288 The NEW and COMPLETE LIFE of our BLESSED LARD that were loft ; and poffibly the grand con- firmation of the whole rational fyffem, in their fubjefion to him who reigneth for ever, whofe favour is better than life Pfeil, and at whole right-hand there are pleafures for evermore. We have now followed our dear Re- deemer through all the tranfafions of his life, and enlarged on the flupendous mi- racle of his refurreaion, as the whole Chriflian doarine is founded on that glo- rious event. And it is abundantly evident from this hiflory, that our bleffed Saviour {hewed himfelf to his difciples and friends only, not to the Jews in general. This circumftance gave Spinoza a pretence for railing an objeaion, which his difciples have confidered as the ftrongeft argument againft our Lord's refurreaion. " If, fay they, he really arofe from the dead, to have {hewed himfelf to his enemies as well as to his friends, would have put the truth of his refurreaionbeyond all doubt, than which nothing could be more neceffary to the caufe of Chriftianity ; and, therefore, the fuppofition of his having confined his appearances, after his refurreaion, to a few feleët friends, renders the affair ex- tremely fufpicious and unworthy of cre- dit." This argument, however plaufible it may appear at firft fight, is defitute of the leaf force ; becaufe it may be demonftrated, that if Jesus had {hewed himfelf to his enemies, and to all the people in general, thefe appearances, inftead ofputting the truth of his refurrefion beyond all doubt, would have weakened the evidence of it, at lean in after-ages ; and, confequently, have beenof infinite prejudice tomankind : for, upon the fuppofition that our bleffed Saviour had fhewed himfelf openly, one of thefe two things mull neceffarily have hap- pened ; either his enemies, fubmitting to the evidence of their fenfes, would have believed his refurreétion, or, refilling that evidence, they would rejea it altogether. We flail begin with taking the latter into confideràtion. It is very evident, that thofe enemies of the great Redeemer ofmankind who refift, ed the evidence of their fences, or who, though really convinced, would not ac- knowledge their conviction, mull have juflified their difbelief by affirming that the perfon who appeared to them, as rifen from the dead, was not Jesus whom the Roman governor had crucified, but an im- poftor who perfonated him. On any other foundation their infidelity would have been ridiculous and abfurd ; but, if the unbe- lieving Jews, by our Lord's appearing per- fonally to them, would have been laid under a neceffity of denying" the reality of his refurre&ion, even though perfuaded of it in their own minds, the evidence of fa& could have gained nothing by fuels public appearances ; becaufe the generality of the Jews were not capable of palling ajudg- ment upon the falfhood which CHRIST'S enemies mull have made ufe ofto fupport their denial of his refurreéfion ; being un- acquainted with Jesus, they could not certainly tell whether he was really the very perfon whom the Romans had cruci- fied. His apoftles, difciples, and acquaint- ance, who, by their long attendance on him, knew his flature, fhape, air, voice, and manner, were the only proper perlons by whole- determination the point in dif- pute could . be decided ; confequently, if our Lord had appeared to all the people, if any confiderable number of his enemies had continued in their infidelity, the whole Rrefs of the evidence of his refurreéfion mull have relied on the evidence of the very perlons who, according to the plan pitched upon by Providence, bear witnefs to it now, and upon whofe teflimony the world has believed it: fo that, inffead of gaining an additional evidence, by the propofed method of !hewing Jesus pub- licly to all the people, we fhould have had nothing to trufl to but the teflimony ofhis difciples, and that clogged with this incum- berance, that his refùrreftion was denied by many towhomhe appeared,andwhowere not convinced by the to-imony oftheir fences. In
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=