Questions on Chapter 12.

QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 12.

QUESTION 1. What are the two points to be specially noted in regard to the miracles of Scripture?

2. What miracles of the Old Testament are first noticed?

3. How does it appear that these plague were real miracles?

4. What two facts are thereby established?

5. What was the grand design of the Egyptian miracles?

6. In what way was this design accomplished?

CHAPTER 13. — MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

WE now proceed to notice the miracles of the New Testament. It has already been stated, in another connection, that our Saviour ever appealed with the utmost confidence to the works he performed as bearing witness to the divinity of his mission. At present we propose only a brief reference to a few of the most remarkable of those works, to show that they were truly miraculous in their character, and were sufficiently attested by satisfactory evidence.

We consider it unnecessary either to cite a great number of our Saviour’s miracles, or to be very minute in their examination. What, we inquire, are some of the principal of his marvelous works? He changed the water to wine — he healed a man sick of the palsy by simply uttering the words, “Thy sins be forgiven thee” — he opened the eyes of a man “blind from his birth” by anointing them with clay, and directing him “to wash in the pool of Siloam” — he calmed the raging of the tempest by saying, “Peace, be still!” — twice he fed thousands with a few loaves and fishes, and in three several instances he raised the dead to life. When called on by Jairus, a Jewish ruler, in reference to his daughter who was dead, he raised her to life by taking her by the hand and saying, “Damsel, arise?” Passing — in company with his disciples and a multitude of people — into the city of Nain, he met a funeral-procession bearing a dead young man, the son of a widow, to his grave. “He touched the bier, and they that bare him stood still; and he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise; and he that was dead sat up, and began to speak.” But the raising of Lazarus to lift again, is the most remarkable miracle of this kind performed by our Saviour. Here was a man who had been dead for four days: surrounded by multitudes of people who were present, Jesus — having ordered the stone to be rolled away from the door of the sepulcher — spoke the word, saying, “Lazarus, come forth!” and the dead man instantly arose to life.

Now, we think it cannot be disputed that these works are truly miraculous. They involved, at a single word, the instantaneous change of one material substance to another — the water to wine. They embraced the healing of the most inveterate diseases, and even the cure of blindness from the birth, without the employment of any adequate natural agencies. Many of them were performed in the presence of great multitudes of persons: all classes, friends and foes, disciples and persecutors, witnessed them; and they were of the most obvious and palpable character. They were open to the inspection of the external senses of all; and such were their nature, and the circumstances attending them, that imposition or collusion was impossible. The cures, though instantaneous in the production and with no adequate natural agency for their cause, were permanent in their duration, presenting favorable opportunity for numerous and deliberate inspections. Hence, if they had not been real miracles, there was every opportunity for the detection and exposure for the cheat; and, surrounded as the Saviour was by the wily Sadducees and Pharisees, and by the adroit scribes and doctors of the law, who were ever on the alert to entangle him in his words and to bring his doctrines into disrepute, we may be well assured that, had it been possible, he would have been convicted of deception. But the fact of his miracles — in the day and among the community in which they were performed — was never disputed. The facts were admitted, but they were attributed to infernal agency. Hence we infer that the mighty works of the Saviour were real miracles, and that they indubitably attest the claims of his Messiahship, and the truth of his religion.

In conclusion, on the subject of miracles, we call attention to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, the greatest of all the Scripture miracles.

That there lived in the land of Judea, in the days of Augustus and Tiberius Cesar, a remarkable person called Jesus of Nazareth; that he taught a pure and sublime system of morality, and led an exemplary and self-denying life; that he was a devoted friend to the poor and the afflicted, and performed many astonishing miracles; that he was persecuted by the Jews, and accused of blasphemy and sedition; that he was condemned by the Roman governor, and crucified at Jerusalem; that his body was taken down from the cross, interred in Joseph’s tomb, and a band of Roman soldiers set to guard it till the third day should be passed — these are facts which Christianity has always asserted, and which infidelity, neither in that age nor for centuries afterward, ever denied. Celsus, of the second century, Porphyry, of the third century and Hierocles and Julian the Apostate, of the fourth century, never dared to dispute them; but they attributed the miracles of Jesus either to magic or infernal agency.

But did Jesus Christ rise again from the dead? or did he not? Here Christianity and infidelity join issue. Christianity affirms — infidelity denies. That the whole controversy turns upon this question cannot be denied. If Jesus Christ arose from the dead, then is he the Messiah — the Saviour of the world — and his religion is true; but if he did not arise from the dead, then he is an impostor, his gospel a delusion, and the hope of his followers a dream! Upon this point the inspired apostles rested their cause, when they first issued the proclamation of salvation in the name of Him who had been crucified. The resurrection of Jesus from the dead was a prominent point in that sermon of St. Peter at Pentecost, delivered in Jerusalem only a few weeks after his crucifixion, when three thousand were converted in a day. Indeed, the burden of apostolic preaching was “Jesus and the resurrection.”

If, then, the great Christian controversy — whether with Jews, pagans, or whatever class of unbelievers — turns upon the question of fact as to the resurrection of Christ from the dead, how important that the evidences bearing upon that fact be carefully examined and correctly understood! Contemplating, then, the resurrection of Christ in the light of an historic fact, we propose to examine it by the same laws of evidence by which any other fact of history should be judged. If this fact can be sustained by such evidence as would be satisfactory and convincing to a rational mind in regard to any other fact of history, then must we either admit that this fact is true, and that Christianity also is true, or renounce our reason itself. On the other hand, if this fact cannot be thus sustained, then “is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” Let us therefore look at the testimony. We must begin by assuming as true what is admitted on both sides — that is, the general facts above stated, concerning the life, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus. The only point in controversy is the simple question of fact: Did Jesus rise again from the dead? or did he not? If, as admitted on both sides, he was crucified, and his dead body buried and guarded as we have stated, then it is undeniable that, after the third day, his enemies, if he had not arisen from the dead, would have been able to produce that dead body, or to furnish some satisfactory account for their inability to produce it. Did they do either? For eighteen centuries infidelity has denied that Jesus arose from the dead, and yet infidels have never pretended to produce the dead body of him who was crucified between the two thieves! This fact alone stands forth as a presumptive argument, of almost irresistible power, in favor of the resurrection of Jesus. Did not his enemies know that the whole controversy, as to his character and the truth of his religion, depended upon the fact of his rising or not rising again on the third day? Did they not know that he had foretold that he would thus rise? Was it not to prevent imposition on the part of his disciples in regard to this very thing that a guard of sixty armed soldiers was placed around his dead body? Were they not bound to produce his dead body after the third day, both to justify themselves in putting him to death and to save the world from the delusions of imposture! Would they not have produced that body, had it been in their power to do so? Can a reasonable mind doubt that, if it had been in their power, his enemies would have produced that dead body, after the third day, most promptly and triumphantly? Did they do it? Did they pretend or attempt to do it? And if they did nothing of the kind, what is the rational inference but that they did not, because they could not? And if they could not, unless he has arisen from the dead, they can furnish — they are bound to furnish — a reasonable and satisfactory account for that inability. Have they furnished this account? Can a reasonable mind doubt that they would have furnished the world with the most satisfactory account for their inability to produce the dead body of Jesus after the third day, had it been in their power?

But let us look at the only apology an infidel world has ever presented for this inability to produce the dead body of Jesus. It is this: “His disciples came by night and stole him away while we slept.” These are the words put into the mouth of the guard, and currently reported in that day among the Jews. Irrational and absurd as we may be led to consider this story, yet, as it is the only attempt the opponents of Christianity have ever made to account for the absence of the dead body of Jesus, after the third day, it demands a serious consideration. We think it will appear that this story bears upon its face such an array of improbability, that no rational mind can believe it to be true. Allow us briefly to enumerate some of the most obvious of these improbabilities:

1. Is it reasonable to believe that the disciples would have attempted such a theft under the circumstances? Twelve obscure peasants — without learning — without power, title, or influence — alarmed, discouraged, and scattered like sheep without a shepherd, when their Master was arrested — would they rally and risk their lives in so hopeless a task as to go, unarmed as they were, to wrest the dead body of Jesus from the custody of sixty armed soldiers?

2. But granting — what is exceedingly improbable — that they might have made the attempt, is it probable they would have found the guard all asleep on their post at the same time? When it is known that it was death by the Roman law for a soldier to sleep at his post, would the whole band have fallen into profound sleep at the same time? Can a reasonable mind believe this to be possible?

3. But, admitting that they had all fallen asleep at the same time, is it reasonable to suppose that they would have selected, as an appropriate time for slumber, the dawn of “the third day”? — the first hour of the very day on which he had said he would rise! Would they have selected that time — when it was all-important for them to be vigilant — as the time for inattention and sleep? Who can believe it?

4. But admit this to have been the case, improbable as it is, is it to be believed that the disciples could have entered by stealth within the inclosure of this armed guard, broken the seal from the sepulcher, rolled the great stone away from its door, and borne away the dead body to a place of concealment — and all this in so noiseless a manner as not to have awakened one of the guard?

5. But admitting this improbability to have taken place also, is it to be presumed that these sixty armed soldiers, finding that their dead prisoner had been taken from them while they were asleep, would have fled immediately to the city and reported themselves guilty of a crime whose penalty was death, without making a single effort to save their own lives by searching for and endeavoring to recover the stolen body?

6. But if the soldiers were all “asleep,” how could they know that the disciples stole the body? Some other persons may have done it, or he may have arisen from the dead, for aught they could know; if they were all “asleep”!

7. But admitting, for the sake of argument, all these improbabilities to have occurred (which no sane person can believe), is it probable that a Roman guard, commissioned with so important a trust, would have been permitted all to sleep at their post, and thus allow their dead charge to escape from their custody, and no arrest or trial of these soldiers be attempted, or the least inquiry made concerning so gross a neglect of so important a duty?

8. But, admitting all this to have occurred, who can believe, even if the soldiers had been allowed to escape, that the enemies of Christ would have treated these disciples with such lenity? Had it been believed by the Jews and the Romans, the chief priests and the elders — the enemies of Jesus — that “the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus,” would not these disciples have been arrested and tried, and made to confront these dignitaries of the law and their sleeping witnesses, and compelled to deliver up the stolen body or to suffer for their crime? But we hear not one word of all this — nothing of the arrest of the soldiers or of the disciples — no searching for the escaped corpse — no arraignment of the guilty parties through whose neglect or theft it had been abstracted! He who can believe any one of these improbabilities to have occurred, without evidence — yea, contrary to all reason and all testimony — is poorly fitted to charge the Christian with credulity; and yet, absurd as they all appear, we are compelled to subscribe to every one of them if we deny that Jesus rose from the dead! Is it possible, we ask, that one intelligent man of all these soldiers, chief priests, and elders, could have believed that the disciples stole the dead body of Jesus? The position is too unreasonable and absurd. They did not believe it themselves — they knew better!

Had they believed this story, how can we account for the fact that they never argued it afterward, when it would have been so natural for them to have done so, and when it would so admirably have suited their purpose? Indeed, the absurd story put into the mouth of the guard was conjured up amid so much hurry, confusion, and trepidation, that it did not exhibit the usual sagacity of its authors. They seem ever after to have been ashamed of it themselves. Ready enough are these Jewish rulers and members of the Sanhedrim to persecute and arraign the apostles for preaching that Jesus was arisen from the dead; but why did they never charge home upon them the theft they had committed? Only a few days after these events occurred, first Peter and John, and next the whole college of the apostles, are arrested and brought before the Sanhedrim! Here the apostles, in the very face of the great council and of the inventors of the story of the stealing of the body, boldly assert the resurrection of Jesus, and affirm that they have seen, felt, and conversed with him, after his resurrection. How passing strange, that in no one of these instances was the crime of having stolen the dead body of Jesus brought against the apostles. Why were they not formally accused of this theft? Why were not Joseph of Arimathea and the whole Roman guard instantly summoned and made to confront them? The great question is, the resurrection of Jesus, which the apostles affirm; but not one of the guard is called to confront them. The stealing of the body is not named! And why? Because the Sanhedrim did not believe the story! Having considered — and, as we humbly conceive, demonstrated — the unreasonable and unsatisfactory character of the only plea an infidel world has ever presented to account for the inability of the enemies of Jesus to produce his dead body, after the third day, we now call attention to the positive testimony in favor of the resurrection of Christ. Look at the number of the witnesses. It is written: “At the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.” This was not only a maxim in the Jewish law, but it has been incorporated in the codes and recognized in the judicial proceedings of all civilized lands. “Two or three witnesses” of good understanding and character, unimpeached and uncontradicted in their testimony, will establish any legally-contested fact before any enlightened civil tribunal under heaven! In the light of this maxim, examine the witnesses in favor of the resurrection of Christ.

1. The guard of sixty soldiers fled to the city, and told the chief priests the whole story of the resurrection of Jesus, and never disguised the fact till bribed by large sums of money to give currency to the absurd story which we have considered. Let their testimony therefore, free from bribery and corruption, be recorded in favor of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

2. Early on the third morning, as we learn by collating the accounts of the several evangelists, a company of women (as many as five or more), coming to the sepulcher with spices and incense, ointment and perfumes, for the purpose of embalming the dead body, met their risen Lord, conversed with him, and, going immediately to the city, were the first among his friends to depose their testimony that he had risen from the dead.

3. On the same day, two disciples (not of the twelve, as it appears), as journeying to the village of Emmaus, met the risen Jesus on the way, who was “known of them in breaking of bread.” Returning to Jerusalem the next morning, they manfully testified that “the Lord was risen indeed.”

4. For the space of forty days after his resurrection, Jesus appeared on various occasions to the eleven apostles, giving “many infallible proofs” that he “was alive after his passion,” and speaking to them “of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.”

5. St. Paul, in summing up to the Corinthians the witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus, adds to those already enumerated as many as “five hundred brethren,” of whom he was “seen at once;” and “last of all,” he says, “he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.” Now, add together all these witnesses — the sixty soldiers, the five women, the two travelers to Emmaus, the eleven apostles, and St. Paul himself — and you have the number of at least five hundred and seventy-nine persons who saw the risen Jesus, and bore their testimony to the fact in question. Surely, there is no paucity as to the number of witnesses!

We now look at the character of these witnesses, and the facts connected with their testimony.

Who were these apostles? Though not men of learning or position — though taken from the humble walks of life — yet they were all, so far as we can judge, men of strong common sense and unimpeached integrity. Their history and their writings are ample proof of this. And this much being conceded, we think it will also be admitted that if Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, then the apostles were either deceived themselves in asserting that he had arisen, believing the assertion to be true when it was not, or they knowingly deceived others, asserting for truth what they knew to be falsehood. If neither of these positions can be accredited, then it irresistibly follows that Jesus Christ did arise from the dead. But, we ask, is it possible that the apostles and all their co-witnesses could have been deceived in this matter? If they had stolen the body of Jesus and burnt it to ashes, or hidden it away, did they not know the fact? Had they not been familiarly acquainted with their Master for years, and did they not affirm that they had been with him again and again after his resurrection, under a variety of circumstances, for “forty days”? Could they have been deceived as to his identity? Admitting that one or two might have been deluded on one or two occasions, could so many have been deluded on so many occasions? Slow of heart to believe as they were, they could not have been deceived in this matter! If Jesus had not arisen, his dead body was somewhere — either his friends or his enemies had made away with it, or they yet had it in keeping. His enemies had not, or they would have produced it, or accounted for its absence; and if his friends had his body, or had disposed of it, they knew he had not risen from the dead. Hence it seems impossible that the apostles could have been deceived themselves in this matter. If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, they knew it. But, lastly, can we suppose that the apostles willfully and knowingly imposed upon the world, by preaching the resurrection of Christ, when they knew the doctrine to be false? If he had not arisen from the dead, they knew him to be an impostor: he had deceived them, and they knew it. Will