a
guard at the sepulchre, informs us how it was rolled
away. " Behold, there was a great earthquake " —
a great shock ; " for the angel " — or an angel — " of
the Lord descended from heaven, and came and
rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment
white as snow. And for fear of him the keepers " —
the guard — " did shake, and became as dead men."
All the four, you will observe, mention that the stone
had been rolled away before the women came to the
tomb. Now, who rolled it away ? The story spread
abroad by the Jewish rulers makes the soldiers, who
had been stationed at the tomb expressly to prevent
the body being stolen, say what implies that the dis
ciples had come and rolled away this stone and car
ried off the body while they, the soldiers, were asleep.
This story bore falsehood on its face. Still, Matthew,

COMPARISON OF THE NARRATIVES. 1 79
who knew that this story was spread abroad among
the Jews — especially among the foreign Jews — was
led to state the true, though superhuman, manner in
which the stone had been removed from, its place.
Carefully notice that it is not said that this stone was
so removed in order to allow the quickened body of
Jesus to escape from the tomb. We believe He had
risen before this time, at a moment and in a way
not recorded. The stone was removed in order to
lay open the tomb to mortal sight, and removed in the
way it was in order to free the tomb from the presence
of these soldiers, and to give one more proof to the
Jewish rulers of the reality of the claims of Jesus.
At what time this event took place — whether be
fore the women left the city for the tomb, or whilst
they were on the way — it is difficult to determine.
It seems absolutely certain that these women were
not aware that a guard of soldiers had been stationed
at the tomb ; for if they had known this they must
have felt hopeless of accomplishing their purpose. It
would appear to be equally certain, that if the event
happened whilst they were on the way, they were at
such a distance that it made no distinct impression
at the time upon their minds. Matthew, indeed, intro
duces the mention of the earthquake in order to account
for the removal of the stone, and also for the departure
of the soldiers, and the subsequent conduct of the Jew
ish rulers. And here we may allude to the fact that,
in perusing these Evangelical narratives, we are apt
very naturally to read each as presenting us with an
account of events happening in unbroken succession,
without any intervening time during which other events
not mentioned in the particular narrative may have oc-

l8o LECTURE X.
curred. Matthew's narrative, for example, is very
brief; and when reading it by itself, we might sup
pose that the women experienced the shock, and
also witnessed the angelic appearance and the terror
and flight of the soldiers, and actually came up to the
tomb whilst the angel was sitting upon the stone ;
and, moreover, that he, sitting there, addressed them
in the words recorded. Matthew's account does not
necessarily imply such conclusions ; but had we it
alone, these are the conclusions which most probably
we should have formed. The other three Evangel
ists, however, state facts inconsistent with such con
clusions ; and therefore we are compelled to inquire
anew into the statements of Matthew, in order that
we may see to what extent we must modify our first
conclusions, and if possible reduce all the statements
to harmony.
Now, Mark tells us expressly that the women, after
expressing to one another the difficulty which forcibly
occurred to them about removing the stone, looked
up and saw that it was removed ; and the reason
which he gives for their being able to see that such
was the case, implies that they were as yet at some dis
tance — perhaps not great, for it was early morning —
from the tomb. Luke simply tells us that when the
women came to the tomb, they found the stone rolled
away — a statement which harmonises completely with
Mark's. John, in the same manner, says that Mary
Magdalene, on coming to the tomb, saw that the
stone was taken away from its entrance. Hence we
receive information which enables us to re-examine
Matthew's account, and we now see that the women
could not have witnessed the events which took place

COMPARISON OF THE NARRATIVES. l8l
when the stone was rolled away and the soldiers fled.
We also perceive that Matthew does not expressly
say that they did witness these events, or come up to
the tomb whilst the angel was sitting upon the stone.
Nay, when we carefully consider the address of the
angel to these women, we see that he is then within
the tomb ; for he invites them to enter and see the
place where the Lord lay — words which, though not
altogether inconsistent with the supposition that the
angel is outside the tomb, do certainly better accord
with the supposition that he is now within it ; so that
he can literally say, " He is not here : come, see the
place where the Lord lay."
But, again, judging from Matthew's narrative alone,
we might infer that these words were addressed by
the angel to the women as soon as they reached the
tomb and were looking into it. Mark's narrative,
taken by itself, seems also to favour such a conclu
sion. The women, entering the tomb, saw, as they at
first thought, a young man sitting on the right side,
clothed in a long white garment, and they were
affrighted. Luke's narrative gives a little more in
formation on this point. The women enter the tomb
and search for the body, but find it not. They were
greatly perplexed by this circumstance, and whilst
they were in this state of perplexity, not knowing
what to think or what to do, for such is the meaning
of the Evangelist's word * indicating their state of
mind, " behold two men," as they seemed to be, " ap
peared to them "7 — not stood by them, as our version
has it — "in shining garments." Some time, then,
however short, did intervene between their arrival
* Sunropelo-Bai. t Mtrnitrav.

1 82 LECTURE X.
at the tomb and their entrance into it, and the ap
pearance of the angel, or as it is in Luke, of the two
angels. We thus already learn that our conclusion, founded
on Matthew's narrative alone, requires to be modified
by what Mark tells us ; and, further, that the conclu
sion which we might draw from both these narratives
must also be somewhat modified by what Luke tells.
Need we, then, wonder that John, who wrote last
of all, should give us a little more information which
may require us, not to alter any fact stated by the
other three, but to alter or rather to modify still fur
ther the conclusion which we ourselves drew from
their combined statements ? Mary Magdalene was
unquestionably one of the women who came together
to the tomb. She did not come alone, but in com
pany with the others. Now, John, purposing to relate
specially for a very evident reason, as his narrative
shows, this woman's conduct, and what happened to
her on this eventful day, restricts his narrative to this
purpose, and tells us that when she saw the stone
was rolled away, she hastened — she ran — to the house
or lodging where she knew she would find Peter and
John, or one of them at least — probably the latter, for
with him there lived also one who could not but feel
a profound interest in the events of that day. It is
clear that Mary Magdalene did not enter the tomb
along with the other women. They sought for the
body, and did not find it, and were then in a state of
utter perplexity. Mary Magdalene, more rapid in
her conclusions, at once inferred, not that Jesus had
risen, but that His body had been taken away. Im
pressed with this instantaneous conviction, she imme-

COMPARISON OF THE NARRATIVES. 1 83
diately ran from the tomb to inform Peter and the
other disciple.
We seem now, with this fourfold narrative before
us, to be able to give some harmonious account of all
these varied statements— an account which is at least
so accordant with all the facts as to disprove the
charge of contradiction. A number of women, de
voted to Jesus, after making preparation for anoint
ing His body, repair early to the sepulchre. As they
are advancing on their journey, they begin to ask
themselves how they will succeed in getting the stone
removed. Looking up, they see, though at some dis
tance, that it is removed ; and when they reach the
sepulchre, they find that such is the case. Mary
Magdalene immediately concludes that the body of her
Lord has been taken away, and, without a word to the
rest, starts off and hastens to where Peter and John
are residing. The rest of the women enter the tomb,
and are for a time perplexed at not finding the body
there, when angelic beings appear to them, of whom
one probably is the speaker.
It was, then, after Mary Magdalene had left the
garden in haste to inform Peter and John, that the rest
of the women entered the tomb, and were addressed
by the angel. The address is recorded by each of the
first three Evangelists, and is substantially the same
in each narrative. In Matthew it is, " Fear not ye :
for I know that ye are seeking Jesus who has been
crucified. He is not here : for He is risen as He said.
Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go
quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen from
the dead ; and, behold, He goeth before you into
Galilee ; there shall ye see Him : lo, I have told

184 LECTURE X.
you." In Mark it is, " Be not affrighted : ye are
seeking Jesus of Nazareth who has been crucified :
He is risen ; He is not here : behold the place where
they laid Him. But go away, tell His disciples and
Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee : there
ye shall see Him, as He said unto you." In Luke,
who makes mention of two angels, both these are
represented as addressing the women ; and the ad
dress is given thus : " And as they," the women, " were
afraid, and were bowing down their heads towards
the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the
living — Him that liveth — among the dead ? He is not
here, but is risen. Remember how He spake unto
you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of
Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men,
and be crucified, and the third day rise again." The
Evangelist adds, that the women remembered these
words. Nothing can be more clear than that these three
accounts of the angel's address, whilst varying in one
or two minor details, and thus shown to be inde
pendent accounts, are, not only in substance but in the
leading details, the same. Jesus had foretold His
resurrection on the third day, and had promised to
meet His disciples in Galilee. The women, as well as
the disciples, stunned by the intimation of His ap
proaching death, the thought of which had been their
chief stumblingblock, were unable to understand what
He meant when He spake of His resurrection, and
seem to have for the time wholly forgotten the words.
The angel, whilst assuring them that He was risen,
reminds them of the words of Jesus, and tells them
to go and inform the disciples, that, according to His
promise, He was going before them — even as a shep-

COMPARISON OF THE NARRATIVES. 1 85
herd before his flock — into Galilee, where they would
see Him. These words do not necessarily imply
that they should not see Him anywhere else than
in Galilee, but they mean that He would specially
meet with them there.
Having received this testimony to the resurrection
of Jesus, and also this message for the disciples, the
women proceed in haste to deliver the message. And
here again we require to notice very carefully the
statements in each of the three narratives. John, as
has already been said, omits all mention of these
women, restricting his narrative to Mary Magdalene,
who was now alone on her way to himself and Peter.
Matthew, after mentioning the quick departure of the
women from the tomb, in a state of mind in which
fear and great joy alternately held place, and their
running to carry word to the disciples, says nothing
as to their actual coming to the disciples, or as to the
manner in which their message was received. But he
immediately relates that Jesus met these women and
saluted them, and that they, coming up to Him, held
Him by the feet and worshipped Him ; and that
Jesus calmed their minds, and also gave them a mes
sage to His disciples. There is a clause in the
received text which would indicate that this took
place when they were on the way to the disciples with
the angelic message ; but this clause has little autho
rity, and the text simply reads, " And lo ! Jesus met
them, saying, All hail ; and they, coming up, held Him
by the feet and worshipped Him. Then saith Jesus
unto them, Fear not : go away, tell My brethren that
they go into Galilee, and there shall they see Me."
This address evidently repeats the angelic message.

1 86 LECTURE X.
Now, the question is, when did this event occur ? Did
Jesus meet these women whilst they were on the
way from the tomb to the disciples ? or did this meet
ing take place at some time, however short, after they
had delivered the first message ? In short, were they
sent a second time with a message — now not from
an angel, but from Jesus Himself ? Let us examine
the narratives of Mark and Luke on this important
point. I have already noticed the peculiar state of Mark's
narrative of the resurrection. It consists of two
sections, the first embracing the first eight verses, and
the second the rest of the chapter. The first ends
abruptly, just when the Evangelist is beginning to
record the departure of the women from the tomb to
the disciples. "And going out," he says — that is,
going out of the tomb — " they fled from the tomb.
Trembling and amazement held" — possessed — " them,
and they said nothing to any one, for they were
afraid." Such is the abrupt conclusion of the first
section ; and so far as its statements go, we only
learn that the women fled from the tomb in a state of
great terror, and that they did not speak to any one —
that is, to any one whom they met. But it is not said
that they did not go to the disciples and deliver the
message which they had received. In short, from the
manner in which this section ends we learn nothing
more about the proceedings of these women. In the
second section, which we consider as having been
appended either by Mark himself or by some one of
entire credit in the Apostolic Church, there is a brief
summary given of the proofs of the resurrection.
The writer resumes the subject, and begins by men-

COMPARISON OF THE NARRATIVES. 1 87
tioning the appearance of Jesus, not to the women of
whom we have been speaking, but to Mary Magda
lene, expressly stating that Jesus appeared to her
first, and that she went and told this fact to the
disciples, and that they did not believe her report.
We thus learn nothing from Mark's narrative, whether
in the first or the second section, respecting the other
women, beyond what has been already noticed. But
we learn the important fact, that Mary Magdalene
was the first to whom Jesus appeared ; for though a
different interpretation of the word " first " is perhaps
possible, as meaning only the first of the three appear
ances recorded in this section, we apprehend that,
unless we ' are compelled by other statements to
adopt such an interpretation, the natural interpre
tation is to regard the writer as meaning the first
absolutely. In this state of matters, then, let us examine the
narrative of Luke. He relates that the women, on
receiving the angelic message, returned and told all
these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. He
makes no mention of the appearance of Jesus to these
women. But after specifying the names of some of
the women, and taking no notice of the fact which
John's narrative leads us to recognise, that Mary
Magdalene, though she was with the rest at first, had
left them at the tomb, he mentions that the women
reported to the Apostles what had happened to
them, but that their words were treated as idle
tales ; that, in short, the Apostles did not believe
the testimony of the women. Luke evidently com
bines the two distinct reports of Mary Magdalene
and of the other women ; for after saying that the

1 88 LECTURE X.
Apostles did not believe the women, he adds, what at
first sight appears to contradict this, at least in some
measure, that "Peter rose up and ran to the sepul
chre ; and that, stooping down, he beheld the linen
clothes laid by themselves, and departed to his own
abode,* wondering at that which was come to pass."
We shall have to notice this statement again : mean
while we see how it was that Luke mentions Mary
Magdalene as one of the women who came and told
the Apostles what had happened. He blends, as
we have said, in one statement, two different transac
tions. But Luke, when relating the conversation be
tween Jesus and the two disciples on the road to
Emmaus, represents Cleopas as saying this among
other things, " Yea, and certain women also of our
company made us astonished, who were early at the
sepulchre ; and when they found not His body, they
came, saying that they had also seen a vision of
angels, who said that He was alive." There is no
mention by Cleopas that the women, whether Mary
Magdalene or the rest, on first bringing their reports,
had seen Jesus Himself. The contrary is implied ;
and so far as Cleopas knew, no one had as yet seen
Jesus ; for he adds, " And certain of them who were
with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so
as the women had said : but Him they saw not."
This was, according to Cleopas, the chief defect in
the evidence as yet received. No one, whether of the
women or of the disciples, had, according to him, as
yet seen Jesus.
The conclusion, then, seems to be, that it was not
when the women were on the way from the tomb to
* cwrijAfle irpbs iavrbv.

COMPARISON OF THE NARRATIVES. 1 89
tell the disciples what they had seen and what the
angel had said to them, that Jesus met them ; but
that this meeting took place after they had reported
the message to the disciples, who rejected their testi
mony, and treated their words as the words of per
sons under delusion. The probability is, that these
women, so contemptuously treated by the disciples,
went back in a melancholy state of mind towards the
tomb, and that it was then that Jesus met them and
consoled them, and gave them a message from Him
self, corresponding exactly to the one which had been
rejected, but still conveying an expression of His
sympathy with His sorrowing, though unbelieving,
disciples : " Go away ; tell My brethren that they go
into Galilee, and there shall they see Me."
This appearance, then, of Jesus to these women, we
conclude, for the reasons stated, took place after they
had conveyed the angelic message to the disciples.
It also, we at the same time conclude, took place
after His appearance to Mary Magdalene, to whose
proceedings we would now draw your special atten
tion. Whilst her name occurs first in the lists of the
women given by the first three Evangelists, it is John
alone who informs us of the manner in which she
acted, and of the events which befell her on this
eventful day. His narrative has all the appearance
of one supplementary to the others. It is evident
from what John relates, that though she had come
with the other women to the sepulchre, she did not
enter it along with them, but at once inferring from the
removal of the stone that the body of Jesus had been
taken away, instantly set off to inform Simon Peter
and John. These two disciples were at the time

190 LECTURE X.
living in a different place from the rest. John would
appear to have had a house or lodging by himself,
for we know that he took the mother of Jesus away
with him to his own home. Whether Peter was for
the time also living in the same house, or was there
merely on that day, we cannot tell ; but Mary Magda
lene seems to have known that they were living either
in the same house, or not far from each other. To
these two disciples, then, she went alone ; and we need
not repeat the circumstances which occurred. We
have already noticed these ; and at present we are
simply considering whether the different narratives
are consistent with each other. Now Matthew, whose
narrative is so brief, tells us nothing more about Mary
Magdalene than that she, accompanied by the other
Mary, went early to see the sepulchre; and looking
solely at his narrative, we might suppose that these
were the only women who did so, and also that Jesus
appeared to these two women together. But Mark
gives additional details. He mentions only the two
named by Matthew as present at the burial ; but he
adds Salome to these two when he names the women
who went on the morning of the first day of the
week to visit the sepulchre and to anoint the body
of Jesus. Judging solely from the first section of his
narrative, we might again suppose that these three
women entered the sepulchre, and saw the angel,
and returned with his message to the disciples. But
in the second section there is a circumstance men
tioned which obliges us to modify this conclusion, for
it is said that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magda
lene.1 Consequently she must have been alone when
this appearance took place. No mention is made of

COMPARISON OF THE NARRATIVES. 191
the appearance recorded by Matthew to the other
women. Now, when we examine Luke's narrative,
we find that, along with Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary, Joanna also went, besides other women
whose names are not given. Taking the three
narratives together, we learn that there were not
only the four women whose names are given, but
also others with them ; so that we conclude there
were several more than four who went together on
that morning to the sepulchre. Luke further tells
what has been already noticed, that these women
brought a report to the disciples, which was not be
lieved by them, but was treated as an idle tale ; and
yet he says, in apparent opposition to this statement,
that Peter was so impressed by the report that he
arose and ran to the sepulchre ; that, stooping down,
he saw the linen clothes lying by themselves ; and
that he departed, filled with wonder at what had'
happened. There is a manifest difficulty on the face of this
part of Luke's narrative. The disciples, spoken of as
a body, disbelieved the report, and treated it as an
idle tale. Now Peter for one did not so treat it ; for he
instantly ran away to the sepulchre. The apparent
discrepancy here is most manifest ; and it is only John
who gives us the means by which it may be at once
reconciled. Luke blends, as we have already said, two
distinct reports in one. All that he states is true ;
but his statement does not enable us to see how both
parts are true and consistent with each other. John
tells us that Mary Magdalene alone came to Peter
and the other disciple, as he designates himself.
Hence it was the rest of the women who came with

192 LECTURE X.
their special message to the disciples as a body.
Peter, accompanied by John, runs to the sepulchre,
and sees, according to John, exactly what Luke re
lates about the linen clothes. John tells us that he
himself inferred what had happened, but he says
nothing about Peter's conclusion. From his silence
on this point we may conclude that the effect upon
Peter's mind from what he saw was not that belief at
which he himself had silently arrived, but that wonder
of which Luke makes mention. Again, John tells us
that Jesus did appear to Mary Magdalene alone, and
as this is declared by Mark, or at least by the credi
ble writer of the second section of the conclusion of
his Gospel, to have been His first appearance, so we
may conclude that it was prior to that appearance with
which the other women were favoured. Hence all
the seeming discrepancy is reconciled, and that by
no violent interpretation, nor by the suppression of
a single fact recorded in any of the narratives, but
simply by bringing them together, and listening to
the varied information which each imparts.
As yet, however, only Mary Magdalene and the
other women had seen the risen Jesus ; and it is
stated that the twofold testimony was as yet produc
ing no other effect on the minds of the majority, at
least, of the disciples than that of astonishment. They
were overwhelmed with grief, and would not believe
the women, and especially Mary Magdalene, when she
assured them that Jesus was alive, and had been seen
by her. But as the day advanced, other testimonies
were added to those of the women. Matthew makes
no mention of these. In the second section of Mark's
narrative we are told that, after His appearance to

COMPARISON OF THE NARRATIVES. 193
Mary Magdalene, Jesus " appeared in another form " —
in a form different from His former usual one — " to two
of them" — that is, of the disciples — "as they walked,
and went into the country ; and that these two," who,
it is implied, recognised Him at last, " went and told
it to the rest of the disciples ; but that neither believed
they them." John makes no mention of this event,
but Luke gives a lengthened and most deeply-inte
resting account of it. We do not again detail what
he says. An attempt has been made to create a discre
pancy between what is said by Mark as to " the other
or strange form " in which Jesus appeared to the two,
and what Luke alleges as the reason why these two did
not at first recognise Jesus — " their eyes were holden
that they should not know Him." The attempt is
really frivolous, for both expressions may fairly be
regarded as meaning the same thing. The fact that
these two did not recognise Jesus might be owing to
the form — the unusual form in certain respects — which
He then assumed ; and to express the whole of this
fact, Luke might fairly say that "their eyes were
holden that they should not know Him." Never let
us descend to frivolous criticism. We have thus a per
fect agreement as to this appearance of Jesus between
Mark and Luke, and there is nothing in the other two
narratives opposed to it.
We cannot here avoid remarking, that if ever there
was a narrative bearing internal evidence of its his
toric truth, of its being a narrative of real facts, that
narrative is the one given by Luke, detailing the con
versation between these two disciples and the risen
Jesus. Fiction or delusion never produced such a
narrative as this. It bears the true stamp of reality
N

194 LECTURE X.
on its very face. How must the hearts of these two men
have burned whilst the wondrous stranger laid open to
them the meaning of the Scriptures, and showed them
out of these Scriptures that it behoved the Messiah
— the Christ — first to suffer the very things which
they told him Jesus, whom they once believed to be
the Messiah, had suffered ; and then, after suffering
these things, to enter into His glory ! Study over and
over again this most precious narrative, and meditate
upon it, till you also feel the words of the risen Jesus
kindling your hearts.
As soon as Cleopas and his fellow-traveller recog
nised the risen Jesus, who instantly withdrew Himself
from their sight, they returned to Jerusalem, and
found the eleven (as the chosen disciples were now
termed, Judas having gone to his own place) assembled,
and also other disciples, styled by Luke " those who
were with them." Who these others were, we are not
informed by the Evangelist. In his second treatise,
when he mentions a meeting of the eleven and others,
which took place on the day of the ascension and
immediately after that event, he tells us that, besides
the eleven, whose names he gives, there were present
" the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and His
brethren." All we can say is, that some of these, and
probably others, were present on this occasion also,
brought together by the repeated marvellous accounts
of the day. It was now evening. When the two from
Emmaus came into the room where the eleven and
others were met, they found them in a state of high
excitement, owing, it would appear, to an event which
had just been told them, but of which no further men
tion is made in any of the narratives — namely, to an

COMPARISON OF THE NARRATIVES. I95
appearance of Jesus to Simon Peter — an appearance
which must have taken place not long before, and
which Peter now, no doubt, reported to the rest.
The two found them, says Luke, assembled, and say
ing, probably aloud, to one another, " The Lord is
risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon." Up to
the time when this testimony was given, they had re
ceived testimony only from the women — from Mary
Magdalene on the one hand, and from the company of
the rest of the women on the other. This testimony
they had not believed ; but now they have the testi
mony of one of their own number, of Simon Peter him
self ; and when he told that he had actually seen the
Lord, their unbelief seems for the moment to have
given way, and they burst forth, just as the two arrived,
in the exclamation, that now all doubt was removed :
" The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to
Simon." The Apostle Paul, we need scarcely remind
you, refers to this appearance as one of the visible
proofs of the reality of the resurrection of Jesus. The
two now related the events which had occurred to
them in their journey, and how Jesus was known of
them in breaking of bread. Luke does not say how
their report was received, but Mark tells us that
once more unbelief resumed its sway in their troubled
minds. " Neither," says he, " believed they them."
Nothing but the actual visible presence of Jesus
seemed to be capable of producing lasting convic
tion. And now we are told by Mark and Luke and
John, that whilst they were thus assembled, and were
alternately believing and unbelieving, Jesus Himself
appeared amongst them. This appearance of Jesus

196 LECTURE X.
on the evening of the day of His resurrection — the
first day of the week — is not recorded by Matthew,
who only mentions an appearance — the one promised
by Jesus before His death, and intimated by the
angel, and again promised by Jesus — to the eleven in
Galilee. In the second section of Mark's narrative
there is also only one appearance to the eleven men
tioned ; and although it is blended with what was
perhaps said in all its fulness by Jesus at a subse
quent appearance, yet we apprehend it is to this, the
first appearance of Jesus to the eleven, that the writer
specially refers ; for he says, " After that " — after His
appearance to the two who were going into the coun
try — " He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at
meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and
hardness of heart, because they believed not them
who had seen Him after He was risen." This address
evidently implies that Jesus then appeared for the
first time to His assembled disciples. We here learn
that the events of the day had been so ordered for
this, as well as other reasons, to try the hearts of these
His chosen disciples. They had been tried, and
found wanting ; for they had received valid and suffi
cient evidence, and yet had not believed.
That Luke refers to this appearance on that even
ing is abundantly manifest ; for he tells us, that whilst
these men — the two from Emmaus — were speaking,
and whilst the eleven, or most of them, were probably
exhibiting signs of unbelief, He Himself stood in the
midst of them, and said, " Peace be unto you ; " and
that He then, as we have before observed, endeavoured
to calm their minds, affrighted by His sudden appear
ance, and to convince them by sensible proofs that

COMPARISON OF THE NARRATIVES. 1 97
though He showed Himself as having a superhuman
power over His body, yet it was a real body, having
flesh and bones.
Whether the remainder of the recorded address was
delivered at this or at a subsequent appearance, we
cannot pronounce for certain ; for we have repeatedly
seen that it was not unusual for these first three Evan
gelists to blend together either events or addresses
which, though strictly happening or delivered at
different times, were so allied that they might in a
brief narration be recorded together. But it is by
no means improbable that substantially the same in
structions were given by Jesus at every appearance
to His disciples. It was always, we are informed by
Luke in his second treatise, about the things of the
kingdom of God — of the new dispensation — that He
spake to them. We need not, therefore, be surprised
that these Evangelists, purposely giving only a brief
summary of events, blended together things which,
though occurring at different periods, were substanti
ally the same on each occasion.
John in his narrative gives us additional informa
tion in respect to this first appearance of Jesus to the
eleven. After mentioning that Mary Magdalene
came and told the disciples that she had seen the
Lord, and that He had spoken to her these things
— the things recorded by John — and without tell
ing us, what we learn from Mark and Luke, that her
testimony was not believed, he records, as we have
seen when examining his narrative by itself, the exact
time when, and circumstances in which, Jesus for the
first time appeared to the assembled disciples. We
need not repeat the details, but we here see a perfect

I98 LECTURE X.
agreement, as respects this first appearance, between
Mark and Luke and John. Each Evangelist gives
us some information peculiar to himself. Mark, or
whoever wrote the second section, tells us that the
disciples were sitting at meat ; Luke, that Jesus sud
denly appeared whilst the two from Emmaus were
speaking; and John, that Jesus came and stood in
the midst of them, though, for a reason assigned, the
doors were shut or closed. Mark relates that He
upbraided them for their unbelief; Luke states at
length how He endeavoured to relieve their terror
and doubts, and to convince them that it was He
Himself who now stood before them ; and John, whilst
implicitly confirming these two previous statements,
when he records that Jesus showed them His hands
and His feet, goes on to relate His special bestowal
upon them of the Holy Spirit. All these statements,
though varied, are perfectly reconciled, and mutually
support each other.
John further mentions, what neither Mark nor Luke
records, that one of the eleven was not present on
that evening, and how this unbelieving disciple was
led at a subsequent meeting to full faith in the risen
Lord. He then mentions an appearance of Jesus to
seven of the disciples at the Sea of Galilee, and with
the interesting account of what took place on that
occasion concludes his Gospel.
Matthew concludes his Gospel with an account of
the fulfilment of the promise that Jesus would meet His
disciples, His brethren, in Galilee. This was evidently
a most solemn meeting ; and it manifestly took place
shortly before the ascension of Jesus. The eleven
were present, and in all probability the " more than

COMPARISON OF THE NARRATIVES. 1 99
five hundred " mentioned by Paul were also present ;
for we are told that when those present saw Him,
they worshipped, but some doubted. The eleven
would no longer doubt, but it may have been that
there were present some who were not yet convinced,
and who may therefore at first have doubted whether
it was He. On that memorable occasion Jesus pro
claimed His sovereignty over heaven and earth, and
commissioned His disciples — especially the eleven,
for they only are specially mentioned by Matthew —
to go and make disciples of all nations. But Matthew
does not say that this was the last appearance of
Jesus to the disciples. He makes no mention of His
ascension, though that is implied in the words with
which he represents Jesus as concluding His address.
Mark records no other appearance but that one
which took place on the evening of the day of the
resurrection. It is not improbable that the address,
which he records after mentioning this appearance, was
delivered at a subsequent time ; for it also bears the
marks of a farewell address. Still, for reasons already
assigned, it may not have been the last address given
by the Lord. The Gospel concludes with a simple
statement of the ascension of Jesus to the right hand
of God, and with another statement as to the labours
of the commissioned Apostles, and of the signs or
miraculous proofs with which the Lord, according to
His promise, confirmed their word.
Luke gives us information additional to that given
by the other three. After mentioning the first ap
pearance to the disciples on the evening of the first
day, and the manner in which Jesus convinced them
of the reality of His risen body, he records an address

200 LECTURE X.
which may in its substance have been delivered then
and at subsequent appearances (for he himself tells
us elsewhere that during forty days there were such
appearances), and which, beyond all question, would
be given in His last interview with them. He then
simply mentions that Jesus led the disciples out as
far as to Bethany, and, lifting up His hands, blessed
them ; and that whilst He was in the act of blessing
them He was parted from them and carried up into
heaven. He concludes by telling us that the disciples
worshipped Him who thus ascended on high, and re
turned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continu
ally in the temple praising and blessing God.
We have already considered the details recorded
by Luke in his introduction to his second treatise.
These give us more information, especially as regards
the time which intervened between the resurrection
and the ascension, but are in no respect discordant with
the brief narratives contained in the four Gospels. The
fullest information given has reference to the events
which happened on the day of the resurrection itself;
and may we now not conclude by saying, that in
respect to these most momentous events we have
found the four Evangelists at perfect harmony, so
far as we are furnished with facts which enable us
to pronounce a judgment on so infinitely important a
subject ? Amidst much diversity substantial unity
prevails. With one combined testimony they clearly
prove that " the Lord is risen indeed!'
But we shall refer to this united testimony on
another occasion.

LECTURE XI.
STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS.
HAVING considered the several narratives which give
us an account of the facts proving the resurrection of
Jesus, and having also endeavoured to compare these
narratives among themselves so as to determine
whether they are consistent with one another, we
might now proceed to draw the conclusion which the
evidence presented to us seems to warrant. But
before formally doing this, it becomes us to hear
whether any objections have been taken to these nar
ratives, and, if so, carefully to consider their nature
and worth. As it ought to be our sole wish to ascer
tain the truth, and as the Gospel of Jesus Christ,
however precious it may appear to us, can be of no
real value unless it be true, and as the truth of this
Gospel rests pre-eminently on the reality of the re
surrection of Jesus, so we cannot possibly be too
anxious to examine with the utmost impartiality the
evidence, on the one hand, which is presented in sup
port of that fact, and the objections, on the other
hand, which have been taken to that evidence. After
such an examination it rests with us individually to
make up our minds, and to determine, each for him
self, what our conclusion shall be.

202 LECTURE XI.
In two works recently published we have the objec
tions to the evidence in favour of the resurrection stated
to us in as complete a form as they have ever been, or
probably can be, stated by any one. I allude to the
works of Strauss and Renan. The former, in his re
cent work, entitled ' The Life of Jesus for the German
People,' has stated these objections in an elaborate
form ; and the latter, in his second book on the origin
of Christianity, which he entitles ' The Apostles,' has
also presented these objections, though in a somewhat
different shape, yet in a manner calculated to produce
no slight impression on the reader's mind. I believe,
then, that in these two works, and especially in the
one by Strauss, we may find all that has been, or
probably can be, said against the reality of the re
surrection of Jesus, and that when we have examined
what they have to object against this alleged fact,
we may consider that we have the case fully be
fore us.
Now, in order to do justice to the subject, we must
submit to exercise patience in listening to and ex
amining these objections. It may be irksome — nay,
exceedingly painful — to us to have to dwell upon
such objections ; and we may often feel that we
might fairly dismiss them in a summary manner.
But on such a subject as this we must not adopt
such a course. We must allow the objector to choose
his own way in stating what he has to say, and we
must follow him in his course, and honestly consider
whether what he says has weight or not. It is for
him to select the ground on which he is to stand ;
and there is no help for us but to .take our place
beside him, and argue the question with all possible

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 203
fairness. Whilst, then, we might, I think, legitimately
in one respect decline to reason on this subject with
either of these men, because they both assume the
impossibility of a miraculous event — the impossi
bility of such a fact as that of the resurrection of
one who has really died — yet, inasmuch as the mere
possibility of the fact does not imply its reality, and,
further, since by adducing objections to the evi
dence given in support of the resurrection they do
virtually abandon their assumed principle, and so far
come over to our ground, we are bound to meet them,
and patiently to hear whatever they may have to
say. For these reasons, then, I intend to enter fully into
this momentous part of our inquiry, and to consider
minutely the portions of the two books referred to,
but specially the portion of Strauss's work devoted to
our subject. And I have no doubt that you will see
the propriety of our doing so, and that you will
kindly give me your patient attention. It is no
pleasure to me to dwell on objections such as these
men have brought forward, and most gladly would I
go on to subjects more in unison with our views and
feelings. But when we engage in any work we must
do it thoroughly, otherwise it had been better and
wiser to have let it alone.
Without further preliminary remarks, then, let us
proceed to hear and examine the objections of Strauss
to the reality of the resurrection of Jesus. He ex
presses himself, as I formerly noticed, as perfectly
aware of the momentous nature of the subject. I
shall not again quote his words to that effect. He
knows and admits that the whole character of Chris-

204 LECTURE XI.
tianity is involved in the question — that, in short, this
question of the resurrection of Jesus is decisive, one
way or the other, of the divine or human origin of the
Gospel. He enters upon the inquiry with his mind
fully open to its importance, and he expresses a re
solution, as we also formerly remarked, to conduct it
in the most impartial manner. But, whilst we give
him credit for such expressions, and must deal with
him as one who has so expressed himself, we cannot
forget, and ought not to forget, that with him the in
quiry is really ended before it has begun. A resur
rection from the dead is with him an impossibility,
not merely, as we at once allow, in the ordinary course
of nature, or in respect to the finite power of man, but
in every sense — an utter impossibility in any aspect
whatever. Now, we cannot forget, and, as I have said,
we ought not to forget, that such is with him a fixed
and unalterable principle of belief. So that whilst we
will listen to him, coming as he does over to our
ground, and thus apparently admitting the possibility
of the resurrection of Jesus, yet we know beforehand
that he cannot possibly conduct his inquiry with an
unprejudiced mind ; for that he should be able to do
so would imply not a miracle, but a contradiction;
and whilst we are perfectly ready to admit the pos
sibility of the one, we can by no means allow the
possibility of the other. We are entitled, then, be
forehand, to expect that Strauss will argue only on
one side of the question, for with his assumed prin
ciples he cannot do otherwise. Still, it is possible
that even with a mind thus preoccupied he may de
tect something defective in the evidence which has
been adduced ; and we may rely upon it, that if a real

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 205
defect is to be found in that evidence, such a mind as
his will not be likely to fail in discovering it.
Again, let us carefully notice what is the question
which Strauss places before him. He is not one of
those who have attempted to deny the very existence
of such a person as Jesus, or to represent Him and
His disciples as a set of impostors. Strauss admits
that a man called Jesus did exist, that He taught
doctrines bearing on morality and religion, and
that He went about, accompanied by a number of
disciples, teaching His doctrines and doing many
benevolent acts which attracted the attention of the
Jewish people ; and, further, that He at last gave
Himself out to be the Messiah whom the Jews ex
pected, and that He was looked upon by His disciples
as the Messiah. Strauss also does not question the
fact, that Jesus incurred the hatred of the Jewish
rulers, and that He was at last put to death as a
criminal, after undergoing a trial before the Roman
governor of Judea. Strauss admits all these things
as historical facts ; and, further, he admits that soon
after the death of Jesus His disciples did believe that
He was risen from the dead, or at least that, though
He had died, He was yet alive, and alive in a state of
exaltation, and that He would come again — probably
very soon — in glory, as the Messiah, to carry on His
reign. Strauss, you will carefully bear in mind, ad
mits belief in the resurrection of Jesus on the part of
the disciples ; and also that, cherishing this belief, they
went forth in course of time and proclaimed it to the
world — to Jew and Gentile — and that they succeeded
in laying the foundations of the Christian Church on
the basis of this very belief.

206 LECTURE XI.
Thus the question with Strauss is not, whether the
Christian Church was founded on the belief of the
resurrection of Jesus, or even whether the disciples —
the first preachers of the Gospel — entertained this
belief. He admits both of these things as facts.
The only question before him is, What was the origin
of this belief which the disciples cherished ? Did it
originate in sensible perception — in the actual pre
sentation to their minds through their senses of an
objective fact ? or did it originate in a mere subjective
impression produced by mental excitement, and with
out any presentation of an objective fact ? Of course
we know, a priori, what will be Strauss's answer to
this apparently delicate and subtle question. We
know that there is only one answer which he can
possibly give, were he standing upon his own
ground. But, as we have said, he has virtually come
over to our ground ; and as we are not a priori shut
up to the one answer or to the other, but are pre
pared to hear with impartiality whether of these two
answers is the one warranted by the facts which com
pose the evidence, we must hear what he will tell us
in support of his view, although that view has been
already necessarily determined by him. I have dwelt
on this, because in all such inquiries the first thing to
be clearly seen by us is the exact question which is
to be discussed. The question then is — the reality of
the disciples' belief being admitted on both sides,
by Strauss as well as by ourselves, what was its
origin ?
It may be as well to remark here, that although
Strauss more than questions the received view of the
authorship of the Gospel narratives, and indeed con-

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 207
siders these as having been written, not during the
Apostolic age, but in the course of the second cen
tury, and although his opinion on this subject is
really founded on what he, were he speaking of the
opinions of his opponents, would call a dogmatic view,
and is, as we believe can be historically proved, in
direct opposition to evidence bearing on the subject ;
still, as it is upon the contents as well as upon the
authorship of these narratives that the main question
at present under discussion depends for its answer, he
is not entirely precluded from stating to us objections
which, apart from the question of authorship, he may
think he can draw from these contents themselves.
The question of the authorship of these narratives, as
well as of the other writings which enter into the
canon of the New Testament, is undoubtedly one of
essential importance, and one which we cannot allow
him any more than ourselves to settle merely upon
a theoretical or dogmatic view, but in respect to
which we must insist on being guided by evidence,
and evidence alone. Still, inasmuch as he professes
to discover in the very contents of the narratives
grounds for objecting to the reality, not of the dis
ciples' belief, but of the fact itself in which they
believed, we will, setting aside for a moment the mere
question of authorship, but assuredly not conceding
his opinion on that subject, hear what he has to say
in respect to these contents. I think I have now
given you a clear and fair view of the state of matters
in which Strauss and we are to commence our com
mon inquiry.
In reference to the death and burial of Jesus,
though he never for a moment forgets his manifest

208 LECTURE XI.
determination to question every point bearing on the
subject of inquiry, Strauss does not seem disposed
to throw any strong doubt on the reality of the
former. But he does question the accounts given in
the narratives — we mean, of course, the Gospel narra
tives — in respect to the latter. He does not question
the crucifixion of Jesus ; but, as the narratives them
selves show — and Strauss never doubts their contents
whenever these seem to favour, or to be capable of
being made by him to favour, his own view — that
Jesus was only a few hours upon the cross, and as
"crucifixion, in which," as he says, "the loss of blood
occasioned by the wounds of the nails was so slight,
was not a punishment that killed quickly," he states
what circumstances would have warranted the con
clusion of a real death ; and then says, that " on the
other hand, if after a few hours Jesus appeared to be
dead, and was immediately taken down from the cross,
His death might possibly have been only apparent,
and a condition from which He might again recover."*
Then he refers to the statements in the Gospels re
ferring to this subject, evidently with the view of
giving some colour to the supposition of a merely ap
parent death ; and mentions the recorded surprise of
Pilate when he was informed that Jesus was so soon
dead, and also the recorded testimony of John,
whom, of course, he does not allow to have been the
author of the fourth Gospel, to the reality of the
death as attested by the facts mentioned in that
Gospel, which recorded facts he regards with more
than suspicion. In short, whilst, according to his
usual mode (and in saying this we do him no injus-
* ' New Life of Jesus, ' vol. i. p. 392, 393.

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 209
tice, but are only stating what every page of his book
testifies), he tries either to throw discredit on every
thing recorded in the Gospels, or to turn every state
ment, though made to show what actually occurred,
to the service of his own preconceived purpose,
yet at last he concedes the reality of the death of
Jesus. But he makes this concession in a way worthy of
notice. " The proof of the reality of the death of
Jesus," he says, " which certainly cannot be given in a
sufficient form on the side of His crucifixion, is con
tained in the deficiency of all satisfactory proof of His
resurrection. If he is to be considered as having really
died, of whose continuance in life there is no historical
information, the death of Jesus on the cross must
be considered to have been a real death."* You
have here a perfect specimen of that kind of argu
ment which characterises his whole work. ' Be
cause crucifixion was a mode of punishment which
did not until after a time terminate in death, and
because Jesus, according to the testimony of the
Evangelists, was on the cross only during a few hours,
we are to consider His death as a doubtful matter;
although those very Evangelists, on whose testimony
we rely for the one fact, present to us the clearest
evidence that the other fact — His death — did really
take place. Again we are to consider His death to
have been a real death, because there is no satisfac
tory proof of His resurrection, or of His having con
tinued in life after His crucifixion. The assumed
deficiency of all such proof of His resurrection is to
be the only ground of our belief that He really died.
* Vol. i. p. 394.
O

2IO LECTURE XI.
But, as is implied in this argument, if, contrary to
the supposition, satisfactory proof of the resurrection
should be produced, then in that case we fall back to
our place of departure, and deny that there is satisfac
tory proof of His death.' In one word, Strauss will
receive the testimony of the Evangelists so far, and so
far only, as it can be employed to sustain his pre
conceived conclusion that a real resurrection from the
dead is a thing which cannot be.
He next discusses, in connection with the death,
the question which has been raised by some as to
" whether only the hands or the feet also of the cruci
fied Jesus were nailed to the cross." We agree with
him in regarding this as a subordinate question, and
also in his conclusion, that, " everything considered,
the nailing of the feet as well as the hands may be
the most probable."* But the next question — that.
affecting the burial of the crucified and now dead
body — is one of a different character ; it is, in fact,
of pre-eminent importance. Strauss, after a few
remarks upon it at this stage of his argument, which
he considers as sufficient to throw doubt upon the.
whole matter, reserves the full discussion of it to a
later stage. We deem it of essential moment to hear at
once all that he has to say on this subject. He admits
that so early as " the time of the Apostle Paul it was
a Christian tradition that Jesus was buried after being
taken down from the cross." The first epistle of this
Apostle to the Church at Corinth refers to this so-
called tradition ; and this is one of the few writings
to be found in the New Testament which even Strauss
admits to be an authentic document. In that epistle
* Vol. i. p. 396.

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 211
Paul writes thus to the Corinthian Church : " For I
delivered unto you first of all " — or rather, among the
first things, as matters of first importance* — "that
which I also received " — received not from man, but,
as he tells us in a former part of the epistle, from the
Lord; by special revelation, in short — "how that
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures ;
and that He was buried, and that He rose again the
third day according to the Scriptures." No doubt,
the burial of Jesus was a fact everywhere believed in
the Christian Church on the testimony of the Apostles,
and therefore, if we assign to the word tradition its
strictly literal meaning, we may say with Strauss,
that in the time of Paul there was a Christian tradi
tion respecting the burial of Jesus. Yet let us not
concede to him the loose or vague meaning of this
term, but hold to the truth, that the burial, as well as
the death and the resurrection, of Jesus was a fact
which Paul and the other Apostles testified and taught
as of primary importance. There is, then, satisfactory
evidence that in the apostolic age, and upon apostolic
testimony, the crucified body of Jesus was believed
by the Church to have been buried. And Strauss
admits that what he terms " a Christian tradition " to
this effect, " has, historically, nothing against it."
"For," he continues, "though, according to the Roman cus
tom, persons who had been crucified were accustomed to hang
until they wasted away from weather, or were consumed by
birds and putrefaction, and the Jewish law required that they
should be taken down before evening, and buried in some
dishonourable burying-place, there was a Roman law which
gave the bodies of criminals so executed to their relations
* irapeouKa yap itfuv iv irpiarois, % teal irapcKafiov, k. t. A. — I Cor. xv. 3, 4*

212 LECTURE XI.
or friends if they themselves asked for them. No one of
the Evangelists says that Jesus' own disciples did this with
regard to the body of Jesus ; all, on the other hand, repre
sent a man who stood only in a distant relation to Jesus,
the rich Joseph of Arimathea, as here coming in. There
are, indeed, different statements as to the mode in which
the burial was performed, which give rise to doubt, and
reserve the point for a later investigation, under which, also,
the isolated notice of Matthew as to the watch at the grave
will fall."— Vol. i. p. 396.
Before we hear what Strauss has afterwards to say
on this subject, let us observe that we have, as indeed
he admits, the unanimous testimony of the Evangelists
to the facts that Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate
and craved the body of Jesus, and that Pilate granted
it. Matthew and John* expressly tell us that this
man was, though secretly, a disciple of Jesus ; and
Mark and Luke-)- describe him in language almost
equivalent to this ; he was one " who was waiting for
the kingdom of God " — for the predicted reign of
the Messiah. The statements of the four Evangelists
respecting the mode in which the burial was per
formed, though varied in one or two particulars, are
not merely in substance, but in most of the details, at
one. And we presume to say, that if any statements
of fact can bear the impress of historical truth, these
statements bear it. Let any one who has not a fore
gone conclusion in his mind read these statements,
and he must, we affirm, feel the conviction that he is
reading statements of actual facts. But Strauss, you
will observe, cannot allow the burial any more than
* Matt, xxvii. 57 ; John xix. 38.
t Mark xv. 43 ; Luke xxiii. 50.

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 21 3
the death of Jesus to be accepted without a reserve.
He cannot enter on the investigation of the evidence
bearing on the resurrection with a free unprejudiced
mind ; and he labours at every step to throw doubt
on every statement, however clear and historically
certain. He reserves, however, he tells us, for later
investigation, this subject of the burial, along with the
other topic concerning the alleged watch at the tomb.
There are, we think, reasons which might be stated
for this deferring of the consideration of so important
a subject as that of the burial of the body of Jesus ;
but before stating what these appear to us to be, we
shall pass on to ascertain what he has to say further
on this head.
The next time that Strauss refers to this subject of
the burial is when he is discussing the statements in
the Gospels respecting the places where the alleged
appearances of the risen Jesus are said to have oc
curred. According to these statements, the first
appearances occurred at or near Jerusalem. As we
shall have afterwards to examine what he says on
this particular subject, we mention at present only
what, in course of the discussion, he says in respect
to the burial : —
" In addition to this," he remarks — that is, in addition to
something that he had said immediately before — " there is
the consideration that the interment of Jesus in the stone
sepulchre of Joseph, is anything but historically corroborated,
as has been already intimated, and shall be hereafter more
accurately discussed. But if Jesus was, as is probable,
buried with other condemned criminals in a dishonourable
place, his disciples had not from the first the tempting
opportunity of looking for his body." — Vol. i. p. 432.

214 LECTURE XL
The argument under discussion here will come to
be considered afterwards. But you will observe that
Strauss uses much stronger language in this passage
than he formerly did when expressing his opinion as
to the burial. Formerly, after stating that the Roman
law allowed relatives or friends to ask for the bodies
of crucified criminals, and after admitting that all
the Evangelists represent a man whom he rather un
fairly describes as standing in a distant relation to
Jesus, the rich Joseph of Arimathea — as if this were
all that the Evangelists say of Joseph — " as here," at
this stage, " coming in," he observed that differences;
which differences he did not mention, in the statements
as to the mode of the burial, gave rise to doubt. But
now he advances beyond a state of mere doubt, af
firming that the burial of Jesus in the stone sepulchre of
Joseph is anything but historically corroborated ; and
that the probability is, that His body was buried
along with the bodies of other condemned criminals
in a dishonourable place. What evidence he has for
the latter assertion he does not state ; and as for the
former, he does not tell us what he considers to be
the historical corroboration of a fact. He merely
asserts both these things, and the only reason which
can be assigned for both assertions is, that they are
necessary to his hypothesis. Everything, however
clearly and strongly attested, must give way to that
hypothesis ; and when such is the case, it is mani
festly perfectly easy to support any hypothesis what
soever. But, then, what kind of reasoning is this
that allows me not only to assume my theory, but
also to construct my facts in opposition to all histori
cal evidence in order to support it ? Such reasoning

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 21 5
may be called hypothetical reasoning, but assuredly
it is not that kind of reasoning which ought to be
employed when we are dealing with facts. If the
statements of the Evangelists are not true, let them be
shown to be untrue, and then we shall know how to
regard them. But let us not first assume that they
are not true, and then by-and-by represent them as
historically disproved. Is it, I would venture to ask,
conceivable that such definite and consistent state
ments as are to be found in the four Gospels respect
ing the burial of the crucified Jesus, would have been
made, had His body not been laid in the tomb of
Joseph — had that body been really thrown with the
bodies of other crucified criminals into some dis
honoured place ? Whether that body was again
raised to life or not, can we for a moment believe
that these statements,- impressed as they are with the
clear stamp of historical verity, were the fabrications
of after times ? There is nothing in the statements
to cause the slightest doubt, or even to occasion sur
prise ; for viewing Jesus even as a mere man, who by
His teaching and character had drawn some friends
around Him, though on account of His claims and
His exposure of prevailing hypocrisy in high places
He had incurred the deadly hatred of the chief
priests and rulers, so that they could not rest until
they cut Him off by a cruel death (and all this
Strauss admits), is it any cause of wonder that, since
the Roman law permitted relatives or friends to crave
possession of the bodies of condemned criminals,
some one of the friends of Jesus should avail himself
of this permission, and crave the body of Him whom
they so ardently loved, and believed to be the Mes-

2l6 LECTURE XI.
siah, and whose death they knew was due to no crime
of His, but entirely to the relentless, though ground
less, malice of His enemies ? What, may we not ask,
should we have thought, and what would not Strauss
himself have forced us to think, had the Evangelists
told us that, notwithstanding the professed attachment
of many to Jesus during His ministry, and their pro
found grief when they saw Him delivered into the
hands of His enemies, and hanging like a malefactor
on the accursed tree, and notwithstanding the kind
indulgence of the Roman law, there was not one
among His friends who even thought of craving pos
session of the body, in order to rescue, as far as was
now in their power, their deceased Master from fur
ther disgrace ; but that they all so forgot Him, and
their own relation to Him, as to allow His body to be
thrown with the bodies of notorious criminals into
some dishonoured place ? But it is necessary to the
hypothesis of Strauss that no such burial as that
attested by all the Evangelists should have taken
place ; and, this being the case, the conclusion is that
no such burial did take place. The weight due to
such an argument need not be formally estimated.
It is in his second book that Strauss gives us his
promised accurate discussion of this subject, as also
of the other topic connected with it — the stationing
of a watch at the tomb. And here, once for all, let
me briefly point out to you the plan of Strauss's
whole work. In a long introduction he professes to
investigate the sources of our information respecting
the life of Jesus, and endeavours to disprove the gen
uineness and authenticity of the Evangelical records.
He then, in his first book, assuming that the life of

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 217
Jesus, however superior in certain respects to the lives
of other men, could be distinguished by nothing of a
miraculous or superhuman character, labours to throw
discredit on every narrative implying that Jesus was
so distinguished, and that His life, therefore, is not to be
judged solely by the laws which regulate the lives of
merely human beings. Admittingthe existence of Jesus,
and assuming that in His life there could have been
nothing miraculous or superhuman, Strauss examines
with great minuteness and subtlety the Gospel nar
ratives, and endeavours to separate what, under the
circumstances, may be supposed to have been His
character and course of life from what, under the
assumption, can be regarded as only the product of
delusion and fiction on the part of His followers.
And having made this separation, he devotes his
second book to the examination of these delusions
and fictions with the view of ascertaining their rise
and growth — that is, the conditions under which the
stories embodying them were formed.
Now, this mode of procedure is, upon his assumed
principles, perfectly legitimate. If we assume as our
point of departure that the life of Jesus, when criti
cally or historically examined, must be viewed as in
no essential respect differing from the ordinary life of
man, we cannot admit as true those statements which
imply that, though truly man, He was yet possessed
of a higher nature than man's, and that He per
formed miraculous works — -works which it is manifest
no mere man, unendowed with superhuman power, can
do ; and in order to obtain a view of His real life, we
are compelled to separate, as we best can, such state
ments from the other parts of the Evangelic record.

218 LECTURE XI.
And having succeeded, as we may think, in making
this separation, we may fairly, with our assumed prin
ciple, endeavour, if we are so minded, to trace the
origin of these supposed fictitious stories. Such an
inquiry, however, possesses only a literary or his
torical interest; for, on the principle assumed, the
Gospel of Jesus Christ, whether it then be viewed as
a cunningly devised fable or as a purely mythical pro
duction, loses all its moral value. It is' no longer
the Gospel of salvation to a sinful and perishing
race. In his second book, then, Strauss, according to his
promise, discusses the subject of the burial of Jesus,
as also the narrative in Matthew respecting the
watch stationed at the tomb. I deem it of import
ance to examine at length this discussion, because
such an examination will not only show you how
completely Strauss fails to set aside the unanimous
testimony of the Evangelists in reference to this mat
ter of the burial, as further the testimony of Matthew
to the other fact, but will also enable you to see the
entirely hypothetical manner in which, throughout his
second book, he attempts to account for the origin of
what he designates the mythical or legendary stories
in the Gospel narratives. I need not repeat that
our examination, however tedious and even painful,
must be thorough, in order that it may be of any
worth. Strauss begins his discussion thus : —
" It was naturally of great importance to the earliest
Christian consciousness that the honour of burial should
have been paid to the body of Jesus. Even Paul mentions
it as a tradition that Jesus was buried (i Cor. xv. 4); but in

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 219
saying this, he only wishes, as a preparation for what is said
immediately afterwards of his resurrection, to establish that
the body of Jesus went under the earth. In itself this
might have been done only in the manner which was
usual among the Jews in the case of persons executed, by
his being taken down from the cross and covered over with
soil in the burial-place of other criminals. The Romans,
however, as was remarked above, if the relatives announced
themselves as coming to apply for the body of a person who
had been executed, were accustomed to give it up to them
for burial. And according to the Evangelists such a person
did really announce himself to Pilate, in a rich man of
Arimathea, by name Joseph, who belonged to Jesus as a
disciple (Matt, xxvii. 57, ff. ; Mark xv. 42, ff. ; Luke xxiii.
50, ff.; John xix. 38, ff.)"— Vol. ii. p. 395.
In the first sentence of this introductory portion,
Strauss, you will observe, states the feeling to which
he means to trace the story that arose in the early
Church respecting the burial of Jesus. Although
there was nothing miraculous in the fact narrated by
all the Evangelists, that a disciple of Jesus craved
the body, and on obtaining his request buried it in a
tomb ; although, even with the implied sanction of
Strauss himself, who allows that " the earliest Chris
tian consciousness " — that is, in plain words, the pre
valent feeling of the earliest Christians — " naturally con
sidered it of great importance that the honour of burial
should have been paid to the body of Jesus," we may
justly ascribe the existence of such a feeling to the
first disciples — to those persons who personally knew
Him and believed on Him and loved Him, and who
were filled with grief when they saw Him condemned
to a criminal's death ; although nothing could be more
natural than that one or more of these first disciples

220 LECTURE XI.
should desire to rescue the body from further degra
dation, and should therefore avail themselves of the
privilege which the Roman law allowed ; and al
though, had none of them done so, we should have
had an argument of a peculiar kind, and of no or
dinary weight, raised against the reality of the resur
rection, and founded upon this very neglect on the
part of the friends of Jesus ; and, moreover, although
there does not exist the slightest particle of real evi
dence which can be brought forward against the
unanimous testimony of the Evangelists to the fact
of the burial of the body in the tomb by Joseph ;
— still this fact, so natural in every respect, and so
naturally recorded and unanimously attested, must,
owing to the manifest exigencies of the argument
against the resurrection of Jesus, be called in ques
tion, being first merely doubted, next declared not
to be historically corroborated, and now wholly set
aside. All this is done, we repeat, without the slightest
particle of real evidence.
It is supposed by Strauss that the reader is by this
time convinced that no such burial as is recorded took
place — that he will now overlook the pure assumption
which is made, and will proceed with him to inquire,
or rather, as we shall see, to conjecture, how in the
" earliest Christian consciousness " — that vague but
most useful expression — the idea of the burial sprang
up, and finally grew into the belief, and therefore the
story, of a real burial. Even so early as the time of
Paul, "the Christian consciousness" was at work on
this subject ; for at the time when he wrote his first
epistle to the Church at Corinth — probably about
twenty-seven years after the death of Christ — "he

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 221
mentions it as a tradition," says Strauss, "that Jesus
was buried." The idea, then, of the burial must have
taken possession of " the Christian consciousness "
some time at least before this, and must have grown
very rapidly indeed, and that, too, whilst the first dis
ciples of Jesus were — most of them, at least — alive,
and able to check the progress of the error, if error it
was. But what does Paul mean when he says that
Jesus was buried ? According to Strauss, " Paul only
wishes, for the sake of his subsequent argument, to
establish that the body of Jesus went under the
earth ;" and this would have been the case had the
body been taken down from the cross and covered
over with earth in the burial-place of other criminals,
so that, after all, the Christian tradition which Paul
mentions may have been a tradition only to that
effect. But how such a fact as is now supposed
should have satisfied " the earliest Christian con
sciousness " which demanded an honourable burial
for the body of Jesus, and should, by so satisfy
ing this consciousness, have assumed the important
aspect of a tradition, and further, in what way this
tradition became afterwards changed into the idea
and belief of an honourable burial, Strauss does not
attempt to explain. Nay, it seems questionable
whether, with all his subtlety — and it is not slight —
he perceived the contradiction into which he here, at
the very outset of his " accurate discussion," manifestly
falls. If "the earliest Christian consciousness," we
repeat, demanded an honourable burial for the body
of Jesus, and if this consciousness created the tra
dition to which Paul refers, then Paul also, who
adopted this tradition, could not mean, when he says

222 LECTURE XI.
that Jesus was buried, that the body was thrown with
the bodies of other criminals into some dishonourable
place, as Strauss formerly expressed himself. Paul
must have meant that the body was laid in some
honourable tomb.
Now, although the Apostle does not expressly say
where the body of Jesus was laid, no one who is not
bent on using the most frivolous criticism can doubt
that, when he says Jesus was buried, he does mean
that His body was laid, according to the testimony of
the Evangelists, in a tomb or grave. And how does
Paul say that he knew this fact as well as other facts
respecting Jesus ? No doubt he may have heard the
testimony of other Apostles ; but he tells us plainly
that he had higher testimony than even that of
Apostles. "For I delivered unto you," he writes,
"first of all," — or rather, among the first things, as
things of first importance — "that which I also re
ceived." Received from whom ? From the Lord, as
he expressly said before in this very Epistle (xi. 23),
received directly by divine revelation — "that Christ
died for our sins according to the Scriptures ; and that
He was buried, and that He rose again the third day
according to the Scriptures." Let us notice in pass
ing the importance here attached to the fact that
" Christ was buried " — a fact attesting the prior death,
and preparatory to the subsequent resurrection, and a
fact of such importance as to have been made, in the
case of this Apostle, the subject of special revelation.
But Strauss assumes — inconsistently with the view
which he wishes to take of the words of Paul, and of
the supposed tradition to which he thinks Paul refers
—that the idea of an honourable burial of the body

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 223
of Jesus sprang up in the minds of the earliest Chris
tians, and, growing rapidly, at length embodied itself
in the mythical stories which were afterwards re
corded by the so-called Evangelists. He then pro
ceeds to account for the special form with which this
idea clothed itself. Here we shall have a specimen
both of the manner in which he subjects to the so-
called " higher criticism " the Gospel narratives, and
also of the manner in which mythical ideas grew up
in the minds of the earliest Christians, and at last
became consolidated as real, objective facts — first, of
course, in their minds, and lastly in written records.
According to Strauss, though he does not expressly
say so, but leaves us to infer his view from statements
made in different parts of his work, the case was this :
The body of Jesus was buried along with the bodies
of other condemned criminals in the place set apart
for that purpose. But, in opposition to this known
fact, the idea of an honourable burial sprang up in
the minds of the earliest Christians. How are we to
account for the origin of this idea, and for the special
form in which it embodied itself? The Evangelic
narratives present us with varied statements of this
form. Let us, then, examine them, and we shall
trace the whole matter to its origin. The idea itself
is one which would naturally arise in the mind.
These Christians could not but wish that their Lord's
body, crucified though it had been, should not be
treated with ignominy even after life had become ex
tinct. How, with their knowledge that it had been
so treated, the idea that it had not been so treated
could spring from the mere wish that it should have
been differently treated, Strauss does not attempt to

224 LECTURE XI.
explain. He evades, after his usual manner, that
primary question altogether. He does not even state
the question ; and he evidently does not wish his
reader to think of it. But this is a question which in
fair argument we cannot evade, and I beg your spe
cial attention to it ; for by evading this question
Strauss implicitly condemns his own theory, since a
theory can be pronounced good only when it explains
all the phenomena.
In what way, then, did the mere wish, however
strong, on the part of the earliest Christians, that
their Lord's body had been honourably buried, pass
into the idea and belief that it had been so honourably
buried, when they knew the contrary to have been the
fact ? Had this occurred at some later age, when the
knowledge of the real fact had been forgotten, we
might not have been so greatly at a loss to conceive
how the idea of and belief in an honourable burial
could have arisen, though even then we should have
been at a loss to account for the apparently natural
and certainly most consistent narratives contained in
the Gospels. But how this idea and belief could pos
sibly have assumed the appearance of a reality in the
minds of the earliest Christians, if they knew the con
trary to be the truth, surpasses, we confess, our power
to conceive. Strauss, however, has a way always at
hand to get over even such a difficulty as here pre
sents itself. He assumes that the wish created the
idea and caused the belief. This is the basis of his pro
mised " accurate discussion." Grant him his assump
tion, and he will soon explain the whole matter. Give
him a place, and he will move the whole Christian
world. Let him first form his own premises, and he

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 225
will speedily demonstrate his conclusion. Only be it
observed that, whilst a conclusion may be logically
drawn from the premises, an error in the latter vitiates
the former. And it is scarcely worth while, after
assuming that such and such was the case, to enter
upon a lengthened argument to demonstrate that such
was the case.
Having silently assumed that, in direct opposition
(according to his own view) to their knowledge, the
earliest Christians embraced the belief that the body
of Jesus had been honourably buried, Strauss evi
dently wishes us to perceive in the indulgence of the
Roman law on this subject a ground for the promi
nent idea embodied in every form of the mythical
story. That law allowed the relatives and friends to
crave the body of a condemned criminal. Hence we
have an explanation why, in the story which embodies
the full-grown myth, a person is introduced who goes
to Pilate and craves the body of Jesus. But Strauss,
whilst keenly anxious to trace the origin of every
thing mentioned in the story, does not attempt to
explain why this person was called Joseph of Ari
mathea. His name and place of birth are expressly '
mentioned in all the four editions of the story. He
certainly comes in as a real living man, and not at all
as a mythical — a merely ideal personage. Why was he
called Joseph ? Why was he of Arimathea ? Surely
Strauss, who never omits a single thing in any narra
tive which he thinks he can account for in some way
or other, must have seen that an explanation was
needed here. Why, we again ask, if a real Joseph
— a man of Arimathea — did not go to Pilate and
crave the body of the crucified Jesus, does the story
P

226 LECTURE XI.
say so ? Had it merely said that some friend of
Jesus went and made the request, though even then
we should not have felt ourselves on that account
necessarily in the region of myths, still the case
would not have been so clearly in the region of
realities. But the story — each form of it — the four
fold story — names the man -and also gives the place
of his birth, or at least of his abode. It was Joseph
of Arimathea who went to Pilate. And the ques
tion is, how, upon the hypothesis of Strauss, did
the specific idea of Joseph of Arimathea enter into
" the earliest Christian consciousness" in connection
with not merely the wish for an honourable burial,
but with the belief that such had been the character
of the burial ? No attempt at explanation is made
by Strauss. He is silent, and evidently hopes that
his reader will acquiesce in this silence. He assumes
that no such man went to Pilate and craved and
obtained the body of Jesus. Silent assumption is
once more his way of overcoming an otherwise in
superable difficulty.
But though Strauss takes no notice of the fact that,
according to all the narratives, it was a man of Ari
mathea, Joseph by name, who went to Pilate and
craved the body, he eagerly seizes on what one of the
narratives — that in the Gospel of Matthew — says of
him as to his being a man of wealth. He says : —
" A rich man — these are the first words of the most ancient
reporter, Matthew ; he only adds incidentally that the rich
man was also a disciple of Jesus. Luke and Mark " (for
such is the order in which Strauss insists that their respective
Gospels were written) "forget the rich man in the honour
able councillor, and whatever else they make of Joseph ;

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 227
while John seizes on the discipleship, and in his favourite
style makes it a secret one, from fear of the Jews. But in
other cases wealth, in a good sense, is not of so much im
portance to the Evangelists : why does the first reporter so
industriously put it forward here ? The rich man had a
tomb which he had hewn out for himself in the rock, and in
which he now laid the dead Messiah." — Vol. ii. p. 395-6.
Now surely there is nothing in the narrative, as
given either by Matthew or by any other of the Evan
gelists, which, under the alleged circumstances, should
excite even surprise, and far less doubt. There is
nothing miraculous here, at least. Everything seems
perfectly natural. It was surely not impossible that
there should be living at that time a man of Ari
mathea called Joseph ; that he should happen to be
a rich man, a good man and just, a member of the
Jewish Sanhedrim, and a disciple of Jesus — a dis
ciple only secretly at first from fear of the Jews ; nor
is there anything unnatural in the statement that
such a man had a portion of ground near to Jerusalem
belonging to him, and, if so, that he had hewn out for
himself a tomb in that portion of it which is described
as a rock. Supposing, further, that all these things
were real, was it not the most natural thing possible
that this man — a man of influence, character, and
wealth — should, at such a crisis, feel irresistibly im
pelled by his belief, although hitherto secret, or more
probably only partially so, that Jesus, though now
hanging on the cross, was really the Messiah, to avail
himself of the permission granted by the Roman law
to crave and obtain the body of his Lord, and that he
should lay this body in the tomb which he possessed,
and in which as yet no man had lain ? As we have

228 LECTURE XI.
repeatedly said, all the narratives, however varied, are
consistent with each other, and bear the impress of
historical truth. But Strauss, you will observe, does
not inquire whether these narratives are true or false.
He assumes that they are false; and though he
maintains a determined silence on the very funda
mental parts of the narratives, he will endeavour to
show how, as he imagines, some of the details may be
accounted for. And thus, as we have said, he eagerly
seizes on the detail given only by Matthew, whose
report he considers as presenting the most ancient
form of the assumed mythical story, that it was a
rich man who paid honour to the dead body of
Jesus. Observe now how Strauss will account for the
idea of a rich man having entered into " the earliest
Christian consciousness," and consequently into the
most ancient version of the story in which the idea of
the whole matter became embodied. He says : —
" But it was in his death that the Messiah was brought
into connection with the rich in Isaiah. With the rich
indeed in a bad sense, as it would appear, when it is said
(liii. 9), ' He made his grave indeed with the wicked, and
with the rich in his death,' in which words, the rich being
taken as synonymous with the wicked, a prophecy of a dis
honourable burial might be proved. But the association
with the wicked, the being numbered with the transgressors,
was considered to have been already fulfilled in Jesus by
his apprehension and crucifixion (Luke xxiii. 37 ; Mark
xv. 28) : thus the rich remained for his burial, he must
have been laid in the tomb of a rich man, and this rich man
not a godless but a God-fearing man, who, believing in the
Messiah, gave up his tomb to the murdered Christ."- — Vol.
ii. p. 396.

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 229
Such, according to Strauss, is a satisfactory account
of the origin in " the earliest Christian consciousness "
of the idea and the belief that the body of Jesus was
laid in a rich man's tomb. 'Although the earliest
Christians knew the real facts of the case, which
were, according to Strauss, that the body of Jesus
was not laid in such a tomb, but was dishonourably
buried ; yet naturally deeming it of great import
ance that the honour of a burial should have been
paid to His body, they remembered the words of
Isaiah, which, according to the prevailing belief, re
ferred to the Messiah, and which foretold that the
Messiah would in His death be brought into connec
tion with the rich ; and although they misinterpreted
these words, which identify the rich with the wicked,
yet as Jesus in His death so far fulfilled the prophecy
in being numbered with transgressors, they thought
that they might reserve the rich for his burial, and
change the predicted character of these rich men into
that of a rich man who feared God.'
Apart, then, from this supposed misinterpretation
of the latter part of Isaiah's prophecy, let us calmly
consider the process by means of which these earliest
Christians persuaded themselves that the body of
Jesus was laid in a rich man's tomb. These Chris
tians knew — for if it was the case they could not but
know — that the body of Jesus was thrown into the
place where the bodies of other criminals were
buried. They knew this fact, if fact it was, but they
naturally and ardently wished that it had been other
wise. And in some way or other, which Strauss does
not explain, the prophetic words of Isaiah occurred
to them, which words foretold that the Messiah would

230 LECTURE XI.
be with the rich in His death ; and they, believing
that Jesus was the Messiah, immediately inferred that,
contrary to what they knew to have been the case,
His body must have been laid in a rich man's tomb.
The principle in this process of reasoning is this — and
it is exceedingly important for you clearly to under
stand it, for it is in virtue of this assumed principle
that Strauss throughout his work undertakes to ex
plain all, or nearly all, the so-called mythical stories
in the Gospels — the principle is this, that whatever the
first Christians believed to have been foretold by the
prophets respecting the Messiah, they immediately
concluded to have been fulfilled in Jesus, whom they
looked upon as the Messiah, whether that fulfilment
was a reality or not ; or rather, according to Strauss's
assumption, even though no fulfilment whatever took
place, and, as in the case before us, even when, as he
alleges, the very contrary to what was predicted took
place. Isaiah foretold that the Messiah would be
with the rich in His death : therefore, argued these
first Christians, Jesus, whom we believe to have been
the Messiah, must have been with the rich in His
death. It was not, you will carefully observe, because
ancient prophecies respecting the Messiah were ful
filled in Jesus, that on this and other grounds the first
disciples believed Jesus to be the Messiah. To sup
pose that such was one ground of their belief would
be to admit the possibility of a miracle ; for the ful
filment of prophecy involves, as you must at once
perceive, miraculous knowledge, the knowledge of
future contingent events. But Strauss rejects the
possibility of the miraculous under any form. Ac
cording to him, the first disciples, without any miracu-

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 23 1
lous evidence whatever, for of such there was and
could be none, believed Jesus to be the Messiah ;
and then, after His death, they applied to Him all
the prophecies, or rather pretended prophecies, which
were understood, erroneously understood, to refer to
the Messiah, actually believing in their own minds,
and openly declaring to others, that these prophecies
were really fulfilled in Jesus — when, as Strauss as
sumes, they knew perfectly that no such fulfilment
had taken place.
Is it possible, we may now ask, to conceive that
any man or any number of men, not wholly void of
understanding, could have proceeded in such a manner
as Strauss here assumes ? Were these first Christians
so utterly deprived of the power of our common
reason, that, contrary to their personal knowledge of
the facts, they could thus convince themselves of the
reality of the very opposite of those facts ? Were
they so utterly blind to the distinction between truth
and falsehood, that when they knew the former they
persuaded themselves to believe the latter ? And not
only to believe that which they could not but know
to be false, but actually to spend their lives in bearing
testimony to it, and to endure every species of per
secution in support of their testimony ? Surely we
may suppose that among the earliest Christians there
were some besides St Paul who believed that unless
Jesus was really the Messiah, and that unless this
belief was grounded on the evidence of facts which
had happened, they, in submitting to persecution for
the sake of their belief, were of all men most miser
able, because they were submitting to such persecu
tion in the knowledge that their faith was vain.

232 LECTURE XI.
It is, however, a pure assumption to represent these
Christian men as reasoning in the manner which
Strauss ascribes to them. The assumption is neces
sary to his purpose, but it is wholly baseless ; and
the very opposite is that which all existing evidence
attests. How any man can believe that the first
Christians so reasoned and so convinced themselves
of the reality of what they knew had not happened,
we can only explain by referring to those awful words
which Jesus on one occasion uttered, " If the light
that is in thee be darkness, how great is that dark
ness !" What a power unbelief exerts on the mind in
which it dwells ! It gains an entire ascendancy over
the man's whole nature. He will adopt any supposi
tion, however childish and absurd, in order that he
may resist the evidence presented to him ; and I be
lieve that no kind of evidence, or any amount of it,
can produce the slightest effect on such a mind. It
is so deluded as to believe a lie ; and nothing but the
special working of divine grace ean affect it. Let us
wish and pray that even this man's mind may yet
experience the power of that grace.
With respect to the particular prophecy to a mis
interpretation of which, as Strauss alleges, he would
trace the idea and belief of the burial of Jesus in a
rich man's tomb, I would remark in passing that the
correct interpretation seems to be this : " And one —
they — appointed His grave to be with wicked men,
yet was He with a rich man in His death." The
parallelism in the verse is that of contrast, not of
identity ; and this prophecy, though the fulfilment of
it is not mentioned by any of the Evangelists, was
literally fulfilled in the death and burial of Jesus.

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 233
They — the Jewish rulers — did intend that His grave
should be with the wicked ; but the overruling pro
vidence of God frustrated their intention, and caused
His body to be laid in a rich man's tomb — the tomb
of Joseph of Arimathea.
But supposing that " the earliest Christian con
sciousness " demanded, in opposition to what, accord
ing to Strauss, was publicly known to have been the
case, that the body of Jesus should be honourably
buried, and that for this reason, and in conformity
with the misinterpreted prophecy of Isaiah, " a rich
man" must be introduced into the same consciousness
as having paid this honour to Jesus, how did it enter
that consciousness that the sepulchre or tomb must
be hewn out in a rock, and that it must be one
recently formed — a new tomb, in short, wherein never
man was yet laid ? These are essential parts of the
story as first believed by the earliest Christians, and
afterwards recorded by those who embodied it in
their narratives. How, then, are we to account for
these features of the story ? Strauss will easily do
so ; for it is to be assumed that " the Christian con
sciousness " having got hold of the idea of " a rich
man," would instinctively perceive that " the tomb of
the rich man must have corresponded to his wealth on
the one hand, to its lofty purpose on the other;"*
and that consciousness would once more be instinc
tively reminded, by the very idea of what was thus
required, of another passage to be found in the pro
phetic book of Isaiah. "A man in high position is
addressed thus in Isaiah (xxii. 16) : 'What hast thou
here, and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewed
* Vol. ii. p. 396.

234 LECTURE XI.
thee out a sepulchre here, as he that heweth him out
a sepulchre on high, and that graveth an habitation
for himself in a rock ?' " There is, however, an obvious
difficulty in applying this passage to the case before
us ; but this also is easily removed. " This, indeed,"
says Strauss, "was said rebukingly to a proud-
minded man ; but of the righteous man also it was
said in the same Isaiah (xxxiii. 16), that he shall
dwell on high in munitions of rocks, or, according to
the Greek translation, in caves of rocks ; then, con
sequently, even a God-fearing rich man , might have
hewn out for himself a tomb in a rock, and the ques
tion as to whom he has here that he does this, might
be answered by a reference to the body of the Messiah,
for whom he was there preparing a resting-place."*
Is not this an admirable specimen of reasoning — of
that " higher criticism " which is to lay open to us the
very process of mythical creations ? Have we here,
then, the promised more accurate discussion of the
burial of Jesus ? Is it not a mystery — a thing that
almost surpasses comprehension — how men possessed
of common sense can venture gravely to propose
such absolute nonsense for our belief ? But you will
ever find it to be a characteristic of unbelief in God
and in Christ, that it is marked by the most extra
ordinary degree of credulity in any supposition or in
any process of reasoning, which, however absurd, tends
to strengthen itself. Such unbelief actually seems to
feed upon the imaginary, and grows until it over
powers all that reason — man's common sense — would
suggest to the mind.
But we must proceed. The tomb must, in the view
* Vol. ii. p. 396-7.

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 235
of " the earliest Christian consciousness," not only be
hewn out in a rock, to correspond to the wealth of
the rich man ; it " must also, in order to correspond
to its lofty purpose, be a new one, not as yet polluted
by any corpse, as it was not considered right that any
man should have previously ridden on the ass which
the Messiah used on His entrance into the capital."*
Although it is in the Gospel of Luke alone that we find
this latter fact mentioned, and although therefore, ac
cording to Strauss, such a fact did not enter into the
most ancient report of the mode in which Jesus made His
public entry into Jerusalem, yet we see no valid reason
why both facts may not have been real, merely because
a kind of resemblance maybe discovered between them.
And we at once admit that, if it could be proved that
the belief that the body of Jesus was laid in a rich man's
tomb, which had been hewn out in a rock, had its
origin, not in the knowledge of what had really hap
pened, but in the excited imaginations of the earliest
Christians, we should experience little difficulty in as
cribing to the same power of imagination the idea and
the belief that this tomb was a new one — a tomb "where
in never man before was laid." But until the former is
established by valid evidence, we must adhere to the
unshaken testimony of the Evangelists to the reality
of the latter fact also. " In the two other synoptics,"
continues Strauss — that is, in Mark and Luke —
" both the ' wealth ' of the man, mentioned in the
passage in the Prophet, as well as his relation with
regard to the tomb — namely, that he himself had had
it hewn for him in the rock — is omitted, still their
meaning undoubtedly is," Strauss allows, " that it was
* Vol. ii. p. 397.

236 LECTURE XI.
his property." But now he detects a discrepancy ; for
" in John the connection is completely broken, and
the new tomb in which Jesus is to be laid is selected "
(selected, you will observe, by " the Christian consci
ousness " only at a later stage of the myth or legend),
" selected, not because it belonged to Joseph, but be
cause it was near to the place of execution, and a
burying-place close at hand was desirable on account
of the near approach of the festal Sabbath."
Now, let us observe the recorded facts of the case.
If there was a man of Arimathea, Joseph by name,
who was wealthy and a member of the Jewish San
hedrim, surely it need excite no surprise that such a '
man possessed a small piece of property nigh to the
city, and also nigh to the place of execution ; and if
he possessed such a piece of property, it need as little
surprise us that he had prepared a tomb for himself,
and hewn it out in a rocky part of the garden or
ground belonging to him. If this man was, more
over, a disciple of Jesus, although hitherto, for the
reason assigned, only a secret disciple, what was
more natural than that he, rather than any other
disciple, should think of craving the body of Jesus
and laying it in his own new tomb, and that he should
have been led to think of this by the very circum
stance that the tomb which was his own was nigh at
hand ? The other narratives imply that such was the
case — that the tomb was nigh at hand ; and John's
narrative only supplements their narratives by telling
that it was so. Instead of discrepancy, there exists
perfect agreement among the four narratives ; and it
is only a capricious and suspicious scepticism which
can detect the slightest disagreement. Strauss,

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 237
however, who is never at a loss to discover some
deep purpose, especially in the mind of the fourth
Evangelist, adds : — " Thus this feature "—namely, the
nearness of the tomb to the place of crucifixion —
" serves the purpose of the fourth Evangelist, enabling
him, as it does, to make still more palpable the pres
sure of time on that evening of the burial, which fur
nishes him with a reason for what is so important to
him — the breaking of the bones in reference to the
wound with the spear." The fourth Evangelist, we
may simply say, satisfactorily accounts for the pressure
of time when he tells us that the Jewish rulers were
anxious to have the crucified bodies removed before
the Sabbath-day came on — that is, before the setting
of that day's sun.
Strauss next discusses the various statements in the
Gospel narratives which refer to the embalming of the
body of Jesus ; but his remarks on this subject are so
utterly frivolous that it would be worse than tedious
to subject them to detailed criticism. We pass on,
then, to consider what he has to say on a matter of
greater moment, so far as our main subject is con
cerned. We allude to the watch or guard which, as
Matthew affirms, the chief priests and Pharisees, with
the sanction of Pilate, stationed at the sepulchre. On
a former occasion we stated what appears to us a
highly probable reason why this fact was introduced
by Matthew into his narrative. We cannot say for
certain why none of the other Evangelists mentions
this fact ; but we know that their Gospels were
mainly intended for Gentile Churches, whilst that
of Matthew was specially written for the Jewish
Churches ; and we also perceive that the fact was re-

238 LECTURE XI.
corded by Matthew expressly to meet a false report
which was purposely spread abroad among the Jews,
whether in Judea or elsewhere. Let us then patiently
listen to what Strauss has to say in reference to this
matter. Strauss begins the discussion of this important
point by referring to the statement of each Evan
gelist as to the manner in which the sepulchre was
closed : — •
" All the Evangelists agree in stating that the sepulchre
in the rock, in which the body of Jesus was laid, was closed
with a stone rolled to the entrance. According to Matthew,
it was a large stone ; in Mark, the women going out take
counsel as to who will roll away the stone for them from the
mouth of the sepulchre ; consequently they assume it as a
difficult thing to do. While, however, the other Evangelists
are satisfied with this closure, Matthew represents the stone
as being, in addition, sealed by the high-priests, and the
sepulchre as being guarded by a watch stationed there by
Pilate at their request (xxvii. 62-66)." — Vol. ii. p. 399.
You will observe that, though not expressly stated,
it is assumed in this last sentence that the statement
about the sealing of the stone and the stationing of
the watch is wholly fictitious. Without the slightest
attempt to prove his assumption, Strauss proceeds, in
his usual manner, to account for the origin of what he
regards as a pure fiction. We must now make a long
extract. "For when, in the earliest times of Christendom, the
preaching about the resurrection of Jesus had taken the form
that his sepulchre was found empty on the second morning
after his burial, it was met by the unbelieving Jews with
the allegation that it was found in this condition, not be
cause its inmate had come out of it restored to life, but be-

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 239
cause his corpse had been stolen out of it by his disciples.
This Jewish legend, in opposition to the Christian, gave rise
to a second Christian legend in opposition to the Jewish.
If the Christian solution was to satisfy the problem, it must,
on the one hand, make the stealing of the body impossible,
and, on the other, account for the denial of the resurrection
on the part of the Jews. The stealing away of the body was
impossible if the sepulchre was watched. Consequently the
high-priests and Pharisees must go to the Roman procurator
and beg him to secure the sepulchre. But what in the
world could move them to make such a request? What
could the sepulchre signify to them, so long as they knew
that he who had been laid in it was dead ? They remem
ber, they say, that that crucified deceiver did in his lifetime
predict his resurrection after three days ; they do not be
lieve in a fulfilment of this prediction, but they are afraid
lest his disciples should steal the body, and in connection
with the prophecy give out that he has arisen. So the high-
priests must have remembered speeches of Jesus of which his
disciples, at the time of his death, can have known nothing
whatever (else how could they have been so despairing?) ; they
must have foreseen the rising up of the faith in the resurrec
tion of Jesus, which is absolutely inconceivable : the Chris
tian legend attributed to them the Christian belief of later
times, only in the form of unbelief." — Vol. ii. p. 399, 400.
Now, you will observe that Strauss begins by
assuming that the first preachers of the resurrection
of Jesus proclaimed their testimony to this fact in
the particular form of an assertion, that His sepulchre
was found empty on the second morning after His
death ; and though this assumption may seem at first
a harmless, if not an allowable one, yet it is in reality
a baseless assumption, and adopted by Strauss on
purpose to give a colour to the supposed origin of the
false story spread among the Jews. It is true that

24O LECTURE XI.
the women who first visited the sepulchre on the
morning of the resurrection found it empty, and that
Mary Magdalene, inferring from the removal of the
stone that the body had been taken away, ran to
the Apostles Peter and John with a report to that
effect. But when the Apostles proclaimed the resur
rection of Jesus they did so in express terms. They
did not declare this fact in the form of a conclusion
drawn by them from the mere circumstance that the
sepulchre of Jesus was found empty on the second
morning after His death. They testified the fact on
the ground that they had seen Jesus alive after His
death. We have the earliest form of their testi
mony thus given us : " Ye men of Israel, hear these
words : Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God
among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which
God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye your
selves also know ; Him, being delivered by the deter
minate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have
taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain :
whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains
of death, because it was not possible that He should
be holden of it" (Acts ii. 22-24). Again, "Ye
denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a
murderer to be granted unto you ; and killed the
Prince of Life, whom God hath raised from the dead ;
whereof we are witnesses" (Acts iii. 14, 15).
Such was the form in which the proclamation of
the resurrection of Jesus was from the first made.
And how was this proclamation met by the Jewish
rulers ? Did they meet it by affirming either that
the body of Jesus was still in the tomb of Joseph ;
or — as they might have done, had Strauss's assump-

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 24I
tion of the place of burial been true — that that body
had been thrown into the burying-place of condemned
criminals, where it still lay ? In neither of these
ways did they meet the testimony of the Apostles.
They met it by affirming that the disciples had come
to the sepulchre by night and stolen the body. And
where was it that they had recourse to such a story
as this ? Not at Jerusalem, so far as we know, but at
a distance from Jerusalem, where the facts of the
case were not likely to be so well known. The story
was spread chiefly among the foreign Jews ; and
Matthew, knowing that such was the case, inserted
the true account of the matter in his Gospel, which,
as has repeatedly been said, was written purposely
for the instruction of the Jewish converts. Strauss,
then, erroneously represents the question as it stood
between the first Christians and the Jews. He repre
sents the former as only saying that on the morning
of the second day after the death of Jesus His
sepulchre was found empty, and as stating merely by
way of inference from this that Jesus must have
been restored to life ; and he represents the Jews as
meeting this inference by the counter-assertion : True,
the sepulchre was found empty, as you allege ; but it
was so found, not because its inmate had come out of
it restored to life, but because His dead body had
been stolen out of it by His disciples. In this way
Strauss accounts for the Jewish legend ; but as his
representation of the manner in which the first Chris
tians preached the resurrection is erroneous, so his
explanation of the origin of the Jewish legend falls to
the ground.
Having thus accounted for the origin of the Jewish
Q

242 LECTURE XI.
legend, he thinks he can now easily explain the origin
of what he calls the second Christian legend — the
first being, of course, that which reported that the
tomb of Jesus had been found empty, and which
alleged on that ground that Jesus had returned to
life. He will demonstrate first the conditions of this
second Christian legend, and then its absurdity.
These earliest Christians, observe, had now to con
trive — consciously to contrive — how they could meet
the assertion of their Jewish enemies, that the body
of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre by His
disciples. The conditions of the problem to be
solved were, on the one hand, to make the stealing of
the body impossible ; and, on the other, to account
for the denial of the resurrection on the part of the
Jews — that is, of the Jewish rulers. These conditions
rendered the problem rather a difficult"one for "the
Christian consciousness ; " and here theories about
the formation of myths or even legends must fail.
The problem demanded thought, ingenuity, false
hood. In order to solve it, " the Christian conscious
ness " must act with conscious fraud.
Strauss, accordingly, abandons the theory which
he had so laboriously maintained in his first work.
He must now introduce the opposite theory — that of
conscious falsehood. Let us see, then, how "the
Christian consciousness," now abandoning all regard
to truth, succeeds in solving the problem. We shall,
said the first Christians to themselves, render the
charge of stealing the body impossible, if we set a
watch around the sepulchre. But, then, this watch
must be stationed by the enemies of Jesus — by those
men who caused His death. We must therefore in-

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 243
troduce the high-priests and Pharisees as going to the
Roman procurator and begging him to secure the
sepulchre. But is it not awkward to represent them
as at all concerned about this matter ? Jesus is now
dead, and what can now excite their fears, and move
them to make such a request ? Here was a manifest
difficulty, yet not sufficient to baffle the ingenuity
of " the earliest Christian consciousness." We shall
make these high-priests and Pharisees remember cer
tain words, whether uttered by Jesus or not is of no
moment — words which we can elsewhere in our stories
affirm were uttered by Him — to the effect that He —
we must here call Him " that Deceiver" — said in His
lifetime, " After three days I will rise again." We
must introduce them as saying these words before
Pilate, and begging of him to " command that the
sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest His
disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say
unto the people, He is risen from the dead ; for then
the last error shall be worse than the first."
Such was the solution of the problem which " the
Christian consciousness" contrived in order to meet
the assertion of the Jews that the body had been
stolen away by the disciples of Jesus. And now see
the absurdity of this solution, argues Strauss — who
alone, be it observed, is the author of it, as a solution
contrived by the first Christians. The high-priests
are made to remember a prophecy of Jesus, in the
fulfilment of which they do not believe ; but they are
afraid lest the disciples should steal the body, and
then, in connection with the prophecy, give out that
Jesus had risen. So far there is nothing absurd in
the supposition. If the high-priests either heard, or

244 LECTURE XI.
in any way knew, that Jesus in His lifetime had
uttered such words, even although they disbelieved
them, they might have suspected that His disciples
would remember them, and might attempt to steal
the body, and, if successful in this, give out in connec
tion with that prophecy that their Master had risen
from the dead. If Jesus had been a deceiver, and if
the disciples were deceivers, however unaccountable
it may be that He should have uttered such words —
still, assuming the case to have been as it was repre
sented by the high-priests to Pilate, there is nothing
unreasonable in their conduct ; on the contrary, they
acted wisely in taking steps to prevent the further
progress of the error which had commenced to
spread. But here is what appears to Strauss to be so
absurd : these enemies of Jesus are represented as
remembering words — most remarkable words, beyond
all question — uttered by Him ; and the first disciples,
as they are presented to us in the narratives of the
resurrection, know nothing of these words, else how
could they have been in such despair after His death
as they are said to have been ? Had the story been
true, "these" high-priests must have foreseen the rising
up of the faith in the resurrection of Jesus, which is
absolutely inconceivable : the Christian legend attri
buted to them the Christian belief of later times, only
in the form of unbelief." These last statements are
scarcely correct, even on his own hypothesis. All
that the story implies respecting the high-priests is,
that it represents them as foreseeing in certain cir
cumstances the rise, not of faith in the resurrection of
Jesus, but of an additional error worse than the first

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 245
— namely, the rise of a false report by the disciples of
His resurrection. The legend, if legend it was, only
attributed to them an alarm that such a false report,
being spread in connection with a pretended pro
phecy, might be believed, and cause greater evils than
as yet had happened.
But whilst we view the case correctly even on
Strauss's hypothesis, there is one thing stated by him
in connection with this subject which demands special
notice, although we have before remarked upon it. It
is the forgetfulness by the disciples of Jesus of His
repeated predictions respecting His own resurrection.
They did not remember His words, whilst His enemies
did. That the words remembered by the chief priests
and Pharisees were spoken by Jesus, we have abun
dant testimony. Here is, then, at first sight, a diffi
culty of no ordinary kind. But I need first only re
mind you of what I endeavoured to make clear when
treating of this very subject — that it was the intima
tion of His death which confounded the minds of His
disciples, and that they were wholly unable to see
why He who as the Messiah was to abide for ever
should need to be raised again. Why the disciples
were so perplexed and cast down by the fact of
His death that they did not remember His assurance
that He would rise again, we cannot tell ; but so it
was, and the fact proves only the depth of despair
into which they sank at His death, and also the ex
traordinary power which preconceived notions exerted
over their minds.
Again, we have the fact attested, that the enemies
of Jesus did remember His words — not that they be
lieved them, but merely that they remembered them,

246 LECTURE XI.
and deemed it prudent to adopt measures to pre
vent them receiving a pretended fulfilment. Their
remembrance of the words of Jesus is, I think, to be
easily accounted for. Enmity quickens the intellect
in such a case. These rulers hated Jesus with ex
treme hatred ; and I am convinced that they were
not altogether easy in their minds with respect to
Him. They had seen much that ought to have
convinced them of the truth of His claims ; but they
rejected Him in the face of evidence, and were judi
cially given over to believe a lie. Until that third
day was over of which they had heard, they could
not, with all their unbelief and hatred, be at ease.
Their minds were not thrown into despair by His
death, like the minds of the disciples. No ; they no
doubt triumphed when He expired upon the cross.
But after their momentary feeling of triumph a dark
shadow would pass across their minds ; for there
were events which happened even as He hung upon
the tree calculated to excite terror in their hearts.
I am persuaded that it was not altogether suspicion
of fraud on the part of the disciples that moved them
to go to Pilate, and to beg that he would make the
sepulchre secure. There was also, I doubt not, deep
anxiety, though perhaps not expressed by any of
them, in their inmost souls. They could not with
draw their thoughts for three days at least, and till
they had assurance that His words had failed, from
that sepulchre in which the lifeless body of one who
gave such marvellous proofs of His claims, and whom
they had pursued with relentless hatred to the very
death, was now lying, and in which they hoped, not
without a mixture of fear, it would lie for ever. Un-

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 247
belief of the truth is an awful mystery. Who can
fathom it ?
But we must proceed. " Pilate," says Strauss, " im
mediately grants them the watch, and orders them
in addition to guard the grave as well as they can."
Observe that all this is, according to Strauss, part of
the solution framed by " the Christian consciousness."
" He is right in doing so," he continues ; " a watch
may be bribed, deceived, and what they ought to pro
tect be carried off. So they seal the stone that closes
the mouth of the sepulchre, as formerly Darius had
sealed the stone at the mouth of the lions' den into
which he caused Daniel to be thrown, to prove whether
his God would save him from the lions (Dan. vi. 18).
Were they not, then, antitypes of Christ in the sepul
chre — on the one hand, Jonas in the belly of the
whale; on the other, Daniel in the lions' den?" I
need only remark on this passage that you have here
another specimen of the manner in which, according
to Strauss, the first Christians applied prophecies and
events recorded in the ancient Scriptures to Jesus as
the Messiah. The idea of the sealing of the stone at
the entrance of the sepulchre was suggested to their
minds by what was done by Darius when Daniel was
thrown into the lions' den ; and the idea of being
three days in the sepulchre was suggested by refer
ence to what happened to Jonah. Whether myths or
conscious fictions, they were generally, if not always,
based on some words or events which were to be
found in their Scriptures, and which were imagined by
them to have some reference or other to the Messiah,
and therefore to Jesus as such.
In this way, then, was the Christian legend formed.

248 LECTURE XI.
It was formed on purpose, according to Strauss, to meet
the charge brought by the Jews against the Christians
of having stolen the body of Jesus. It did, he allows,
meet that charge. But then another question arises,
" How, under the circumstances, could this Jewish
legend originate ?" Strauss now discusses this ques
tion ; and we must follow him in his discussion of it,
for he evidently considers it as a question bearing
closely upon that of the resurrection itself. We know
upon good authority how this " legend," as the false
report spread abroad by the Jewish rulers among their
countrymen is called, did originate. But Strauss
rejects that authority, and must trace the legend to a
different source. He says : —
" It was a matter of course for the Christian legend " —
that is, the legend about setting the watch and sealing the
stone — " to assert that when the resurrection of Jesus oc
curred, an angel descended from heaven, and, shining like
lightning, rolled away the stone from the sepulchre with a
violent earthquake, that seals and watches availed nothing,
and that the latter in particular fell down like dead men
(Matt, xxviii. 4). And, according to that legend, the watch
reported the fact truly to the high-priests (ver. 11)." — Vol.
ii. p. 400-1.
All this, according to Strauss, was quite naturally
to be found in the Christian legend — in the false
story contrived by the earliest Christians to meet the
Jewish assertion that the body of Jesus had been
stolen from the tomb. And he proceeds to expose
the absurdity of this false story. For, on the suppo
sition that the story was not false, but true, he affirms
that " The real high-priests and elders would have considered

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 249
such a report" — the report of the watch — "to be false, and
have insisted upon an investigation, which must have elu
cidated the truth that the watchmen had slept, or had
allowed themselves to be bribed, and the body to be
stolen." This, Strauss affirms, is what, under the circum
stances, these rulers would have done. But it is clear
that he is warranted only in affirming that this is
what they ought to have done, for it not unfrequently
happens that men do not always adopt the course
which they ought to adopt — that men are restrained
by certain considerations from doing the very thing
which they ought to do. It was incumbent on
Strauss to show that there were no considerations
which could have influenced the Jewish rulers to ab
stain from all investigation into the truth or falsehood
of the alleged report. But it suited his purpose better
to assume what he ought to have proved, and there
fore to affirm at once that these real rulers, believing
such a report to be false, would have insisted upon
an investigation. He should, however, have also told
us what he thinks the same rulers would have done,
had they, on the other hand, dreaded that the report
was true. This, however, the essential point in the
matter, he passes over in silence ; and he goes on
to expose, as he imagines, the absurdity of the Chris
tian legend.
" The high-priests and elders " (not, you will observe, the
real high-priests and elders, but the high-priests and elders)
" of the Christian legend, on the contrary, look upon the re
port of the miraculous resurrection of Jesus as true, and give
them money to declare that to be false which the real digni
taries must have considered the truth, which the watchmen

250 LECTURE XI.
had motives for concealing, and they for elucidating by an
investigation. The fact is, therefore, as stated above : the
Christian legend attributes to the Jewish authorities the
Christian belief, leaving them, at the same time, as enemies
of Christ, their unbelief; that is, they believe in silence that
Jesus returned miraculously to life, but still they would not
recognise him as the Messiah, but persevere in their opposi
tion to his cause. Thus the origin of the Jewish legend was
indeed explained, but awkwardly enough, and only for the
Christians, who, starting from the same assumptions, did not
notice the contradictions involved in the attempt at expla
nation."— Vol. ii. p. 401.
Strauss evidently regards his argument on this par
ticular subject as unanswerable, and he has laboured
to present it in all its force. Now, we beg your
special attention to the following facts, facts which
even Strauss himself must admit. These high-priests
and Pharisees persecuted Jesus to death on the sole
ground that He claimed to be the Messiah — the
Son of God. Whatever evidence He gave in support
of this claim they rejected ; and whether that evidence
was valid or not, they not only rejected it, but pur
sued Him with a hatred so intense and relentless that
they did not rest until they had succeeded in having
Him publicly condemned and openly put to death as
one of the greatest criminals. They declared Him to
be a deceiver of no ordinary stamp, and hated Him as
such. Even Strauss must admit all this statement of
the case. We feel ourselves entitled to go farther
than this, and to say, that they had all along rejected
valid evidence, and had wilfully blinded their minds
and hardened their hearts in respect to that evidence.
But even stopping short with that view of the case
which Strauss cannot refuse to take, we ask whether,

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 25 1
on the supposition that the watch did make the report
in question, these men were in that state of mind
which would lead them to investigate the truth or
falsehood of the report, or whether, receiving such a
report from those whom they themselves had em
ployed, they would not feel some alarm lest it might
be true, and would not, therefore, employ such means
as were within their power to check, as they would
imagine, the spread of the truth. The watch, you will
observe, did not testify that Jesus had risen, for Him
they had not seen. They only testified to the ap
pearance of the angel, to the shock of the ground, and
to the removal of the stone — phenomena marvellous
indeed in themselves, and calculated to strike them
with terror. It was a report of these things which
they made to the Jewish rulers ; and although these
rulers could not but infer that these phenomena had
a special reference to Him whose body had been laid
within the tomb, and that therefore, in all probability,
the words which they had so well remembered were
now fulfilled, still they, who had so often withstood
former evidence, were not likely to yield to this new
evidence, but would persist in their unbelief, and use
their utmost efforts to suppress a testimony which
only awakened afresh their former hatred. Would
not even Strauss allow that the moral state of the
heart exerts a powerful influence over the intellect in
regard to all such matters, and that there may be a
feeling of hatred which will move the intellect to
reject the clearest testimony ? We have in the con
duct of these Jewish rulers a proof of the most de
cided character that such is the case ; and therefore
his argument, keeping out of view the essential cir-

252 LECTURE XL
cumstances of the case, falls to the ground. It is
easy for him so to construct the case that it shall
contain a contradiction in itself. But the contradic
tion is due to the framer of the argument, not to the
case itself. The Christian legend, as he terms the
story recorded by Matthew, does not attribute to the
Jewish authorities belief and unbelief at one and the
same time. It is Strauss who, by misrepresenting the
case, introduces this contradiction. The Jewish autho
rities did not believe that Jesus had risen, and yet
remain enemies to Him. They continued in their
unbelief, and as they could not but be startled by the
report of the watch, they, still unbelieving, bribed the
men to give out a different report. And would those,
think you, who had employed the most nefarious
means to get Jesus into their power, hesitate to em
ploy similar means to suppress a report which, how
ever true, only filled their minds with alarm at the
same time that it added fuel to their hatred ? We
may also remark here that an objection has been
often raised to the reality of Christ's resurrection, on
the ground that He when risen did not appear to the
Jewish rulers. This special objection will come to be
discussed on another occasion. Meanwhile, we see
that these rulers were not left without witness even
on the very day that Jesus rose. They received un
expected testimony, and they rejected it. These men
were indeed given over to believe a lie.
In the remarks with which Strauss concludes his
discussion of the burial of Jesus there is only one
thing stated that calls for special notice. It refers to
" the intention of the women to embalm the body of
Jesus after the Sabbath had elapsed." This circum-

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 253
stance he considers inconsistent with the story about
the watch ; and therefore Matthew, who gives this
story, omits all mention of the embalming, whilst the
two middle Evangelists record the latter and omit
the former ; and as for the fourth Evangelist, as he
places the embalming on the Friday evening, he
might, had he so pleased, have introduced the other
story, but that legend was too far removed from his
whole point of view for him to adopt it. All this
supposed profound criticism rests upon the assump
tion that —
" If the sepulchre was sealed by authority, and watched
by Roman soldiers, and the women knew it, as all Jerusa
lem, and especially all the nearest connections of Jesus
must have known of a measure so remarkable and so publicly
taken, they could not hope to get there with their spices." — ¦
Vol. ii. p. 402.
Now, it is easy to assert that " all Jerusalem, and
especially all the connections of Jesus," and therefore
that these women, knew of this measure which the
rulers had adopted ; but Strauss gives no evidence
that such was the case, nor is there the slightest
evidence in the narrative of Matthew that it was
the case, at least that these women were at all aware
of what the rulers had done. It is manifestly
implied in the narrative that the women had no
knowledge of it whatever ; and in all probability no
one except the rulers themselves and others who
were officially cognisant of the matter, was aware that
such means for guarding the sepulchre had been
adopted. Matthew tells us plainly that it was on
" the next day that followed the day of the prepara
tion, that the chief priests and Pharisees came to-

254 LECTURE XI.
gether unto Pilate " (ch. xxvii. 62). That next day
was the Jewish Sabbath, and as the words of Jesus
which they remembered pointed to the third day
after His death, the probability is that they did not
go to Pilate until the Sabbath was either over or
wellnigh over. If this was the case, it would follow
that few, if any, beyond those immediately concerned
in the measure, had any knowledge of it ; and thus
the whole criticism about the reasons why Mark and
Luke and John omitted the story of the watch falls
to the ground. It is, like all the rest of the author's
critical discussions, built on an assumption which is
not only not proved, but the opposite of which is
either proved or at least supported by probable
evidence. We have thus endeavoured to follow our objector
in his long and tedious discussion respecting the
burial of Jesus. You may rely upon it that he saw
how important a bearing this subject has on his main
object of attack — the Resurrection itself. Hence the
reason is manifest why he has laboured so hard to set
aside the unanimous testimony of the four Evangelists
that Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph. He
knew perfectly that if he admitted the truth of this
testimony, he would have a difficult task indeed be
fore him in attempting to disprove the reality of the
resurrection ; and he also knew that it would be
something in his favour even could he only throw
doubts on this matter. He has evaded, as we have
seen, the main point in the narratives, and directed
his whole argument against certain details. He has
assumed that the body of Jesus was thrown into the
usual burying-place of condemned criminals. The

STRAUSS ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 255
Evangelists, with one voice, bear witness that this
sacred body was now taken out of the hands of the
enemies of Jesus, and laid in the tomb of a disciple —
of a man of Arimathea, Joseph by name. And as
heretofore, so to the end of time will the testimony of
these Evangelists be held by all impartial judges as
worthy of credit, whilst the groundless conjecture of
Strauss will be accepted only by those who have pre
viously made up their minds that Christianity is and
can be nothing else than a cunningly-devised fable.

LECTURE XII.
STRAUSS ON THE EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION
OF JESUS.
We now proceed to consider what Strauss has to
allege against the unanimous testimony of all the
writers of the New Testament that Jesus rose again
from the dead. I need not repeat that, as we must
allow him to speak for himself, and therefore to
state his objections in his own way, so we must,
however tedious and irksome the task may be to
us, submit with patience to follow him in this great
discussion, and endeavour to examine with all pos
sible fairness whatever he has to object to our belief
in the reality of that fact, which is at once the crown
ing evidence of the divine claims of Jesus and the
sure pledge of our resurrection to eternal life and
glory. We cannot but be anxious to ascertain whether
this foundation of our faith and hope remains firm
and steadfast notwithstanding his assault, probably
the greatest and most determined which has been or
can be made to remove it ; or whether that founda
tion is successfully undermined, and we are left with
out Christ and without hope.
Strauss has two separate, though inseparably con
nected, discussions on this subject. In the first

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 257
discussion, which forms the concluding portion of
his first book, he endeavours to expose the unsatis
factory character of the accounts contained in the
Gospels and other writings of the New Testament of
the resurrection of Jesus, and to show how, as he
thinks, belief in this fact originated. In the second
discussion, which forms the conclusion of his second
book, he purposes to show that this myth grew up grad
ually — that is, that the accounts of the appearances
of the risen Jesus form a series which is continually
progressing from the visionary to the palpable, " from
the subjective to the objective." It is evidently his
first discussion that demands our special and minute
attention ; for if he should succeed in throwing dis
credit on the accounts which present to us the testi
mony of the first or earliest disciples, we shall feel
but little interest in tracing the gradual or sudden
growth of a fable in which we once believed, but
which we are now compelled to abandon as the pro
duct of delusion or imposture. Such an inquiry may
possess a literary or historical interest, but can have
no real or practical value.
Strauss enters on the first discussion in the follow
ing manner : —
" According to all the Gospels, Jesus, after having been
buried on the Friday evening, and lain during the Sabbath
in the grave, came out of it restored to life at daybreak on
Sunday (Matt, xxviii. 1, ff. ; Mark xvi. 1, ff. ; Luke xxiv.
1, ff. ; John xx. 1, ff.) It is not said that any one partici
pated in the sight of this occurrence. Even Matthew, who
places watchmen at the grave, represents them as being
blinded by the brilliancy of the angel who descends from
heaven to roll away the stone, and falling down dead, con
sequently as being incapable of seeing how the angel per-
R

258 LECTURE XII.
formed his task and Jesus issued from the sepulchre. But
soon after, according to all the Evangelists, more or fewer
women came to the sepulchre, where they find the stone
already rolled away, and upon this are made acquainted by
one or more angels with the resurrection of Jesus, which is
soon after proved by several appearances of Jesus himself."
— Vol. i. p. 396-7.
Now, knowing as we do that Strauss enters on this
discussion with a foregone conclusion in his mind — for
such a fact as that of the resurrection of Jesus, being
a real miracle, is, in his view, a priori impossible —
we are not to expect that his unbelief in this alleged
fact shall not appear, even when he is professedly
stating only the circumstances of the case as these
are presented to us in the Gospel narratives. Whilst
we would most anxiously avoid all hypercritical
remarks, yet we are entitled to notice, if not the spirit,
at least the manner in which he puts the case before
us. Is it altogether fair to represent MattJiew as
" placing watchmen at the grave " ? That is a point
which, to say the least, is not as yet determined by
him the one way or the other. Further, on what
ground does he assume that the angel descended to
roll away the stone in order that Jesus might issue
from the tomb ; and that, although He then did so,
the watchmen did not see Him ? That Jesus raised
His body from the tomb early on the morning of the
first day of the week, is indeed clearly implied in all
the Evangelic narratives, but not one of them says
that this great event took place when the angel
descended and rolled away the stone. Let us adhere
strictly to what the Evangelists say, and where they
are silent, let us not add to their statements.

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 259
The next passage is one which we quoted before, and
in the general sentiments of which we thoroughly agree.
" Here, then, we stand on that decisive point where, in
the presence of the accounts of the miraculous resurrection
of Jesus, we either acknowledge the inadmissibility of the
natural and historical view of the life of Jesus, and must
consequently retract all that precedes, and so give up our
whole undertaking, or pledge ourselves to make out the
possibility of the result of these accounts — i.e., the origin of
the belief in the resurrection of Jesus without any corres
ponding miraculous fact. The more immediately this ques
tion touches all Christianity to the quick, the more regard
we must pay to the sensibility with which every unpreju
diced word that is uttered about it is received, and even to
the sensible effect which such words may have upon him
who pronounces them ; but the more important the point is,
and the more decisive on the other side for the whole view
of Christianity, the more pressing is the demand upon the
investigator to set aside all these considerations and pro
nounce upon it in a perfectly unprejudiced, perfectly de
cided spirit, without ambiguity and without reserve." — -Vol.
i- P' 397-
We have said that we thoroughly agree in the
general sentiments expressed in this passage. The
resurrection of Jesus is indeed that fact which touches
Christianity to the quick — that one fact on which the
whole of Christianity really rests as its very basis. If
this fact cannot be established by adequate proof,
Christianity, so far as its divine claims are concerned,
falls to the ground. If it can be so established, then
Christianity in all its divine character stands secure as
on a rock. But how, may we ask, can that man fairly
investigate the evidence presented in the Gospels in
support of this fact in a spirit " perfectly unprejudiced,"

260 LECTURE XII.
who assumes, at the outset of his investigation, that no
such fact is possible? Such a man is, by his very
assumption, pledged to make out, not whether the
accounts in the Gospels are worthy or unworthy of
credit, but " the possibility of the result of these ac
counts — that is, the origin of the belief in the resur
rection of Jesus without any corresponding miracu
lous fact." The man who admits the possibility of a
miracle such as this alleged fact implies, is not a priori
pledged to make out the reality of this fact. His con
clusion will depend on the nature and value of the
evidence ; and this evidence he is bound and entitled
to examine in the strictest possible manner, and with
all impartiality. But Strauss cannot, consistently
with his own assumption, conduct this examination in
such a spirit. He has already settled the question in
his own mind, and we can therefore anticipate only
the utmost exercise of ingenuity in order to establish
his foregone conclusion.
The next long passage refers to the treatment of
this subject by others, especially by Hase and Ewald
and Baur. It is only necessary to allude to what he
says of Baur, who, in his work on ' The Christianity of
the First Three Centuries,' " declares that the real
nature of the resurrection of Jesus lies outside the
limits of historical investigation," and accordingly, as
Strauss says, " avoids, at least in words, the burning
question." Strauss avows himself as dissatisfied with
this declaration by Baur.
" For his words," says he, " appear to mean that it cannot
be historically discovered, and that it is not even a problem
for historical investigation to find out, whether the resurrec
tion of Jesus was an objective occurrence, either miraculous

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 26 1
or natural, or whether it was only the belief of his disciples.
But of this much at any rate," he adds, " Baur was con
vinced, that in no respect was the first of these alternatives
the case — that in no respect was the resurrection of Jesus an
objective occurrence ; consequently the second resulted as
a matter of course."
Strauss further expresses his dissatisfaction with
Baur's statement.
" The saving clause that he (Baur) was convinced of
this not as an historian, but as a philosopher, was in part
irrelevant, in part sophistry. For, traced only historically,"
affirms Strauss, in direct opposition to what Baur's state
ment implied, "he must acknowledge that the accounts of
the resurrection given in the New Testament are insufficient
to prove a real resuscitation of the crucified Jesus." — Vol.
i. p. 398.
The ground of this insufficiency, you will now ob
serve, is not an historical ground, which, according to
Baur's confession, does not exist, but a so-called philo
sophical ground, which Baur, with his sceptical ten
dency, was, equally with Strauss, ready to admit.
But then Strauss insists that so much of philosophy
as will at least deny the possibility of a miracle is an
indispensable requisite in an historian, and that Baur
himself had on other occasions given proof of his pos
sessing this qualification.
" But so much of philosophy as is required here and else
where to disprove a miracle is indispensable for the his
torian, and has been everywhere applied by Baur especially
as an historian."
The only thing worthy of our notice in these
remarks is, first, that Baur's statement implies that
the reality of the resurrection of Jesus cannot be

262 LECTURE XII.
historically disproved ; and, secondly, that this alleged
fact, which cannot be disproved on historical grounds,
is disproved on a philosophical ground — namely, on
the ground that a miracle is impossible ; in other
words, is disproved only by an assumption which
involves the disproof — is disproved by a begging of
the question. History and philosophy are thus anta
gonistic ; and a reconciliation of the two can take
place only when the historian introduces into his own
sphere a principle which compels him to interpret the
accounts of events not according to their real charac
ter, but as they are affected by the assumed principle.
It is so far satisfactory to know that an avowed oppo
nent of the Gospel would not pronounce the accounts
of the resurrection insufficient but for a so-called prin
ciple which assumes that they cannot be sufficient.
Strauss next refers to another statement by Baur,
which he praises very highly — namely,
" That the necessary historical hypothesis for all that
follows is not so much the real element in the resurrection
of Jesus as the faith in it." " That is a hint," adds Strauss,
" for the apologists, who would like to persuade the world
that if the reality of the resurrection is not recognised, the
origin and rise of the Christian Church cannot be explained.
No, says the historian, and rightly, only thus much need be
acknowledged, that the disciples firmly believed that Jesus
had arisen ; this is perfectly sufficient to make their further
progress and operations intelligible : what that belief rested
upon, what there was real in the resurrection of Jesus, is an
open question, which the investigator may answer one way
or another, without the origin of Christianity being thereby
made more or less conceivable." — Vol. i. p. 398-9.
Whether the belief of the disciples in the reality of
the resurrection could, under the circumstances, have

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 263
existed had that resurrection not been real ; and
whether, viewed abstractly, their belief is sufficient
to account for the remarkable change which took
place in their views and character, and also to account
for all that followed in the spread of the Gospel
throughout the world, are questions which cannot be
discussed except in connection with all the facts of
the case. But is it not absurd in Strauss to represent
as " an open question " the determining of what that
belief rested upon, when he, as a professed investi
gator, has pledged himself to determine it only in one
way ? According to his assumed principle of the
impossibility of a miracle, there can be only one
answer to the proposed question.
The great question, then, before us, respects the
origin of that belief, which Strauss as well as Baur
admits the disciples to have firmly held, in the resur
rection of Jesus. Of this question there can be only
two possible solutions. The belief must have been
grounded on an objective fact, or it must have been
only a subjective impression without any correspond
ing objective reality.
" The origin of that faith in the disciples," says Strauss,
" is fully accounted for if we look upon the resurrection of
Jesus as the Evangelists describe it, as an external mira
culous occurrence ; that is, if we suppose that Jesus really
died, was recalled to life by God by an act of his omni
potence, or rather transported by him into a new and
higher kind of existence, in which he could indeed exercise
his influence in a material and perceptible manner on his
followers on earth, but, being no longer subject to death,
was soon taken up into heaven into the immediate neigh
bourhood of God. But," he adds, " we are prevented by

',264 LECTURE XII.
various reasons from adopting this view as our own.
Whether we consider miracles in general as possible or not,
if we are to consider a miracle of so unheard-of a descrip
tion as having really occurred, it must be proved to us by
evidence in such a manner that the untruth of such evidence
would be more difficult to conceive than the reality of that
which it was intended to prove. Now, the assumption that
any one of our Gospels had for its author either an Apostle
or any eyewitness at all of the life of Jesus, is one which
was not proved in what has gone before. The only book in
the New Testament, the authorship of which by any one of
the twelve Apostles we found to be at all events possible,
the Revelation of John, does not carry us further than the
general belief that Jesus was put to death, and is now living
in immortality" (i. 5-18; ii. 8, &c.) — Vol. i. p. 399.
Strauss professes in this passage to be prevented
by various reasons from adopting the view given by
the Evangelists ; and waiving, for the moment, his
principle that a miracle is impossible, he demands
that such a miracle as that of the resurrection should
" be proved to us by evidence in such a manner that
the untruth of such evidence would be more difficult to
conceive than the reality of that which it was intended
to prove." Now, there can be no objection to this
demand, rightly understood. The evidence for the
reality of such a fact must be of a most satisfactory
nature. It must be such as corresponds to the ex
traordinary character of the fact — such evidence as
will prove to us that the persons giving it were not
deceived themselves, and were competent to bear
valid testimony to others. For such a fact we must
unquestionably have the evidence of eyewitnesses ; and
we are entitled to examine and cross-examine these
witnesses, in order to satisfy us that they were not

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 265
labouring under delusion, or were not deceived by
others. They must not only assert their own belief
in the fact of the resurrection, but tell us plainly the
circumstances which impressed them with this belief,
so that, placing ourselves in their room, we may deter
mine whether, under the circumstances presented to
them, we also would have believed.
Admitting, then, when rightly understood, Strauss's
demand in respect to the character of the evidence
required, we cannot but object to his assertion respect
ing the authorship of the Gospels. True it is that he
regards it as an assumption to admit the commonly
acknowledged authorship of these" Gospels, and he
says that this assumption was not proved in his
dissertations on that subject ; but the fact is that
it is he who is chargeable with assumption on this
subject, for these Gospels have from their very
origin been received and acknowledged by all sec
tions of the Christian Church as the writings of
two Apostles and of two companions of Apostles.
All existing external testimony is in favour of this
authorship. There is not a single fact which either
Strauss or any one else has been able to bring for
ward and establish against this authorship ; and the
writings themselves, though they do not all tell us
who were their authors, bear a testimony which is in
perfect harmony with the external evidence. Fur
ther, Strauss's chief objection to the received author
ship of the Gospels is drawn from the supposition
that Jesus did not and could not work miracles, and
that therefore no eyewitness of the life of Jesus, and
no person who had learned about Jesus from an eye
witness, could have described Him as the Gospels do —

266 LECTURE XII.
that is, as working miracles. Strauss reasons, there
fore, about the authorship of the Gospels in a vicious
circle ; and, indeed, all his arguments, from first to
last, are vitiated by his one grand assumption that a
miracle is impossible.
He would allow that the Apocalypse or Revelation
of St John is an Apostolic writing — the work of one
who was an eyewitness of Jesus ; but whilst he would
allow this, he asserts that in that book we find only
an assertion of the general belief that Jesus, who had
been put to death, was now living in immortality; that
is, an assertion of the belief, not that Jesus was raised
from the dead, but that without such a real resurrec
tion as the Gospels affirm He was merely believed to
be alive in heaven. In proof of this assertion he refers
us to Chap. i. 5- 1 8, and to other passages. Now,
the first passage referred to clearly points to the re
surrection of Jesus, so that, even according to Strauss
himself, we have the testimony of at least one eye
witness to this fact. In the fifth verse the Apostle
John, who is allowed by Strauss to have been the
author of this book, designates Jesus as the Faithful
Witness, and as the First-begotten — the First-born —
of the dead ; an expression which clearly refers to His
having been dead and buried — as having been in the
womb of death, and as having risen from the dead,
born of this womb, in a pre-eminent manner, so that
He, the risen Jesus, is the first-born of all who, through
union with Him, shall rise to life everlasting. The
phrase, " First-born of the dead," cannot possibly
refer to His being raised to a higher life in heaven,
apart from an actual resurrection from the tomb in
which His body was laid ; and to give such an inter-

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 267
pretation to the phrase is merely to force it to uphold
an hypothesis. Again, in this same passage (ver. 10),
the Apostle says, " I was in the Spirit on the Lord's
day," h rfj xuwaxjj v-*%a, an expression which mani
festly means on the day commemorative of the Lord
— that is, the first day of the week, which was held
sacred to the Lord, as commemorative of His resur
rection — the Apostle by this very expression confirm
ing the testimony of all the Evangelists, that on
the first day of the week Jesus rose from the dead.
We have thus the testimony of at least one, whom
Strauss himself is willing to regard as an eyewitness
of the life of Jesus, to the fact of the resurrection.
Strauss now professedly enters on the examination
of the evidence in support of the reality of the resur
rection of Jesus, and, as he has already intimated, his
purpose is to show that this evidence is wholly insuf
ficient. He examines, first, the statements of the
Apostle Paul bearing on this subject.
" The earliest writer," he says, " who gives us any accurate
information as to how the belief in the resurrection of Jesus
arose among his disciples is the Apostle Paul, who was not
an eyewitness of the original phenomena which were the
ground of this belief, but, as he himself says, relates what he
had heard from others. He tells them (1 Cor. xv. 3-7) how
he had ' received ' that Jesus, who had died and been buried
according to the Scriptures, had risen again on the third
day according to the Scriptures, and that he had appeared
to Cephas, then to the twelve, then to more than five hun
dred brethren at once, then to James, then to all the
Apostles. There is no occasion to doubt that the Apostle
Paul had heard this from Peter, James, and perhaps from
others concerned (comp. Gal. i. 18 ff, ii. 9), and that all of
these, even the five hundred, were firmly convinced that

268 LECTURE XII.
they had seen Jesus, who had been dead, and was alive
again." — Vol. i. p. 399, 4°°-
Before we quote further, let us carefully notice the
admissions here made by Strauss. " There is no
occasion to doubt," he says, " that the Apostle Paul
had heard this " — namely, " that they had seen Jesus,
who had been dead and was alive again" — "from Peter,
James, and perhaps from others concerned ;" and
further, "there is no occasion to doubt that all of
these, even the five hundred, were firmly convinced
that they had so seen Jesus." Here, then, is an
admission that all these persons believed in the resur
rection of Jesus, and that they professed to believe in
this fact on the evidence of sight. Peter believed
that he had seen Him ; so did James ; so did the
twelve Apostles as a body ; and so did the more than
five hundred brethren, who said that they had all seen
Him at one and the same time. It is not doubted by
Strauss that all these — Apostles and brethren — told
what they believed to be true. He admits that they
were all firmly convinced of the fact. Can such evi
dence, then, be lightly set aside ? Granting the pos
sibility of delusion on the part of a single person, can
we imagine that eleven or twelve men would all be
deluded on more than one occasion in a matter of
sensible perception at one and the same time ? Still
more, can we imagine that five hundred men should
all be simultaneously convinced that they saw a Living
Man whom they did not see ? Five hundred men
believe that Jesus, who had been put to death, stands
before them. Not one of the whole crowd doubts the
fact. The eleven disciples, according to Paul, assert
that they had also seen Him on two different occa-

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 269
sions. Peter asserts that he also, when alone, had
seen Him ; and James bears the same testimony.
Now, let us candidly estimate all this evidence, and
ask ourselves whether it is not evidence of the highest
order. It is the evidence of eyewitnesses — of hundreds
of eyewitnesses. Unless we maintain as an abstract
fixed principle that such a fact as the resurrection of
Jesus is in itself impossible, how can we get over such
evidence ? Is it not more difficult to conceive the
untruth of such evidence than the reality of the resur
rection itself? We apprehend that it is so, and that
we must feel it to be so, when we endeavour fairly to
realise in our minds this varied and extensive evidence.
We have as yet taken no account of the evidence of
Paul himself. We have merely regarded him as
honestly reporting what he had heard, and heard
from the first sources. Paul's testimony, being un
doubted by Strauss, places before us all these eye
witnesses ; and we hear them, one and all, relating as
a fact of sensible perception that they had seen Jesus
alive again. We hear them telling us this fact, and
that they believed it on the evidence of their own
eyes. They saw Him alive again.
Let us now hear what Strauss has to say in order
to weaken the force of this apparently most sufficient
evidence ; and we shall see another remarkable speci
men of that ingenuity with which he labours so per
sistently to close his eyes to what must appear to us
the clearest light.
" If, however, we ask, as we must be allowed to do, the
question referring to this belief in something so unheard of,
how these men convinced themselves that their supposed
sight did not rest on a delusion, our voucher " — that is, the

270 LECTURE XII.
Apostle Paul — " leaves us in the lurch. He only says
simply that the Jesus who was alive again, had ' appeared '
{oip6n) to them; that is, that they thought they perceived
him, and perceived him in a visible form; but he does
not tell us how they arrived at this belief, what grounds
they had for considering the appearance as something real,
and indeed as the appearance of their Master, who was
dead." — Vol. i. p. 400.
We formerly remarked on this subject, and en
deavoured to show the main design of the Apostle's
argument in this chapter ; and we will not repeat our
remarks upon it. But we must again observe that,
though the Apostle is led to state the evidence for
the reality of Christ's resurrection, his main design
is to expose and suppress the erroneous view which
some of the professing Christians at Corinth, misled
by their false philosophical opinions, had adopted and
were spreading ; namely, that there will be no resur
rection of the body at the last day. The Apostle, as
we showed, builds his whole argument against this
error, which he deemed a most grievous one, on the
basis of the reality of Christ's resurrection— a fact
which these speculative Christians professed to admit.
Now, Strauss would have had the Apostle not only
state the evidence which he does in attestation of
this admitted fact, but also enter on a discussion
respecting the validity of that evidence. I remark
ed before that had the Apostle done this, Strauss's
ingenuity would have probably suggested a suspi
cion that all was not right when the Apostle deemed
such a discussion necessary. But, apart from this,
what does Strauss mean when he says that Paul
" leaves us in the lurch," because he does not tell us

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 27 1
" how these men convinced themselves that their sup
posed sight did not rest on a delusion ?" Paul does
not indeed tell us all that took place on the several
occasions on which these men saw the risen Jesus.
But have we no other accounts besides this of Paul's ?
And do not these accounts tell us that the senses of
hearing and touch confirmed the testimony of sight ?
Paul does not profess to discuss the evidence of the
persons to whom he refers in a formal manner. He
regards the evidence of sight as under the circum
stances valid and sufficient ; and he is right ; for it is
not the evidence of one man or of two men, but the
evidence also of eleven men twice given ; yea, the
evidence of five hundred men all at once. We main
tain that the evidence of sight thus repeated and
thus given cannot but be trustworthy, and that, there
fore, our voucher does not " leave us in the lurch."
These men could not but believe what they saw ; and
who ever heard of a multitude of men being all at one
time led to suppose that they saw a person standing
before them whom they did not see ?
But our objector, perfectly satisfied with his own
reasoning, goes a little farther. He doubts " whether
Paul had investigated this point for himself." Let us
hear the whole of his estimate of Paul's state of mind.
Only let us remember that in the passage referred to
in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, we have re
markable expressions which clearly show how self-
possessed Paul was, and how anxiously he had thought
about this very subject. "If Christ be not risen," he
says, " then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also
vain ; yea," he adds in most solemn words, " yea, and
we are found false witnesses of God; because we have

272 LECTURE XII.
testified of God that He raised up Christ : whom He
raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not " (ver. 14,
15). Remembering the solemnity, earnestness, and
perfect self-possession of the Apostle, let us patiently,
however sorrowfully, listen to the manner in which
Strauss detracts from the value of his testimony.
After expressing his doubt whether Paul had in
vestigated for himself the grounds on which the belief
of those, whom he mentions as having seen the risen
Jesus, rested, he proceeds thus : —
" After he had himself witnessed that apparition of Christ
which we shall have to discuss further on, he was so sure of
his case, so satisfied in his own behalf, and so sufficiently
instructed, that he let three years go by, before he started from
Damascus, in the neighbourhood of which he had had the
vision, to go for the first time to Jerusalem, to get more
accurate information about Jesus in general, and in particu
lar about those appearances of him after his death which
others also professed to have had (Gal. i. 18, ff.) We must
assume that he had heard in many ways of these appearances
even at an earlier period, while he was persecuting the con
fessors of the new Christ ; but it is quite as clear that in his
then impassioned state of mind he was not qualified calmly
to investigate what was real in them. And after his conver
sion he felt no impulse leading him to such an investigation;
on the contrary, he could satisfy himself for three whole
years with what he thought he had himself seen and heard.
Now this proves sufficiently the pure subjectivity of the
whole turn his mind had taken, how little adapted he was,
generally, to undertake the historical investigation of an
objective fact. Indeed, he regularly boasts that he looked
for nothing beyond that apparition ; that even in Jerusalem
he conversed with none of the Apostles excepting Peter, and
James the brother of the Lord. These may have told him
of the appearances which they could boast of having wit-

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 273
nessed, perhaps even one or two of the five hundred breth
ren may have spoken to him of what they thought they had
observed. But that he should have instituted a more ac
curate investigation with regard to these statements, have
tested the foundations of them, their consistency with them
selves and with each other, is not to be expected of a man
who, already convinced to superfluity by the supposed ap
parition which he had seen himself, was also to a certain
degree jealous as to the admissibility of this subjective con
viction." — Vol. i. p. 400-1.
If ever there was a specimen of what is termed
special pleading in support of a preconceived con
clusion, I humbly think we may fairly say that
here is one. The conclusion, assumed at the outset,
and to be supported by some kind of argument or
other, is, that the Apostle Paul, either from indisposi
tion of mind or from incapacity, abstained from in
vestigating the grounds on which the belief of those
who said that they had seen Jesus alive after His
death, rested. This conclusion is manifestly assumed,
and Strauss sets himself to the task of framing an
argument in support of the assumption. He does
not deny, you will observe, that Paul also believed
that he himself had seen the Lord ; but though he
postpones the discussion as to the nature of this as
serted fact, he in the mean time assumes and reasons
upon the assumption that this alleged appearance had
no corresponding objective reality, but was a pure
subjective impression in the Apostle's mind ; and he
even represents Paul as being himself " to a certain
degree jealous as to the admissibility of this subjective
conviction." In respect to this last assertion Strauss, neither here
S

274 LECTURE XII.
nor in his special discussion on " the appearance of
Christ to this Apostle," produces the slightest evi
dence. That Paul was jealous of his claim to the
Apostleship, and of the freedom of believers in Christ
from the ritual observances of the Jewish law, there
is abundant proof. But there is nothing to show
that he was in any degree jealous as to the admissi
bility of what Strauss terms his " subjective convic
tion." As it was an essential qualification for the
office of an Apostle that the person holding this office
should be able to testify to the fact of the resurrec
tion of Jesus, Paul on one occasion appeals to his
having seen the Lord as one of the essential proofs of
his Apostleship ; but so far is such an appeal from
exhibiting the state of mind with which Strauss
charges him, that it furnishes a proof of the very
contrary, for he appeals to the fact as one which ad
mitted of no dispute. " Am I not an Apostle ? " he
says ; " Am I not free ? Have I not seen Jesus Christ
our Lord ? Are not ye my work in the Lord ? If I
be not an Apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to
you : for the seal of mine Apostleship are ye in the
Lord" (i Cor. ix. I, 2). Here it is most manifest
that he is vindicating not " the admissibility of a sub
jective conviction" as to his having seen the Lord,
but the claim of his Apostleship on this, as one ground,
that he had actually seen Him. And yet Strauss
assumes, as if it were a matter beyond all dispute,
that it was the former of which Paul was to a certain
extent manifesting jealousy.
Let us now observe the manner in which Strauss
misrepresents the Apostle's conduct immediately after
his conversion, and also the reasons which induced

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 275
him to visit Jerusalem. The Apostle himself in an
other epistle, which also the school of Strauss admits
to be genuine, most clearly informs the Churches of
Galatia (which he had been instrumental in planting,
and among which great efforts were being made by
Judaising missionaries to throw discredit on his Apos
tolic authority) in respect to both these matters, so
that it is inexcusable in any one to give, as Strauss
has done, a misrepresentation of them for any purpose
whatever, and especially in order to uphold an hypo
thesis adopted to discredit that Apostle's own clear
statement of the objective reality of Christ's appear
ance to him. Whatever information as to facts, con
nected with the life and ministry of Jesus, Paul may
have heard before his conversion, or may have re
ceived after his conversion from Ananias and other
disciples at Damascus, he tells us plainly in the epistle
referred to, that in addition to the miraculous ap
pearance of Christ to him when he was nigh unto
Damascus, he received a special revelation from God
respecting the Lord Jesus, to enable him to preach the
Gospel among the Gentiles ; and that it was because
of this special revelation, and not merely because he
had seen the risen Jesus, that he did not require to be
taught by man — even by those who were Apostles
before him. Strauss, in direct opposition to the
Apostle's words, limits the whole matter of the Gospel
to the fact bearing on the existence and therefore the
appearance of Christ ; whereas in addition to this fact,
fundamental as it was, there was a knowledge of
Christ which constituted the substance of the Gospel,
and which that appearance could not of itself impart.
Paul needed to be instructed respecting this Jesus of

276 LECTURE XII.
Nazareth, who had so marvellously appeared to him,
and apprehended him when he was pursuing his mad
career. And it was God, as he tells us, who, after this
appearance, revealed His Son in him — made known
to him, by special revelation, those great truths re
specting Jesus, the Son of God, which constitute the
glad tidings of salvation. Strauss confounds these two
distinct things, the appearance of Jesus and the sub
jective revelation which Paul afterwards received ; and
the whole of his argument rests on the assumption
that these two things were one and the same thing.
He also charges Paul with being, after the appear
ance of Christ to him, " so sure of his case, so satisfied
in his own behalf, and so sufficiently instructed, that
he let three years go by, before he started from
Damascus, in the neighbourhood of which he had had
the vision, to go for the first time to Jerusalem to get
more accurate information about Jesus in general,
and in particular about those appearances of Him
after His death which others also professed to have
had (Gal. i. 18, ff.) " Now, this charge manifestly
proceeds on the assumption that Paul received no
other than human instruction respecting Jesus, and
that he at length, after so unaccountable a delay,
went to Jerusalem on purpose to obtain fuller or
more accurate information, and specially to investi
gate reports which had reached him that others had
been favoured with appearances of Jesus after His
death. In support of these grounds on which the
charge is founded, Strauss appeals to a passage in
the Epistle to the Galatians which tells us the very
contrary. What were all the Apostle's reasons for not
visiting Jerusalem until after a period of three years

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 277
from his conversion, we are not informed ; but after
stating that he had been taught respecting Jesus by
a special revelation from God, he mentions that he
passed some time, how long is not stated, in Arabia ;
that he returned thence to Damascus ; and that after
three years — that is, three years after his conversion —
he went up to Jerusalem to see — to visit — Peter, with
whom he abode fifteen days. He also tells us that
Peter was the only one of the twelve then in Jerusa
lem, for that " he saw no other of the Apostles, save
James the Lord's brother."
This is, in all probability, the visit related in the
Acts ix. 26, ff. ; and we there learn that when he
arrived in Jerusalem the disciples were afraid of him,
and refused to admit him into their fellowship, until
" Barnabas took him, and brought him to the Apos
tles" — that is, to Peter, and also to James, who, though
not one of the twelve, was reckoned an Apostle — " and
declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the
way, and that He, the Lord, had spoken to him, and
how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name
of Jesus." And then " he was with them coming in and
going out at Jerusalem." The true state of the case,
then, as respects this first visit, is this. It was not the
Apostle Paul who investigated, or needed to investigate,
the nature of the appearances of Jesus to the Apostles
and others, but they who required to be assured of
the reality of the alleged appearance of Jesus to him ;
and it was only after Barnabas rehearsed the sensible
evidence of sight and hearing, that they were con
vinced of the reality of that appearance. Here we
have a remarkable proof that the first disciples were
not so ready, as Strauss and others would have us to

278 LECTURE XII.
believe, to listen to mere rumours, or to arrive at con
clusions without thorough and legitimate evidence.
Again, Paul does not in his epistle tell us expressly
what was the subject that engaged his attention in his
interviews with Peter and James. We learn from the
passage referred to in the Acts, that after the Apostles
and disciples were satisfied that he had seen and
heard the Lord, " he spake boldly in the name of the
Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians ; but
that they went about to slay him." There is not the
slightest probability that he felt it necessary to engage
in any such investigation as Strauss insists upon. It
was not, we may rely upon it, any doubt as to the
reality of the Lord's resurrection and subsequent ap
pearances that occupied the mind of Paul. These were
settled matters. The probability is, that he would
consult with them as to the sphere of his future labours
in the Gospel. But whatever may have been the case
as to this, we know for certain that the result of that
short visit was, that the report concerning his conver
sion and his efforts in preaching the Gospel was con
firmed, not only to the disciples in Jerusalem, but also
to the Churches beyond Jerusalem — to the Churches
of Judaea, to the members of which he had formerly
been personally unknown, and who " had heard only,
that he who had persecuted them in times past was
now preaching the faith which once he destroyed ; "
and that " they glorified God in him " (Gal. i. 23, 24).
In the same epistle Paul mentions another visit
which, along with Barnabas and Titus, he paid to
Jerusalem about fourteen years after his conversion,
and distinctly tells us what was the great subject then
discussed between him and such of the Apostles and

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 279
brethren as were in the city. James, Peter, and John
were present at the council which was then held,
and the question affecting the relation of the Gentile
Churches to the ritual law was determined. These
Apostles, who were among the chief rulers of the
Church, " perceiving the grace that was given unto
Paul," recognised him as an Apostle, and gave to him
and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship ; and it
was arranged that these two should go specially to
the Gentiles, whilst they themselves were to labour
chiefly among the Jews (Gal. ii. 1-9).
Such having been the real state of the case, we
think we have completely established our state
ment, that the whole of this theory of Strauss as
to the indifference of Paul to the question affecting
the historical reality of what he had heard about the
appearances of Jesus to others, and his incapacity,
from the impassioned state of his mind, to investigate
such a subject, proceeds from a misconception, and
consequently a misrepresentation, of the manner in
which Paul received his knowledge about Jesus, and
of the main reasons which induced him to visit Jeru-
lem, whether on the first occasion after his conversion
or at any subsequent time. The whole passage is, as
we have said, a mere specimen of special pleading in
support of a foregone conclusion.
Strauss next sums up the conclusions which he
imagines he has established : —
" As regards the first point, therefore, the statement of an
eyewitness with regard to the appearances upon which the
belief in the resurrection of Jesus originally rested, we
have it not In the second place, the witness with regard
to whom we might assume that he drew his information

280 LECTURE XII.
from the lips of eyewitnesses, the Apostle Paul, does not
lead us beyond the fact that these eyewitnesses firmly
believed that they had seen Jesus returned to life." — Vol. i.
p. 401. It is evident from what we have already said in
respect to Strauss's arguments in support of these
conclusions, that neither of them has been established.
But, you will observe, it was deemed by Strauss of
the greatest importance to show that we have no
evidence, either at first or at second hand, in support
of the resurrection of Jesus. He is forced to admit
that the first disciples firmly believed in the fact of
the resurrection ; but assuming, as he does, that this
belief had no other ground than a mere subjective
impression, he cannot allow that we have any authen
tic statement of the circumstances which produced
this belief.
Not one of the Gospels must be allowed to have
been written by an Apostle, for then we should have
a " statement of an eyewitness with regard to the
appearances upon which the belief in the resurrection
of Jesus originally rested." Nay, it must not be al
lowed that any one of the Gospels was written even
by a companion of Apostles, for in that case we
should have a similar statement from one who had
received his information from eyewitnesses. The
only book in the New Testament for the Apostolic
authorship of which it is conceded there is some evi
dence is that of " the Revelation of St John ; " and
though an appeal is made to a passage in that book
which clearly implies the fact of the resurrection, yet
we must understand the Apostle not as really testify
ing such a fact, but as only expressing the belief,

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 28 1
common to all the Apostles and disciples, that Jesus,
" who had been put to death, was now alive, and in a
state of exaltation with God." Any assumption or
any interpretation of passages must be adopted,
which will support the foregone conclusion, that Jesus
in reality did not rise from the dead.
As for the Apostle Paul, " we might have assumed
that he drew his information from the lips of eyewit
nesses," and that he would have given us statements
of circumstances which would have enabled us to de
termine whether the first disciples really saw Jesus, or
only thought that they saw Him when they did not.
But, unfortunately, he tells us simply that Jesus was
seen of Cephas, then of the twelve, then of above five
hundred brethren at once, then of James, then of all the
Apostles, and lastly of himself. And then, postpon
ing the discussion of the appearance to himself, and
assuming in the mean time that it was a mere subjec
tive impression without any corresponding objective
fact, we must find fault with him for not having in
vestigated the grounds on which the others were led
to consider the appearances to them as something
real. Indeed, when we consider the highly impas
sioned state of his mind, we may cease to wonder
why he neglected such an investigation. He was so
satisfied as respects his own case, that he did not go
to Jerusalem until after the lapse of three years to
make inquiries on this subject, as is evident from
what he writes in his Epistle to the Churches of
Galatia — although, when we interpret the passage as
it presents itself to us, it would appear he went to
Jerusalem for a quite different purpose. As for the
appearance to himself, it will be afterwards shown

282 LECTURE XII.
that there was no real appearance of Jesus to
him. Thus we have, concludes Strauss after such reason
ing as we have endeavoured to expose, no evidence
either from a first or a second hand to convince us
that the belief of the first disciples rested on any real
fact. Is it not amazing that any man, pretending
to investigate a subject in an unprejudiced state of
mind, can have satisfied himself with such childish
and absurd reasoning as we have been compelled to
examine ? The whole reasoning is frivolous in the
extreme. But we must exercise patience, and listen
to what he has yet to say.
Having stated his two conclusions, apparently with
all the satisfaction which one might feel on having
reached the conclusion of a mathematical theorem,
Strauss proceeds to the Evangelic narratives them
selves, such as in his estimation they are.
" If we would learn anything more accurate, we must turn
to the Evangelists, and they are witnesses in regard to not
one of whom we can unhesitatingly assume that, like the
Apostle Paul, he received his information from the lips of
eyewitnesses. Their evidence, therefore, has not, a priori,
the weight which it must have to counterbalance that of the
improbability of the fact to which it testifies." — Vol. i.
p. 401-2. Observe the summary manner in which the evi
dence of these Evangelists is set aside. The manner
exhibits a slight degree of ingenuity. We are not
entitled unhesitatingly to assume, says Strauss, that
any one of the Evangelists received his information
from the lips of eyewitnesses. But the Apostle Paul

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 283
did receive his information from such witnesses.
Now, having shown that his testimony is insufficient,
we cannot possibly look upon the testimony of the
Evangelists, whatever it may be, as even equal to his,
and therefore as sufficient to counterbalance the im
probability of the fact to which he testifies — the " im
probability," you will observe — that being a more
plausible term to employ here, although the main
argument against Paul's testimony, and against the
acknowledged authorship of the Gospels, rests, not on
the mere improbability, but on the assumed abso
lute impossibility, of the fact in question. We need
not, however, again specially point out the vicious
character of such reasoning. We have arrived at a
different class of arguments, and we shall have to fol
low our objector very closely, and with the utmost
watchfulness. He is now to show that the Evangel
ists contradict Paul and one another. If he fairly
makes out such a result, then we admit that whoever
wrote the Gospels, their trustworthiness is gone, and
we shall have no other alternative than that which
Strauss would have us to receive. Such, then, being
the issue at stake, let us, as we have said, hear our
objector with patience, and at the same time with all
possible watchfulness.
" Add to this," says Strauss — that is, to the a priori argu
ment stated above — " that the narratives of the Evangelists
contradict in many ways, not only the accounts of the
Apostle Paul, but also each other. This Apostle says no
thing of the appearances of Jesus before women, who in the
Evangelists, Luke excepted, stand in the foreground (Matt.
xxviii. 9 ; Mark xvi. 9 ; John xx. 14, ff.) This may be ex
plained upon the supposition that he only wished to appeal

284 LECTURE XII.
to the testimony of men, in the same way as the author of
the supplement to the fourth Gospel does not take in the
appearance of Jesus before Mary Magdalene, which is men
tioned in this Gospel. Luke (xxiv. 34) as well as Paul
states Peter to have been the first (man, if we will have it
so) to whom an appearance of the newly-risen Jesus was ac
corded. But neither Matthew nor even John knew any
thing of such an appearance having been accorded to Peter,
but speak only of that before the Apostles collectively (Matt,
xxviii. 16; Mark xvi. 16; comp. John xx. 19, 26), which
Paul separates from the appearance to Peter. He says no
thing of the appearance to the two disciples going into the
country, of which Luke (xxiv. 13, ff.) and Mark (xvi. 12)
give an account. This may be supposed to be accounted
for by the fact that, as compared with the appearance to the
Apostles on the one hand, and the five hundred brethren on
the other, this seemed to him to be of but little importance.
But this last again is unknown to the Evangelists, as is also
a special appearance to James, of which Paul makes men
tion, but which is found only elsewhere in the Gospel of
the Hebrews. Finally, a second appearance before the
Apostles collectively, with which Paul concludes his enumer
ation, is not found, at all events, in the first three Evangel
ists; but in John, where, on the first occasion, Thomas
being absent, only ten Apostles were present, Jesus appears
eight days later, once to the full College of eleven ; and in
the introduction to the Acts of the Apostles, where for the
first time the presence of the risen Jesus upon earth is extend
ed to forty days, time is indeed given for all possible appear
ances, but at the price of a complete contradiction with the
earlier account of the same author in the Gospel, where the
last appearance of Jesus after his resurrection takes place,
unmistakably, on the day of the resurrection itself." — Vol. i.
p. 402-3.
Such is the first portion of Strauss's statement to
prove that " the narratives of the Evangelists contra-

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 285
diet in many ways not only the accounts of the
Apostle Paul, but also each other." As we formerly
considered Paul's account, and also compared the
accounts in the Gospels with each other, it is not
necessary for us to go over this ground again. A
very few remarks will be sufficient to show that
Strauss entirely fails, so far as he has yet gone, to
establish his grave assertion. First of all, what is a
contradiction ? Is it not when one account expressly
states that something took place which, according to
the equally express statement in another account, did
not take place ? " Paul says nothing of the appear
ance of Jesus before women, who in the Evangelists,
Luke excepted, stand in the foreground." Is there
any contradiction here between Paul and these Evan
gelists ? Does he say that Jesus did not appear
before women ? What the reasons were which led
Paul and the Evangelists to mention the particular
appearances which they record, is an entirely different
question, and one which, assuming that there were
several appearances, we are not entitled seriously to
ask. Every historian of an event which is accom
panied with a variety of details may, in recording
that event, give more or fewer of these details, as he
deems suitable to his purpose. It is most unreason
able to assert that diversity in the statement of such
details implies real contradiction in the writers of the
several narratives ; and it is unwarrantable in Strauss,
whatever may be his view of the Gospel narratives
and of Paul's account, to employ the term " contra
diction " in the case before him. He has pointed out
considerable diversity ; but with all his keen-sighted-
ness he has not put his finger on a single " contradic-

286 LECTURE XII.
tion." Like some others, he infers most unfairly that
because Paul or an Evangelist does not mention
something which another does, therefore he was ig
norant of it. Such a mode of argument would not be
tolerated in any other case. Why, then, should it be
for a moment tolerated here ? If these writers do
really contradict one another, let the contradiction be
pointed out, and then we shall know how to estimate
their statements. But let us not deal with these
writers as if the most perverted forms of argument
were justly applicable to them. In order to have
secured their narratives against Strauss's charge of
contradiction, they ought to have been the same in
every detail. Had this been the case, it requires no
ingenuity to discover what Strauss and others would
then have said. But we formerly showed that these
accounts, substantially one, yet diversified in details,
throw great light on each other, and that the result of
a fair comparison of all their contents establishes the
truth of their several narratives.
As to that "complete contradiction" which Strauss
discovers between two separate accounts given by the
same writer, it exists solely in his own mind, not in
the narratives of St Luke. He does not say in his
Gospel that the last appearance of Jesus after His
resurrection took place on the day of the resurrection
itself. We showed, when discussing his Gospel nar
rative, that it was his manner to combine different
details. After recording one which took place on the
evening of the day of the resurrection, Luke only re
cords the last appearance of the risen Jesus ; and
having further detailed information from the same
author in the Acts of the Apostles, we are bound in

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 287
all fairness to avail ourselves of this additional infor
mation to clear up what was left obscure in the briefer
account. We do not believe, as some defenders of
Luke have alleged, that he knew more details when
he wrote his second treatise than he did when he
wrote the first. We believe that he had the second
treatise in view at the time when he wrote his Gospel,
and that he purposely concluded his Gospel as he has
done. So far, then, as we have yet heard Strauss, we un
hesitatingly conclude that he has completely failed to
make out his charge, and that if he has no stronger
proofs of contradiction to bring forward, his failure
will constitute a remarkable testimony to the truth of
the Gospel narratives as well as to that of the Apostle
Paul's account.
Strauss proceeds thus : —
" Up to this point an opponent might maintain that
neither Paul nor any one of the Evangelists undertakes to
mention all the appearances after the resurrection. But this
defence is not available for the fourth Evangelist, as regards
the author of the 21st chapter, who particularises the ap
pearances up to the third (xxi. 14). There would be, then,
that before the eleven (xx. 19, ff.; the absence of Thomas
may be considered as unimportant), consequently the second
of St Paul, the first; that before the full College of the
Apostles (xx. 26, ff), therefore the fifth of Paul, the second ;
the appearances to Peter and James, the first and fourth in
Paul, are omitted, it might be said because only concerning
one Apostle; but why that before five hundred brethren,
among whom, in all probability, the eleven also were?
while that to the seven Apostles on the Sea of Galilee (xxi.
1, ff.) is not considered too unimportant to be mentioned as
the third appearance, though nothing corresponding to it is

288 LECTURE XII.
found either in Paul or in any of the other Evangelists. The
author does not say that this was the last appearance, and,
moreover, what he represents Jesus as saying on the occa
sion of it is not such that a later appearance is thereby ab
solutely excluded. But, on the other hand, in the three
other Evangelists the last meeting of Jesus with his disciples,
mentioned in every one of them, is obviously meant to be
the last that ever took place, as it contains the last arrange
ments and promises of Jesus, and besides this concludes, in
Mark and Luke, with the ascension. And this last appear
ance is by Matthew (who knows no more than John any
thing about an ascension) as decidedly placed in Galilee,
and by Luke, and obviously also by Mark, in the immediate
neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Of these two accounts, there
fore, one in any case must rest upon a mistake." — Vol. i.
p. 403-4.
This long passage really brings nothing new before
us, and we must again avoid repeating remarks which
we formerly made, especially in respect to the con
cluding chapter of John's Gospel. That chapter, as
was formerly stated, is an appendix which the Apostle
seems to have added to his narrative, in order to meet
a misinterpretation of certain words which Jesus, on
the occasion referred to, uttered respecting himself.
He had in his former narrative recorded two appear
ances of Jesus to the disciples when assembled to
gether, and therefore, having added this other chapter,
he mentions the appearance recorded in it as the
third appearance to a number of the disciples. It was
evidently not his design to record all the appearances
of Jesus ; and as his Gospel was unquestionably sup
plementary to the other three, he does not detail the
circumstances of the ascension, already stated more
or less briefly by other Evangelists ; but that he

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 289
knew about the ascension, who can possibly deny
with any measure of fairness, who remembers the fre
quent allusions recorded in this Gospel to the Lord's
departure to the Father, and in particular His mes
sage to the disciples through Mary Magdalene, " Go
to My brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto
My Father and your Father, and to My God and
your God" (xx. 17)?
As to the comparison between John's account and
that of Paul, these are shown by Strauss himself to
agree so far ; but why in any one of the accounts we
have certain details given, and not others, is really a
question which it is unreasonable to ask, as we have
already said. A special reason seems assigned by
John for introducing the account of the appearance at
the Sea of Galilee ; and it was manifestly his original
design to record only the two appearances to the
disciples which took place in Jerusalem on two suc
cessive first days of the week. No contradiction,
in the slightest matter, is brought out between him
and Paul.
But Strauss insists that Matthew places the last
appearance in Galilee, while Luke and Mark place
the same in the immediate neighbourhood of Jerusa
lem, and that therefore one of these accounts must, in
any case, rest upon a mistake. But there is no mis
take. The meeting of Jesus with His disciples in
Galilee was, as we showed before, a public meeting
promised before His death, and also brought to the
remembrance of the disciples through the women by
the angel at the tomb, and by Jesus Himself, who
afterwards, on the same day, met them on the road.
At this great meeting Jesus proclaimed His sove-
T

290 LECTURE XII.
reignty over all, whether in heaven or on earth, and
also gave His disciples a commission to preach the
Gospel to all nations. The same or similar words
were afterwards addressed by Him to His disciples at
His last appearance near to Jerusalem immediately
before His ascension. If we would only deal fairly
with the accounts, we should see that whilst all is not
told us so as to enable us to clear up every difficulty
which may be suggested, there is no difficulty in per
ceiving that, so far as we are informed of the various
appearances, no contradiction will emerge, unless we
draw such conclusions from the brief accounts as shall
necessarily involve contradiction. To draw such con
clusions is evidently unwarrantable, and to treat the
Gospels in this way is to set ourselves to the task of
creating contradiction where, under a fair treatment of
them, we should see that none exists. But to such
a fair treatment of these Gospels Strauss's assumed
principle of the impossibility of a miracle will not
allow him to consent. He must treat them in such a
manner as will not oblige him to " give up his whole
undertaking," and to " acknowledge the inadmissibility
of" what he calls " the natural and historical view of
the life of Jesus." And therefore we must follow him
a little longer whilst he brings to view more contra
dictions of the nature last adverted to.
"But the contradiction in respect of locality," he says,
" does not attach merely to this last meeting, but penetrates
the whole history of the appearances after the resurrection.
The Apostle Paul does not define the place of the appearances
mentioned by him ; in Matthew, Jesus shows himself only
to the two Marys on the morning of the resurrection, on the
way from the sepulchre to the town, consequently near Jem-

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 29 1
salem ; through them he gives the same directions to the dis
ciples as they had received from him during his lifetime
(xxvi. 32), and also from an angel (xxviii. 7), to go to
Galilee, where he immediately appears to them also (xxviii.
9 ff, 16 ff), according to the opinion of the Evangelist, un
doubtedly for the first and last time. In direct contradiction
with this, Luke represents Jesus on the day of the resurrection
as appearing not merely to the two disciples on the road to
Emmaus, and to Peter, and then immediately after to all
the eleven, with some few others (probably the brothers of
Jesus and the women, Acts i. 14) in Jerusalem, but also as
giving them the express direction to remain here in the city
until power shall be given them from above. This the
author of the Acts represents as not taking place until Pen
tecost, that is, seven weeks after (xxiv. 49 ; Acts i. 4). It
will not do to reconcile this contradiction, as Mark does, by
saying that the angel first commissioned the women to direct
the disciples to Galilee as the place where they were to see
him, and that then, we know not why, Jesus showed himself
to them in and near Jerusalem (xvi. 7, ff.) ; but if Luke is
correct in the statement that Jesus on the day of the resur
rection directed the disciples to remain in Jerusalem, he
cannot, as Matthew says, have told them on the very same
morning to go to Galilee; and as they would not have gone
there against his express directions, they cannot have seen
the appearances there of which Matthew and the author of
the supplementary chapter in John give an account. Con
versely, if Jesus had defined Galilee to the disciples as the
place where they were to see him, it is impossible to imagine
what could have induced him to show himself to them on
the same day in Jerusalem ; if, therefore, Matthew is correct,
all the three other appearances to the disciples, which took
place in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, vanish into no
thing." — Vol. i. p. 404-5.
It is evident that Strauss regards his reasoning
in the above passage as unanswerable — as bring-

292 LECTURE XII.
ing out a complete contradiction in the accounts
of the several Evangelists. We formerly compared
these accounts with reference to the very point here
noticed by Strauss, and showed that, when fairly
viewed, they perfectly harmonise with one another.
Without, therefore, again entering into a full discus
sion of the subject, we would remark, first, that when
we have several independent accounts of any complex
series of events, the fair way of dealing with such
accounts is to see whether they can be brought into
harmony. Unless we have other reasons to induce
the belief that the writers of such accounts are not
trustworthy, we ought to begin with the assumption
that, however varied in the details, the accounts may
all be at one ; and even when a difficulty appears
which the accounts do not enable us thoroughly to
remove, we are not entitled to charge the accounts with
containing contradictory statements, inasmuch as a
little more information, had it been given us, might
have cleared up the difficulty. A mere difficulty in the
way of reconciling two different accounts of a fact
attended with a number of details, does not amount to
a contradiction. True it is that, as Strauss represents the accounts,
he does make them contradict one another. But' the
question is, Does he represent the accounts fairly ? Or
does he not draw unauthorised conclusions from state
ments in them, on purpose to make out a contradiction?
The latter we believe to be the case. Matthew, for
example, although he records only the appearance of
Jesus to the disciples in Galilee, does not say that He
did not appear to the disciples in Jerusalem. Nor does
Luke, on the other hand, who records only appearances

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 293
in or near Jerusalem, say that Jesus did not appear to
the disciples in Galilee. Mark, in his narrative, whilst
he records only the appearances in or near Jerusalem,
evidently implies, in recording the message through
the women, that there was an appearance in Galilee ;
whilst John expressly records appearances in both
places — one in Galilee and two in Jerusalem — besides
the appearance to Mary Magdalene. Why these
accounts present us with such varied details — why
they do not all give identical statements — is an entirely
different question ; but one thing is clear, that the
diversified nature of the details proves the indepen
dence of the accounts, and therefore presents their
authors as so many independent witnesses. As we
have said, in comparing these accounts with one an
other, we are bound to treat them with all fairness.
If they really contradict one another, such contra
diction must impair their credit ; but should the ap
parent discrepancy be only a difficulty, and not a real
contradiction, we are not entitled to call it such, and
to reject the testimony of the witnesses.
We would, in the second place, specially remark,
what indeed has formerly been stated, that the ap
pearance of Jesus in Galilee after His resurrection
was * evidently of a public nature, whilst His appear
ances in Jerusalem partook rather of a private char
acter. Matthew and Mark both record the promise
which, on the evening before His death, Jesus gave
to the disciples, that He would meet them again in
Galilee — that He would go before them thither, as a
shepherd before his flock. " All ye shall be offended
because of Me this night: for it is written, I will
smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall

294 LECTURE XII.
be scattered abroad. But after I am risen again, I
will go before you into Galilee" (Matt. xxvi. 31;
Mark xiv. 27, 28). Such was His promise, and it is
perfectly clear that that promise implied a solemn
public appearance there to the disciples. It is indeed
marvellous to us how the disciples could have either
forgotten or distrusted this promise ; but, as we for
merly showed, their minds were in such a state that
they could not enter into His statements regarding
His resurrection ; for they could not conceive it pos
sible that He, the Messiah, should die — should be
betrayed and condemned, and put to death as a male
factor. We understand these things, and therefore
wonder at what we read of these disciples. But in
order to judge fairly about the narratives, we must
endeavour to forget our knowledge, and to realise, as
far as we can, the state of mind then prevailing among
the disciples. There can be no doubt that the death
of Jesus confounded their views of Him as the Mes
siah of God. They still maintained their belief, but
their minds were completely perplexed ; and His
very words, such as expressed His promise to meet
them in Galilee, vanished entirely from their memory.
As we have said, it is extremely difficult for us to
conceive such a state of mind ; but such it was — a
state which no fiction would, or, we may rather say,
could have ventured to assume, yet which, from its
very nature, bears on itself the feature of historical
reality. Remembering, as we do, that great promise, we
cannot wonder at the message given to the women,
first by the angel, and then by Jesus Himself, for the
disciples, reminding them of the promise, and assur-

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 295
ing them that He would meet them in Galilee. But
this promise did not exclude other appearances ; and
knowing, as we are informed, that the disciples were
slow of heart to believe the testimony of the women,
can we be surprised when we are told that Jesus Him
self appeared to them whilst they were yet in Jeru
salem, in order to convince them of the reality of His
resurrection, and to prepare them for the solemn meet
ing which was to take place in Galilee ? Matthew in
deed tells us that the women received the message
from the angel who appeared to them in the sepulchre,
and that the women carried this message to the dis
ciples ; but he does not tell us in what spirit the mes
sage was received. We learn elsewhere that the tes
timony of the women was not believed. Matthew
also records an appearance of Jesus to these women ;
and the correct reading of the text (which omits the
first clause of the Textus Receptus) allows us to infer
that this appearance took place, not before, but after,
they had been with the disciples. Matthew also re
cords the departure of the disciples for Galilee, and the
appearance of Jesus to them there. But he does not
tell us when this departure took place ; he does not
say that it was either the first or the last appearance of
Jesus to them. Had we no more information than he
gives us, we might have inferred that such may have
been, although not that it was, the case ; but having
more information, we know that it was not the case.
Strauss thinks himself at liberty to draw certain con
clusions, and then to represent the Evangelist as
expressly stating his conclusions — a mode of reason
ing which surely is not allowable. Mark, Luke, and
John record one or more appearances to the disciples

296 LECTURE XII.
in Jerusalem. Who knows but that such appearances
were absolutely necessary to induce the disciples to
repair to Galilee, and there to meet Jesus, according
to His promise ?
In short, the whole question in respect to these
various appearances just comes to this, — Are we to
allow the several accounts to throw light on one an
other ? Or are we to regard each account as containing
all that each Evangelist believed had happened, and
in this way to set the accounts one against another ?
Are we to look upon each account as a partial or as a
complete account ? If we take the one view, we shall
discern unity amidst diversity ; if we take the other,
we shall discover contradiction. It rests with every
man to say for himself which view he will take. As
for ourselves, we believe that these accounts were not
designed to be severally complete ; and therefore, in
stead of being contradictory, which Strauss insists
upon, we maintain that they combine in bearing one
and the same testimony to the risen Lord, who in
various ways gave to His disciples, during forty days,
clear and decided proofs of the reality of His resur
rection. Dismissing, then, these objections, on which Strauss
insists so keenly, let us hear what further he has to
say on the same head : —
" We have, besides, the following secondary contradic
tions. According to Luke (xxiv. 1, ff), Mary Magdalene,
Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and some few other
women, go to the sepulchre, see in it two angels, and after
their return proclaim to the Apostles and all the others what
they had seen and heard ; according to Mark (xvi. 1. ff),
only three women, among them Salome instead of Joanna,

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 297
take this course, see one angel in the sepulchre, and after
wards, from fear, say nothing to any one ; according to
Matthew (xxviii. 1, ff), only the two first-named women
find an angel sitting on the stone of the sepulchre that had
..been rolled away, and aftenvards on their return meet with
Jesus himself; while according to John (xx. 1, ff), it was
Mary Magdalene, single and alone, who went out, and on
the first occasion saw only the sepulchre empty ; and then,
not until she went for the second time, saw two angels
sitting in the sepulchre, and Jesus himself standing behind
her. Again, Matthew and Mark know nothing of Luke's
account (xxiv. 12) of Peter having gone to the sepulchre on
hearing the statement of the women, and finding it empty,
while, according to John (xx. 2, ff), the other disciple also
went with him. These and some other subordinate discre
pancies," adds Strauss, " we do not bring prominently for
ward, as even without them it is sufficiently clear that in the
Evangelical accounts of the appearances of Jesus after the
resurrection, we have no evidence of such a character as to
compel us to assume that the unheard-of facts to which they
relate must really have taken place, rather than to suppose
that the accounts themselves rest upon error." — Vol. i. p. 405 .
With respect to these so-called secondary or subor
dinate contradictions, a very few remarks will be all
that is necessary. The different Evangelists do in
deed mention more or fewer of the women who went
to the sepulchre ; but such a difference in a detail of
this kind creates no contradiction, whether primary
or secondary. None of them professes to give a full
account. John mentions only Mary Magdalene ; but
from an incidental expression uttered by her — " We
know not where they have laid Him" — it is evident
that there had been others with her.
As to the number of angels alleged to have been

298 LECTURE XII.
seen by the women, this is truly a minor matter ; for
whilst Matthew and Mark mention only one, Luke
and John mention two, as being in the sepulchre. The
difference may be accounted for by the fair supposi
tion that one only addressed the women, and that
there is special reference to him in the first two Evan
gelists. Luke and John, indeed, represent both angels
as speaking ; but even if one only spoke, such a mode
of expressing the fact is by no means unusual. All
the Evangelists agree in bearing testimony that one
or two angels did appear within the sepulchre on that
wondrous occasion. But Strauss draws an unwar
rantable conclusion when he affirms that Matthew re
presents the women as finding the angel sitting upon
the stone, and then on their return meeting with Jesus
Himself. Matthew does not assert either of these par
ticulars. He states as a fact that "an angel of the Lord
descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the
stone from the door, and sat upon it." But he does
not say that when the women came to the sepulchre
the angel was still sitting there ; on the contrary, from
what he says to the women, we may fairly conclude
that when they came up he was within the sepulchre.
Again, as we have oftener than once stated,
Matthew does not say that Jesus appeared to the
women as they were returning from the sepulchre
with the angelic message ; but,, on the contrary, he
first mentions the delivery of this message, and then
records His appearance, from which again we may
infer that this appearance took place subsequently to
the delivery of that message. Further, John does not
say that Mary Magdalene, on first coming to the
sepulchre, found it empty ; on the contrary, he only

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 299
says that she saw that the stone was rolled away ;
from which we may infer that she immediately con
cluded that the body of Jesus had been taken away,
and instantly — without even looking into the se
pulchre — started off to inform Peter and the other
disciple. On her return, we are told that she stooped
down into the sepulchre, and that it was then that
she saw two angels within it. Luke mentions that
Peter, on hearing the report — he does not expressly
say whether from Mary Magdalene alone or from
her and the other women — " arose, and ran unto the
sepulchre." John mentions that it was Mary Mag
dalene who brought the report to Peter and to the
other disciple, and that both immediately ran to the
sepulchre. There is additional information given by
John, which enables us to understand more clearly
what took place ; but there is no contradiction be
tween him and Luke.
Without dwelling further on these details, we think
we are entitled to conclude that Strauss fails in estab
lishing these secondary contradictions, just as he
failed in establishing the primary ones ; and that we
are warranted in still regarding the Evangelical ac
counts of the appearances of Jesus after the resurrec
tion as presenting to us evidence sufficient, not indeed
to compel us to believe in the reality of these mar
vellous facts, but to secure our belief, unless we are
predetermined, on the ground of some assumption,
not to believe.
We now come to the chief argument by means of
which Strauss concludes against the Evangelical ac
counts as not furnishing satisfactory evidence of the

300 LECTURE XII.
reality of the resurrection. On this argument, then,
we must bestow the most careful attention. That we
may enter thoroughly into its scope, we must remem
ber that Strauss admits that " the first disciples firmly
believed that Jesus had risen." This point, then, is
not in question. The question is, On what did that
belief rest ? Did it rest on an objective fact ? or was
it a mere subjective impression ? Strauss, you will
remember, finds fault with the Apostle Paul for not
having, as he thinks, investigated the origin of the
belief of Cephas and the others whom he mentions as
having seen the Lord. Paul himself had also seen and
believed ; and he evidently deemed it sufficient when
he said that these others too had seen. But Strauss
will not admit such a statement to be sufficient. The
Apostle Paul, we know, had not only seen but also
heard the Lord ; and the same may be affirmed of all
the others. In addition to the sensible evidence of
sight, they all had the sensible evidence of hearing ;
and the belief of all of them thus rested on facts
which appealed to their senses. But Strauss maintains
that they only thought that they saw (for he dwells
almost exclusively on the supposed evidence of sight)
Jesus, whilst all the time they did not see Him, but
were deluded by an excited imagination. And as he
set aside Paul's testimony respecting others, and will
by-and-by set aside Paul's testimony respecting him
self as having seen the Lord — because Paul merely
states, in the passage referred to and formerly dis
cussed, the fact itself, and does not enter into a detail
of what happened when the several appearances are
said to have occurred — so now he will endeavour to
set aside the narratives of the Evangelists which do

EVDIENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 30I
enter more or less into such details ; and having done
this, he will conclude that we have no reliable evidence
whatever in support of the reality of the resurrection of
Jesus. You will also have to observe that the argu
ment which Strauss is now to employ is in no way
affected by the question as to the authorship of the
Gospels ; for it is from the contents of the several
accounts that he is to draw the substance or material
of this argument. These contents are of course alto
gether independent of any view taken of the authorship.
Let us, then, endeavour to see thoroughly, first, what his
argument is ; and, secondly, whether the conclusion
he would establish by means of it, is valid or other
wise. I shall set both before you in his own words,
although the passage in which he states them is some
what long. It is as follows : — ¦
"But we have only entered upon these Evangelical accounts
of the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection, in order
to discover what means those persons, to whom they are
supposed to have been imparted, had and applied to convince
themselves of the reality of these appearances. All the ac
counts endeavour to show how the eleven, if not to the credit
of their faith in believing, but at all events for the satisfaction
of those who were afterwards to trust to their testimony,
were anything but hasty in their belief. According to Luke,
they considered the account given by the women of what
they had seen, and the message of the angel, as empty talk
(xxiv. n); according to Mark, they gave no credit to the
disciples who had gone into the country, who declared they
had seen Jesus himself (xvi. 12); according to Matthew,
some even were unbelievers on the occasion of the final
appearance of Jesus in Galilee (Matt, xxviii. 17), at which we
cannot be surprised if he appeared to them, as, according
to Mark, he did to the disciples in the country, in a

302 LECTURE XII.
changed form. The means, however, by which at last the
doubts of the disciples were satisfied, and they brought
to believe, were, according to Matthew and Mark, simply
these. Jesus appeared to them themselves, approached
them, and spoke to them. In Luke, he finds it necessary to
go much farther, and the most thorough sceptic whom he
has to satisfy is John. There the two who went to Emmaus
had just come in to the eleven, and been by them received
with the intelligence of His resurrection and the appearance
imparted to Peter, before they had time to tell of their own
meeting with Jesus, when, all at once, Jesus stood in the
midst of them. As they were still afraid, notwithstanding that
information, and thought they had seen a spirit, Jesus showed
them his hands and his feet, calling upon them to touch
him and convince themselves that he has bone and flesh,
and consequently is not a spirit ; and as they cannot believe
for joy, he asked whether they had there any food, and
immediately partook before their eyes of a piece of fried fish
and some honeycomb (xxiv. 36, ff.) These were proofs
which in themselves might lead to the supposition of a
natural return to life on the part of Jesus ; but he had im
mediately before vanished from table before the eyes of the
Emmaus disciples, and his sudden appearance on this
occasion in the room in the midst of the disciples points to
a supernatural entrance. But here, what Luke had only
implied, John undoubtedly declares more definitely, when
he says that Jesus came and stood in the middle of the
room, when the doors were shut (xx. 19, 20). On the first
occasion he shows his hands and his side, only, as it seems,
to be looked at ; on the second, he makes Thomas put his
fingers and hand in the marks of his wounds. To this, in
the supplement to the Gospel, is further added the proof by
eating the fried fish and bread (xxi. 5, 9, 12)." — Vol. i.
P- 405-7- Such is his summary of the contents of the several
accounts as showing the means by which the disciples

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 303
were convinced of the reality of the presence of Jesus,
and therefore of His resurrection. Before remarking
on this summary, let us hear the argument founded
on these contents, and the conclusion which in his
view is thus established : —
" Now, in this case, if the eating and the touching were
historically true, it could not be doubtful that what ap
peared to the disciples was a human body [? being],
endowed with natural life and a natural body : if the
showing and feeling of the marks of the wounds were so,
there could be as little doubt that the human being was
the Jesus who died upon the cross : finally, if the entrance
with closed doors were true, there could be no question
that the natural corporeality and life of this human being
was of a very peculiar, a perfectly supernatural order.
But then we have two things coexisting in absolute contra
diction with each other. A body which can be touched,
consequently has power of resistance, cannot penetrate
through closed doors — that is, cannot have at the same
time that power of resistance ; as, conversely, a body which
penetrates through boards without opposition can have no
bones, nor any organ by which to digest bread and fish.
These are not conditions which can exist together in a real
being, but such as only a fantastic imagination can combine
together. The Evangelical testimony in favour of the re
surrection of Jesus endeavours to bring forward the most
convincing of all proofs ; in doing so it breaks to pieces,
and shows itself to be the mere result of a wish to give
support to a dogmatical conception, which, so soon as the
wish ceases to exist, collapses for want of any support at
all."— Vol. i. p. 407-8.
Such, then, is the great argument, and such is the
conclusion which Strauss founds upon it — a conclusion
which subverts all rational faith in the reality of the

304 LECTURE XII.
resurrection of Jesus. It is abundantly evident that
all the previous discussions, as Strauss himself ex
pressly allows, were only preparatory to this main,
this final argument, by means of which he manifestly
thinks he has for ever annihilated all belief in that
event. With what anxiety, then, should we examine
every part of this argument, that we may see whether
it really possesses that force which it unquestionably
appears to him to possess !
First, then, as to the summary which Strauss gives
of the contents of the different narratives in respect
to the grounds on which, according to them, the dis
ciples became convinced of the reality of the presence,
and therefore of the resurrection, of Jesus, we have
no desire to be hypercritical. But we think that it
would have become Strauss to have abstained from
blending with that summary any insinuations of arti
fice on the part of the Evangelists. It was his duty
to present that summary fairly and fully, whatever
argument he might have already in his mind in order
to be founded upon it ; but most evident it is that the
statements in the different accounts are brought to
gether in such a manner, and with such insinuations
of artifice on the part of the Evangelists, as tend to
impress the mind of the reader with a prejudged con
clusion. These accounts are, according to him, pur
posely constructed to show that the disciples were not
hasty in their belief. What would Strauss have said
if the accounts had really represented them as hasty
in their belief? Would he not then have found ground
for an argument against the credit to be ascribed to
the accounts ? Nothing is more clear than that it is
utterly impossible to satisfy a sceptical spirit. Let a

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 305
narrative give what statement the author of it pleases
— that spirit will ever find some ground or other on
which to fasten a charge. Paul is blamed for only
affirming as a fact that Jesus was seen by Cephas and
others. He ought, it is said, to have investigated and
stated the grounds on which these persons believed
that what they saw was real. The Evangelists do state
the circumstances which occurred on different occa
sions when Jesus appeared to the disciples ; and their
accounts are summed up in a spirit which sees only in
this, marks of artifice, and of an artifice that outwits
itself. Why could not Strauss, having, as he all along
thought, so triumphant an argument before him — an
argument which was to settle the matter beyond the
possibility of dispute — have abstained for a few mo
ments from manifesting his sceptical and ironical
spirit ?
He dwells first on the unbelief which the accounts
attribute to the disciples. They reject the testimony
of the women ; they are not convinced by the testi
mony of the two who had gone to Emmaus; some
even doubted when Jesus appeared to the assembled
disciples in Galilee ; nay, the eleven hardly believe
when Jesus appears in the midst of them ; and
one rejects the testimony of all the rest. Matthew
and Mark represent them as convinced by rather
simple means. Jesus appears to them, approaches
them, and speaks to them. But Luke represents
them as needing stronger proofs to produce convic
tion. Jesus requires to show His hands and His
feet, to ask them to touch Him, and to feel that His
body has flesh and bones ; and as now they are un
believing for joy (how true to human nature is the
U

306 LECTURE XII.
Evangelist's account !), He must eat before them, and
thus remove every doubt. But John, whom Strauss
dares to call the most thorough sceptic of all, cannot
allow conviction of the reality of the fact to seem to
be produced except by supposing one who resisted
the combined testimony of his fellow -disciples, to
attain to conviction by actually putting his finger and
his hand in the marks of the wounds which the body
of Jesus had received upon the cross. All this is mere
artifice, according to Strauss ; and he presents the
summary of the contents in the different accounts as
if he had proved, instead of having merely assumed, in
virtue of his own scepticism, that such was the case.
Why demand accounts of circumstances, and then
assail these accounts in such a spirit ? Prove them to
be the result of artifice, and then assail them as they
would merit to be assailed. Again, how does Strauss
know that those who doubted when Jesus appeared
in Galilee were of the eleven, and not some others
who had not seen Him before ? Matthew, from whom
alone we have any knowledge of the circumstance,
makes no such assertion. It is only fair to let the
Evangelists speak for themselves, and to draw no
thing from their statements but what these expressly
affirm. It is next to be observed that Strauss himself ad
mits that if the Evangelical accounts contain real
facts, the belief of the disciples in the reality of the
resurrection of Jesus was well founded. These ac
counts show that the disciples had the evidence not
only of sight but of hearing and touch — and that not
merely on one, but on several occasions — so that no
possible room for doubt existed as to the reality of

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 307
the appearances. The disciples were indeed blam-
able for manifesting such a spirit of unbelief as they
did when valid testimony was given them of the re
surrection of Jesus ; but this circumstance only brings
out more fully to us the grounds on which their belief
was at length secured. Nothing can be more natural
— more true to the workings of human nature placed
in such extraordinary circumstances — than the manner
in which the Evangelists describe the transition on
the part of the disciples from doubts and unbelief to
the fulness of belief. No ingenuity, we maintain,
could have contrived such a description. No imagina
tion would have dreamed of such a scene. Every
thing is life-like. All exaggeration is absent ; and
the account given by each Evangelist bears truth on
its very face. What can possibly be more according
to nature than the description given of the conduct
and feelings of the women who went early on the
morning of the first day of the week to anoint the
body of their crucified Lord ? How true to nature is
the account of Mary Magdalene, who, the moment
she saw the stone rolled away, immediately concluded
that the body had been removed, and started off to
convey the intelligence to Peter and John ! How true
to nature the description given of the feelings of the
two to whom, on their way to Emmaus, Jesus ap
peared, after they came to the knowledge that it was
indeed He who had joined their company and opened
to them the Scriptures ! Nay, how true to nature is
the conduct, blamable as it was, of the unbelieving
Thomas, who refused to believe unless he also should
receive sensible evidence ! In short, every scene de
scribed in these accounts is such as to convince us

308 LECTURE XII.
that we have here no product of fraud or of fiction,
but descriptions of events which actually took place.
There are also omissions of things which it is easy
to conceive would have been introduced in some way
or other, had these accounts been framed by artifice
or produced by imagination. Is it possible to con
ceive that no mention of one in particular — of her
whom He addressed when hanging on the cross, and
whom He then commended to the care of the beloved
disciple — would have been found in any of the ac
counts ? She is not mentioned among the women.
No doubt she is abiding in silence and sorrow in the
home of that disciple ; and there can surely be as little
doubt that she once again saw alive Him to whom in
His human nature she gave birth. Yet her name
never occurs in these narratives. We only read of
her as being present in the meeting of the disciples
after His ascension.
But to return to the main subject. These narra
tives state the grounds on which the belief of the first
disciples rested that they had seen Jesus alive after
He was put to death. Strauss deemed the account
of the Apostle Paul unsatisfactory for the very reason
that it contains a mere affirmation that Jesus had
been seen by Cephas, by the twelve, by the more than
five hundred, by James, and by the Apostles. And
now he has accounts which not merely affirm that
Jesus was seen on various occasions and by disciples,
both singly and collectively, but also minutely detail
what occurred at these appearances, so as to convince
the eyewitnesses that He whom they saw stood really
before them, and that He was the very Jesus who had
died upon the cross. Is Strauss now satisfied ? Does

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 309
he now admit that what was wanting in Paul's ac
count is amply given in these accounts ? Does he
now proclaim his belief in the reality of the resurrec
tion of Jesus, and, like Thomas, acknowledge Him to
be his Lord and his God ? Or does his former scep
ticism still prevail, and discover some method of evad
ing the force of the very evidence which he professed
to demand ? The latter, we regret to say, is the case.
He is in search of some ground on which to rest his
unbelief, and, as will ever happen in such a case, he
thinks that he detects, in the very accounts themselves,
a ground for unbelief which it is impossible to remove.
He discovers what he terms an absolute contradiction
in what these accounts say respecting the body of the
risen Jesus.
There can be no doubt that Strauss really regards
the statements in the Evangelical narratives respect
ing the body of Jesus as presenting such a contradic
tion as he terms absolute, and that all his previous
discussions were conducted with an eye ever looking
forward to his concluding argument on this head. He
states this argument in the most formal manner, and,
viewing it as he states it, the conclusion seems irre
sistible. This conclusion is expressed in the most
triumphant manner : —
" The Evangelical testimony in favour of the resurrection
of Jesus endeavours to bring forward the most convincing
of all proofs ; in doing- so it breaks to pieces and shows
itself to be the mere result of a wish to give support to a
dogmatical conception, which, so soon as the wish ceases to
exist, collapses for want of any support at all."
Here, then, we are brought to a decisive point. Let
us calmly and impartially weigh the argument, and

3IO LECTURE XII.
see whether it is valid or not — whether we must, like
Strauss, reject the Evangelical testimony as containing
in itself evidence of its own worthlessness, or whether
that testimony still remains valid and sufficient.
The alleged contradiction, you must have observed
from the passage which we quoted, consists in the re
presentations given by the Evangelists respecting the
risen body of Jesus. At one time that body is re
presented as a natural body, as capable of being seen
and touched, even of eating food ; at another time it
is represented as of a perfectly supernatural order, as
penetrating through closed doors, as suddenly appear
ing and suddenly vanishing. Such representations of
the same body contain an absolute contradiction, for
they suppose " conditions which cannot exist together
in a real being, but such as only a fantastic imagina
tion can combine together." Such is Strauss's argu
ment. Now, be it observed that we regard all attempts
to explain away the literal interpretation of the
Evangelical accounts on this subject as wholly futile.
Jesus did suddenly appear in the midst of the dis
ciples when they were assembled in a room, the
doors of which were shut. Jesus did suddenly with
draw Himself when, after breaking the bread, He made
Himself known to the two who reclined with Him at
the table. Although it is not expressly stated, Jesus,
we believe, rose from the tomb -before the stone was
rolled away from its entrance. Jesus appeared in the
body when He pleased, and when He pleased He
disappeared from all mortal view. Yet when He ap
peared, that body in which He appeared was the very
body which had been nailed to the cross, and laid in

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 31I
Joseph's tomb ; and He spoke and ate, and was
visible to the sight and palpable to the touch. His
body, thus seen and touched, was a real body. Finally,
He disappeared bodily, and ascended to the Father's
right hand.
We must not evade the force, whatever it be, of
Strauss's argument, by fastening untenable interpreta
tions on the statements in the Evangelical testimony.
We must take these statements exactly as they are
presented to us. Where, then, is the defect, if defect
there be, in our objector's argument ? Or, what
amounts to the same, what is it that imparts to it
all its apparent force ? The argument is based on that
assumption which from the outset has been avowed
by him, and has never been lost sight of — an assump
tion which contains in itself the very conclusion which
all the subsequent reasoning is professedly meant to
establish — the assumption that Jesus was only a man;
that Jesus is not the Christ, the Son of God ; that the
life of Jesus must in all essential respects resemble the
life of any ordinary man ; that, therefore, He could do
nothing but what any such man may do. This is the one
assumption with which Strauss sets out in the task
which he undertook ; and it is this assumption that is
the very foundation of this, the great argument with
which he, in apparent triumph, closes his elaborate dis
cussion of the evidence in support of the resurrection
of Jesus. If Jesus-was only a man, the argument is
unassailable ; but, indeed, no argument at all was
required ; for if He were only a man, then the whole
Gospel is based on a falsehood, for it emphatically
proclaims Him to be the Son of God as well as the
Son of Man.

312 LECTURE XII.
Now, it is surely evident that, in reasoning about
the evidence in support of the claims of Jesus, we are
bound, not indeed to assume that these claims are
established, but to look at the evidence in the light of
these claims. The evidence supposes these claims to
be valid, and is given in order to sustain their validity.
We must, therefore, unquestionably, in all fairness,
remember these claims when we are looking at and
weighing the evidence. If we discover aught incon
sistent with these claims, this will militate against
them ; but we are not entitled to set aside evidence
in support of these claims merely because this evi
dence presents what is in harmony with them. This
is the fundamental error which pervades the whole of
Strauss's work ; and it is the error which lies at the
basis of this argument against the reality of the
resurrection. He insists on viewing Jesus in His
advent, His ministry, His death, His resurrection, and
His ascension, merely as a human being ; and upon this
supposition he very easily constructs arguments against
His miracles, His sinlessness, His resurrection, and
His ascension. He supposes a mere human being.
Now, it needs no elaborate reasoning to prove that
these things cannot be predicated of any mere human
being, and therefore, according to him, cannot be pre
dicated of the man called Jesus. But it is surely mani
fest that such a mode of reasoning is merely an attempt
to evade the solemn question which the claims of
Jesus, be they good or be they bad, present to our
consideration. That question is, Does the evidence
furnished to us support these claims or not ? Jesus
claims to be the Son of God. Does His life — do His
works — does all that He says and does and suffers —

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 313
correspond with such a high claim, or do they not ?
That, and that alone, is the question ; and we repeat,
that from the beginning to the end of his work Strauss
evades it, never touches it ; but reasons all along to
support a foregone conclusion — an assumption prior to
all proof— that Jesus is not the Son of God.
Now, to come to the argument before us, we fully
admit that Jesus, who claims to be the Son of God,
was truly Man — that His body was a real, a natural
body — and also that He had a rational soul. But
according to His claim, He had also a divine, a really
divine nature. We are not required to comprehend
this alleged union of the divine and human natures
which coexisted in Jesus ; but we must not forget
His claim to possess such a union of these natures
when we contemplate Him as presented to us in the
Gospels. Now, is there aught inconsistent with this
claim, when we find in these Gospels that He had a
power over His human body which no ordinary man
possesses ? Is the alleged possession of such a power
inconsistent with His claims ? That it is inconsistent
with the supposition that He was only a man, needs
no proof. But, we repeat, that is not the question.
The real question before us is this : Is the alleged
possession of such a power over His body inconsistent
with His claim to be the Son of God as well as the
Son of Man ? Who can tell what power such a being,
if Jesus was such, could exert over His human frame?
Not, indeed, a power to work contradictions with that
body — that is, to make it visible and invisible at one
and the same moment ; but to allow it to be visible at
one moment and invisible at another : not to make it
palpable and impalpable at one and the same moment,

314 LECTURE XII.
but to render it palpable on one occasion, and to with
draw it from mortal touch on another ; not that this
body should at one and the same time have the power
of resistance and be without that power, but that at
one time it should exert such a power, and at another
cease to exert it at His will. Even during His
ministry we find that Jesus possessed such a power
over His body, and that on certain occasions He
proved His possession of this power. He could
withdraw Himself miraculously from the presence
of His enemies. He could walk on the waves of
the sea. His body on one occasion was transfigured,
and shone forth in glorious brightness. No mere
man could exhibit such a power ; but in Jesus the
fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily ; and the exer
tion of such divine power must be viewed as only
consistent with His wondrous claims.
That Jesus at His resurrection and after His re
surrection, during the period when He appeared to
His disciples, should manifest in greater measure this
divine power, seems to us to be only consistent with
His claims and with the great purpose which He,
having at His death finished His work upon earth,
had now in view. This purpose evidently was to
establish the faith of the disciples in the reality of
His resurrection, to raise their conceptions of His
exalted nature, and to prepare them for the work in
which He was now to employ them. How He could
raise His body, as He did, from the tomb ; how He
could appear in that raised body, and withdraw Him
self from mortal sight as He did ; how He could sud
denly stand before His disciples when assembled, and
submit His body to be handled as He did ; and then,

EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION. 315
as suddenly, in all probability, disappear from their
presence ; how He held intercourse with the disciples
during the forty days, and yet maintained that solemn
reserve, if we may use such a term, as to His habitual
presence, as to where, in short, He was, when not actu
ally present before them — all this we know not ; and is
it not wonderful that these accounts make no attempt
to inform us on these points ? The Evangelists are
silent on all such matters, and yet they could not but
have thought about them, for the very statements in
their accounts suggest them to us, and must have
suggested them to their own minds. Their silence in
respect to all such inscrutable matters is to us no
slight proof of the truth of their narratives, as it is
also no slight proof that in writing these narratives
they were restrained from all attempts to explain what
the human mind cannot comprehend, by a power and
a wisdom higher than their own.
We meet, then, the triumphant argument of Strauss,
first, by the remark that he builds it on the assumption
that Jesus was a mere human being, which, according
to His claims, He was not ; and, secondly, by the
affirmation that Jesus, contemplated according to His
claims, exerted a power over His body both during
His ministry, and specially at and after His resurrec
tion, which, though not possessed by any mere man,
is perfectly consistent with His claim of being the
Son of God. The absolute contradiction with which
Strauss charges the Evangelical testimony is based on
an assumption ; and when this assumption ceases to
exist, the contradiction vanishes, and the Evangelical
testimony stands forth in all its clearness, validity,
and force.

LECTURE XIII.
STRAUSS ON THE APPEARANCE OF CHRIST TO
ST PAUL.
In his next section, Strauss proceeds to refute the
theory which has been advanced by some professed
friends of the Gospel, that the alleged resurrection of
Jesus was a natural revival. This theory, which is
indeed so obviously opposed to the clear testimony of
Jesus Himself and of His Apostles that it is scarcely
worthy of notice, not to say of serious refutation, has
been and still is propounded by some who are willing
to acknowledge Jesus as a great moral and religious
Teacher, but at the same time desire to explain away
all that is recorded of a miraculous nature in His life,
death, and resurrection. These persons attempt to
ground their theory on the assumption, which is so
far true, that crucifixion was a mode of punishment
which killed very slowly, and that as Jesus was taken
down from the cross after He had hung there only for
a few hours, " there is every probability of His sup
posed death having been only a death-like swoon,
from which, after the descent from the cross, He
recovered again in the cool cavern, covered as He
was with healing ointments and strongly- scented
spices."* Strauss, whilst he maintains, as we have
* Vol. i. p. 410.

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 317
seen, that the Evangelical accounts do not afford
satisfactory evidence of the reality of the resurrec
tion of Jesus, rejects the theory of a natural revival
on the part of Jesus, on the ground that there is no
certain proof contained in these accounts that Jesus
showed Himself alive after His crucifixion. Strauss
saw clearly enough, that were he to admit, as a fact
attested by the Evangelists, that Jesus did show Him
self alive after that event, he would be compelled by
the same testimony to admit the reality of the resur
rection, inasmuch as the attempt is manifestly futile
to explain the origin of the belief of the disciples in
the resurrection by means of the theory of a mere
revival from a death-like swoon.
" It is quite evident," he says, " that this view of the re
surrection of Jesus, apart from the difficulties in which it is
involved, does not even solve the problem which is here
under consideration : the origin, that is, of the Christian
Church by faith in the miraculous resurrection of the Mes
siah. It is impossible," he justly adds, " that a being who
had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about
weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required
bandaging, strengthening, and indulgence, and who still,
at last, yielded to his sufferings, could have given to the
disciples the impression that he was a Conqueror over
death and the grave, the Prince of Life — an impression
which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a
resuscitation could only have weakened the impression
which he had made upon them in life and in death — at the
most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could
by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthu
siasm, have elevated their reverence into worship."— Vol. i.
p. 412. Strauss thus refutes the theory of these so-called

318 LECTURE XIII,
Rationalists ; and whilst we do not admit every argu
ment which he employs in his refutation, yet most
assuredly we agree in his conclusion that such a
theory is altogether baseless. We pass on, then, to
the consideration of his succeeding section, in which
a matter of deep importance is subjected to dis
cussion. This section is entitled " The Appearance of Christ
to the Apostle Paul." You will remember that Strauss
formerly considered the testimony of this Apostle to
the resurrection of Jesus as given in his First Epistle
to the Church at Corinth, and that he laboured hard
to deprive that clear and decided testimony of all its
weight. He found fault with the Apostle, you will
remember, for having only stated that Jesus was seen
alive after His death by Cephas, by the twelve, by the
more than five hundred brethren at once, by James,
and then by all the Apostles, and for not having in
vestigated the grounds on which these persons rested
their belief that they had seen Jesus. He even, you
will also remember, questioned if Paul was inclined
or able to make such an investigation ; and he pur
posely reserved for future discussion Paul's statement
respecting himself, that he also had seen Jesus. We
formerly remarked on Strauss's capricious and frivol
ous dealing with this Apostle's testimony respecting
those whom he specially mentions. We need not
repeat our remarks, and we therefore now proceed to
the consideration of what Strauss has to say against
the Apostle's testimony respecting the great event of
which he himself was an eyewitness, and which had
been the means of his own conversion to the faith of

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 319
Christ. The subject is one of the highest moment in
various respects, and therefore we entreat your patient
attention, whilst we shall first allow Strauss to speak
for himself, and then endeavour to form a due esti
mate of what he alleges. This is, we confess, a
tedious task ; but, on the whole, it is the only mode
of procedure which can be thoroughly satisfactory.
Let us patiently hear all that our objector has to
say, and then we shall be in full possession of his
arguments, and in circumstances which will enable us
duly to appreciate them.
Strauss thus begins this part of his dissertation : —
" In what was said above, after stating what we learn
from the Apostle Paul, speaking in the main, presumably,
on the authority of eyewitnesses, about the appearance of
Jesus after his resurrection, we turned to the narratives of
the Evangelists upon the same subject, in order to discover
more accurately what was not to be gathered from the short
notices of the Apostle, upon what the conviction of these
eyewitnesses may have rested, that they had really seen
Jesus after he had risen again. But we did not find what
we sought for. Independent of the fact of which we were
already aware, that we had no certainty in the case of any
one of the Evangelists that he tells what he had learned
from either the oral statements or the notes of eyewitnesses,
we may say that they do indeed go more into detail than
Paul ; but their accounts stand, in the first place, in direct
contradiction with each other, and, in the next place, what
they tell us is so inconsistent with itself that we cannot
trust it, but find ourselves referred back to the Apostle
Paul." — Vol. i. p. 412-3.
These assertions on the part of Strauss we have, we
think, sufficiently confuted. We have shown that the
Evangelical accounts contain the testimony of eye-

320 LECTURE XIII.
witnesses — that these accounts do not contradict one
another — and that what they tell us is not inconsistent
with itself when we take all the data of the Christian
problem into view ; but that, on the contrary, there is
such an agreement in these independent accounts, that
they support one another, and that the alleged incon
sistency springs entirely from the fact that Strauss
leaves altogether out of view the main element of the
question — the claim of Jesus to be the Son of God.
Strauss begs the very point in dispute, and then
brings the charge of inconsistency ; whereas we, not
indeed assuming that point as proved, but only taking
it into consideration as an element in the question,
perceive that what is related is only in harmony with
such a claim. The principle on which we proceed is
this, that Jesus, claiming to be the Son of God, must
be viewed in relation to such a claim ; whilst Strauss
proceeds on the opposite principle, that Jesus, though
claiming to be the Son of God, must yet act as only
the Son of Man. These are the two opposed prin
ciples, on the one or other of which the whole dis
cussion must proceed. It is for every man to decide
for himself whether he will adopt the one or the
other. We have already stated our reasons for re
garding the one principle as the only fair one to guide
our discussion. That principle is, that Jesus cannot
be regarded as acting inconsistently, when what He
does is only consistent with what He claims to be.
The other principle assumes that He is not what He
claims to be, and therefore involves the conclusion
which it is sought to establish. You cannot too tho
roughly understand this preliminary point, for upon it
hangs the whole result. Assume that Jesus is only a

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 32 1
man, and the whole inquiry into the truth of His claims
becomes useless. Assume, not as proved, but as an
element in the problem to be solved, that He is the
Son of God, and then you will see whether what He
does is inconsistent with such a claim or not. The
inquiry is still open. No conclusion is assumed as
established ; and we are able, without prejudice, to
investigate the whole question. The importance of
this point is constantly present to us, and we are
therefore forced to recall it at every step to your
special notice.
Strauss now goes back to complete his discussion
of the testimony of St Paul.
" If we look more closely," says he, " at what he says, we
see that we turned away from his statements with so little
satisfaction from them, because we did not allow the
Apostle to speak out. He speaks, indeed, not merely of
the appearances of Christ, which Cephas and James, the
twelve and the five hundred saw, but, ' and last of all,' he
adds, ' he was seen of me, too, as of one born out of due
time ' (1 Cor. xv. 8). With regard to the appearance
which he witnessed, he uses the same expression as with
regard to the others ; he places it in the same category with
them, only in the last place, as he names himself the last of
the apostles, but in exactly the same rank with the others.
Thus much, therefore, Paul knew or supposed — that the
appearances which the elder disciples had seen soon after
the resurrection of Jesus had been of the same kind as that
which had been, only later, vouchsafed to himself. Of what
sort, then, was this?" — Vol. i. p. 413.
Now, there can be no objection to this statement of
the case, provided we remember what the accounts
plainly tell us, that the circumstances in which Jesus ap
peared to the elder disciples were quite different from
x

322 LECTURE XIII.
those in which He appeared to Saul the persecutor.
The former appearances took place before His ascen
sion to the Father; the latter took place after that
event. They agreed in this, that they were all real
appearances, but in several respects they were neces
sarily different. The main point, however, at present
is, as Strauss has stated it, to determine the nature of
the appearance to him who, from being a persecutor,
became the great Apostle to the Gentile world.
" It is well known," continues Strauss, " that we have of
it, in the Acts of the Apostles, a detailed, indeed a threefold
account (ix. 1-30, xxii. 1-2 1, xxvi. 4-23), which certainly tells
of an external, sensible appearance, of a light from heaven,
which threw Paul to the ground and blinded him for some
days, a voice from heaven which spoke to him intelligible
words, and was heard by those who accompanied him." —
Vol. i. p. 414.
Strauss here admits that this detailed, this threefold
account does tell of an external, sensible appearance ;'
and he mentions the circumstances that proved the
externality of the appearance — the light which
dazzled Saul and his companions, and the voice
which spoke to him intelligible words, and was heard
by the others. One would suppose that here satisfac
tory proof was given that the appearance was really
such as is described, and that this proof, being in itself
satisfactory, is not to be called in question merely
because the eye and the ear were in this case the
organs which received the testimony, whilst in the
appearances to the elder disciples the sense of touch
was also employed to testify their reality. But
Strauss will now exert his ingenuity to show that the
proof referred to was anything but satisfactory ; and

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 323
scepticism is never at a loss to detect what it sup
poses or wishes to be flaws in any proof, whatever
details it may embrace.
" But," says Strauss, " there is no proof here of the objec
tive reality of the appearance, like that which, according to
the third and fourth Evangelists, Jesus is said to have
vouchsafed to the elder disciples, when he allowed himself
to be touched by them, and partook of food before their
eyes." — Vol. i. p. 414.
Because the two proofs, given under very different
circumstances, of which difference it did not suit
Strauss's purpose to take the slightest notice, are not
composed of exactly the same elements, therefore the
value of the one, as compared with that of the other,
which also in its turn is depreciated, is to be ques
tioned. Unless different witnesses state exactly the
same things, their testimony is to be rejected. What,
we might ask, would have been Strauss's estimate of
that testimony, had it in both cases been exactly
identical ? Such a mode of argument is truly absurd.
But a sceptic is always blind to any absurdity that
lurks in his argument, however visible it may be to
any other inquirer. His object is simply to depreciate,
by any means, the value of every proof, however legi
timate and strong.
"Apart," says Strauss, "from the blindness, and its
removal by Ananias, as also the phenomena seen by the
attendants, we might look upon all as a vision which Paul
attributed indeed to an external cause, but which neverthe
less took place in his own mind." — Ibid.
Such is the theory on this subject which he is now
to support. He admits the reality of certain external
phenomena — the excessive light, and perhaps the

324 LECTURE XIII.
great sound ; but as we may suppose that all the rest
which is recorded took place solely in Paul's own
mind, so we are to conclude that such was in reality
the case. The possibility of the supposition is to be
to us a sufficient reason for inferring such a conclu
sion. We wish the case to be so and so, and there
fore it was so and so. And now let us go in quest of
something to support us in this mode of reasoning.
" That we are not bound," says Strauss, " to the indivi
dual features of the account in the Acts, is shown by com
paring with it the substance of the statement twice repeated
in the language of Paul himself; for there we find that the
author's own account is not accurate — that he attributed no
importance to a few variations more or less." — Vol. i. p. 414.
The accuracy of the account given by the author of
the whole book of the Acts is now to be disproved,
and this is to be done by comparing his account with
statements made by St Paul himself on two different
occasions, and recorded in his book by the same
author. Now, whoever that author was — and on this
head we think there can be no reasonable doubt — there
is surely a strong presumption, prior to all inquiry
into details, that he would be sufficiently careful to
avoid, not indeed variation, but real inaccuracy, in
recording such an event as this. The author or com
piler of the Book of the Acts was manifestly not a
person of mean talent, or one who felt but slight in
terest in his record. He was evidently a man who
carefully inquired into the details of events, and was
capable of narrating them in a clear and most inter
esting manner. There are few books which have
come down to us from antiquity that exhibit so
much anxiety to present details before us in all their

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 325
minuteness, or that bear so vividly the stamp of
historical truth. It is a work which of itself con
tains clear and ample evidence of the real origin of
Christianity. It is indeed par excellence the treatise
which proves the divine origin of the Gospel ; for it
shows how this Gospel began to be preached and to
prevail through the power of the Holy Spirit and the
instrumentality of those to whom this Spirit was
given in an extraordinary measure. We need not be
afraid that Strauss or any other sceptic will gain a
triumph over the author of this book, whose praise
was in all the Churches. Petty, frivolous objections
may be conjured up ; but their very frivolity will be
their sufficient — their strongest — refutation. Let us,
then, see what Strauss has to allege in support of his
grave charge of inaccuracy.
" Not only is it said," he alleges, " as has been already
remarked in passing, that on one occasion the attendants
stood dumbfoundered, on another, that they fell with Paul to
the ground ; that on one occasion they heard the voice, but
saw no one, on another, that they saw the light, but did not
hear the voice of him who spake with Paul; but also the
speech of Jesus himself, in the third repetition, gets the well-
known addition about ' kicking against the pricks ; ' to say
nothing of the fact that the appointment to the apostleship
of the Gentiles, which, according to the two earlier accounts,
was made partly by Ananias, partly on the occasion of a
subsequent vision in the Temple at Jerusalem, is in this last
account incorporated in the speech of Jesus on the occasion
of the first appearance. There is no occasion," he adds, " to
derive the three accounts of this occurrence in the Acts from
different sources, and even in this case one must suppose that
the author must have remarked and reconciled the discre
pancies ; that he did not do so, or rather that, without fol
lowing his own earlier narrative, he repeated it in an arbi-

326 LECTURE XIII.
trary form, proves to us how careless the New Testament
writers are about details of that kind, important as they are
to one who strives after strict historical accuracy." — Vol. i.
p. 414-5.Such is the charge which Strauss brings against, the
author of this book, and which he extends to all the
New Testament writers. It is not our business at
present to defend the other writers from this charge
of carelessness as to the details of the events which
they severally record. It is sufficient to remark that
variations in respect to details always characterise
independent accounts of substantially the same events,
and that even the same author, should he have occa
sion to repeat his account of an event which was
marked by a variety of details, will not always repeat
it in exactly the same manner, but may have good
reasons for mentioning at one time some of those de
tails which he may have omitted to notice at another
time. As to the three different accounts of the great
event referred to, which we find in the Acts, two of
them are given as proceeding directly from Paul him
self, and one — the first account — is that which comes
from the author, and was in all probability received
by him from the Apostle. If we compare these three
accounts in that spirit of fairness in which we ought
always to examine historical narratives, we shall dis
cern, not indeed a literal agreement in the statement
of some of the details, but a perfect agreement as to
the event itself which is recorded, and also a con
sistency between the very statements which are by
Strauss alleged to be at variance. Let us briefly
notice these accounts.
1. In the first, which is that given by the author

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 327
(ix. 1-30), it is recorded that when Saul was approach
ing Damascus, there suddenly shone round about him
a light from heaven ; and that he fell to the earth,
and heard a voice saying unto him, " Saul, Saul, why
persecutest thou Me?" and that Saul said, "Who art
Thou, Lord ?" whereupon the Lord said, "I am Jesus
whom thou persecutest ; but arise and go into the
city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do ;"
further, that the men who journeyed with him stood
speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one ; and
that Saul arose from the earth, and when his eyes
were opened he saw no man, but that those who were
with him led him by the hand, and brought him into
Damascus. There are certain clauses in the fifth and
sixth verses of the received text which seem to have
been introduced into this account from the other ac
counts, and which we have therefore omitted.
2. Let us now hear the first of the two recorded ac
counts given by the Apostle himself when he spoke in
his own defence before a vast assembly of Jews in the
city of Jerusalem (xxii. 1-21). After briefly telling
them what he was by descent, and how he had been
trained from his youth, and specially of his zeal for
the Jewish law and his efforts to arrest the progress of
the new faith, he informs them that he had set out
with authority to Damascus, on purpose to bring the
converts to this faith in bonds to Jerusalem, that they
might be punished. " And it came to pass," he goes
on to say, " that as I made my journey, and was come
nigh unto Damascus, about noon suddenly there shone
from heaven a great light round about me. And I
fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto
me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? And I

328 LECTURE XIII.
answered, Who art Thou, Lord ? And He said unto
me, I am Jesus the Nazarene whom thou art perse
cuting. And they that were with me saw indeed the
light, and were afraid ; but they heard not the voice
of Him that spake unto me. And I said, What shall
I do, Lord ? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and
go into Damascus ; and there it shall be told thee of
all things which are appointed for thee to do. And
when I could not see for the glory of that light, being
led by the hand of them that were with me, I came
into Damascus."
The differences between this and the former account
may be noticed before we proceed to examine the re
maining one. The author did not mention the time of
the day when the event occurred. Paul tells us here
that it was about noon. Both accounts agree as to
the place where the event took place, also as to the
sudden burst of light, as to Paul's falling to the
ground and hearing the voice which addressed him in
words which he understood, and which are exactly
the same in both accounts, with the single exception
that in Paul's own account Jesus calls Himself "the
Nazarene," whereas the author of the Acts omits this
appellation in his account. There is, however, an
apparent discrepancy between these two accounts in
what is related respecting the men who were accom
panying Saul. The author says that " they stood
speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one ; "
whilst the Apostle in his account says that ' those
who were with him saw indeed the light, and were
afraid, but that they heard not the voice, of Him
that spake to him.' Now, apart from the considera
tion that the word " voice " is in the Greek differently

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 329
governed in these two passages* — a circumstance which
we consider not so immaterial as some represent it —
the simple question is, whether the phrase " to hear
the voice" may not legitimately be understood in two
different senses. A person may be said to hear a
voice when he hears merely the sound, yet does not
catch or understand the words conveyed by that sound.
Such a person may be said to hear of the voice —
to hear something — the sound — of the voice ; and this
is the exact translation of the words in the author's
account. Again, a person may be said not to hear a
voice, when he does not hear or does not understand
the words conveyed by the sound ; and this seems to be
the exact meaning of the words used by the Apostle
in his account. 7 But, apart from the mere gram
matical structure of the two phrases, it seems clear
that the author and the Apostle did attach different
senses to the phrase. The author contrasts what the
men did Jiear, with what they did not see. They
heard the sound of the voice, but they saw no one —
did not see Him from whom the voice proceeded.
The Apostle contrasts two different things — his own
hearing the words spoken by the voice, with their not
hearing the words thus spoken to him : " They heard
not," he says, "the voice of Him that spake to me."
It is thus evident that the two accounts are in perfect
agreement with each other in respect to this point ;
and that Strauss's attempt to place them in opposi
tion arises from carelessness on his own part, or
rather, we should say, from a determination to set
them in opposition. The difference in the accounts,
* aKovovres rrjs (pavris. \\ r^v (paviiv ovk 1\Kov<sav rov \oKovvtos )wi.
t Comp. Mark iv. 33 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 2 ; Gal. iv. 21 ; Gen. (LXX.) xi. 7.

330 LECTURE XIII.
when these are fairly treated, corroborates the accu
racy of each. The accounts throw light on each other,
just as we found to be the case with the different
narratives of the Resurrection itself. We would only
further observe, in respect to both these accounts,
that they inform us how Ananias, a disciple at Damas
cus, was sent to Saul to restore his sight, to receive
him into the Christian Church, and to tell him, as the
Lord had said, " the things which were appointed for
him to do ; " and that the two accounts are, in reference
to this matter also, substantially at one.
In this account, which the Apostle himself gives, he
also mentions a vision with which he was favoured
when he was on a visit to Jerusalem, and was engaged
in prayer in the Temple. It is important to observe
that he expressly distinguishes this vision of Jesus
as one of a different order from that appearance which
took place when he was nigh to Damascus. He tells
us plainly that he was then in a trance — in an ecstasy.
This vision was a reality : still it was different in its
nature from that event which occurred when he first
saw the glorified Jesus and heard His voice. The one,
though real, may, for the sake of distinction, be termed
subjective, whilst the other was an objective appear
ance, and could therefore be the subject of ordinary
testimony. It is important, we have said, to notice
that the Apostle was fully aware of the distinction
between these two kinds of appearance, and that he
has himself expressly pointed out the distinction.
Strauss, you will find, rests his whole theory on the
supposition that there was no such distinction — a
supposition directly opposed to the Apostle's own
statements.

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 33 1
3. And now let us consider the second account
which Paul gave of what occurred when he was on
the way to Damascus (xxvi. 4-23). This was given
by him in his address before King Agrippa, after he
had appealed from the tribunal of Festus to that of
the Emperor himself. He begins his speech with a
reference to his former life, which, he says, was well
known to all the Jews, and to the hope which, in
common with his Jewish brethren, he had cherished,
namely, the hope of the promise given by God unto
the Fathers. This was evidently the great promise
of the Messiah and His kingdom. It was, says Paul,
because he believed that this promise had been ful
filled in One whom God had raised from the dead
that he was now accused by the Jews ; and he point
edly asks, " Why, if God does raise persons who are
dead, it should be judged a thing not to be believed ?"
Paul here exposes the absurdity of want of belief in
the fact of a resurrection, if it is admitted that God
has power to raise the dead, and actually does so.
His words, viewed in connection with the context,
manifestly imply that the great proof that Jesus was
the Messiah was afforded in the fact that God had
raised Him from the dead. He then mentions how
he had formerly opposed the claims of Jesus, and
persecuted His followers by every means in his power.
" I verily thought," he says, " with myself that I
ought to do many things contrary to the name of
Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing I also did in Jerusa
lem ; and many of the saints did I shut up in prison,
having received authority from the chief priests ; and
when they were put to death, I gave my voice against
them. And I punished them oft in every synagogue,

332 LECTURE XIII.
and compelled them to blaspheme ; and being exceed
ingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto
strange cities." Such was, according to his own con
fession, his furious hatred of the very name of Jesus.
And now he relates what happened. " Whereupon,
as I went to Damascus with authority and commission
from the chief priests, at mid-day, O King, I saw in the
way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the
sun, shining round about me and them which jour
neyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the
earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying
in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest
thou Me ? It is hard for thee to kick against the
pricks. And I said, Who art Thou, Lord ? And He
said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise,
and stand upon thy feet ; for I have appeared to thee
for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a wit
ness both of these things which thou hast seen, and
of those things in the which I will appear unto thee ;
delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles,
unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and
to turn them from darkness to light, and from the
power of Satan unto God, that they may receive for
giveness of sins, and inheritance among them which
are sanctified by faith that is in Me. Whereupon,"
adds the Apostle, " O King Agrippa, I was not dis
obedient unto the heavenly vision, but showed first
unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and
throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the
Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God,
and do works meet for repentance."
Now, in this narrative there are certain variations,
both from Paul's former account and also from that

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 333
given by the author of the Acts, but in the main
particulars there is perfect agreement in the three
accounts. Paul here also states the time of day when
the event occurred, and he describes the light which
burst forth as exceeding the brightness of the sun.
In his former account he says nothing as to the effect
which this sudden burst of light had on his com
panions, beyond that when they saw the light they
became afraid, whilst he speaks of himself as having
fallen to the ground. The author, in his account, re
presents Saul as having fallen to the ground, and,
after recording the words uttered by Jesus, and Saul's
reply, he describes the men as standing speechless.
But Paul, in his speech before Agrippa, says that
these men fell along with himself to the earth. Here,
then, is one of those variations or discrepancies which
Strauss adduces in support of his charge of careless
ness against the author of the Acts. That author, ac
cording to Strauss, was so careless as to details, which
are so important to one who strives after historical
accuracy, that he makes no attempt to reconcile this
and other discrepancies, but repeats his own earlier
narrative in an arbitrary form.
Now, let it be observed that the two last accounts
proceed directly from Paul himself, and that the
author's duty was to record them just as they were
stated by Paul. His own account, the first one, was
no doubt derived by him from Paul also ; but it be
longed to the author to state more or fewer of the
details which he had learned, as might seem to him
to be necessary for his immediate purpose. And
when we examine the three accounts and compare
them fairly, we find no difficulty in reconciling them

334 LECTURE XIII.
as far as the discrepancy before us is concerned. The
author, you will observe, records the position of the
men whilst the voice was speaking. They were stand
ing, as the word really means, speechless, hearing the
voice — the mere sound of the voice — but seeing no
one. Paul, however, in his second account, says that
when the great light burst forth, he and the men fell
to the ground ; and then he mentions the voice. It
is therefore clear that, on the bursting forth of the
light, they were so dazzled and amazed that they all
instantly fell to the ground, but that whilst Paul was
actually blinded and remained prostrate on the earth,
his companions were not blinded, but immediately
rose up and stood speechless, hearing the sound of
that voice, the words uttered by which were under
stood by Paul alone. That these men were not
blinded as Paul was, is evident from what is said, that
though they heard the voice they saw no one, and
that when Paul rose up and opened his eyes, he was
found to be blind, and was therefore led by his com
panions by the hand into Damascus. There is thus
no discrepancy whatever in respect to this matter
affecting the men who were with Paul ; and the re
moval of the apparent difference only corroborates
the historical accuracy of the several accounts.
There is, however, in the latter account, an addi
tion to the words addressed by Jesus to Paul, not
found in his former account, nor, when the text is
corrected, in the author's own account. Paul tells
Agrippa that Jesus, after putting the question, " Why
persecutest thou Me ? " added these startling words,
" It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." This
proverbial expression, intimating the utter hopeless-

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 335
ness and utter ruin of an enterprise, was employed by
Jesus to show the infuriated persecutor that, let him
rage as he might, he was engaged in a hopeless task,
and would, should he persist, only bring ruin upon
himself. These words, as well as all the rest spoken
on this occasion, were no doubt indelibly impressed on
Paul's mind, but he mentions them only in his speech
before Agrippa. I doubt not that as he described in
that speech his own furious zeal in stronger terms
than he used in the speech before the assembled Jews
at Jerusalem, so he had also some special reason for
relating words which showed the utter impotency of
that zeal, and the ultimately ruinous consequences to
himself, if he should persist in his mad career. I
doubt not that he desired, by repeating these words
before Agrippa, to convince him that he, Paul, had
no other alternative than to yield obedience to the
heavenly vision, and also to impress Agrippa himself
with the danger of resisting the testimony now de
livered to him concerning Jesus. The addition of
these words constitutes, in fact, no real difficulty.
We now come, however, to what indeed, at first
sight, presents a difficulty, although it also will dis
appear when we examine the matter with fairness
and candour. That we may bring this apparent
difficulty fully before you, we would observe that, ac
cording to the author's account, Jesus commanded
Paul to arise and go into the city, where he would
receive further information as to what he was to do,
and that then we have an account of the mission to
Paul of Ananias, who gave him this further informa
tion. We next observe that, according to Paul's own
account, given in his speech at Jerusalem, we have a

336 LECTURE XIII.
statement substantially the same as that given by the
author, Paul also adding that when he was on a visit
to Jerusalem, and whilst he was praying in the Temple,
he received in a supernatural vision direct instruction
from Jesus, especially as to his mission to the Gentiles.
Now, in his speech before Agrippa, Paul represents
Jesus as addressing him thus : — " But rise, and stand
upon thy feet : for I have appeared unto thee for this
purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both
of these things which thou hast seen, and of those
things in the which I will appear unto thee ; delivering
thee from the people and from the Gentiles, unto
whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to
turn them from darkness to light, and from the power
of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness
of sins, and inheritance among them which are sancti
fied by faith that is in Me." In this speech he omits
all mention of Ananias, and also of the vision with
which he was favoured on his visit to Jerusalem.
Strauss adduces the difference in the three accounts
of this whole matter as substantiating his charge of
carelessness against the author. Now, let it be well
observed that this difference lies between the last
account and the two former accounts. In the first
two we have all or the principal details as to the
manner in which Paul received his instructions. He
received these partly through Ananias and partly
from Jesus Himself. In his last account Paul evi
dently wishes to be as brief as possible, and there
fore, without mentioning Ananias and the subsequent
vision, he represents Jesus as imparting all the instruc
tions at once. Paul, in short, sums up all, whether
proceeding from Ananias or afterwards received in

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 337
the vision referred to, and lays before Agrippa in one
view all that Jesus appointed him to do. Paul was
fully justified in doing so; for all that he states did
come from Jesus, and did constitute the special com
mission with which he was entrusted. Strictly speak
ing, these words were not addressed to him at the
very time when Jesus commanded him to arise and
go into the city, where he would be told what he must
do. But as they contained a summary of his com
mission, as they were connected with the appearance
of Jesus to him on that occasion, and as he wished
to sum up all in one brief sentence, he thereby stated
to Agrippa in few words all that Jesus appointed him
to be and to do ; and consequently his statement,
though not literally exact, was in its import perfectly
correct. Paul had before him only the alternative of
a comparatively long detail of the time when, and cir
cumstances in which, these instructions were imparted,
or of avoiding details on these points, which were not
necessary for his immediate purpose, and summing up
all the instructions in the manner he adopted ; and it
is only a spirit of hypercriticism which, overlooking
the immediate purpose of a speaker or a narrator,
finds fault with such a mode of procedure. It is clear,
then, that the accounts, when fairly and candidly
viewed, do not clash with one another in regard to
this matter. By comparing them, we learn in what
way the details succeeded one another, and we also
see that what Paul sums up in the form of one address
delivered to him by Jesus, consisted of detailed in
structions given to him on several occasions. The
main point before him was to inform Agrippa of what
Jesus did in reality commission him to do ; and it is
Y

338 LECTURE XIII.
evident that the whole of this commission was in
cluded in what took place when Jesus apprehended
him on the way to Damascus, and turned him from
being a persecutor of His name to be a witness of
what he had seen and heard, and a preacher of the
faith among all nations.
These remarks are, we believe, sufficient to show
that there is no discord whatever among these ac
counts, and also to free the author of the Acts from
the charge of carelessness about details. They are
sufficient also, we think, to prove that these three
accounts, varied although they are in certain respects,
do support one another— a result which can be ex
pected to take place only when different accounts
are, so far as they go, historically correct. Further,
these accounts do unquestionably represent what took
place near to Damascus as objective occurrences. Paul
knew perfectly the distinction between what is termed
a subjective vision, although produced in a supernat
ural manner, and an external appearance such as
that which then occurred. The author of the book
also shows that he too was fully aware of this dis
tinction. It is impossible to have clearer and more
decided testimony than that which the Apostle Paul
gives to the objective character of the appearance of
Jesus, when he was on the way to Damascus as the
infuriated persecutor of all who called upon His
name. He therefore could justly say, and he sol
emnly testified, " Last of all, He was seen of me also,
as of one born out of due time." And when his
authority as an Apostle was called in question by
some Judaising teachers, he could ask with the fullest
confidence, " Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?"

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 339
It was the exalted, the glorified Jesus who appeared
to St Paul in the way. The circumstances under
which he saw Jesus were undoubtedly different from
those in which the elder Apostles had seen Him after
His resurrection. These Apostles could say, as one
of them did, that they had been witnesses of the suf
ferings of Jesus as well as of His resurrection. The
Apostle Paul had not witnessed His sufferings, but he
was a witness of the glory of Jesus. As Ananias said
to him, "The God of our fathers hath chosen thee,
that thou shouldest know His will, and see that Just
One, and shouldest hear the voice of His mouth : for
thou shalt be His witness unto all men of what thou
hast seen and heard." The objective nature, then, of
the appearance of Jesus to Paul, is that which these
accounts, so diversified in some details, yet so thor
oughly at one, clearly and decidedly establish ; and
Luke's accuracy as an historian stands, we think, per
fectly intact.
But Strauss has not yet finished his attack on these
accounts. Even had they been found free from all
the supposed inaccuracies, why must we allow these
accounts to have proceeded either from an eyewitness,
or from one who received his information from an eye
witness ? Why may we not attempt to lessen the
credit due to the supposed author of this book ?
Strauss proceeds to do so in the following manner;
and his reasoning will furnish you with another re
markable specimen of that " higher criticism" of which
we hear so much in our day : —
" But even," says he, " if the narrator in the Acts had
gone more accurately to work, still he would not be an eye
witness, scarcely even a writer who took the history from

340 LECTURE XIII.
the narrative of an eyewitness. Even if we consider the
person who in different places of the Acts comprehends
himself and the Apostle Paul under the word ' we' or ' us'
to have been the composer of the whole work, that person
was not, on the occasion of the occurrence before Damascus,
as yet in the company of the Apostle. Into this he did not
enter until much later, in the Troad, on the Apostle's
second missionary journey (Acts xvi. io). But that hypo
thesis with regard to the author of the. Acts of the Apostles
is, moreover, as we have seen above, erroneous. He only
worked up into different passages of his composition the
memoranda of a temporary companion of the Apostle about
the journeys performed in his company, and we are there
fore not justified in considering the narrator in these pas
sages and sections in which the ' we ' is wanting as an eye
witness. Now among these is found the very section in
which appear the two accounts of his conversion which
Paul gives, first to the Jewish people in Jerusalem,
secondly to Agrippa and Festus in Csesarea. The last
occasion on which the 'we 'was found was xxi. 1 8, that
of the visit of Paul to James, and it does not appear again
until xxvii. i, when the subject is the Apostle's embarka
tion for Italy. Nothing, therefore, compels us externally
to assume that we have in the report of these speeches the
account of any one who had been a party to the hearing of
them, and, in them, Paul's own narrative of the occurrences
that took place on his conversion. Moreover, the history
in its internal character, with its shining light and falling-
down, its miraculous blinding and healing, its dreams and
visions dovetailing into each other, is so completely in the
fashion of the tales of appearances and miracles current
among the Jews and the original Christians, and so espe
cially resembles the manner in which the author of the
Acts of the Apostles and the third Gospel loves to arrange
scenes of this kind (comp., e.g., the history of Cornelius and
Peter, Acts x. 1 1 ; of Zachariah and the angel, Luke i. 8,

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 341
ff.), that we look upon this appearance of Christ to Paul as
exactly on the same footing as those witnessed by the
earlier disciples. That is, we find ourselves in this case also
thrown back from evidence of the third rank upon that of
the Apostle ; which, moreover, is not in this instance evi
dence of the second, but of the first rank." — Vol. i. p.
415-16. A very few remarks will suffice to show how en
tirely arbitrary is the theory which Strauss, following
Baur and others, attempts to establish respecting the
authorship of the Acts of the Apostles. It is ad
mitted by them that the same person was the author
of this book and of the third Gospel. Now, the author,
although he does not mention his own name, tells
us plainly in the introduction to his Gospel that he
had received his information respecting Jesus from
the first sources — from those who had been "eye
witnesses and ministers of the Word " — and that he
had, with the utmost care, endeavoured to trace every
thing down from the very beginning, so as to present
to Theophilus, and through him to other Christians, an
exact narrative of those things which were certainly
believed among them concerning Jesus. In the Book
of the Acts we have the clearest testimony that the
author did become the companion of the Apostle
Paul during his second missionary journey, and went
with him to Macedonia (xvi. 10). Whether Luke —
for such, by unanimous testimony, was the name of the
author — remained at Philippi when the Apostle left
that city until his return thither at the end of his
second visit to Greece, or went elsewhere, we are not
expressly informed ; but we learn (xx. 6) that he was
in the company of Paul when the latter visited that city

342 LECTURE XIII.
a second time, and that he accompanied the Apostle
to Asia and Jerusalem (xxi. 17) ; while from the fact,
which is also expressly stated, that he sailed with the
Apostle to Rome (xxvii. 1, xxviii. 16), we may rea
sonably conclude that he continued with the Apostle,
or in his neighbourhood at least, during the imprison
ment of the latter at Caesarea. That the author does
not mention himself as being present on certain occa
sions referred to, and especially that no mention of
him occurs in the sections which consist chiefly of
Paul's defences, is surely no reason for supposing that
he was absent. The idea that the author of the Acts
obtained possession of some memoranda of a temporary
companion of the Apostle, and that he worked up these
into different passages of his treatise in so blundering
a manner as the theory supposes — the idea that this
was done by the author of the third Gospel, and of this
second remarkable treatise, is so absurd, that it could
be entertained only by those who feel themselves
compelled to abandon all fair criticism, and to have
recourse to the most desperate measures in order to
support their desired conclusion. Luke, " the be
loved physician," and the devoted companion of the
Apostle Paul — the man whose praise was in all the
Churches, and who remained steadfast to the Apostle
in his severest trials, even when others had forsaken
him — -was the undoubted author of this book, as well
as of the Gospel which bears his name ; and for his
power of observation and skill in narration we need
only appeal to his remarkable description of the
voyage and shipwreck given towards the close of his
work. The idea also that this treatise was composed
by some unknown author during the first half of the

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 343
second century, in order to conciliate what those cri
tics, to whom we are specially referring, call Petrine
and Pauline Christianity, is disproved by the manifest .
design of the treatise, which unquestionably was to
record the progress of the Gospel through the minis
try of the Apostles, first among the Jews and then
among the Gentiles. As to what Strauss says about
"the manner " of the author, and his love for "arranging
scenes" of a miraculous or supernatural character, we
have only to state that he loved to arrange these and
other scenes just as he knew for certain they had
occurred. In the testimony of Luke, then, we have
often that of an eyewitness of what he records ; and
where he was not himself an eyewitness, we have the
testimony of one who had his information directly
from eyewitnesses. In the recorded speeches of Paul
we have, we need hardly say, the highest possible
testimony as to the facts which occurred when Jesus
appeared to him on his way to Damascus.
Having, as he imagines, deprived the Book of the
Acts of all historical weight, Strauss returns to the
expressions in the Epistles of Paul which inform us
that Jesus had appeared to him ; and his aim now is
to show that these expressions do not compel us to
conclude this appearance to have been anything else
than one merely subjective.
" Now in this instance," he says, " we have to complain
of the same thing as in others, that the Apostle, even in re
ference to the first appearance imparted to him, expresses
himself so very briefly. In the passage already quoted
(1 Cor. xv. 8), all that he says of himself is that the risen
Christ had appeared, or been made visible to him. In

344 LECTURE XIII.
another passage he asks, ' Did I not see Jesus Christ our
Lord?' (i Cor. ix. i), where, without doubt, he means the
same appearance. In that passage, lastly, in which he
enters more fully than elsewhere upon the description of all
that he had done, and that had happened to him, he only
says that it had pleased God (Gal. i. 13-17) to reveal His
Son in him, that he might preach him among the heathen.
Taking these different expressions together, we have on the
one hand the conviction of the Apostle that he had seen
Jesus ; and we may add thus much from the narrative in the
Acts, that he thought he had heard him — heard words pro
ceeding from his lips. Paul thought that on other occa
sions also it had been vouchsafed to him to hear words of
this kind from the upper regions. It cannot be the appear
ance we are now speaking of, but must have been another
subsequently, when in the Second Epistle to the Corin
thians (xii. 1, ff.) he speaks of a man who fourteen years
before was caught up into the third heaven, into paradise,
and heard unspeakable words, which it was not lawful for a
man to utter. But when he adds, ' whether in the body, he
cannot tell ; or whether out of the body, he cannot tell : God
knoweth,' we see that he was not without consciousness of
the difficulty of establishing the real nature of the fact in
appearances of this kind. And when, on the other hand,
in the passage of the Epistle to the Galatians, he describes
what he had seen and done as the effect of revelation of
God in him, he lays the main stress on the internal element,
conceives of the seeing and hearing of Christ as accom
panied by the rising up within his mind of the true know
ledge of him as the Son of God. It is certain that in doing
so he considered the ascended Christ as really and exter
nally present, the appearance as in the full sense an objec
tive one ; but he is far from saying anything to prevent us
(as certain features in the narrative of the Acts might do,
if we were obliged to take them in the strictly historical
sense) from being of a different opinion, and considering the

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 345
appearance as one merely subjective, as a fact of the inward
life of his soul." — Vol. i. p. 416-17.
Now, in reference to the above passage, you will
remember that Strauss formerly complained, as in
deed he here reminds us, that Paul, when appealing
to the fact that the risen Jesus had been seen by
Cephas and others, only stated that he had been seen
by them, but did not state what he calls " the grounds
which these persons had for considering the appear
ance as something real, and indeed as the appearance
of their Master, who was dead." You will also re
member that we replied to this captious complaint by
showing that the Apostle in his argument assumed as
an indisputable fact the reality of the resurrection of
Jesus ; that his main design in that argument was to
refute, by means of this fact, the erroneous doctrine
which some were propagating in opposition to the
reality of the resurrection of the bodies of believers in
Jesus ; and that he therefore stated briefly, but, we
think, most sufficiently, the sensible evidence which
had been given to the disciples of the reality of the
resurrection of Jesus. That sensible evidence was
mainly, though not exclusively, the evidence of sight ;
and that particular evidence is manifestly mentioned,
inasmuch as it was, so to speak, the essential evi
dence, and further as it included whatever other sen
sible evidence was at the same time afforded. Jesus
was seen alive after His death. This is what Paul
affirms for the disciples, and what he also affirms for
himself. And it is clear that an objective appearance
is in each case affirmed to have taken place. Strauss's
complaint is therefore wholly unreasonable, unless he
can show by positive proof, and not in the way of

346 LECTURE XIII.
mere conjecture, that these disciples and Paul also
were deceived by their own imaginations — that they
mistook mere subjective impressions in each case for
objective realities.
Strauss, then, proceeds to attempt such a proof;
and the method he adopts is to confound what we may
term pure, supernatural visions with these objective
appearances. He confounds, in short, things which
are distinct, and which the Apostle Paul knew and
states to be distinct. Those supernatural visions
which were vouchsafed to the Apostle, and some of
which he records, were indeed realities — they were
not mere dreams of an excited imagination. Still
they were different from those appearances to which
testimony was borne as constituting the main evidence
of the reality of Christ's resurrection. And we must
not, any more than the Apostle himself does, con
found these distinct things. When Paul says, "And
last of all He was seen of me also ; " and when, in
vindication of his Apostolic authority, he asks in a
manner which really implies a strong affirmation,
" Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord ? " he un
questionably refers to that appearance which took
place near to Damascus ; but when, in his Epistle to
the Churches of Galatia, in vindication not exactly of
his Apostolic authority, but of the Gospel which he as
an Apostle had taught these Churches, he appeals to
the fact that he had neither received this Gospel from
man, nor had been taught it by man, but by the
revelation of Jesus Christ ; for that " it pleased God,
who had separated him from his mother's womb and
called him by His grace, to reveal His Son in him,
that he might preach Him among the heathen," he

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 347
evidently refers not strictly to the objective appear
ance of the risen and exalted Jesus, but to the subse
quent revelation of Jesus as the Son of God, which
was given him in order that, being thus supernaturally
taught, he might preach to the Gentiles the Gospel of
God concerning His Son. Strauss entirely misrepre
sents the whole scope of the Apostle's argument in
his Epistle to the Galatians, when he says, that in the
passage referred to in that Epistle " Paul enters more
fully than elsewhere upon the description of all that he
had done and that had happened to him ; " and that,
therefore, Paul means the same thing when, in the
Epistle to the Corinthians, he says that " the risen
Jesus was seen by him," and when, in his Epistle to
the Galatians, he speaks of God " revealing His Son
in him." The same thing is evidently not meant in
these different passages. In the one case the Apostle
is distinctly referring to an external proof given
him of the reality of Christ's resurrection ; in the
other he is as distinctly referring to an internal teach
ing by God respecting His Son Jesus, who had been
seen by him. The two things were no doubt con
nected, but they are not for that reason to be identi
fied ; nay, there is abundant reason to believe that
the revelation spoken of was subsequent to the
appearance recorded. Strauss, then, makes out his
supposed proof by a manifest misrepresentation of
the Apostle's different statements.
Having confounded, for the sake of this imaginary
proof, two things which are distinct, he goes on to
strengthen it, as he thinks, by referring to other
supernatural visions, and especially to one particu
larly mentioned by the Apostle in his Second Epistle

348 LECTURE XIII.
to the Corinthians — to visions which, though real, are
by the Apostle himself manifestly distinguished from
those appearances which were truly objective, and
which were the subject of testimony as bearing on
the reality of Christ's resurrection. In regard to that
particular vision, to which reference is made in the
Epistle last named, Strauss again misrepresents the
Apostle's argument, for he looks upon the peculiar
expression, " Whether in the body, I cannot tell ; or
whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God know
eth," as indicating a "consciousness on the part of
the Apostle of the difficulty of establishing the real
nature of the fact in appearances of that kind." The
Apostle's difficulty was manifestly not such as is here
represented. He knew that it was a vision — a real,
supernatural vision. He knew that such a vision
was different in kind from that appearance of Jesus
which was made to him through the senses of his
body. The difficulty which he was unable to solve
referred not to the nature of the vision, but solely to
the relation in which his spirit, when thus favoured
with that vision, stood, whilst the vision lasted, to his
body. He was then, as he himself elsewhere describes
his state, in an ecstasy ; and he' saw and heard things
which were presented to his mind ; but whether the
body acted any part, and, if so, what part it did act
on such an occasion, he plainly says he could not tell.
There was no such difficulty as to what occurred when
Jesus apprehended him on the way to Damascus. He
was then, to use his mode of expression, " in the body,"
and with his eyes saw the light, and with his ears heard
the words spoken to him from on high. But Strauss
is pleased to confound these things, and by misinter-

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 349
pretation of expressions and of the argument in each
case, he labours to make it appear that the Apostle
also confounded them, at one time representing the
appearance of Christ as a purely internal revelation,
and at another time as an objective reality ; and that,
therefore, although Paul looked upon the appearances
as objective, yet from his own representation of
them we may differ from him in his opinion as to
the objective reality, and conclude that "the ap
pearance, the one which took place near Damascus,
was merely subjective — a fact of the inward life of
his soul."
The untenable nature of Strauss's hypothesis is
thus sufficiently shown by a fair representation of the
Apostle's statements in the several passages alluded
to ; and not only is this hypothesis thus refuted, but
the fact of the objective reality of that first appear
ance is clearly brought out by the consistency which
is thus found to pervade the Apostle's statements
when distinct though closely-allied things are spoken
of by him.
Strauss next proceeds to trace these visions of Paul
to the physical condition of his frame.
" The Apostle himself tells us," he says, " that certain ec
static states of mind were not of rare occurrence with him.
' If it were expedient for him to glory,' he writes to the Chris
tians in Corinth (2 Cor. xii. 1, ff), he could boast of a super
abundance of visions and revelations with which he had been
favoured ; among which he then mentions especially the case
just spoken of, about the catching up into the third heaven.
' But that, lest he should be exalted above measure, there
had been given to him a thorn in the flesh, the messenger
of Satan to buffet him.' On reading these words, attacks
of convulsion, perhaps of epilepsy, naturally occur to the

-50 LECTURE XIII.
mind, and the probability of them is strengthened by what
he says elsewhere of the weakness of his body, the unsight-
liness of his outward appearance (2 Cor. x. 10, Gal. iv. 13).
The notion of a nervous constitution is suggested by the
speaking with tongues, in which, as he says (1 Cor. xiv. 18),
he surpassed all the members of the Corinthian Church ;
for it was an ecstatic sort of speaking, which no one could
understand without an interpreter. Paul also ascribes to a
revelation the impulse which he felt to take the journey to
Jerusalem, which had for its object his communicating with
the other Apostles (Gal. ii. 2) ; and here we may see quite
clearly what Baur has already drawn attention to, how
these supposed supernatural mental revelations occurred in
him. Besides the revelation, he further brings forward a
very rational ground for having undertaken the journey with
Barnabas — namely, in order not to run the danger of all his
previous apostolic labour being in vain. There was just at
that time an awkward complication. The great success of the
Apostle Paul among the heathen had begun to draw upon
him the notice of the primal Church in Jerusalem. Sus
picion was aroused in this metropolis of Jewish Christianity
by the fact that in Antioch a centre of heathen Christianity
was set up in opposition to it. Members of the metro
politan Church came to Antioch, where Paul was labouring,
and appealing, as it would appear, to the Apostles who
stood at the head of that Church, demanded that the
heathen, in order to be adopted into participation in the
salvation of the Messiah, should first be compelled to
subject themselves to the law of Moses, and especially to
circumcision. Paul could not conscientiously yield to such
a demand ; if the original Apostles really persevered in it,
the division became inevitable, which threatened to destroy
the effects of the work to which he had devoted his life.
We may imagine how deeply his mind was moved by this
circumstance — how it haunted him day and night ; and
considering the character of his mind, we cannot be sur-

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 35 1
prised that there resulted from it at last a revelation, an
imaginary command of Christ revealing himself to him in a
dream or waking moment." — Vol. i. p. 417-18.
The manifest design of Strauss in this passage
is to show that the visions or revelations with which
Paul was favoured had their origin in a peculiar con
stitution of mind, accompanied with or springing from
a peculiar constitution of body. He endeavours to
support this theory, first, by what Paul tells us of
a certain bodily malady with which he came to be
afflicted, and by what he says of the gift of tongues
which was bestowed upon him ; and, secondly, by
what he assigns as his reason for going up to Jeru
salem on the occasion referred to in his Epistle to the
Galatians. Now, first, as to the bodily weakness of which
Paul repeatedly makes mention, and especially in his
Second Epistle to the Corinthians, it is evident from
the words of the Apostle that the special malady
which he in that Epistle emphatically calls " a thorn
in the flesh," did not precede but follow the remark
able vision of which he there speaks. His words are,
" And lest I should be exalted above measure through
the abundance of the revelations, there was given to
me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to
buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure."
Whatever this thorn in the flesh was, it must have
caused him excessive pain, and have been a hindrance
to him in his efforts to preach the Gospel ; and
mainly, no doubt, for this second reason, " he besought
the Lord thrice that it might depart from him." But
the Lord answered his third petition by revealing to
him that this " thorn " would not be removed, but

352 LECTURE XIII.
that sufficient grace would be bestowed upon him, so
that in his weakness the power of Christ should rest
upon him. Strauss's argument, then, falls to the
ground, for it supposes that the malady referred to,
whatever it was, preceded the vision and gave rise to
the vision ; whereas the Apostle distinctly affirms that
the vision preceded the malady.
As to the gift of tongues, which Paul says he pos
sessed in a higher measure than had been bestowed
on the members of the Corinthian Church, there is no
evidence to show that this was other than a super
natural gift bestowed at that time on believers by the
Holy Spirit as a sign of the power of that Spirit, and
that this gift sprang from a peculiar state of the body,
any more than did the gift of prophecy or any other
spiritual gift of an extraordinary kind then bestowed.
With respect to the cause of Paul's visit to Jeru
salem on the occasion specially referred to, there can
be no doubt that this visit was caused by the attempt
of certain Judaising Christians who sought to bring the
Gentile believers under the yoke of the Mosaic ritual
law. This matter is fully explained to us in the Acts of
the Apostles (xv. i, ff.), and it seems evident that it is
to the same visit there related, that Paul refers in his
Epistle to the Galatians (ii. i, ff.) Now, it is clear that
Paul was intensely anxious about this matter. He
had received the Gospel which he preached directly
by revelation from God ; and he knew for certain that
submission to the ritual law was no longer obligatory.
He therefore, along with Barnabas, resisted the at
tempts of those who came down to Antioch from Judea,
and who taught, that " except the Gentile believers
were circumcised after the manner of Moses, they

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 353
could not be saved." So vehement did the discussion
of this subject become, that the Church at Antioch
resolved to send Paul and Barnabas and some others
to Jerusalem, to hold an interview with the Apostles
and elders there about this question. Such is the in
formation given by the author of the Acts. But Paul
in his Epistle to the Galatians says that he, along
with Barnabas and Titus, " went up by revelation," —
that is, in consequence of some revelation of the mind
of God to that effect. Strauss evidently wishes to
bring out a contradiction between this statement and
what we learn from the Acts. Now, there is surely
no contradiction here. The matter about which the
dissension arose was one of the highest practical
moment to the whole Church — to Jewish as well as
to Gentile believers ; and it also affected the very
essence of the Gospel. Strauss allows that it was
reasonable on the part of the Church at Antioch to
send persons to Jerusalem to consult the Apostles
and elders there. But was it not natural that he who
had received the Gospel not from man, but from God,
should hesitate to take such a step, lest any counte
nance should thereby be given to the idea that he
had not been truly taught this Gospel ? Is there
anything, therefore, improbable in the idea that he did
receive a divine intimation to agree to the proposed
measure ? If he received such, it behoved him to men
tion the fact expressly to the Galatians, in order that
they might see that, even in taking such a step, he was
not yielding to any doubts respecting the true nature
of the Gospel which he had received, but was follow
ing special divine intimation in order that he might,
in presence of the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem,
z

354 LECTURE XIII.
vindicate this Gospel, and obtain an authoritative
declaration from those whom his opponents allowed
to be the " pillars " of the Church, in support of the
freedom of all believers in Christ, and especially of
Gentile believers, from the bondage of the ceremo
nial law. Strauss's whole reasoning, then, falls to the
ground, when we take a fair and complete view of all
the circumstances of the case.
But he has now prepared the way, as he thinks, for
giving his account of the appearance that took place
near Damascus — to get rid of the objective reality of
which is the great difficulty, and has all along been
the end in view. Let us, then, hear how this is to be
done. " Let us now transport ourselves," he says, " back into the
period before his conversion, and think of the excitement
into which he, the zealot for the hereditary institutions of
Judaism (Gal. i. 14), must have been brought by the threat
ening progress of the growing Christianity. He saw at
that time what he held most dear and most holy endan
gered; a spiritual tendency appeared to be spreading un
checked, making of secondary consideration precisely that
which was to him the most important thing of all, the strict
observance of all Jewish laws and customs, and which op
posed in the most hostile manner that party especially to
which he had attached himself with all the fiery zeal of his
nature. Now, we might indeed suppose that out of such
mental emotions, a visionary Moses or Elias might at last
have started, rather than an appearance of Christ ; but only
when the other side of the question is left out of considera
tion. The result showed that the satisfaction which Paul
thought to find in his Pharisaic zeal for righteousness was
not of a tranquillising character. This was evident, even at
that time, from the passionate disquietude, the zealous pre-

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 355
cipitancy of his conduct. On the different occasions in
which he came in contact with the new believers in the
Messiah, when first, in the character, as we must suppose, of
a disputatious dialectician as he was, he argued with them
(comp. Acts ix. 29), then entered their assemblies, haled
them away prisoners, and helped to bring them to trial, he
could not fail to feel himself on a disadvantageous footing
with them in two respects. The fact on which they relied,
on which they built the whole of their faith, as differing
from their hereditary Judaism, was the resurrection of Jesus.
Had he been a Sadducee, it would have been easy for him
to combat this asserted fact, for the Sadducees recognised
no resurrection whatever (Acts xxiii. 7). But Paul was a
Pharisee, believed therefore in the resurrection — not, indeed,
to happen until the end of time ; but that in a particular
case, the case of a holy man, it might have happened ex
ceptionally even earlier — this supposition, from the point of
view of Jewish notions at that time, created no difficulty.
He must, therefore, in the case of Jesus, have relied princi
pally upon the fact that it could not be assumed to have hap
pened to him, because he was not a holy man, but, on the
contrary, a false teacher, an impostor. But, in the presence
of the believers in Jesus, this must have become every day
more doubtful to him. They considered it not only pub
licly honourable to be as convinced of his resurrection as
they were of their own life, but they showed also a state of
mind, a quiet peace, a tranquil cheerfulness, even under
suffering, which put to shame the restless and joyless zeal of
their persecutor. Could he have been a false teacher who
had adherents such as these? Could that have been a
mendacious pretence which gave such rest and security?
On the one hand, he saw the new sect, in spite of all perse
cutions — nay, in consequence of them — extending their in
fluence wider and wider around them ; on the other, as
their persecutor, he felt that inward tranquillity growing less
and less which he could observe in so many ways in the per-

356 LECTURE XIII.
secuted. We cannot, therefore, be surprised if, in hours of
despondency and inward unhappiness, he put to himself the
question, 'Who, after all, is right — thou or the crucified
Galilean about whom these men are so enthusiastic?' And
when he had once got as far as this, the result, with his bodily
and mental characteristics, naturally followed in an ecstasy,
in which the very same Christ, whom up to this time he had
so passionately persecuted, appeared to him in all the glory
of which his adherents spoke so much, showed him the per
versity and folly of his conduct, and called him to come
over to his service." — Vol. i. p. 419-20.
Such is the theory which Strauss has constructed
to explain the origin of that belief which he admits
the Apostle Paul entertained, that the risen Jesus had
appeared to him. It is for us calmly to consider
whether this account consists of facts historically at
tested, or of a series of conjectures framed by the in
ventor on purpose to make out a preconceived judg
ment. First, as to the description which he gives of Paul's
state of mind during his persecuting career, it is
mainly correct, for it is taken from what we learn
from the Apostle himself, and from what is recorded
by Luke in his narrative of the Acts. Paul himself
tells us that " beyond measure he persecuted the
Church of God, and wasted it ; and that he profited —
made advance — in the Jews' religion above many his
equals in his own nation, being more exceedingly
zealous of the traditions of his fathers." Paul never
forgot how he had once persecuted the followers of the
Lord Jesus ; and at times he seems to labour for words
sufficiently strong to express his zeal for Pharisaic
Judaism on the one hand, and his hatred of the very

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 357
name of Jesus on the other. It is also evident that
all the time he was so engaged in persecuting the
Christians, he was cherishing the conviction that he
was doing God service. Whether " his Pharisaic zeal
for righteousness" — for that righteousness which he
then imagined was all that the law required — " was of
a tranquillising character," is a question which admits
of a double answer, for in one respect we learn from
himself that it was of such a character. He was then
"without" a spiritual view of "the law," and was " alive"
His supposed conformity to the law gave him the
hope of the divine favour, and the more zealous he
was, the higher did his hope rise. On the other hand,
persecuting zeal can never be wholly of a tranquillis
ing character ; although the mental disturbance which
such zeal, from its very nature, tends to produce, was
in his case evidently allayed by the consideration that
he was zealous for God.
There is not the slightest ground, we would next
observe, for Strauss's assumption that any doubt ever
entered the Apostle's mind as to the righteousness of
the course which he was pursuing. On the contrary,
he looked upon his zeal in persecuting the Christians
as one of his strongest claims to the favour of his
countrymen, and, in all probability, to the favour of
God Himself. Persecutors generally grow in the con
viction of the righteousness of their own cause. And
Paul, the more he became inflamed with zeal against
the Christians, cherished, no doubt, the more firmly
the conviction that their cause was only one to be put
down by every possible means. Whether he ventured
to dispute with Stephen on the subject of the Chris
tian faith, we are not told ; but it is certain that those

358 LECTURE XIII.
who did dispute with him were only filled with in
creased hatred when they found themselves " unable
to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he
spake." But the real disproof of Strauss's conjecture,
that Paul began at last to doubt as to his views re
specting the nature of the asserted claims of Jesus, is
to be found in the entire absence of anything proceed
ing from the Apostle himself to countenance such a
conjecture. He tells' us, in an Epistle which Strauss,
indeed, will not acknowledge as genuine, that he per
secuted the Church in ignorance and in unbelief.
But, apart from what he thus says, can we for a
moment imagine that in his acknowledged Epistles to
the Corinthians and to the Galatians, in which he ex
pressly refers to what he once was — a persecutor of
the Church of God — he would not have alluded in
some way or other to the doubts that began to arise
in his mind, had such doubts really arisen ? So far,
indeed, from his having come to entertain any such
doubts, the fact is, as he himself said in the presence
of Agrippa, that his fury against the Christians in
creased more and more, and was at its greatest height
when he was on his way to Damascus with authority
and commission from the chief priests to apprehend
the Christians there, and to bring them bound to Jeru
salem to be punished. Nor does the expression (to
which Strauss, however, does not refer, because he
wishes the Book of the Acts to be set aside as of no
authority) which our Lord employed to show him the
utter ruin he was by his mad career bringing on him
self, at all countenance, as some have supposed, the
idea that there was a struggle going on in the mind of
Paul as to whether he was right or wrong in the course

ON THE APPEARANCE TO ST PAUL. 359
he was pursuing. It is true, as Strauss says, that,
being a Pharisee, Paul believed in the doctrine of a
future resurrection, and that therefore he could not, as
he might have done had he been a Sadducee, reject
the testimony of the disciples concerning the resurrec
tion of Jesus on the ground that a resurrection is im
possible. It may also be true that, had Paul calmly
reasoned respecting the conduct of the disciples who
manifested such a firmness of faith and such a cheer
fulness of soul under all the sufferings to which they
were subjected, he might have been induced to recon
sider his opinion concerning the character and claims
of Jesus, and even led to renounce his former opinion,
and to arrive at the conviction that this Jesus must
have been no false teacher, no impostor, but a holy
man, even the Messiah. But where is there the least
evidence that Paul ever reasoned thus in his mind ?
Is not the whole existing evidence of an opposite cha
racter ? Do we see him, when on the way to Damas
cus, hesitating and struggling with rising doubts ? Do
we not rather see him advancing with increasing fury
against the Christians there, to suppress, as he hoped,
this new sect which had risen up against the Law ?
The state of the case, then, is this. If we form our
views solely from the facts presented to us in the
Epistles of St Paul as well as in the Acts of the
Apostles, we must reject the theory of Strauss. If
we abandon these authentic sources of information,
and form in our minds the theory that Paul's conver
sion was the mere result of a mental struggle, we
may adopt Strauss's conjecture, or any other that our
imagination may suggest. In the former case we
shall conclude without the slightest hesitation that

360 lecture xin.
the risen Jesus was really seen by Paul. In the latter
case we shall deny this fact, and account for Paul's
belief in the reality of Christ's appearance to him as
we best can. Only, be it observed, in the former
case we are guided by authentic evidence, whilst in
the latter we are guided solely by conjecture. Surely
no unprejudiced mind can hesitate between these two
kinds of guidance. Following, then, that of authentic
evidence, we conclude that the appearance of Christ
to Paul was a real, objective appearance, and that the
Apostle said with truth, " LAST OF ALL HE WAS
SEEN OF ME ALSO, AS OF ONE BORN OUT OF DUE
TIME."

LECTURE XIV.
STRAUSS ON THE ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE
RESURRECTION.
Having, as he imagines, disproved the objective
reality of the appearance of the risen Jesus to St
Paul, Strauss proceeds to account for the origin
of the belief of the first disciples in the supposed
reality of His resurrection. Although we shall meet
with arguments essentially like those which have
already been refuted, yet, considering the vast im
portance of the subject, we must submit to follow
our objector in his tedious repetition of mere con
jectures manifestly framed to support a foregone
conclusion. One result will be a feeling of sur
prise that any man professing to be in quest of
truth, and possessing unquestionably the power of
investigation, could so persistently blind himself to
the utter absence of all real argument on a subject
so awfully momentous. We have seen how Strauss
laboured to misrepresent the case of the Apostle
Paul, confounding things which that Apostle knew
and declares to be distinct, and misinterpreting many
of his statements in reference, directly or indirectly,
to that marvellous appearance which the glorified
Jesus accorded to him when He apprehended him
in his persecuting career. Let us, then, endeavour to

362 LECTURE XIV.
consider as calmly as we can the explanation which
Strauss attempts to give of the origin of that belief
which, be it remembered, he admits the first disciples
to have firmly held in the resurrection of Jesus. We
know, on testimony of the highest order, how this
belief did originate ; but that testimony Strauss
imagines he has set aside as unsatisfactory, and he
proceeds to construct an explanation which he thinks
ought to prove satisfactory to all. He begins thus : —
" If, then, we are right in supposing that this appearance of
Christ, which occasioned the conversion of the Apostle
Paul from Pharisaic Judaism to the newly-founded Church
of the Messiah, was of this character, and if those appear
ances which in the older disciples accompanied the rise of
the faith in Jesus as the risen Messiah were of essentially
the same kind as in the other case — then were these latter
solely internal states of mind, which might indeed present
themselves to the subjects of them as external sensible per
ceptions, but are to be considered by us only as results of
mental excitement — as visions." — Vol. i. p. 420-21.
As this is a purely hypothetical statement, we need
not remark upon it any further than to say, that since
the appearance of Christ to Paul was, as the whole
evidence proves, a real, objective appearance, and
since the appearances which Paul mentions as having
been accorded to the first disciples were, though
under different circumstances, of essentially the same
kind as in his own case — these latter were unques
tionably, as the particular evidence bearing on them
also shows, real, objective appearances, which, when
perceived by the disciples, produced, and could not
but produce, in their minds that belief which they
firmly held in the reality of the resurrection, and

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 363
which they maintained amidst all possible privations
— even to the loss of life itself.
"The causes," says Strauss, "which produced these ap
pearances, the conditions which made them possible, were
in both cases of the same sort. The excitement occasioned
in the mind of the later Apostle by the threatening progress
of Christianity and his zeal in the persecution of its ad
herents, was produced, conversely, in the older Apostles by
the persecution that broke out on the part of the Jews
against Jesus and his adherents. The impression received
by Paul from the first Christian Church, from their cheer
fulness in faith and suffering, arose, in the case of the earlier
disciples, from their recollection of the personality of Jesus
himself, and their vivid conviction that he was the Messiah."
— Vol. i. p. 421.
This passage contains the basis of his theory in
respect to both cases. Paul was inflamed with zeal
against the Christians ; but their cheerfulness in faith
and suffering produced at last such an impression on
his mind that he began to doubt whether they were
not in the right and himself in the wrong; and a
struggle was thus commenced in his mind, which
became so vehement that at the very moment when
he seemed most infuriated against the Christians, he
imagined that Jesus appeared to him in all His glory,
and " called him to come over to His service." Such,
as we have seen, is Strauss's theory respecting the
case of Paul ; and we have, we think, sufficiently
shown that the theory is entirely baseless, being
opposed to the natural working of persecuting zeal,
and having not the slightest evidence to rest upon.
It is a theory purposely constructed to set aside all
authentic evidence and to support a preconceived

364 LECTURE XIV.
opinion. We shall find the similar theory respecting
the case of the older Apostles to be equally baseless,
and to have its origin solely in the mind of the pre
judiced and determined objector. That the Jewish
rulers did persecute Jesus even to the death, there is
no question ; but there is no evidence to show that
these rulers at first contemplated anything beyond
cutting off the Head of the new sect. They no
doubt expected that by the death of Jesus this
sect would be for ever extinguished. When Jesus
was seized, His disciples were allowed to go their
own way : two of them at least were present at His
trial, and only one of these was subjected to a little
temporary reproach. Nor did the disciples of Jesus,
although they loved Him, and believed that He was
the Messiah, show themselves to be possessed of that
courage which is necessary to face persecution and to
run the risk of death. They indeed soon became en
tirely altered men, but Strauss has no right to appeal
to the documents which tell us that some time after
the death of Jesus they openly and bravely encoun
tered persecution for His sake, and at the same time
to set aside these documents when they tell us, with
equal clearness, that at the time of the apprehension
and trial of Jesus they, as a body, forsook Him and fled,
and that one of the two who ventured into the judg
ment-hall openly and repeatedly denied Him. Strauss
unfairly applies to the disciples what was true of them
at a later date, but not true of them at the date which
his theory supposes. Their belief in the resurrection
was prior to the persecution that arose against
themselves, and could not therefore be owing to that
persecution as one of the main causes which pro-

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 365
duced it. It was, we repeat, their belief in the resur
rection of Jesus which armed their minds to meet
this persecution, and it was because they published
this belief that this persecution arose. Strauss's
theory, then, falls to the ground in the case of these
older Apostles, just as it fell to the ground in the
case of the later Apostle. The excitement to which
he traces their belief in the resurrection of Jesus, and
which he says was occasioned "by the persecution
that broke out on the part of the Jews against Jesus
and His adherents," did not exist in the peculiar form
which his theory supposes until this persecution
against them actually arose ; and that persecution
was itself occasioned by their proclaiming in Jerusa
lem that Jesus who had been put to death was risen
from the dead. Hence, according to Strauss, the
effect — their belief in the resurrection — was prior to
the cause by which, in his view, it was produced — the
persecution raised against them by the Jewish rulers.
As to the impression which Strauss parallels to that
which (in opposition, as we have already shown, to all
the evidence bearing on the subject) he alleges Paul
to have received from the cheerfulness of the first
Christians in faith and suffering, it is no doubt true
that the earlier disciples did cherish in their minds " a
recollection of the personality of Jesus Himself, and a
vivid " — more or less vivid, we would rather say —
'' conviction that He was the Messiah." In reference
to this point, the state of mind on the part of these
disciples was exactly the reverse of Paul's state of
mind, when he was breathing out slaughter against
the followers of Jesus. Paul's mind was indeed then
in a state of high excitement ; but it was, as is clear

366 LECTURE XIV.
from his own language, the excitement of bigoted zeal
and furious hatred. The earlier disciples too, upon
the condemnation and death of their Master, were un
questionably in a state — not of what we properly call
excitement, but — of the deepest depression ; and such
is exactly the state of mind which we should expect
to have been produced in their case by the death of
Him whom they had reason to regard as the Messiah.
They never could understand what Jesus meant when
He told them of His approaching sufferings and
death. His language on this subject utterly con
founded them ; and in all probability they believed to
the very last that He would rescue Himself from the
hands of His enemies. When His predictions were
actually fulfilled, and they saw Him betrayed, con
demned, and crucified, their hearts sank within them,
their hopes were blasted, and their faith was shaken
to its very basis. Their state of mind is vividly de
scribed to us in the words of the two who were going
to Emmaus on the day of the resurrection. These
two were conversing about their crucified Master.
They were evidently trying to account for this, to
them, most unexpected event. Their countenances
were sad, indicating the deep depression of their spi
rits, and their words were, " We trusted " — we were,
not are, hoping — " that this was He who should re
deem Israel." Their words do not imply that their
hope was wholly gone, but they state only what had
been their hope until that dread event befell them —
the death of Him in whom their hope was placed.
Neither their faith nor their hope was as yet a thing
entirely of the past ; but both had suffered a fearful
eclipse, and they knew not what to think.

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 367
Such was, according to all the evidence, the state
of these disciples' minds ; and this is assuredly not
that state of excitement which Strauss ascribes to
them, and to which, as its source, he traces their sub
sequent belief in the resurrection of Jesus — the ex
citement which he supposes could not exist until its
cause existed. That cause was not the death of
Jesus, but persecution raised against themselves.
Such is his theory. But this persecution was itself
caused by their proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus.
The excitement, therefore, occasioned by this perse
cution, could not have been the cause of their belief
in the resurrection.
We have dwelt the longer on this point for two
reasons. First, it is of the utmost importance to ascer
tain what was the real state of the disciples' minds
upon the death of Jesus. To ascertain this clearly is
important, because their state of mind enters into the
evidence which is given us in support of the fact
of the resurrection. Secondly, Strauss manifestly
labours to throw into a sort of formula what he re
gards as the component elements of a state of mind
from which, as its source, the idea and the belief of a
resurrection would spring. The formula is so con
structed as to apply to both cases — to that of St Paul,
and to that of the earlier disciples. There is a seeming
unity in the two cases ; and there is an apparent simpli
city in a formula applicable to both — although a mere
set of words, or rather of conjectures — which to some
persons may give it a plausible aspect. We might
have urged against the theory the difficulty which
both Paul and the earlier disciples could not but have
experienced in concluding from any supposed mental

368 LECTURE XIV.
feelings, however highly excited, a fact which they
yet believed to have been of an external, an objective
nature, such as that of a resurrection from the dead.
But we shall hereafter have occasion to allude to this
view of the subject. Meanwhile we reject the formula
itself as one which is not only purely imaginary, but
is in direct opposition both to the natural workings of
the human heart and to all the evidence we have,
whether in reference to Paul or to the earlier disciples.
" Give me a resting-place," said one, " and I will move
the world." Strauss does not ask a formula to be
given him. He is able to construct one for himself;
and then he shows how easily he can raise the dead.
But as his formula is the product of his own imagina
tion, so is the conclusion which is involved in it equally
the product of the same untrustworthy faculty. It
is reason, and not imagination, which ought to be
our guide in all inquiries into truth. If we abandon
reason as our guide, and will not listen to evidence,
we had better not inquire at all. Truth addresses
itself to the reason alone.
Having stated the general formula which exhibits
" the causes that produced these appearances " of
Christ, whether to Paul or to the earlier disciples, and
also " the conditions which made them possible,"
Strauss proceeds to particulars, in order to show how
the idea of, and the belief in, the resurrection of Jesus-
would arise. And, first, he notices the conceptions
prevalent among the Jews respecting the Messiah : —
" The Jewish conceptions of the Messiah, though different
in different persons, agreed nevertheless in this, that the
Messiah, after the opening of his kingdom, would continue
to reign over his followers for a period far exceeding the

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 369
natural duration of human life. According to Luke i. 33
(comp. John xii. 34), his dominion was to have, absolutely,
no end, as we might read in Ps. ex. 4 ; Isaiah ix. 7 ; Dan. vii.
1 4, 2 7 ; elsewhere we find sometimes a duration of a thousand
years (Rev. xx. 4), sometimes of four hundred,* sometimes
even a shorter dominion of the Messiah on earth is supposed.t
If he died at last, this death was to happen to all life on
earth for the purpose of bringing about the change into the
superterrestrial state. J In no case could he die until he had
finished his work and executed all that was expected of
him ; in no case as one submitting to superior power, as a
condemned criminal. Both had occurred to Jesus : his
ministry as the Messiah had been broken off by the violence
practised against him by the Jews, even before it had fully
begun. Interrupted it had been, but even this only appa
rently ; the people to whom he had been sent had shown
themselves unworthy to keep him, and to partake of the
blessings which he had wished to bring them. Therefore the
heavens at length had taken him up until the people should
become worthy of his being sent again by God, that the
times of restitution long since promised to the true Israel
may come in (Acts iii. 20, ff). The element of the prema
ture and violent death could only be adopted into the
Jewish conception of the Messiah on one condition, a con
dition, however, not unacceptable. That condition was the
viewing of the death of the Messiah not as a descent of his
soul into the kingdom of shadows, but as an exaltation to
God, as an entrance into the glory of the Messiah (Luke
xxiv. 25, ff), with the prospect in reserve of a future return
in that glory." — Vol. i. p. 421-2.
The design of the above passage is very obvious.
There is the prevalent conception entertained by the
Jews that the Messiah's reign was to last either for
* 4 Ezra v. 29, ff. Compare on this, Volkmar, Introduction to the
Apocrypha, ii. 61, ff.
t Gfrorer, The Century of Salvation, ii. 252, ff. { 4 Ezra. Ibid.
2 A

370 LECTURE XIV.
ever, or at least for a period exceeding the natural
duration of human life ; and if by any it was supposed
that He would die, His death was to be accompanied
with the death of all life on earth, for the purpose of
bringing about the change into the superterrestrial
state. In no case was He to die as one yielding to
superior power, or as a condemned criminal.
Without dwelling on the particular views here re
ferred to, it is abundantly evident that the current
conceptions of the Messiah among the Jews, when Jesus
appeared and claimed to be the Messiah, were, that He
was to establish a kingdom upon earth ; that the Jewish
people under Him were to be raised to a supremacy
over all other nations ; and that this kingdom was to
endure for ever. The disciples of Jesus, as well as
the rest of their countrymen, shared in these views of
the Messiah — so much so indeed, that even after His
resurrection "they asked Him, saying, Lord, wilt Thou
at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel ? "
(Acts i. 6). Carnality blinded the minds of the Jews,
and they rejected the claims of Jesus, resisting the
force of all the evidence by which these claims were
supported, mainly because He came as a spiritual and
not as a carnal deliverer. It was evidently owing to
these carnal conceptions of the Messiah's nature and
office that the disciples of Jesus " were offended"
when He spake to them of His approaching suffer
ings and death. It was owing to the same cause
that, when He was actually condemned and put to
death, their hopes were well-nigh extinguished and
their faith overturned.
Now, the simple question is, How did these disciples
come to change their views respecting the Messiah's

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 37 1
kingdom, and especially respecting His death ? How
were they able to adopt into their conception of the
Messiah " the element of a premature and violent
death," such as that which had befallen Jesus? Strauss's
theory is, that this change was effected solely by an
effort of their own minds. The disciples believed
that Jesus was the Messiah. His death was directly
opposed to the conceptions which they entertained
of the Messiah. Still they were of themselves deter
mined to persist in their faith, and therefore they
set to work to find out some way by which they
could adopt into their conception the fact of His
death. And it occurred to them — to them all, with
out a single dissenting voice — that the way was to
view this death, which had so stunned them, as only
a temporary cessation of His work, caused by the
unworthiness of the Jewish people of that generation
to retain Him as the Messiah ; and further, to view
it not as a real death, but " as an exaltation to
God, as an entrance into the glory of the Messiah,
with the prospect in reserve of a future return in
that glory."
This is his theory, and it is professedly constructed
out of two passages, of which the one is found in St
Luke's Gospel, and the other in the Acts of the Apostles,
written by the same author. These two books Strauss
ascribes to some unknown author who lived in the
second century, and he therefore regards them as of no
authority. Still he may say, that although he rejects
the received authorship of these books, he is entitled
to look at these passages as showing how the minds
of the disciples — earlier or later — reasoned about
those matters. Now we have, first of all, to reply,

372 LECTURE XIV.
that if we appeal to these or other passages as fur
nishing materials for a conclusion, we must take them
as they are presented to us, and not garble them, or
torture them to say merely what we wish they had
said. The passage in the Gospel of Luke consists of
words declared to have been uttered by the risen
Jesus in order to show to the two disciples that,
according to the ancient Scriptures, it behoved the
Messiah " first to suffer, and then to enter into His
glory." It was not these disciples who made this
discovery. It was another — even Jesus Himself, risen
from the dead — who explained to them from the
words of Moses and the succeeding Prophets the
things concerning Himself. We have here a satisfac
tory and reasonable account of the manner in which
these disciples came to be able to adopt into their
conception of the Messiah the element of His pre
mature and violent death. We also learn that the
other disciples were instructed by the same divine
Teacher ; for it is recorded by the same Evangelist
that " Jesus opened their understanding that they
might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them,
Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ — the
Messiah — to suffer, and to rise from the dead the
third day " (Luke xxiv. 45, 46). Here, we repeat, is
a rational account of the change which took place
in the conceptions of these disciples respecting the
Messiah. Strauss's theory gives no rational account
of it whatever. He merely asserts the change, and
ascribes it to the working of the disciples' own minds;
and he does this not only without adducing the
slightest evidence in support of his view, but in direct
opposition to the only evidence we have.

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 373
As to the passage in the Acts, it is taken from a
speech addressed by the Apostle Peter to the Jewish
people, who crowded to the Temple when they heard
the report of the miracle there performed on the lame
man. In this remarkable speech, delivered a few
days after Pentecost, and therefore not a long time
after the death of Jesus, Peter expressly charged
those whom he addressed with having denied the
Holy and Just One, and with having killed the Prince
of Life, whom God, he said, had raised from the dead,
of which fact he and his fellow-Apostles were wit
nesses ; he then told them that though they and their
rulers were guilty in having so treated Him whom
God had sent, these things had happened according
to predictions uttered by the Prophets, who had all
foretold that the Messiah should suffer ; and he ex
horted them to repentance in order that they might
receive the forgiveness of their sins, for that He whom
they had denied and crucified, and whom God had
raised from the dead, was now in heaven, and would
come again to restore all things (Acts iii. 12-21).
Here, indeed, is an account of the manner in which
the death of the Messiah could, according to the
Scriptures, be adopted into a just conception of His
office. So far there is truth in Strauss's view ; but
then this account contains, as essential to the conclu
sion which it enforces, the fact of the resurrection of
Jesus ; whereas Strauss would first bring in the con
clusion, and then draw from it the belief in the resur
rection. He would represent the disciples as reason
ing thus: "Jesus is the Messiah. He ought not to
have died ; but He has died. His death, then, cannot
be anything else than an exaltation to God : therefore

374 LECTURE XIV.
He must have risen from the dead." But the accounts
which we have represent the matter otherwise. " Jesus
is the Messiah. He has been put to death. He is
risen again, and is exalted to the right hand of God."
And, as we have said, the risen Jesus Himself opened
the understanding of His disciples to see how this
series of facts was fulfilled in harmony with the pre
dictions concerning the Messiah. Who can hesitate
between the theory of Strauss and the accounts of
Luke the Evangelist ?
Strauss continues his argument, such as it is, in the
following manner :- — ¦
" If the Old Testament was examined with this view, this
passing of the Messiah through death and the grave to a
new and higher life could as easily be found there, as, in so
many places treating of quite different persons and things,
the Messiah and circumstances relating to him were found.
Did, then, it might be said, and in fact was said, David
praise God on his account (Ps. xvi. 9, ff.) for not leaving his
soul in hell, and not suffering his flesh to see corruption —
David, who had died as other men, and whose body had
seen corruption ? Or was it not rather his great successor,
the Messiah — that is, Jesus — to whom those words applied
as a prophecy (Acts ii. 25, ff.)? Had not, further, Isaiah
prophesied of the servant of Jehovah, that he shall be cut
off out of the land of the living, and make his grave with
the wicked ; but that when he has made his soul a sin-
offering, he will live long, and divide his spoil with the
strong (Isaiah liii. 8-12)?" — Vol. i. p. 422-3.
We need not offer many remarks on this passage,
the design of which is to insinuate that the first dis
ciples examined the Old Testament in order to dis
cover passages which they might apply to the Messiah,
and therefore to Jesus, whom they were determined

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 375
to regard as the Messiah. We pass over, as unworthy
of notice here, the assertion that this was an easy
task to persons who were in the habit of " applying
to the Messiah and to circumstances relating to Him,
passages which treat of quite different persons and
things." It is necessary for the opponents of Chris
tianity to do what they can to throw discredit on the
evidence of prophecy, which is one great branch of
that miraculous evidence which God has given in
proof of the claims of His Son Jesus Christ. How
ever obvious to us is the meaning of many of these
prophecies, the carnally-minded Jews were often unable
to discern their import ; and in particular their minds
were so engrossed with worldly conceptions of the
Messiah's kingdom, that those predictions which
clearly pointed to His sufferings and death were
hidden from them. Hence it became necessary for
the Apostles, to whom Jesus Himself explained these
predictions, and who were further enlightened by the
gift of the Holy Spirit, to explain especially to their
Jewish brethren the full significance of what God had
foretold by the Prophets concerning the Messiah.
It is important in our discussion to notice what
was the mode in which these Apostles reasoned.
They did not assert, as Strauss more than insinuates,
that certain passages of Scripture represent the Mes
siah as suffering and dying, and then passing into
glory ; and that since Jesus is the Messiah, therefore
He, after suffering and death, must have passed into
glory. Their invariable mode was, after proving from
Scripture that the Messiah must first suffer and then
pass into glory, to show that Jesus did actually suffer,
did rise again from the dead, and did ascend to

376 LECTURE XIV.
heaven ; that therefore the prophecies concerning the
Messiah were fulfilled in Him ; and that this Jesus
whom they preached was accordingly proved to be
the Messiah. This, we repeat, was the mode in
which they invariably conducted their argument ; and
neither Strauss nor any other man is entitled to mis
represent their mode of procedure, and to do this
merely to uphold a preconceived opinion, which they
know perfectly well cannot be sustained except by
such manifest misrepresentation. How utterly friv
olous, were the subject not so awful, might we pro
nounce such conduct ! How childish it is in any man
to think he can support a cause by such pretended
criticism !
We say nothing as to the two passages adduced.
They are both direct predictions concerning the
Messiah, and clearly intimate His death and His
resurrection. But it is only right to draw attention
to the application of the first passage which the
Apostle Peter, in his first speech on the day of Pente
cost, quoted as bearing on the resurrection of Jesus.
Before Peter referred to the passage, he had uttered
these solemn words, in which he appeals to facts that
had occurred — " Ye men of Israel, hear these words :
Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God among
you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God
did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves
also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate
counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken,
and by wicked hands have crucified and slain : whom
God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death ;
because it was not possible that He should be holden
of it." It is only after this appeal to known facts

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 377
that the Apostle refers to the passage in the 16th
Psalm as showing that in these facts divine prophecy
was clearly fulfilled.
As to the passage from Isaiah to which the atten
tion of Philip was providentially directed, we shall
merely observe that all the ingenuity of scepticism
has utterly failed to set aside its application to the
Messiah, and to disprove its fulfilment in Jesus of
Nazareth. That prophecy stands clear and distinct,
and will never cease to direct the faith of every sin
cere inquirer to Him who alone died for our sins and
rose again for our justification.
" In connection," continues Strauss, " with these words,
the disciples might remember many of Jesus himself, in
which were involved, on the one hand, allusions to the
passion and death that awaited him, on the other hand to
the victory of his cause, which was not to be defeated
thereby ; and these words, perhaps, had been placed in con
nection with passages of this kind out of the Old Tes
tament. Luke (xxiv. 25, ff, 32, 46, ff.) represents it as
having been one of the principal things that Jesus did after
his resurrection, to open the Scriptures before the disciples,
and point out to them how his passion, death, and resur
rection were predicted in them. But we have no trace of
this, that after the final departure of Jesus it was a renewed
search into the Scriptures which served to revive the faith
of his disciples." — Vol. i. p. 423.
It is not very easy at first to perceive the bearing
of the last sentence in this passage ; but a little re
flection discovers this to be its bearing : ' Luke re
presents Jesus as after His resurrection opening the
Scriptures before His disciples, and pointing out to
them how His passion, death, and resurrection were
predicted in them. But as Jesus did not rise from

378 LECTURE XIV.
the dead, Luke's account is erroneous, and we might
have supposed that his error lay in attributing to the
risen Jesus what was really done by the disciples
themselves — that it was they who, after the death of
Jesus, made a fresh search into the Scriptures, and that
this served to revive their faith. Could we discover
a trace of this, we should easily account for their
belief in the resurrection ; but though we must con
fess that there is no such trace, we throw out the in
sinuation that such may have been the case. At all
events, these disciples might remember, in connection
with the words of David and Isaiah, " many of Jesus
Himself," involving allusions to His coming passion
and death, and also to the victory of His own cause;
and probably Jesus Himself had connected His own
words with passages of the kind out of the Old Testa
ment' The design of Strauss here is to account for the
fact that the disciples did ultimately adopt into their
conception of the Messiah the element of the pre
mature and violent death of Jesus, whom they believed
to be the Messiah. The account which he seems to
regard as the most probable is, that Jesus Himself
had used expressions involving the things referred to,
and had also connected these expressions with certain
passages to be found in the Old Testament. But,
according to Strauss, Jesus, whilst alluding to the
passion and death that awaited Him, spoke only of
the victory of His cause, which was not to be defeated
thereby. Now, the very documents from which alone
Strauss could learn this much, tell us plainly that
Jesus spoke to His disciples not only about the
victory of His cause, but also about His own resur-

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 379
rection, which He assured them would take place on
the third day after His death. Strauss does not
attempt to explain how Jesus, whom he regards as
only a man, came Himself to adopt into His concep
tion of the Messiah the element of a premature and
violent death, and also to represent to His disciples
that His cause would, notwithstanding that death,
prove victorious. The difficulty which Strauss labours
so vaguely to remove in the case of the disciples by
means of the teaching of Jesus, is only, according to
his view of Jesus, thrown back to the case of Jesus
Himself, who, if He is to be regarded as but an ordi
nary Jew, must to some extent at least have enter
tained the prevalent conception of the Messiah. But
conceding, for the sake of argument, that Jesus rose
above this prevalent conception so far as to see that
the promised Messiah was to die, whilst His cause
was not to be defeated thereby ; that He, without
any direct warrant from God, but solely from the
impulse of His own mind, claimed to be this Messiah;
and further, that certain persons came to recognise
this claim, we might understand how these persons
should, after the death of their Messiah, still insist
upon His claims, and upon the ultimate victory of His
cause, — yet how are we to account on such grounds as
these for their belief in His resurrection from the dead,
a belief, be it observed, which they held when they
engaged in the enterprise of announcing His claims
to Gentile as well as Jew ? If Jesus really, as the
documents tell us, foretold His own resurrection, and
if He, in point of fact, did rise from the dead, as the
same documents assure us He did, then we have a
satisfactory account of the matter. But upon the

380 LECTURE XIV.
hypothesis of Strauss we have no such account of one
of the most remarkable phenomena that have oc
curred in the history of the human mind. Let us
now, after these vague preliminary attempts to clear
up this matter, hear how the case stood, according to
Strauss, after the death of Jesus.
" The case, then," says he, " immediately after the decease
of Jesus, between the Jews of the ancient faith and his ad
herents, stood as follows. The former said, ' Your Jesus
cannot have been the Messiah, because the Messiah is to
continue for ever, or not to die until after a long period of
dominion as the Messiah, at the same time as all other
earthly life; but your Jesus has died before the time by a
disgraceful death, without having done anything expected
of the Messiah.' On the other hand, the latter said, ' As
Jesus, our Messiah, died so early, the prophecies which
promise to the Messiah that he shall endure for ever can
only have meant that his death shall not be a continuance
in hell, but a transmigration into a higher life with God,
from whence he will return to earth at his own time, in order
to bring to a conclusion his work that was interrupted through
your guilt.' " — Vol. i. p. 423.
Now let us carefully look at the case here presented
to us. The two parties, the Jews of the ancient faith
on the one hand and the adherents of Jesus on the
other, are represented as entering into a discussion
respecting the Messianic claims of Jesus. Let us
suppose that the former employed the argument here
put into their mouths, and consider the manner in
which the latter reply to this argument. They are
described as having attained to the belief that Jesus,
though dead, had passed into a higher life with God,
whence He was to return to complete the work
which had been interrupted through the guilt of their

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 38 1
opponents. Now, where is there the slightest evid
ence that, upon the death of Jesus, His disciples went
forth and presented the claims of their Master in this
vague manner ? Where is there the slightest evidence
that they themselves, through any mere remembrance
of words spoken by Jesus, whether connected or not
with passages of the Old Testament, attained to such
a belief? Jesus, they knew, had been put to death,
and His body had been laid in the tomb ; or, if Strauss
will have it so, His body had been thrown into some
dishonourable place. How is it possible to conceive
that any number of men should have gone forth with
what, in the case supposed, could have been only a
mere theory, a theory directly opposed to their own
inherited conception of the Messiah, and should have
boldly faced the Jewish rulers, and for the sake of
such a theory have encountered not mere opposi
tion in words, but positive persecution even to impris
onment and to death ? Strauss represents the two
parties as arguing solely about some matter of specu
lative opinion, like two opposing sects in the schools
of philosophy. He draws the features of the case
entirely from his own imagination.
We must, with all deference to Strauss's power of
imagination, prefer to look at the case as presented
to us in the only documents which give us informa
tion regarding it ; and when we so look at it, we find
it to be not only essentially different from the case
as described by him, but actually such as we might
expect it to have been under all the circumstances
known to us. The disciples did believe Jesus to be
the Messiah. They believed Him to be such, because
of the evidence which supported His claims. But

382 LECTURE XIV.
when He gave them intimations of His death and
also of His resurrection, they were wholly unable to
" adopt the element of His death into their conception
of the Messiah." And when He was actually put to
death, their minds were so stunned — the gloom of
His death so obscured their mental powers — that
they forgot His words about His rising again. It
was only after sensible evidence — evidence appealing
to their senses of sight and hearing and touch — evid
ence repeatedly given, that they were thoroughly con
vinced of the reality of His resurrection.
Such is the representation of the case given in the
only documents we' have bearing on the subject, as to
the way in which the belief of these disciples was
produced. It was produced by the presentation of a
visible fact — of Jesus Himself. And it was after His
visible ascension to heaven, and after they were them
selves endowed with power from on high, that they
went forth and proclaimed to the people of Jerusalem
— not first the transmigration of Jesus, their Messiah,
to a higher life with God — -but His actual resurrection,
of which they declared themselves to be witnesses,
and then, as subsequent to this fact, His ascension to
the right hand of God, and His promise to come again
in His glory, not to complete a work which had been
interrupted by His death, but to judge the world in
righteousness, and to perfect the eternal salvation
which by His one all-perfect sacrifice He had ob
tained for every one, Jew or Gentile, who believes on
His name. They first of all, we repeat, proclaimed
the fact of His resurrection, and they presented them
selves as witnesses before God of the reality of this
fact ; and when they appealed to passages in the Old

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 383
Testament, they did so, not for the purpose of estab
lishing the reality of the resurrection, but with the
view of proving that this fact, as well as that of His
death, was in perfect harmony with the prophecies
which had gone before concerning the' Messiah.
Such, and such only, is the case as it really stood,
not immediately after the death of Jesus, but shortly
after His resurrection and ascension, between the
Jewish people and the disciples of Jesus. It was no
matter of mere opinion to be tossed to and fro be
tween two opposing parties. It was a matter of fact,
of a fact involving practical consequences of the
highest possible order, of a fact involving life and
death, misery without end and bliss without end.
Strauss has no right to draw from the original
sources just so much as may aid his imagination in
constructing a case involving his very conclusion. He
is bound either to reject these sources altogether, or
to take the case as it is there presented ; and then, if
he can, to support his desired conclusion. He had,
by his previous insinuations, all contrary to the evid
ence, prepared the way for setting up his imaginary
case. He has now succeeded, as he thinks, in repre
senting the disciples of Jesus as arguing with their
opponents, and as employing a particular style of
argument. And he must now go on to show how
this style of argument employed by the disciples must
issue in their coming to the idea of, and belief in, a
resurrection of the body of the deceased but now ex
alted Jesus. The idea, you will observe, of the deceased
Jesus having passed at His death into a higher life
with God, is the germ from which the idea of a resur
rection of His body, and not only that, but a positive

384 LECTURE XIV.
belief in such a resurrection, is made to proceed. The
whole must be reduced to a mere idea which sprang
up in the minds of the disciples. He has now suc
ceeded in the formation of this idea ; and his inge
nuity will not fail in rendering it productive of all the
necessary fruit. However incredulous the sceptic is
as to facts, he is in his very element when he is at
work with ideas. Credulity never forsakes him then.
He can cause them to spring up at a moment's notice,
in any soil, and produce whatever he pleases. These
may seem to be harsh sayings, but they are true ; and
for their truth we have only to appeal to the sad and
tedious statements which we are at present compelled
to subject to criticism. Strauss is purposely labour
ing to subvert the very basis of our faith and hope ;
and he attempts to do this by substituting, in the
room of real argument, conjectures which involve a
manifest misrepresentation of the case as set before
us in the only authentic documents, and which are
due solely to his own fancy. We can meet his rea
soning, such as it is, only by appealing to the case as
it really was, and by a decided protest against such a
mode of trifling with so solemn a subject.
He is now to show how the idea of the resurrection
of the body of Jesus would in course of time spring
from the idea of His having passed at His death into
a higher life with God.
"Now if the eminent men," he says, " of the Old Testament,
to whom a similar ascension to God had been vouchsafed,
an Enoch and Elijah (Moses also, according to later Jewish
legends, of which below), had ascended thither without the
intervention of death, they must have taken their bodies
with them unchanged. This seems to be an essential dif-

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 385
ference, but it is not so. The mortal bodies of an Enoch
or Elijah could not have entered, in their natural state, into
the heavenly world of spirits, but God must have changed
them first. What in these cases he did with the living
bodies, in the case of Jesus he did with the dead body,
anticipating at the same time in him the future resurrection
of the dead. The distinction was only the same as the
Apostle Paul (1 Cor. xv. 51, ff.) assumed was to exist be
tween those who were to live until Christ's second coming
and those who had died before. The former were to be
changed, the latter awakened — that is, the bodies of the
former were to attain the condition requisite for the new
life in the kingdom of Christ without the intervention of
death, while in the case of the latter the dead bodies
would be at the same time re-awakened and changed. But
that such a double miracle, exceeding far what had oc
curred in the case of Enoch and Elijah, occurred also in
that of Jesus, could only be credible to one who,saw in him
a prophet superior to them — that is, to one who, not
withstanding his death, was persuaded that he was the
Messiah ; this conviction was the first to which the disciples
had to attain in the days of their humiliation after his cruci
fixion. When they had done so, it became a matter of
course that his soul could not be confined powerless in
hell, but must have ascended up to God in heaven ; and
when they reflected upon the mode in which this ascension
might have taken place, they came, from the Jewish point
of view, to which the soul without the body was a mere
shadow, to the conception of a restoration of his body to
life — that is, of the resurrection." — Vol. i. p. 424.
In this passage Strauss merely expands what he
had before asserted, appealing to the cases of Enoch
and Elijah as in certain respects similar to the sup
posed case of Jesus, and as furnishing to the disciples
a ground for the idea which arose in their minds ; but
2 B

386 LECTURE XIV.
further than assertions on these points, the passage
contains no argument whatsoever to show how the dis
ciples came, soon after the death of Jesus, to believe
that He had risen from the dead. Strauss assumes
one thing which is perfectly correct, that the disciples
did believe Jesus to be the Messiah — but he seems also
to assume here that they attained to this conviction
during the days of their humiliation after the cruci
fixion of Jesus ; whereas the fact was, as is attested
by evidence, not by mere conjecture, that they had
attained to this conviction during the ministry of
Jesus ; and that His crucifixion, instead of strengthen
ing their conviction, operated, as in their case might
have been expected, to shake their faith, and to throw
them into the most perplexing doubts. Had Jesus
not actually risen from the dead, there is not the
slightest ground for supposing that their faith would
not have been entirely subverted. " They had hoped
that this was He who was to have redeemed Israel ;"
but this hope was now buried in the tomb where the
body of Jesus lay; and had that body continued in
the tomb, their hope had never risen again. It was
the fact of His resurrection which alone rekindled
their hope.
Strauss adduces, and can adduce, no evidence in
support of his theory. According to him the con
viction of the Messiahship of Jesus sprang up in the
minds of these disciples during the time of their deep
distress occasioned by His death. Then this convic
tion begat the idea of His having passed, notwith
standing His death, or rather in consequence of His
death, into a higher life with God. This idea, again,
connecting itself with the remembrance of what had

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 387
happened to Enoch and Elijah, assumed the shape of
an ascension on the part of Jesus to heaven ; and as
this last idea of an ascension must complete itself
according to the Jewish view of the relation between
the body and the soul, it at length reached the
form of a restoration of the body of Jesus to life
— that is, the conception of His resurrection. At
each stage of this process a firm belief accompanied
the growing idea, that things really were as they
were conceived to be. And, further, this germinating
process of mere ideas was begun, carried on, and
perfected simultaneously in the minds of all the dis
ciples, who by-and-by became so convinced of the
objective reality of what the consciousness of every
one of them could not but tell them was a mere idea
in their own minds, that they presented themselves
before the world — before Jew and Gentile — as wit
nesses not of a mere idea, but of an external, sensible
fact, and submitted, in support of their testimony, to
all manner of torture — to distress of every sort, -to im
prisonment, and to death — to what, if their belief was
an illusion, showed them to be, as they themselves
confessed, " of all men most miserable."
Such conduct we believe to have been impossible in
any set of men who had no other foundation for their
belief than what Strauss assigns to the disciples. He
can make ideas beget one another ; but the human
mind which can reflect, as he supposes the disciples did
reflect, is incapable of confounding mere ideas with
objective realities ; and human nature, which was, we
may assume, essentially the same in the case of these
disciples as in that of other men, is utterly incapable
of acting and suffering as they did in support of a

388 LECTURE XIV.
mere idea, of which they themselves were the conscious
originators, and which they declared to be no mere
idea, but a fact of which they had been witnesses.
As to the cases of Enoch and Elijah — not to men
tion that of Moses — these are referred to by Strauss
merely to show, that since such eminent men had
been favoured by being taken up to God, it might well
be supposed that Jesus would receive a similar honour.
It is true that these servants of God had passed into
heaven without the intervention of death, and must
therefore have, as he says, carried their bodies with
them unchanged. A difficulty, then, is suggested here,
which, however, these disciples would by reflection
easily overcome ; for they were already aware of
that distinction which is pointed out by the Apostle
Paul when discussing the subject of the general resur
rection of Christ's people. The living are to have
their bodies changed ; the dead are to be re-awak
ened, and then to be changed. In the case of the
latter there is, then, to be a double miracle — the re
awakening and the change of their bodies. No such
change, Strauss assures us, took place in respect to
the bodies of Enoch and Elijah. The framers of
these older fictions had not perceived the necessity
of a change in the body when transferred into the
heavenly sphere. But this necessity was now felt ;
and, double miracle as it occasions, they could have
no difficulty in predicating it of the body of Jesus,
since He was regarded by them as so superior to
these eminent men.
Is it not painful beyond expression to see how a
man, capable of reasoning, can satisfy his own mind
with such a tissue of pure conjectures, and set at

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 389
defiance all consideration of the ordinary workings of
human nature as well as all evidence, be it what it
may, which exists in respect to the very matter he
is discussing? However, we must follow him still
further, and see how the process which has now pro
duced not only the conception of the resurrection of
Jesus, but also the firm belief in the objective reality
of His resurrection, will yet further manifest itself.
Conjectures are endless ; but there is art in arranging
them well, so that the one shall beget the next, and
so on in regular procession. The skilful formation of
the series tends to give a plausible appearance to the
theory, and even in the case of some persons to beget
a belief in the truth of the theory. No sceptic excels
Strauss in this art. He knows thoroughly where to
begin and how to advance ; and the unwary reader
is gradually led on from one stage to another in such
a manner as tends to blind him to the fact that he
began with a mere conjecture, and is all along in the
region of conjecture.
"As there was no necessity," he says, "for this con
ception to be even accurately defined, the possibility was
readily assumed that the ascended Messiah might show
himself in his new glory to his followers. If he were once
conceived as being with God in the position of an angel, he
must have the power of appearing as an angel, otherwise
such an intimation of his existence need not be even a
visible appearance. On the occasion of that vouchsafed to
Paul, there were, according to the description in the Acts,
two things together : there was a shining light, which was
considered as the veil of the ascended Christ, and an
audible voice from heaven. The latter reminds us of the
audible oracle of the later Jewish faith, the so - called
' daughter of the voice ' (Bath Kol) which we hear of in the

39O LECTURE XIV.
Rabbinic writings, and which, as may be seen from John
(xii. 29), consisted in a natural sound, accidentally arising,
as a sudden clap of thunder and the like, being considered
as an omen, and a definite meaning being given to it,
according to the circumstances or the temper of men's
minds, with the existence of which it coincided. If it
had been Paul himself who told us of a light which sud
denly shone around him, and of a voice which he heard from
out the splendour (otherwise than merely symbolically, as
2 Cor. iv. 6), we should have no hesitation in thinking of
a flash of lightning and a clap of thunder, which, coinciding
with the inward struggles in his mind, was considered by
the Apostle as the appearance and angry voice of the Christ
whom he persecuted ; but as it is only the Acts of the
Apostles which gives the account, we cannot, considering
the later origin, and in many respects unhistorical character,
of this writing, determine whether these features of the de
scription belong or not, only to legend or poetic fiction." —
Vol. i. p. 425-
This passage is intended to show how the concep
tion of the resurrection of Jesus, when once formed in
the minds of the disciples — a conception which it was
by no means necessary for them to define with any
degree of accuracy — would readily beget in them the
idea that the ascended Messiah might appear — that
is, be supposed to appear — in His new glory to His
followers. Strauss, be it observed, always in this
process assumes that the conception of a thing is
identical with a belief — a firm belief — in its objective
reality. This assumption he never attempts to prove.
He could not but know that there is a wide gulf
between a mere idea of anything and the belief in the
reality of that thing. The former is indeed necessary
' to the existence of the latter, still they are essenti-

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 39 1
ally distinct ; and prone as the human mind is to be
deceived, and to mistake one appearance for another,
it must have something beyond the mere idea of a
thing before it can truly believe that it is really
objective. The mind may believe false rumours about
a thing of an objective nature ; but the case before
us refers to the first believers in the thing ; and what
we maintain is, that in their case the mere conception
is not sufficient to beget belief. There must be
something — however mistaken it may be — some
thing to which the conception will attach itself as a
ground or reason for the belief. Strauss seems to
argue as if the human mind necessarily believes in the
objective reality of whatever it has the power to ima
gine. Such is, in fact, the principle which he assumes,
and upon which his whole reasoning proceeds. And
indeed he would seem to have some warrant for
assuming this principle in the apparent workings of
his own mind ; for he sets himself purposely to solve
the problem, " How can I imagine certain ideas to
have entered the minds of these disciples ? " After
forming in his mind an image of the process, he pro
fesses to believe that this imagined process was an
actual process in the case of the disciples and begat
belief in them of the objective reality. His whole proof
consists in the implied affirmation : It was so, because
I have imagined it to have been so. Sound reasoning
in general requires us to assume only those principles
which we know govern human nature, and to bestow
some attention on whatever evidence we have as to the
formation of belief in mankind. But such a mode of
procedure is unsatisfactory to Strauss. The evidence
he wholly rejects, and the principles of the human mind

392 LECTURE XIV.
he sets at defiance. His own imagination is the source
whence everything must be drawn. The disciples hav
ing by the mere power of reflection — rather, we should
say, by the power of imagination, for reflection must
have been out of the question — conceived and there
fore believed that Jesus, as the Messiah, had ascended
to heaven ; that accordingly He must have taken His
body thither ; and that, therefore, though laid in the
tomb, it could not now be there ; — the disciples, ac
cording to Strauss, having been bereft of their senses,
and giving uncontrolled rein to their power of imagi
nation, experienced no difficulty, of course, in fancy
ing, and therefore believing, that the ascended and
glorified Messiah might appear to His followers, and
they accordingly believed that He did appear to
them in His new glory. Had they not imagined
Him to be with God in the position of an angel, it
would not have been necessary for them to suppose
visible appearances ; but having so imagined, and
angels being messengers, and having visibly appeared,
they could not escape from the conception and belief
of such appearances on the part of the risen Jesus.
The idea of the Messiah as an angel necessarily
begets the idea of His appearing as such.
Strauss then refers to the alleged appearance to
Paul, " on which occasion there were, according to the
description in the Acts, two things together — a shin
ing light and an audible voice from heaven." The
latter he considers not, as is expressly stated in the
Acts, as an articulate sound, but as reminding us of
the Bath Kol — " the daughter of the voice " — in which
the later Jews believed, and which he erroneously de
scribes as an audible oracle; whereas that so-called

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 393
" daughter of the voice " was believed by these Jews to
be not an ordinary audible sound, but a voice which
was miraculously heard, even when all around was in
perfect silence. Such, however, is the view of Strauss
respecting the sound which reached the ears of Paul,
and also the ears of his attendants, although the former
only, as we are informed, understood the words which
it conveyed, and which were addressed solely to him.
Strauss thinks that we have a similar instance of such
a sound in John xii. 29, where he erroneously con
ceives we have a description of the Bath Kol, which,
he says, " consisted in a natural sound, accidentally
arising, as a sudden clap of thunder and the like,
being considered as an omen, and a definite meaning
being given to it according to the circumstances or
the temper of men's minds, with the existence of
which it coincided."
It is unnecessary to enter again upon this subject
of the appearance of Christ to Paul. Had Paul him
self told us of a light which shone round about him,
and a voice which he heard from out the splendour,
knowing as we do that he speaks symbolically of
a " light of the knowledge of the glory of God which
shines forth in the face of Jesus Christ " (2 Cor. iv. 6),
we should at once, according to Strauss, have con
cluded that in such a case also Paul was using sym
bolical language, and that on the occasion referred to
there were a flash of lightning and a clap of thunder,
which, coinciding with the inward struggles in his
mind, were considered by him as the appearance and
angry voice of the Christ whom he persecuted. In
short, Strauss would have explained away the state
ment, had it proceeded directly from Paul, by adopt-

394 LECTURE XIV.
ing the theory of the so-called Rationalists — a theory
which he had formerly shown to be utterly untenable.
But he has an easier way of getting rid of the state
ment ; for although it does proceed from Paul as well
as from the author of the Acts, yet, as the statement
of Paul is recorded in the Acts, he thinks it better to
deny the historical character of this book ; and this
being done, we are, of course, at a loss to determine
whether to adopt the rationalistic explanation of the
light and the voice, or to ascribe these features en
tirely to legend or poetic fiction.
But the main thing to be observed in all this pas
sage is, that the idea of appearances of Jesus as the
Messiah is regarded as fully explained by the idea
already engendered in the minds of the disciples of
His ascension, which latter idea necessarily produced
that of His resurrection — the idea of His ascension,
or rather of His having passed at death into a higher
life with God, having itself been occasioned by the
belief that Jesus was the Messiah, and by the neces
sity of having to meet the objection, "Your Jesus is
dead, and cannot be the Messiah, for the Messiah
abideth for ever." Such, be it remembered, is, accord
ing to Strauss, the true genesis of all these ideas —
ideas identical with beliefs.
But Strauss still further shows himself now quite
ready to follow the Rationalist interpreters of mira
culous events. He formerly, as we have said, treated
their theory with contempt, and he certainly justly
exposed their silly interpretations. But he has so far
changed his mind, as we shall again see.
" Thus also," he says, " some of the appearances of Jesus
after his resurrection, taken by themselves, are by no means

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 395
incapable of explanation as perfectly natural occurrences. Ac
cording to Luke, on the second day after the crucifixion, two
disciples, who were going from Jerusalem into the country,
met with a person unknown, who in inspired words opened
their understandings with regard to the death of the Messiah,
and just at the moment when he separated from them in the
dusk, they thought they recognised him as their own Jesus. In
the supplementary chapter to the fourth Gospel, certain dis
ciples, being in the ship in the twilight of the early morning
on the Sea of Galilee, met an unknown person on the shore,
who gave them some advice on the subject of throwing out
their net ; in consequence of the surprisingly fortunate re
sult, they considered him to be ' the Lord,' without one of
them having had the confidence to ask him whether he was
really so. In these cases, taking the narratives by them
selves, and supposing them in the main historical, we might
admit that the excitement of the disciples after the sudden
death of Jesus, their power of imagination incessantly busy
with the recalling of his figure, readily showed them, in the first
unknown person who met them in ambiguous circumstances,
and made a particular impression on them, an appearance of
the Master who had been taken from them. And here an
appeal might be made to historical examples of similar delu
sions having happened under similar circumstances. I quote
one of these from the history of my own home. Duke
Ulrich of Wurtemberg was, not indeed killed by the Swabian
League, but only banished from his country ; this was occu
pied by the Austrians, and secured against his return. 'But
as the Duke,' says an excellent historian, ' still numbered
many adherents in the country, whose hearts and minds he
occupied waking and dreaming, and the command not even
to speak of him invested his person in a mysterious obscurity,
the power of imagination became naturally more inventive.
Stones and animals were represented as speaking of him.
There were also people who professed to have seen their
former master (here and there in the country), or even to

396 LECTURE XIV.
have had him in disguise under their roof. "The heart
thinks, the hour brings." '
" It is not to be supposed," Strauss continues, " that the
Duke, in his cautious and suspicious state of mind, would
have really thus travelled about unprotected among his
enemies. We must therefore consider these tales of his
haunting the country like a spectre solely as the results
of the excited imagination, and consequently of legend, for
which, as the acute historian does not forget to remind us,
circumstances like those described are a particularly favour
able soil. The hostess at Miinchingen, of whom he tells,
may have really taken a foreign guest who lodged with her
for the Duke ; so, sooner or later, may the collier at Urach
the unknown person to whom he showed the way through
the wood ; and these stories, told at greater length, might
have given occasion for the invention of others in which
there was nothing real whatever." — Vol. i. p. 425-7.
We have quoted all this about the Duke Ulrich,
lest it should be supposed that Strauss was appealing
to some example fairly capable of a stricter comparison
with the subject under discussion. He himself, as we
shall immediately see, admits that the comparison is
not complete. Still, he quotes the story in order to
prepare the minds of his readers for adopting the
theory which he is endeavouring to establish respect
ing the accounts of the appearances of the risen Jesus,
and which he is about to present as sufficient to ac
count for those appearances. No one questions the
power of imagination to invent, under certain circum
stances, stories such as those about Duke Ulrich.
Delusions of that kind have abounded among all
nations. And they certainly teach us to scrutinise
with the utmost severity every account of appear
ances such as those which are recorded concerning

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 397
Jesus. But whilst we thus scrutinise such accounts,
we are not to judge unfairly. We are bound to ex
amine the accounts with an impartial mind, and also
to take into consideration all the circumstances of the
particular case. If we assume, as Strauss does, that
Jesus was an impostor when He claimed to be the
Son of God, then, whether we can explain the
appearances recorded to have taken place after His
death or not, we cannot regard the belief of His dis
ciples in these appearances as anything else than a
delusion. Assuming Strauss's premisses, we must
adopt his conclusion, for the premisses involve it, and
all further inquiry is merely a matter of curiosity.
If, however, we do not adopt his assumption, but
desire to ascertain whether Jesus was indeed what He
claimed to be — the Messiah, the Son of God, and the
Saviour of the world — then we do not summarily
reject these accounts as containing stories of mere
human delusion, but must allow that for such a
Being — if He were really what He professed to be —
to rise from the dead is assuredly not inconsistent
with His claim, but, as far as such an event is con
cerned, is in perfect harmony with such a claim.
Hence we are bound to examine the evidence in
support of such a fact, that we may really ascertain
whether it does support the fact, or whether we shall
be entitled to reject it as altogether insufficient to
convince us of its having occurred. This is assuredly
the only fair mode of judging on such a momentous
subject. Now, looking at the two alleged appearances to
which Strauss specially refers in the above passage,
we think he presents neither case as he ought to have

398 LECTURE XIV.
done. And, by the way, he says that it was " on the
second day after the crucifixion that the two disciples
who were going from Jerusalem into the country met
with a person unknown." Strauss never says any
thing carelessly. He has his main design constantly
before his mind. And here he speaks unfairly, know
ing, as he could not but know, the common mode of
reckoning time among the Jews, that this day was by
them considered not the second, but the third day
after the crucifixion, which all allow took place before
the close of our Friday, so that the first day of the
week became the third day after that event. But
leaving this matter, we ask any one to conceive the
case of the two disciples meeting with this unknown
person in the way which Strauss describes. Here
are two disciples of Jesus profoundly sad on account
of their Master's death, and evidently expressing to
one another their perplexities as occasioned by such
an event — by the death of one who they had been
hoping would have redeemed Israel. A stranger joins
them, and draws from them an account of what has
happened. He opens their understanding with regard
to the death of the Messiah. He explains to them
from the Scriptures that " it behoved the Messiah to
suffer, and then to enter into His glory." Was not
this unknown person, to say the least, a disciple of
Jesus ? Was he not more enlightened in the know
ledge of Scripture than either of the two whom he
was addressing, and in whose hearts he was kindling
the well-nigh extinct hope ? If more enlightened
than either of them, was he not also more enlightened
than any one of the other disciples whose company
these two had shortly before left ? Who, then, was

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 399
this unknown person ? And why did he so abruptly
separate himself from the two ? Is it possible to con
ceive that this person, the only one among the friends
of Jesus, so far as we know, who really understood the
import of ancient prophecy concerning the Messiah,
should, if a friend, have felt so little interest in the other
disciples as either to have been utterly unknown to
them, or to have made no effort to relieve them in
their distress, except by a brief and apparently acci
dental intercourse with the two going to Emmaus ?
The case, be it observed, of the disciples is unique.
It has no parallel in the whole history of the human
race. We must look at it as it was in itself, and not
as it may be reduced, by leaving out its essential fea
tures, to the level of such cases as that of the banished
Duke Ulrich. No, this unknown person was no mere
secret friend or secret disciple of Jesus. He could be
no other than Jesus Himself, risen from the dead, and
revealing Himself, though with a measure of reserve,
as seemed to be expedient under the circumstances,
to His two sorrowing disciples. If ever story, as we
said before, bore on itself the characteristics of his
torical truth, the one before us does so ; and it does
seem unaccountable how any thoughtful man, learned
or unlearned, can peruse the narrative without feeling
his soul burning within him with the deepest sym
pathy with these two disciples. The unknown stranger
comes to every unprejudiced mind to be recognised
as no other than Jesus who was crucified — that Jesus
whom it behoved to suffer and to rise again the third
day, and thus to be declared the Son of God with
power. As to the other case to which Strauss refers, and

400 LECTURE XIV.
which he also thinks is capable of explanation " as a
perfectly natural consequence," he misstates it equally
as he does the former.
" On this occasion certain disciples," he says, " being in
the ship in the twilight of the early morning on the Sea of
Galilee, met an unknown person on the shore, who gave
them some advice on the subject of throwing out their
net : in consequence of the surprisingly fortunate result they
considered him to be 'the Lord,' without one of them
having had the confidence to ask him whether he were
really so."
Is this the whole account given us of that case ?
If it is not, why does Strauss give us only a part of
the account ? Why does he not tell his readers that
it was after the " unknown " person asked the disciples
to come and take some food that the Evangelist
mentions their conviction — not mere supposition — that
it was the Lord who had given the advice referred to ?
We formerly showed the main design of this supple
mentary narrative, and therefore do not again enter on
the subject. Most clear it is that neither this nor the
former case is susceptible of explanation as "a per
fectly natural occurrence." In both cases there was a
real appearance of the risen Lord. But, as we have
said, all this about delusions and natural occurrences
is only preparatory to what is next to be presented to
the reader, where we shall find Strauss applying all
that he has said to the purpose of reducing the ap
pearances of Christ to mere delusions, or subjective
impressions on the part of the disciples.
" Similar delusions," he says, " may also in the case before
us have been current at the same time ; but it is scarcely
likely that the first appearances of Jesus, which individuals

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 4OI
thought they had seen, were of this kind. As soon as ever
the notion that Jesus had been seen restored to life had
once taken root, mistakes of that kind might be made ; but
originally, as the question was not about an exile, but
about one who was dead, the faith could not have arisen in
this way. When Paul says that he appeared after his resur
rection to Cephas first, the possibility is not excluded, as
was above remarked, of certain women having supposed
that they had already seen him. The expression of Mark
(xvi. 9), ' He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom
he had driven seven devils,' admits of much suspicion. Not
only John (xx. 14, ff), but also Matthew agrees with Mark
that it was this woman who first saw such an appearance,
only that Matthew (xxviii. 1, 9, ff.) associates with her the other
Mary, and the notice of the seven devils driven out of
her was ready to hand for Mark from Luke (viii. 2). In a
woman of such a constitution of body and mind it was no
great step from inward excitement to ocular vision. But we
have seen in the example of the Apostle Paul, that even
in men of that period, and educated as they were, mental
conditions like these were not unheard of. As regards
Peter, we may refer those who in the Gospels and Acts of
the Apostles see a real history, unusual indeed, but still
natural, to the occurrence before the baptism of the Roman
officer Cornelius, as a proof of a visionary disposition in
the Apostle. Even in the brightness of the noon, during the
time that he was praying on the housetop, he fell into a trance,
in which he thought he saw the well-known appearance of a
sheet coming from heaven with all kinds of animals, and
that he heard a voice from heaven. This history, indeed,
we lay to the account of the legends of the Church, or the
pragmatism of the author of the Acts ; but think we may
assume in the days after the death of Jesus, in the narrower
circle of his adherents, a common tone, an elevation of
mental and nervous life, which overrode the particular dis
position of the individual. Of James the tradition says in
2 C

402 LECTURE XIV.
the Gospel of the Hebrews that Christ appeared to him
after the resurrection, when he fasted several days ; this
circumstance also, assumed to be historical, would make a
vision or hallucination all the more intelligible." — Vol. i.
p. 427-28. Thus does Strauss attempt to reduce the alleged
appearances of Jesus to mere delusions on the part
of the disciples. He admits, however, that these
delusions, having reference to one who had died, can
not be explained in the manner in which delusions
such as those respecting the banished Duke might be
explained. Delusions similar to these might have
arisen as soon as the notion that Jesus had been seen
restored to life had once taken root ; but such delu
sions do not account for the origin of this notion.
Hence Strauss must seek for this origin in the mental
state of the disciples. The idea of a restoration to
life on the part of Jesus must first spring up in their
minds, and he has already shown how he conceives
this idea to have arisen. He would attribute the
origin of it first to the excited state of the women
mentioned in the Evangelical accounts, and especially
to Mary Magdalene, to whom, according to John and
Matthew and Mark, the first appearance is said to
have been made. That Mary Magdalene was a per
son of highly excitable mind he infers from what
Luke records, that she had been dispossessed of seven
demons ; nor is there any reason for questioning this
view of her mental disposition. But Strauss also says
that we have evidence that even in men of that period,
educated as they were, similar mental conditions were
not unheard of; and he refers particularly to the cases
of Paul and Peter.

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 403
Now, we formerly discussed the case of Mary Mag
dalene, as also that of the Apostle Paul, and we need
not again go over these matters. We have in the
narrative of John a full account of the circumstances
referring to Mary Magdalene ; and manifest as it is
that she did possess a highly excitable mind, it is
equally manifest that the idea of a restoration to life on
the part of the crucified Jesus never crossed her mind,
until it was forced upon her by her actually hearing
Him pronounce her name. It was a feeling of dis
tress which filled her mind as well as the minds of all
the rest, when Jesus was put to death. Nothing can
be more natural than that such should have been the
state of their minds, and the whole evidence shows
it to have been so. The followers of Jesus, both
men and women, were cast down — not elevated by
His death. It is easy for Strauss to imagine that
their state was one of mental excitement and eleva
tion, and then to assert that the idea of Jesus passing
at His death into a higher life with God was origin
ated ; that this idea immediately led to that of His
restoration to life — to the resurrection of His body,
and that then He might be expected to show Himself
in His new glory. But the whole theory is baseless,
because the mental state of these followers was not as
is here assumed. That state is described by all the
Evangelists as one of deep depression — of depression
approaching to despair ; and it is inconceivable that,
had such not been their mental state, the Evangelists
should not have let fall, however unwarily, something
to betray that the very opposite was the case. The
women went to the sepulchre to anoint the body :
Mary Magdalene, in particular, as soon as she saw

404 LECTURE XIV.
that the stone was rolled away, was wholly occupied
about the recovery of the body, which she imme
diately inferred had been stolen. Her peculiar dis
position made her rush to this inference, and her
distress increased at the very thought; but the idea
of a restoration to life was wholly absent from her
mind. The same was the case with the other
women, and with all the disciples. It is a pure conjec
ture, then, on the part of Strauss, not merely in the
absence of evidence, but in direct opposition to the
evidence, when he ascribes to these women and to the
disciples a state of mind such as may answer his pur
pose. If we are to reason at all upon the subject, we
must do so not according to our own conjectures, but
to the evidence before us.
As to the case of Peter's vision, we are plainly told
that it was a supernatural vision ; and until Strauss
can show that it is not in the power of God to instruct
His rational creatures in this way, he is not entitled
to identify such visions with objective realities, when
the author of the Acts, as well as the other writers
of Scripture, clearly distinguish between these two
distinct things. God had a great moral purpose in
view in that vision, and that purpose was answered.
But Strauss is not warranted in representing the
appearance of the risen Jesus to Peter as a vision
similar to that which was bestowed upon him in order
that he might open the door of faith to the Gentiles,
and which he never for a moment mistook for an
objective reality. Strauss regards this vision either
as a legend of the Church, or as a story framed pur
posely by the author of the Acts in order to account
for the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentile Cor-

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 405
nelius. But he thinks we may assume that, even
among the first disciples, there was an elevation of
mental and nervous life which overrode the particular
disposition of the individual. What we maintain is,
that we can assume nothing contrary to what we are
told was the case ; and, as we have already said,
instead of that elevation which Strauss assumes, there
was, according to the credible evidence, nothing but
depression — sorrow — despair. His theory, then, col
lapses. It is a mere dream of his own mind ; and
truth must be sought for in realities, not in dreams.
As to the case of James, we know that the risen
Jesus did appear to him ; but whether the early
tradition about his having fasted for several days
be trustworthy or not, is of no importance to our
inquiry. Strauss, whose reasoning on the whole of this sub
ject is, we presume to say, exceedingly feeble, con
cludes this part by again referring to that remarkable
account which Luke gives of the appearance of Jesus
to the two disciples who were going to Emmaus.
This account has such an historical aspect that it is
no wonder if Strauss should exert all his ingenuity
to weaken the impression which it can hardly fail to
make on every reader's mind. But the attempt will
be seen to be marked by the same feebleness of which
we have spoken as characterising his whole discussion
of this momentous part of the subject.
" Luke," he says, " speaking of the disciples going to
Emmaus, says that when the Unknown, following their
invitation, had placed himself at table with them, he took
bread, uttered the prayer, then broke it and gave it to
them. Then, he says, 'on the breaking of the bread' they

406 LECTURE XIV.
recognised him as the Lord (xxiv. 30, ff, 35). The divi
sion of bread and fish by an unknown person, in whom
the disciples saw the risen Jesus, is brought forward in a
similarly significant manner in the supplementary chapter also
to the Gospel of John (xxi. 13). Let us remember, now,
that by the expression 'breaking of bread' the supper was
accustomed to be described (Acts ii. 42, 46, xx. 7 ; 1 Cor. x.
16), and that this meal, the material representation of the
last, and many others besides, in which Jesus had, in the
capacity of host, shared the bread among them, formed in
the most ancient times, by frequent, probably daily, repeti
tion, a powerful consolation and bond of union of the little
band of the early Church. If we remember this, it is ob
vious to conjecture that it may have been principally the
exalted tone of mind which prevailed at this meal, which in
particular cases elevated the memory of the Departed into
an imaginary appearance even before larger assemblies." —
Vol. i. p. 428-29.
Strauss begins and ends this discussion of the
origin of the disciples' belief in the reality of the
resurrection of Jesus with a conjecture. With what
he here says of the Supper of the Lord as " a power
ful consolation and bond of union of the little band
of the early Church," we thoroughly agree. Had
Strauss but allowed the idea thus so justly expressed
to take due possession of his mind, he might have
been led to ask himself how such a meal could have
proved such a consolation and such a bond of union
in a band consisting of persons who were surrender
ing all earthly considerations for the sake of the Lord
Jesus, unless it was what Jesus declared it to be when
He instituted it as an ordinance in His Church — a
memorial of His death until He should come again ;
unless, in short, these devoted followers of Jesus

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 407
knew, upon legitimate evidence, that He had not only
died, but risen again, and believed in His resurrection,
not through mere delusion, but because they saw the
Lord and conversed with Him after He was risen.
How could Strauss conceive the scene which is re
corded as having occurred in the village of Emmaus,
and in which the unknown but wondrous Stranger,
reclining with the two at the table, took up bread, and,
in a manner known to them, blessed it and gave it
to them, revealing Himself by His very manner and
words to be no other than their Lord who had been
put to death, and then, for wise reasons of His own,
immediately withdrawing Himself from their pre
sence — how, we say, could Strauss conceive such a
scene, and suppose it to be explicable in any other
way than as explained to us by the Evangelist ?
What mere man could have so acted as this unknown
Person did ? Some stranger or other must have
joined these two. Something must have taken place
to cause them to believe that the Stranger was Jesus
Himself. Even a delusion in such a case must have
some external fact to rest upon. What could that
fact be ? Who could that Stranger be ? It is impos
sible, we venture to say, to accept the story to any
extent, and to account for it even as so accepted,
unless we adopt the Evangelist's account of its char
acter. The expression, "the breaking of the bread,"
came indeed to be most significant ; but it acquired
all its significance from the reality of the facts which
it indicated.As to the case recorded by John in his supple
mentary chapter, we have already remarked on it
also, and need not repeat what has thus been said.

408 LECTURE XIV.
But it is to be remarked that Strauss evades a real
discussion of the recorded appearance of Jesus before
a large assembly. He would merely apply to "larger
assemblies " what he has said in respect to appear
ances to one or to a few persons. But surely there is
a difficulty in conceiving a large assembly of persons
— an assembly of more than five hundred brethren —
being all at the same moment in such a state of
mind, however elevated, as to imagine and believe
that they saw and heard one whom not one of them
either saw or heard. Delusions do spread rapidly,
but not such a delusion as is here supposed. It is a
delusion about an external fact supposed to be pre
sented to the organs of sight and hearing. It is no
delusion about a story repeated to an excited crowd.
One is alleged to appear — to appear in the human
frame — and to speak words heard by the ear. The
assembled multitude believe that they see Him and
hear Him. They believe this firmly and publish it
to the world, and are willing to suffer and die for
their belief. The multitude, we say, simultaneously
believe that they, each one of them, see and hear
Jesus who had been put to death. Such a simulta
neous and unanimous belief necessarily implies the
reality of the fact. The belief is otherwise inexplic
able ; and Strauss does not attempt to discuss this
part of the subject. He evades it by means of a
conjecture. He implicitly confesses that his theory
breaks down at last in his hands. And we conclude
the review of this part of his discussion by affirming
that the whole of his theory is built on a baseless
assumption, and that, since he has failed to trace the
origin of the disciples' belief in the resurrection of

ORIGIN OF BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. 409
Jesus to delusion occasioned by excitement and
elevation of mind, the Evangelical accounts remain
firm and true, which trace this belief to its real
origin — the actual appearances of the risen Jesus to
His disciples. Their belief rested on facts appealing
to their senses. They believed, because they
SAW AND HEARD THE RISEN LORD.

LECTURE XV.
STRAUSS ON THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE
APPEARANCES TO THE APOSTLES.
In his next section, which is also the last of his first
book, Strauss discusses the subject of " the time and
place of the Apostolic visions of Christ." His design
in this discussion will be apparent as we proceed to
consider its several parts.
" If we ask," says he, " when and where the disciples of
Jesus saw these apparitions, the most ancient witness, the
Apostle Paul, gives us, as we have already mentioned, little
or no assistance towards arriving at a result. The place he
does not define at all, the time only apparently. He says
(i Cor. xv. 3-8) that he had heard as a tradition that
Christ had died and been buried, and that on the third
day he had risen again according to the Scriptures, and that
he had appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve, &c. Paul
therefore says, indeed, that Jesus arose on the third day;
but that it was on the same third day that he appeared
after his resurrection to Cephas or any one else, he does
not say. Moreover, he mentions this appearance to Cephas
immediately indeed after the statement of the resurrection,
but in like manner he mentions the appearance which he
himself had seen immediately after the appearance of Jesus
to the Apostles collectively. But the appearance to him
self could not, in any case, have taken place until several
years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Thus we

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 411
do not know what length of time we must suppose to have
occurred between the different appearances, or, consequently,
between the first of them and the resurrection on the third
day." — Vol. i. p. 429.
We formerly showed that the main design of
the Apostle Paul in the passage here again referred
to, was not to prove the reality of Christ's resurrection,
but the reality of the future resurrection of Christ's
people. It was the latter doctrine which was assailed
by some persons in the Church at Corinth, and not
the former fact. The Apostle meets the false teaching
of these persons by showing that on their principles
the reality of Christ's resurrection was denied. Hence
he deemed it necessary to state briefly the evidence
in attestation of this fact, which indeed was admitted
even by these persons, in order that upon this fact, as
a basis, he might show how inconsistent they were in
denying the future resurrection of the bodies of Christ's
people, and on how firm a foundation the doctrine on
this subject rested.
Now, we would again call special attention to what
is manifestly the correct view of this passage ; seeing
that Strauss repeatedly represents the Apostle as for
mally discussing the subject of Christ's resurrection,
as if this subject were the main purpose of his argu
ment, and then finds fault with the Apostle for not
entering into minute details respecting the appear
ances of the risen Jesus to Cephas and the others.
Paul states distinctly that he had been taught, not by
tradition, as Strauss represents it, but as we in this
same Epistle learn, by divine revelation, that Christ
died and was buried, and rose again on the third day
according to the Scriptures — in fulfilment of ancient

412 LECTURE XV.
prophecy ; and then he mentions in a summary
manner the visible evidence which attested the resur
rection. This he manifestly does in order to impress
the minds of the Corinthian converts with a profound
conviction of the reality of the fact ; and his whole
subsequent argument rests on the reality of Christ's
resurrection. He mentions several appearances of
the risen Lord ; but as he is not formally discussing
this subject, he simply mentions these appearances,
and as his argument does not require further details,
it never, I apprehend, occurred to him to state wlien
and where these appearances took place. He speaks
at greater length of the appearance to himself: "And
last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born
out of due time. For I am the least of the Apostles,
that am not meet to be called an Apostle, because I
persecuted the Church of God." What solemn, calm,
and pregnant words these are, let us just observe in
passing. Would that they might reach in all their
force the heart of one who has indeed also been per
secuting the Church of God ! Then would he, too, lay
aside his enmity, and no more trifle like a wayward
child with things which, if real, are awful realities.
It is implied in Paul's words that the appearances
to Cephas and the others took place soon after the
resurrection, but that the appearance to himself was
at a later date ; for the Church was now constituted,
through the labours of the Apostolic witnesses of the
resurrection. It is therefore most unfair dealing, in
point of argument, .when Strauss discusses this passage
with the manifest design of insinuating doubts into
the minds of his readers about the times and places
of the appearances of Christ to His first disciples, as

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 413
if the absence of details on these points in any meas
ure affected the credit of testimony to the reality of
these appearances. Had Paul meant to discuss the
evidence bearing on this subject, Strauss might have
had some reason to ask for such details ; but as such
was not the main subject before the Apostle's mind,
Strauss acts most unfairly, and, we must also add,
most artfully, in thus treating the Apostle's statements
solely with a view to prejudice the mind of the un
wary reader. Such are not the weapons of a legiti
mate warfare. Such is not the procedure adopted by
any one bent, not on apparent victory, but on find
ing out the truth. Strauss calls Paul the most ancient
witness. He is so only in one respect. It is proba
ble that this Epistle to the Corinthians was written
before any of the Gospels was composed ; but he is
not the most ancient witness to the resurrection of
Christ in any other sense. The first disciples had
founded the Church which Paul at one time perse
cuted ; and this Church was built on the testimony of
these disciples to the fact of Christ's resurrection.
"On the other hand," Strauss next says, "the authorities
of the third rank, the Evangelists, represent all, or at all events
a part of, the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection as
occurring on the very day of the resurrection. According
to John, he appears to Mary Magdalene on the morning of
the resurrection close to the grave, then in the evening to
the assembled disciples. According to Luke, his first appear
ance is on the same day to the two going to Emmaus, then
to the eleven and the others ; and the same assumption lies
at the bottom of the brief and confused account of Mark.
In Matthew he does not indeed show himself to the
eleven until later, in Galilee, but to the women on the
morning of the resurrection, on their return to the city from

414 LECTURE XV.
the sepulchre, which they had found empty. And now it
may be said : how did it happen that in the most ancient
times of Christianity, the third day after the death of Jesus
was set down as the day of the resurrection, if it was not on
this day that the first appearances of him, after his resur
rection, took place ? How can we explain the fact that, so
early as the time of the Apostle Paul, and the composition
of the Revelation of John, the day after the Sabbath appears
as the day of the Lord, the Christian weekly holiday (i Cor.
xvi. 2 ; Rev. i. 7), if it was not on this day that the great
fact of the restoration of their Messiah to life was made
known to the disciples?" — Vol. i. p. 430.
With the exception of his styling the Evangelists
authorities of the third rank, when all existing evi
dence proves that they were authorities partly of the
first and partly of the second rank, Strauss in this
passage states the matter fairly ; and we have now to
hear how he will meet the questions which he has put.
We maintain that, from the first, "the third day
after the death of Jesus was set down as the day of
the resurrection," for the obvious reason that on that
day the resurrection took place. And by the same
reason — -this third day being the first day of the week
— we account for the fact that the first day of the
week, the day after the Jewish Sabbath, was set apart
as the Christian weekly Sabbath — as the Lord's Day,
the day on which His glorious resurrection is in all
ages of the Church upon earth to be held in special
remembrance. Such is the simple and correct ex
planation of these historical facts, and no other ex
planation of them will be found tenable. But Strauss
is under the inevitable necessity of attempting to con
struct some other explanation. He would evidently
rather avoid this necessity, especially as respects the

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 415
day of the resurrection ; but he cannot do so, and
therefore his utmost ingenuity is called into exercise
in order to give some plausible conjecture on the sub
ject, however untenable it may be All the Evangelists
affirm that Jesus rose on the third day after His death.
No attempt can therefore be made to make their nar
ratives even assume the appearance of the slightest
difference on this point. Pure conjecture alone can be
the source whence a contrary assertion can be drawn.
But the case is different as to the places where the
appearances of the risen Jesus are recorded to have
occurred. These were numerous, and they occurred
in different localities, some at or near Jerusalem,
others in Galilee. And as each of the Evangelists
thought of recording only some of these appearances,
and therefore omitted others, it is in the power of any
one who is a priori bent on setting them at variance
to contrive, by a little ingenuity and some misrepre
sentation of what they do record, to appear successful
in his attempt. The times and places of Christ's
appearances are topics necessarily connected ; and
therefore we do not complain of the somewhat con
fused manner in which Strauss discusses them, passing
as he does from the one topic to the other just as the
exigencies of his assumed case seem to demand. He
has before him a subject of insurmountable difficulty,
especially as respects the time of the appearances, and
therefore we need not wonder that he is seen to labour
under the burden which he has undertaken to bear.
" If we look," says he, " upon the resurrection of Jesus as
a miracle, it might take place as well on one day as another ;
a natural restoration to life must occur on some day soon
after death, or it could not occur at all. On the other hand,

416 LECTURE XV.
the psychological revolution from which we suppose the
visions of Apostles to have proceeded, appears to require a
longer interval for its development. More than one day, it
would seem, should intervene before the disciples could
recover from their terror at the unlooked-for result, before
they could assemble together again after their first disper
sion. Supposing, in particular, that it was from renewed
and profounder study of the sacred writings of the Old Tes
tament that the certainty arose that their Jesus, in spite of
suffering and death, had been the Messiah, that his suffering
and death had been for him only the passage to the glory of
the Messiah, for this also a longer time was requisite. It
appears, therefore, if it is true that on the very first day
after the death of Jesus appearances of his took place, not
to be conceivable that these appearances were merely sub
jective visions of the disciples ; and our view of the origin
of the belief in the resurrection of Jesus appears to fall to
pieces upon the impossibility of making that origin conceiv
able on the third day." — Vol. i. p. 430-31.
In this passage Strauss seems to acknowledge with
great candour the difficulty of his present task, as it
respects the alleged time when the first appearances
of Jesus took place. We say advisedly that he seems
to make such an acknowledgment, for we know
already that he considers himself to have proved that
these and other appearances were merely what he
calls "subjective visions." And therefore it is morally
impossible to give him credit for a candid acknow
ledgment of the difficulty. That difficulty he feels to
be such that he is compelled to gain over the reader's
mind to a favourable reception of his attempt to over
come it, by an ostentatious confession that he knows
well the weight which the advocates of the reality of
the resurrection assign to the fact that on the third

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 417
day after His death Jesus did show Himself alive to
His disciples. His very confession that he is fully
aware of the strength of the argument on the part of
his opponents will tend, as he assumes, of itself to
lessen its strength. We are entitled, we repeat, to
regard the confession in this light, because this very
topic, now professedly discussed, ought in all fairness
to have been discussed before he had pronounced the
judgment which he has already pronounced on the
character of these appearances. The difficulty, in
short, can now only present itself, not as one which is
to be fairly argued, but as one which is to be set aside
by some means or other. Before, however, he pro
ceeds to show how this is to be done, he deems it
proper to notice the other difficulty — namely, that
which has respect to the locality of these appear
ances. "In like manner," he says, "the statement of the locality
of these appearances in the Gospels seems to lead to a result
unfavourable to our point of view. On the morning after
the Sabbath, on the evening of the third day before which
morning the crucified Jesus had been buried, the disciples,
according to the accounts of the Evangelists, were still at Jeru
salem, and here, according to all of them, even Matthew not
excepted, the first appearances of their risen Lord occurred.
Jesus therefore appeared to His disciples in the same place in
which His body had been laid in the grave. Even this cir
cumstance appears only to put us into a difficulty, while for
the two other possible views of the resurrection of Jesus, it
is inconceivable. For supposing Jesus to have been recalled
into life by a miracle, or awakened naturally from an
apparent death, in neither case would there be a body in
the grave by pointing to which the proposition maintained
by the disciples that He had risen could be contradicted.
2 D

41 8 LECTURE XV.
When in the very city before the gates of which the body of
Jesus lay in a sepulchre well known and easy to be found, not
forty-eight hours after it had been buried there, his disciples
came forward, maintaining that he had risen, that he had
come alive out of the sepulchre, how is it conceivable that
the Jews should not have run straight to this sepulchre,
fetched the corpse away, and by the public exhibition of it
have convicted the audacious assertion of falsehood ? Or,
rather, how could the disciples come to make this assertion,
when they could examine the neighbouring cavern in order
to convince themselves of its groundlessness?" — Vol. i. p.
43i-32- In this passage Strauss professes to state the diffi
culty to which his own view of the nature of these
appearances of Jesus seems to be exposed, from the
statement that they occurred "in the same place in
which His body had been laid in the grave," and on
the very day when He is said to have risen. He
affirms, however, in general, that to such as hold his
view of these appearances — namely, that they were
merely subjective impressions — "even this circum
stance appears only to cause a difficulty," but that to
those who maintain either of the two other possible
views a contradiction is inevitable ; for " the circum
stance," he says, "is for these views inconceivable."
Now, whatever we may think of his arguments, or of
his fairness in stating a case, we seldom experience
any great difficulty in making out Strauss's mean
ing ; but in what follows in the passage before us
we miss his usual clearness in statement. He seems
to- assert that the circumstance referred to, whilst only
appearing to put him, with his view of the nature of
the appearances of Jesus, into a difficulty, becomes
inconceivable in the case of those who hold the one or

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 419
the other of the two other possible views. In support
of this last assertion, he supposes that according to the
one or the other of these views Jesus was either recalled
into life by a miracle, or awakened naturally from an
apparent death : in either case His body would of
course be no longer in the grave ; and the proposi
tion maintained by the disciples that He was risen,
could not be contradicted by producing the body.
He then supposes that the disciples affirmed this
proposition on the very day of the resurrection, and
within the very city of Jerusalem, and asks, " How is it
conceivable that the Jews should not have run straight
to the sepulchre, fetched the corpse away, and by the
public exhibition of it have convicted the audacious
assertion of falsehood?" Now, according to the sup
position, the Jews might have run to the sepulchre,
but they could not have found the body, for it was
not there. The thing here declared to be inconceiv
able is not the same with that which he formerly said
was inconceivable, and which he professedly meant to
set before the reader. He passes in his argument
from one thing, said to be inconceivable, to quite
another thing, which also he pronounces inconceiv
able. He means to show that to those who maintain
the reality of Christ's resurrection, there is in the re
corded appearances of Jesus at Jerusalem on the very
day of the resurrection, a circumstance stated which
is inconceivable. And to prove this he supposes that
Jesus had really risen (the other possible view we
need not consider), and that the disciples affirmed
this fact on the very day of the resurrection ; and
then he puts the question as above stated, in which
question he implicitly changes his supposition, and

420 LECTURE XV.
now supposes the body of Jesus to be still in the
grave. His other question involves the same change
of supposition : " How," says he, " could the disciples
come to make this assertion, when they could examine
the neighbouring cavern in order to convince them
selves of its groundlessness ?" Both these questions
evidently imply that the body of Jesus was still in the
tomb ; that the appearances, therefore, were only sub
jective visions ; and that the idea of the disciples
having had such visions at Jerusalem, and on the very
day of the alleged resurrection, presents a greater
difficulty to those who maintain the reality of the
resurrection, than to those who believe that the visions
were only subjective.
But whilst there is a manifest confusion in Strauss's
statements on this subject, there is one thing which
by means of this very confusion he artfully suggests
to the reader. It is this : If Jesus really rose from
the dead within forty-eight hours after His crucifixion,
and if He, on the very day of His resurrection, really
appeared to the disciples in or near to Jerusalem,
then, as a matter of course, these disciples proclaimed
the fact to the Jews on that day also, and thus gave
them a full opportunity for becoming convinced of
the truth of the assertion ; for they would then have
gone to the sepulchre and found that the body was
not there. It was the desire to insinuate this sup
position that led Strauss into the confused statements
which we find in this passage. The disciples, he
would implicitly argue, must have acted in this way,
although he knows that they did not act in this way;
and he thus prepares the mind of the reader for the
argument which is next to follow, the purport of

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 42 1
which will be to show that, since they did not act in
the way supposed, we have reason to doubt the state
ment, not only about these first appearances, but also
about the recorded burial itself of the body of Jesus.
We shall postpone our further remarks on these points
till we have quoted the next passage, when they will
be more logically introduced. The passage is as
follows : — •
" But, in the first place, the Evangelists do indeed tell us
that Jesus appeared to his followers so soon as the second
morning after his interment; but not one says that they
encountered the unbelieving Jews with the announcement
of his resurrection. On the contrary, according to all the
accounts, they kept quiet from the first ; and Luke, in the
Acts, represents the Apostles as not coming forward to
preach of the resurrection of Christ until Pentecost — seven
weeks, consequently, after that third day. In addition to
this, there is the consideration that the interment of Jesus
in the stone sepulchre of Joseph is anything but historically
corroborated, as has been already intimated, and shall be
hereafter more accurately discussed. But if Jesus was, as is
probable, buried, with other condemned criminals, in a dis
honourable place, his disciples had not from the first the
tempting opportunity of looking for his body. And if some
time elapsed before they came forward proclaiming his
resurrection, it must have been more difficult for their
opponents also to produce his corpse in a condition still to
be recognised, or affording any proof. Moreover, when we
remember the horror for dead bodies felt by the Jews, it
was far from being so obvious a thing to do as we may at
this day imagine." — Vol. i. p. 432.
In this passage, for which the immediately preced
ing one was evidently, with all its confusion, con
structed to prepare the reader, Strauss aims at dis-

422 LECTURE XV.
crediting, on two distinct grounds, the testimony
borne by the disciples to the resurrection of Jesus ;
first, because, according to all the Evangelists, they
did not, as he evidently wished to insinuate in the
preceding passage they ought to have done, encounter
on the very day of the resurrection the unbelieving
Jews with an announcement of that event, but came
forward, according to Luke's account in the Acts, to
make that announcement only after seven weeks had
elapsed ; and, secondly, because — both on account of
this delay and still more of the probability that the
body of Jesus was thrown along with the bodies of
other condemned criminals into a dishonourable place,
rather than, as the Evangelists relate, deposited in the
stone sepulchre of Joseph — the Jews would have
found it exceedingly difficult to produce the dead
body in order " to convict the audacious assertion of
falsehood." Now, in reference to this second reason, we have
already discussed Strauss's attempt to discredit the
unanimous testimony of the four Evangelists respect
ing the burial of Jesus, and we have shown how
utterly he fails in this attempt. We must therefore
refer our readers to our former remarks on this sub
ject, the importance of which is fundamental in this
inquiry. We shall merely observe at present that
Strauss was fully aware of the importance of this
point, and he was bound, we think, to have discussed
it thoroughly in his first book, and not to have as
sumed his view as proved, and then reason upon this
assumption, merely telling his readers that " it should
be hereafter more accurately discussed." But the
manifest truth is, that the evidence for the burial of

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 423
the body of Jesus in the tomb of Joseph, a man of
Arimathea, is proof against all assaults. There is no
miracle here to be summarily set aside. The burial
belongs to the class of ordinary events, and nothing
can be more natural than that under the circum
stances it should have occurred just as all the Evan
gelists tell us it did occur. There is no fact, we pre
sume to affirm, better corroborated historically than
this. But Strauss was compelled, as we formerly
observed, by the very exigencies of his whole under
taking, to deny this fact ; for it is most clear that, if
the body of Jesus was really laid in the tomb of
Joseph, there is, under all the circumstances of the
case, no alternative but to admit the reality of the
resurrection ; and then the whole enterprise which
Strauss undertook and pledged himself to accomplish,
collapses in a moment. Hence he purposely abstains
from discussing this subject of the burial in its proper
place as respects his argument. He deems it more
prudent, as undoubtedly it is more artful, to gain the
reader over to his assumed view by insinuating doubts
and even unbelief about this fact, and to assure him
that " it shall be hereafter more accurately discussed."
Hence the reasoning based on the assumption that
the body of Jesus was buried in the place assigned to
the bodies of condemned criminals, is wholly worth
less ; and the very necessity of such an assumption
exposes the desperate condition to which Strauss is
reduced. Even after the lapse of seven weeks the
Jewish rulers still had it in their power to convict the
assertion on the part of the disciples of falsehood, had
that assertion been mendacious ; and their not having
recourse to the means of such a conviction, constitutes

424 ¦ LECTURE XV.
an invincible proof that for some reason or other they
knew that they could not accomplish this by produc
ing the dead body. That body, if not restored to life
or stolen by the disciples, was still in the tomb, so
that, whether the announcement was made on the day
of the alleged resurrection or only seven weeks after
that day, the unbelieving Jewish rulers had only to
have recourse to the alternative either of producing
the body, or of proving that the disciples had removed
it from the tomb. They met the announcement, as
far as Jerusalem was concerned, in neither of these
ways. They adopted a third method, which they
must have deemed more likely to prove effectual.
They imprisoned the Apostles ; they threatened
them with further punishment if they should persist
in their testimony ; they commanded them to be
silent on the subject.
But in addition to these ready means, they did
adopt one of the above alternatives in regard to Jews
at a distance. They induced persons to spread abroad
the report that the disciples had stolen the body
during the night preceding the alleged resurrection,
whilst the soldiers on guard at the sepulchre were
asleep. This latter topic Strauss will also discuss in
his promised dissertation on the accounts of the
burial ; and he must of course show that the story
about the guard is a fiction of the later Church. But
all this, as we have elsewhere shown, arises from the
necessity of his argument. His views rest on no
evidence ; they are entirely the product of his own
imagination, which undoubtedly is most fertile in
fruits of this kind.
But we have also specially to notice the first ground

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 425
on which Strauss would here raise an argument to
discredit the testimony of the disciples to the resur
rection of Jesus. In the immediately preceding pas
sage he assumes that had this event taken place, or
even had the disciples imagined and believed that it
had taken place, they must no doubt have announced
it to the Jews on the very day of its alleged occur
rence. On that very day they must have come for
ward and proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus. If on
that day they were convinced that Jesus appeared
to them, they could not have kept silence. Such is
manifestly the main design of Strauss's confused state
ments at the close of that passage. And now he
shows that, according to the Evangelic accounts,
they did not come forward on that day.
" The Evangelists do indeed tell us that Jesus appeared
to them so soon as the second morning after his inter
ment; but not one says that they encountered the unbe
lieving Jews with the announcement of his resurrection. On
the contrary, according to all the accounts, they kept quiet
from the first; and Luke, in the Acts, represents the Apostles
as not coming forward to preach of the resurrection of
Christ until Pentecost — seven weeks, consequently, after
that third day."
The author evidently wishes his readers to look
with great suspicion on this conduct of the Apostles.
In short, his design is to discredit the accounts of the
first alleged appearances of Jesus, and to show that
the idea of such appearances did not arise in the
minds of the disciples until a later date. He thinks
it would be a gain to his theory if some time were
allowed for the growth of this idea. Now, it is quite
true that, though the risen Jesus appeared to His fol-

426 LECTURE XV.
lowers on the very day of His resurrection, they did
not openly come forward to announce the fact of His
resurrection until after the lapse of fifty days ; and
it is admitted that if this were all we were informed
of on the subject, we should have been at a loss to
account for the delay. But Strauss most unfairly
states the case as if this were all that is told us;
whereas the Evangelists inform us that Jesus ap
peared to the disciples on several occasions — that He
appeared to them in Galilee as well as at Jerusalem ;
and Luke, in the Acts, expressly tells us that Jesus
continued to appear to them during a period of forty
days after his resurrection, giving them repeated
proofs of the reality of the fact, and also instructing
them in the things pertaining to His kingdom. We
are also informed by Matthew that on the very day
of the resurrection the chief rulers did receive a testi
mony to the fact, so that they had a full opportunity
on that very day of investigating the truth of the
allegation, had they been really disposed to ascertain
the truth. It is not fair in Strauss, first, by mere
denial of certain parts of the Evangelic accounts, to
get rid of important statements, and then, by means
of what remains of these accounts, to construct a case
to answer his own purpose. He is bound to take
these accounts as they present themselves to us, un
less he can by legitimate proof set aside what appears
unfavourable to his views.
So long as Jesus continued appearing to the dis
ciples, and personally instructing them for the office
to which He had called them, it is only reasonable to
suppose that they would not come forward and pro
claim the fact of the resurrection. These men were

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 427
to be Christ's messengers, not merely to the Jews, but
to all nations. They were to be sent forth to preach
the Gospel to the whole world, beginning indeed at
Jerusalem, but not confining their ministry to that
city. It was not a mere contest with the Jews in
Jerusalem that they were to enter upon ; they were to
be the heralds of salvation even to the ends of the
earth. They were to be witnesses, not only of Christ's
resurrection, but also of His ascension ; and they
were to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit after His
ascension, in order to qualify them for their high
office. Hence, during forty days after Christ's resur
rection, they were under His own special teaching ;
and when He ascended to the right hand of the
Father, they were commanded to wait until they
should be endued with power from on high. We
have thus a full and satisfactory explanation of the
reasons of the delay on the part of the disciples ; while,
as we have already said, testimony had reached the
Jewish rulers, even on the day of the resurrection, and
the lapse of seven weeks did not deprive them of the
means of refuting the Apostles' announcement, had it
been possible for them to do so. The whole force,
then, of Strauss's argument in this passage is due to
a partial and erroneous statement of the case ; and
assuredly that is not the way to be followed in order
to arrive at a sound conclusion. Indeed, although he
does not expressly acknowledge it, he yet seems to
feel the weakness of his argument here, and he there
fore attempts to meet the difficulty caused by the
alleged time of these first appearances in another
way. " Now," he says, " as regards the shortness of the time for

428 LECTURE XV.
the development of a state of mind among the disciples from
which those visions could proceed, this difficulty also is not
insuperable. A purely logical method, by the intervention
of clear thoughts, was not yet possible ; and if it was not,
and the reaction took place in the secret depths of the
minds of the Apostles, then it was a violent burst, a flash of
lightning in which the sultriness of the overloaded feelings
relieved itself. Such a burst does not wait until all is first
arranged in the course of thought; on the contrary, it
assumes, by the power of imagination, all that reflection
endeavours afterwards to clear up, it takes for granted at one
stroke what the understanding afterwards works up. Thus
our notion of the resurrection of Jesus would be far from
being quashed even if it were established that, in fact, so
soon as the third day after his death the conviction of it had
arisen among the disciples." — Vol. i. p. 432-33.
The argument here really amounts to this : Had
the idea and the conviction of the resurrection of
Jesus arisen in the minds of the disciples so soon as
the third day after His death, then " our notion" of the
nature of that resurrection as being merely a sub
jective impression, without any corresponding objec
tive occurrence, " would be far from being quashed."
Now, it behoved Strauss to show that the state of
mind among the disciples was such as to give rise to
the supposed visions on that third day. To tell us
that in a certain state of mind a purely logical method
is not possible, and that violent reactions take place
in the secret depths of the mind, when, by the power
of the imagination, it takes for granted at one stroke
what the understanding afterwards works up, — this
may be all very true, viewed as a general proposition.
We are not, however, dealing with general proposi
tions, but with an actual case ; and we must look at

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 429
this case as it is presented to us, not as we may con
jecture it to have been. We are fully informed as to
the state of mind among the followers of Jesus on the
event of His death. Neither the men nor the women
had the slightest idea that He was to rise again.
They had been so stunned by the death of Him
whom they believed to be the Messiah, that all their
hopes were buried with Him in the tomb. The
women went to the sepulchre, but their sole purpose
was to anoint the dead body. The disciples refused
to believe the testimony of these women when they
affirmed that their Lord had risen again. The state
of mind, therefore was the very opposite of that which
is necessary for Strauss's theory ; and although a
reaction from one extreme to another is possible, yet
we are not entitled to assume such a reaction, unless
the phenomenon presented to us is inexplicable in
any other way. Now the reaction, if we may here
use such a term, in the state of the disciples' minds,
is satisfactorily accounted for. It took place, not
through the power of imagination, but through the
testimony of the organs of sense. They saw the risen
Jesus ; they heard Him speak to them ; they received
sensible evidence of His being alive ; and therefore
they believed. Such is the account of the actual
case, and all Strauss's conjectures are therefore abso
lutely worthless. But though he would by means of
the above theoretical explanation attempt to lessen
the difficulty which presses upon him, his chief re
source is to throw discredit on the statement that the
belief in the resurrection took place so early as on the
third day after the death of Jesus. Hence we have
the following passage : —

430 LECTURE XV.
" Meanwhile there are many points in the New Testament
accounts themselves which throw a doubt upon this state
ment. Let us take that which was last touched upon : Why
should the disciples, if they were convinced of the resurrec
tion of their Christ so soon as the third day, have waited
till the fiftieth before they allowed anything about it to come
before the public in general? The Acts of the Apostles
says, because they were compelled to wait for the Holy
Spirit, which was not to be poured out upon them until the
Day of Pentecost ; and we know, on our own point of view,
that the choice of this day especially for the communication
of the Spirit was decided by the antitypical relation in which
the most ancient Church view placed the first preaching of
the Gospel to the lawgiving on Sinai — that, therefore, this
choice of time has no historical, but only a dogmatical
foundation. But it is another question whether in this
statement the recollection may not be involved that the
preaching of the resurrection of Jesus was deferred until a
later period, as well as the origination of the belief in this
resurrection, until one of longer duration than three days."
—Vol. i. p. 433.
We have already stated the reasons which occa
sioned the postponing of the public announcement by
the disciples of the resurrection of Jesus until the Day
of Pentecost. The ancient Church did indeed trace a
typical relation between the lawgiving on Sinai and
the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the disciples.
But it was the fact that the Spirit was thus given to
the disciples on the Day of Pentecost that discovered
to the Church the reality of this relation. The
Church founded the doctrine of this relation on the
historical fact. It was not the doctrine that created
the fact, so that Strauss's theory falls to the ground.
Besides, he entirely ignores the fact that Jesus abode

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 43 1
with the disciples, or at least appeared to them on
frequent occasions, during forty days, and that in
reality they waited only ten days more after His
ascension until the promised Spirit was poured down
upon them.
But Strauss proceeds to assail the accounts them
selves regarding the appearances of Christ. And we
must now quote a rather long passage on this subject.
"But all the Evangelists, even Matthew, agree in repre
senting Jesus, after his resurrection, as appearing on the third
day in or near Jerusalem. Even Matthew — but how ? First
he describes the angel at the grave as announcing to the
women the resurrection of Jesus, with directions to com
municate the intelligence quickly to the disciples, mean
while that Jesus will go before them to Galilee, where they
are to see him. Nor are the disciples only to see their risen
Lord in Galilee, but ' you,' says the angel, ' even you
women, will see him there, in Galilee.' When, then, imme
diately after, when the women were running from the
sepulchre to the city, Jesus himself meets them on the road,
this is certainly exceedingly strange. If they saw Jesus here,
they did not see him first, as the angel had predicted, in
Galilee. And what occasion could Jesus have to depart so
quickly from the plan which he had just before caused to be
announced by the, angel ? The women were intending to
give their message to the disciples, and for themselves they
were already convinced, for they went from the sepulchre,
as Matthew says, with fear, naturally, but also with great
joy. Or had Jesus something more to say to them which
the angel had forgotten ? On the contrary, he repeats ex
actly the same thing which the angel had already said to
them — that the disciples should journey to Galilee; there
they will see him. Anything so perfectly superfluous as
this first appearance of Christ in Matthew not only never
happened, but, in this connection, was never told ; it is a

432 LECTURE XV.
later interpolation, not into our text of Matthew, but into
the account which the first Evangelist placed at the founda
tion of his history of the resurrection, but into which he here
introduced a feature absolutely irreconcilable with it. If we
suppose this appearance removed, his narrative is perfectly
consistent with itself. Near Jerusalem, at the sepulchre, and
on the morning of the resurrection, only the angel appears
with the preliminary announcement, and the direction to
go to Galilee; Jesus himself appears, according to agree
ment, in Galilee, and not before, after the disciples with the
women had finished the journey there. If, according to
this, Galilee is the theatre for the appearance of the risen
Jesus — if this appearance is thus brought down to a some
what later period than the third day, as it is impossible that
the disciples should have reached the hill country of Galilee
on the same day on the morning of which they had received
the instruction to set off to go there — this view, which is at
the bottom of Matthew's account, is, as has been mentioned
already, directly opposed to the description in Luke and
John, where Jerusalem and the neighbourhood is the pecu
liar, and, if we set aside the supplementary chapter in John,
the only theatre of the announcements made by the risen
Christ, which might thus be supposed to begin on the very
day of the resurrection. This last conception is irreconcil
able with the first, which lies at the bottom of the narrative
in Matthew. But still the author of the first Gospel has so
far yielded to it that he has represented Jesus as having ap
peared — not indeed to the disciples, for then the journey to
Galilee would have been quite aimless — but to the women
while still in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem." — Vol. i.
P- 433-35-In this passage Strauss labours to show that the
account in Matthew, as it exists in our text, of the
appearances of Christ is inconsistent with itself; and
that when the interpolated statement about the ap-

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 433
pearance to the women is removed, the account be
comes consistent, but then stands in direct opposition
to the accounts in Luke and John, the supplementary
chapter of the latter being set aside. Now, we for
merly discussed this subject. First, we considered
the account of each Evangelist by. its elf, and then we
compared the accounts one with another; and the
result was, that we found these accounts, which are
manifestly partial and brief, to be such as throw light
on one another, and to be quite consistent among
themselves. We need not go over this subject again;
but we may mention that the promised meeting in
Galilee was evidently one of a public nature, so to
speak, and by no means precludes other appearances
which were rather of a private character; that the
appearance of Jesus to the women seems to have
taken place, not when they were returning from the
sepulchre with the angelic message to the disciples,
but after they had delivered this message and had been
disbelieved by the disciples ; and that this appear
ance of Jesus to them was by no means that super
fluous thing which Strauss represents it, but was
designed to confirm to the women the message which
the angel had given them, and which had been re
jected by the disciples. The account of this appear
ance is no interpolation in Matthew's original narrative,
but is a part of that narrative. The angel's assurance
that Jesus would meet them in Galilee does not neces
sarily imply that Jesus would not appear to them else
where, but simply refers to the promise which Jesus
had given before His death, that He would go before
the disciples into Galilee. The truth is, that these
several accounts are such that, if we are predeter-
2 E

434 LECTURE XV.
mined to set the one against the other, we may sue-*
ceed in making out a plausible discord ; while, on the
other hand, if, without any such predetermination, we
are merely disposed to treat them fairly as brief
and fragmentary accounts, we shall be satisfied that,
whatever difficulties they (from their very charac
ter) present to us, there is really no sufficient
ground for charging them with inconsistency or
contradiction. Strauss finds a great difficulty in the way of his
theory in the alleged appearances at Jerusalem on the
day of the resurrection, and therefore he labours as
he does to discredit the accounts of these appear
ances. The first Evangelist records the public meet
ing, as we have termed it, in Galilee ; but he also
records an appearance to the women near to Jerusa
lem. Hence this part of the account must, according
to Strauss, be an interpolation, whether by a later
hand or by the Evangelist himself at a later date. It
cannot be a part of the original document ; for were
it so it would militate against Strauss's theory, and
this theory is to be upheld, whatever may become of
the Evangelic accounts. But for a full discussion of
the whole subject we must refer to our former state
ments. Galilee, then, is to be the only theatre for the
appearances of the risen Lord — that is, according to
Strauss, for the subjective visions or impressions which
sprang up in the Apostles' minds.
" If," he goes on to say, " of these opposite notions with
regard to the locality of these appearances, that of Luke
and John appears to be the latest, from the fact that in
Matthew one feature out of it is laid upon the other, the
statement in Matthew, this feature apart, has internal his-

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 435
torical probability on its side. It was, indeed, perfectly open
to Jesus, if miraculously restored to life, to show himself to
his followers at Jerusalem as well as in Galilee ; and if he
had come to life again in a natural manner, possibly wounds
and weakness might have kept him at first in Jerusalem. But
the disciples, with whom on our point of view we have alone
to do, had evidently, after the blow which had fallen upon
their master in the metropolis, every reason for returning as
soon as possible to their home in Galilee. They could not
know how far the hierarchical party would go — whether they
might not, being encouraged by their success against their
master, seize also upon his most notorious adherents. In
Jerusalem, where they were strangers, they stood without
protection in the presence of such dangers. In Galilee
they were at home, secured by their connection both with
relatives and countrymen, and the hierarchical party were
far from being as powerful as in the capital. There are
unmistakable traces in favour of this view in a statement in
the Gospels, though that is not, like the other, peculiar to
Matthew. After the flight which, on the arrest of Jesus,
the two first Evangelists represent all his disciples as under
taking (Matt. xxvi. 56, Mark xiv. 50), we find, indeed, on
the trial, Peter as still present, but, according to Matthew
and Mark, not one of the twelve is to be seen at the cross ;
and when in Matthew (xxvi. 31) Jesus applies the prophecy
of Zechariah (xiii. 7) to them, ' I will smite the shepherd, and
the sheep shall be scattered,' this expression appears to be
quite correctly explained by the author of the fourth Gospel
in the sense (xvi. 32) that the disciples will return to their
home. In the fourth Gospel (taking the supplementary
chapter into account) this return to Galilee takes place at
the soonest eight days after the resurrection, and even in
Matthew not until after they have heard of this, and been
directed to go there by Jesus. The latter appears to be a
sort of palliative representation of the fact attributing what
was done voluntarily through fear to a higher command
from Jesus himself."— Vol. i. p. 43S"36-

436 LECTURE XV.
Having, as he thinks, discredited the accounts which
record appearances at Jerusalem, and having brought
Matthew over to his view by setting aside his state
ment of the appearance to the women, Strauss pro
ceeds in the passage now quoted to show that, immedi
ately on the death of Jesus, the disciples fled to their
homes in Galilee. Fear of danger from the Jewish
rulers was the motive which urged this flight. And he
would also find support for this assertion from some
statements in the Gospels. Now, there can be no
doubt that the disciples on the arrest of Jesus for
sook Him and fled. Jesus Himself had foretold that
such would be their conduct ; but the expressions
used to indicate this desertion do not mean that,
either on the arrest or on the death of Jesus, the
disciples immediately fled to Galilee. All the ac
counts tell us that although they forsook their Master
they remained in Jerusalem. They knew perfectly
that He was the chief, if not the only, object of
hatred on the part of the rulers. Peter and John
were present at His trial. Matthew and Mark tell
us that the women who had followed Jesus were
standing at a distance in a group beholding the cruci
fixion. Luke says that " all His acquaintance " were
there, probably in another group, as well as the
women. John, we know, was there along with the
mother of Jesus. The disciples, according to all the
accounts, were in Jerusalem on the day of the resur
rection. There can be no reasonable doubt, then,
that all the disciples witnessed the crucifixion. Fear
caused them to desert Jesus when the hour of dark
ness came, but there is no evidence that it constrained
them to repair to Galilee. It was the command of

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 437
Jesus that brought them there. But it is necessary
for Strauss's theory that they should instantly quit
Jerusalem and reach Galilee in a state of terror, and
therefore he now assumes that such was the case.
" But supposing," he says, " the disciples, after the execu
tion of Jesus, to have fled, in their first terror, to their homes,
the reaction in their minds up to the point at which they
might have visions of Christ, even though not absolutely
unintelligible, in Jerusalem, is nevertheless far more capable
of explanation. Outside of the range to which the power
of the enemies and murderers of their master extended, the
spell of terror and consternation which had been laid upon
their minds by his arrest and condemnation gave way. More
over, in Galilee, in the regions which they had so often wan
dered through in his society, amid the population in com
pany with whom they had so often been inspired by his
words, they had every opportunity of continually recalling
his image to their minds, of realising it to themselves in the
different important situations in which they had seen him
there. Even the distance of the sepulchre is to be brought
into consideration, the immediate neighbourhood of which,
at least at first, would necessarily aggravate the difficulty of
believing that he who had been buried there had quitted it.
And if the transference of the appearance to Galilee dis
engages us from the third day as the period for the com
mencement of them, the longer time thus gained makes the
reaction in the minds of the disciples more conceivable." —
Vol. i. p. 436"37-
Having removed the disciples to Galilee in their
first terror upon the death of their Master, Strauss —
though he will not allow that the reaction in their
minds up to the point at which they might have
visions of Christ would have been absolutely unintel
ligible had they remained in Jerusalem — considers
that such a reaction is now far more capable of ex-

438 LECTURE XV. '
planation. And then he states some circumstances
which he thinks were favourable to the bringing
about of this mental revolution. Now, let it observed
that we are not considering here an abstract problem
in reference to the human mind. Strauss admits
that the disciples believed — firmly believed — that they
saw, not once or twice, but repeatedly, their Lord
alive after His death. The great question is, whether
these visions were purely subjective, or had their
origin in outward realities ? No general reasoning
on mere suppositions can avail to answer this ques
tion. There is no evidence whatever to sustain the
supposition that the disciples fled to Galilee in their
first terror. That they were in terror when Jesus was
arrested and tried and put to death — in such terror
that, on His being arrested, they forsook Him and
fled from the spot — we are informed by the Evan
gelists ; but not one of them says that the disciples
fled to Galilee in their terror. Nay, how does Strauss
know that they went to Galilee at all, but by the tes
timony of the Evangelists ? Matthew, whose account
he deems preferable to the other accounts, expressly
tells us that they went there by the command of their
risen Lord. Strauss insists that Matthew's account
has been enlarged by a later hand ; but he insists on
this, partly from a misinterpretation of his account,
and partly, or rather mainly, because of the require
ments of his own theory. Does not Matthew, however,
clearly affirm that Jesus rose on the third day after
His death, and that it was after the resurrection
had taken place that the disciples went to Galilee?
Matthew, then, equally with the other Evangelists,
represents the fact — or, according to Strauss, the idea —

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 439
of the resurrection as having been prior to the journey
to Galilee.
It is exceedingly easy, indeed, for the author or
any other person to form a theory in his mind of what
he supposes to have been the origin of the disciples'
belief, and then to set aside whatever in the accounts
is opposed to this theory ; taking out of them some
one thing, such as the journey to Galilee, and con
necting it with something else that happened or
existed under different circumstances and at a dif
ferent time — such as the fear or terror in which the
disciples were when their Lord was actually appre
hended and condemned and put to death — and then
to construct a case out of these two things, and to
represent the disciples as fleeing to Galilee in a state
of terror immediately upon the death of Jesus. But
this is not criticism — this is not reasoning ; it is mere
trifling with the accounts, and making them say what
one wishes them to say. Whether, upon the suppo
sition of Strauss, such a reaction would have taken
place as he conjectures, we know not ; but what we
do know is, that the supposition is worthless, being
based, not on evidence, but on conjecture.
Strauss all along assumes that there was no resur
rection, that the appearances were entirely subjective
—mere mental visions ; and he is forced to these
strange and unwarranted suppositions merely to sup
port his preconceived theory. Our desire is to be
guided by evidence in our inquiry into the alleged
resurrection of Jesus. We form no a priori conclu
sion in respect to this matter ; and we feel bound to
examine the accounts recording the event in order
that we may know at what conclusion we ought to

440 LECTURE XV.
arrive. These accounts affirm a real resurrection, and
they contain the evidence on which the disciples came
to believe in its reality. Their belief, which is ad
mitted by Strauss, is explicable only in the way in
which these accounts explain it. And although
Strauss labours hard to give a different explanation,
he stumbles at every step, and is compelled to seek
relief only by laying hold of one supposition after
another. Having then, as he thinks, brought all the dis
ciples to their homes in Galilee in a state of terror,
he will now suppose a reaction which shall issue in
visions of their Lord. A longer time than that of
forty-eight hours has been gained for the necessary
reaction to take place — a reaction, be it observed, not
in the mental state of one or two disciples, but in the
minds of all the disciples and of all the other fol
lowers of Jesus, so that every one of them, without a
single exception, is to imagine* and believe that he or
she has seen Jesus alive and heard His words, and
that, too, all at one and the same moment — a reac
tion, moreover, which is to lead these once affrighted
disciples to return to Jerusalem, and embolden them
at the hazard of their lives to proclaim the resurrec
tion of Jesus in presence of their known enemies,
and also at the same hazard to make known salvation,
in the name of their once crucified but now risen and
exalted Master, to all the nations of the earth. It
is absurd, we venture to affirm, to suppose that such
a reaction as this could ever have taken place in the
manner laid down by Strauss. But let us now see
how he will account for the appearances said to have
taken place at Jerusalem.

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 44I
"If, accordingly, as regards the locality of the appear
ances of Jesus after his resurrection, Matthew is in all
probability right, it is easy also to see how it happened that
subsequently injustice was done him — nay, that he did him
self injustice, that is, the last hand that touched up the
older narrative worked upon by Matthew, by interpolating
the appearance of Jesus before the women at Jerusalem.
It was, of course, the most obvious thing for the imagination
to represent the risen Lord as announcing his return to life;
that is, as appearing in the very place where he must have
quitted the sepulchre. Moreover, the disciples, after they
had recovered themselves in Galilee, and gained new faith
in Jesus as the Messiah, had in fact returned to Jerusalem,
and became here the founders of a Church which, by reason
of the central position of this city, soon became the centre
of all the Churches of the crucified and restored Messiah.
How natural, then, that the time during which the Apostles
retired from this central point should be willingly forgotten,
and that the description of the course of events should take
a turn implying that the metropolis had never been without
a nucleus of a Church, that the eleven had from the first
continued together in Jerusalem, and that here, too, they
had been awakened to renewed faith by the first appear
ances of their Master after his resurrection ! In this form
the facts were stated at a later period in Jerusalem in par
ticular, and in this form represented by the author of the
third Gospel, who enriched the Galilean tradition of the first
principally by Jewish traditions and those of Jerusalem.
But it does not follow that it was from Galilean patriotism
that Matthew made this country the theatre of the re
appearance of his risen Lord ; but in the Galilean tradition
which he followed there was simply no occasion to modify
the original fact to the advantage of Jerusalem." — Vol. i.
P- 437-38-
One cannot refrain from expressing astonishment
at the childishness which every now and then becomes

442 LECTURE XV.
apparent in the discussions of such men as Strauss,
when subjects of the highest magnitude are before
them. The Evangelic accounts of the appearances
of the risen Jesus are constructed by persons who are
thinking of" the advantage of Jerusalem or of Galilee !"
These accounts consist of " Galilean traditions," and
some of them are " enriched by Jewish traditions and
those of Jerusalem !" The idea of a Gospel of the
grace of God revealed for the salvation of sinful man,
whether Jew or Gentile, seems never to cross the minds
of these men. The relation of the death and resur
rection of the Son of God to this all-precious Gospel
seems never once to be thought of. They assume
the whole to be a cunningly-devised fable, or the
product of an excited imagination. The Gospel
exists merely as a thing on which they are to exercise
their powers, so as to account for its existence on the
one or the other of these assumptions ; and, what is
indeed most strange, they do not seem to be aware
of the utter childishness which so often marks their
efforts. Strauss having taken the disciples in a state of
terror to Galilee, a reaction takes place there in their
minds to such an extent that they now, one and all,
have visions of Christ. But he must bring them back
to Jerusalem ; for it was there, by all accounts, that
the Christian Church was founded. The difficulty
which it is evident he saw meeting him here, is
slurred over in the quietest possible manner. He
simply asserts that " the disciples, after they had re
covered themselves in Galilee, and gained new faith
in Jesus as the Messiah, had in fact returned to Jeru
salem, and became here the founders of a Church

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 443
which, by reason of the central position of this city,
soon became the centre of all the Churches of the
crucified and restored Messiah." Let it be ever so
"obvious a thing," as Strauss says it was, "for the
imagination to represent the risen Lord as announc
ing His return to life — that is, as appearing in the very
place where He must have quitted the sepulchre " —
we ask for some explanation of what -took place in
Galilee where the disciples first believed they had
visions of Christ, and also of the reasons which so
soon brought them back to Jerusalem, from which
they had shortly before fled in terror. Taking
Strauss's own account of these things, can we con
ceive it possible that the disciples, after such a re
action in their minds, could have kept silence in
Galilee ? And if they did not, why are there no ac
counts of any of their proceedings there ? What could
have moved them, Galileans as they were, not to
proclaim the resurrection of their Lord to their coun
trymen there, " amid the population in company with
whom they had so often been inspired by His words " ?
They were there " outside of the range to which the
power of the enemies and murderers of their Master
extended," and they were now no longer under " the
spell of terror and consternation which had been laid
upon their minds by His arrest and condemnation."
What, then, could have been more natural than that,
as soon as the reaction took place in their own minds,
they should have been constrained by the very con
dition of their minds to proclaim to the inhabitants
of Galilee, what they themselves now believed, the
resurrection of their Lord, and to have founded the
Christian Church in Galilee? Or what could have

444 LECTURE XV.
moved such men to rush back to Jerusalem, where
their enemies were all-powerful, and where they could,
therefore, expect to encounter only persecution and
death ? The very thought of returning to Jerusalem,
where their Master had been put to death, would at
once have dispelled their dream, and reminded them
that the sepulchre was there in which still lay the
body of their Lord.
Strauss acts wisely for his theory in keeping silence
on these matters, and in attempting to ascribe to
persons at a later date " the wilful forgetfulness of the
time during which the Apostles had retired from
Jerusalem, that central point," — a wilful forgetfulness,
not only of the time, but of all that, upon the sup
posed theory, must have taken place in Galilee during
that time. It was in Jerusalem that the disciples,
according to the accounts of Luke, first preached the
resurrection of Jesus. It was there that the Christian
Church was founded. And Strauss's theory fails to
account for these facts. He removes the disciples to
Galilee, and he brings them back, without assigning
any reason for their return. According to his theory,
they had fled in terror from Jerusalem, and nothing
had occurred to lessen their danger there. It was in
Galilee that their terror gave way ; and it is manifest
that it was in Galilee that they would have remained,
and made known the visions which they now imagined
were vouchsafed to them. And yet Strauss admits
that, after recovering from their terror, and gaining
new faith in Jesus as the Messiah, they did in fact
return to Jerusalem. The silence of these disciples in
Galilee, and their return to Jerusalem, are inexplic
able on the theory of Strauss. But they were silent

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 445
in Galilee, because, as we know, they went there by
the command of Jesus, and they returned to Jerusa
lem by the command of the same Jesus. These facts
are fully explained to us by the Evangelic narratives,
which therefore are true, whilst Strauss's theory is
false ; for no theory can be true which does not ac
count for all the phenomena.
So much for the locality of the appearances of
Christ. Strauss now returns to the difficulty respect
ing the time of these appearances. This difficulty he
found to be very great ; but having, as he thinks,
gained the reader over to his views as to the locality,
he will now try to surmount the difficulty, insurmount
able as we believe it to be. He is compelled to make
the attempt ; let us then patiently observe how he
does so.
" An unhistorical origin of the statement as to time, which
lies at the foundation of the history of the resurrection, will
be more difficult to admit than in the case of the locality of
the appearances. The primeval definite account that Jesus
rose on the third day, and was seen after having so risen,
seems to have every claim to historical validity. But in this
case also, when once the faith in his resurrection, and in
his having shown himself after it, was a given quantity, it
may be discovered, without difficulty, why the third day
exactly was fixed upon for the occurrence. It was necessary
that death should have had power over the crucified Messiah
for a short time only (comp. Acts ii. 24) ; his victory over
death and hell must have been decided as early as possible.
Thus, if the faith of his adherents had on the one hand a
natural interest in placing the moment of his quitting the
grave as close as possible to that of his death and burial, on
the other hand they did not choose to go so far that the
element of this death should appear to vanish entirely; Jesus

446 LECTURE XV.
must have been only a short time dead, according to the
body, but he must have been really dead. The endeavour
to realise this notion was met by the circumstance that the
crucifixion of Jesus, according to the unanimous account of
all the Gospels, which is not affected by their discrepancy
as regards the Feast of the Passover, had taken place on the
day, and his interment on the evening, before the Sabbath.
On the Sabbath God had rested from all His works : how
appropriate the idea which represented the Messiah also as
resting from the works of his human life over this very day,
as only keeping the Sabbath rest in the grave ! Add to this,
that in consequence of the typical meaning of the number
three, the third day seems to have been, to a certain extent,
the proverbial limitation for a short time, as a period for the
free execution or performance of anything. ' Jehovah,' say
the repentant people in Hosea (vi. 2), 'Jehovah will revive
us after two days, and on the third day He will raise us up,
and we shall live in His sight.' In like manner, in Luke (xiii.
32, ff), Jesus orders Herod, that fox, to be told, 'Behold I
cast out devils, and I do cures to-day and to-morrow, and
on the third day I shall be perfected,' and also the fixing of
the time in the deposition of the false witnesses (Matt. xxvi.
61), that Jesus undertook to destroy the temple of God, and
in three days to build it up again, need not be derived from
the history of the resurrection, as if it had not been said
before. On the other hand, the continuance of Jonas in the
belly of the whale, in which he offered a prayer (ii. 1-11)
that may be compared with the Psalms relating to the pas
sion of the Messiah, does not seem to have been brought in
as a parallel case until later — subsequently, that is, to the
time when the morning of Sunday had been fixed upon for
the resurrection of Jesus (Matt. xii. 40). For the three days
and three nights of that continuance do not agree with the
two nights and one day which, according to the Evangelical
narratives, Jesus passed in the sepulchre.
" In this way," continues Strauss, " the third day might

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 447
have been fixed upon for the resurrection of Jesus even in
the lifetime of the Apostles, and have been adopted by
them, even though it had no historical foundation. No one
professed to have been an eyewitness of Jesus coming out
of the grave ; the time at which he did so rested solely upon
inferences. The only certain inference was, that Jesus must
have come out of the grave before he appeared to any one
whomsoever. How long before was left undecided ; and if
on dogmatical grounds formed by prophecy, the day after
the Sabbath, the third day, appeared particularly appropriate
for this, one who had seen an appearance of Christ on the
fourth or eighth day, or later, would have as little to urge
against fixing on the third day for the resurrection as Paul,
who did not see his until several years later." — Vol. i. p.
438-40. Such is the way in which Strauss attempts to show
that the alleged time of the first appearances of
Jesus to His disciples, and accordingly of His resur
rection, has no historical foundation. He admits
that this circumstance as regards the time lies at the
basis of the history of the resurrection, and that it
gives rise to a greater difficulty than that which relates
to the locality of these appearances. He even admits
that "the primeval definite account that Jesus rose on
the third day, and was seen after having so risen,
seems to have every claim to historical validity."
But, notwithstanding these admissions, he asserts that
" in this case also, when once the faith in His resurrec
tion and in His having shown Himself after it was a
given quantity, it may be discovered without difficulty
why the third day exactly was fixed upon lor the
occurrence." Now, it is necessary for us to under
stand clearly the problem which Strauss here asserts
it will not be difficult to solve. He assumes, we must

448 LECTURE XV.
observe, that Jesus did not rise from the dead, but
that the disciples, having fled to Galilee in a state of
terror, experienced a reaction in their minds which
reached that point at which they, through the mere
power of an excited imagination, had visions of Christ.
The disciples, one and all of them, having had such
subjective visions, believed that He was risen again ;
and they returned to Jerusalem, where they pro
claimed His resurrection as a fact which had occurred,
and, prevailing on others to believe their assertion,
laid the foundation of the Christian Church. Faith
in the resurrection and in the appearances of Jesus
is thus assumed as " a given quantity," and it there
fore became natural, or even necessary, to give to
the believed fact of the resurrection an historical
aspect, by fixing the time after His death when this
fact took place. If, according to Strauss, the disciples
did not experience visions of Christ on the third day
after His death, these visions could not be of service
to enable them to fix exactly the day on which He
was supposed to have risen again. Strauss felt it to
be important, if not necessary, to his theory, that
some time longer than three days should elapse before
such a reaction as that which he supposes should take
place in the minds of the disciples. But he does not
seem to have perceived that the longer he postponed
the visions, the more difficult was he rendering to
himself the problem as to fixing the time for the
resurrection. For if the disciples had had these visions
on the third day after the death, it would have been
natural for them to fix on that same day as the day of
the resurrection itself. But if a longer time intervened
between the death and these visions, then it is mani-

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 449
fest that it was by no means so easy a matter for
them to agree, without a dissentient voice, as to the
day on which they should affirm that the resurrection
did take place.
Thus Strauss, in his effort to escape from one diffi
culty that pressed upon his theory, rushes into an
other, which, however, he acts wisely for himself in
not noticing, and which, indeed, is in itself a much
greater difficulty than the one from which he was so
anxious to escape. For the risen Jesus did appear to
His disciples in Galilee as well as at Jerusalem ; but
He only once rose from the dead, and He rose at a
definite moment. Now, whatever difficulties we may
meet with in the Evangelical accounts in respect to
details as to the times and localities of the appear
ances of Christ, there is none, not the slightest, in
respect to the time of His resurrection. There is but
one account of this matter, and Strauss himself ad
mits that it is " primeval and definite." That account
is, that Jesus rose on the third day after His death.
Strauss further admits that " this third day might
have been fixed upon for the resurrection of Jesus
even in the lifetime of the Apostles, and might have
been adopted by them even though it had no his
torical foundation." Indeed, it is impossible even for
him to question the fact that the Apostles did declare
Jesus to have risen on the third day ; for in that Epistle
which is one of the few New Testament writings the
genuineness of which he admits, in the First Epistle of
Paul to the Corinthians, the third day is expressly men
tioned by that Apostle as the day on which Jesus rose
from the dead. We can have no doubt, therefore,
that this was the belief of the other Apostles on this
2 F

450 LECTURE XV.
matter. Strauss would represent that belief as resting
solely upon " inference." True it is that " no one pro
fessed to have been an eyewitness of Jesus coming
out of the grave ; " that no one, in all probability,
saw Him, when, having restored life to His own dead
body, He raised it from the tomb by His supernatural
power. But equally true it is that it was on the
very day of His resurrection that His tomb was found
to be empty, and that He appeared to His disciples.
" Inference," then, though it was, it was an inference
based upon facts which allowed of no other inference.
And the only reasonable explanation which can be
given why the third day was believed by the Apostles,
and declared by them, to have been the day of the
resurrection, is to be found in the fact itself, that on
that day Jesus actually rose again.
But now let us notice Strauss's attempt to explain
this phenomenon, and to surmount the difficulty before
him. " Faith in the resurrection of Jesus, and in His
having shown Himself after it," is to be assumed as " a
given quantity," and an easy solution of the difficulty
involved in the exact fixing of the third day for the
occurrence is to be placed before us. The Apostles,
when reflecting on the difficult problem (for, ac
cording to Strauss, it was they, and not merely him
self, who had a problem to solve), would consider it
necessary that the crucified Messiah should be under
the power of death " for a short time only." And we
may learn from Acts ii. 24 that such a consideration
would occur to them, for we there hear one of them
saying that " God raised Him — Jesus of Nazareth —
raised Him up, having loosed the pains of death :
because it was not possible that He should be holden

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 45 1
of it." But, passing over the fact that the Apostle
who is here speaking refers to the resurrection of
Jesus as an objective fact which had occurred — a fact
as objective as His death had been — we observe that
he appeals not to prophecy as a proof that this fact
must have occurred, but to the fact itself as a fulfilment
of prophecy. It may be at once admitted that the
prophecy referred to might be justly understood as
implying that the Messiah would be under the power of
death only for a short time, although there is no speci
fication of the time. But whilst, according to Strauss,
" the faith of the adherents " — that is, in fact, of the
Apostles — •" had, on the one hand, a natural interest
in placing the moment of His quitting the grave as
close as possible to that of His death and burial, on
the other hand, they did not choose to go so far that
the element of His death should appear to vanish en
tirely : Jesus must have been only a short time dead,
according to the body, but He must have been really
dead." Does not all this, we would observe, indicate
a kind of reflection and reasoning very inconsistent
with the theory that these adherents — these Apostles
— had arrived at their belief in the resurrection solely
through the power of an excited imagination ? Can
we conceive it possible for these Apostles to have
directed their attention in this manner to the problem
before them ? " We," they say to one another, " must
place the moment when our crucified Master quitted
the grave as close as possible to that of His death
and burial, and yet we must not go so far that the
element of His death shall appear to vanish entirely,
for then it will not be believed that He was really
dead." Can we, I repeat, conceive the Apostles thus

452 LECTURE XV.
deliberating — coolly deliberating how to frame an
answer to the question, On what day after His death
did our Master rise again ? The supposition is ab
surd. If Strauss had represented these men as from
the first conscious originators of a falsehood — as them
selves not believing in the resurrection of Jesus, but
as resolved, for some inexplicable reason, to proclaim
to the world that He had risen, — then the determina
tion of the day of the resurrection would have formed
an essential element in their false story. But even
Strauss repudiates the idea that these men were con
scious authors of a falsehood. They believed — firmly
believed, he admits — that their Master had risen again.
And he is right in this admission. But how is it
possible to reconcile with such an admission the idea
that they proposed to themselves, and determined by
reasoning, the problem as to the exact time — the very
day — on which this firmly believed though purely
imaginary resurrection took place ? The theory con
tains its own refutation within itself. It involves a
manifest contradiction.
Strauss, however, proceeds in the solution of the
problem as if no contradiction had entered into his
suppositions ; and we must hear what his solution is.
In endeavouring to realise their notion, which he
has told us involved two elements, the adherents —
that is (for these could in the case supposed be no
others) the Apostles of Jesus — were met by the circum
stance that the crucifixion had taken place on the
day, and his interment on the evening, before the
Sabbath. Now, it could not but occur to them, that
as God had on the Sabbath rested from all His
works, so it would only be proper that the Messiah

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 453
also should be represented as resting from the works
of His human life over this very day — as keeping
the Sabbath rest in the grave. Hence it is clear
that they could not think of the resurrection taking
place on that day. But then this event must not be
deferred longer ; and as the " number three was con
sidered as having a typical meaning, and as, therefore,
the third day seems to have been to a certain extent
the proverbial limitation for a short time," the day
after the Sabbath, being the third day after the cruci
fixion, was unanimously fixed upon as the day on
which Jesus — did not indeed rise, but — must be repre
sented as having risen, from the dead.
Strauss endeavours to support this solution by refer
ring to a passage in Hosea, where the Israelites, chas
tened for their sins, are represented by the prophet as
expressing their penitence and hope in Jehovah: "After
two days will He revive us ; in the third day He will
raise us up, and we shall live in His sight" — a passage
which it is abundantly evident could have no refer
ence to Him in " whom there was no sin, and in whose
mouth there was no guile," and which is never once
applied to Him in the New Testament. But it is
enough for Strauss that the passage speaks of two
days and a third day, as indicating a short period of
time. Again, he refers to a passage in Luke, where Jesus,
in reply to a threatening message sent to Him by
Herod, says, " Behold, I cast out devils, and I do
cures to-day, and to-morrow, and the day following,
and the third day I shall be perfected." Of this
rather obscure passage the meaning seems to be that
our Lord had reference to what was to take place in

454 LECTURE XV.
three literal days. Strauss next refers to the deposition
of the false witnesses who at the trial of Jesus charged
Him with having said, "I am able to destroy the
Temple of God, and to build it in three days." We
know that Jesus did not . utter exactly these words ;
for what He said was, " Destroy this temple, and in
three days I will raise it up " — words which He spake
with reference to the temple of His body, and
which, therefore, contained a prediction both of His
death through the malice of His enemies, and of His
resurrection by His own power. Even Strauss admits
that words to this effect may have been uttered by
Jesus, and he is evidently disposed to allow that
they were so, because they furnish, as he thinks, some
help to the Apostles when engaged in fixing the time
for the supposed resurrection.
Strauss, however, does not attach any weight to what
Jesus is represented as having said about Jonah ; and
the reason of this is also evident. On this occasion
Jesus spoke plainly, not obscurely, as He did on the
occasion above referred to, about His own resurrection :
" 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." Such a
prediction as this did not suit Strauss's theory ; and
therefore such a parallel as is here indicated could not
have been introduced until after it had been determined
by the adherents of Jesus how long He was to lie in
the tomb. And besides, argues Strauss, "the three
days and three nights of Jonah's continuance in the
belly of the whale do not agree with the two nights
and one day which, according to the Evangelical nar
ratives, Jesus passed in the sepulchre '' — just as if,

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 455
according to the well-known Jewish reckoning, the
day was not considered as consisting of "the night
and day," and as if, therefore, a part of this complete
day was not spoken of as " a day and a night." Jesus
was laid in the sepulchre on Friday, and He rose
again on the third day after. He was thus in the
sepulchre on three distinct days, and though not
strictly, yet, according to the Jewish mode of speech
in such a matter, He was three days — that is, accord
ing to another mode of expressing the same idea,
"three days and three nights" — in the heart of the
earth. But, as we have said, Strauss could not allow
that Jesus had foretold His own resurrection ; and
therefore this passage referring to Jonah must be dis
carded along with all other passages in the Gospels of
similar import.
The third day, then, we are to believe, was fixed
upon as the day of the resurrection for the reasons
here assigned by Strauss. "That day might have
been fixed," he says, "even in the lifetime of the
Apostles, even though it had no historical foundation."
He would evidently prefer that this day had not
been fixed so early ; and hence he says, " it might
have been " then fixed, as if there could be any doubt
even in his mind that it was then fixed, since the
Apostle Paul mentions the third day as the day of
the resurrection ; and the first day of the week — " the
Lord's Day" — dates from the very origin of the
Christian Church ; so that no historical fact can be
clearer than that the day was fixed, if fixed it was,
by the Apostles themselves. But, according to
Strauss, this day was fixed not upon historical, but
upon "dogmatical grounds, formed by prophecy."

456 LECTURE XV.
Now, prophecy did clearly declare that the Messiah
should die and rise again ; but within the whole
volume of prophecy there does not exist a single intima
tion as to the particular day on which the resurrection
should take place. The Apostle Paul, indeed, says
" that Christ died for our sins according to the Scrip
tures ; and that He was buried, and that He rose
again the third day according to the Scriptures." The
Scriptures did predict the death, the burial, and the
resurrection of the Messiah, and it is to these events
to which the Apostle refers as so predicted. But the
particular day in which the resurrection was to take
place is not foretold in the Scriptures ; nor does the
Apostle mean to affirm that it was so. Jesus Himself
foretold the day, but Strauss will not admit this.
The problem which Strauss attempted to solve refers
not to the resurrection itself, but to the day on which
it was to take place. He solves this problem by the
assertion that the third day was fixed upon by the
adherents of Jesus — that is, by the Apostles, and so
determined by them upon "dogmatical grounds
formed by prophecy ; " and yet he cannot point out a
single prophecy which was looked upon as referring
to the Messiah, that says one word as to the day
when the resurrection should take place.
His attempt, therefore, to solve his own problem is
an entire failure. First of all he introduces a contra
diction into the case, and then he proceeds on the
purest conjectures, ending with a baseless assertion
that prophecy formed the grounds on which the
choice of the day was made. And thus he shows us
that "in this case also, when once the faith in the
resurrection of Jesus, and in His having shown Him-

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 457
self after it, was a given quantity, it may be dis
covered without difficulty why the third day exactly
was fixed upon for the occurrence " ! No, the dis
covery has not yet been made, and never will be
made. That day was not fixed upon by mortal men,
but in the counsels of the Eternal God. That third
day was the day recognised by the Apostles, and by
the Church which they founded, because it was, in
fact, the day on which Jesus, the Son of God, rose tri
umphant over death, vindicating His own claims, and
bringing life and immortality to light. Strauss has
all along evidently felt that this was the fact which he
would find it most difficult to discredit. He makes
great preparation for his final assault. He attempts
to conceal his weakness, and goes on with his solution
of the problem as if it were one of no difficulty what
ever. But the problem is insoluble. The fact pre
sents itself in all its reality, that the third day was the
day on which the Apostles affirmed from the begin
ning that Jesus arose, that the first day of the week
was "the Lord's Day" — the day commemorative of
the Lord — the day on which the Christian Church
from the beginning held its solemn meetings. This
fact must have an explanation ; and the only expla
nation of which it is capable is, that it was founded
upon an " historical" ground — on the ground that on
that day Jesus did rise from the dead.
Strauss now concludes his discussion of this subject,
and at the same time his First Book, in the following
manner : —
" Thus the faith in Jesus as the Messiah, which by his
violent death had received an apparently fatal shock, was
subjectively restored, by the instrumentality of the mind,

45 8 LECTURE XV.
the power of imagination, and nervous excitement. A pro
gressive life was now insured for all that new and profound re
ligious life that had been in Jesus, and by him, through teach
ing and example, imparted to his followers. But the imagina
tive form of this restoration continued thenceforth to give a
standard according to which his figure was contemplated,
his words, acts, and doctrines remembered ; his whole life
was veiled in a shining cloud, which continued to raise it
more and more above the human element, but removed it
in the same proportion from natural and historical truth.
The history of the experiences also, which had founded the
belief in his resurrection, suffered in this sense a modifica
tion, of which we shall speak at the conclusion of the
second part of this work. It is the object of that second
part to follow up in its particular features and changes that
very modification which affected the history of the life of
Jesus under the influence of the imaginative spirit of the
most ancient Churches. The spirit was in many respects at
the same time a relapse into the ideas of the Judaising
period." — Vol. i. p. 440.
In this concluding passage Strauss introduces no new
argument. He merely gives a summary statement of
the results of his preceding arguments against the
reality of the resurrection of Jesus, and respecting
the origin of the belief of the disciples in that resur
rection. He appears to believe in the validity of all
his previous reasoning against the supernatural claims
of the Lord Jesus Christ. He seems to be per
fectly convinced that the belief of the disciples in the
resurrection of the Lord was wholly due to their own
excited imaginations. "Their faith in Jesus as the
Messiah had by His death received an apparently
fatal shock, but it was subjectively restored by the
instrumentality of the mind, the power of imagina-

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 459
tion, and nervous excitement." And he adds, that
" a progressive life was now insured for all that new
and profound religious life that had been in Jesus, and
by Him, through teaching and example, imparted to
His followers." Strauss admits that Jesus, whom He
regards as merely a man, whose life was in no essen
tial respect different from the life of any ordinary
man, had in some way or other attained to a new and
profound religious life, and that by His teaching and
example He had imparted this same life to His fol
lowers. Truth and holiness and love were among the
chief characteristics of this new and profound life of
Jesus. Strauss does not attempt to explain how it
was possible that men, to whom a life distinguished
by such features was imparted, could have yielded
so completely to the mere suggestions of an excited
imagination. Minds under the influence of such qua
lities are generally in a subdued and healthy condi
tion, and are keenly alive to whatever wears the
aspect of falsehood, or trenches upon moral principle
in general. Nor does Strauss explain how such men
could have come fonvard and proclaimed to the world
in the solemn and earnest manner they did that this
Jesus, whom the Jewish rulers had put to death, God
had raised up, and exalted to His own right hand. It
is impossible for any sane mind to have been deluded
by its own imagination, however excited, as Strauss
represents these followers of Jesus to have been.
Strauss or any other person may easily assert that
such was the case ; but we repeat, the supposition,
taking all the circumstances into consideration, is
morally impossible. Imagination cannot so operate
in any mind not deprived of reason. A sound mind

460 LECTURE XV.
may be deceived by outward appearances or by plaus
ible testimony. Nay, it may at times be deluded by
suggestions of its own imagination. But such a mind
will recover its proper condition as soon as time and
events have withdrawn the sources of deception or of
delusion. Insanity alone could account for such a de
lusion as that under which, according to Strauss, these
first disciples laboured. And then how is their future
conduct to be explained, if such was their mental
condition ? These men became the instruments of
revolutionising the moral and religious state of the
human race. They proclaimed a morality so pure
and sublime that man's highest imagination cannot
even now conceive a purer or more sublime. They
proclaimed a religion which alone is worthy of the One
Living and True God, which alone is able to redeem
man from the bondage of moral evil, and to raise him
to the love and practice of holiness — to the love at
once of God and of his fellow-man. Were these men
insane — men who hazarded all their earthly interests,
even life itself, in order to promote the glory of God
and the good of man ? The idea is absurd. It re
futes itself. These men were not insane. They knew
what they believed, and why they believed. They
proclaimed in all solemn earnestness the name of
Jesus as that name which is above every other name,
and by which alone guilty man can be saved.
And what is it that has insured " a progressive
life " for the religion which in the name of Jesus these
men proclaimed ? Not delusion, not fraud, not human
eloquence or human power, but its own inherent
excellence ; its adaptation to man's moral condition ;
and the manifest evidence of its resting upon facts,

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 46 1
which, supernatural as they were, occurred within the
sphere of man's observation. Had the faith of the
disciples rested on delusions, it would infallibly have
given way in progress of time. Had the religion
of Jesus been built on such a foundation, it would
have fallen, in spite of all its excellence, into ruins
long ere now. It has not been reserved for Strauss,
or any other man of this age, to assail for the first
time the foundations of this religion. These have
been assailed from the first, and during the whole
intervening time, to the present day. Yet they remain
firm and steadfast as when laid by Him who descended
from heaven to dispel the darkness of the human
mind in respect to the Living God, and to redeem the
souls of men from sin and death. No — the delusion
which Strauss ascribes to these disciples is to be
found elsewhere. It is his own mind that is under
the spell ; it is his own imagination that constructs
his case, and reason is employed merely to give shape
and form to his own ideas. His argument sets out
with groundless assumptions, and his conclusion par
takes of the nature of his premisses. His theory may
prove a hindrance — a snare to some ; but it requires
only to be patiently examined, and its hollowness
becomes apparent.
He began his whole enterprise with an assumption
which contains in itself his conclusion. There must
be nothing supernatural in the life of Jesus ; and
therefore the conclusion is, that there was nothing
supernatural in His life. Such is all his argument,
however elaborate and plausible the processes of
reasoning may appear. His problem was, How can I
explain the life of Jesus on the supposition that His

462 LECTURE XV.
life was only that of an ordinary man ? That was the
problem which he set before him ; and hence at every
step he must deny — must eliminate — every super
natural element, however clearly attested. His con
clusion was before him at the outset ; and his whole
work is nothing else than a laborious effort to de
monstrate a foregone conclusion. Truth is not to be
reached by such a process as this. The investigation
which aims at truth must be conducted " by a mind
perfectly unprejudiced, perfectly decided, without
ambiguity and without reserve," in a different sense
from that in which these words are understood by
Strauss. Whatever powers he may possess, such a
state of mind as he has described, his work proves
that he himself has not yet attained. May he yet
attain to it ! Then no man will more thoroughly see
than he will, how utterly invalid are the premisses
which in this work he has assumed, and consequently
how worthless are the conclusions which by means of
such premisses he has so laboured to establish. And
most intensely will he regret that he should have
persecuted the Church of God by such persistent
efforts to subvert faith in Him whom, in His infinite
mercy, God sent into our guilty and miserable world
to dispel our darkness and to give us the hope of
everlasting life — the hope which alone can alleviate
man's present evils, and can enable him to look forward
with calmness and even joy to a coming eternity.
As to the discussions in the second part of his
work, to which in the concluding sentences of the
passage before us he refers his readers, they consist
of attempts, as he here tells us, to show how the
history of what he calls " the experiences" of the first

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 463
disciples became modified — altered or enlarged —
under the influence of what he regards as " the imagin
ative spirit of the most ancient Churches." In short, in
that second part he undertakes to construct the history
of the growing legend which sprang from the idea
of the resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus.
The discussion proceeds upon his conclusions in the
first part. There is nothing strictly new introduced ;
and were we to enter upon it with the view of fully
examining its statements, we should find ourselves
only compelled to repeat what has already been said
in the examination of the part now gone over. We
deemed it, indeed, proper to examine minutely his
discussion respecting the burial of Jesus, which he
unfairly, as we think, postponed to this second part.
But for the reasons we have stated, we consider it
wholly unnecessary to enter on the other discussions.
In the conclusion of his whole work, he makes some
statements which deserve a brief notice before we
part with him. " Our historical knowledge of Jesus,"
he affirms, " is defective and uncertain ;" and if we
are to adopt his theory respecting the sources of this
knowledge, he is perfectly right in this statement. If
all we know for certain about Jesus is what Strauss
leaves us, then is the amount meagre indeed ; and
he may justly assert that we know far more about
Socrates, the sage of Greece, than about Him who
came forth from God to be " the Light of the world."
But this is a mere assertion on the part of Strauss,
founded upon a theory which sets all historical evi
dence at defiance. The true state of the case is,
that whilst the full knowledge of Jesus cannot be at
tained by us till we see Him in His glory, we have a

464 LECTURE XV.
fourfold account of Him as He lived and taught and
suffered upon earth, and also of His resurrection and
glorious ascension, which account, in its diversified
form, presents Him to us in such vivid lights and
varied aspects that a living picture of Him is pro
duced on the mind of every thoughtful believer — a
picture which is more and more filled up and becomes
more and more vivid as we dwell on His wonderful
character, evinced not only in words, but in deeds and
in sufferings. Looking with steadfast gaze into the
mirror of the Gospel, we behold the image of Jesus
— we behold Himself " full of grace and truth ; "
and as we behold Him, we ourselves are continually
being " changed into the same image, as by the Lord
the Holy Spirit." Were the case such as Strauss
would have it to be, we should at once acquiesce in
his decision as to the value of such knowledge.
" There is little," he says, " of which we can say for certain
that it took place, and of all to which the faith of the Church
especially attaches itself, the miraculous and supernatural
matter in the facts and destinies of Jesus, it is far more
certain that it did not take place. But that the happiness
of mankind is to depend upon belief in things of which
it is in part certain that they did not take place, in part
uncertain whether they did take place, and only to the
smallest extent beyond doubt that they took place — that the
happiness of mankind is to depend upon belief in such
things as these, is so absurd that the assertion of the prin
ciple does not at the present day require any further con
tradiction." — Vol. ii. p. 434.
We add that the assertion of such a principle never
in any day, whether past or present, stood in need of
any contradiction. Such an assertion would indeed

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 465
be absurd. The principle laid down by Strauss was
never asserted by any reasonable being. And as to
the nature of " the principle" we appeal from Strauss,
who assumes that a miracle is impossible — that im
mortality is a dream — that there is no Living and Per
sonal God — that nothing exists but what we are able
to see with our bodily eye — to one who lived nearer
the time when Jesus was upon the earth, and who had
traced the history of His life from the beginning to
its final issue — to the Evangelist Luke, who tells us
that he had received his information from those who
were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, and that,
" having a perfect understanding of all things " con
cerning Jesus " from the very beginning, he wrote his
historical account of the Life of Jesus, in order that
others might know the certainty of those things
wherein they had been instructed." We appeal from
such men as Strauss to men like this Evangelist ; and
we affirm that since the One Living and True God
has done such great things for us through the mission
of His Only-begotten Son into our world, it is most
reasonable that we should believe in God, and in His
Son Jesus Christ, and that the happiness of mankind
should be made to depend on a real, a living faith in
that Gospel which alone contains the testimony of
God concerning His Son.
Strauss, like others, may attempt to veil his enmity
to this glorious Gospel by raising up the picture of an
Ideal Christ in the room of that Historical Christ who
alone is the Saviour of the world ; and, further, by
giving credit to the historical Jesus, of whom he has
told us we know so little, for having " first brought to
light many principal features " of " that moral pat-
2 G

466 LECTURE XV.
tern" which constitutes "the ideal Christ." But if
we are. to form our judgments, not from imaginary
theories respecting the development of the human
race, but from the facts of its past history, and from
the workings of that nature which all its successive
generations possess in common, we cannot hesitate to
affirm that woe indeed will be to the depraved race of
man if ever this fiction shall become the universal
belief; and if, instead of trusting in a real, an historical
Saviour — in One who lived and died and rose again,
and is now living in glory — mankind should be per
suaded to look to a mere ideal Saviour, an ideal
pattern, an abstraction which may be discussed by
the intellect and pictured by the imagination, but
will never leave any impress on man's soul, or in
fluence in a single respect the tenor of his life.
No ! nothing but reality can avail to the true happi
ness of man ; and man cannot and does not " find in
himself" that knowledge which is necessary for his
happiness. Man is so constituted that he can attain
to this happiness only through real communion with
his all-wise Creator, the Living God. God alone can
be the portion of his soul. And facts beyond all
question prove that man in his natural state is not in
communion with God, and that he has, in consequence
of this state of separation, no true rest of spirit. Has
God, then, in His infinite mercy, sent One — even His
own Son — to bring man back to this communion ? '
And shall we, in our blindness to spiritual realities and
in our enmity to God, set ourselves to the miserable
task of questioning the only evidence by which the
mission of His Son can be confirmed to us ? Or
rather shall we not, conscious of our depravity, our

TIME AND PLACE OF THE APPEARANCES. 467
guilt, and our unrest, listen to the words which fell
from this heavenly Messenger, this Divine Saviour —
words which no mere man ever uttered, or would
have dared to utter — words which, in spite of all the
efforts of scepticism and infidelity, will abide as long
as man lives upon earth, and will never fail to reach
the heart of some sin-stricken and weary pilgrims —
" Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are
heavy laden, and i will give you rest"?

THE END.

PRINTED BY WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SOUS, EDINBURGH.

BOOKS
PUBLISHED BY
WILLIAM BLACKWOOD & SONS,
EDINBURGH AND LONDON.

professor ©ratoforD.
THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD,
Considered in its General and Special Aspects, and particu
larly in relation to the Atonement ; with a Review of Recent
Speculations on the Subject. By Thomas J. Crawford,
D.D., Professor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh.
Second Edition, revised and enlarged, with a Reply to the
Strictures of Dr Candlish. In post octavo, price 7s. 6d.
" It is with sincere pleasure that I declare my concurrence in the whole sub
stance of these two lectures (on the Atonement). Dr Crawford has rendered
a signal and seasonable service to the cause of truth, by the clear, cautious,
and able exposition which he has given of the great catholic doctrine of the
Atonement, and by his thorough vindication of it against Socinian and Neo-
Socinian objections, founded on its alleged inconsistency with right notions of
the character and government of God. If he were to give the Church the
benefit of this exposition and vindication — which is not only very complete in
itself, but sufficiently independent of the rest of his book to admit of separate
publication— I, for one, would hail such a use of it with aU my heart." — Dr
Candlish' s Reply to Professor Crawford, p. 19.
Rcb. Sr ifltdjolscm.
REST IN JESUS.
By the Rev. Maxwell Nicholson, D.D., Minister of St
Stephen's. Third Edition, price 4s. 6d.
" We heartily commend this book to our readers. They will find in it vigor
ous thinking and true feeling and manly piety without a trace of mawkishness,
combined in honest, earnest directions for Christian liviDg, by one who is
clearly giving them the results of the experience of his own life." — Glasgow
Herald. 1$ioU$$ox .ptacpftergoit.
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST:
With an Examination of the Speculations of Strauss in his
'New Life of Jesus,' and an Introductory View of the pre
sent position of Theological Inquiry in reference to the Exist
ence of God, and the Miraculous Evidence of Christianity.
By Robert Macpherson, D.D., Professor of Theology in
the University of Aberdeen. Price 9s.

®Je i&oberator of tgc General &gjScmfiln.
i.
ADDRESS DELIVERED AT THE CLOSE OF THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF
SCOTLAND, 3d June 1867. By the Moderator, T. J.
Crawford, D.D., Professor of Divinity in the University
of Edinburgh. 2d. II.
PRESBYTERIANISM DEFENDED AGAINST THE
EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS OF PRELACY,
As urged by Romanists and Tractarians. 2d edition. Also,
PRESBYTERY or PRELACY, which is the more con
formable to the pattern of the Apostolic Churches. By the
Rev. T. J. Crawford, D.D. 2d edition, 2s.

principal ©ampbdl.
THE THEORY OF THE RULING ELDERSHIP:
Or the position of the Lay Ruler in the Reformed Churches
Examined. By P. C. Campbell, D.D., Principal of the
University of Aberdeen. Price 3s.
"Principal Campbell deserves the best thanks of the whole community for
setting forth this subject so opportunely, and in a work so lucid in arrangement,
so accurate in statement, so irresistible in reasoning, and so perspicuous and
pleasing in style. We most heartily recommend his production to the most
anxious attention of the churches and the public generally. " — Glasgow Harold.
" This is a careful and exhaustive argument on the subject of the eldership."
— Aberdeen Free Press. JWr ©jjarterig.
LIFE OF THE LATE REV. JAMES ROBERTSON,
D.D., F.R.S.E.
Professor of Divinity and Ecclesiastical History in the Uni
versity of Edinburgh. By the Rev. A. H. Charteris,
M.A. With a Portrait. Octavo, price 10s. 6d.
"The memoir of Professor Robertson now published shows a depth in his
spiritual life, a simplicity and energy in his faith, a genuine warmth of heart,
love of evangelical truth, and high-toned self-consecration, that was but imper
fectly indicated in his public life, and could scarcely have been guessed at by
those who only knew him as the Assembly debater. . . . Who can read his
letters to his 'inexpressibly dear Robert,' dying at Jersey, without being deeply
moved? They are such as have been seldom written amidst the distractions of
life — so deep and true, so intensely fervent, so genuine as utterances of the
loving smitten heart of the friend, father, and spiritual guide of the afflicted
youth." — Witness.

GTJje ©jjurti) S-erbtce j&odctn.
EUCHOLOGION; OR, BOOK OF PRAYERS:
Being Forms of Worship issued by the Church Service
Society. Price 6s. 6d.
" We anticipate great good from the publication of snch a work as this. It
can hardly fail to encourage and carry forward that effort to improve the worship
of our Churches which not a few feel to be the most urgent demand of the day.
In conclusion, we commend this work to the laity as well as the clergy. If
the latter ought to be the pioneers and guides in all Church reform, the former
may be assured that what they are their ministers will in great measure be." —
Aberdeen Journal.
"Their volume is, therefore, a magazine" of prayers rather than a manual of
devotion, consisting of specimens or examples of prayers — original but mainly
selected, as full, as suggestive of solemn, earnest devotion as words can be, and
these very skilfully arranged, so as to fit in with the simple order of the exist
ing service. Wellnigh every similar work of any value seems to have been con
sulted, and as every selected sentence is referred to its source, the result is a
work of very considerable interest." — Dublin Evening Mail.
J8r Inness.
THE LAW OF CREEDS IN SCOTLAND:
A Treatise on the Legal Relation of Churches in Scotland,
Established and not Established, to their Doctrinal Confes
sions. By Alexander Taylor Innes, M.A. In octavo,
price 15s.
"The regal results of these many Scottish conflicts of Church v. State— and
several of the English also — are recorded in this volume in a neat, graceful
style, fully, accurately, and impartially, by a man of industry, and of an order
of literary taste, scholarship, and ability far from common among lawyers.
He has studied the subject historically, and he has treated it in that aspect,
giving, in a series of appendices, admirably compressed accounts of judicial
decisions, and other authoritative utterance."— Scotsman.
"A most admirable contribution to our ecclesiastical literature."— Edin
burgh Evening Courant.
professor iWHKgan.
THE DECALOGUE AND THE LORD'S DAY,
In the Light of the General Relation of the Old and New
Testaments ; with a Chapter on Confessions of Faith. By
the Rev. William Milligan, D.D., Professor of Divinity
and Biblical Criticism in the University of Aberdeen. 4s. 6d.
Dr aEtooDforb.
THE ANSWERS IN THE SHORTER CATECHISM.
Adapted for reading in continuous Text, with the Questions
and Proofs subjoined, Grammatical Notes, and a Historical
Preface, containing Extracts from the Original Draft-minutes
of the Westminster Assembly of Divines. By Edward
Woodford, LL.D. Price 8a

»d>. 19t i»'®tfe.
A New and Uniform Edition of his works. Edited by Profes
sor M'Crie. Four Volumes, crown octavo, 24s., Sold
separately, — viz. : X.
LIFE OF JOHN KNOX.
Containing Illustrations of the History of the Reformation
in Scotland. Crown octavo, 6s.
n.
LIFE OF ANDREW MELVILLE.
Containing Illustrations of the Ecclesiastical and Literary
History of Scotland in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Cen
turies. Crown octavo, 6s. in.
HISTORY OF THE PROGRESS AND SUPPRES
SION OF THE REFORMATION IN ITALY IN
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
Crown octavo, 4s. IV.
HISTORY OF THE PROGRESS AND SUPPRES
SION OF THE REFORMATION IN SPAIN IN
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
Crown octavo, 3s. 6d. v.
SERMONS, AND REVIEW OF THE "TALES OF
MY LANDLORD."
In One Volume, crown octavo, 6s.
©outtt JWontalemfart.
THE MONKS OF THE WEST.
From St Benedict to St Bernard. By the Count de Mon-
talembert. Authorised Translation. Volumes I. to III.
Vols. IV. and V. are in the press. Octavo, 31s. 6d.
"It is, indeed, a volume (the third) of peculiar interest to Englishmen, as
dealing with the religious histoiy of the British Isles ; while it is not inferior
to its predecessors in vividness and eloquence of picturesque delineation, or in
their occasional touches of pathos. . . . On the whole, the intellectual in
terest of the Count's ' Monks of the West ' rests mainly on this, that it is the
work of a brilliant and accomplished layman and man of the world, dealing with
a class of characters who have generally been left to the arid professional hand
ling of ecclesiastical writers. Montalembert sees their life as a whole, and a
human whole ; and, with all his zeal as an amateur hagiographer, he cannot
but view them with some oi' che independence of a mind trained to letters and
politics." — Pall Mall Gazette.

professor ©adt).
SERMONS.
By the Rev. John Caird, D.D., Professor of Divinity in
the University of Glasgow. Twelfth Thousand. Foolscap
octavo, 5s.
" They are noble sermons ; and we are not sure but that, with the cultivated
reader, they will gain rather than lose by being read, not heard. There is a
thoughtfulness and depth about them which can hardly be appreciated unless
when they are studied at leisure ; and there are so many sentences so felici
tously expressed that we should grudge being hurried away from them by a
rapid speaker, without being allowed to enjoy them a second time." — Frasefs
Magazine. II.
RELIGION IN COMMON LIFE:
A Sermon Preached in Crathie Church, October 14, 1855,
before Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Albert. Pub
lished by Her Majesty's Command. Bound in cloth, 8d.
Cheap Edition, 3d. ^rofeggor JFlint.
CHRIST'S KINGDOM UPON EARTH.
A Series of Discourses. By the Rev. Robert Flint,
Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of St
Andrews. Crown octavo, 7s. 6d.
Dr ^ads.
LECTURES AND SERMONS.
By the late Rev. John Park, D.D., Minister of the First
Charge, St Andrews. Crown octavo, 9s.
"Specimens of Scotch preaching at its very best."— A. K. ff. B. in Frasei-'s
Magazine.
Scan Marnsag.
THE CHRISTIAN LIFE, IN ITS ORIGIN, PRO
GRESS, AND PERFECTION.
By the Very Rev. E. B. Ramsay, LL.D., F.R.S.E., Dean
of the Diocese of Edinburgh. Crown octavo, 9s.
SERMONS AND ADDRESSES,
Preached at the Induction of the Rev. MAXWELL NICHOL
SON, D.D., as Minister of the Parish of St Stephen's, Edin
burgh, nth June 1867. By the Rev. G. T. Jamieson, Rev.
Dr Veitch, Professor Stevenson, Rev. Dr Nicholson.

principal %te.
i.
LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH
OF SCOTLAND,
From the Reformation to the Revolution Settlement By the
Very Rev. John Lee, D.D., LL.D., Principal of the Uni
versity of Edinburgh. Edited by the Rev. William Lee.
Two vols, octavo, 21s. II.
INAUGURAL ADDRESSES IN THE UNIVERSITY
OF EDINBURGH.
To which is prefixed a Memoir of the Author, by Lord
Neaves. Foolscap octavo, 2s. 6d.
in.
PASTORAL ADDRESSES OF THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY.
Foolscap octavo, 2s. 6d.
principal ©ulloclj.

LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION:
Luther, Calvin, Latimer, and Knox. By the Rev.
John Tulloch, D.D., Principal, and Primarius Professor
of Theology, St Mary's College, St Andrews. Second Edi
tion, crown octavo, 6s. 6d. ir.
ENGLISH PURITANISM AND ITS LEADERS:
Cromwell, Milton, Baxter, and Bunyan. Uniform
with the ' Leaders of the Reformation.' 7s. 6d.
" It is a book which, from its style — firm and interesting, dispassionate and
impartial, but yet warm with admiration — will be hailed for fireside reading in
the families of the descendants of those Puritan men and their times." — Eclectic
Review. III.
THEISM :
The Witness of Reason and Nature to an All- Wise and
Beneficent Creator. Octavo, ios. 6d.
" Dr Tulloch's Essay, in its masterly statement of the real nature and diffi
culties of the subject, its logical exactness in distinguishing the illustrative
from the suggestive, its lucid arrangement of the argument, its simplicity of
expression, is quite unequalled by any work we hare seen on the subject." —
Christian Remembrancer, January 1S57.

A LETTER ON LAY PATRONAGE IN THE
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND,
Addressed to the Lord Advocate. By William Forsyth.
Price 8d.
LECTURES ON SCRIPTURE CHARACTERS:
Addressed to the Students of King's College at the Lecture
on "Practical Religion," founded by the late John Gordon,
Esq. of Murtle. By the late Rev. Duncan Mearns, D.D.,
Professor of Divinity in the University and King's College of
Aberdeen. Two volumes, crown octavo, 12s.
A WILLING PEOPLE.
Or the Best Mode of Provoking to Christian liberality.
A Tract for parochial distribution, for the purpose of aid
ing Clergymen in establishing the method of Collecting from
House to House. Price id.
ANALYSIS AND CRITICAL INTERPRETATION
OF THE HEBREW TEXT OF THE BOOK OF
GENESIS.
Preceded by a Hebrew Grammar, and Dissertations on the
Genuineness of the Pentateuch, and on the Structure of the
Hebrew language. By the Rev. William Paul, A.M.
Octavo, 1 8s.
INDEX TO THE ACTS AND PROCEEDINGS OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH
OF SCOTLAND,
From the Revolution to the present time. By the Rev.
John Wilson, Dunning. 5s.
THE COURSE OF TIME :
A Poem. In Ten Books. By Robert Pollok, A.M.
Twenty-fifth Edition, foolscap octavo, 3s. 6d.
"Of deep and hallowed impress, full of noble thoughts and graphic concep
tions — the production of a mind alive to the great relations of being, and the
sublime simplicity of our religion." — Blackwood's Magazine.
AN ILLUSTRATED EDITION OF THE COURSE
OF TIME.
. In large octavo, bound in cloth, richly gilt, 21s.
"There has been no modern poem in the English language, of the class to
which the ' Course of Time ' belongs, since Milton wrote, that can be compared
to it. In the piesent instance the artistic talents of Messrs Foster, Clayton,
Tenniel, Evans, Dalziel. Green, and Woods, have been employed in giving ex
pression to the sublimity of the language, by equally exquisite illustrations,
all of which are of the highest class."— .Bed's Messenger.

8
Pu&Kcattoros of tjje Gtmxal &mtribl$'t ©ommtttwss.
PRAYERS FOR SOCIAL AND FAMILY WORSHIP.
For the use of Soldiers, Sailors, Colonists, Sojourners in
India, and other Persons, at home and abroad, who are de
prived of the ordinary services of a Christian Ministry ; also,
Prayers and Thanksgivings on particular occasions. Third
Edition, crown octavo, 4s. Cheap Edition, is. 6(1. Another
Edition, on toned paper, 2s. 6d.
FAMILY PRAYERS:
As authorised by the General Assembly of the Church of
Scotland ; to which is prefixed a Pastoral Letter from the
General Assembly on Family Worship. Price 4s. 6d.
HYMNS FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP.
Selected by the Committee of the General Assembly of the
Church of Scotland on Psalmody. In various sizes of type —
price, respectively, 4d., 6d., and is., bound in cloth; also,
an Edition foi Schools, at i^d.

In tjje ^Prcss.
KNOX'S LITURGY: AND THE WESTMINSTER
DIRECTORY.
With Introduction and Historical Notes.
THE SACRED POETS OF THE SCOTTISH RE
FORMATION,
And their relation to those oi Germany. By Professor
Mitchell, St Andrews.
NATURAL RELIGION:
An Inquiry into the Fundamental Principles of Religious>
Moral, and Political Science. By W. R. PlRIE, D.D., Pro-
lessor of Divinity and Church History m the U niversity of
Aberdeen.
THE RELATIONS OF THE SCIENCES TO ONE
ANOTHER,
And to Philosophy, Religion, and Morality. By the Rev.
Robert Flint, Professor of Moral Philosophy in the Uni
versity of St Andrews.

iiiiih  iii,,  ,  „„,  a
iiii' '
Illi '• ^°
3 9002 00950 9234 ' 2
 ' o>