Page images
PDF
EPUB

desirous of being considered, in the eyes of the people, as guilty of the blood of an innocent person. On the soldiers' sleeping, I would finally remark, that of all occasions and of all seasons, that occasion and that season were most unfavourable for sleeping. This same Jesus, whose body they were guarding, not many hours before, had been put to death at the instigation of the Jews, whose king, MESSIAH, and deliverer, he had affirmed himself to be. He had declared himself to be the Son of God; had asserted that, though dead, he should arise again. When he gave up the ghost, nature seemed convulsed; the dead left their graves; the rocks confessed some mighty power, and were rent asunder. The minds of all the people had been occupied, and were still occupied, with the novelty, mysteriousness, and importance of what had taken place. These soldiers knew all, which had been done; they themselves, in all probability, had borne a part in the transactions, which preceded and accompanied the crucifixion; were of the number of those, who had arrayed him with mock ensigns of royalty; had insultingly cried, "Hail, king of the Jews!" had spit upon him; and smitten him with the reed, which, in derision, they compelled him to carry, as a sceptre. Notwithstanding these insults, their own consciences must have testified, as Pilate's did, that he was a blameless person; that what they had done, they performed, not because any thing in his life was worthy of reproach, but in the hard-hearted merriment of a Roman soldiery, to whom executions were pastimes,

rather than scenes of pity. The time was now rapidly approaching, when, according to his prediction, he should rise from the dead.

It was the stillness of night; apprehension was awake; curiosity was alive-could the soldiers sleep? A few moments would decide, whether the object of their watch were the body of a crucified malefactor, or whether the Lord of glory would arise from the tomb. If even these soldiers, in such a time, could sleep, they were not men, but beings, in whom some of the most distinguishing traits of the human character were wanting..

But I affirm that the soldiers never told the Sanhedrim the story of stealing the body; and that for these good reasons. First, the soldiers were awake and on guard; they were therefore witnesses of whatever took place; and, if the body were removed, they must have known, and been consenting to it; the improbability of which, i.e. of their consenting, is sufficiently evident from the fact, that the opposers of the resurrection, who catch at any thing to save their cause, never, I believe, attributed to the soldiers any connivance with the disciples; or, on the other hand, if they were not witnesses of what took place, whereas they were not asleep, they must have been supernaturally influenced, in order to prevent their knowledge of what was transacted. But they, who would admit such a preternatural influence, would, I suppose, concede to us the resurrection. On either supposition then, that the soldiers were witnesses, or were not, it would seem, that they were not the authors of the story. Secondly,

the guard had every motive for not publishing such a tale. The publishing of it would have been an acknowledgment of a capital offence, and the soldiers well knew that the Jewish Sanhedrim would be the first men in the world to expose them, in such a case, to the penalty of the law. They would expect to be questioned at once, "if the disciples came for the body, why did you not apprehend them?" But, "we were asleep." "How then do you know the truth of what you assert the world must be persuaded by another story than this, and we shall see that you reap the full reward of your neglect." Thirdly, had the soldiers been asleep, or had they suffered the body to be stolen; they would, beyond a question, have asserted its resurrection; if asleep, to secure them from punishment; if conniving at the theft, besides the avoiding punishment, to carry on the deception. I am aware of one objection to what has been said concerning the fabrication of the story. It

is this; "Had the story been so very improbable, those acute men, who composed the Sanhedrim, would never have published it; but it is certain, that they did publish it, and the Jews to this day give credit to it; the more then you endeavour to show its improbability, the more you establish its probability; that is, your argument defeats itself." I answer; whether the story is probable or not, any man inay judge for himself, as well now as eighteen hundred years ago, so far as facts are handed down to us. But remark, these men had but one alternative; either to report that the disciples

removed the body, or to admit its resurrection. Let any one reflect as much as he pleases, he will find, it is believed, no other. Now the resurrection is out of the question; a thing in no way to be admitted. The disciples then removed the body, and in so doing acted by stealth, or by permission of the keepers; of the two, the removing of it.by stealth, no doubt, is the more probable supposition, improbable as it is; and so, it seems, the Jews considered it. Remark farther, that men always admit with readiness any thing to disprove what they vehemently wish to be untrue, or that others should believe to be false. No great wonder, therefore, that the Sanhedrim, in their trying dilemma, fabricated even this improbable tale, to screen themselves from the imputed guilt of having put to death the MESSIAH of their nation.

Arguments to prove the resurrection of Jesus might be greatly multiplied. I know of no fact in history, which I would sooner undertake to evince, with the hope of success, were men as willing to believe things of everlasting, as they are of temporary moment. The stealing of the body of Christ was incomparably the most probable story, which the sagacity of the most sagacious among the Jews could invent, in order to convince mankind; and it is the only one, on which to this hour the whole people of the Jews, scattered throughout the world, found their disbelief of the resurrection. The absurdity of the story I have endeavoured to expose in a short and perspicuous manner, by laying hold of some of the most prominent circumstances,

which present themselves to an inquirer. If Christ Jesus arose from the dead, the Christian religion is true; if this religion is true, it behoves all men to embrace it; for it assures us, that salvation can be hoped for from no other. Whether we admit the evidence of the resurrection, therefore, or not, is no trifling matter; our interest is to know and obey the truth, whatever it is, and the truth alone will make us free. B. C.

REPLY OF LUTHER TO J. C.

DEAR SIR,

It is no small satisfaction to observe the traits of an inge nious, inquisitive, and candid mind, which your communications display. Such a mind is suited to understand and receive the truth. The additional remarks, which I have to suggest, shall be as concise as possible. For such controversies, when carried to a great length, seldom fail to become unprofitable and irksome to readers.

1. It cannot be unobserved, that you have changed your ground. In your first communication you took the ground of objection against the doctrine of the saints' perseverance. Your arguments were expressed in such decisive terms and urged with so much energy, and such a cast was given to the whole performance, that it was natural for readers to consider you, as not fully believing the doctrine. At least, it is certain, that all you wrote was against it. But now, without any notice, you take ground entirely different. Your remarks,

you tell us, 66 are by no means intended directly or indirectly to

operate against the doctrine of the saints' perseverance." The difficulties, which your first paper unfolded, seem all to have vanished. In short, your first appearance was wholly in the dress and manners of an Arminian. Your second exhibits you an old Calvinist. This change, which is not by any means cen sured, must be kept in mind in order to a proper treatment of the subject. the subject. Before, my business was to remove objections against the doctrine of perseverance. Now it is quite different,

2. Your concessions deserve notice, You acknowledge the candour of Luther's observations; and, if you view his arguments as intended to defend the doctrine of perseverance upon the ancient Calvinistic ground, you concede that many of them have ingenuity and force. You speak in another place of their being clear and forcible in themselves, Now if Luther's arguments have a spirit of candour; if they are clear and forcible in themselves, and forcible too on that Calvinis. tic ground, which you choose to occupy; they are, one would think, just what you desired, and certainly answer the purpose, for which they were written. Why then are they not satisfactory? Because you have suspicions as to Luther's design. It may be proper, therefore, to remark,

now

3. On the sentiments, which you are pleased to charge against Luther. Although you do not directly call in question the strength of his arguments; yet there is something, which leads you to suspect, that he did not mean to defend the doctrine on Calvinistic ground. Still you

do not feel very confident. Your
language is that of uncertainty.
"We may have mistaken the
design of the writer." You may
feel assured, that the licence you
have taken to conjecture L.'s
meaning has exposed you to
mistake. You charge him with
holding," that David did totally
apostatize from God and holi-
ness; that he fell, for a time, in-
to precisely the same moral
state, in which he was previous-
ly to his conversion; that other
good men are sometimes entire-
ly holy, and sometimes entire
ly sinful," &c. All this you in
fer from the following passage.
It is asked, what would have be
come of David, if he had died in
the midst of his crimes? Luther
replies, If he had died impenitent,
he would have been lost. Here
you think Luther fairly con- 4. Let us, with care, attend
cedes, "that, in his opinion, Da to the construction of Heb. vi. 4,
vid did totally apostatize from 5, 6. It may be pertinent to re-
God and holiness; that he fell mark, that the question among
into precisely the same moral Calvinists, who adopt different
state, in which he was previous constructions of this text, does
ly to his conversion." Luther not relate to the theory of divine
freely owns that his idea was not truth. It is merely this; whethe
so clearly and definitely express- er the passage contains one or
ed, as it ought to have been, and the other of two sentiments,
that his language may possibly which are equally admitted on
give some occasion for your in- both sides. In other words, the
ference. He therefore begs question respects no essential
leave to remark, that when he truth of religion, but merely the
uses the expression, "if David construction of a particular text,
had died impenitent, he would It is also granted that many
have been lost," he does not plausible arguments have been
mean that David, in order to sal- urged in favour of each of the
vation, must have died in the act two constructions. Nor do I
of repentance. A regenerate pretend to decide, with certainty,
person, whose pious exercises which arguments preponderate.
are suspended in the last solemn It is my first wish, that the ar-
scene, has as sure a title to hea- guments on both sides may be
ven, as one, who dies, triumph- fairly exhibited, and that readers
ing in faith and hope. The would form a conclusion, not ac-
mercy of God has not made sal- cording to my judgment, but ac-
vation to depend on the act of recording to the truth. While I

pentance and faith in a dying hour.
David was a good man, a penitent,
a believer. If he had turned from
penitence to impenitence; if he
had become a re-impenitent, or
a total apostate from religion, he
would have been lost. This is
Luther's meaning. "If David
had died impenitent; or as he
would now more fully and defi-
nitely express it; if he had
again become an impenitent sin-
ner, or had totally apostatized
from God and holiness, he would
have been lost." But is it in-.
volved in the nature of a suppo-
sition, that the thing supposed
does or must actually take
place? Because Luther says, if
believers should become apos-
tates, they would perish; can he
be charged with holding, that
they are apostates in fact?

suggest some of the considerations, which favour one construction, I should be gratified if some writer would exhibit, to the best advantage, the arguments, which may be used to support the other.*

1. It is urged, that the passage respects the regenerate, because the description is too high for any unregenerate persons. Tasting the heavenly gift; being made partakers of the Holy Ghost; tasting the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, and all other phrases like them, in their common scripture use, refer to the renewed. All the phrases, here employed, taken together, form a description, which none would think of applying to the unrenewed, were it not for the supposition of their falling away, which is introduced at the close. But this is nothing different from the language of solemn caution, which Scripture often addresses to the saints.

2. Do not these words, "It is impossible to renew them again to repentance," clearly denote, that the persons intended had been once renewed to repentance? If true repentance, or as Dr. Owen allows," if a gracious change of mind," is meant in the last place, is it not meant in the former? If true repentance be not meant, what is the evil pointed out? It is impossible to renew them to a false, ungracious repentance.

3. Does not the supposition, that the characters intended by the apostle were unrenewed or

* The Editors are happy to have it in their power to present these arguments as stated by a very able and Accomplished writer. See page 466.

hypocritical, render his reasoning nugatory? If unrenewed sinners, partially reformed, fall away, from what? from their serious, though ungracious profession and deportment; it is impossible to renew them to repentance. Thus falling away, they shall cer tainly perish. But it is equally true, that if they do not fall away, but continue as they are, they shall perish. Is it not difficult to conceive, that the apostle used so many solemn words, merely to warn men not to fall away from a state in which it was death to remain? These, with some other considerations, incline me at present to think, that the passage belongs to the regenerate. According to this construction, the apostle informs Christians, what would be the consequence of their falling away. It would be impossible to renew them again to repentance. "This," you say, "is Luther's explanation of the passage. But he still believes that David did fall away, and that every renewed person frequently falls away, and yet is renewed to repentance." But what has Luther said that implies this? With reference to David, indeed, he spoke of believers' falling. But surely the difference between fulling, and falling away, is evident. The old English translations render this passage, if they shall fall; which Dr. Owen well observes, "expressed not the import of the word.”

The best saints on earth fall, but do not fall away. The Greek word here rendered falt away, is the same, which the Septuagint use, Ezek. xviii. 24, where the case of apostates is mentioned. "In his trespass that he

« PreviousContinue »