Acts 10:41

Not to all the people, &c.— It has frequently been asked, Why Christ did not shew himself to all the people, but to his disciples only? Now it may be sufficient to reply, that where there are witnesses enough, no judge or jury complains for want of more; and therefore, if the witnesses that we have for the resurrection are sufficient, it is no objection that we have not others, or more. If three credible men attest a will, which are asmany as the law requires, would any body ask why all the town were not called to sign their names to it? But it may be objected, why were these witnesses called and chosen out? Why, for this reason, that they might be good ones. Does not every wise man choose proper witnesses to his deed? And does not a good choice of witnesses give strength to every deed? How comes it to pass then, that the very thing which shuts out all suspicion in other cases, should in this be of all others the most suspicious thing itself? What reason there is for the Jews to make any complaints, may be judged from the evidence already offered concerning the resurrection: Christ suffered openly in their sight, and they were so well apprized of his prediction, that they set a guard on his sepulchre; every soldier was to them a witness of his resurrection, of their own choosing. After this, they had not one apostle only, but all the apostles, and many other witnesses with them: the apostles testified the resurrection not only to the people, but to the elders assembled in senate: to support their evidence, they worked miracles openly in the name of Christ: these people therefore have the least reason to complain, and have had of all others the fullest evidence, and in some respects such as none but themselves could have; for they only were the keepers of the sepulchre. But the argument goes further. It is said, that Jesus was sent with a special commission to the Jews, that he was their Messias: and as his resurrection was his main credential, he ought to have appeared publicly to the rulers of the Jews after his resurrection; that in doing otherwise, he acted like an ambassador pretending authority from his prince, but refusing to shew his letters of credence. In reply to this objection, it should be observed, that, by the accounts we have of the Lord Jesus, it appears he had two distinct offices respecting the present point; one, as the Messias particularly promised to the Jews; another, as he was to be the great high priest of the world. With respect to the first office, the apostle speaks, Hebrews 3:1 and he speaks of himself, Matthew 15:24. I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Christ continued in the discharge of this office during the time of his natural human life, till he was finally rejected by the Jews: and it is observable, that the last time he spoke to the Jews, according to St. Matthew's account, he solemnly took leave of them, and closed his commission in respect to his presence with them in the flesh. He had been long among them publishing glad things; but when all his preaching, all his miracles, had proved in vain, the last thing he did was to denounce the woes which they had brought upon themselves. Matthew 23 recites these woes, and at the end of them Christ takes this passionate leave of Jerusalem, "Ye shall not see me from henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." It is remarkable, thatthis passage, which is recorded by Matthew and Luke twice over, is determined by the circumstances to refer to the near approach of his own death, and the extreme hatred of the Jews to him; and therefore those words, Ye shall not see me henceforth, are to be dated from the time of his death, and manifestly point out the end of his mission to them. From making this declaration, as it stands in St. Matthew, his discourses are to his disciples, as they chiefly relate to the miserable condition of the Jews, which was now decreed, and soon to be accomplished. Let us now ask, whether in this state of things any farther credentials of Christ's commission to the Jews, could be demanded or expected? He was rejected, his commission was determined, and with it the fate of the nation was determined also; what use then of more credentials? As to appearing to them after his resurrection, he could not do it consistently with his own prediction, Ye shall see me no more, &c. The Jews, as a nation, were not in the disposition to receive him after the resurrection, nor are they in it yet. The resurrection was the foundation of Christ's new commission, as it respected the gospel, which extended to all the world. This prerogative the Jews had under this commission, that the gospel was every where first offered to them. Since then, this commission, of which the resurrection was the foundation, extended to all the world alike. What ground then is there to demand special and particular evidence to the Jews? The emperor and senate of Rome were a much more considerable part of the world than the chief priests and the synagogue; why is it not then objected, that Christ did not shew himself to Tiberius and his senate? And since all men have an equal right in this case, why may not the same demand be made for every country? nay, for every age? and then we may bring the question nearer home, and ask why Christ did not appear in king George's reign? The observation already made upon the resurrection, naturally leads to another, which will help to account for the nature of the evidence that we have on this great point. As the resurrection was the opening of a new commission, in which all the world had an interest; so the grand concern was to have a proper evidence to establish this truth, and which should be of equal weight to all. This did not depend upon the satisfaction given to private persons, whether they were magistrates or not magistrates, but upon the conviction of those whose office it was to bear testimony to this truth. In this sense, the apostles were chosen to be witnesses of the resurrection, because they were chosen to bear testimony to it in the world, and not only because they were admitted to see Christ after his resurrection; for the fact is otherwise. The gospel, indeed, concerned to shew the evidence on which the faith of the world was to rest, is very particular in setting forth the ocular demonstration which the apostles had of the resurrection, and mentions others who saw Christ after his resurrection only in course, and as the thread of the history led to it: but yet it is certain, that there were many others who had this satisfaction as well as the apostles; so that it is a mistake to infer from the passage before us, that a few only were chosen to see Christ after he came from the grave. The truth of the case is this, that out of those who saw him, some were chosen to bear testimony to the world, and for that reason had the fullest demonstration of the truth, that they might be the better able to give satisfaction to others: and what was there in this conduct to complain of? What to raise any jealousy or suspicion? To allege the meanness of the witnesses as an objection, is very weak; for men may be good witnesses without having great estates, and be able to report what they see with their eyes without being philosophers. As far then as the truth of the resurrection depended on the evidence of sense, the apostles were duly qualified. Did their meanness stand in the way of evidence, which arose from the great powers with which they were endued from above? Consider their natural and supernatural qualifications, they were in everyrespect proper witnesses: take these qualifications together, and they were witnesses without exception. It is indeed said, that they were interested in the affair. Would we then have evidence from unbelievers? A witness, who does not believe the truth of what he affirms, is a cheat. Nobody therefore could be an evidence of the resurrection but a believer, and such a one is said to be interested. But this is an absurd objection, because it is an objection to every honest witness that ever lived; for every honest witness believes the truth of what he says. If the objection is intended to charge the apostles with views or hopes of temporal advantage, it is built upon an utter ignorance of the history of the church. It may be demonstrated, that if Jesus had shewed himself to his enemies, and to all the people, these appearances, instead of putting his resurrection beyond doubt, would rather have weakened the evidence of it in after ages, and so would have been of infinite detriment to mankind: for upon the supposition that our Lord had shewed himself openly, either his enemies, yielding to the evidences of their senses, would have believed his resurrection, or, resisting that evidence, they would have rejected it altogether. To begin with the latter supposition: such of our Lord's enemies as then resisted the evidence of their senses, must have justified their unbeliefby affirming, that the man who appeared to them was not Jesus, but an impostor who personated him. The evidence of the fact would therefore have gained nothing by such public appearance, because the generality of the Jews were not capable of passing a judgment upon the falsehood which Christ's enemies must have made use of to support the denial of his resurrection. Being unacquainted with Jesus, they could not certainly tell whether he was really the person whom the Romans had crucified. His apostles, who knew his stature, shape, air, voice, and manner, were the only proper persons by whose determination the point in dispute could be decided. Wherefore, notwithstanding our Lord had appeared to all the people, the whole stress of the evidence, in case of any doubt or objection, must have relied on the testimony of the very persons who bear witness to it now, and on whose testimony the world has believed it. So that instead of gaining any additional evidence by Jesus's shewing himself publicly to all the people, we should have had nothing to trust to but the testimony of his disciples, and that clogged with this incumbrance, that his resurrection was denied by many to whom he appeared. But, in the second place, it may be fancied, that, on supposition that our Lord rose from the dead, the whole people of the Jews must have believed, if he had shewed himself publicly. To this supposition it may be replied, that the greatest part of our Lord's enemies cannot be supposed to have been so well acquainted with his person, as to have beenable to know him again with certainty; for which reason, though he had shewed himself to them, even their belief of his resurrection must have depended on the testimony of his disciples and friends. If so, it is not very probable that his appearing publicly would have had any great influence on the Jews. But supposing the Jewish nation in general should have been converted by his appearance, and have become his disciples, what advantage would the cause of Christianity have reaped from this effect? Would the evidence of theresurrectionhavebecometherebyunquestionable?Orwouldmoderninfidelshave been better disposed to believe it? By no means. The truth is, the objections against his resurrection would have been tenfold more numerous and forcible than they are at present: for would not the whole have been called a state trick, a Jewish fable, a mere political contrivance, to patch up their broken credit after so much talk of a Messiah who was to come at that time? Besides, should we not have been told, that the government being engaged in a plot, a fraud of this kind might easily have been carried on, because it suited with the prejudices of the people; and because the few, who had the sagacity to detect the fraud, had no opportunity to examine into it? Or if they did examine and detect the fraud, they durst not make a discovery? And to conclude, would not the very proofs which now are sufficient to attest this fact, have been buried in oblivion, and been entirely lost, for want of that opposition which the Jews themselves made to it, and which was the occasion of their being recorded in the Scripture?