289 
allusion to that most striking- and life-like, perhaps, of 
all the incidents in the Gospels — “ Jesus said unto her, 
Mary. She turned and said unto Him, Rabboni ; that is 
to say, Master.” Nor is there a hint that the Apostle St. 
Paul, in his explanation of the theory of the Resurrection, 
laid it down that the Resurrection body would not correspond 
in outward form to the natural one ; that the one would bear 
about the same resemblance to the other as the seed to the 
plant ; that “ it was sown a natural body, it was raised a spiritual 
body ” ; and that, therefore, recognition might naturally be 
supposed to be only possible in the way described in the 
Gospels.* The Resurrection has been often attacked, and 
has been often defended, but if it is to be ultimately over- 
thrown, it must be by a careful and accurate examination of 
the evidence, and not by an incorrect statement of the facts, 
and a pre-determination to ignore the one supreme fact that 
every writer in the New Testament proclaims the Resux-rection ; 
that it is made the basis of the whole Christian system, and 
that one of its chief teachers declares that if Christ be not 
risen, his preachiug is vain, and the faith of his hearers is 
vain also. It is absolutely contx-ary to the law of evidence 
that a commxxnity caxx have been founded on the faith in a 
certain fact, and that fact a legend so palpably invented that 
we can “ see it growing under our very eyes.” A distinct 
and ix-recoxxcilable schism must at once have sevex-ed the 
genxxixxe disciples of Christ’s doctrine from His cx-edulous and 
fanatical adherents, had Mr. Arxx old’s theory been true. We 
should have been able to trace the growth of an extx-avagant 
aixd fanciful belief, the divergence between the x-easonable 
and unreasonable followers of Jesus, as we can trace the 
history of evex-y other remarkable intellectual movement which 
occuired in a civilized countx-y and a civilized age. But as 
there is no such evidence of the growth of the legend, not the 
slightest sign of sxxclx divex-gence ; as the testimony of Chx-ist’s 
disciples was as clear at first as at last; as we find neither 
among Jews nor Gentiles, Judaizex-s nor anti-Judaizers, the 
followers of St. Paul or the opponents of his authority, any 
attempt to dexxy the resurrection of Jesus, f the laws of 
* Compare also 1 Cor. vi. 13, Phil. iii. 21, and the saying of oixr Lord 
recorded in St. Matt. xxii. 30. 
t Neither Hymenteus and Philetus, nor the persons refuted iix 1 Cor. xv., 
denied the Resurrection of Christ, or some of St. Paul’s arguments in the 
latter chapter would have been absurd. And it is to be remarked that even 
the early heresies, the systems of Cerinthus, Basilides, and Valentinus, all bear 
