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. During
this 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.