The next observation relates to the seal of the sepulchre. The Gentleman thinks the seal was used as a check upon the Roman soldiers. But what reason had the Jews to suspect them? They were not disciples of Jesus; they were servants of the Roman governor, and employed in the service of the Jews: and I leave it to the court to judge, whether the Jews set the seal to guard against their friends, or their enemies? But if the seals were really used against the guards, then the breaking of the seals is a proof that the guards were corrupted: and if so, 'tis easy to conceive how the body was removed.
As to the disciples, the Gentleman observes, that the part allotted them in the management of the resurrection supposes an unaccountable change in their character. It will not be long before the Gentleman will have occasion for as great a change in their character: for these weak men you will find soon employed in converting the world, and sent to appear before Kings and Princes in the name of their master; soon you will see them grow wise and powerful, and every way qualified for their extensive and important business. The only difference between me and the Gentleman on the other side will be found to be this, that I date this change a little earlier than he does: A small matter, surely, to determine the right of this controversy.
The last observation relates to King Agrippa's complaisance to Paul, and Gamaliel's advice. I cannot answer for Agrippa's meaning: but certainly he meant but little; and if this matter is to be tried by his opinion, we know that he never did turn Christian. As for Gamaliel, 'tis probable that he saw great numbers of the people engaged zealously in favour of the apostles, and might think it prudent to pass the matter over in silence, and not to come to extremities. This is a common case in all governments: the multitude and their leaders often escape punishment, not because they do not deserve it, but because it is not, in some circumstances, prudent to exact it.
I pass over these things lightly, because the next article contains the great, to us indeed, who live at this distance, the only great question; for whatever reason the Jews had to believe the resurrection, it is nothing to us, unless the story has been conveyed to us upon such evidence as is sufficient to support the weight laid on it.
My Lord, we are now to enter upon the last and main article of this case; the nature of the evidence upon which the credit of the resurrection stands. Before I inquire into the qualifications of the particular witnesses whose words we are desired to take in this case, I would ask, why this evidence, which manifestly relates to the most essential point of Christianity, was not put beyond all exception? Many of the miracles of Christ are said to be done in the streets, nay even in the temple, under the observation of all the world; but the like is not so much as pretended as to this; nay, we have it upon the confession of Peter, the ringleader of the apostles, that Christ appeared, not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God. Why picking and culling of witnesses in this case more than in any other? Does it not import some suspicion, raise some jealousy, that this case would not bear the publick light?
I would ask more particularly, Why did not Jesus after his resurrection appear openly to the chief priests and rulers of the Jews? Since his commission related to them in an especial manner, why were not his credentials laid before them? The resurrection is acknowledged to be the chief proof of his mission, why then was it concealed from those who were more than all others concerned in the event of his mission? Suppose an ambassador from some foreign prince should come into England, make his publick entry through the city, pay and receive visits, and at last refuse to shew any letters of credence, or to wait on the King, what would you think of him? Whatever you would think in that case, you must think in this; for there is no difference between them.
But we must take the evidence as it is. It was thought proper, in this case, to have select chosen witnesses; and we must now consider who they were, and what reason we have to take their word.
The first witness was an angel, or angels. They appeared like men to some women who went early to the sepulchre. If they appeared like men, upon what ground are we to take them for angels? The women saw men, and therefore they can witness only to the seeing of men. But I suppose it is the women's judgement, and not their evidence, that we are to follow in this case. Here then we have a story of one apparition to support the credit of another apparition: and the first apparition hath not so much as the evidence of the women to support it, but is grounded on their superstition, ignorance, and fear. Every country can afford an hundred instances of this kind; and there is this common to them all, that as learning and common sense prevail in any country, they die away, and are no more heard of.
The next witnesses are the women themselves. The wisest men can hardly guard themselves against the fears of superstition; poor silly women therefore in this case must needs be unexceptionable witnesses, and fit to be admitted into the number of the chosen witnesses to attest this fact. One part of the account given of them is very rational, that they were surprised and frightened beyond measure; and I leave it to your Lordship and the court to judge, how well qualified they were to give a just relation of what passed.
After this, Jesus appears to two of his disciples as they were upon a journey; he joins them, and introduces a discourse about himself; and spent much time, till it began to grow dark, in expounding the prophecies relating to the death and resurrection of the Messias. All this while, the disciples knew him not. But then going into an house to lodge together, at supper he broke bread, and gave it to them; immediately they knew him, immediately he vanished. Here then are two witnesses more. But what will you call them? eye-witnesses? Why their eyes were open, and they had their senses, when he reasoned with them and they knew him not. So far therefore they are witnesses that it was not he. Tell us therefore upon what account you reject the evidence of their sense before the breaking of the bread, and insist on it afterwards? And why did Jesus vanish as soon as known; which has more of the air of an apparition, than of the appearance of a real man restored to life?
Cleopas, who was one of these two disciples, finds out the apostles, to make the report of what had passed to them. No sooner was the story told, but Jesus appears among them. They were all frightened and confounded, and thought they saw a spectre. He rebukes them for infidelity, and their slowness in believing the prophecies of his resurrection: and though he refused before to let the women touch him (a circumstance which I ought not to have omitted); yet now he invites the apostles to handle him, to examine his hands and feet, and search the wounds of the cross. But what body was it they examined? The same that came in when the doors were shut; the same that vanished from the two disciples; the same that the women might not touch: in a word, a body quite different from a human body, which we know cannot pass through walls, or appear or disappear at pleasure. What then could their hands or eyes inform them of in this case? Besides, is it credible that God should raise a body imperfectly, with the very wounds in it of which it died? Or, if the wounds were such as destroyed the body before, how could a natural body subsist with them afterwards?
There are more appearances of Jesus recorded; but so much of the same kind, so liable to the same difficulties and objections, that I will not trouble your Lordship and the court with a distinct enumeration of them. If the Gentleman on the other side finds any advantage in any of them more than in these mentioned, I shall have an opportunity to consider them in my reply. It may seem surprising to you, perhaps, that a matter of this moment was trusted upon such evidence as this: but it will be still more surprising to consider that the several nations who received the gospel, and submitted to the faith of this article, had not even this evidence: for what people or nation had the evidence of the angels, the women or even of all the apostles? So far from it, that every country had its single apostle, and received the faith upon the credit of his single evidence. We have followed our ancestors without inquiry; and if you examine the thing to the bottom, our belief was originally built upon the word of one man. I shall trouble you, Sir, but with one observation more; which is this: That although in common life we act in a thousand instances upon the faith and credit of human testimony; yet the reason for so doing is not the same in the case before us. In common affairs, where nothing is asserted but what is probable, and possible, according to the usual course of nature, a reasonable degree of evidence ought to determine every man: for the very probability, or possibility of the thing, is an support to the evidence; and in such cases we have no doubt but a man's senses qualify him to be a witness. But when the thing testified is contrary to the order of nature, and, at first sight at least, impossible, what evidence can be sufficient to overturn the constant evidence of nature, which she gives us in the uniform and regular method of her operations? If a man tells me he has been in France, I ought to give a reason for not believing him; but if he tells me he comes from the grave what reason can he give why I should believe him? In the case before us, since the body raised from the grave differed from common natural bodies, as we have before seen; how can I be assured that the apostles' senses qualified them to judge at all of this body; whether it was the same, or not the same which was buried? They handled the body, which yet could pass through doors and walls; they saw it, and sometimes knew it, at other times knew it not. In a word, it seems to be a case exempt from human evidence. Men have limited senses, and a limited reason: when they act within their limits, we may give credit to them; but when they talk of things removed beyond the reach of their senses and reason, we must quit our own, if we believe theirs. Mr. B. My Lord, in answering the objections under this head I shall find myself obliged to change the order in which the gentleman thought proper to place them. He began with complaining, that Christ did not appear publickly to the Jews after his resurrection, and especially to the chief priests and rulers; and seemed to argue, as if such evidence would have put the matter in question out of all doubt: but he concluded with an observation to prove that no evidence in this case can be sufficient; that a resurrection is thing in nature impossible, at least impossible to be proved to the satisfaction of a rational inquirer. If this be the case, why does he require more evidence, since none can be sufficient? Or to what purpose is it to vindicate the particular evidence of the resurrection of Christ, so long as this general prejudice, that a resurrection is incapable of being proved, remains unremoved? I am under a necessity therefore to consider this observation in the first place, that it might lie as a dead weight upon all I have to offer in support of the evidence of Christ's resurrection.
The gentleman allows it to be reasonable in many cases to act upon the testimony and credit of others; but he thinks this should be confined to such cases, where the thing testified is probable, possible, and according to the usual course of nature. The Gentleman does not, I suppose, pretend to know the extent of all natural possibilities, much less will he suppose them to be generally known; and therefore his meaning must be, that the testimony of witnesses is to be received only in cases which appear to us to be possible. In any other sense we can have no dispute; for mere impossibilities, which can never exist, can never be proved. Taking the observation therefore in this sense, the proposition is this: That the testimony of others ought not to be admitted, but in such matters as appear probable, or at least possible to our conceptions. For instance: A man who lives in a warm climate, and never saw ice, ought upon no evidence to believe, that rivers freeze, and grow hard, in cold countries; for this is improbable, contrary to the usual course of nature, and impossible according to his notion of things. And yet we all know, that this is a plain manifest case discernible by the senses of men; of which therefore they are qualified to be good witnesses. An hundred such instances might be named; but 'tis needless: for surely nothing is more apparently absurd than to make one man's ability in discerning and his veracity in reporting plain facts, depend upon the skill or ignorance of the hearer. And what has the Gentleman said upon this occasion against the resurrection, more than any man who never saw ice might say against an hundred honest witnesses, who assert that water turns to ice in cold climates?
Yet it is very true, that men do not so easily believe, upon testimony of others, things which to them seem improbable or impossible; but the reason is not, because the thing itself admits no evidence, but because the hearer's preconceived opinion outweighs the credit of the reporter and makes his veracity to be called in question. For instance it is natural for a stone to roll down hill, it is unnatural for it to roll up hill: but a stone moving uphill is as much the object of sense as a stone moving downhill; and all men in their senses are as capable of seeing and judging and reporting the fact in one case, as in the other. Should a man then tell you, that he saw a stone go uphill of its own accord, you might question his veracity; but you could not say the thing admitted no evidence, because it was contrary to the law and usual course of nature; for the law of nature formed to yourself from your own experience and reasoning is quite independent of the matter of fact which the man testifies: and whenever you see facts yourself, which contradict your notions of the law of nature, you admit the facts, because you believe yourself; when you do not admit like facts upon the evidence of others, it is because you do not believe them, and not because the facts in their own nature exclude all evidence.
Suppose a man should tell you, that he was come from the dead, you would be apt to suspect his evidence. But what would you suspect? That he was not alive when you heard him, saw him, felt him, and conversed with him? You could not suspect this, without giving up all your senses and acting in this case as you act in no other. Here then you would question, whether the man had ever been dead? But would you say, that it is incapable of being made plain by human testimony, that this or that man died a year ago? It can't be said. Evidence in this case is admitted in all courts perpetually
Consider it the other way. Suppose you saw a man publicly executed, his body afterwards was wounded by the executioner, and carried and laid in the grave; that after this you should be told, that the man was come to life again; what would you suspect in this case? Not that the man had never been dead; for that you saw yourself: but you would suspect whether he was now alive. But would you say this case excluded all human testimony and that men could not possibly discern , whether one with whom they conversed familiarly was alive or no? Upon what ground could you say this? A man rising from the grave is an object of sense, and can give the same evidence of his being alive, as any other man in the world can give. So that a resurrection considered only as a fact to be proved by evidence, is a plain case; it requires no greater ability in the witnesses, than that they be able to distinguish between a man dead, and a man alive: a point in which I believe every man living thinks himself a judge.
I do allow that this case, and others of like nature, require more evidence to give them credit than ordinary cases do. You may therefore require more evidence in these, than in other cases; but it is absurd to say, that such cases admit no evidence, when the things in question are manifestly objects of sense.
I allow further, that the Gentleman has rightly stated the difficulty upon the foot of common prejudice; and that it arises from hence, that such cases appear to be contrary to the course of nature. But I desire to consider what this course of nature is. Every man, from the lowest countryman to the highest philosopher frames to himself from his experience and observation, a notion of a course of nature; and is ready to say of everything reported to him that contradicts his experience, that it is contrary to nature. But will the Gentleman say, that everything is impossible or even improbable, that contradicts the notion which men frame to themselves of the course of nature? I think he will not say it. And if he will, he must say that water can never freeze; for it is absolutely inconsistent with the notion which men have of the course of nature, who live in the warm climates. And hence it appears, that when men talk of the course of nature, they really talk of their own prejudices and imaginations; and that sense and reason are not so much concerned in the case as the Gentleman imagines. For I ask, Is it from the evidence of sense, or the evidence of reason that people of warm climates think it contrary to nature, that water should grow solid, and become ice? As for sense, they see indeed that water with them is always liquid; but none of their senses tell them that it can never grow solid. As for reason, it can never so inform them; for right reason can never contradict the truth of things. Our senses then inform us rightly what the usual course of things is; but when we conclude that things cannot be otherwise, we outrun the information of our senses, and the conclusion stands upon prejudice, and not upon reason. And yet such conclusions form what is generally called the course of nature. And when men upon proper evidence and informations admit things contrary to this presupposed course of nature, they do not, as the Gentleman expresses it, quit their own sense and reason; but, in truth, they quit their own mistakes and prejudices.
In the case before us, the case of the resurrection, the great difficulty arises from the like prejudice. We all know by experience that all men die, and rise no more; therefore we conclude, that for a dead man to rise to life again, is contrary to the course of nature. And certainly it is contrary to the uniform and settled course of things. But if we argue from hence that it is contrary and repugnant to the real laws of nature and absolutely impossible on that account, we argue without any foundation to support us either from our senses or our reason. We cannot learn from our eyes, or feeling, or any other sense, that it is impossible for a dead body to live again; if we learn it at all, it must be from our reason; and yet what one maxim of reason is contradicted by the supposition of a resurrection? For my own part; when I consider how I live; that all animal motions necessary to my life are independent of my will; that my heart beats without my consent and without my direction; that digestion and nutrition are performed by methods to which I am not conscious; that my blood moves in a perpetual round, which is contrary to all known laws of motion: I cannot but think, that the preservation of my life, in every moment of it, is as great an act of power, as is necessary to raise a dead man to life. And whoever so far reflects upon his own being as to acknowledge that he owes it to a superior power, must needs think, that the same power which gave life to senseless matter at first, and set all the springs and movements a-going at the beginning, can restore life to dead body. For surely it is not a greater thing to give life to a body once dead, than to a body that never was alive.
In the next place must be considered the difficulties which the gentleman has laid before you, with regard to the nature of Christ's body after the resurrection. He has produced some passages which which, he thinks, imply, that the body was not a real natural body, but a mere phantom, or apparition: and thence concludes, that there being no real object of sense, there can be no evidence in the case.
Presumptions are of no weight against positive evidence; and every account of the resurrection assures us, that the body of Christ was seen, felt, and handled by many persons; who were called upon by Christ so to do, that they might be assured that he had flesh and bones, and was not a mere spectre, as they, in their first surprize, imagined him to be. It is impossible that they who give this account, should mean, by anything they report, to imply that he had no real body; it is certain, then, that when the Gentleman makes use of what they say to this purpose, he uses their sayings contrary to their meaning: for it is not pretended that they say, that Christ had not a real human body after the resurrection; nor is it pretended they had any such thought, except only upon the first surprize of seeing him, and before they had examined him with their eyes and hands. But something they have said, which the Gentleman, according to his notions of philosophy, thinks, implies that the body was not real. To clear this point, therefore, I must lay before you the passages referred to, and consider how justly the Gentleman reasons from them.
The first passage relates to Mary Magdalene, who, the first time she saw Christ, was going to embrace his feet, as the custom of the country was: Christ says to her, [John 20:17] Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren and tell them, etc. Hence the gentleman concludes, that Christ's body was not such an one as would bear the touch. But how does he infer this? Is it from these words Touch me not? It cannot be: for thousands say it every day, without giving the least suspicion, that their bodies are not capable of being touched. The conclusion then must be built on those other words, For I have not yet ascended to my Father. but what have these words to do with the reality of his body? It might be real or not real, for anything that is here said. There is a difficulty in these words, and it may be hard to give the true sense of them; but there is no difficulty in seeing that they have no relation to the nature of Christ's body; for of his body nothing is said. The natural sense of the place as I collect, by comparing this passage with Matthew 28:9 is this. Mary Magdalene, upon seeing Jesus, fell at his feet, and laid hold of them and held them as if she meant never to let them go: Christ said to her, "Touch me not, or hang not about me now; you will have other opportunities of seeing me for I go not yet to my Father: lose no time then but go quickly with my message to my brethren." I am not concerned to support this particular interpretation of the passage; it is sufficient to my purpose, to show that the words cannot possibly relate to the nature of Christ's body one way or other.
The next passage relates to Christ's joining two of his disciples upon the road and conversing with them without being known by them: it grew dark, they pressed him to stay with them that night; he went in with them, broke bread, blessed it, and gave it them, and then they knew him; and immediately he disappeared.
The circumstance of disappearing, shall be considered under the next head, with other objections of the like kind. At present I shall only examine the other parts of this story, and inquire whether they afford any ground to conclude that the body of Christ was not a real one. Had this piece of history been related of any other person I think such suspicion could have risen. For what is there unnatural or uncommon in this account? Two men meet an acquaintance whom they thought dead: They converse with him for some time, without suspecting who he was; the very persuasion they were under that he was dead, contributed greatly to their not knowing him; besides, he appeared in a habit and form different from what he used when he conversed with them; appeared to them on a journey and walked with them side by side; in which situation no one of the company has a full view of another: afterwards, when they were at supper together, and lights brought in, they plainly discerned who he was. Upon this occasion, the Gentleman asks what sort of witnesses these are? eye-witnesses? No; before supper they were eye-witnesses, says the Gentleman, that the person whom they saw was not Christ: and then he demands a reason for our rejecting the evidence of their sense when they did not know Christ, and insisting on it when they did.
It is no uncommon thing for men to catch themselves and others by such notable acute questions, and to be led by the sprightliness of their imagination out of the road of truth and common sense. I beg leave to tell the Gentleman a short story, and then to ask him his own question. A certain Gentleman who had been some years abroad happened in his return to England through Paris to meet his own sister there. She was not expecting to see him there, nor he to see her, they conversed together with other company, at a publick house, for great part of a day, without knowing each other. At last the Lady began to shew great signs of disorder; her color came and went, and the eyes of the company were drawn toward her; and then she cried out, Oh my brother! and was hardly held from fainting. Suppose now this Lady were to depose upon oath in a court of justice that she saw her brother at Paris; I would ask the Gentleman, Whether he would object to the evidence, and say, that she was as good an eye-witness that her brother was not there, as that he was; and demand of the court, why they rejected the evidence of her senses when she did not know her brother, and were ready to believe it when she did. When the question is answered in this case, I desire only to have the benefit of it in the case now before you. But if you shall be of opinion, that there was some extraordinary power used on this occasion, and incline to think that the expression, their eyes were holden, imports as much; then the case will fall under the next article. In which
We are to consider Christ's vanishing out of sight; his coming in and going out when the doors were shut; and such like passages; which, as they fall under one consideration, so I shall speak to them together.
But it is necessary first to see what the Apostles affirm distinctly in their accounts of these facts; for I think more has been said for them, than ever they said, or intended to say for themselves. In one place [Luke 24:31] it is said, he vanished out of their sight. Which translation is corrected in the margin of our Bibles thus: He ceased to be seen of them. And the original imports no more. It is said in another place, that the disciples being together, and the doors shut, Jesus came and stood in the midst of them. How he came, is not said; much less is it said that he came through the door, or the keyhole; and for anything that is said to the contrary, he might come in at the door, though the disciples saw not the door open, nor him, till he was in the midst of them. But the Gentleman thinks these passages prove that the disciples saw no real body, but an apparition. I am afraid that the Gentleman, after all his contempt of apparitions, and the superstition on which they are founded, has fallen into the snare himself, and is arguing upon no better principles than the common notions which the vulgar have of apparitions. Why else does he imagine these passages to be inconsistent with the reality of Christ's body? Is there no way for a real body to disappear? Try the experiment now; do but put out the candles, we shall all disappear. If a man falls asleep in the day-time, all things disappear to him; his senses are all locked up; and yet all things about him continue to be real, and his senses continue perfect. As shutting out all rays of light would make all things disappear; so intercepting the rays of light from any particular body, would make that disappear. Perhaps something like this was the case; or perhaps something else, which we know not. But, be the case what it will, the Gentleman's conclusion is founded on no principle of true philosophy: for it does not follow that a body is not real because I lose sight of it suddenly. I shall be told, perhaps, that this way of accounting for the passages is as wonderful, and as much out of the common course of things, as the other. Perhaps it is so; and what then? Surely the Gentleman does not expect, that, in order to prove the reality of the greatest miracle that ever was, I should shew that there was nothing miraculous in it, but that everything happened according to the ordinary course of things. My only concern is, to shew, that these passages do not infer, that the body of Christ after the resurrection was no real body. I wonder the Gentleman did not carry his argument a little further, and prove, that Christ, before his death, had no real body; for we read, that when the multitude would have thrown him down a precipice, he went through the midst of them unseen. Now, nothing happened after his resurrection more unaccountable than this that happened before it; and if the argument be good at all, it will be good to prove, that there never was such a man as Jesus in the world. Perhaps the gentleman may think that this is a little too much to prove: and if he does, I hope he will quit the argument in one case as well as in the other; for difference there is none.
Hitherto we have been called upon to prove the reality of Christ's body, and that it was the same after the resurrection that was before: but the next objection complains, that the body was too much the same with that which was buried; for the Gentleman thinks that it had the same mortal wounds open and uncured of which he died. His observation is grounded upon the words which Christ uses to Thomas: [John 20:27] Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side. Is it here affirmed that Thomas did actually put his hand into his side, or so much as see his wounds fresh and bleeding? Nothing like it: but it is supposed from the words of Christ; for if he had no wounds, he would not have invited Thomas to probe them. Now, the meaning of Christ will best appear by an account of the occasion he had to use this speech. He had appeared to his disciples, in the absence of Thomas, and shewn them his hands and feet, which still had the marks of his crucifixion: the disciples report this to Thomas: he thought the thing impossible, and expressed his unbelief, as men are apt to do when they are positive, in a very extravagant manner: You talk, says he, of the prints of the nails in his hands and feet; for my part, says he, I'll never believe this thing, except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side. Now, in the first place, here is nothing said of open wounds; Thomas talks only of putting his finger into the print, that is, the scar of the nails, and thrusting his hand into his side. And, in common speech, to thrust an hand into any one's side does not signify to thrust it through the side into the bowels. Upon this interpretation of the words, which is a plain and natural one, the Gentleman's objection is quite gone. But suppose Thomas to mean what the Gentleman means; in that case the words of Christ are manifestly a severe reproach to him for his infidelity: Here, says Christ, are my hands and my side; take the satisfaction you require; thrust your fingers into my hands, your hand into my side; repeating to him his own words, and calling him to his own conditions; which, to a man beginning to see his extravagance, is of all rebukes the severest. Such forms of speech are used on many occasions, and are never understood to import that the thing proposed is proper, or always practicable. When the Grecian women reproached their sons with cowardice, and called to them as they were flying from the enemy, to come and hide themselves, like children as they were, in their mothers' wombs; he would be ridiculous who had asked the question, Whether the women really thought they could take their sons into their wombs again?
I have now gone through the objections which were necessarily to be removed before I could state the evidence in this case. I am sensible I have taken up too much of your time; but I have this to say in my excuse, That objections built on popular notions and prejudices, are easily conveyed to the mind in few words; and so conveyed, make strong impressions: but whoever answers the objections, must encounter all the notions to which they are allied, and to which they owe their strength; and it is well if with many words he can find admittance.
I come now to consider the evidence on which our belief of the resurrection stands. And here I am stopped again. A general exception is taken to the evidence, that it is imperfect, unfair; and a question is asked, Why did not Christ appear publickly to all the people, especially to the magistrates? Why were some witnesses culled and chosen out, and others excluded ? It may be sufficient perhaps to say, that where there are witnesses enow, no judge, no jury complains for want of more; and therefore, if the witnesses we have are sufficient, it is no objection that we have not others, and more. If three credible man attest a will, which are as many as the law requires, would any body ask, why all the town were not called to set their hands? But why were these witnesses culled and chosen out? Why? For this reason, that they might be good ones. Does not every wise men chuse proper witnesses to his deed and to his will? and does not a good choice of witnesses give strength to every deed? How comes it to pass, then, that the very thing which shuts out all suspicion in other cases should in this case only be of all others the most suspicious thing itself?
What reason there is to make any complaints on the behalf of the Jews, may be judged, in part, from what has already appeared. Christ suffered openly in their sight; and they were so well apprised of his prediction, that he should rise again, that they set a guard on his sepulchre; and from their guards they learned the truth. Every soldier was to them a witness of the resurrection of their own chusing. After this they had not one apostle,(which the Gentleman observes was the case of other people), but all the apostles, and many other witnesses with them, and in their power. The apostles testified the resurrection to them; not only to the people, but to the elders of Israel assembled in Senate: to support their evidence they were enabled to work, and did work miracles openly in the name of Christ. These people therefore have the least reason to complain; and had of all others the fullest evidence; and in some respects such as none but themselves could have, for they only were keepers of the sepulchre.I believe, if the gentleman was to chuse an evidence to his own satisfaction in a like case, he would desire no more, than to keep the sepulchre, with a sufficient number of guards.
But the argument goes further. It is said, that Jesus was sent with a special commission to the Jews; that he was their Messias; and as his resurrection was his main credential, he ought to have appeared publickly to the rulers of the Jews after his resurrection: that in doing otherwise, he acted like an ambassador pretending authority from his prince, but refusing to show his letters of credence.
I was afraid, when I suffered myself to be drawn into this argument, that I should be led into matters fitter to be decided by men of another profession, than by lawyers. But since there is no help now, I will lay before you what appears to me to be the natural and plain account of this matter; leaving it to others, who are better qualified, to give a fuller answer to the objection.
It appears to me, by the accounts we have of Jesus, that he had two distinct offices: one, as the Messias particularly promised to the Jews; another, as he was to be the great high priest of the world. With respect to the first office, he is called [Heb. 3:1] the apostle of the Hebrews; the [Rom. 15:8] minister of the circumcision; and says himself, [Matt 15:24] I am not sent, but unto the lost sheep of the house of Isreal. Accordingly, when he sent out his Apostles in his lifetime to preach, he expressly forbids them to go to the Gentiles or Samaritans; but go, [Matt. 10:6] says he, to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. Christ continued in the discharge of this office during the time of his natural life, till he was finally rejected by the Jews. And it is observable, that the last time he spoke to the people according to St. Matthew's account, he solemnly took leave of them, and closed his commission. He had been long among them publishing glad tidings; but when all his preaching, all his miracles, had proved to be in vain, the last thing he did was, to denounce the woes they had brought on themselves. The 23d chapter of St. Matthew recites these woes; and at the end of them Christ takes this passionate leave of Jerusalem: "Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." It is remarkable, that this passage, as recorded by St. Matthew and St. Luke, twice over, is determined, by the circumstances, to refer to the near approach of his own death, and the extreme hatred of the Jews to him: and therefore those words, Ye shall not see me henceforth, are to be dated from the time of his death, and manifestly point out the end of his particular mission to them. From the making this declaration, as it stands in St. Matthew, his discourses are to his disciples, and they chiefly relate to the miserable and wretched condition of the Jews, which was now decreed, and soon to be accomplished. Let me now ask, Whether, in this state of things, any farther credentials of Christ's commission to the Jews could be demanded or expected? He was rejected, his commission was determined, and with it the fate of the nation was determined also: what use then of more credentials? As to appearing to them after his resurrection, he could not do it consistently with his own prediction, Ye shall see me no more, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. The Jews were not in this disposition after the resurrection, nor are they in it yet. The resurrection was the foundation of Christ's new commission, which extended to all the world. Then it was he declared, that all power was given unto him in heaven and in earth. Then he gave a new commission to his disciples, not restrained to the house of Israel, but to go and teach all nations. This prerogative the Jews had under this commission, that the gospel was every-where first offered to them; but in no other terms than it was offered to the rest of the world. Since then this commission, of which the resurrection was the foundation, extended to all the world alike; what ground is there to demand special and particular evidence to the Jews? The Emperor and the Senate of Rome were a much more considerable part of the world, than the chief priests and the synagogue; why does not the Gentleman object then, that Christ did not shew himself to Tiberius and his senate? And since all men have an equal right in this case, Why may not the same demand be made for every country; nay, for every age? And then the Gentleman may bring the question nearer home; and ask, Why Christ did not appear in England in King George's reign? There is, to my apprehension, nothing more unreasonable, than to neglect and despise plain and sufficient evidence before us, and to sit down to imagine what kind of evidence would have pleased us; and then to make the want of such evidence an objection to the truth; which yet, if well considered, would be found to be well established.
The observation I have made upon the resurrection of Christ, naturally leads to another; which will help to account for the nature of the evidence we have in this great point. As the resurrection was the opening a new commission, in which all the world had an interest; so the concern naturally was, to have a proper evidence to establish this truth, and which should be of equal weight to all. This did not depend upon the satisfaction given to private persons, whether they were magistrates or not magistrates; but upon the conviction of those, whose office it was to be, to bear testimony to this truth in the world. In this sense the Apostles were chosen to be witnesses of the resurrection, because they were chosen to bear testimony to it in the world; and not because they only were admitted to see Christ after his resurrection: for the fact is otherwise. The gospel indeed, concerned to shew the evidence on which the faith of the world was to rest, is very particular in setting forth the ocular demonstration which the apostles had of the resurrection; and mentions others, who saw Christ after his resurrection, only accidentally, and as the thread of the history led to it. But yet it is certain, there were many others, who had this satisfaction, as well as the apostles. St. Luke tells us, that when Christ appeared to the eleven apostles, there were others with them [Luke 24:33]; who they were, or how many there were, he says not. But it appears in the Acts, when an apostle was to be chosen in the room of Judas; and the chief qualification required was, that he should be one capable of being a witness of the resurrection; that there were present an hundred and twenty so qualified [Acts 1. Compare vv. 15,21,22 together]. And Saint Paul says, that Christ after his rising was seen by 500 at once, many of whom were living when he appealed to their evidence. So that the Gentleman is mistaken, when he imagines that a few only were chosen to see Christ after he came from the grave. The truth of the case is, that, out of those who saw him, some were chosen to bear testimony to the world; and for that reason had the fullest demonstration of the truth, that they might be the better able to give satisfaction to others. And what was there in this conduct to complain of? what to raise any jealousy or suspicion?
As to the witnesses themselves, the first the Gentleman takes notice of, are the angels and the women. The mention of angels led naturally to apparitions: and the women were called poor silly women; and there is an end to their evidence. But to speak seriously: will the Gentleman pretend to prove, that there are no intelligent beings between God and man; or that they are not ministers of God; or that they were improperly employed in this great and wonderful work, the resurrection of Christ? Till some of these points are disproved we may be at rest; for the angels were ministers, and not witnesses of the resurrection. And it is not upon the credit of the poor silly women that we believe angels were concerned, but upon the report of those who wrote the gospels, who deliver it as a truth known to themselves, and not merely as a report taken from the women.
But for the women what shall I say? Silly as they were, I hope at least they had eyes and ears, and could tell what they heard and saw. In this case they tell no more. They report that the body was not in the sepulchre; but so far from reporting the resurrection; that they did not believe it, and were very anxious to find to what place the body was removed. Further they were not employed. For, I think, the Gentleman in another part observes rightly, that they were not sent to bear testimony to any people. But suppose them to be witnesses; suppose them to be improper ones; yet the evidence of the men surely is not the worse, because some wonen happened to see the same thing which they saw. And if men only must be admitted, of them we have enow to establish this truth.
I will not spend your time in enumerating these witnesses, or in setting forth the demonstration they had of the truth which they report. These things are well known. If you question their sincerity, they lived miserably, and died miserably, for the sake of this truth. And what greater evidence of sincerity can man give or require? And what is still more, they were not deceived in their expectation of being ill treated; for he who employed them, told them beforehand that the world would hate them, and treat them with contempt and cruelty.
But, leaving these weighty and well known circumstances to your own reflexion, I beg leave to lay before you another evidence, passed over in silence by the Gentleman on the other side. He took notice, that a resurrection was so extraordinary a thing, that no human evidence could support it. I am not sure that he is not in the right. If twenty men were to come into England with such a report from a distant country, perhaps they might not find twenty more here to believe their story. And I rather think the Gentleman may be in the right, because in the present case I see clearly, that the credit of the resurrection of Christ was not trusted to mere human evidence. To what evidence it was trusted, we find by his own declaration: The Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. And ye also (speaking to his apostles) shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning [John 15:26,27]. And therefore, though the apostles had conversed with him forty days after his resurrection, and had received his commission to go teach all nations; yet he expressly forbids them entering upon the work, till they should receive powers from above [Acts 1:14] And St. Peter explains the evidence of the resurrection in this manner: We (the apostles) are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them who obey him [Acts 5:32].
Now, what were the powers received by the apostles? Where they not the powers of wisdom and courage, by which they were enabled to appear before rulers and princes in the name of Christ; the power of miracles, even of raising the dead to life; by which they convinced the world, that God was with them in what they said and did? With respect to this evidence, St. John says, If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. [I John 5:9] Add to this, that the apostles had a power to communicate these gifts to believers. Can you wonder that men believed the reality of those powers of which they were partakers, and became conscious to themselves? With respect to these communicated powers, I suppose, St. John speaks, when he says, He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: [I John 5:10] appealing, not to an inward testimony of the Spirit, in the sense of some modern enthusiasts; but to the powers of the Spirit, which believers received, and which were seen in the effects that followed.
It was objected, That the apostles separated themselves to the work of the ministry, and one went into one country, another to another; and, consequently, that the belief of the resurrection was originally received every where upon the testimony of one witness. I will not examine this fact. Suppose it to be so. But did this one witness go alone, when he was attended with the powers of heaven? Was not every blind man restored to sight, and every lame man to his feet, a new witness to the truth reported by the first? Besides, when the people of different countries came to compare notes, and found that they had all received the same account of Christ and of his doctrine; then surely the evidence of these distant witnesses thus united, became stronger than if they had told their story together: for twelve men separately examined form a much stronger proof for the truth of any fact, than twelve men agreeing together in one story.
If the same thing were to happen in our own time: if one or two were to come into England, and report that a man was raised from the dead; and, in consequence of it, teach nothing but that we ought to love God and our neighbors: if, to confirm their report, they should, before our eyes, cure the blind, the deaf, the lame, and even raise the dead to life: if, endued with all these powers, they should live in poverty and distress, and patiently submit to all that scorn, contempt, and malice could contrive to distress them; and at last sacrifice even their lives in justification of the truth of their report: if upon inquiry we should find, that all the countries in Europe had received the same account, supported by the same miraculous powers, attested in like manner by the sufferings, and confirmed by the blood of the witnesses: I would fain know what any reasonable man would do in this case? Would he despise such evidence? I think he would not. And whoever thinks otherwise, must say, that a resurrection, though in its own nature possible, is yet such a thing, in which we ought not to believe either God or man.
Judge. Have you done, Sir?
Mr. B. Yes, my Lord.
Judge. Go on, Mr. A., if you have anything to say in reply.
Mr. A. My Lord, I shall trouble you with very little. The objections and answers under this head, I shall leave to the judgment of the court; and beg leave only to make an observation or two upon the last part of the Gentleman's argument.
And first, with respect to the sufferings of the apostles and disciples of Jesus, and the argument drawn from thence for the truth of their doctrines and assertions, I beg leave to observe to you, that there is not a false religion or pretence in the world, but can produce the same authority, and show many instances of men who have suffered even to death for the truth of their several professions. If we consult only modern story we shall find Papists suffering for Popery, Protestants for their religion. And among Protestants every sect has had its martyrs; Puritans, Quakers, Fifth-monarchy men. In Henry VIII's time England saw both Popish and Protestant martyrs; in Queen Mary's reign the rage fell upon Protestants; in Queen Elizabeth's Papists and Puritans were called sometimes, though rarely, to this trial. In later times, sometimes churchmen, sometimes dissenters were persecuted. What must we say, then? All these sufferers had not truth with them; and yet, if there be any weight in this argument from suffering they have all the right to plead it.
But I may be told, perhaps, that men by their sufferings, though they do not prove their doctrines to be true, yet prove at least their own sincerity: as if it were a thing impossible for men to dissemble at the point of death. Alas! how many instances are there of men's denying facts plainly proved, asserting facts plainly disproved, even with the rope around their necks? Must all such pass for innocent sufferers, sincere men? If not, it must be allowed, that a man's word at the point of death is not always to be relied on.
Another observation I would make, is with respect to the evidence of the Spirit, on which so much stress is laid. It has been hitherto insisted on, that the resurrection was a matter of fact, and such a fact as was capable and proper to be supported by the evidence of sense. How comes it about, that this evidence, this which is the proper evidence, is given up as insufficient, and a new improper evidence introduced? Is it not surprising, that one great miracle should want an hundred more to prove it? Every miracle is itself an appeal to sense, and therefore admits no evidence but that of sense. And there is no connexion between a miracle done this year and last year. It does not follow, therefore, because Peter cured a lame man, (allowing the fact), that therefore Christ rose from the dead.
But allowing the Gentleman all he demands, what is to us? They who had the witness within them, did perhaps very well to consult, and to take his word; but how am I, or others, who have not this witness is us, the better for it? If the first ages of the church saw all the wonders related by the Gentleman, and believed, it shews at least, in his opinion, that this strong evidence was necessary to create the belief he requires; why then does he require this belief of us, who have not this strong evidence?
Judge. Very well. Gentlemen of the jury, You have heard the proofs and arguments on both sides, and it is now your part to give a verdict.
Here the Gentlemen whispered together, and the Foreman stood up.
Foreman. My Lord, The case has been long, and consists of several articles; therefore the jury hope you will give them your directions.
Judge. No, no; you are very able to judge without my help.
Mr. A. My Lord, Pray consider, you appointed this meeting and chose your office. Mr. B. and I have gone through our parts, and have some right on your doing your part.
Mr. B. I must join, Sir, in that request.
Judge. I have often heard, that all honour has a burden attending it; but I did not suspect it in this office, which I conferred upon myself. But, since it must be so, I will recollect, and lay before you, as well as I can, the substance of the debate.
Gentlemen of the jury, The question before you, is Whether the witnesses of the resurrection of Christ are guilty of giving false evidence, or no?
Two sorts of objections, or accusations, are brought against them. One charges fraud and deceit on the transaction itself; the other charges the evidence as forged, and insufficient to support the credit of so extraordinary an event.
There are also three periods of time to be considered.
The first takes in the ministry of Christ, and ends at his death.During this period the fraud is supposed to be contrived.
The second reaches from his death to his resurrection. Duringthis period the fraud is supposed to be executed.
The third begins from the resurrection, and takes in the whole ministry of the apostles. And here the evidence they gave the world for this fact is the main consideration.
As to the first period of time, and the fraud charged upon Jesus, I must observe to you, that this charge had no evidence to support it; all the facts reported of Jesus stand in full contradiction to it. To suppose, as the council did, that this fraud might possibly appear, if we had any Jewish books written at the time, is not to bring proof, but to wish for proof: for, as it was rightly observed on the other side, how does Mr. A. know there were any such books? And since they are lost, how does he know what was in them? Were such books extant, they might probably prove beyond dispute the facts recorded in the gospels.
You were told, that the Jews were a very superstitious people, much addicted to prophecy; and particularly, that they had a strong expectation about the time that Christ appeared, to have a victorious prince rise among them. This is laid as the ground of suspicion; and, in fact, many imposters, you are told, set up upon these notions of the people; and thence it is inferred, that Christ built his scheme upon the strength of these popular prejudices. But when this fact came to be examined on the other side, it appeared, that Christ was so far from falling in with these notions, and abusing the credulity of the people, that it was his main point, to correct these prejudices, to oppose these superstitions; and by these very means he fell into disgrace with his countrymen, and suffered as one who, in their opinion, destroyed the Law and the Prophets. With respect to temporal power, so far was he from aiming at it, that he refused it when offered: so far from giving any hopes of it to his disciples, that he invited men upon quite different terms: To take up the cross, and follow him. And it is observable, that, after he had foretold his death and resurrection, he continued to admonish his disciples of the evils they were to suffer; to tell them, that the world would hate them, and abuse them; which surely to common sense has no appearance that he was then contriving a cheat, or encouraging his disciples to execute it.
But as ill supported as this charge is, there was no avoiding it; it was necessity and not choice, which drove the Gentleman to it: for since Christ had foretold his resurrection, if the whole was a cheat, he certainly was conscious to it, and consequently the plot was laid in his own time. And yet the supposing Christ conscious to such a fraud in these circumstance, is contrary to all probability. It is very improbable, that he, or any man, should, without any temptation, contrive a cheat to take place after his death. And if this could be supposed, it is highly improbable that he should give publick notice of it, and thereby put all men on their guard; especially considering there were only a few women, and twelve men, of low fortunes, and mean education, to conduct the plot, and the whole power of the Jews and Romans to oppose it.
Mr. A. seemed sensible of these difficulties, and therefore would have varied the charge, and have made Christ an enthusiast, and his disciples only cheats. This was not properly moved, and therefore not debated; for which reason I shall pass it over with this short observation; that enthusiasm is as contrary to the whole character and conduct of Christ, as even fraud is. Besides, this imagination, if allowed, goes only to Christ's own part; and leaves the charge of fraud, in its full extent, upon the management from the time of his death; and therefore is of no use, unless the fraud afterwards be apparent. For if there really was a resurrection, it will sufficiently answer the charge of enthusiasm.
I pass on to the second period, to consider what happened between the death and resurrection of Christ. And here it agreed that Christ died, and was buried. So far then there was no fraud.
For the better understanding the charge here, we must recollect a material circumstance reported by one of the evangelists; which is this: After Christ was buried, the chief priests and Pharisees came to Pilate, the Roman governor, and informed him, that this deceiver (meaning Jesus) had in his lifetime foretold, that he would rise again after three days; that they suspected his disciples would steal away the body, and pretend a resurrection; and then the last error would be worse than the first. They therefore desire a guard to watch the sepulchre, to prevent all fraud. They had one granted; accordingly they placed a watch on the sepulchre, and sealed up the stone at the mouth of it.
What the event of this case was, the same writer tells us. The guards saw the stone removed by angels, and for fear they became as dead men: when they came to the city, they reported to the chief priests what had happened: a council is called, and a resolution taken to bribe the soldiers to say, that the body was stolen while they were asleep; and the council undertook to excuse the soldiers to Pilate, for their negligence in falling asleep when they were on duty.
Thus the fact stands in the original record. Now, the council for Woolston maintains, that the story reported by the soldiers, after they had been bribed by the chief priests, contains the true account of this pretended resurrection.
The Gentleman was sensible of a difficulty in his way, to account for the credit which the Jews gave to the prediction of Christ; for if, as he pretends, they knew him to be an impostor, what reason had they to take any notion of his prediction? And therefore, that very caution in this case betrayed their concern, and shewed, that they were not satisfied that his pretensions were groundless. To obviate this, he says, That they had discovered before, one great cheat in the case of Lazarus, and therefore were suspicious of another in this case. He was answered, That the discovery of a cheat in the case before mentioned, ought rather to have set them at ease, and made them quite secure as to the event of the prediction. In reply he says, That the chief priests, however satisfied of the cheat themselves, had found that it prevailed among the people; and, to secure the people from being further imposed on, they used the caution they did.
This is the substance of the argument on both sides.
I must observe to you, that this reasoning from the case of Lazarus has no foundation in history. There is no pretence for saying, that the Jews in this whole affair had any particular regard to the raising of Lazarus. And if they had any such just suspicion, why was it not mentioned at the trial of Christ? There was then an opportunity of opening the whole fraud, and undeceiving the people. The Jews had a plain law for punishing a false prophet; and what could be a stronger conviction, than such a cheat made manifest? Why then was this advantage lost?
The Gentleman builds this observation on these words, So the last error shall be worse than the first. But is there here anything said about Lazarus? No. The words are a proverbial form of speech, and probably were used without relation to any particular case. But if a particular meaning must be assigned, it is more probable, that the words being used to Pilate, contained a reason applicable to him. Now, Pilate had been drawn in to consent to the crucifixion, for fear the Jews should set up Jesus to be their King in opposition to Caesar; therefore say the chief priests to him, If once the people believe him to be risen from the dead, the last error will be worse than the first; i.e. they will be more inclined and encouraged to rebel against the Romans than ever. This is a natural sense of the words, as they are used to move the Roman governor to allow them a guard. Whether Lazarus were dead or alive; whether Christ came to destroy the Law and the Prophets, or to establish or confirm them, was of little moment to Pilate. It is plain, he was touched by none of these considerations; and refused to be concerned in the affair of Christ, till he was alarmed with the suggestions of danger to the Roman state. This was the first fear that moved him; must not therefore the second now suggested to him be of the same kind?
The next circumstance to be considered, is that of the seal upon the stone of the sepulchre. The council for Woolston supposes an agreement between the Jews and disciples about setting this seal. But for this agreement there is no evidence; nay, to suppose it, contradicts the whole series of the history, as the Gentleman on the other side observed. I will not enter into the particulars of this debate; for it is needless. The plain natural account given of this matter, shuts out all other suppositions. Mr. B. observed to you, that the Jews having a guard, set the seal to prevent any combination among the guards to deceive them: which seems a plain and satisfactory account. The council for W. replies, Let the use of the seals be what they will, it is plain they were broken; and if they were used as a check upon the Roman soldiers, then probably they consented to the fraud: and then it is easily understood how the body was removed.
I must observe to you here, that this suspicion agrees neither with the account given by the evangelist, nor with the story set about by the Jews; so that it is utterly unsupported by any evidence.
Nor has it any probability in it. For what could move Pilate, and the Roman soldiers, to propagate such a cheat? He had crucified Christ, for no other reason, but for fear the people would revolt from the Romans; perhaps too he consented to place a guard upon the sepulchre, to put an end to the people's hope in Jesus: and is it likely at last that he was consenting to a cheat, to make the people believe him risen from the dead; the thing, of all others, which he was obliged, as his apprehensions were, to prevent?
The next circumstance insisted on as a proof of the fraud, is, that Jesus rose from the dead before the time he had appointed. Mr. A. supposes that the disciples hastened the plot, for fear of falling in with multitudes, who waited only for the appointed time to be at the sepulchre, and to see with their own eyes. He was answered, That the disciples were not, could not be concerned, or be present at moving the body; that they were dispersed, and lay concealed for fear of the Jews: that hastening the plot, was of no use; for the resurrection happened whilst the guards were at the sepulchre; who were probably enow to prevent violence; certainly enow to discover it, if any were used.
This difficulty then rests merely upon the reckoning of the time. Christ died on Friday, rose early on Sunday. The question is, Whether this was rising the third day, according to the prediction? I will refer the authorities made use of in this case to your memory, and add only one observation, to shew that it was indeed the third day, according as the people of the country reckoned. When Christ talked with the two disciples who knew him not, they gave him an account of his own crucifixion, and their disappointment; and tell him, Today is the third day since these things were done [Luke24:21]. Now, this conversation was on the very day of the resurrection. And the disciples thought of nothing less than answering an objection against the resurrection, which as yet they did not believe. They recount only a matter of fact, and reckon the time according to the usage of their country, and call the day of the resurrection the third day from the crucifixion; which is a plain evidence, in what manner the Jews reckoned in this and like cases.
As the objections in this case are founded upon the story reported by the Jews, and the Roman soldiers, Mr. B. in his answer, endeavored to shew, from some historical passages, that the Jews themselves did not believe the story.
His first argument was, That the Jews never questioned the disciples for this cheat, and the share they had in it, when they had them in their power. And yet who sees not that it was very much in their purpose so to do? To this there is no reply.
The second argument was from the treatment St. Paul had from King Agrippa, and his saying to St. Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian: A speech which he reckons could not be made by a prince, to one concerned in carrying out a known cheat. To this the Gentleman replies, That Agrippa never did become a Christian; and that no great stress is to be laid upon his compliance to his prisoner. But allowing that there was something of humanity and civility in the expression, yet such civility could hardly be paid to a known impostor. There is a propriety even in civility. A prince may be civil to a rebel; but he will hardly compliment him for his loyalty: he may be civil to a poor sectary; but if he knows him to be a cheat, he will scarcely compliment him with hopes that he will be of his party.
The third argument was from the advice given by Gamaliel to the council of the Jews, to let the apostles alone, for fear they themselves should be found to fight against God: A supposition which the Gentleman thinks absolutely inconsistent with his, or the council's being persuaded, that the apostles were guilty of any fraud in managing the resurrection of Christ.
The Gentleman replies, That Gamaliel's advice respected only the numbers of people deceived; and was a declaration of his opinion, that it was not prudent to come to extremities till the people were in a better temper. This deserves consideration.
First, I observe, that Gamaliel's words are express, Lest ye be found to fight against God; which reason respects God, and not the people. And the suppostion is, that the hand of God might possibly be in this work: A saying which could not have come from him, or have been received by the council, if they had believed the resurrection to have been a cheat.
Secondly, It is remarkable, that the miracles wrought by the apostles after the death of Christ, those especially which occasioned the calling of this council, had a much greater effect upon the Jews, than even the miracles of Christ himself. They held out against all the wonders of Christ, and were perpetually plotting his death, not doubting but that would put an end to all their trouble: but when, after his death, they saw the same powers continue with the apostles, they saw no end of the affair, but began to think in earnest there might be more in it than they were willing to believe. And, upon the report made to them of the apostle's works, they make serious reflexion, and doubted whereunto this would grow. And though in their anger and vexation of heart they thought of desperate remedies, and were for killing the apostles also; yet they hearkened willing to Gamaliel's advice; which at another time might have been dangerous to the adviser. So that it appears from the history, that the whole council had the same doubt that Gamaliel had, that possibly the hand of God might be in this thing. And could the Jews, if they had manifestly discovered the cheat of the resurrection a little time before, have entertained such a suspicion?
The last period commences at the resurrection, and takes in the evidence upon which the credit of this fact stands.
The council for Woolston, among other difficulties, started one, which, if well grounded, excludes all evidence out of this case. The resurrection being a thing out of the course of nature, he thinks the testimony of nature, held forth to us in her constant method of working, a stronger evidence against the possibility of a resurrection, than any human evidence can be for the reality of one.
In answer to this, it is said, on the other side,
First, That a resurrection is a thing to be judged of by mens senses; and this cannot be doubted. We all know when a man is dead; and should he come to life again, we might judge whether he was alive or no, by the very same means by which we judge those about us to be living men.
Secondly, That the notion of a resurrection, contradicts no one principle of right reason, interferes with no law of nature: and that whoever admits that God gave man life at first, cannot possibly doubt of his power to restore it when lost.
Thirdly, That appealing to the settled course of nature, is referring the matter in dispute, not to rules or maxims of reason and true philosophy, but to the prejudices and mistakes of men; which are various and infinite, and differ sometimes according to the climate men live in; because men form a notion of nature from what they see: and therefore in cold countries all men judge it to be according to the course of nature for water to freeze; in warm countries they judge it to be unnatural. Consequently, that it is not enough to prove anything to be contrary to the laws of nature, to say that it is usually, or constantly, to our observation, otherwise. And therefore, though men in the ordinary course die, and do not rise again, (which is certainly a prejudice against the belief of a resurrection); yet is it not an argument against the possibility of a resurrection?
Another objection was against the reality of the body of Christ after it came from the grave. These objections are founded upon such passages as report his appearing or disappearing to the eyes of his disciples at pleasure; his coming in among them when the doors were shut; his forbidding some to touch him, his inviting others to do it; his having the very wounds whereof he died, fresh and open in his body, and the like. Hence the council concluded, that it was no real body, which was sometimes visible, sometimes invisible; sometimes capable of being touched, sometimes incapable.
On the other side it was answered, That many of these objections are founded on a mistaken belief of the passages referred to; particularly of the passage in which Christ is thought to forbid Mary Magdalene to touch him; of another, in which he calls to Thomas to examine his wounds; and probably of a third, relating to Christ's conversation with his disciples on the road, without being known by them.
As to other passages which relate his appearing and disappearing, and coming in when the doors were shut, it is said, that no conclusion can be drawn from them against the reality of Christ's body: that these things might happen many ways, and yet the body be real; which is the only point to which the present objection extends: that there might be in this, and probably was, something miraculous; but nothing more wonderful than what happened on another occasion in his lifetime, where the Gentleman who makes the objection allows him to have had a real body.
I mention these things but briefly, just to bring the course of the argument to your remembrance.
The next objection is taken from hence, That Christ did not appear publickly to the people, and particularly to the chief priests and rulers of the Jews. It is said, that his commission related to them in an especial manner; and that it appears strange, that the main proof of his mission, the resurrection, should not be laid before them; but that witnesses should be picked and culled to see this mighty wonder. This is the force of the objection.
To which it is answered, First, That the particular commission to the Jews expired at the death of Christ; and therefore the Jews had, on this account, no claim for any particular evidence. And it is insisted, that Christ, before his death, declared, the Jews should not see him, till they were better disposed to receive him.
Secondly, That as the whole world had a concern in the resurrection of Christ, it was necessary to prepare a proper evidence for the whole world; which was not to be done by any particular satisfaction given to the people of the Jews, or their rulers.
Thirdly, That as to the chosen witnesses, it is a mistake to think that they were chosen as the only persons to see Christ after the resurrection; and that in truth many others did see him: but that the witnesses were chosen as proper persons to bear testimony to all people; an office to which many others who did see Christ, were not particularly commissioned. That making choice of proper and credible witnesses, was so far from being a ground of just suspicion, that it is in all cases the most proper way to exclude suspicion..
The next objection is pointed against the evidence of the angels, and the women. It is said, That history reports, that the women saw young men at the sepulchre; that they were advanced into angels, merely through the fear and superstition of the women: that, at the best, this is but a story of an apparition; a thing in times of ignorance much talked of, but in the days of knowledge never heard of.