A demonstration of the Messias. Part I in which the truth of the Christian religion is proved, especially against the Jews / by Richard Kidder.

CHAP. VIII.

The CONTENTS.

Of the Resurrection of Jesus. That we have sufficient evidence that Jesus did rise from the dead. That we have the most unexceptionable humane Te∣stimony. Why the same number of men are called the eleven and the twelve elsewhere, when they were but Ten? John 21.14. Explained. This confir∣med by the Testimony of an Angel and by Divine Testimony. That Jesus re∣moved all cause of doubting of the truth of his Resurrection: That there were a select number of Men chosen to be witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus. That these witnesses, as also the E∣vangelists are worthy of belief. That it was foretold that the Messias should rise from the dead. The words (Ps. 11.5.) This day have I begotten thee, are justly applyed to this matter: This proved against the Jews at large. That Jesus rose from the dead is an undeniable proof that he is the Messias; and of the greatest importance to us.

Of the time when Jesus rose from the dead. Why on the third day? And how he could be said to rise on the third day who was but one whole day in the Sepulchre; and how this a∣grees with Matt. 12.40. where Jesus said he should be three days and three nights in the heart of the Earth? The third day on which Jesus rose con∣sidered as the first day of the Week.

IF the sufferings and death of Jesus will afford us any arguments to prove him to be the Messias; the Re∣surrection of Jesus from the dead, and his exaltation to God's right hand will much more afford us pregnant and un∣exceptionable proofs that he was the Christ the Son of God; and that his Re∣ligion which he hath taught us came from God. And for the better speaking to this matter I shall

• First, shew that we have sufficient evidence that Jesus did rise from the dead.
• Secondly, that this is an unexception∣able proof that he is the Christ.
• Thirdly, I shall consider the time when Jesus rose from the dead, viz. the third day.

I shall shew that we have sufficient e∣vidence that Jesus did rise from the dead. By sufficient evidence I mean such as is enough to satisfie any honest and inquisitive mind; as much, not to say much more, as we have for any matter of fact, which we were not the eye-witnesses of. As much, and more, as we have for other things of the truth of which we neither do, nor can rea∣sonably, make any manner of doubt; as much as we can reasonably desire or expect. And what that is we may learn from the following particulars.

1. We have the most unexception∣able humane Testimony that can be desired, that Jesus did rise from the dead: For we have it from them who saw him, and conversed with him, to whom he shewed himself alive after his passion, by many infallible proofs, be∣ing seen of them forty days. From them who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. That there was such a persons as Jesus, and that he died the Jews themselves do not deny. That this Jesus did rise again we have the greatest assurance from those who saw him: [Act. 1.3. and ch. 10.41.]

First, he appeared to Mary Magdalen,

and to other Women: And this appea∣rance to Mary Magdalen was his first appearance. [Mark 16.9. Joh. 20.14. Matt. 28.9.]

Secondly, he appeared to two of his Disciples going to Emmaus. And they were Peter, and Cleophas. That Cleo∣phas was the same with Alpheus, (as may be collected from Joh. 19.25. com∣pared with Matt. 27.56. and Mark 15.40.) and this appearance seems to be that which the Apostle mentions when he saith that he was seen of Cephas (Luk. 24.13, 18, 34. 1. Cor. 15.5.)

Thirdly, he appeared to the Eleven, so indeed they are called; though it is certain that there were but ten of them present at that time. For Thomas was absent: And yet St. Paul saith he was seen of the twelve. And Thomas is cal∣led one of the twelve, when yet the whole number was at that time but e∣leven. (Luk. 24.33, 36. Joh. 20.19. Ma••k 16.14. Joh. 20.24. 1 Cor. 15.5.

There is no cause that any man should upon this account Scoff at the Scrip∣tures, or call in question their divine authority. Had the Writers of these books been evil and crafty men, had

they combined together to put a cheat upon the World, they might easily have avoided such occasions of offence. And it is to me no little argument of the truth of what they affirm, that they all agree in the main, and differ at the same time in some circumstances of delivering it down to us.

The difficulty before us is very small. They are called the twelve, because that was the full number of the Apostles of Christ before the defection and death of Judas; as well as after the election of Matthias: And nothing is more com∣mon than to call a society of men by that number, of which they consist, and by which they are generally called; even when the intire number is not made up: But then they are by the Evangelists called eleven, that being the full number when Judas was gone off. And Thomas may well be said to be one of the twelve with respect to the full number which was at first.

The Jews of all men have no reason upon this account to disparage the E∣vangelists, because they do in this mat∣ter speak after the manner of those wri∣tings which the Jews allow to be di∣vine. The Sons of Jacob tell Joseph

(when they supposed him to be dead) that they were twelve brethren, when they acknowledge that one was dead: The youngest this day is with our Father, and one is not. And though they were eleven (as they verily beleived) yet they call themselves the twelve bre∣thren as they were at first. And when the twelve Sons of Jacob are reckoned up, it is said, these are the Sons of Jacob, which were born to him in Padan-Aram. And yet it is evident that eleven onely of the twelve were born there. This may seem too great a digression, and therefore I return, and shall under this head onely add that all these appearances of our Lord happened upon the same day that he rose from the dead (Gen. 42.13. and ch. 35.26. Joh. 20.24.)

Fourthly, he appeared to the disci∣ples when Thomas was with them and this was (as it is very probable) the week after his Resurrection, and upon the first day of the week. Those words in St. John, after eight days will very well bear this sense. (Joh. 20.26.)

Fifthly, he appears again to seven of his disciples at the Sea of Tyberias. The occasion of their being there seems to be this. It is well known that our Sa∣viour

had told his disciples that after his Resurrection he would go before them into Galilee. After Christ was risen the Angel bad the women go and tell his disciples and Peter that they should see him in Galilee as he had said unto them: Accordingly the disciples go down thither to meet their Lord: while they were there and waited for the appearance of Jesus, Peter and six more go a fishing, and then Jesus ap∣peared to them of which we have a more particular account, Joh. ch. 21. With respect to this appearance St. John says, This is now the third time that Jesus shew∣ed himself to his disciples after that he was risen from the dead. And so indeed it was, the third time of his appearing to the greater number of his disciples, though he had appeared before to Mary Magdalen at first, and to two of his di∣sciples Peter and Cleophas at another time. So that though I reckon this the fifth appearance of Christ, yet it is still but the third time which he shewed himself to the greater number of his di∣sciples. (Joh. 2.1. 1. Matt. 28.16. Matt. 26.32. Mark 16.7. Joh. 21.14.)

Sixthly, our Saviour appeared again to the eleven disciples at the mountain

in Galilee. This Galilee was the Coun∣trey in which he had lived, where he was well known, where he had done many miracles, and whence he had chosen several if not most of his disci∣ples. This was a more solemn appear∣ing of our Lord: It was by appoint∣ment, and it was foretold before his death, and his followers are reminded of it after his Resurrection; and it is very probable that at this time it was that he appeared to five hundred at once, which will still speak this appearance the more conspicuous and remarkable. (Matt. 28.16, 17.1. Cor. 15.6.)

Seventhly, He appeared to James, and to all the Apostles: We have an ac∣count of his appearing to all the Apo∣stles upon his ascending up to Heaven. (1. Cor. 15.7. Act. 1.1.)

Here are a great number of very un∣exceptionable witnesses. They were those who knew him before, those who saw him and conversed with him: They saw him often, and a great number they were that did so: It is not onely repor∣ted by a few terrified Women, or a Me∣lancholick follower or two, but all his Apostles who had conversed with him for a considerable time, and many others

who knew him well bear witness to this truth.

2. We have also the Testimony of an Angel, who told the Women that sought the body of Jesus, He is not here, for he is risen: Nor is it one Angel one∣ly but two as appears from the other Evangelists. These Angels, who are not sent upon mean and inconsiderable employments, attend upon, and pub∣lish the Resurrection of Jesus, and do also secure the empty Sepulchre from the Jews that they are not able to place another body in the room of that of Je∣sus which was risen (Matt. 28.6. Luk. 24.2. with Joh. 20.12.)

3. We have a divine Testimony, and that a most irrefragable one; a Testi∣mony greater than that of men and Angels. Our Lord had promised the Holy Spirit, who should be with respect to his disciples a Comforter, and with respect to our Lord himself an Advocate to plead his cause, and defend his inno∣cence: Now this promise is fulfilled, and this holy Ghost did bear witness to the Resurrection of Jesus. After Jesus was risen he breathed on his disciples and said receive ye the Holy Ghost; and after his Ascension at the day of Pente∣cost

we find the Holy Ghost more plen∣tifully bestowed on his Disciples. And from thence the Apostle argues against them who derided them, as those who were full of new Wine, that God had raised up Jesus, who being exalted had shed forth this which they now saw and heard; and afterwards concludes, there∣fore let all the House of Israel know as∣suredly that God hath made the same Je∣sus whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ. The effusion of the Holy Ghost was a witness of the Resurrection of Jesus: And this Testimony of the Holy Ghost: was a divine one; it was from Heaven. St. Peter tells the Jews that God had raised up Jesus, and exalted him at his right hand; and (says he) we are witnesses of these things, so is also the Holy Ghost whom God hath given to them that obey him. [Joh. 14.16. ch. 16.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. ch. 20.22. Act. 2.4, 36, ch. 5.32.]

4. Jesus did after his resurrection take away all cause of doubt concer∣ning the truth of his Resurrection. He gave sufficient proof that the very same body which was fastened to the Cross, dyed there, and was buried, was raised again to life. The Disciples were at first affrighted and supposed that they

had seen a Spirit: But our Saviour put them out of all doubt; Behold (says he) my hands and my feet. Handle me, and see; for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have. He shews his hands and his feet: And whereas at his first appearing to his Disciples, Thomas was absent, and did not believe that he was risen from the dead, and said more∣over, except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hard into his side I will not beleive; our Lord convinced this doubting Disciple, and gives him the utmost evidence and as∣surance of the truth of his Resurrection. Reach hither thy finger (says Jesus to Tho∣mas) and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless but beleiving; upon which Thomas was convinced and for∣ced to cry out, my Lord and my God. Our Lord gave his followers insallible proofs of his Resurrection, in the space of forty days. He are and drank with them, exposed his body to their view and touch, behold (says he) my h••nds and feet that it is my self: and when after this they believed not for joy, and wondred, he took broiled fish and ho∣ney

comb, and did eat before them. Greater assurance they were not capa∣ble of: [Luk. 24.37, 39, 40, 41, 42. Joh. 20.25, 27, 28. Act. 1.3.10.41. Luk. 24.39, 40.]

5. That the truth of the Resurrecti∣on of Jesus was abundantly confirmed by those who were the witnesses of it. So it was (and it was highly fit it should be so) that there were a select number of men who were to be the wit∣nesses of the Resurrection of Jesus; these were men whom God had appointed and set apart for this purpose, and such who upon the account of their know∣ledge of Jesus, and their readiness to part with all for the sake of the truth, were sitted and disposed for this pur∣pose. Thus St. Peter tells us. Him God raised up the third day and shewed him openly, not to all the people but to witnesses, chosen before of God, even un∣to us who did eat and drink with him af∣ter he rose from the dead. The Apostles were now the witnesses of the Resurrec∣tion of Jesus, this they preach and testifie upon all occasions, and this is their Character and their Office; [Act. 10.41. chap. 1.22. and ch. 3.15. and chap. 4.2, 33. ch. 5.30, 32. ch. 10.30,

31. ch. 13.31. chap. 17.18.]

Now these witnesses did abundantly confirm the truth of this Doctrine, which they preached every where, both by signs and wonders which God wrought by their hands; and by an exemplary and holy life. And at last by laying down their lives in confirma∣tion of their Doctrine. Upon which account they were witnesses beyond all exception. For we cannot beleive that men would part with their lives in Con∣firmation of a lye; or that God would assist them to do miracles for so vile and base an end and purpose; and they must be very profligate wretches who would affirm a matter of fact of which they had not good assurance.

The Resurrection of Jesus was a truth of the greatest moment and consequence whatsoever; upon the truth of this our hope, and all our Religion does depend. It was fit that this truth should be suf∣ficiently attested by persons of undoub∣ted credit. The death of Christ was publick, the whole multitude were wit∣nesses of his Crucifixion. But they were not vouchsafed the honour of be∣ing the witnesses of his Resurrection; the truth of his Resurrection was too va∣luable

to be concredited to an uncon∣stant and malicious rabble: And there∣fore God who raised up Jesus, and shewed him openly (or gave him to be made manifest, as the Greek hath it) did not do it to all the people but to certain select and chosen witnesses: These men who conversed with him before his death and after his Resurrec∣tion; who had known his life, and heard his Sermons, and been taught by him before that he must dye and rise again; these men who had power to confirm this truth with Miracles, and were prepared to confirm it with their bloud, and did persist in it to their last breath were witnesses indeed beyond all manner of exception.

I say beyond all exception; for there can be no reasonable exception brought against them: And if we will give our selves the leisure to consider the thing before us, with due application, we shall find no cause to except. For if there were any such thing it must be because of the thing it self, or matter of fact which is attested, or the persons who do report it.

For the thing it self, viz. that God raised up Jesus, there lies no sha∣dow

of reasonable exception against it. For that a man should be raised from the dead implyes no contradiction ei∣ther moral or natural. He that beleives that God made the World cannot think it impossible to him to raise a dead man to life again: It is not incredible that he should raise a dead man to life, who made all things out of nothing. Nor does it impeach any of the divine perfections to affirm that God raised Je∣sus to life. No man can reasonably upon this account think meanly of the divine Being. Upon the whole there is nothing in the thing reported repugnant to right reason, nothing unbecoming the divine purity and perfections, nothing incre∣dible to them that are wise and good.

For the persons who report this, if there lye any exception against them, it must be upon the score of their weak∣ness, or wilfullness.

It may perhaps be pretended that they were weak men and imposed upon: That they took up this beleif that Jesus rose from the dead upon light and insufficient grounds, and though they did not contrive to deceive others yet they themselves were easily deceived.

But this cannot be pretended with

any reason at all: For they did not re∣port that Jesus was raised to life upon hear-say or common fame; they did not receive it as a tradition received from others: But they were eye-wit∣nesses of it. They were men that knew Jesus before he died, that conversed with him forty days after he rose from the dead, that had sometimes doubted of the truth of his Resurrection them∣selves, and had received the utmost sa∣tisfaction that it was that Jesus who died, that was risen from the dead; and when they were assured of it they taught this doctrine boldly; and they taught no more than what they knew to be true; what they had seen and handled that they taught. Nor did this depend upon the Testimony of Women or Children or any incompetent witnes∣ses; or upon a bare and single Testimo∣ny: But a number of men, the most com∣petent witnesses imaginable, did upon all occasions affirm that Jesus was risen from the dead. There were no less than twelve principal witnesses of his Resur∣rection, besides the many others who saw Jesus after he was risen. [Act. 1.21, 22.]

Nor can we think that these witnes∣ses did wilfully go about to lye and

put a cheat upon other men: We can∣not think them such vile persons, or that they could have prevailed this way.

For besides that they taught other men to speak the truth, and that they are not accused otherwise as flagitious persons, to what purpose should they af∣firm that Jesus was risen from the dead if it were false? Could they get any thing by such a lye? Was it a step to any honour or preferment to say that Jesus was raised to life again? Was this Doctrine pleasing to the Jews? Would it procure them any favour from the Gentile World? Nay is it not evi∣dent that for affirming this the Jews who put Jesus to death were enraged against them? For they arraigned the Justice of their Nation, and incensed their Countrey men to the highest de∣gree whatsoever. The Gentiles scoffed at them and derided them, and their scoffs were the least Evils they suffered upon this account; for they continued in this their Testimony under torments and even unto death.

Can any man imagine that this was a contrivance and Plot of crafty men? That they combined to put a cheat upon mankind? but to what end should

they do this? It is not likely they could engage a considerable number in such a combination. It would be hard to find a great many men so weary of their lives as to be content to throw them a∣way in confirmation of a lye. Besides the fraud would have been discover'd quickly: For these men did not forbear to tell when and where this happened which they were the witnesses of.

Did ever any men of credit prove these witnesses incompetent? Did they ever deprehend them in a lye or speaking inconsistently? Did it appear at any time that they were caught in a false story, or that any one of them were forced to recant and retract what he had said?

How came this beleif to spread so quickly in the world if it had not been true? Could it have any thing else to recommend it to the belief of mankind? That it quickly gained an Universal belief in the world is undeniable; but how could this be? God attested to this truth by enabling these witnes∣ses to work miracles in confirmation of it. That so it was no man can doubt that gives any credit to the Testimony of others. Had it not been so the spread∣ing

of this beleif, without a miracle, would have been the greatest miracle of all.

It is plain that we have no reason to doubt of the Resurrection of Jesus: There is no History, no matter of fact, which yet we beleive firmly, that we have that cause to beleive as we have this, that Jesus was raised from the dead; and therefore if we do not beleive that Jesus rose from the dead, it is not from want of evidence, and sufficient mo∣tives of credibility, but from a faulty principle, and a culpable neglect of seeking after the truth.

6. That the Evangelists who report the matter of fact, concerning the Re∣surrection of Jesus, are worthy of all credit. For their names are annexed to their writings, they set down the time and place where those things happened which they write of; they name the persons concerned in these things; they write of things which happened in their own time, and which they knew to be true. They all agree in the main sto∣ry, and their different relating of some smaller circumstances does but confirm their credit as to the main relation. What can we desire in any writing which

is wanting here? What have we to ob∣ject against these writers? Can we sup∣pose they did conspire to put a cheat upon mankind? But what reason have we for this suspicion? Surely none, but much to the contrary.

For they do not write like men who had combined together to cheat the world. For they own their names, they relate something with some see∣ming difference, they mention the time and place where those things happened, which they write; they name many persons and of several Nations and ranks that were concerned, they stick not to mention their own meanness and their own faults and infirmities, and the shame and death of their great Lord and Master.

Nor could these or the other wit∣nesses of the Resurrection be induced by any worldly Temptation to tell a lye. They did beleive the Religion which they professed, or they did not. If they did beleive it they durst not tell a lye, that being directly forbid in that Religion which they beleived to be true. If they did not beleive it them∣selves; what could perswade them to obtrude the belief of it upon other men? They were so far from gaining by this

course that they exposed themselves to the malice and rage of men, to the loss of all things, and the severest death. Can we believe that they should be so fond of what they knew to be a lie, that they would lose all they had in confirmation of it? Men are not com∣monly so fond of truth as to confirm it with their bloud: Can we imagine that men should persist in a lie to the loss of all things? But of this matter I have discoursed before, and shall not need to pursue it now.

7. That the Resurrection of the Mes∣sias was foretold in the old Testament, as well as typified; and therefore the Evangelists are not to be rejected by the Jews for reporting this matter. The first preachers of the Christian faith did confirm this truth from the holy wri∣tings which the Jews owned: They proved from them that this was fore∣told, and they do it beyond all excep∣tion, because they argue from those principles which the Jews allowed.

To this purpose belong those words Thou art my Son, this day have I begot∣ten thee. That that Psalm did relate to the Messias we are able to prove from the Jewish Doctors, who do acknow∣ledge

it: And therefore when it was al∣ledged to this purpose they cannot say that it was an allegation out of a place which did not belong to the Messias. The Apostle applies those words to this sense; He assures us that God hath ful∣filled his promise in that he hath raised up Jesus again, as it is also written in the second Psalm, thou art my Son, &c. It being confessed by the Jews them∣selves that the Psalm, out of which these words are cited, is to be understood of the Messias. I need not go about to justifie and make good that it belongs to the matter for which it is alledged. [Psal. 2.5. Act. 13.33.]

I shall onely consider how fitly these words are applied to the resurrection of the Messias. For, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, seem ra∣ther to relate to the birth than to the Resurrection of the Messias. For the clearing of this matter it is to be consi∣dered.

That it is no unusual thing to call the earth our Mother, as well as our Parent from whom we are born; it is very common to call each of these by the same name: The earth out of which we are taken, and to which we return is

our Mother, as well as our Parent from whom we spring; and our grave to which we return is our Womb as well as that of our Mothers. When Julius Caesar dreamed that he had offered vio∣lence to his Mother, there were those who did interpret it, arbitrium orbis terrarum portendi, i. e. that he should conquer the earth, quae omnium parens ha∣beretur i. e. which is the common Mother of us all: And when Tiberius died, the peo∣ple out of hatred prayed Terram Matrem the common Mother the Earth to give him no reception but among the wicked.

Philo the Jew tells us that the earth seems to be a Mother, and that thence it was that among the Ancients it was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by a word that at once signifies the Earth and Mother, and that according to Plato〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. the earth does not so much imitate a Woman as a Woman the earth. He tells us farther that nature hath given her breasts, viz. the cha∣nels of rivers and fountains.

After this manner do the writers of the old Testament speak, with whom the grave which receives the dead is called the Womb; and therefore a Re∣surrection from thence may well be

called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or a new birth. Naked came I out of my Mother's womb (says Job) and naked shall I return thither. What we render thither, the Chaldee Paraphrast expresseth by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. to the grave. Again on the other hand when the Holy Scripture speaks of the Mother's womb it does it after such a manner as refers to the Earth, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Mother of us all. When the Psalmist speaks of his being formed in the Womb he expresses the Womb by the lowest parts of the earth, which the Chaldee Paraphrast on the place inter∣prets of the Womb of his Mother. And the Virgin's Womb seems to be meant by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. the lowermost parts of the earth: And to my present purpose, into the innermost parts of the belly, in Solomon, is by the Targum rendred in profundum Sepulchri, i. e. into the depth of the Grave. And we find among the Jewish Writers that the Mother's womb is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a sepulchre. He that is born, and dies, and is buried does but pass from one Tomb to another. And he that rises out of the Womb of the earth, or his grave, may be said to be born anew; and therefore it may well be said of our Saviour when he rose from

the dead that he was then begotten: And when the Apostle applies those words, this day have I begotten thee, to our Saviour's Resurrection, he does but speak the language of the Hebrew wri∣ters; and the Jews, who own this Psalm to belong to the Messias, have no reason to complain that those words of it should be applyed to his Resurrection. [Job. 1.21. Ps. 139.15. Eph. 4.9. Pro. 18.18.]

And this manner of speaking is very agreeable to the type of our Saviour's Resurrection: I mean the Prophet Jo∣nas, who was three days and three nights in the Whales belly, to which the heart of the earth, in which Jesus was, and from which he rose, answers. (Matt. 12.40.) Jonas is not onely said to have been in the belly (or, bowels as it is in the Hebrew) of the Fish (Jonah 1.17.) But when he prayed unto the Lord his God there, and God heard him, he is said to have heard him out of the belly of Hell, or, (as the Marginal reading hath it, and the Hebrew word signifies) out of the belly of the grave. (Jon. 2.2.) And when he acknowledges his delive∣rance he does it in these words, Yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O

Lord my God. (Jon. 2.6. compare Ps. 16.10. Act. 2.31.)

Jesus came from the Virgins Womb and the Womb of the earth. The first birth was natalis Imperatoris, the second natalis imperii. The Prince was born when the Virgin brought him forth at Bethlehem, but his Resurrection was the birth day of his Kingdom, and of his entrance upon his everlasting Preist∣hood: Upon both accounts he is justly called the Son of God; as he was con∣ceived by the Holy Ghost in the Virgins Womb, and as he was raised by the Holy Ghost from the grave. And there is a great cognation between the Womb, and the grave: The Womb of the Vir∣gin which had received none but the Holy Jesus, and the Sepulchre which Joseph had provided, wherein never man before was laid. The Virgin and the Sepulchre were both undefiled: And however a several Joseph were related to each yet they had not made any use of either. Our Lord was miraculously born of the Virgin, and raised from the dead. Without the help of a man he was born at first, and was raised from the grave without humane assistance, and maugre all the endeavours used to

prevent it. He received life upon the first conception; and a new life, when he rose from the dead. They were both effected by the H. Ghost and pub∣lished by Angels, [Heb. 5.5. Luk. 1.35. with Rom. 1.4. chap. 8. v. 11. Luk. 23.53.]

But we have another prediction of the Resurrection of the Messias that can∣not belong to the person of David at all; viz. Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell: neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption. This must belong to the person of the Messias, for David dyed and was buried, and his flesh consumed; and it is therefore an unex∣ceptionable proof of that truth which it is brought to Confirm. [Ps. 16.10. Act. 2.29.]

We have another Prophecy that as∣sures us, that the Messias after his resur∣rection shall dye no more, viz. The pro∣mise of the sure mercies of God, which we find the Apostle applying to this matter, and inferring from it that Christ who rose from the dead, was no more to return to corruption. [Isa. 55.3. Act. 13.34.]

If what hath been said be duly considered we shall find that God hath

given us sufficient assurance that Je∣sus did rise from the dead.

For what greater assurrance can we desire of this matter of fact, unless we think Our Saviour should have dy∣ed in every age, and Country, and risen again to satisfie our unreasona∣ble infidelity?

What is there that the Jew can ob∣ject against this doctrine thus confirm∣ed? will they undertake to prove a ne∣gative against so many positive proofs and witnesses? what possible ways are there left them of doing this? They cannot deny the possibility of the thing, who believe a Resurrection to come, or that God made the world: Or will they say as once they did, who watch∣ed his Sepulchre, and were hired to say it, that his Disciples came by night and stole him away while they slept.

Is it probable, that this should gain any belief among men? what temptati∣on could they have to do this? Or is it likely that they, who for fear forsook him when he was living, should adven∣ture upon the Guard to retrieve his dead body, which was honourably interred? If these Souldiers knew this to be true, why did they not hinder it? if they knew

it not how could they Testify? what could hinder them who had pow∣er that they did not prevent it? Or what reason have we to believe those Competent witnesses who confess that they were a sleep when it was done?

Thus having shewed that we have suf∣ficient Evidence that Jesus did rise from the dead, I shall now proceed to shew,

[ II] That this is an unexceptionable proof that he is the Christ, and conse∣quently of the truth of the Christian Religion.

I need not enlarge upon this head. For it is very evident and plain, and the Jews themselves cannot deny it. And for that reason they who deny not that he lived and dyed, do what they can to stifle the belief of the Re∣surrection. This they do because they are sensible that his Resurrection from the dead is a proof beyond exception that he is the Messias. They Endea∣voured what they could to hinder his resurrection, and when they could not doe that, they laboured to hinder the belief of it.

And that which makes the Resurrecti∣on of Jesus so unexceptionable a proof that he is the Christ is this, that Jesus did

in his life time, not onely profess him∣self to be the Christ the Son of God, but also foretell the manner of his own death, and that he should not onely rise again, but rise again the third day; and does referr the unbelieving Jews to his Resurrection, as to the great sign and proof of his being sent from God. When the Scribes and Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign, He answered and said unto them; an Evil and adulterous genera∣tion seeketh after a Sign, and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the Prophet Jonas. For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the Whales bel∣ly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the Earth. Our Lord had done many mi∣raculous works among the Jews, and still they require a Sign, or a more plain and clear proof that he came from God; Our Saviour referrs them to his Resur∣rection as that which would be a most unexceptionable one, and sufficient to remove any but a perverse and incu∣rable unbelief. And this he calls the Sign of the Prophet Jonas: That Pro∣phet was sent to call the Ninevites to repentance, and was successfull in his undertaking; and his miraculous es∣cape

from the belly of the Whale was a Competent proof that he was sent by God, and very fit to gain him credit with the Ninevites; And very probable it is, that the fame of what had befallen the Prophet had come to the men of Ni∣neveh, and that it made way for the reception of the doctrine which he preached. The Resurrection of Jesus was a greater sign, and that which made way for the Entertainment of his doctrine in the World; For it did confirm the truth of his Doctrine. [Matt. 16.21. Joh. 2.19. ch. 3.14. ch. 12.32, 33. Matt. 12.39, 40.]

There have been those who have been raised from the dead besides Jesus: And many besides him have professed them∣selves to be the Christ also. But none in the world but Jesus professed him∣self to be Christ, and confirmed it by his Resurrection. Maimon tells us of one who deceived the poor Jews under a pretence that he was at least the fore∣runner of the Messias, who having boasted vainly that he would rise again after his death, in token that he came from God, was indeed beheaded by a certain Arabian King, but returned not to life again. He was not able to give

the proof that Jesus did who rose from the dead. And though there have been others who have been raised from the dead, yet none of them ever professed to be the Christ, the Son of the living God, as our Jesus did.

This being a truth upon which the truth of the whole Christian Religion depends, no wonder that the belief of this Article should be accounted for a faith in the whole Religion. That is the word of faith (says St. Paul) which we preach, that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt be∣lieve in thine heart, that God hath rai∣sed him from the dead thou shalt be sav∣ed. For he that believes that Jesus rose from the dead, does believe the o∣ther Articles of Religion which are all confirmed by this. He that believes that Jesus is risen, does at the same time believe him to be the Christ, and con∣sequently that his precepts are divine, that his promises are certain, and his power and authority uncontrollable. This is indeed the faith peculiar to Chris∣tians: The Jews and the Heathens be∣lieved some other points relating to Re∣ligion; That Jesus rose, that he is the Christ, the Son of God, this is the great

Article of the Christian faith: Hence it is that so much is imputed to this faith, and to the confession of this truth in the New Testament. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God. And afterward, whosoever believeth that Je∣sus is the Christ, is born of God. Who∣ever believed this believed all the Christian Religion, and he that (when those words were written) did believe and profess this truth, when 'twas great∣ly dangerous so to doe, as he gave proof of a sincere faith, so he might be truly said to dwell in God and to be born of God. [Ro. 10.9. 1 Joh. 4.15. 2 Joh. 5.1.]

Had not Christ been a man he could not have died, and had he not been Christ the Son of God he could not have risen from the dead. Had Jesus been a deceiver he must have lain in the grave till the general Resurrection: Nothing less than a divine power could raise him to life again; it was the Godhead which raised the humane nature; and then Christ raised himself as he foretold he would, and gave a great proof of his Divinity. [Joh. 2.19, 21.]

It is an easie thing to destroy life but

to restore it again speaks an almighty power: It is nothing short of Omni∣potence which can bring so great a thing to pass.

The Key of the grave is one of those which God keeps in his own hand. The Apostle in very Emphatical words expresseth the power by which Jesus was raised from the dead; for speaking of the exceeding greatness of God's power to us-ward who believe, he adds, according to the working of this Mighty power which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead. The words are very great (as a learned man hath well observed) on the one hand there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and on the other there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Here's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, two words to express power, and that the power of God; and as if these were too little, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is added to the one and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the other; and still as if this were too short there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and to this is added 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all this mighty power is actua∣ted and exerted also. And who can now believe that God would have shewn such a power in raising up Jesus from the dead if he had not been the Christ?

But I proceed to consider the time when Jesus rose from the dead, viz. the third day.

The death and Resurrection of Jesus were necessary toward our redemption, and the belief of both these is necessary to our Salvation: It is therefore fit we should be well assured of the truth of them both, and to that purpose that there should be some distance between the one and the other. For as he could not have revived if he had not first di∣ed, so it was fit that we should be well assured of the first, before we could be obliged to believe the second. If Christ had revived as soon as he had been ta∣ken down from the Cross, it might have been questioned whether or no he were really dead: But for the better speak∣ing to this matter I shall,

• First, enquire into the reasons, why there was this distance of time between the death and resurrection of Jesus.
• Secondly, that Jesus did rise the third day after his death.
• Thirdly, I shall consider the third day as it was the first day of the Week.

[ I] I shall enquire into the reasons of this distance of time between the death and

Resurrection of Jesus. And we may take them in the following particulars.

• 1. It was very fit that there should be some competent distance between the death, and resurrection of Jesus; that men might be assured that he dy∣ed, without which they could not be obliged to believe him risen from the dead.
• 2. It was not fit that the body of Jesus should lie so long as to be corrupted. It was enough that he was so long a time dead, as might give assurance that when he did appear, he was real∣ly risen from the dead. Had he lain any longer in the grave, he had con∣tinued so long there as would have brought corruption and putrefaction upon his body. Martha tells Jesus concerning Lazarus, By this time he stinketh; and for a proof of it she adds, for he hath been dead four days: This long stay in the grave would have made too great a change in the body of Jesus. Besides, there was a Prophecy of the Messias to this purpose, that, though he should dye and be buried, yet his body should not lie so long in the grave as to putrefie. Thus St. Peter applies that prediction, Thou shalt not

• leave my Soul in hell, nor wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption, to the re∣surrection of Christ. [Joh. 11.39. Act. 2.27, 31.]
• 3. That this precise time of the re∣surrection of Jesus is according to the Scriptures, or writings of the Old Testament. [1. Cor. 15.4.]

Among those persons, who in the Old Testament were types of the Mes∣siah, Isaac was an eminent one: He was born against the laws of nature, the Son of the Promise, called the onely Son, and the beloved Son, and the Heir: He was given up by his Father to death, and he bore the Wood which was to bear him, and in these things he was a remarkable type of Christ. And the Bereshith Rabboth expresseth his carry∣ing the wood by his carrying his Cross upon his Shoulder. The same Authour upon those words, on the third day, &c. reckons up a great many places of Scri∣pture which mention the third day, and many particulars for which the third day was remarked, viz. the giving of the law, &c. and then tells us it was remarkable for the Resurrection of the dead, and cites to that purpose the ve∣ry words of the Prophet which we

Christians alledge to the matter in hand. After two days he will revive us, in the third day will he raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. The same Au∣thour in the same place mentions the third as remarkable upon the score of Jonas, who was three days and three nights in the belly of the Whale: Than which nothing could have been said more appositely to our present purpose, that being an express type of the Mes∣sias, as hath been noted before. And 'tis enough in this matter that we can shew the express prophecy of Ho∣sea, and the eminent type of the Pro∣phet Jonas I shall now shew. [Gen. 22.4. Hosea 6.2. Mat. 12.38, 39.]

That Jesus did rise the third day af∣ter his death: [ II] Where I shall clear this relation from the Cavils of the Jews.

It is certain that there could be but one whole day and two nights between the death of Jesus and his Resurrection, and yet Jesus had foretold that the Son of man should be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth: Again, he said, after three days I will rise a∣gain, and, destroy this Temple, and after three days I will raise it up. And

elsewhere Jesus is said to have risen a∣gain the third day. [Mat. 12.40. ch. 27.63. Joh. 2.19. 1 Cor. 15.4.]

The day on which he dyed is to be reckoned for one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or natural day, and that on which he rose for a∣nother. And thus the Hebrew Wri∣ters commonly reckon in other cases. The Hebrew Child was to be Circum∣cised the eighth day, but then the day of it's birth and of it's Circumcision were both counted. And the Pentecost was the fiftieth day from the day of the Wave-of∣fering, but then both the one and the o∣ther are reckoned in this account: This is but the Phrase of the Old Testament. We have a remarkable instance to this purpose. It came to pass in the fourth year of King Hezekiah (which was the seventh year of Hoshea Son of Ela, King of Israel) that Shalmaneser King of Assy∣ria came up against Samaria and besieged it. And at the end of three years they took it, even in the sixth year of Heze∣kiah (that is the ninth year of Hoshea King of Israel) Samaria was taken. It is evident from hence that that is said to be done at the end of three years, which from it's beginning could be but two whole years distant. Again, the

Priests in their courses were to minister one Week as is well known. And yet Josephus tells us they were obliged to minister 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. eight days from one Sabbath to ano∣ther. This will justifie us, when we say that the appearance of Christ men∣tioned (Joh. 20.26.) happened on the first day of the week, or on that day seven-night after his first appear∣ance, on the day of his resurrection; though it be thus expressed, after eight days, &c. And this will help us with ease to reconcile St. Luke with St. Mat∣thew, and St. Mark, when he says that happened about eight days after, which the other express by after six days. For supposing six days compleat, St. Luke might well say about eight days after. [Luk. 1.59. ch. 2.21. 1 King. 18.9, 10. Joh. 20.26. Mat. 17.1. Mark 9.2. with Luk. 9.27.

[ III] I shall consider this third day on which Jesus rose as the first day of the week; which was a day very famous among the Jewish writers upon twelve accounts, which I do not think my self obliged to reckon up in this place.

It is plain that Jesus rose upon the first day of the Week. The day of his

death is called the Preparation, be∣cause then the Jews provided what was needfull against the approaching Sab∣bath: When the even was come (because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath) says Mark. St. Luke says, that day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew on. It was a prepara∣tion to a remarkable Sabbath which fell within the solemn festivity of the Passeover. The Jews therefore because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the Cross the Sab∣bath day (for that Sabbath was an high day) besought Pilate, &c. [Mat. 27.62. Joh. 19.42. with Exod. 16.5. Mark 15.42. Luk. 23.54. Joh. 19.31, 42.]

That Christ rose on the first day of the week is a particular which all the four Evangelists do relate, and there∣fore the more carefully to be heeded by us. [Matt. 28.1. Mark 16.2. Luk. 24.1. Joh. 20.1.]

The Israelites were obliged when they reaped their harvest to bring a sheaf of their first fruits unto the Priest: This sheaf was to be waved on the mor∣row after the Sabbath: This sheaf hol∣lowed all the rest, and God's acceptance of this gave the Jews a title to the rest.

As that was waved the morrow after the Sabbath, so was our Lord at that time raised to life as the first fruits of them that slept. And his Resurrection infers ours, and is the great reason why we instead of the Sabbath day, which was buried with our Lord, keep holy the first day of the Week in me∣mory of his Resurrection: [Levit. 23.10, 11, 12.]

Notes

• Multò mi∣nus est re∣stituere quod fue∣rit quàm facerequod non fuit. Hieron. ad Pamma∣chium.
• At the close of chap. VI.
• Sueton. Jul. Caesar.
• Id. Tibe∣rius.
• Phil. Jud. de Mundi Opificio.
• Vid. Pau∣lum Fagi∣um in Gen. 37.35.
• Oholoth c. 7. m. 4.
• Augustin. de Tem∣pore. Serm. 133. Virgoerat adhuc ter∣ra, non∣dum opere compressa, nondum sementi subacta. Tertull. de carne Christi.
• Maimon. Epist. ad Judaeos Marsilien∣ses.
• Bereshith Rabb. in Gen. 22.
• Antiqu. l. 7. c. 11.
• Abravenel in Legem, fol. 282. col. 2. ad finem.