The feventh, to Peter and several of his difciples at the lake of Tiberias, when he alfo ate with them*.

The eighth, and laft, was to above five hundred brethren at oncet.

There are then no lefs than eight diftinct appearances of our Lord to his difciples after his refurrection, recorded by the facred hiftorians. And can we believe that all thofe different perfons could be deceived in these appearances of one, whofe countenance, figure, voice, and manner, they had for fo long a time been perfectly well acquainted with; and who now, not merely presented himself to their view tranfiently and filently, but ate and drank and converfed with them, and fuffered them to touch and examine him thoroughly, that they might be convinced by all their fenfes that it was truly their beloved Master, and not a spirit that converfed with them. In all this furely it is impoffible that there could be any delufion or impofition. Was it then a tale invented by the difciples to impofe upon others? Why they should do this it is not eafy to conceive; because it would have been an imposition, not only on others, but on themfelves. It would have been an attempt to perfuade themfelves that their Master was rifen when he really was not, from whence no. poffible benefit could arife to them, but, on the contrary, grief, difappointment, and mortification in the extreme. But befides this, the narratives themselves of this great event bear upon the very face of them the strongest marks of reality and truth. They defcribe, in fo natural a manner, the various emotions of the difciples on their first hearing of our Lord's refurrection, that no one who is ac quainted with the genuine workings of the human mind, can poffibly fufpect any thing like fraud in the cafe.When the women were first told by the angels that Chrift was rifen, and were ordered to tell the difciples, they departed quickly from the fepulchre with fear and great joy‡; with joy at the unexpected good news they had juft heard; and with fear, not only from the fight of the angel, but left the glad tidings he had told them should not prove true. I Cor. xv 6. Matth. xxviii. 8.

*

John, xxi. 1.

They therefore" trembled, and were amazed, and ran to bring the difciples word; neither faid they any thing to any man, for they were afraid." And when they told these things to the apoftles, their words feemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them notf. When Jefus himfelf appeared to the apoftles at Jerufalem, they were terrified and affrighted, and thought they had seen a fpirit; and they believed not for joy, and wonderedt. When he appeared again unto the eleven as they fat at meat, they were fo incredulous that he upbraided them with their unbeliefs; and Thomas would not be convinced without thrufting his hand into his fidel. This certainly was not the behaviour of men who were fabricating an artful story to impofe upon the world, but of men who were themselves aftonished, and overpowered with an event which they did not in the leaft expect, and which it was with the utmost difficulty they could be brought to believe.

The account therefore of the refurrection, given by the evangelifts, may fafely be relied upon as true.

It may however be faid, that this account is the reprefentation of friends, of those who were interested in afferting the reality of a refurrection; but that there is proba bly another story told by the oppofite party, by the Jews and the Romans, which may set the matter in a very different point of view; and that before we can judge fairly of the question, we must hear what these have to fay upon it as well as the evangelifts. This is certainly very proper and reasonable. There is, we acknowledge, ano ther account given by the Jews refpecting the refurrection of Chrift; and to fhew the perfect fairness and impartiali ty of the facred hiftorians, and how little they wish to fhrink from the fevereft inveftigation of the truth, they themselves tell us what this oppofite ftory was. In the 11th verfe of this chapter, St. Matthew informs us, "that as the women were going to tell the difciples that Jefus was rifen, behold, fome of the watch came into the

* Mark, xvi. 8.

+ Luke, xxiv. II.

§ Mark, xvi. 14.

|| John, xx. 27.

Luke, xxiv. 37-41.

city, and fhewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. And when they were affembled with the el ders, and had taken counfel, they gave large money unto the foldiers, faying, Say ye, his difciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will perfuade him, and fecure you. So they took the money, and did as they were taught. And this faying is commonly reported among the Jews unto this day."

This then is the statement of our adverfaries, produced in oppofition to that of the evangelifts, which the latter fimply relate without any obfervation upon it, without condescending to make the flightest answer to it, but leaving every man to judge of it for himself. And this indeed they might fafely do; for it is a fabrication too grofs and too palpable to impose on any man of common fenfe. If any perfon can bring himself to believe that, fixty Roman foldiers fhould be all fleeping at the fame. time on guard; that they fhould be able to tell what was done in their fleep; that they fhould have the boldness to; confefs that they flept upon their poft, when they knew the punishment of fuch an offence to be death; and that. the difciples fhould be fo devoid of all common fenfe as to fteal away a dead body, which could not be of the fmalleft ufe to them, and inftead of proving a refurrection, was a standing proof against it; if any man, I fay, can prevail on himself to liften for a moment to fuch abfurdities as thefe, he may then give credit to the tale of the, foldiers; but otherwife muft treat it, as it truly deferves, with the moft fovereign contempt.

This fenfelefs forgery then being fet afide, and the body of Jefus being gone, and yet never having been produced by the Jews or Romans, there remains only the alternative of a rerl refurre&ion

But befides the pofitive proofs of this fact which have been here ftated, there is a prefumptive one of the most forcible nature, to which I have never yet feen any answer, and am of opinion that none can be given. The proof I allude to is that which is drawn from the fudden and afton

ifting change which took place in the language and the conduct of the apoftles, immediately after the period when they affirmed that Jefus had rifen from the dead. From being, as we have seen, timorous and dejected, and difcouraged at the death of their Mafter, they fuddenly be came courageous, undaunted, and intrepid: and they boldly preached that very Jefus, whom before they had deferted in his greatest distress. This obfervation will apply, in fome degree, to all the apostles; but with regard to St. Peter more particularly it holds with peculiar force.

One of the most prominent features in the character of St. Peter (a character moft admirably pourtrayed by the evangelifts) is timidity of difpofition. We fee it in the terror that seized him when he was walking on the sea ; we fee it in his deferting his divine Mafter when he was apprehended; then turning back to follow him, but fol lowing at a distance; not daring to go into the council chamber when he was examined, but staying in the outer court with the fervants; and at length, when he was challenged as one of his difciples, denying three times with the moft dreadful oaths and imprecations, that he knew any thing of him, or had the flighteft connexion with him.

This is the point of view in which St. Peter presents himself to us just before our Lord's crucifixion.

Turn now to the fourth chapter of the Acts, and fee what his language then was after Jefus had actually been put to death.

He and John having healed the lame man whom they found fitting at the gate of the temple, were apprehended, and thrown into prison, and the next day were called upon to answer for their conduct before the high priest, and the other chief rulers of the Jews. And upon being queftioned by what power and by what name they had performed this miraculous cure, Peter answered them in thefe refolute terms. "Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Ifrael, if we be this day examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole, be it known unto you all, and to all the people of

С с

Ifrael, that by the name of Jefus Chrift of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man ftand before you whole. This is the stone which was fet at nought by you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there falvation in any other. For there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." And when, foon after this, Peter and John were ftraitly threatened, and commanded not to speak at all, or teach in the name of Jefus, they answered and faid unto them, "Whether it be right in the fight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye; for we cannot but speak the things which we have feen and heardt."

What now is this that we hear? Is this the man who, but a fhort time before, had shamefully renounced his divine Mafter, and declared, with the utmost vehemence and paffion, that he was utterly unknown to him? And does this fame man now, after the crucifixion of his Lord, and when he himself was a prifoner, and had reason to expect a fimilar fate, does this man boldly tell thofe in whofe power he was, that by the name of this very Jefus he had healed the lame man? Does he dare to reprove them with having crucified the Lord of life? Does he dare to tell them that God had raised him from the dead; that there was no other name under heaven by which they could be faved; and that, in defiance of all their interdictions and all their menaces, he must and would still continue to fpeak what he had seen and heard?

In what manner fhall we account for this fudden and aftonishing alteration in the language of St. Peter? There is, I will venture to affert, no other poffible way of accounting for it, but from that very circumstance which St. Peter himself mentions in his fpeech to the high priest, namely," that he whom they had crucified was, by the almighty power of God, raised from the dead." It was this change in the condition of his divine Mafter, which produced a correfpondent change in the character and conduct of St. Peter. It was this miracle of our Lord's ref* Acts, iv, 8. 12. Acts, iv. 10.

† Acts, iv. 18. 20.