p. 185Good morning; I expect this will be our last meeting.—I am sorry to hear you say so.
All things human come to an end, and circumstances have arisen that will prevent our meeting again.—I am so sorry.
I am anxious, under the circumstances, to place before you in as strong form as I can the evidence we possess of the fact of Christ having risen from the dead after his crucifixion by Pilate. I presume you will admit that if this fact can be proved, there is an end to all doubt on the subject of God having spoken?—My dear friend, certainly. I am ashamed of having so long appeared to hold back from the admission. If I have seemed something more than a doubting Thomas, it has been to draw you out in the hope of eliciting the evidence I crave in my inmost heart of the most stupendous truth affecting us as men.
I have not been unconscious of your desire to be p. 186 convinced, as I may express it; and I have not been averse to the grounds of conviction being put to the fullest test.—I believe I only require to be certain about a truth in order to receive it.
If I did not believe that to be the case, I would not have taken the pains I have put forth to combat your objections.—My objections, I think, are nearly all gone. But I should like to hear what the evidence is that you think so strong of the resurrection of Christ.
It is the testimony of eye-witnesses.—You refer to the New Testament?
Yes. In the documents composing the New Testament we have the testimony of the apostles to the fact of Christ’s resurrection, as actual as if it came really from the lips of the writers in our presence. It is the testimony of eye-witnesses—not of men who merely believed; and it is the testimony of men who were particular to put forward the fact that they were eye-witnesses; that they spoke from personal knowledge, and not from hearsay. People in general have no idea how prominent this feature is. Pardon me if I illustrate it somewhat particularly.—I shall be most pleased to follow you.
Peter, one of the leading witnesses in the case, says:—“We have not followed cunningly-devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were EYE-WITNESSES of his majesty” (2 Pet. i. 16). And again in a speech: “This Jesus God hath raised up, WHEREOF WE ALL ARE WITNESSES” (Acts ii. 32). “Him God hath raised from the dead, WHEREOF WE ARE WITNESSES” (Acts iii. 15). “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be p. 187 a Prince and a Saviour. . . . We are HIS WITNESSES of these things” (Acts v. 30-32). “We cannot but speak the things which we have SEEN AND HEARD” (Acts iv. 20). “To whom (his disciples) Christ shewed himself ALIVE after his sufferings, by many infallible proofs being seen of them forty days” (Acts i. 3). “We (Peter and the rest of the apostles) are WITNESSES of all things which he did, both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem, whom they slew and hanged on a tree: him God raised up the third day and shewed him openly, not unto all the people, but unto WITNESSES chosen before of God, even TO US, WHO DID EAT AND DRINK WITH HIM after he rose from the dead” (Acts x. 39-41).
These are casual allusions. Is there no formal narrative of the resurrection of Christ in what are called the gospels?—Certainly. Take the account by Matthew, one of the twelve disciples. The particulars are fully set out in the 28th chapter. Mark’s account you will find in chapter xvi. Luke supplies the most striking incident in the whole episode (chapter xxiv. 13-35). John’s account has touching features peculiar to itself (see chapter xx.). These narratives of themselves prove the case: but the case does not wholly stand on them.—I was under the impression that the evidence was confined to the Gospels.
Not so. Paul, in 1 Cor xv. after citing the evidence of Peter, the twelve, and sundry others, says, “Last of all, HE WAS SEEN OF ME, ALSO.” In another part of the epistle he asks, “Have I not SEEN Jesus Christ, our Lord”? (1 Cor. ix. 1). In his speech in the synagogue of Antioch, he expressly says: “God raised him from the dead, and HE WAS SEEN MANY DAYS of them which came up with him from Galilee p. 188 to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses to the people” (Acts xiii. 30, 31). Paul finally found himself in custody in consequence of the agitation caused by his testimony to the resurrection of Christ. When so in custody, Festus, the Roman governor of one of the Syrian provinces, had occasion to state Paul’s case to King Agrippa. His statement lays hold of this very feature. He says, “Against whom (Paul), when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed, but had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one, Jesus, which was dead, WHOM PAUL AFFIRMED TO BE ALIVE” (Acts xxv. 18, 19). There is another very large and fruitful department of evidence consisting of the casual allusions and declarations throughout the letters of the Apostle Paul. The resurrection of Christ crops up throughout these letters, as a matter he takes for granted in the most natural way: “Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept” (1 Cor. xv. 20). This is his postulate in arguing with the Corinthians as to the truth, or otherwise, of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. The ground of this postulation is as strong as it could be: “I have seen him” (verse 8). Then he speaks of Christ who “died for them and rose again” (2 Cor. v. 15; of believing on “him who raised up Jesus from the dead” (Rom. iv. 24). He states that Christ “was raised again for our justification” (verse 25). In chapter vi. 4, he says, “Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father;” speaks of Christ as “him who is raised from the dead” (vii. 4); refers to “the Spirit of Him that raised up Christ from the dead” (viii. 11), and of God as “He that raised up Christ from the dead” (ibid.). In 1 Cor. vi. 14, he plainly says, “God hath p. 189 both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by His own power.” In 1 Cor. xv. 15, he says, “We have testified of God that He raised up Christ;” in 2 Cor. iv. 14, “He that raised up the Lord Jesus;” Eph. i. 20, “God raised him from the dead,” and gave him glory; 2 Tim. ii. 8, “Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead;” 1 Thess. iv. 14, “Jesus died, and rose again;” Rom. xiv. 9, “Christ both died and rose, and revived.” I might also quote from the epistles of John in the same way; also of Peter, also from the Apocalypse, where there is the unusually distinct exhibition of Christ as “He who was dead and is alive,” and who being alive is coming again. Could the testimony be stronger?—I don’t know that it could, as a matter of words.
In what other way could it be stronger?—It would have been open to test had the witnesses been alive.
What test could you have applied?—It is impossible to say just on the spur of the moment.
To what could your tests have been directed?—I cannot exactly say.
Must they not necessarily have been directed to two points—the capability of the witnesses to give evidence, and their trustworthiness in a moral sense?—Doubtless these would be leading points.
If a man is able and honest, you would accept his evidence?—Well, I suppose most of us would.
The general incidents attendant on the first blush of the resurrection of Christ, in themselves, afforded a sufficient amount of practical test.—I should like to see that.
Well, consider the facts narrated. Christ first appeared to certain women; then to Peter; then to two disciples on the road to Emmaus, holding with p. 190 them a long conversation. These three sets of witnesses all one by one reported their experience to the apostolic band, who were met within closed doors for fear of the Jews? What was the result? It is very plainly stated. First, as to Mary’s report: “She went and told them . . . as they mourned and wept, and they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not” (Mark xvi. 10, 11). Then as to the two that went to Emmaus, “They went and told it unto the residue, neither believed they them.” “Afterward, he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief.” Here it is with unbelief that the apostles at first received the reports of Christ’s resurrection. How was this unbelief dispelled? By Christ’s own appearance in their midst: and that appearance was not a passive appearance, as a ghost in a play, but an appearance as a living man, who invited them to satisfy themselves of his reality by test. Consider what is involved in the incident thus described: “He said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I MYSELF: Handle me and see; for a spirit hath not FLESH AND BONES as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy and wondered, he said unto them, HAVE YE HERE ANY MEAT? And they gave him a piece of broiled fish and of an honeycomb. And he took it and did eat before them” (Luke xxiv. 38-43). What more practical evidence would it be possible for a dead man come to life, to give to his doubting friends than to offer himself to their handling, and eat food provided by them? This last point—eating before them food provided by themselves, is most p. 191 important. Men might distrust the evidence of their eyes and ears (though few men would), but if a dead friend come to life, not only shewed you marks of identity and suffered you freely to handle him, but ate something you brought out of your cupboard, WHICH something, after he was gone, was GONE, TOO, in what more palpable way would it be possible for such a dead friend to prove his reality? It would not be possible to suggest any mode of test that would be more practical and complete than that. Yet there was another test. A case was allowed to occur, and to have been put on record, apparently to meet the sceptical temper of men in after ages. I refer to the case of the apostle Thomas, who was absent at the first interview between Christ and his disciples. After the interview Thomas came, and the disciples told him of it, saying, “We have seen the Lord.” Thomas received this intimation pretty much in the modern spirit. He said, in effect, “Except I can apply a practical test, I will not believe.” His actual words were, “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my fingers into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Now for the sequel to this. “And after eight days again, his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in their midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus said unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed” (John xx. 25-29). Here we have p. 192 Thomas, a typical sceptic, convinced on his own ground. The fact of such a case happening—the fact of Thomas taking a position of dogged unbelief till he should have the evidence of his senses, and then ceasing his unbelief when that evidence was presented—supplies the very element of the case which some people think is wanting.—The case is very strong.
Especially when you consider the simple nature of the fact to which the apostles bear witness. Are not very ordinary men able to report as to the evidence of their senses?—I do not know that I quite apprehend your meaning there.
Is not a very ordinary human being able to give evidence of what he sees?—In ordinary circumstances, of course.
There is no great depth of penetration required for a man to be sure whether he sees a thing or not?—It depends on the nature of the subject.
Well, the question of whether a man was seen on the street you would not consider a very recondite question, or one calling for special gifts or discernment?—It would depend.
If a policeman informed you he had seen your friend passing on the road, you would not think of doubting him his word?—Unless I knew my friend was somewhere else.
I don’t know that you would doubt even in that case. I think it much more likely that you would fall back upon some supposition that your friend had unexpectedly returned?—Perhaps.
Especially, if not only the policeman, but the milkman, and your scullery maid, and not only they, but several persons in the street, all separately and independently, testified to the fact that your friend p. 193 had both walked down the road and had spoken to several persons?—I should of course think there was something in it.
Should you not consider the appearance of a person on the street and his talking with passers-by, the simplest of all subjects on which witnesses could give evidence?—There certainly could not be anything much simpler.
You would not consider that evidence on such a point would require any profound sort of qualification?—Of course not, but you are becoming needlessly precise, are you not?
I think not. The very evident matter in question is so generally and systematically denied or ignored that we require to be precise. That is just the nature of the fact the apostles bear witness to—that Christ, with whom they were on terms of close and loving intimacy, after being put to death by Pontius Pilate, appeared to them again alive, hale, and sound?—That is what they say.
And you admit they were able to judge?—Well, of course they knew whether they saw him or not, but is it not possible they might be mistaken?
I think not.—I have been mistaken myself often, when I supposed I have seen so-and-so in a crowd, or passing along on the street. It has turned out afterwards that it was not the person at all.
Aye, there might be a mistake in that case, where it is only one occasion that is in question, and only one witness (yourself), and where the thing is hurried and momentary; but where you see a person several times, and see him deliberately, and talk with him, and other friends are with you and see and converse with him also, there could be no mistake in such a case.—Well, of course, it would make a difference.
p. 194 This was the state of the case with regard to Christ. As Paul expresses it, “Christ was seen many days” of them who accompanied him to Jerusalem—that is, his disciples—“seen of them forty days,” as Luke has it (Acts i. 3), “shewing himself alive by many infallible proofs.” Then Peter states that they, the disciples, “ate and drank with them, after he rose from the dead” (Acts x. 40, 41). Then there are accounts in the New Testament of several deliberate interviews at which Jesus talked with his disciples on the subject of his crucifixion, and of his resurrection, and of the course they were to pursue when he should leave them (see Luke xxiv., John xx. and Acts i.) The case does not admit of the supposition of possible mistake. You have admitted that the account is an authentic account, that is, an account actually written by the professed writers, who were disciples of Christ; and you have admitted their capability of judging of such a simple matter as whether they saw Christ or not. Now you have only to admit them truth-speaking men, and the evidence is established beyond contradiction. One man might be mistaken; though I fancy that one man would feel strongly enough convinced. But here are a number of men—eleven who stand officially related to the matter—men chosen as official witnesses—and not eleven only, but a multitude besides—“five hundred brethren at once,” of whom Paul says, “the greater part remain unto this present (the time of his writing), but some are fallen asleep.”—But does it not say that “some doubted” (Matt. xxviii. 17)?
Yes, at the first: and the statement that they doubted is really an element in the evidence of the most valuable kind? Why was it written that they doubted? Would a partizan writing p. 195 without regard to truth have recorded such a fact? And if not a partizan writing, it is a true writing, and therefore this follows: that it is not only true they doubted at first (that is, “some”), but that they afterwards believed. So then you have to consider this: What dispelled their doubts? The doubts were dispelled; for you find these same doubters foremost afterwards in the testimony for Christ’s resurrection. What led to this dispelling of their doubts? What led them to believe? For they did believe, and suffered persecution for their belief? If you attach any weight to their doubts, you must attach weight to the dispelling of their doubts. Their doubts were natural in the presence of an unprecedented event, especially in view of Christ’s crucifixion, which they had not thought possible, and which had shattered all their confidence. Not expecting him to die, now that they knew he was dead, they did not expect him to rise; and when he rose, it was natural it should be a theme of bewilderment to them, especially to the less quick-minded of them. It was natural that some should doubt; but all doubt afterwards fled which brings with it the conclusion that the facts, of which they were witnesses, were of a character to put an end to all doubt.—I admit the case is strong.
Is it not conclusive?—Well—yes, conclusive. I only wish all the world could see it, or that Christ himself would return to this bewildered scene and shew his reality by his actual presence.
Your wish will be granted in due time: for that is the next glorious part of the truth—that he is coming to heal the woes of mankind and fill the earth with glory.
May we be there to see it.—Amen.