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.