Cowards Made Courageous

We are prompted by curiosity to inquire into the origin of nations, to trace their progress from rudeness to refinement, and to mark the steps by which they rose to eminence in power, in wealth, and in knowledge.

To these subjects the researches of profane history are directed; and while its pages communicate instruction and entertainment to every reader, they particularly engage the attention of the statesman, who derives from them a more extensive acquaintance with mankind, and is enabled to add to his experience the accumulated wisdom of ages.

To a Christian the history of the Church must appear more worthy of notice than the revolutions of empire. A society, towards which Providence has, in all ages, exercised a particular care, presents an interesting object of inquiry; and must exhibit, in the detail of events, admirable proofs of the power, and wisdom, and goodness of God. Its history is the history of religion; of the accomplishment of a long series of prophecies; of the execution of a scheme, to which all the other parts of the divine administration are subservient.

The early periods of the history of nations are generally enveloped in fable; and although the truth could be discovered through the veil which conceals it, it would, for the most part, present little that is worthy to be known. The human race may be considered as then in a state of infancy. Their ideas are few and gross, their manners are barbarous, and their knowledge of arts is  confined to some simple operations performed without elegance or skill. The history of the first age of the Christian Church is more instructive and engaging than that of any subsequent period. It is splendid, because it is miraculous; it is edifying, as it records many noble examples of faith, charity, patience, and zeal; it arrests the attention and touches the heart, by displaying the triumph of the gospel over the combined malice and wisdom of the world...

The resurrection of Christ is an article of great importance in our religion, the foundation upon which its other doctrines rest, and by which the faith and hope of his followers are sustained. “If Christ be not risen,” says Paul, “then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God, that he raised up Christ; whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised. And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which have fallen asleep in Christ are perished.” Such evidence, as should leave no doubt in the cautious and inquisitive mind, was necessary to establish a fact upon which so much depended. Luke affirms that Jesus showed himself alive to his disciples, “after his passion,” that is, after his sufferings and death, by many “infallible proofs.” The word signifies signs, tokens, or evidences, which were so numerous and decisive, that it was impossible for those who saw them to be mistaken. He refers to the frequent appearance of Christ, of which not less than eight are recorded by the Evangelists, besides many more which may have taken place during the forty days between his resurrection and ascension; and to the methods which he used to convince the disciples, by calling upon them “to handle him and see, that a spirit had not flesh and bones as he had,” and by eating, drinking, and conversing with them in a familiar manner.

It is vain to insinuate that the Apostles might be imposed upon by the power of imagination, which the eagerness of their wishes and expectations had excited, and might thus fancy that they saw what had no real existence. It does not appear that they actually expected the resurrection of their Master; but, on the contrary, there is reason to think that they had almost given over all hope of that event. When the women, who had been at the sepulchre, told them of it, their words seemed as “idle tales;” and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus may be supposed to have expressed the sentiments and feelings of their brethren, when they said, “We trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel;” manifestly using the language of disappointment and despondency. In such a state of mind, there was no room for imagination to operate. It will be still more evident that they were not under its influence, if we consider that some of the appearances were made, not to a solitary individual, but to several of the disciples at once, in one instance to five hundred brethren, who could not all have been deluded at the same moment by a phantom of their own brain; that the appearances were not transient, but lasted for a considerable time, so that the spectators had full leisure to examine them; that some of them were sudden, or without warning, and others were the consequence of previous appointment; that they frequently took place, not in the night when the mind is more subject to illusion, but in the day when the disciples were composed, and all their senses were awake; and that the interviews were not distant and silent, but Jesus familiarly associated with the Apostles, and gave all the satisfaction which the most incredulous among them could demand. From these circumstances, there does not remain the slightest ground to suspect that the Apostles themselves were deceived; and the only question now to be determined is, whether they have deceived us.

Infidels object that the Apostles, who were interested persons, were the only witnesses of the resurrection, and that Jesus did not show himself to the Sanhedrim and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, as he ought to have done, that the reality of the event might be placed beyond dispute. They affirm that on this account the whole narrative is suspicious. There is one important circumstance, which, perhaps, they willingly forget, that the enemies of Jesus were the first and immediate witnesses of the resurrection, that event having taken place, according to Matthew, in the presence of the Roman soldiers, not before the eyes of the disciples. Sufficient reasons have been assigned why he did not appear to the rulers and people of the Jews, which your time will not permit me fully to state. It may be remarked that although this demand had been complied with, and our Lord had resorted after his resurrection to the temple, and walked in the streets of Jerusalem, it is by no means certain that the purpose which is pretended would have been gained. We have no ground to think that the Jews, who would not believe the testimony of Moses and the Prophets, nor the evidence of our Saviour’s miracles, would have believed, although they had seen him risen from the dead. But upon the supposition that they had been convinced by this last and seemingly irresistible proof, the truth of his resurrection would have been as much perplexed as ever by the cavils of free-thinkers. We should have been told of the superstition and credulity of the Jews, and of their national pride, which disposed them fondly to embrace any story that seemed to realise their boasted hopes of the Messiah; and whereas now the testimony of the Apostles is corroborated by the trying and perilous circumstances in which they were placed, the whole would then have been represented as an imposture, concerted between them and their countrymen, and first promulgated where it was sure to be received, and no person had either inclination or power to detect it. I shall only farther observe, that if there be satisfactory proof that Christ did appear to the Apostles, we are bound to acquiesce in their solemn testimony; and that nothing can be more unreasonable than to demand more evidence than is sufficient, or to reject sufficient evidence, because it is not presented in that form which we prefer.

After this general observation, I may appeal to every unprejudiced person, whether there is anything in the narrative of this transaction, in its general complexion, or its particular parts, which gives countenance to the suspicion of imposture; or rather, whether it does not bear unequivocal marks of simplicity, candour, and the sacred love of truth. Let it be farther considered, that the testimony of the Apostles was given in public, and before the persons who were above all concerned to detect a falsehood, and possessed the means of detecting it; that it was consistent and uniform, there not being a single instance of retractation or variation among the witnesses; that no motive can be assigned for their conduct if it was false, as in that case they could not expect to be believed, and the only prospect before them was that of persecution and death in this world, without the hope of a recompense in the next; that they did not require men to give credit to their simple testimony, but appealed, in confirmation of it, to miracles wrought, as they affirmed, by the power of him who had been raised from the dead; and, finally, that this testimony was believed by thousands of Jews and Gentiles, although their prejudices against it were the strongest imaginable. I challenge all the infidels in the world to produce a single fact, in the whole compass of history, supported by more decisive evidence.

I shall subjoin a remark upon the qualifications of the Apostles. What made those babblers so eloquent; those ignorant and illiterate men so profoundly skilled in the mysteries of redemption; those cowards so courageous, as to despise every danger, and maintain the truth amidst the most terrible sufferings? This change could not have been effected by their Master, if he was still lying in the grave; and it is, therefore, a proof that he had risen from it, and performed the promise which we shall immediately proceed to consider.

– John Dick, Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles