circumstances? Don't you expect to hear, that the chief priests and
the apostles met at the time appointed, opened the seals, and that the
matter in dispute was settled beyond all controversy one way or other?
But see how it happened, The seals were broken, the body stolen away in
the night by the disciples; none of the chief priests present, or
summoned to see the seals opened. The guards, when examined, were
forced to confess the truth, though joined with an acknowledgement of
their guilt; which made them liable to be punished by Pilate: they
confessed that they were asleep, and in the mean time that the body was
stolen away by the disciples.
This evidence of the Roman soldiers, and the far stronger
evidence arising from the clandestine method of breaking up the seals,
are sufficient proofs of fraud.
But there is another circumstance in the case, of equal weight.
Though the seals did not prevent the cheat entirely, yet they
effectually falsified the prediction. According to the prediction,
Jesus was to rise on the third day, or after the third day. At this
time the chief priests intended to be present, and probably would have
been attended by a great multitude. This made it impossible to play
any tricks at that time; and therefore the apostles were forced the
hasten the plot: and accordingly the resurrection happened a day before
its time; for the body was buried on the Friday, and was gone early in
the morning on Sunday.
These are plain facts; facts drawn from the accounts given to us
by those who are friends to the belief of the resurrection. The
Gentleman won't call these imaginations, or complain that I have given
him schemes instead of evidence.
Mr. B. My Lord, I am now to consider that part of the
argument upon which the Gentleman lays the greatest stress. He has
given us his evidence; mere evidence, he says, unmixed, and clear of
all schemes and imaginations. In one thing indeed he has been as good
as his word; he has proved beyond contradiction, that Christ died, and
was laid in the sepulchre: for, without doubt, when the Jews sealed the
stone, they took care to see that the body was there; otherwise their
precaution was useless. He has proved too, that the prediction of
Christ concerning his own resurrection, was a thing publickly known in
all Jerusalem; for he owns, that this gave occasion for all the care
that was taken to prevent fraud. If this open prediction implies a
fraudulent design, the evidence is strong with the Gentleman: but if it
shall appear to be, what it really was, the greatest mark that could be
given of sincerity and plain dealing in the whole affair, the evidence
will still be as strong, but the weight of it will fall on the wrong
side for the Gentleman's purpose.
In the next place, the Gentleman seems to be at a great loss to
account for the credit which the chief priests gave to the prediction
of the resurrection, by the care they took to prevent it. He thinks
the thing in itself was too extravagant and absurd to deserve any
regard; and that no one would have regarded such a prediction in any
other time or place. I agree with the Gentleman entirely: but then I
demand of him a reason why the chief priests were under any concern
about this prediction. Was it because they had plainly discovered him
to be a cheat and an imposter? It is impossible. This reason would
have convinced them of the folly and presumption of the prediction. It
must therefore necessarily be, that they had discovered something in
the life and actions of Christ which raised this jealousy, and made
them listen to a prophecy in his case, which in any other case they
would have despised. And what could this be, but the secret conviction
they were under, by his many miracles, of his extraordinary powers?
This care therefore of the chief priests over his dead, helpless body,
is a lasting testimony of the mighty works which Jesus did in his
lifetime; for had the Jews been persuaded that he performed no wonders
in his life, I think they would not have been afraid of seeing any done
by him after his death.
But the Gentleman is of another mind. He says, they had
discovered a plain cheat in the case of Lazarus, whom Christ had
pretended to raise from the dead; and therefore they took all this care
to guard against a like cheat.
I begin now to want evidence; I am forbid to call this
imagination, what else to call it I know not. There is not the least
intimation given from history, that there was any cheat in the case of
Lazarus, or that any one suspected a cheat. Lazarus lived in the
country after he was raised from the dead; and though his life was
secretly and basely sought after, yet no body had the courage to call
to a trial for his part in the cheat. It may be said, perhaps, the
rulers were terrified. Very well: but they were not terrified when
they had Christ in their possession, when they brought him to a trial;
why did they not then object this cheat to Christ? It would have been
much to their purpose. Instead of that, they accuse him of a design to
pull down their temple, to destroy their law, and of blasphemy; but not
one word of any fraud in the case of Lazarus, or any other case.
But not to enter into the merits of this cause, which has in it
too many circumstances for your present consideration; let us take the
case to be as the Gentleman states it, that the cheat in the case of
Lazarus was detected; what consequence is to be expected? In all other
cases, impostors, once discovered, grow odious and contemptible, and
quite incapable of doing further mischief; so little are they regarded,
that even when they tell the truth, they are neglected. Was it so in
this case? No, says the Gentleman; the Jews were the more careful that
Christ should not cheat them in his own resurrection. Surely this is a
most singular case. When the people thought him a Prophet, the chief
priests sought to kill him, and thought his death would put an end to
his pretensions: when they and the people had discovered him to be a
cheat, then they thought him not safe, even when he was dead, but were
afraid he should prove a true Prophet, and, according to his own
prediction, rise again. A needless, a preposterous fear!
In the next place, the Gentleman tells us how proper the care was
that the chief priests took. I agree perfectly with him. Human policy
could not invent a more proper method to guard against and prevent all
fraud. They delivered the sepulchre, with the dead body in it, to a
company of Roman soldiers, who had orders from their officer to watch
the sepulchre. Their care went further still; they sealed the door of
the sepulchre.
Upon this occasion, the Gentleman has explained the use of seals
when applied to such purposes. They imply, he says, a covenant, that
the things sealed up shall remain in the condition they are till the
parties to the sealing agree to open them. I see no reason to enter
into the learning about seals: let it be as the Gentleman has opened
it; what then?
Why then, it seems, the apostles and chief priests were in a
covenant that there should be no resurrection, at least no opening of
the door, till they met together at an appointed time to view and
unseal the door.
Your Lordship and the court will now consider the probability of
this supposition. When Christ was seized and carried to his trial, his
disciples fled, out of a just apprehension that they should, if
apprehended, be sacrificed with their master. Peter indeed followed
him; but his courage soon failed, and it is well known in what manner
he denied him. After the death of Christ, his disciples were so far
from being ready to engage for his resurrection, or to enter into terms
and agreements for the manner in which it should be done, that they
themselves did not believe it ever would be; they gave over all hopes
and thoughts of it; and far from entering into engagements with the
chief priests, their whole concern was, to keep themselves concealed
from them. This is a well known case, and I will not trouble you with
particular authorities to prove this truth. Can any man now in his
right senses think, that the disciples under these circumstances
entered into this covenant with the Jews? I believe the Gentleman
don't think it, and for that reason says, that seals so used import a
covenant without a special agreement. Be it so; and it must then be
allowed, that the apostles were no more concerned in these seals, than
every other man in the country, and no more answerable for them; for
the covenant reached to every body as well as to them, since they were
under no special contract.
But I beg pardon for spending your time unnecessarily, when the
simple plain account of this matter will best answer all these
jealousies and suspicions. The Jews, it is plain, were exceedingly
solicitous about this event; for this reason they obtained a guard
from Pilate; and when they had, they were still suspicious lest their
guards should deceive them, and enter into combination against them.
To secure this point, they sealed the door, and required of the guards
to deliver up the sepulchre to them sealed as it was. This is the
natural and true account of the matter. Do but consider it in a
parallel case. Suppose a prince should set a guard at the door of his
treasury, and the officer who placed the guard should seal the door,
and say to the soldiers, You shall be answerable for the seal if I find
it broken: would not all the world understand the seal to be fixed to
guard against the soldiers, who might, though employed to keep off
others, be ready enough to pilfer themselves? This is in all such
cases but a necessary care; you may place guards, and when you do all
is in their power: Et quis custodes custodiat ipsos?
But it seems, that, notwithstanding all this care, the seals
were broken, and the body gone. If you complain of this, Sir, demand
satisfaction of your guards; they only are responsible for it: the
disciples had no more to do in it than you or I.
The guards, the Gentleman says, have confessed the truth, and
owned that they were asleep, and that the disciples in the mean time
stole away the body. I wish the guards were in court, I would ask
them, how they came to be so punctual in relating what happened when
they were asleep? what induced them to believe that the body was
stolen at all? what, that it was stolen by the disciples; since by
their own confession they were asleep and say nothing, saw no body?
But since they are not to be had, I would desire to ask the Gentleman
the same questions; and whether he has any authorities in point, to
shew, that ever any man was admitted as an evidence in any court, to
prove a fact which happened when he was asleep? I see the Gentleman is
uneasy; I'll press the matter no further.
As this story has no evidence to support it, so neither has it
any probability. The Gentleman has given you the character of the
disciples; that they were weak, ignorant men, full of the popular
prejudices and superstitions of their country,which stuck close to them
notwithstanding their long acquaintance with their master. The
apostles are not much wronged in this account; and is it likely that
such men should engage in so desperate design, as to steal away the
body, in opposition to the combined power of the Jews and Romans?
What could tempt them to it? What good could the dead body do them?
Or if it could have done them any, what hope had they to succeed in
their attempt? A dead body is not to be removed by sleight of hand;
it requires many hands to move it: besides, the great stone at the
mouth of the sepulchre was to be removed; which could not be done
silently, or by men walking on tip-toes to prevent discovery: so that
if the guards had really been asleep, yet there was no encouragement to
go on this enterprise; for it is hardly possible to suppose, but that
rolling away the stone, moving the body, the hurry and confusion of
carrying it off, must awaken them.
But supposing the thing was practicable, yet the attempt was such
as the disciples consistently with their own notions could not
undertake. The Gentleman says, they continued all their master's
lifetime to expect to see him a temporal prince; and a friend of the
Gentleman's has observed, what is equally true, that they had the same
expectation after his death. Consider now their case. Their master
was dead; and they are to contrive to steal away his body. For what?
Did they expect to make a King of the dead body, if they could get it
into their power? Or did they think, if they had it, they could raise
it to life again? If they trusted so far to their master's prediction,
as to expect his resurrection, (which I think is evident they did not),
could they yet think the resurrection depended on their having the dead
body? It is in all views absurd. But the Gentleman supposes, that
they meant to carry on the design for themselves, in the master's, if
they could but have persuaded the people to believe him risen from the
dead. But he does not consider, that by this supposition he strips the
disciples of every part of their character at once, and presents to us
a new set of men, in every respect different from the former. The
former disciples were weak, plain men; but these are bold, hardy,
cunning, and contriving: the former were full of the superstitions of
their country, and expected a prince from the authority of their
Prophets; but these were despisers of the Prophets, and of the notions
of their countrymen, and are designing to turn these fables to their
own advantage; for it cannot be supposed that they believed the
Prophets, and at the same time thought to accomplish or defeat them by
so manifest a cheat, to which they themselves at least were conscious.
But let us take leave of these suppositions, and see how the true
evidence is this case stands. Guards were placed, and they did their
duty. But what are guards and sentinels against the power of God? An
angel of the Lord opened the sepulchre; the guards saw him, and became
like dead men. This account they gave to the chief priests, who, still
persisting in their obstinacy, bribed the guards to tell the
contradictory story, of their being asleep, and the body stolen.
I cannot but observe to your Lordship, that all these
circumstances, so much questioned and suspected, were necessary
circumstances, supposing the resurrection to be true. The seal was
broken, the body came out of the sepulchre, the guards were placed in
vain to prevent it. Be it so: I desire to know, whether the Gentleman
thinks that the seal put God under covenant? or could prescribe to him
a method for performing this great work? or whether he thinks the
guards were placed to maintain the seal in opposition to the power of
God? If he will maintain neither of these points, then the opening of
the seals, notwithstanding the guard set upon them, will be an
evidence, not of the fraud, but of the power of the resurrection; and
the guards will have nothing to answer for, but only this, that they
were not stronger than God. The seal was a proper check upon the
guards: the Jews had no other meaning in it; they could not be so
stupid as to imagine, that they could by this contrivance disappoint
the designs of providence. And it is surprising to hear these
circumstances made use of to prove the resurrection to be a fraud,
which yet could not but happen, supposing the resurrection to be true.
But there is another circumstance still, which the Gentleman
reckons very material, and upon which I find great stress is laid. The
resurrection happened, we are told, a day sooner than the prediction
imported. The reason assigned for it is, that the execution of the
plot at the time appointed was rendered impracticable, because the
chief priests, an probably great numbers of the people, were prepared
to visit the sepulchre at that time; and therefore the disciples were
under a necessity of hastening their plot.
This observation is entirely inconsistent with the supposition
upon which the reasoning stands. The Gentleman has all along supposed
the resurrection to have been managed by fraud, and not by violence.
And indeed violence, if there had been an opportunity of using it,
would have been insignificant: beating the guards, and removing the
dead body by force, would have destroyed all pretences to a
resurrection. Now, surely the guards, supposing them to be enough in
number to withstand all violence, were at least sufficient to prevent
or to discover fraud. What occasion then to hasten the plot for fear
of numbers meeting at the tomb, since there were numbers always present
sufficient to discover any fraud; the only method that could be used in
the case?
Suppose then that we could not give a satisfactory account of the
way of reckoning the time from the crucifixion to the resurrection;
yet this we can say, that the resurrection happened during the time
that the guards had the sepulchre in keeping; and it is impossible to
imagine what opportunity this could give to fraud. Had the time been
delayed, the guards removed, and then a resurrection pretended, it
might with some colour of reason have been said, Why did he not come
within his time? why did he chuse to come after his time, when all
witnesses, who had patiently expected the appointed hour, were
withdrawn? But now what is to be objected? You think he came too
soon. But were not your guards at the door when he came? did they not
see what happened? and what other satisfaction could you have had,
supposing he had come a day later?
By saying of this, I do not mean the decline the Gentleman's
objection, which is founded upon a mistake of a way of speaking, common
to the Jews and other people; who, when they name any number of days
and years, include the first and last of the days or years to make up
the sum. Christ, alluding to his own resurrection, says, In three days
I will raise it up. The angels report his prediction thus, The Son of
Man shall be crucified, and the third day rise again. Elsewhere it is
said, After three days; and again, that he was to be in the bowels of
the earth three days and three nights. These expressions are
equivalent to each other; for we always reckon the night into the day,
when we reckon by so many days. If you agree to do a thing ten days
hence, you stipulate for forbearance for the nights as well as days;
and therefore, in reckoning, two days, and two days and two nights, are
the same thing. That the expression, After three days, means inclusive
days, is proved by Grotius on Matt. xxvii. 63 and by others. The
prediction therefore was, that he would rise on the third day. Now, he
was crucified on Friday and buried; he lay in the grave all Saturday,
and rose early on Sunday morning. But the Gentleman thinks he ought
not to have risen before Monday. Pray try what the use of common
language requires to be understood in a like case. Suppose you were
told, that your friend sickened on Friday, was let blood on Saturday,
and the third day he died; what day would you think he died on? If
you have any doubt about it, put the question to the first plain man
you meet, and he will resolve it. The Jews could have no doubt in this
case; for so they practised in one of the highest points of their law.
Every male child was to be circumcised on the eighth day. How did they
reckon the days? Why, the day of the birth was one, and the day of the
circumcision another; and though a child was born towards the every end
of the first day, he was capable of circumcision on any time of the
eighth day. And therefore it is not new nor strange, that the third
day, in our case, should be reckoned into the number, though Christ
rose at the very beginning of it. It is more strange to reckon whole
years in this manner; and yet this is the constant method observed in
Ptolemy's canon, the most valuable piece of ancient chronology, next to
the Bible, now extant. If a King lived over the first day of a year,
and died the week after, that whole year is reckoned to his reign.
I have now gone through the several objections upon this head:
what credit they may gain in this age, I know not; but 'tis plain they
had no credit when they were first spread abroad; nay, 'tis evident,
that the very persons who set abroad this story of the body being
stolen, did not believe it themselves. And, not to insist here upon
the plain fact, which was, that the guards were hired to tell this lie
by the chief priests, it will appear from the after conduct of the
chief priests themselves, that they were conscious that the story was
false. Not long after the resurrection of Christ, the disciples
having received new power from above, appeard publickly in Jerusalem,
and in the very temple, and testified the resurrection of Christ, even
before those who had murdered him. What now do the chief priests do?
They seize upon the apostles, they threaten them, they beat
them,. they scourge them, and all to stop their mouths, insisting that
they should say no more of the matter. But why did they not, when
they had the disciples in their power, charge them directly with their
notorious cheat in stealing the body, and expose them to the people as
imposters? This had been much more to their purpose, than all their
menaces and ill usage, and would more effectually have undeceived the
people. But of this not one word is said. They try to murder them,
enter into combinations to assassinate them, prevail with Herod to put
one of them to death; but not so much as a charge against them of any
fraud in the resurrection. Their orator Tertullus, who could not have
missed so fine a topick of declamation, had there been but a suspicion
to support it, is quite silent on this head, and is content to
flourish on the common-place of sedition and heresy, profaning the
temple, and the like: very trifles to his cause, in comparison to the
other accusation, had there been any ground to make use of it. And
yet as it happens, we are sure the very question of the resurrection
came under debate; for Festus tells King Agrippa, that the Jews had
certain questions against Paul, of one Jesus which was dead, whom Paul
affirmed to be alive. After this, Agrippa hears Paul himself; and had
he suspected, much less had he been convinced that there was a cheat
in the resurrection, he would hardly have said to Paul at the end of
the conference, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
But let us see what the council and senate of the children of
Israel thought of this matter, in the most solemn and serious
deliberation they ever had about it. Not long after the resurrection,
the apostles were taken; the High Priest thought the matter of that
weight, that he summoned the council and senate of the children of
Israel. The apostles are brought before them, and make their defence.
Part of their defence is in these words: The God of our fathers raised
up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. The defence was indeed a
heavy charge upon the senate, and in the warmth of their anger, their
first resolution was to slay them all. But Gamaliel, one of the
council, stood up, and told them, that the matter deserved more
consideration. He recounted to them the history of several imposters
who had perished, and concluded with respect to the case of the
apostles then before them: If this work be of men, it will come to
nought; but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be
found to fight against God. The council agreed to this advice, and
after some ill treatment, the apostles were discharged. I ask now, and
let any man of common sense answer, Could Gamaliel possibly have given
this advice, and supposed that the hand of God might be with the
apostles, if he had known that there was a cheat discovered in the
resurrection of Jesus? Could the whole senate have followed this
advice, had they believed the discovery of the cheat? Was there not
among them one man wise enough to say, How can you suppose God to have
anything to do in this affair, when the resurrection of Jesus, upon
which all depends, was a notorious cheat, and manifestly proved to be
so? I should but lessen the weight of this authority by saying more,
and therefore I will rest here, and give way to the Gentleman to go on
with his accusation.
Mr. A. My Lord, Before I proceed any further, I beg leave to
say a few words in reply to what the Gentleman has offered on this
head.