Chapter XXVII: Part 27

Here we may observe, that, after the Jews had done their worst against him, and he was taken from the cross, there was a becoming honour and respect shewed to his sacred Body; and herein that scripture was fulfilled, _He made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death_, Isa. liii. 9. which words, indeed, seem to have some difficulty in them, as they are thus translated; for, though he was crucified with the wicked, it can hardly be said that he made his grave with them; and therefore I would chuse to render them, as some expositors do,[220] _His grave was appointed_, viz. by his persecutors, to have been _with the wicked_, that is, they designed to have thrown him into the common grave of malefactors, who had no marks of respect shewn them: but it was otherwise with Christ, for _he made his grave with the rich_, that is, he was buried in the tomb of Joseph, a rich and honourable counsellor, where he himself designed to lie, which he had thrown out of the rock for that purpose. This honour, as the prophet observes, was conferred on our Saviour, _because he had done no violence; neither was deceit found in his mouth_.

There were several reasons why God ordained that he should be buried, and that in such a way and place, as he was; for,

(1.) His burial was a convincing proof to the world that he was really dead; so much depended upon his death, that it was thought necessary that there should be an abundant evidence thereof. It is, indeed, expressly said, that _he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost_, John xix. 30. and his enemies were convinced thereof, and therefore thought it needless to break his legs, as they did those of the thieves, who were crucified with him; providence ordering this, that _that scripture should be fulfilled_, which fore-signified, that a _bone of him should not be broken_. But, besides this, that there might be a farther proof that he was really dead, it is said, that, even when they knew it, they _pierced his side_, which, of itself, would have killed him, had he not been dead: this they did, that they might be sure he was dead, before they took him down from the cross, chap. xix. 33, 34. And it is farther observed, that Pilate, his unjust judge, was resolved to be satisfied that he was really dead, before he gave orders for his being taken down from the cross: thus it is said, that Pilate _marvelled if he were already dead; and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead?_ Mark xv. 44. It may be, the reason why they were so inquisitive to know whether he were really dead, or no, was because he seemed to die in his full strength; for there is something remarkable in that expression, when the evangelist says, _Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost_, ver. 37. whereby it appeared, that his spirits were not so much exhausted, but that he might, according to the course of nature, have lived longer; but he seemed by an act of his own will, to surrender his soul to God. This was so remarkable an occurrence, that it was not merely by accident that it is mentioned by the evangelist; and, indeed, it was the means of the centurion’s conviction that he was the Son of God, ver. 39.

(2.) Providence ordered that he should be buried by persons of reputation and honour, that so the world might know, that how much soever the rude multitude despised him, persons of figure and character in the world paid a due respect to him, John xix. 39, 40.

(3.) It was farther ordained, that he should be buried in a new tomb, wherein never man was laid; that so his resurrection might be more fully demonstrated, that none might pretend that another was raised instead of him, since no other was buried in this grave.

The fine linen, in which his body was wrapped, and the sweet spices, or perfumed ointment, with which it was embalmed, was not only agreeable to the method of sepulture, used by the Jews, but it was a public testimony of that respect which his friends bore to him, to whom his memory was precious: so that Nicodemus, who, before this, was afraid to come publickly to him, or who, as it is said, at the first, came to Jesus by night, _brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, and they took the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes, with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury_, chap. xix. 30, 40.

2. As Christ died, and was buried, so he continued under the power of death till the third day; this the apostle calls, _Death’s having dominion over him_, Rom. vi. 9. and it must be reckoned a part of his humiliation, as well as the act of dying; for,

_1st_, Though his soul enjoyed the bliss and happiness of heaven, immediately after his death, as he tells the penitent thief, that _that day he should be with him in paradise_, Luke xxiii. 43. yet, inasmuch as it was, when separate, in a state of imperfection, and had a natural desire, and hope of re-union with the body, this argues that there were some degrees of perfect blessedness, that it was not then possessed of.

_2dly_, So long as he continued under the power of death, he was not fully discharged by the justice of God; neither was the work of satisfaction complete, till he was declared to be the Son of God with power, and to have fully conquered death and hell, by his resurrection from the death; this was therefore a part of his humiliation.

_3dly_, His body, while remaining a prisoner in the grave, could not actively bring that glory to God, which it did before, or would do after its resurrection; and it was, at that time, incapable of the heavenly blessedness, and, in particular, of its being so glorious a body, as now it is.

All these things attending the state of separate souls, or the unseen state, into which Christ is said to go, immediately after his death, some call, as it is observed in this answer, his descent into hell, which is what we are next to consider: but, since this is largely and judiciously handled by several writers,[221] I shall insist on it with brevity. And,

[1.] Consider it as founded on scripture, as the judicious Calvin does,[222] without regard had to its being inserted in any creed of human composure: thus it is said, _Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption_, Acts ii. 27. where it seems, as the author but now mentioned observes, to be put before his death; and therefore he supposes, that the apostle hereby intends the sufferings which our Saviour endured in his soul, which were not, in all respects, unlike the punishment due to sin in hell: and herein he is followed by several modern writers; and the principal reason, which they assign for it, is, because, as our Surety, he endured all the essential parts of that punishment, which our sins had deserved; and therefore they suppose, that he endured an afflictive sensation of the wrath of God, which bore some resemblance to that which is endured in hell.

But, though I would not extenuate Christ’s sufferings, especially in that part thereof, that was most formidable to him, which was the cup that he desired, if it were possible, that it might pass from him; nor can we suppose that any thing less than a view which he had of the wrath of God, due to our sins, would fill him with that horror and amazement, which he expressed: yet we ought carefully to distinguish between this part of his sufferings, and the punishment of sin in hell, inasmuch as he was exempted from the sting of conscience, and a constant sense of the everlasting displeasure of God, together with despair of any better condition, or the least relaxation, as a judicious writer observes.[223] And besides, it is expressly said, in this scripture, Thou wilt not leave my soul; which shews, that though he might be destitute of the comfortable sense of God’s presence, which occasioned him to cry out, _My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?_ yet he was not destitute of the supporting presence of God, nor separate from his love, which always redounded to his Person; though the effects of God’s wrath, which he bore, might fill him with the greatest uneasiness, from the afflictive view, which he had thereof in his soul. However, though the sense of this text must be thus qualified, if we suppose that it denotes Christ’s sufferings in his soul before his death; yet it does not sufficiently appear that the apostle speaks of his sufferings antecedent to it; because it is brought in as an argument, to prove that he should be raised from the dead, and accordingly his flesh is said to rest in hope; therefore we shall proceed,

[2.] To consider Christ’s descent into hell, as contained in one of the articles of the creed, that is commonly attributed to the apostles, which is particularly referred to, in the answer under our present consideration, wherein it is put after his death. Here something might have been premised concerning that Creed in general, and the reason of inserting this article in it: but this having been insisted on with great judgment by others,[224] all that I shall add, is, that notwithstanding what we meet with in some fabulous and spurious writings, this Creed was not compiled by the apostles, how consonant soever it be to the doctrines laid down by them: for we have no account given of it by any ancient writers before the fourth century, therefore it is of later date, than either the Nicene or Athanasian Creed; the former of which was composed about the year of our Lord 325, the latter not long after it. In the Nicene Creed, there is no mention made of Christ’s descent into hell, though the Athanasian Creed inserts it; but there is no mention therein of his being buried. The words are these: He descended into hell, and the third day he arose from the dead; from whence some conclude, that nothing else is intended but his being buried, or continuing in the state of the dead, till his resurrection.[225] Some think, indeed, that there was a marginal note in some copies of this Creed, to explain what is meant by his descending into hell, namely, that he was buried; which the compilers of the apostles Creed afterwards thought to be a part of the Creed itself, and therefore they add, that he died, was buried, and descended into hell. But passing by this critical remark, concerning the reason of the insertion hereof in this article, we shall proceed to consider how this is explained, by various writers, who treat on this subject. And,

(1.) The Papists and Lutherans assert that our Saviour descended locally into hell after his death; not to suffer any of the torments that are endured there, but to shew himself as a conqueror over those who are detained in it, and triumph over them. As for the Papists, they suppose, that he went also into a place, which they describe[226] as a prison, where the souls of the old Testament-saints were detained, as being incapable of entering into heaven, inasmuch as they had not a sufficient discovery of Christ and the gospel made to them, while they were here on earth; and therefore they were detained in this, which we may call a fictitious place, which they represent as being between heaven and hell; not, indeed, according to them, a place of torment, but they suppose it was such, in which they were destitute of the heavenly blessedness; and they add, that immediately after Christ appeared among them, and manifested himself to them, they believed; in which sense they understand that scripture, where it is said, that _the gospel was preached to them that are dead_, 1 Pet. iv. 6. and, upon this, he carried them with him into heaven. This opinion of Christ’s descending locally into hell, is very absurd, and contrary to scripture; particularly,

_1st_, To what he says to the penitent thief upon the cross, _To-day thou shalt be with me in paradise_, Luke xxiii. 43. by which, doubtless he means heaven, which is called paradise in other scriptures, 2 Cor. xii. 2. compared with 4. and Rev. ii. 7. The method which the Papists take to evade the force of this argument, is, by pretending that our Saviour speaks of his being with him in heaven, as he is there in his divine nature; or, since that appears to be so great a strain on the sense of the text, that very few will much regard it; they have another evasion, which is as little to the purpose, by pretending, that there ought to be a stop put after the words to day; and so the meaning is, that now at this time, I say unto thee, that thou shalt be with me in paradise, or heaven, when I ascend into it, after I have descended into hell, and that other place which I must go to, before I come to heaven: but this sense of the text is so evasive, that none, who read the scripture impartially, can suppose that it is just; and therefore nothing farther need be said to it.

_2dly_, It appears that Christ immediately went into heaven, as to his soul, when he died upon the cross, from his last words, _Father, into thine hands I commend my spirit; which having said, he gave up the ghost_, Luke xxiii. 46. This giving up himself to God, implies a desire that God would receive his spirit; even as Stephen said, with his dying breath, _Lord Jesus, receive my spirit_, Acts vii. 59. Christ, in effect, desires that God would receive his spirit; and can we suppose this prayer to be unanswered, or that he was not immediately received into heaven?

We might farther have shown how little ground they have to conclude that Christ went to preach the gospel to those, who, by reason of the darkness of the Old Testament-dispensation, were detained in prison, as being unfit for the heavenly state: but the falseness of this supposition has been considered elsewhere,[227] and therefore pass it over at present. And as for that scripture, which they bring in defence hereof, that Christ went and preached to the spirits in prison, 1 Pet. iii. 19. it is plain from the context, that the apostle means nothing else thereby, but his sending Noah to preach to the old world, who were disobedient, and, for this, were sent into the prison of hell, _after the long-suffering of God had waited on them while the ark was building_. How easy a matter is it for those, who regard but the analogy of faith, or the context of those scriptures, which they bring in defence of their wild absurdities, to pretend to prove any thing from scripture![228]

As to what they say concerning Christ’s descending into hell, to triumph over the devils, and others, who were there plunged into that abyss of misery, this conjecture has no foundation in scripture. We read, indeed of his _spoiling principalities and powers, and making a shew of them openly, triumphing over them_; but it was _in his cross_, and not in hell, Col. ii. 15. and elsewhere of his _destroying him that had the power of death, that is, the devil_, Heb. ii. 14. But it was not by going in his own Person into that place, where he is detained in chains of darkness; it was not by any thing done by him after his death, but, as it is expressed, by death, as he purchased that victory, which he obtained over him on the cross, which was the seat of his triumph in this respect; and therefore there is no foundation to assert his local descent into hell.

(2.) The most probable opinion concerning Christ’s descent into hell, which I cannot but acquiesce in, is what is observed in this answer, as implying his continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day. The word _hell_, indeed, in our English tongue, generally, if not always, signifies that place of torment, which they are adjudged to, who are for ever excluded from the divine favour: thus it is said, concerning the rich man in the parable, that _in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments_, Luke xvi. 23. But the Hebrew and Greek words,[229] which we often translate _hell_, have not only that, but another sense affixed to them, as they sometimes signify the _grave_; so our translators frequently render the word; as when Jacob speaks of _bringing down his gray hairs with sorrow to the grave_, Gen. xlii. 38. and elsewhere it is said, _The Lord killeth and maketh alive; he bringeth down to grave, and bringeth up_, 1 Sam. ii. 6. And it is taken for the state of the dead: thus Jacob, when he thought that his son Joseph was torn in pieces, without being laid in the grave, says, _I will go down into the grave, unto my son_, Gen. xxxvii. 35. There are many other places in which the Hebrew word is so rendered; and as for the Greek word, that, according to its proper derivation and signification, denotes the state of the dead, or the unseen state: thus our Saviour, after death, continued in the state of the dead, his soul being separate from his body till the third day, when his state of humiliation was finished.

This leads us to consider Christ’s state of exaltation.

Footnote 216:

_A piece of silver is the same which is elsewhere called a shekel,
which was valued at about half a crown, English money; so that the
whole price for which our Saviour was sold into their hands, was no
more than three pounds fifteen shillings._

Footnote 217:

_Pilate is characterized, by various writers, as a man of inhuman
cruelty, insatiable avarice, and inflexible obstinacy. An instance of
his cruelty we have mentioned in Luke_ xiii. _1. in his mingling_ the
blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices, _that is, as some
suppose he fell upon them without a fair trial, and murdered them
while they were engaged in a solemn act of religious worship, offering
sacrifice at Jerusalem, in one of the public festivals; pretending,
though without a fair trial, that they were of the same mind, with
Judas of Galilee, who had persuaded many of the Galileans to refuse to
give tribute to Cæsar. A learned writer_ (Vid. Grot. in Luke xiii. 1.)
_supposes, not only that this was the occasion of this inhuman action,
which is not improbable, (though Josephus makes no mention of it) but
also that this is one of those things which was reported to the
emperor, who did not approve of it. And afterwards there were other
instances of his oppression and mal-administration laid before
Tiberius, which, had not that emperor’s death prevented, it would have
occasioned his disgrace; and afterwards he fell under the displeasure
of his successor, and was not only turned out of his procuratorship,
but reduced to such miserable circumstances, that he laid violent
hands on himself_, (Vid. Phil. Jud. de Leg. ad Caj. & Joseph. Antiq.
Lib. XVIII. cap. 5. & Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. II. cap. 7.)
_Therefore we may well suppose, that though he had, in other respects
no regard to the Jews; yet, on this occasion, he feared, lest they
should report his vile actions to the emperor, and that they would
represent this to him with a malicious insinuation, that he was his
enemy, because he spared our Saviour: this occasioned him to deliver
him up to them, to do what they would with him._

Footnote 218:

_Vid. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. 8_.

Footnote 219:

_It is frequently styled, by the Romans, Servile supplicium_, (Vid.
Val. Max. Lib. II. de discipl. milit. § 12.) _as being inflicted, by
them, on none but slaves; so one_ (Vid. Ter. Andr.) _represents a
master speaking to his servant_, Quid meritus es? _To which he
replies, Crucem. & Juv. in Satyr, 6. says_, Pone Crucem servo. _Cicero
inveighs, with so much earnestness, against this severe and cruel
punishment, that he signifies how glorious and delightful a thing it
would be for him to declaim against it, not only at the expence of his
strength, but of his very life_: Quorum ego de acerbissima morte,
crudelissimoq; cruciatu dicam, cum eum locum tractare cœpero; & ita
dicam, ut si me in ea querimonia, quam sum habiturus de istius
crudelitate, & de civium Rom, indignissima morte, non modo vires,
verum etiam vita deficiat, id mihi præclarum & jucundum putem. _And
elsewhere he intimates, that it was universally reckoned the highest
crime to crucify any one that was free of Rome, in a beautiful climax,
or gradation of expression_: Facinus est, vinciri civem Romanum;
scelus verberari: prope parricidium necari: quid dicam in crucem
tollere? (Vid. Orat. in Verr. Lib. V.) _And elsewhere he says_, Nomen
ipsum crucis, absit non modo a corpore civium Romanorum, sed etiam a
cogitatione, oculis, auribus. _And he adds concerning it, together
with other cruelties that attended it_, Harum enim omnium rerum non
solum eventus, atque perpessio, sed etiam conditio, expectatio, mentio
ipsa denique, indigna cive Romano, atque homine libero est. (Vid.
Orat. pro C. Rabir.) _As for the cruelty of this death, it was so
great, that the greatest tortures that are expressed by the word
Cruciatus, are plainly derived from Crux: and some of the Roman
emperors, who were of a more merciful disposition than others,
considering the inhumanity of this kind of death, when they exposed
some persons for their crimes to public shame upon the cross, ordered
them first to be put to death by the sword._

Footnote 220:

_See Lowth in loc._

Footnote 221:

_Vid. Wits. in Symbol. Exercitat. 18. and Pearson on the Creed,
Article 5. and Parker de descensu Christi ad inferos._

Footnote 222:

_Vid. Institut. Lib. II. cap. 16. § 10._

Footnote 223:

_Vid. Pearson on the Creed, Artic. 5._

Footnote 224:

_Vid. History of the apostles Creed._

Footnote 225:

The Creed called the Apostles’ is not offered by the first writers in
whom it is found, upon its own authority. They attempt to prove it
from the scriptures, and we can receive it in no other way. The
article “He descended into hell” did not originally stand in the
Eastern, nor in the Roman creed; it was first found in the creed of
Aquileia, which had nothing of Christ’s burial; and no doubt as αδκσ
is often put for the grave, this article meant in it his burial. When
inserted from thence into the two other creeds, which mentioned his
burial already, it was understood of his human soul. Yet it stands
incoherently, for his body was crucified, dead, buried, arose, and was
seen to ascend: but this article, in the midst of those verbs,
predicates something of another subject, his soul. Yet if taken in the
sense of “_Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell_,” (Psa. xvi. Acts ii.)
it is true. But שאול and αδκσ are each taken for the invisible world
or separate state, of the good, as well as evil, both in the old and
new Testament, and this was thought by Jews and Gentiles to be under
the surface. Thus Abraham and Lazarus were supposed there, and Samuel
to have been called up from thence. Christ asserting his divinity,
must allege he came from heaven, for that was the place of God. He
also returned thither, and is to come from thence; yet he has gone to
prepare a place, and his disciples expected by his promise to be with
him, and so all other Christians. His descent therefore means that his
soul, when separated from his body, was immediately with the separate
spirits, who are happy, and so said to be in paradise. But whether
above, or below the surface, is unimportant. None but the Divine
Spirit is ubiquitary, but the transitions of others may be as quick as
thought. They have means of communication with each other, and can
receive what answers to our sense of light, without bodily senses, and
no doubt vastly more satisfactorily, than we do in our most vivid
dreams. The Divine Nature of Christ was, and is, omnipresent; for he
declared he was in heaven whilst on earth, and it is not probable that
his human soul was separated from this after his death any more than
during his life.

Footnote 226:

_This they call Limbus Patrum._

Footnote 227:

_See Vol. I. page 54, 55, and page 209, ante._

Footnote 228:

1 Peter iii. 18. describes the sufferings, death, and resurrection of
Christ, as encouragement for the suffering saints. There are no
prepositions before σαρκς, and πνευματι (flesh and spirit:) our
translators have taken the former as the dative of the _part
affected_, the latter as the dative of the _cause_; and have expressed
the former by _in_, the latter by _by_. Some preposition, or
prepositions must be inserted in the translation. It is said, to
preserve the antithesis, the same should be repeated, and so it will
be; “Was quickened in the Spirit,” which will refer to his human soul.
But his human soul was not dead, and could not be quickened. And it is
absurd to substitute the adjective _quick_, (as Dr. Horseley has done)
for this is to make, not translate scripture. Nor could his human soul
quicken his body; it was the power of God, whether we understand by
Spirit his divine nature, the person of the Father, or of the Holy
Spirit. Now as the word Spirit here cannot mean his human soul, this
passage will not prove that it went to any place, or prison, whatever.

_By which_, (ver. 19.) relates to the Divine Spirit: _he_, that is,
Christ, _went_ (πορευθεις having gone,) _preached_ (this is also the
indefinite past tense) _to the spirits in prison_. The omission of the
substantive verb makes the present tense; and the spirits here spoken
of were still in prison, at the time of the writing this epistle, and
therefore whether good or evil, they had not been set at large by
Christ from their imprisonment. The word _disobedient_ is also the
indefinite participle. _Went_, _preached_, and _disobedient_, are all
the same tense; and, coming together, evidently relate to the same
time. Ποτε οτε connect them with, and pin them down to the time of the
verb _waited_, which is the unfinished action, _was waiting_, the
tense, which is most definite, and in this case actually connected
with absolute time, to wit, “_in the days of Noah_.” The _going
forth_, the _preaching_, and the _disobedience_, were therefore all,
as well as the _waiting_ of God, in the days of Noah, and not between
the death, and resurrection of Christ.

The reason that the Apostle fixes on the fearful example of rejecting
divine instructions in the days of Noah, was probably that Noah had
been called in scripture a _preacher of righteousness_: the Lord had
also said of that generation, that his _Spirit should not always
strive with man_, which implies, that his Spirit did go forth with the
preaching of that age; and their disobedience was proved by their
destruction by the deluge; and their death in impenitency was a proof
of their everlasting punishment.

Footnote 229:

שאול _and_ Αδης.

Quest. LI., LII.

QUEST. LI. _What was the estate of Christ’s exaltation?_

ANSW. The estate of Christ’s exaltation comprehendeth his
resurrection, ascension, sitting at the right hand of the Father,
and his coming again to judge the world.

QUEST. LII. _How was Christ exalted in his resurrection?_

ANSW. Christ was exalted in his resurrection, in that, not having
seen corruption in death, of which it was not possible for him to be
held, and having the very same body in which he suffered, with the
essential properties thereof, but without mortality and other common
infirmities belonging to this life, really united to his soul, he
rose again from the dead the third day, by his own power; whereby he
declared himself to be the Son of God, to have satisfied divine
justice, to have vanquished death, and him that had the power of it,
and to be Lord of quick and dead; all which he did as a public
Person, the Head of his church, for their justification, quickening
in grace, support against enemies, and to assure them of their
resurrection from the dead at the last day.

The former of these answers containing only a general account of what is particularly insisted on in some following answers, we pass it over, and proceed to consider Christ as exalted in his resurrection. And accordingly we may observe,

I. That he did not see corruption in death. Corruption according to our common acceptation of the words imports two things,

1. The dissolution of the frame of nature, or the separation of soul and body, in which sense every one that dies sees corruption; for death is the dissolution, or separation of the two constituent parts of man; which therefore the apostle calls _the dissolution of this earthly tabernacle_, 2 Cor. v. 1. Now when our Saviour is said not to see corruption, it is not to be understood in this sense; because he really died.

2. It consists principally in the body’s being putrified, or turned into dust. In this sense it is said, _Thou wilt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption_, Acts ii. 27. which is explained in a following verse, in which is said, that _his flesh did not see corruption_, ver. 31. i. e. he did not continue long enough in the state of the dead, for his body to be corrupted, which it would have been, without a continued miracle, had it lain many days in the grave.

If it be objected, that to lie two or three days in the grave is sufficient to contract some degree of corruption; therefore Christ’s body could not, in all respects, be free from corruption.

To this we answer, that there was a peculiar hand of providence, in keeping it from being corrupted, during that short space of time, in which it continued in the state of the dead, which was an indication of the great regard which God had to him, his sufferings therein being now at an end. But there may be another reason hereof assigned, inasmuch as the filth of sin is sometimes illustrated by things putrified and corrupted, to beget in us a detestation thereof; therefore God would not suffer the body of Christ to be corrupted; as his soul had not the least taint of moral corruption in life, it was not expedient that his body should have the least mark or emblem of it in death. And it was also necessary, that his body should not see corruption, by being turned into dust, as the bodies of all men will be; otherwise we could not have had so evident a proof, that the same body which died, was raised again from the dead, which will be farther insisted on, under a following head, when we consider the reason why he rose again so soon as the third day.

II. It was not possible for our Saviour to be held any longer under the power of death: this is taken from Acts ii. 24. For the understanding whereof, let us consider,

1. That had he continued always under the power of death, it would have argued the insufficiency of his satisfaction, so that his obedience in life, and his sufferings in death, could not have attained the end designed thereby; and consequently the infinite worth and value thereof would, in effect, have been denied. Therefore the justice of God being fully satisfied, it could not refuse to release him out of prison, that is, to raise him from the dead.

2. It was not possible that he should be held any longer under the power of death, than till the third day, because the purpose and promise of God must have its accomplishment. And, indeed, he was given to understand, before he suffered, that his body should be detained no longer in the grave; as he intimates to his followers, _Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up_, John ii. 19. This event, therefore, was proposed as a sign, and an appeal is made thereunto, for the confirmation of his mission and doctrine; therefore it was impossible that he should be held any longer in the grave.

III. We are to prove, that Christ actually rose again from the dead. The two main proofs, necessary to support our faith herein, are, 1. A sufficient testimony given hereof by creatures, 2. A farther confirmation of it by miracles, which are a divine testimony. Both these we have; and it may be farther observed, that the great ends of his death and resurrection are fully obtained, as appears by daily experience; all which afforded us unquestionable matter of conviction.

_First_, As to the former sort of testimony. It was attested by sufficient, undeniable evidence; as,

1. By two angels, who were sent from heaven, as the first witnesses thereof; they are described as being _in shining garments, who said, Why seek ye the living among the dead? he is not here, but is risen_, Luke xxiv. 4-6. They are called indeed, two men, because they appeared in human form; but another evangelist calls them _two angels_, John xx, 12.

2. It was attested, by several men and women, who were his familiar friends and followers before his death, and saw and conversed with him, after his resurrection, and therefore had sufficient proof that it was he who suffered that was raised from the dead. And, lest the testimony of his apostles should not be reckoned sufficient, though there were enough of them to attest this matter, he was afterwards seen by a great number, namely, _Above five hundred brethren at once_, 1 Cor. xv. 6. and surely, all these could not be deceived, in a matter of which it was necessary for themselves, as well as others, that they should have the fullest conviction.

Now that it was morally impossible, that his disciples, in particular, should be imposed on, will farther appear, if we consider,

(1.) That they were his intimate associates; it was for this reason, among others, that providence ordered that he should appear to, and converse mostly with them: had he appeared to others, who never knew him before, and told them that he was risen from the dead, though they could not question his being alive, whilst they conversed with him; yet they might doubt whether he was the same person who died, and so was raised from the dead: and it cannot well be conceived that such could receive a full conviction, as to this matter, without a miracle: but, when he appeared to those who were intimately acquainted with him, before his death, the conviction is easy and natural; for,

If his countenance, or outward appearance, as much resembled what it was before his death, as ours after a fit of sickness does what it was before; then his aspect, or external appearance to them, would afford such matter of conviction, as very few pretend to gainsay; especially, considering it was but three days since they saw him, before he was crucified. But it may be objected to this, that his countenance was so altered, that it was hard to know him by it, insomuch that Mary, one of his intimate acquaintance, when she first saw him, mistook him for the gardener, John xx. 14, 15. and it is said, that, _after this he appeared in another form unto two of them_, Mark xvi. 12.

As to the former of these scriptures, Mary might easily mistake him for another person, through surprize, and not looking stedfastly on him, as not expecting to see him. This her mistake, therefore, may easily be accounted for, though we suppose his countenance not much to differ from what it was before his death.

As to the other scripture, which speaks of his appearing, _in another form_, to two of his disciples, as they walked into the country; this is mentioned, with some particular enlargement, by the evangelist Luke, together with the conversation our Saviour had with them; and it is observed, that _their eyes were holden, that they should not know him_, Luke xxiv. 16. and that afterwards _their eyes were opened and they knew him_, ver. 31. May we not, from hence, suppose, that there was something preternatural, either in the change of Christ’s countenance, to the end that, at first, they should not know him; or else, that there was some impress upon the minds of the disciples, that prevented their knowing him? If the former of these be supposed, as agreeable to St. Mark’s words, relating to his appearing in _another form_; this miracle will not give sufficient occasion for us to conclude that our Saviour’s countenance was so much altered, when, in other instances, he appeared to his disciples, that it was impossible that they should know him thereby: but, if this should be allowed; or, if it should be objected, that the most intimate friends may mistake the person whom they see, if there be nothing else to judge by, but the likeness of his countenance, to what it was before; then let us add,

(2.) That our Saviour not only appeared to his disciples, but conversed with them, and brought to their remembrance what had passed between him and them before his death: thus he says, _These are the words that I spake unto you while I was yet with you_, &c. Luke xxiv. 44. Now, when a person not only discovers himself to others, but brings to mind private conversation that had before passed between them, at particular times and places; this leaves no ground to doubt whether it be the same person, or no. Therefore his appearing to, and conversing with his intimate, particular friends, and calling to mind former conversation held with them before his death, proves that he was the same Person that had lived before; and consequently they might be as sure that he was raised from the dead, as they were that he died.

3. Those persons, who, after his resurrection, were witnesses to the truth hereof to the world, were very worthy of credit; for,

(1.) They were of such a temper, that they would believe nothing themselves, but upon the fullest evidence; and this they had to such an extreme, as is uncommon; providence so ordering it, that we might, from thence, be more sure that we were not imposed on by their report. They were incredulous, even to a fault; for,

_1st_, Though they had sufficient intimation given them, that our Saviour would rise from the dead, at that time that he really did, and were also credibly informed by the women, who had an account hereof from the angel, that he was risen; yet it is said, _Their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not_, chap. xxiv. 11.

_2dly_, After they had received a farther account of this matter, from those two disciples, who conversed with him, going to Emmaus, and therefore had sufficient ground, from them, to conclude that he was risen from the dead; yet, when our Saviour, at the same time that they were reporting this matter to them, appeared in the midst of them, _they were terrified_, as if they had _seen a spirit_, Luke xxiv. 36, 37. This farther discovers how much they were disinclined to believe any thing, without greater evidence than what is generally demanded in like cases.

_3dly_, The report given by the rest of the disciples to Thomas, concerning his resurrection, and his having appeared to them, and conversed with them, which was a sufficient ground to induce any one to believe it, was not, in the least regarded by him, who determined, that unless _he saw in his hands the print of the nails, and put his finger into the print of the nails, and thrust his hand into his side, he would not believe_; in which he was afterwards indulged by our Saviour for his conviction. All these things are plain proofs that the disciples, who were to be witnesses of this matter, were not persons of such a temper, as that they might easily be imposed on, and therefore their report is more convincing to us.

(2.) They were men of an unspotted character, unblemished honesty and integrity, which is a very necessary circumstance to be regarded, in those who are evidences to any matters of fact: their conversation was subject to the inspection of their most inveterate enemies, who, if they could have found any thing blame-worthy therein, would, doubtless, have alleged it against them, as an expedient to have brought their persons and doctrines into disrepute, which would have had a tendency to sap the very foundation of the Christian religion; and the Jews need not have had recourse to persecution, or called in the aid of the civil magistrate to silence them, if they could have produced any instances of dishonesty, or want of integrity, in their character. The apostle Peter, who was one of the witnesses to this truth, appeals to the world in the behalf of himself and the rest of the apostles, when he says, _We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his Majesty_, 2 Pet. i. 18. and, indeed, their writings discover not only great integrity, but holiness, and therefore the same apostle styles them all, _Holy men of God_, ver. 21.

(3.) They could not be supposed to have the least prospect of advantage by deceiving the world, as to this matter; but, on the other hand, were to look for nothing else but the greatest degree of opposition, both from the Jews and the Heathen. The former, who had always been such enemies to their Lord and Master, would, doubtless, be so to them; and, besides this, they reckoned it their interest to oppose and persecute every one who propagated this doctrine, inasmuch as they apprehended, that, if the world believed it, it would fasten an eternal mark of infamy upon them; and they were also apprehensive, that it would _bring on them_ the guilt of _his blood_, that is, the deserved punishment thereof, Acts v. 28. If any one should object, that they might have some view to their own interest, when they first became Christ’s disciples, or expect some secular advantage, by being the subjects of his kingdom, as apprehending that it was of a temporal nature; this they had not any ground for from him. Besides, since his crucifixion, all expectations of that kind were at an end; and therefore their reporting that he was risen from the dead, if he had not been so, would have been to invent a lie, contrary to their own interest.

Moreover, they would herein not only have imposed on others, but have incurred the divine displeasure, and ruined their own souls, the happiness whereof was equally concerned in the truth of their testimony with that of ours; and none can suppose that they ever appeared so desperate, as not to regard what became of them, either in this or another world.

Thus we have considered the testimony of those apostles, who saw and conversed with Christ after his resurrection, together with their respective character, as witnesses hereof. And to them we have the addition of another witness to this truth, namely, the apostle Paul, who saw him in an extraordinary manner, after his ascension into heaven, and heard his voice, saying, _Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest_, chap. xxvi. 14-16. upon this occasion he says, concerning himself, _Last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time_, 1 Cor. xv. 8. that is, one who had this qualification for the apostleship, or his being a witness to Christ’s resurrection, after that time, in which others were qualified to bear their testimony hereunto, that is, after his ascension into heaven. And we may observe, concerning this witness, that he was well known, by all the Jews, to have been one of the most inveterate enemies to Christianity in the world; which he frequently afterwards took occasion to mention, that so his testimony might be more regarded; and, indeed, nothing short of the fullest evidence, as to this matter, could induce him to forego his secular interest, and in common with the rest of the apostles, to expose himself to the loss of all things, in defence of this truth.

And, now we are speaking concerning the witnesses to Christ’s resurrection, and the apostle Paul, as attesting this, from his having seen him in glorified state, we may take notice of one more evidence hereunto, namely, the blessed martyr Stephen, who declared, in the presence of his enraged enemies, _Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God_, Acts vii. 56. He was, doubtless, one of the holiest, and most upright men in his day; and, when he gave this testimony, it is said, in the foregoing words, _He was full of the Holy Ghost_; and certainly the Holy Ghost, would not suggest a falsity to him: and this he spake when ready to expire, and, at such a time, men are under no temptation to deceive the world; so that if, at any time, they are to be believed, it is then, when they are in the most serious frame, and thoughtful about the world into which they are immediately passing. Thus concerning the testimony of Christ’s friends and followers to his resurrection.

And, to this, we might add the testimony of enemies themselves hereunto; they were forced to own this truth, though it was so much against their own interest, and made their crime, in crucifying him appear so black and heinous. Thus we may observe, that when Christ was buried, the Jews desired Pilate, from the intimation which they before had received, that he was to rise again after three days, that his sepulchre should be made sure till that time, which was done accordingly; a stone rolled to the mouth thereof, and sealed, and a watch appointed to guard it; and these were Jews, as Pilate says, _Ye have a watch, go your way, make it as sure as you can_, Matt. xxvii. 65. He did not order Christ’s friends and followers to watch the sepulchre, but his enemies; and it is observed, concerning them, that when the stone was rolled from the door of the sepulchre, by the ministry of an angel, _the keepers_, or the watch which Pilate had set, _did shake and became as dead men_, chap. xxviii. 4. or were ready to die with fear. This could not throw them into a sleep, for fear awakens, rather than stupifies the passions; upon this it is said, _Some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests the things that were done; and when they had assembled together, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, his disciples came by night, and stole him away, while we slept_; and, since this would render them liable to the governor’s resentment, and some degree of punishment for their not attending their respective post, with that watchfulness that was necessary, they add, _We will persuade him and secure you_; upon which it is said, _They took the money, and did as they were taught; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day_. This is the most stupid and absurd method that could be taken, to discountenance the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection; and, indeed it contains a proof thereof: the soldiers, at first, reported matter of fact; but the evasion thereof confutes itself. Must we not suppose, that there were a considerable number that watched the sepulchre? Doubtless, they would take care to have several there present, lest those who might come to steal him away should be too strong for them: and, if there were several of them present, could they be all asleep at the same time? and could the tomb be opened, which they had made stronger than ordinary, and the stone rolled from it, and yet none of them be awakened out of their sleep? Besides, if they were asleep, their evidence, that Christ was, at the same time, stolen away by his disciples, is too ridiculous to be regarded by any, who consider what sort of evidence deserves to be credited; for how could they know what was done when they were asleep? Thus concerning the testimony given to Christ’s resurrection, both by angels and men. We proceed to consider,

_Secondly_, How it was confirmed by miracles, which are no other than a divine testimony. The former sort of evidence, indeed, is sufficient to convince any one, who does not give way to the greatest degree of scepticism: but yet we have farther proof of it; for, as the apostle says, _If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater_, 1 John v. 19. Now God himself has been pleased to set his seal to this truth, or to confirm it by the extraordinary testimony of miracles, which were wrought by the apostles; which was, in some respect, necessary, that the faith of those, who were to be convinced thereby, might be properly divine, and therefore founded on greater evidence than that of human testimony, how undeniable soever it were: thus it is said, that _with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus_, Acts iv. 33. and the Holy Ghost, in particular, by whose immediate efficiency these miracles were wrought, is said to be a witness hereunto: thus the apostles say, _We are his witnesses of these things, and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him_, chap. v. 32. the meaning of which is, we are speaking and acting by the immediate power of the Holy Ghost, confirming to you this great truth. And, indeed, those miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost were an extraordinary means for the conviction of the world concerning this truth; which our Saviour gave his followers ground to expect, at this time, before his death, when he spake concerning the Spirit, which was not before given, John vii. 36. that is, not in so great a degree, so as to enable them to speak with divers tongues, and work various sorts of miracles, beyond what they had done before; accordingly it is said, _The Holy Ghost was not yet_, or before this, _given, because that Jesus was not glorified_. This Christ also promised them, immediately before his ascension into heaven, that _these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents, and, if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands, and they shall recover_, Mark xvi. 17, 18. These miracles are called signs, as ordained to signify or give a proof of Christ’s resurrection; and they are said to be wrought by them, who had the faith of miracles, believed it themselves, and hereby induced others to believe it; and also they wrought them in his name, with a design to set forth his glory, which could not have been evinced hereby, had he not been risen from the dead.

And to this we may add, that all the gifts and graces of the Spirit, which believers are made partakers of, are convincing evidences of this doctrine. But this will be considered under a following head, when we speak to the latter part of this answer, respecting the fruits and consequences of Christ’s resurrection, which the church, in all the ages, thereof, experiences, whereby the work of grace is begun, carried on, and perfected in them; which leads us to consider,

IV. The properties of the body of Christ, as thus raised from the dead, as it is said, in this answer, that the same body was raised again, with all the essential properties thereof, but without mortality, and other common infirmities belonging to this life.