bloodless character. It is noticeable that the "flesh and bones" of the body of the resurrection are spoken of, but never is the phrase "flesh and blood" used, nor blood spoken of in connection with it. S. Paul's words in 1 Cor. xv. 50 seem expressly to deny the connection. This has been much dwelt on by modern writers; and though it may not be pressed too far, both because it is unimportant to us now, and because there is no express declaration of Scripture in its favour, yet it may be thought to be inferred, with reasonable probability, from the peculiar terms in which the body of the resurrection is spoken of. It seems also probable that "the blood, which is the life thereof," with regard to the mortal and corruptible body, the arrest of whose circulation in that body is death, should be wanting in "that body which shall be," which is endued with a new and spiritual principle of vitality, a "more abundant" life, communicated to it by Christ. The question must remain unsettled until we rise in this " newness of life," and know the mysteries of the spiritual body; but it is now surely a legitimate subject for reverent speculation.

In His risen humanity Christ now arose with a spiritual body. But though the indisputable fact of the resurrection is declared, and rests upon evidence more carefully and distinctly set forth than perhaps any other single fact of history, there were no witnesses of the act of resurrection itself. We know that it was on the morning of the third day, and that, in the ways of Jewish speaking and reckoning, He had lain in the grave portions of the "three days and three nights" which constitute days of solar ruling; that is, that on the evening of the first day He was placed in the grave, where He lay throughout the second day, and rose again early upon the third day, before day had broken, but after its hours had begun their reckoning, according to the Jewish computation.

Very early He rose. The guard was at the sepulchre, but not all sleeping, we may be sure; but yet there were

no spectators of the mightiest of all the miracles of Christ, unless there were angel witnesses. None, therefore, saw Christ come forth from the tomb. It may be that as He passed unnoticed into the midst of His disciples (John xx. 19), so He passed forth into the world, through the midst of the guard, without regard to the closed sepulchre, and withholding recognition of Himself at will. He rose from the dead; but as there were no human witnesses of this act of power, so upon this mystery of His resurrection we may not too curiously gaze or speculate. But the powers of nature, which had shuddered when He died upon the cross, hailed the resurrection. "There was a great earthquake," and then, in the brightness of celestial glory, the angel of God became visible (Matt. xxviii. 2); others of these glorious beings (cf. Mark xvi. 5; Luke xxiv. 4, 12, 23; John xx. 1, 5-7, 12) kept revealing and withdrawing themselves from human gaze, as if the place of Christ's burial was thronged with visitants of heaven. Terror seized upon the guard; and though all could not, as the rulers lied, have slept (Matt. xxviii. 12, 13)—an impossibility in the case of sixty Roman soldiers they sunk as dead men in the presence of the angel. They must have had one glimpse of the open sepulchre, from which the angel rolled away the mighty stone, and sat upon it, forbidding its replacement by act or lie of man; and, behold, the sepulchre was empty! The Evangelist who tells the falsehood of the rulers, tells also the true story (which the guard must themselves have declared, to them and to others, whence he derived it) of the great earthquake; of the descent of the dread angel; of his rolling back the stone, and sitting upon it; of the empty sepulchre, and then that they knew no more (Matt. xxviii. 2-4, 11-15).

Of the fact of the resurrection of Christ there can be no doubt possible, to a fair exercise of the reason which God has given to man; there is none open to that faith which would "know Christ and the power of His resur

rection." It is not necessary here to dwell upon the proofs on which it rests as truth, upon which so much has been written in all ages. As the great fact in which mankind are more deeply concerned than in any other, it has been examined with a scrutiny which must have detected and exposed any valid flaw in evidence-a scrutiny both on the part of those who have endeavoured to deny and overthrow it, and also on the part of those who have been conscious, that upon it rested all their hopes of immortality and happiness. We may feel assurance of it, since the eye of an enemy has not succeeded in detecting failure. But much more keen, even than that of an enemy, is the eye of love and hope; and this, too, has been satisfied of the truth.

It may suffice here to quote the words in which Bishop Andrewes has admirably expressed the results of different modes of examination and evidence: "The resurrection became credible at first by the certainty of them that saw it (i.e. the risen Christ after His resurrection); then by the constancy of them that died for confession of it; and to us now the multitude of them that have and do believe it maketh it credible. For if it is not credible, how is it credible that the world could believe it? the world, I say, being neither enjoined by authority, nor forced by fear, nor inveigled by allurement; but brought about by persons, by means less credible than the story itself. Gamaliel said, 'If it be of God, it will prevail.' That which all the powers of the earth fought, but could not prevail against, was from heaven certainly."

The Forty Days.

Such

THERE are certain difficulties with regard to the exact order of events in which the witnesses of the resurrection come before us, which are remarked in the notes, but which require a passing notice here. It is extraordinary how distinct and connected a narrative we gather, in spite of these difficulties, from the combined accounts of the Evangelists. Indeed, the difficulties of the order are of inferior importance; they are sufficient to exercise the ingenuity of the critic and the commentator, but altogether insufficient to raise, or ground, any reasonable doubt as to the credibility of the great fact. questions, for instance, may be cited, as whether the guard lay long entranced, or at once recovered themselves and fled; whether the women, on their arrival at the sepulchre, found the guard lying in their deathlike swoon, and then looked up and saw the angel and the open sepulchre-as some have argued from the angel's words in Matt. xxviii. 5, "Fear not ye" (see II. i. 15) or whether the guard had fled before the arrival of the women; whether there were two parties of women, or one only, and whether that one returned to the sepulchre after seeing the Apostles, and before Christ met them,-questions which have been most hotly disputed; whether Mary Magdalene delivered her story alone to the Apostles, or had overtaken the other women, and went with them to the presence of the Apostles

(cf. Luke xxiv. 10, 11; Mark xvi. 9-11; John xx. 18); whether the report of the women was given before the disciples to whom Christ manifested Himself at Emmaus, or they heard it from others, or had not heard the additional report of Peter and John before they set out for Emmaus. These, and many other similar points, are of great interest; but not one of them can be rightly said to pass out of the limits of theory, criticism, and inquiry, into those which include doubts of historic accuracy and truth; doubts on which argument might rest, which could shake the credit of the great fact itself, and render our faith vain. (See 1 Cor. xv. 12-20.)

Without, therefore, discussing these (most of them being mentioned in the notes), we may proceed to show the order of events, as it may with fair probability be harmonized from the Evangelists and inspired records. As so many points of such a harmony are matters of criticism far beyond the scope and limits of the present treatise, it may suffice to say that it has been constructed after careful consideration of the arguments of all available authorities upon this subject.

I.* Very early in the morning, when the sabbath was over, but in the darkness which soon gave place to the signs of the dawn of day, a company of women (including those who noted the position of the sepulchre and the burial of Christ, and who had made that preparation of spices which the sabbath interrupted) set out from the city, bearing what they had prepared for the burial rites of Christ. They may have set out, probably, from the house of Salome, the mother of John, where Mary, the mother of Jesus, was now staying. Mary was not herself, however, one of this party of mourners; not merely because she was overborne by too much sorrow, but perhaps rather because in her heart (so observant and

* The numbers of these sections are those of the order of times of Christ's appearance.