RESURRECTION. 



influence which they poffeffed ; and in fubmitting to 

 be taught and governed by the authority of Jefus of 

 Nazareth, whom they had defpifed, calumniated, and cru- 

 cified. If they were conitrained to affent to the truth of 

 our Saviour's refurredtion, it was not very probable that 



would have been anfwered by its being afforded them ; and 

 that no injury to the character and religion of Chrill could 

 have refulted from their being thus indulged and gratified. 

 If neither of thefe fuppofitions can be reafonably admitted ; 

 if, upon farther investigation, they fhould appear to be fal- 

 lacious and unfounded; it cannot be alleged againft the they would confefs to the world, that he, whonYth'ev h 

 evidence of our Saviour s refurreft.on, that it was defedive perfecuted during his life, and doomed to a premature and 

 and partial, becaufe it was not communicated to the Jewifli ignominious death, was the promifed Mefliah and Saviour 

 pnelt sand rulers. It was not probable, that in fo doing they would 



I he plea of right cannot be urged in their favour by any, publifh their own difgrace, and that they would proclaim 

 who duly conhder, what their_ difpofition and conduct had to the world, that they were perfecutors and murderers 



been during our Saviour's life and miniltry. Men who 

 had difcovered no inclination to examine the nature of his 

 dodtrine and the defign of his million ; who had flighted 

 and refilled the means of information and convidtion, which 

 his preaching and miracles had afforded them ; and who 

 had purfued him with malignity and violence to the crofs 



It would have required a degree of virtuous fortitude, of 

 which we difcover no traces in the Jewifh Sanhedrim, 

 to bear public testimony to the refurredtion of a perfon 

 whom they had fo lately condemned and crucified as a 

 malefactor. Without fuch a teftimony, of what avail 

 would have been the convidtion of their own minds to the 



and grave ;-iuch men could furely have no jutt claims on general credit of the Chriitian caufe > Afraid or afhamed 

 mention : they could have no reafon to expeft, of avowing it, and thus of forfeiting the reputation and in- 



that he would condefcend to ufe any new efforts for re 

 moving their prejudices, when every paft endeavour had not 

 only proved fruitlefs, but had ferved to exafperate their 

 refentment, and to provoke a perfecution which terminated 

 in his death. Their oppolition to him had been fuch both 

 in its nature and degree, as to render them altogether un- 

 worthy of any forbearance and indulgence. Much lefs dif- 

 cernment than he pofl'effed would have been fufftcient for 

 perceiving, that no evidence was likely to avail with perfons 

 of their temper and character. They had jullly forfeited 

 every token of his regard. They had merited the moft 

 fignal punifhment. It would have been not only a vain, 

 but an impious and daring prefumption in them to expeift 

 any other evidence of his reftoration to life beiides that, 



fluence annexed to their character and office, and of incur- 

 ring popular cenfure and reproach ; no benefit could have 

 accrued from it either to their contemporaries or to future 

 generations. They were, therefore, very unfit to be wit- 

 nefles of a fadt, which it was their interefl to conceal, and 

 which they were not likely to acknowledge, if they had 

 believed it to be true. 



Befides, their teitimony, if truth had extorted it from 

 them, and if they had poflefled honefty and refolution fuf- 

 ficient to avow it, would have been liable to fufpicion. It 

 was the teftimony of men whofe minds mutt have been op- 

 preffed and terrified by a confeioufnefs of their guilt ; and 

 it might have been faid, that they were haunted by ghofts 

 and fpectres, and that their imagination converted a phantom 



which they might derive from the teftimony of perfons into the real perfon of him whom they hadexpofedto pub 



Ids guilty and more deferving than themfelves. Befides, lie derifion, and fentenced to an ignominious death. Their 



our Saviour s particular commiflion to the Jews expired teftimony would have gained little credit with men of their 



with Ins death ; and he had prcvioufiy informed them that own rank and ftation, and of principles and characters 



■hey mould not fee him till they were better difpofed to fimilar to their own. It would have died with themfelves; 



bvery perfonal claim mult, in this cafe, be and produced no effed beyond the circle of their own ac- 



receive him 

 fet afide 



The plea of right being difmifl'cd as unfounded, the next 

 queftion that occurs is, whether any important and valuable 

 purpofe to themfelves or others, w'ould have been anfwered 

 by our Saviour's appearance to them, after his refurreftion ? 

 Have we any reafon to imagine, that they would have been 

 convinced of the truth of his miffion and doctrine by fuch 

 an appearance ? The fame prejudices and intercits that 

 prevented the effedt of the miracles which he had performed, 

 and of which they had been witneffes, would have refilled 

 the convidtion, which his refurredtion tended to produce. 

 The fame antipathy to the doctrine he taught and the re- 

 ligion he meant to cltablifh, would have prevailed againlt 

 the evidence of this fact ; and it is probable, that they 

 would have only aggravated their guilt and condemnation 

 by obstinately perfifting in their unbelief. 



But though they were convinced of the reality of 

 our Saviour's refurredtion, would they avow their con- 

 vidtion ? Would they publicly tellify the truth of that 

 fadt ? By an undifguifed and open declaration of it, 

 would they lead others to believe and acknowledge it? 

 This, indeed, would have been a very fignal triumph of 

 truth over prejudice and malice. But it would have been 

 a triumph over their own prejudice and malice, of fo ex- 

 traordinary a kind, that it was very unlikely to happen. 

 Pride and interelt would have been very reluctant in ac- 

 knowledging that they had perfecuted and murdered a 

 divine Meffenger; in renouncing the worldly rank and 



V OL. J\ J*. \. 



quaintance and the age in which they lived. 



It ought to be confidered farther, that the character and 

 religion of Chrilt might have been very materially injured 

 by his appearance to the Jewifh priefts and rulers, after his 

 refurredtion. They had no right to expect this kind of 

 evidence. No good purpofe could be anfwered by it. We 

 now obferve, that it might have been very detrimental in 

 its effects. If they had remained unconvinced, which might 

 moft probably have been the cafe, the fact would have 

 been queftioned. The multitude would have become ob- 

 llinate and irreclaimable in their incredulity ; and the\ 

 would have pleaded the authority of their fuperiors in 

 ftation and office, as an apology for neglecting inquiry and 

 rejecting the means of convidtion. If they had been con- 

 vinced, without honefty and refolution to declare the truth, 

 the fadt would ftill have been confident] as doubtful, or at 

 lead of no threat importance. But if with their conviction 

 they connected the public avowal of its truth, our Saviour 

 would have incurred the charge of an impoftor, and his 

 religion of fraud. Loud would have been the clamour of 

 a combination between him and the rulers of the date. 

 Sufpicion would have attached itfelf to the evidence of men, 

 who had the care of his fepulchre, v. lei appointed tie' '.uard, 

 and fealed the Hone that fet urcd It, and who could eafily 



have propagated a report, which would have gained credit 



with the fervile multitude. Chi illianity would have i 



repreiented, by perfons who are prone to if I 



to ftate policy, as a contrivance of the priclls and ma 



L tratca 



