" (Acts x. 40, 41.) The most common
understanding must have perceived that the history of the resurrection
would have come with more advantage if they had related that Jesus
appeared, after he was risen, to his foes as well as his friends, to the
scribes and Pharisees, the Jewish council, and the Roman governor: or
even if they had asserted the public appearance of Christ in general
unqualified terms, without noticing, as they have done, the presence of
his disciples on each occasion, and noticing it in such a manner as to
lead their readers to suppose that none but disciples were present. They
could have represented in one way as well as the other. And if their
point had been to have their religion believed, whether true or false;
if they had fabricated the story ab initio; or if they had been disposed
either to have delivered their testimony as witnesses, or to have worked
up their materials and information as historians, in such a manner as to
render their narrative as specious and unobjectionable as they could; in
a word, if they had thought of anything but of the truth of the case, as
they understood and believed it; they would in their account of Christ's
several appearances after his resurrection, at least have omitted this
restriction.
Pages:
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372