The testimony id' the apostles furnishes us with argu- ments, and there are eight considerations which give the evidence sufficient weight. 1. The nature of these witnesses. They were not men of power, riches, elo- quence, credit, to impose upon the world: they were poor and mean. 2. The number of these witnesses. (See 1 Cor.xv; Luke xxiv.31: Mark xvi. 14; Matt, xxviii, 10.) It is not likely that a collusion should have been held among so many to support a lie, which would be of no utility to them. 3. The facts themselves which they .avow: not suppositions, distant events, or events related by others, but. real facts which they saw with their own eyes (] John i). 4. The agreement of their evidence : t hey all deposed the same tiling. 5. Observe the tribunals before which they gave evidence: Jews and heathens, philosophers and rabbins, courtiers and lawyers. 1 f t hey had been impostors, the fraud certainly would have been discovered. G. The place in which they bore their testimony. Not at, a distance, where they might not. easily have been detected, if false, but at Jerusalem, in the synagogues, in the pratorium. 7.
The time of this test in y : not years after, but three
days after, they declared he was risen; yea, before the rage of the Jews was quelled, while Calvary was yet
«lyed Will, the blood they had spill, >d. [fit had heel, a fraud, ii i- not likely they would have come forward in
such broad daylight, amid so much opposition, 8. Last- ly, the moth t - w bich induced them to publish the res- urrection: nol to gain fame, riches, glory, profit; no, they
' sposedthi in- ]> ufferinganddeath,andproclaimed
the truth from conviction of its importance' and certainty. • i: ■ etions have also been raised upon the apparent discrepancies of the Gospel narratives of the event These discrepancies were early perceived-, and a view of what the fathers have d in the attempt to recon- cile them has been given bj Niemeyer (£)< Evangelista- ruia in Narrando Chrisli in Vitam Reditu Di
I [1824]). They were first collocated with much acute- ' ness by Morgan in the work already cited, and at a later date by an anonymous writer, whose fragments were i edited and supported by Leasing, the object of which seems to have been to throw uncertainty and doubt over the whole of this portion of Gospel history. A numer- ous host of theologians, however, rose to combat and re- fute this writer's positions, among whom we find the names of Doderlein, Less, Sender, feller. Maschius,Mi- chaelis. Pleasing, Eichhorn, Herder, and others. Among those who have more recently attempted to reconcile the different accounts is Griesbach, who. in hi- excellent Prolusio dt Fontibus mate Evangelista suasd* Resurrec- tione Domini Narrationes hausi rint I 1793), remarks that all the discrepancies are trifling, and nol of such mo- ment as to render the narrative uncertain and suspect- ed, or to destroy or even diminish the credibility of the evangelists, but serve rather to show how extremely studious they were of truth, "and how closely and even scrupulously they followed their documents." (iriesbach then attempts to show how these discrepancies may have arisen, and admits that, although unimportant, they are hard to reconcile, as is indeed evinced by the amount of controversy they have excited. The princi- pal one of these discrepancies has been discussed under
APPEARANCE.
For works on the general subject, besides those re- ferred to under the preceding article, see Malcolm, Theo- logical Index, s. v. : Darling. < yclop. Bibliog. (see Index); and for monographs on the various points connected with our Lord's resurrection, see those cited by Yolbe- ding, Index Programmatum, p. ti7 sip; and by llase, Le- ben Jem, p. 160, 221, ■.'■.'."), 227, 230; also the following: Clausenitz, De Mortuorum Tempore Resurrect, et c/ir. Resurrectione (Hal. 1741); Kunadius, De Sanctis Redi- »t»ts(Viteb. 1665); Hobichhont, />< Sanctis Resurgente < 'hfi.<i<> /'i.<iiri/i ntibus (IJos. 1696) ; Schurzmann, De An- astasi Atlieniensibiis pro Dm Itabita I Lips. 1708). Nu- merous articles on the subject are to be found in religious periodicals, among which, as the latest, we name Jourtu Sac /.it. Jan. 1853, Oct. 1854 ; Studu n u. Kritib n, 1870, i: Zeitschr.f. wissenchaftl. Theol. 1863; Theol. and Lit. Journal Oct. 1857, Oct. 1858; Land. Bib. Rev. April, 1849; Brit, and For. /•>. Rev. April. 1862; Bibl Sacra, June, 1852. Oct. 1860, Oct. 186't ; .Y« w-Englander, May, 1857; Met'h. Quar. Rev. Oct 1873, Oct 1877; Christian Quar. April, 1876; Amer. Fresh, and Thiol. Rev. July and Oct. 1867; South. Presb. Rev. Oct I860; Mercersb. Rev. April, 1861; Danvilb Rev. March, 1863 ; Universal- ist Quar. April and Oct 1861. SeeJssi s Christ.
Reticulated Work (Lat opus reticulatum=neb-
work), masonry constructed with diamond-shaped stones, or square stones placed diagonally. In the city of Home this mode of decorating the surface of a wall is generally characteristic of the period of the early em- pire; it was frequently imitated in Romanesque work in the tympanum of a door-way. especially in Norman work.— Parker, Gloss, of Architect, a. v.
Retribution, Future. That man is a responsible
being, and that Ids responsibility extends into his future state of existence, is generally admitted throughout I ln- world. The denial of all punishment in a future state, rests chiefly upon the two unscriptural and contradicto- ry dogmas the immaculate spirituality and th< materialism of the human soul. The position believed to be taught in the Scriptures is this, that all sinners who do n,,t repent and take refuge in the Saviour in the pres- ent life shall in the future state Buffer everlasting punish- ment, as the necessary andjust retribution of their sins. This doctrine, however awful it must be acknowledged by all to be, appears to be taught in the Scriptures, and has been held by very large portions of the Church in all ages. We shall not. however, depend upon this fact as a proof, though it affords what logicians call a violent presumption, that it was an original part of Christianity. We present the following 88 Scripture proof, and urge,