diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 5608.txt | 3092 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 5608.zip | bin | 0 -> 64101 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 |
5 files changed, 3108 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/5608.txt b/5608.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c5ca4bb --- /dev/null +++ b/5608.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3092 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Trial of the Witnessses of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ +by Thomas Sherlock + +Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the +copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing +this or any other Project Gutenberg eBook. + +This header should be the first thing seen when viewing this Project +Gutenberg file. Please do not remove it. Do not change or edit the +header without written permission. + +Please read the "legal small print," and other information about the +eBook and Project Gutenberg at the bottom of this file. Included is +important information about your specific rights and restrictions in +how the file may be used. You can also find out about how to make a +donation to Project Gutenberg, and how to get involved. + + +**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts** + +**eBooks Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971** + +*****These eBooks Were Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!***** + + +Title: The Trial of the Witnessses of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ + +Author: Thomas Sherlock + +Release Date: May, 2004 [EBook #5608] +[Yes, we are more than one year ahead of schedule] +[This file was first posted on July 20, 2002] + +Edition: 10 + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK, THE TRIAL OF THE WITNESSSES OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST *** + + + + +Typescript converted to computer file by Lee Dunbar - July 2002 + + + +The TRIAL +of the +WITNESSES +of the +RESURRECTION +of +JESUS CHRIST + +N.B. Not only Mr. Woolston's objections in his Sixth Discourse on our +Saviour's Miracles, but those also which he and others have published +in other Books, are here considered. + +First Published about the Year 1729 + + +THE +T R I A L +OF THE +WITNESSES +OF THE +Resurrection of Jesus + +We were, not long since, some Gentlemen of the inns of court together, +each to other so well known, that no man's presence was a confinement +to any other, from speaking his mind on any subject that happened to +arise in conversation. The meeting was without design, and the +discourse, as in like cases, various. Among other things we fell upon +the subject of Woolston's trial and conviction, which had happened some +few days before. That led to a debate, How the law finds in such +cases? what punishment it inflicts? and, in general, whether the law +ought at all to interpose in controversies of this kind? We were not +agreed in these points. One, who maintained the favorable side to +Woolston, discovered a great liking and approbation of his discourses +against the miracles of Christ, and seemed to think his arguments +unanswerable. To which another replied, I wonder that one of your +abilities, and bred to the profession of the law, which teaches us to +consider the nature of evidence, and its proper weight, can be of that +opinion: I am sure you would be unwilling to determine a property of +five shillings upon such evidence, as you now think material enough to +overthrow the miracles of Christ. + + It may easily be imagined, that this opened a door to much +dispute, and determined the conversation for the remainder of the +evening to this subject. The dispute ran thro' almost all the +particulars mentioned in Woolston's pieces; but the thread of it was +broken by several digressions, and the pursuit of things which were +brought accidentally into the discourse. At length one of the company +said pleasantly; Gentlemen, you don't argue like lawyers; if I were +judge in this cause, I would hold you better to the point. The company +took the hint, and cried, they should be glad to have the cause +reheard, and him to be the judge. The Gentlemen who had engaged with +mettle and spirit in a dispute which arose accidentally, seemed very +unwilling to be drawn into a formal controversy; and especially the +Gentleman who argued against Woolston, thought the matter grew too +serious for him, and excused himself from undertaking a controversy in +religion, of all others the most momentous. But he was told, that the +argument should be confined merely to the nature of the evidence; and +that might be considered, without entering into any such controversy as +he would avoid; and, to bring the matter within bounds, and under one +view, the evidence of Christ's resurrection, and the exceptions taken +to it, should be the only subject of the conference. With such +persuasion he suffered himself to be persuaded, and promised to give +the company, and their new-made judge, a meeting that day fortnight. +The judge and the rest of the company were for bringing on the cause a +week sooner; but the council for Woolston took the matter up, and said, +Consider, Sir, the Gentleman is not to argue out of Littleton, +Plowden, or Coke, authors to him well known; but he must have his +authorities from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and a fortnight is time +little enough of all conscience to gain a familiarity with a new +acquaintance: and, turning to the Gentleman, he said, I'll call upon +you before the fortnight is out, to see how reverend an appearance you +make behind Hammond on the New Testament, a concordance on one hand, +and a folio Bible with references on the other. You shall be welcome, +Sir, replied the Gentleman; and perhaps you may find some company more +to your own taste. He is but a poor council who studies on one side of +the question only; and therefore I will have your friend Woolston, +T____l, and C___s, to entertain you when you do me the favor of the +visit. Upon this we parted in good humour, and all pleased with the +appointment made, except the two Gentlemen who were to provide the +entertainment. + +The Second Day + + The company met at the time appointed: but as it happened in +this, as in like cases it often does, that some friends to some of the +company, who were not of the party the first day, had got notice of the +meeting; and the Gentlemen who were to debate the question, found they +had a more numerous audience than they expected or desired. He +especially who was to maintain the evidence for the resurrection, began +to excuse the necessity he was under of disappointing their +expectation, alledging that he was not prepared; and he had persisted +in excusing himself, but that the strangers who perceived what the case +was, offered to withdraw; which the Gentleman would by no means consent +to: they insisting to go, he said, he would much rather submit himself +to their candour, unprepared as he was, than be guilty of such +rudeness, as to force them to leave the company. Upon which one of the +company, smiling, said, It happens luckily that our number is +increased: when we were last together, we appointed a judge, but we +quite forgot a jury: and now, I think, we are good men and true, +sufficient to make one. This thought was pursued in several allusions +to legal proceedings; which created some mirth, and had this good +effect, that it dispersed the solemn air, which the mutual compliments +upon the difficulty before mentioned had introduced, and restored the +ease and good humour natural to the conversation of Gentlemen. + + The judge perceiving the disposition of the company, thought it a +proper time to begin, and called out, Gentlemen of the jury, take your +places; and immediately seated himself at the upper end of the table. +The company sat round him, and the judge called upon the council for +Woolston to begin. + + Mr. A. Council for Woolston, addressing himself to the judge, +said, + + May it please your Lordship, I conceive the Gentleman on the +other side ought to begin, and lay his evidence, which he intends to +maintain, before the court; till that is done, it is to no purpose for +me to object. I amy perhaps object to something which he will not +admit to be any part of his evidence; and therefore I apprehend, the +evidence ought in the first place to be distinctly stated. + + Judge. Mr. B What say you to that? + + Mr. B. Council on the other side: + + My Lord, If the evidence I am to maintain, were to suppose any +new claim; if I were to gain any thing which I am not already possessed +of, the Gentleman would be in the right: but the evidence is old, and +is matter of record; and I have been long in possession of all that I +claim under it. If the Gentleman has anything to say to dispossess me, +let him produce it; otherwise I have no reason to bring my own title +into question. And this I take to be the known method of proceeding +in such cases: no man is obliged to produce his title to his +possession; it is sufficient if he maintain it when it is called in +question. + + Mr A. Surely, my Lord, the Gentleman mistakes the case. I can +never admit myself to be out of possession of my understanding and +reason; and since he would put me out of this possession, and compel me +to admit things incredible, in virtue of the evidence he maintains, he +ought to set forth his claim, or leave the world to be directed by +common sense. + + Judge. Sir, you say right, upon supposition that the truth of +the Christian religion were the point in question. In that case it +would be necessary to produce the evidence for the Christian religion. +But the matter now before the court is, Whether the objections produced +by Mr. Woolston, are of weight to overthrow the evidence of Christ's +resurrection? You see then the evidence of the resurrection is supposed +to be what it is on both sides; and the thing immediately in judgement +is, the value of the objections; and therefore they must be set forth. +The court will be bound to take notice of the evidence, which is +admitted as a fact on both parts. Go on, Mr. A. + + Mr. A. My Lord, I submit to the direction of the court, I cannot +but observe, that the Gentleman on the other side, unwilling as he +seems to be to state his evidence, did not forget to lay in his claim +to prescription; which is perhaps, in truth, tho' he has too much skill +to own it, the very strength of his cause. I do allow, that the +Gentleman maintains nothing, but what his father and grandfather, and +his ancestors, beyond time of man's memory, maintained before him: I +allow too, that prescription in many cases makes a good title; but it +must always be with this condition, that the thing is capable of being +prescribed for: and I insist, that prescription cannot run against +reason and common sense. Customs may be pleaded by prescription; but +if, upon showing the custom, anything unreasonable appears in it, the +prescription fails; for length of time works nothing towards the +establishing anything that could never have a legal commencement. And +if this objection will overthrow all prescriptions for customs; the +mischief of which extends perhaps to one poor village only, and affects +them in no greater a concern, than their right of common upon a ragged +mountain: shall it not much more prevail, when the interest of mankind +is concerned, and in no less a point than his happiness in this life, +and all his hopes for futurity? Besides, if prescription must be +allowed in this case, how will you deal with it in others? What will +you say to the ancient Persians, and their fire-altars? nay, what to +the Turks, who have been long enough in possession of their faith to +plead ----- + + Mr. B. I beg pardon for interrupting the Gentleman, but it is +to save him trouble. He is going into his favorite common-place, and +has brought us from Persia to Turkey already; and if he goes on, I know +we must follow him around the globe. To save us from this long journey, +I'll waive all advantage from the antiquity of the resurrection, and +the general reception the belief of it has found in the world; and am +content to consider it as a fact which happened but last year, and was +never heard of either by the Gentleman's grandfather, or by mine. + + Mr. A. I should not have taken quite so long a journey as the +Gentleman imagines; nor, indeed, need any man go far from home to find +instances to the purpose I was upon. But, since this advantage is +quitted, I am as willing to spare my pains, as the Gentleman is +desirous that I should. And yet I suspect some art even in this +concession, fair and candid as it seems to be. For I am persuaded, +that one reason, perhaps the main reason, why men believe this history +of Jesus, is, that they cannot conceive, that any one should attempt, +much less succeed in such an attempt as this, upon the foundation of +mere human cunning and policy; and 'tis worth to go round the globe, as +the Gentleman expressed himself, so see various instances of the like +kind, in order to remove this prejudice. But I stand corrected, and +will go directly to the point now in judgement. + + Mr. B. My Lord, the Gentleman, in justification of his first +argument, has entered upon another of a very different kind. I think +he is sensible of it, and seeming to yield up one of his popular +topicks, is indeed artfully getting rid of another; which has made a +very good figure in many late writings, but will not bear in any place +where he who maintains it may be asked questions. The mere antiquity +of the resurrection I gave up; for, if the evidence was not good at +first, it can't be good now. The Gentleman is willing, he says, to +spare us his history of ancient errors; and intimates, that upon this +account he passes over many instances of fraud, that were in like +circumstances to the case before us. I would not have the main +strength of his case betrayed in complaisance to me. Nothing can be +more material than to show a fraud of this kind, that prevailed +universally in the world. Christ Jesus declared himself a Prophet, and +put the proof of his mission on this, that he should die openly and +publickly, and rise again the third day. This surely was the hardest +plot in the world to be managed; and if there be one instance of this +kind, or in any degree like it, by all means let it be produced. + + Mr. A. My Lord, There has hardly been an instance of a false +religion in the world, but it has also afforded a like instance to this +before us. Have they not all pretended to inspiration? Upon what foot +did Pythagoras, Numa, and others set up? Did they not all converse +with the gods, and pretend to deliver oracles? + + Mr. B. This only shews, that revelation is by the common consent +of mankind the very best foundation of religion; and therefore every +imposter pretends to it. But is a man's hiding himself in a cave for +some years, and then coming out into the world, to be compared to a +man's dying, and rising to life again? So far from it, that you and I +and every man may do the one, but no man can do the other. + + Mr. A. Sir, I suppose it will be allowed to be as great a thing +to go to heaven, and converse with angels, and with God, and to come +down to earth again, as it is to die, and rise again? Now, this very +thing Mahomet pretended to do; and all his disciples believe it. Can +you deny this fact? + + Mr. B. Deny it, Sir? No. But tell us who went with Mahomet? Who +were his witnesses? I expect, before we are done, to hear of the +guards set over the sepulchre of Christ, and the seal of the stone. +What guard watched Mahomet in his going or returning? What seals and +credentials had he? He himself pretends to none. His followers +pretend to nothing but his own word. We are now to consider the +evidence for Christ's resurrection, and you think to parallel it, by +producing a case for which no one ever pretended there was any +evidence. You have Mahomet's word; and no man ever told a lie, but you +had his word for the truth of what he said: and therefore you need not +go round the globe to find such instances as these. But this story, it +is said, has gained great credit, and is received by many nations. +Very well. And how was it received? Was not every man converted to +this faith with the sword at his throat? In our case, every witness to +the resurrection, and every believer of it, was hourly exposed to +death. In the other case, whoever refused to believe, died; or, what +was as bad, lived a wretched conquered slave. And will you pretend +these cases to be alike? One case indeed there was, within our own +memory, which, in some circumstances, came near to the case now before +us. The French prophets put the credit of their mission upon the +resurrection of Dr. Emmes, and gave publick notice of it. If the +Gentleman pleases to make use of this instance, it is at his service. + + Mr. A. The instance of Dr. Emmes is so far to the purpose, that +it shews to what lengths enthusiasm will carry men. And why might not +the same thing happen at Jerusalem, which happened but a few years ago +in our own country? Matthew and John, and the rest of them, managed +that affair with more dexterity than the French prophets; so that the +resurrection of Jesus gained credit in the world, and the French +prophets sunk under their ridiculous pretensions. That is all the +difference. + + Mr. B. Is it so? And a very wide difference, I promise you. In +one case everything happened that was proper to convince the world of +the resurrection; in the other, the event manifested the cheat: and +upon the view of these circumstances, you think it is sufficient to +say, with great coolness, That is all the difference. Why, what +difference do you expect between truth and falsehood? What +distinction _____ + + Judge. Gentlemen, you forget you are in a court, and are falling +into dialogue. Courts don't allow of chit-chat. Look ye, the evidence +of the resurrection of Jesus is before the court, recorded by Matthew, +Mark, and others. You must take it as it is; you can neither make it +better, or worse. These witnesses are accused of giving false +evidence. Come to the point; and let us hear what you have to offer to +prove the accusation. + + Mr. B. Is it your meaning, Sir, that the objections should be +stated and argued all together, and that the answer should be to the +whole at once? or would you have the objections argued singly, and +answered separately by themselves? + + Judge. I think this court may dispense with the strict forms of +legal proceeding; and therefore I leave this to the choice of the jury. + + + After the jury had consulted together, the foreman rose up, + + + The Foreman of the Jury. We desire to hear the objections argued +and answered separately. We shall be better able to form a judgement, +by hearing the answer while the objection is fresh in our minds. + + Judge. Gentlemen, you hear the opinion of the jury. Go on. + + Mr. A I am now to disclose to you a scene, of all others the most +surprising. "The resurrection has been long talked of, and, to the +amazement of everyone who can think freely, has been believed through +all ages of the church." This general and constant belief creates in +most minds a presumption that it was founded on good evidence. In +other cases the evidence supports the credit of the history; but here +the evidence itself is presumed only upon the credit which the story +has gained. I wish the books dispersed against Jesus by the ancient +Jews had not been lost; for they would have given us a clear insight +into this contrivance: but it is happy for us, that the very account +given by the pretended witnesses of this fact, is sufficient to destroy +the credit of it. + + The resurrection was not a thing contrived for its own sake. No! +it was undertaken to support great views, and for the sake of great +consequences that were to attend it. It will be necessary therefore to +lay before you those views, that you may be the better judge of this +part of the contrivance, when you have the whole scene before you. + + The Jews were a weak superstitious people, and, as is common +among such people, gave great credit to some traditionary prophecies +about their own country. They had, besides, some old books among them, +which they esteemed to be writings of certain Prophets, who had +formerly lived among them, and whose memory they had in great +veneration. From such old books and traditions they formed many +extravagant expectations; and among the rest one was, that some time or +other a great victorious prince would rise among them, and subdue all +their enemies, and make them lords of the world. In Augustus's time +they were in a low state, reduced under the Roman yoke; and as they +never wanted a deliverer more, so the eagerness of this hope, as it +happens to weak minds, turned into a firm expectation that he would +soon come. This proved a temptation to some bold, and to some cunning +men, to personate the prince so much expected. And "nothing is more +natural and common to promote rebellions, than to ground them on new +prophecies, or new interpretations of old ones; prophecies being suited +to the vulgar superstition, and operating with the force of religion." +Accordingly, many such imposters rose, pretending to be the victorious +prince expected; and they, and the people who followed them, perished +in the folly of their attempt. + + But Jesus, knowing that victories and triumphs are not things to +be counterfeited; that the people were not to be delivered from the +Roman yoke by sleight of hand; and having no hope of being able to cope +with the Emperor of Rome in good earnest, took another and more +successful method to carry on his design. He took upon him to be the +prince foretold in the ancient Prophets; but then he insisted that the +true sense of the prophecies had been mistaken; that they related not +to the kingdoms of this world, but to the kingdom of heaven; that the +Messias was not to be a conquering prince, but a suffering one; that +he was not to come with horses of war, and chariots of war, but was to +be meek and lowly, riding on an ass. By this means, he got the common +and necessary foundation for a new revelation, which is to be built and +founded on a precedent revelation. + + To carry on this design, he made choice of twelve men of no +fortunes or education, and of such understandings, as gave no jealousy +that they would discover the plot. And, what is most wonderful, and +shews their ability, while the master was preaching the kingdom of +heaven, these poor men, not weaned from the prejudices of their +country, expected every day that he would declare himself a king, and +were quarreling who should be his first minister. This expectation had +a good effect on the service; for it kept them constant to their +master. + + I must observe further, that the Jews were under strange +apprehensions of supernatural powers: and as their own religion was +founded on the belief of certain miracles said to be wrought by their +lawgiver Moses; so were they ever running after wonders and miracles, +and ready to take up with any stories of this kind. Now, as something +extraordinary was necessary to support the pretensions of Jesus, he +dextrously laid hold of this weakness of the people, and set up to be a +wonder-worker. His disciples were well qualified to receive this +impression: they saw, or thought they saw many strange things, and +were able to spread the fame and report of them abroad. + + This conduct had the desired success. The whole country was +alarmed, and full of the news of a great Prophet's being come among +them. They were too full of their own imagination, to attend to the +notion of a kingdom of heaven. Here was one mighty in deed and in +word; and they concluded that he was the very prince their nation +expected. Accordingly they once attempted to set him up for a King; +and at another time attended him in triumph to Jerusalem. This natural +consequence opens the natural design of the attempt. If things had +gone on successfully to the end, it is probable that the kingdom of +heaven would have been changed into a kingdom of this world. The +design indeed failed, by the impatience and over-hastiness of the +multitude; which alarmed not only the chief of the Jews, but the Roman +governor also. + + The case being come to this point, and Jesus seeing that he could +not escape being put to death, he declared, that the ancient Prophets +had foretold, that the Messias should die upon a cross, and that he +should rise again on the third day. Here was the foundation for the +continuing this plot, which otherwise had died with its author. This +was his legacy to his followers; which, having been well managed by +them and their successors, has at last produced a kingdom indeed; a +kingdom of priests, who have governed the world for many ages, and have +been strong enough to set Kings and Emperors at defiance. But so it +happens, the ancient Prophets appealed to are still extant; and there +being no such prophecies of the death and resurrection of the Messias, +they are a standing evidence against this story. As he expected, so it +happened, that he died on a cross; and the prosecuting of this +contrivance was left to the management of his disciples and followers. +Their part is next to be considered-----. + + Mr. B. My Lord, Since it is your opinion that the objections +should be considered singly, and the Gentleman has carried his scheme +down to the death of Christ, I think he is come to a proper rest; and +that it is agreeable to your intention that I should be admitted to +answer. + + Judge. You say right, Sir. Let us hear what you answer to +this charge. + + Mr. B. My Lord, I was unwilling to disturb the Gentleman by +breaking in upon his scheme; otherwise I would have reminded him that +this court sits to examine evidence, and not to be entertained with +fine imaginations. You have had a scheme laid before you, but not one +bit of evidence to support any part of it; no, not so much as a +pretence to any evidence. The Gentleman was, I remember, very sorry +that the old books of the Jews were lost, which would, as he supposes, +have set forth all this matter; and I agree with him, that he has much +reason to be sorry, considering his great scarcity of proof. And since +I have mentioned this, that I may not be to return to it again, I would +ask the Gentleman now, how he knows there ever were such books? And +since, if ever there were any, they are lost, how he knows what they +contained? I doubt I shall have frequent occasion to ask such +questions. It would indeed be a sufficient answer to the whole, to +repeat the several suppositions that have been made, and to call for +the evidence upon which they stand. This would plainly discover every +part of the story to be mere fiction. But since the Gentleman seems +to have endeavored to bring under one view the many insinuations which +have of late been spread abroad by different hands, and to work the +whole into a consistent scheme; I will, if your patience shall permit, +examine this plot, and see to whom the honour of the contrivance +belongs. + + The Gentleman begins with expressing his "amazement, that the +resurrection has been believed in all ages of the church." If you ask +him, Why? he must answer , Because the account of it is a forgery; for +it is no amazement to him, surely, that a true account should be +generally well received. So that this remark proceeds indeed from +confidence rather than amazement; and comes only to this, that he is +sure that there was no resurrection. And I am sure that this is no +evidence that there was none. Whether he is mistaken in his +confidence, or I in mine, the court must judge. + + The Gentleman's observation, That the general belief of the +resurrection creates a presumption that it stands upon good evidence, +and therefore people look no farther, but follow their fathers, as +their fathers did their grandfathers before them, is in great measure +true; but it is a truth nothing to his purpose. He allows, that the +resurrection has been believed in all ages of the church; that is, from +the very time of the resurrection: what then prevailed with those who +first received it? They certainly did not follow the example of their +fathers. Here then is the point, How did this fact gain credit in the +world at first? Credit it has gained without doubt. If the multitude +at present go into this belief through prejudice, example, and for +company sake, they do in this case no more, nor otherwise, than they do +in all cases. And it cannot be denied, but that truth may be received +through prejudice, (as it is called), i.e. without examining the proof, +or merits of the cause, as well as falsehood. What general truth is +there, the merits of which all the world, or the one hundredth part has +examined? It is smartly said somewhere, That the priest only continues +what the nurse began. But the life of the remark consists in the +quaintness of the antithesis between the nurse and the priest; and owes +its support much more to sound than to sense. For is it possible that +children should not hear something of the common and popular opinions +of their country, whether these opinions be true or false? Do they not +learn the common maxims of reason this way? Perhaps every man first +learned from his nurse that two and two make four; and whenever she +divides an apple among her children, she instills into them this +prejudice, That the whole is equal to its parts, and all the parts +equal to the whole: and yet Sir Isaac Newton, (shame on him!) what work +has he made, what a building he has erected upon the foundation of this +nursery-learning? As to religion, there never was a religion, there +never will be one, whether true or false, publickly owned in any +country, but children have heard, and ever will hear, more or less of +it from those who are placed about them. And if this is, and ever must +be the case, whether the religion be true or false; 'tis highly absurd +to lay stress on this observation, when the question is about the truth +of any religion; for the observation is indifferent to both sides of +the question. + + We are now, I think, got through the common-place learning, which +must forever, it seems, attend upon questions of this nature; and are +coming to the very merits of the cause. + + And here the Gentleman on the other side thought proper to begin +with an account of the people of the Jews, the people in whose country +the fact is laid, and who were originally, and in some respects +principally concerned in its consequences. + + They were, he says, a weak superstitious people, and lived under +certain pretended prophecies and predictions; that upon this ground +they had, some time before the appearance of Christ Jesus, conceived +great expectation of the coming of a victorious prince, who should +deliver them from the Roman yoke, and make them all kings and princes. +He goes on then to observe, how liable the people were, in this state +of things, to be imposed on, and led into rebellion, by any one who +was bold enough to take upon him to personate the prince expected. He +observes further, that in fact many such imposters did arise, and +deceived multitudes to their ruin and destruction. + + I have laid these things together, because I do not intend to +dispute these matters with the Gentleman. Whether the Jews were a weak +and superstitious people, and influenced by false prophecies, or +whether they had true prophecies among them, is not material to the +present question: it is enough for the Gentleman's argument if I allow +the fact to be as he has stated it, that they did expect a victorious +prince; that they were upon this account exposed to be practised on by +pretenders; and in fact were often so deluded. + + This foundation being laid, it was natural to expect, and I +believe your Lordship and every one present did expect, that the +Gentleman would go on to shew, that Jesus laid hold of this +opportunity, struck in with the opinion of the people, and professed +himself to be the prince who was to work their deliverance. But so +far, it seems, is this from being the case, that the charge upon Jesus +is, that he took the contrary part, and set up in opposition to all the +popular notions and prejudices of his country; that he interpreted the +prophecies to another sense and meaning than his countrymen did; and by +his expositions took away all hopes of their ever seeing the victorious +deliverer so much wanted and expected. + + I know not how to bring the Gentleman's premisses and his +conclusion to any agreement; they seem to be at a great variance at +present. If it be the likeliest method for an imposter to succeed, to +build on the popular opinions, prejudices and prophecies of the people; +then surely an imposter cannot possibly take a worse method, than to +set up in opposition to all the prejudices and prophecies of the +country. Where was the art and cunning then of taking this method? +Could anything be expected from it but hatred, contempt, and +persecution? And did Christ in fact meet with any other treatment from +the Jews? And yet when he found, as the Gentleman allows he did, that +he must perish in this attempt, did he change his note? did he come +about, and drop any intimations agreeable to the notions of the people? +It is not pretended. This, which, in any other case which ever +happened, would be taken to be a plain mark of great honesty, or great +stupidity, or of both, is in the present case art, policy, and +contrivance. + + But, it seems, Jesus dared not set up to be the victorious prince +expected, for victories are not to be counterfeited. I hope it was no +crime in him that he did not assume this false character, and try to +abuse the credibility of the people; if he had done so, it certainly +would have been a crime; and therefore in this point at least he is +innocent. I do not suppose the Gentleman imagines the Jews were well +founded in their expectation of a temporal prince: and therefore when +Christ opposed this conceit at the manifest hazard of his life, as he +certainly had truth on his side, so the presumption is, that it was for +the sake of truth that he exposed himself. + + No. He wanted, we are told, the common and necessary foundation +for a new revelation, the authority of an old one to build on. Very +well. I will not inquire how common, or how necessary this foundation +is to a new revelation; for, be that case as it will, it is evident, +that in the method Christ took, he had not, nor could have the supposed +advantage of such foundation. For why is this foundation necessary? A +friend of the Gentleman's shall tell you "Because it must be difficult, +if not impossible, to introduce among men (who in all civilized +countries are bred up in the belief of some revealed religion) a +revealed religion wholly new, or such as has no reference to a +preceding one; for that would be to combat all men on too many +respects, and not to proceed on a sufficient number of principles +necessary to be assented to by those on whom the first impressions of a +new religion are proposed to be made." You see now the reason of the +necessity of this foundation: it is, that the new teacher may have the +advantage of old popular opinions, and fix himself upon the prejudices +of the people. Had Christ any such advantages? or did he seek any +such? The people expected a victorious prince; he told them they were +mistaken: they held as sacred the traditions of the elders; he told +them those traditions made the law of God of none effect: they valued +themselves for being the peculiar people of God; he told them, that +people from all quarters of the world should be the people of God, and +sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom: they thought +God could be worshipped only at Jerusalem; he told them God might and +should be worshipped everywhere: they were superstitious in the +observance of the sabbath; he, according to their reckoning, broke it +frequently: in a word, their washings of hands and pots, their +superstitious distinctions of meats, their prayers in publick, their +villanies in secret, were all reproved, exposed, and condemned by him; +and the cry ran strongly against him, that he came to destroy the Law +and the Prophets. And now, Sir, what advantage did Christ have of your +common and necessary foundation? What sufficient number of principles +owned by the people did he build on? If he adhered to the old +revelation in the true sense, or (which is sufficient to the present +argument) in a sense not received by the people, it was in truth the +greatest difficulty he had to struggle with: and therefore what could +tempt him, but purely a regard for truth, to take upon himself so many +difficulties, which might have been avoided, could he have been but +silent as to the old revelation, and left the people to their +imaginations? + + To carry on this plot, we are told, that the next thing which +Jesus did, was, to make choice of proper persons to be his disciples. +The Gentleman has given us their character; but, as I suppose he has +more employment for them before he has done, I desire to defer the +consideration of their abilities and conduct till I hear what work he +has for them to do. I would only observe, that thus far this plot +differs from all that ever I heard of. Imposters generally take +advantage of the prejudices of the people, generally too they make +choice of cunning dextrous fellows to manage under them; but in this +case Jesus opposed all the notions of the people, and made choice of +simpletons, it seems, to conduct his contrivances. + + But what design, what real end was carrying on all this while? +Why, the Gentleman tells us, that the very thing disclaimed, the +temporal kingdom, was the real thing aimed at under this disguise. He +told the people there was no foundation to expect a temporal deliverer, +warned them against all who would set up those pretensions; he +declared there was no ground from the ancient prophecies to expect such +a prince: and yet by these very means he was working his way to an +opportunity of declaring himself to be the very prince the people +wanted. We are still upon the marvelous; every step opens new wonders. +I blame not the Gentleman; for what but this can be imagined to give +any account of these measures imputed to Christ? Be this never so +unlikely, yet this is the only thing that can be said. Had Christ been +charged with enthusiasm, it would not have been necessary to assign a +reason for his conduct: madness is unaccountable: Ratione modoque +tractari non vult. But when design, cunning, and fraud are made the +charge, and carried to such an height, as to suppose him to be a party +to the contrivance of a sham resurrection for himself, it is necessary +to say to what end this cunning tended. It was, we are told, to a +kingdom: and indeed the temptation was little enough, considering that +the chief conductor of the plot was crucified for his pains. But were +the means made use of at all probable to achieve the end? Yes, says +the Gentleman, that can't be disputed; for they had really this effect, +the people would have made him King. Very well: Why was he not King +then? Why, it happened unluckily that he would not accept the offer, +but withdrew himself from the multitude, and lay concealed until they +were dispersed. It will be said, perhaps, that Jesus was a better +judge of affairs than the people, and saw that it was not yet time to +accept the offer. Be it so; let us see then what follows. + + The government was alarmed, and Jesus was looked on as a person +dangerous to the state; and he had discernment enough to see that his +death was determined and inevitable. What does he do then? Why, to +make the best of a bad case, and to save the benefit of his undertaking +to those who were to succeed him, he pretends to prophecy of his death, +which he knew could not be avoided: Men do not use to play tricks in +articulo mortis; but this plot had nothing common, nothing in the +ordinary way. But what if it should appear, that after the foretelling +of his death (through despair of his fortunes it is said) he had it in +his power to set up for King once more, and once more refused the +opportunity? Men in despair lay hold on the least help, and never +refuse the greatest. Now, the case was really so. After he had +foretold his crucifixion, he came to Jerusalem in the triumphant manner +the Gentleman mentioned; the people strewed his way with boughs and +flowers, and were all at his devotion; the Jewish governors lay still +for fear of the people. Why was not this opportunity laid hold on to +seize the kingdom, or at least to secure himself from the ignominious +death he expected? For whose sake was he contented to die? for whose +sake did he contrive this plot of his resurrection? Wife and children +he had none; his nearest relations gave little credit to him; his +disciples were not fit even to be trusted with the secret, nor capable +to manage any advantage that could arise from it. However, the +Gentleman tells us, a kingdom has arisen out of this plot, a kingdom of +priests. But when did it arise? Some hundred years after the death of +Christ, in opposition to his will, and almost to the subversion of his +religion. And yet we are told this kingdom was the thing he had in +view. I am apt to think the Gentleman is persuaded, that the dominion +he complains of is contrary to the spirit of the gospel; I am sure some +of his friends have taken great pains to prove it is so. How then can +it be charged as the intention of the gospel to introduce it? Whatever +the case was, it cannot surely be suspected that Christ died to make +Popes and Cardinals. The alterations which have happened in the +doctrines and practices of churches, since the Christian religion was +settled by those who had an authentick commission to settle it, are +quite out of the question, when the inquiry is about the truth of the +Christian religion. Christ and his Apostles did not vouch for the +truth of all that should be taught in the church in future times; nay, +they foretold and fore warned the world against such corrupt teachers. +It is therefore absurd to challenge the religion of Christ, because of +the corruptions which have spread among Christians. The gospel has no +more concern with them, and ought no more to be charged with them, than +with the doctrines of the Alcoran. + + There is but one observation more, I think, which the Gentleman +made under this head. Jesus, he says, referred to the authority of +ancient prophecies to prove that the Messias was to die and rise +again; the ancient books referred to are extant, and no such +prophecies, he says, are to be found. Now, whether the Gentleman can +find these prophecies or no, is not material to the present question. +It is allowed that Christ foretold his own death and resurrection; if +the resurrection was managed by fraud, Christ was certainly in the +fraud himself, by foretelling the fraud which was to happen: disprove +therefore the resurrection, and we shall have no further occasion for +prophecy. On the other side, by foretelling the resurrection, he +certainly put the proof of his mission on the truth of the event. +Whether it be the character of the Messias, in the ancient Prophets, or +no, that he should die, and rise again; without doubt Jesus is not the +Messias, if he did not rise again: for, by his own prophecy, he made +it part of the character of the Messias. If the event justified the +prediction, it is such an evidence as no man of sense and reason can +reject. One would naturally think, that the foretelling his +resurrection, and giving such publick notice to expect it, that his +keenest enemies were fully apprised of it, carried with it the greatest +mark of sincere dealing. It stands thus far clear of the suspicion of +fraud. And had it proceeded from enthusiasm, and an heated +imagination, the dead body at least would have rested in the grave, and +without further evidence have confuted such pretensions: and since the +dead body was not only carried openly to the grave, but there watched +and guarded, and yet could never afterwards be found, never heard of +more as a dead body, there must of necessity have been either a real +miracle, or a great fraud in this case. Enthusiasm dies with the man, +and has no operation on his dead body. There is therefore here no +medium: you must either admit the miracle, or prove the fraud. + + Judge. Mr. A. You are at liberty either to reply to what +has been said under this head, or to go on with your cause + + Mr. A. My Lord, the observations I laid before you, were but +introductory to the main evidences on which the merits of the cause +must rest. The Gentleman concluded, that here must be a real miracle +or a great fraud; a fraud, he means, to which Jesus in his lifetime was +a party. There is, he says, no medium. I beg his pardon. Why might +it not be an enthusiasm in the master which occasioned the prediction, +and fraud in the servants who put it in execution? + + Mr. B. My Lord, This is new matter, and not a reply. The +Gentleman opened this transaction as a fraud from one end to the other. +Now he supposes Christ to have been an honest, poor enthusiast, and the +disciples only to be cheats. + + Judge. Sir, if you go to new matter, the council on the +other side must be admitted to answer. + + Mr. A. My Lord, I have no such intention. I was observing, +that the account I gave of Jesus was only to introduce the evidence +that is to be laid before the court. It cannot be expected, that I +should know all the secret designs of this contrivance, especially +considering that we have but short accounts of this affair, and those +too conveyed through hands of friends and parties to the plot. In such +a case it is enough if we can imagine what the views probably were; and +in such case too it must be very easy for a Gentleman of parts to raise +contrary imaginations, and to argue plausibly from them. But the +Gentleman has rightly observed, that if the resurrection be a fraud, +there is an end to all pretensions, good or bad, that were to be +supported by it: therefore I shall go on to prove this fraud, which is +one main part of the cause now to be determined. + + I beg leave to remind you, that Jesus in his lifetime foretold +his death, and that he should rise again the third day. The first part +of his prediction was accomplished: he died on the cross and was +buried. I will not trouble you with the particulars of his +crucifixion, death, and burial; it is a well known story. + + Mr. B. My Lord, I desire to know, whether the Gentleman +charges any fraud upon this part of the history. Perhaps he may be of +the opinion by and by, that there was a sleight of hand in the +crucifixion, and that Christ only counterfeited death. + + Mr. A. No, no; have no such fears; he was not crucified by +his disciples; but by the Romans and the Jews; and they were in very +good earnest. I will prove beyond contradiction, that the dead body +was fairly laid in the tomb; and it will be well for you if you can get +it as fairly out again. + + Judge. Go on with your evidence. + + Mr. A. My Lord, the crucifixion being over, the dead body +was conveyed to a sepulchre; and in the general opinion there seemed to +be an end of the whole design. But the governors of the Jews, watchful +for the safety of the people, called to mind that Jesus in his +lifetime had said, that he would rise again on the third day. It may +at first sight seem strange that they should give any attention to such +a prophecy; a prophecy big with confidence and presumption, and which +to the common sense of mankind carried its confutation along with it: +and "there is no other nation in the world which would not have +slighted such a vain prognostication of a known imposter." But they +had warning to be watchful. It was not long before, that the people +"had like to have been fatally deluded and imposed on by him in the +pretended resuscitation of Lazarus." They had fully discovered the +cheat in the case of Lazarus, and had narrowly escaped the dangerous +consequences of it. And though Jesus was dead, yet he had many +disciples and followers alive, who were ready enough to combine in any +fraud, to verify the prediction of their master. Should they succeed, +the rulers foresaw, the consequences in this case would be more fatal +than those which before they had narrowly escaped. Upon this account +they addressed themselves to the Roman governor, told him how the case +was, and desired that he would grant them a guard to watch the +sepulchre; that the service would not be long, for the prediction +limited the resurrection to the third day; and when that was over, the +soldiers might be released from the duty. Pilate granted the request; +and a guard was set to watch the sepulchre. + + This was not all. The chief priests took another method to +prevent all frauds, and it was the best that could possibly be taken; +which was, to seal up the door of the sepulchre. To understand to what +purpose this caution was used, you need only consider what is intended +by sealing up doors, and boxes, or writings. Is it not for the +satisfaction of all parties concerned, that they may be sure things are +in the state they left them, when they come and find their seals not +injured? This was the method used by Darius, when Daniel was cast into +the lions den; he sealed the door of the den. And for what purpose? +Was it not to satisfy himself and his court, that no art had been used +to preserve Daniel? And when he came and saw Daniel safe, and his seal +untouched, he was satisfied. And indeed if we consider the thing +rightly, a seal thus used imports a covenant. If you deliver writings +to a person sealed, and he accepts them so, your delivery and his +acceptance implies a covenant between you, that the writings shall be +delivered and the seal whole; and should the seal be broken, it would +be a manifest fraud, and breach of trust. Nay, so strongly is this +covenant implied, that there needs no special agreement in the case; it +is a compact which men are put under by the law of nations, and the +common consent of mankind. When you send a letter sealed to the post- +house, you have not indeed a special agreement with all persons through +whose hands it passes, that it shall not be opened by any hand , but +his only to whom it is directed; yet men know themselves to be under +this restraint, and that it is unlawful and dishonorable to transgress +it. + + Since then the sepulchre was sealed; since the seal imported a +covenant, consider who were the parties to this covenant. They could +be no other than the chief priests on one side, and the apostles on the +other. To prove this, no special agreement need be shewn. On one +side, there was a concern to see the prophecy fulfilled; on the other, +to prevent fraud in fulfilling it. The sum of their agreement was +naturally this, that the seals should be opened at the time appointed +for the resurrection, that all parties might see and be satisfied, +whether the dead body was come to life or no. + + What now would any reasonable man expect from these +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. + + The Gentleman thinks, that the detection in the case of Lazarus +ought to have made the Jews quite unconcerned in the case of Jesus, and +secure as to the event of his own resurrection. He says very true, +supposing their care had been for themselves: but governors have +another care upon their hands, the care of their people; and 'tis not +enough for them to guard against being imposed on themselves, they must +be watchful to guard the multitude against frauds and deceits. The +chief priests were satisfied indeed of the fraud in the case of +Lazarus, yet they saw the people deceived by it; and for this reason, +and not for their own satisfaction, they used the caution in the case +of the resurrection of Jesus, which I before laid before you. In so +doing, they are well justified; and the inconsistency charged on the +other side, between their opinion of Jesus, and their fear of being +imposed on by his pretended resurrection, is fully answered. + + 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. 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. + + 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. + + In answer to this, it is said, That the angels are not properly +reckoned among the witnesses of the resurrection; they were not in the +number of the chosen witnesses, or sent to bear testimony in the world: +that they were indeed ministers of God appointed to attend the +resurrection: that God has such ministers, cannot be reasonably +doubted; nor can it be objected, that they were improperly employed, or +below their dignity, in attending on the resurrection of Christ: that +we believe them to be angels, not on the report of the women, but upon +the credit of the evangelist who affirms it: that what is said of +apparitions on this occasion, may pass for wit and ridicule, but yields +not reason or argument. + + The objection to the women was, I think, only that they were +women; which was strengthened by calling them silly women. + + It was answered, That women have eyes and ears as well as men, +and can tell what they see and hear. And it happened in this case, +that the women were so far from being credulous, that they believed not +the angels, and hardly believed their own report. However, that the +women are none of the chosen witnesses; and if they were, the evidence +of the men cannot be set aside, because women saw what they saw.. + + This is the substance of the objections and the answers. + + The council for the apostles insisted further, That they gave the +greatest assurance to the world that possibly could be given, of their +sincere dealing, by suffering all kinds of hardship, and at last death +itself, in confirmation of the truth of their evidence. + + The council for Woolston, in reply to this, told you, That all +religions, whether true or false, had had their martyrs; that no +opinion, however absurd, can be named, but some have been content to +die for it; and then concluded, that suffering is no evidence of the +truth of the opinions for which men suffer. + + To clear this matter to you, I must observe how this case stands. +You have heard often, in the course of this argument, that the apostles +were witnesses chosen to bear testimony to the resurrection; and, for +that reason, had the fullest evidence themselves of the truth of it; +not merely by seeing Christ once or twice after his death, but by +frequent conversations with him for forty days together, before his +ascension. That this was their proper business, appears plainly from +history; where we find, that to ordain an apostle, was the same thing +as ordaining one to be a witness of the resurrection.[Acts 1:22] If +you look further, to the preaching of the apostles, you will find this +was the great article insisted on [Acts 2:22, 3:15, 4:10, 5:30]. And +St. Paul knew the weight of this article, and the necessity of teaching +it, when he said, If Christ be not risen, our faith is vain. You see, +then, that the thing which the apostles testified, and the thing for +which they suffered, was the truth of the resurrection; which is a mere +matter of fact. + + Consider now how the objection stands. The council for Woolston +tells you, that it is common for men to die for false opinions; and he +tells you nothing but the truth. But even in those cases their +suffering is an evidence of their sincerity; and it would be very hard +to charge men who die for the doctrine they profess, with insincerity +in the profession. Mistaken they may be; but every mistaken man is not +a cheat. Now, if you will allow the suffering of the apostles to prove +their sincerity, which you cannot well disallow; and consider that they +died for the truth of a matter of fact which they had seen themselves, +you will perceive how strong the evidence is in this case. In +doctrines, and matters of opinion, men mistake perpetually; and it is +no reason for me to take up with another man's opinion, because I am +persuaded he is sincere in it. But when a man reports to me an uncommon +fact, yet such an one as in its own nature is a plain object of sense; +if I believe him not, it is not because I suspect his eyes, or his +sense of feeling, but merely because I suspect his sincerity: for if I +was to see the same thing myself, I should believe myself; and +therefore my suspicion does not arise from the inability of human +senses to judge in the case, but from a doubt of the sincerity of the +reporter. In such cases, therefore, there wants nothing to be proved, +but only the sincerity of the reporter: and since voluntary sufferings +for the truth, is at least a proof of sincerity; the sufferings of the +apostles for the truth of the resurrection, is a full and +unexceptionable proof. + + The council for Woolston was sensible of this difference; and +therefore he added, that there are many instances of men's suffering +and dying in an obstinate denial of the truth of facts plainly proved. +This observation is also true. I remember a story of a man who endured +with great constancy all the tortures of the rack, denying the fact +with which he was charged. When he was asked afterwards, how he could +hold out against all the tortures? He answered, I had painted a gallows +upon the toe of my shoe, and when the rack stretched me, I looked on +the gallows, and bore the pain, to save my life. This man denied a +plain fact, under great torture; but you see a reason for it. In other +cases, when criminals persist in denying their crimes, they often do +it, and there is a reason to suspect they do it always, in hopes of a +pardon or reprieve. But what are these instances to the present +purpose? All these men suffer against their will, and for their +crimes; and their obstinacy is built on the hope of escaping, by moving +the compassion of the government. Can the Gentleman give any instances +of persons who died willingly in attestation of a false fact? We have +had in England some weak enough to die for the Pope's supremacy; but do +you think a man could be found to die in proof of the Pope's being +actually on the throne of England? + + Now, the apostles died in asserting the truth of Christ's +resurrection. It was always in their power to quit their evidence and +save their lives. Even their bitterest enemies, the Jews, required no +more of them than to be silent. [Acts 4:17, 5:28] Others have denied +facts, or asserted facts, in hopes of saving their lives, when they +were under sentence of death: but these men attested a fact at the +expence of their lives, which they might have saved by denying the +truth. So that between criminals dying, and denying plain facts, and +the apostles dying for their testimony, there is this material +difference: criminals deny the truth in hopes of saving their lives; +the apostles willingly parted with their lives, rather than deny the +truth. + + We are come now to the last, and indeed the most weighty +consideration. + + The council for the apostles having in the course of the argument +allowed, that more evidence is required to support the credit of the +resurrection, it being a very extraordinary event, than is necessary in +common cases, in the latter part of his defence sets forth the +extraordinary evidence upon which this fact stands. That is, the +evidence of the Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom and power, which was given +to the apostles, to enable them to confirm their testimony by signs and +wonders, and mighty works. This part of the argument was well argued +by the Gentleman, and I need not repeat all he said. + + The council for Woolston, in his reply, made two objections to +this evidence. + + The first was this: That the resurrection having all along been +pleaded to be a matter of fact, and an object of sense, to recur to +miracles for the proof of it, is to take it out of its proper evidence, +the evidence of sense; and to rest it upon a proof which cannot be +applied to it: for seeing one miracle, he says, is no evidence that +another miracle was wrought before it; as healing a sick man, is no +evidence that a dead man was raised to life. + + To clear this difficulty, you must consider by what train of +reasoning miracles come to be proofs in any case. A miracle of itself +proves nothing, unless this only, that there is a cause equal to the +producing the effect we see. Suppose you should see a man raise one +from the dead, and he should go away and say nothing to you, you would +not find that any fact, or any proposition, was proved or disproved by +this miracle. But should he declare to you, in the name of him, by +whose power the miracle was wrought, that image-worship was unlawful, +you would then be possessed of a proof against image-worship. But how? +Not because the miracle proves anything as to the point itself, but +because the man's declaration is authorised by him who wrought the +miracle in confirmation of his doctrine; and therefore miracles are +directly a proof of the authority of persons, and not of the truth of +things. + + To apply this to the present case: If the apostles had wrought +miracles, and said nothing of the resurrection, the miracles would have +proved nothing about the resurrection one way or another. But when as +eye-witnesses they attested the truth of the resurrection, and wrought +miracles to confirm their authority; the miracles did not directly +prove the resurrection; but they confirmed and established beyond all +suspicion the proper evidence, the evidence of eye-witnesses. So that +here is no change of the evidence from proper to improper; the fact +still rests upon the evidence of sense, confirmed and strengthened by +the authority of the Spirit. If a witness calls in his neighbors to +attest his veracity, they prove nothing as to the fact in question, but +only confirm the evidence of the witness. The case here is the same; +though between the authorities brought in confirmation of the evidence, +there is no comparison. + + The second objection was, That this evidence, however good it may +be in its kind, is yet nothing to us. It was well, the Gentleman says, +for those who had it; but what is that to us, who have it not? + + To adjust this difficulty, I must observe to you, that the +evidence now under consideration, was not a private evidence of the +Spirit, or any inward light, like to that which the Quakers in our time +pretend to; but an evidence appearing in the manifest and visible works +of the Spirit: and this evidence was capable of being transmitted, and +actually has been transmitted to us upon unquestionable authority. And +to allow the evidence to have been good in the first ages, and not in +this, seems to be to be a contradiction to the rules of reasoning: for +if we see enough to judge that the first ages had reason to believe, we +must needs see at the same time, that it is reasonable for us also to +believe. As the present question only relates to the nature of the +evidence, it was not necessary to produce from history the instances to +shew in how plentiful a manner this evidence was granted to the church. +Whoever wants this satisfaction, may easily have it. + + Gentlemen of the jury, I have laid before you the substance of +what has been said on both sides. You are now to consider of it, and +to give your verdict. + + The jury consulted together, and the Foreman rose up. + + Foreman. My Lord, We are ready to give our verdict. + + Judge. Are you all agreed? + + Jury. Yes. + + Judge. Who shall speak for you? + + Jury. Our Foreman. + + Judge. What say you? Are the apostles guilty of giving +false evidence in the case of the resurrection of Jesus, or not guilty? + + Foreman. Not guilty. + + Judge. Very well. And now, Gentlemen, I resign my commission +and am your humble servant. + + The company rose up, and were beginning to pay their compliments +to the judge and the council; but were interrupted by a Gentleman, who +went up to the judge, and offered him a fee. What's this? Says the +judge. A fee, Sir, said the Gentleman. A fee to a judge is a bribe, +said the judge. True, Sir, said the Gentleman; but you have resigned +your commission, and will not be the first judge who has come from the +bench without any diminution of honour. Now, Lazarus's case is to come +on next, and this fee is to retain you on his side. There followed a +confused noise of all speaking together, to persuade the judge to take +the fee: but as the trial had lasted longer than I expected, and I had +lapsed the time of an appointment for business, I was forced to slip +away; and whether the judge was prevailed on to undertake the cause of +Lazarus, or no, I cannot say. + +FINIS + + + + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK, THE TRIAL OF THE WITNESSSES OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST *** + +This file should be named 5608.txt or 5608.zip + +Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the US +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we usually do not +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +We are now trying to release all our eBooks one year in advance +of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing. +Please be encouraged to tell us about any error or corrections, +even years after the official publication date. + +Please note neither this listing nor its contents are final til +midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement. +The official release date of all Project Gutenberg eBooks is at +Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month. A +preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment +and editing by those who wish to do so. + +Most people start at our Web sites at: +https://gutenberg.org or +http://promo.net/pg + +These Web sites include award-winning information about Project +Gutenberg, including how to donate, how to help produce our new +eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter (free!). + + +Those of you who want to download any eBook before announcement +can get to them as follows, and just download by date. This is +also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the +indexes our cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an +announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg Newsletter. + +http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext04 or +ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext04 + +Or /etext03, 02, 01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90 + +Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want, +as it appears in our Newsletters. + + +Information about Project Gutenberg (one page) + +We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work. The +time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours +to get any eBook selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright +searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc. Our +projected audience is one hundred million readers. If the value +per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2 +million dollars per hour in 2002 as we release over 100 new text +files per month: 1240 more eBooks in 2001 for a total of 4000+ +We are already on our way to trying for 2000 more eBooks in 2002 +If they reach just 1-2% of the world's population then the total +will reach over half a trillion eBooks given away by year's end. + +The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away 1 Trillion eBooks! +This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers, +which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users. + +Here is the briefest record of our progress (* means estimated): + +eBooks Year Month + + 1 1971 July + 10 1991 January + 100 1994 January + 1000 1997 August + 1500 1998 October + 2000 1999 December + 2500 2000 December + 3000 2001 November + 4000 2001 October/November + 6000 2002 December* + 9000 2003 November* +10000 2004 January* + + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been created +to secure a future for Project Gutenberg into the next millennium. + +We need your donations more than ever! + +As of February, 2002, contributions are being solicited from people +and organizations in: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, +Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, +Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, +Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New +Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, +Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South +Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West +Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. + +We have filed in all 50 states now, but these are the only ones +that have responded. + +As the requirements for other states are met, additions to this list +will be made and fund raising will begin in the additional states. +Please feel free to ask to check the status of your state. + +In answer to various questions we have received on this: + +We are constantly working on finishing the paperwork to legally +request donations in all 50 states. If your state is not listed and +you would like to know if we have added it since the list you have, +just ask. + +While we cannot solicit donations from people in states where we are +not yet registered, we know of no prohibition against accepting +donations from donors in these states who approach us with an offer to +donate. + +International donations are accepted, but we don't know ANYTHING about +how to make them tax-deductible, or even if they CAN be made +deductible, and don't have the staff to handle it even if there are +ways. + +Donations by check or money order may be sent to: + +Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +PMB 113 +1739 University Ave. +Oxford, MS 38655-4109 + +Contact us if you want to arrange for a wire transfer or payment +method other than by check or money order. + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been approved by +the US Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) organization with EIN +[Employee Identification Number] 64-622154. Donations are +tax-deductible to the maximum extent permitted by law. As fund-raising +requirements for other states are met, additions to this list will be +made and fund-raising will begin in the additional states. + +We need your donations more than ever! + +You can get up to date donation information online at: + +https://www.gutenberg.org/donation.html + + +*** + +If you can't reach Project Gutenberg, +you can always email directly to: + +Michael S. Hart <hart@pobox.com> + +Prof. Hart will answer or forward your message. + +We would prefer to send you information by email. + + +**The Legal Small Print** + + +(Three Pages) + +***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS**START*** +Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers. +They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with +your copy of this eBook, even if you got it for free from +someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our +fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement +disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how +you may distribute copies of this eBook if you want to. + +*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS EBOOK +By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm +eBook, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept +this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive +a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this eBook by +sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person +you got it from. If you received this eBook on a physical +medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request. + +ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM EBOOKS +This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBooks, +is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart +through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project"). +Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright +on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and +distribute it in the United States without permission and +without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth +below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this eBook +under the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark. + +Please do not use the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark to market +any commercial products without permission. + +To create these eBooks, the Project expends considerable +efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain +works. Despite these efforts, the Project's eBooks and any +medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other +things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other +intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged +disk or other eBook medium, a computer virus, or computer +codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. + +LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES +But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below, +[1] Michael Hart and the Foundation (and any other party you may +receive this eBook from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook) disclaims +all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including +legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR +UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT, +INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE +OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE +POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. + +If you discover a Defect in this eBook within 90 days of +receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) +you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that +time to the person you received it from. If you received it +on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and +such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement +copy. If you received it electronically, such person may +choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to +receive it electronically. + +THIS EBOOK IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS +TO THE EBOOK OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT +LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A +PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or +the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the +above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you +may have other legal rights. + +INDEMNITY +You will indemnify and hold Michael Hart, the Foundation, +and its trustees and agents, and any volunteers associated +with the production and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm +texts harmless, from all liability, cost and expense, including +legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the +following that you do or cause: [1] distribution of this eBook, +[2] alteration, modification, or addition to the eBook, +or [3] any Defect. + +DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm" +You may distribute copies of this eBook electronically, or by +disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this +"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg, +or: + +[1] Only give exact copies of it. Among other things, this + requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the + eBook or this "small print!" statement. You may however, + if you wish, distribute this eBook in machine readable + binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form, + including any form resulting from conversion by word + processing or hypertext software, but only so long as + *EITHER*: + + [*] The eBook, when displayed, is clearly readable, and + does *not* contain characters other than those + intended by the author of the work, although tilde + (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may + be used to convey punctuation intended by the + author, and additional characters may be used to + indicate hypertext links; OR + + [*] The eBook may be readily converted by the reader at + no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent + form by the program that displays the eBook (as is + the case, for instance, with most word processors); + OR + + [*] You provide, or agree to also provide on request at + no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the + eBook in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC + or other equivalent proprietary form). + +[2] Honor the eBook refund and replacement provisions of this + "Small Print!" statement. + +[3] Pay a trademark license fee to the Foundation of 20% of the + gross profits you derive calculated using the method you + already use to calculate your applicable taxes. If you + don't derive profits, no royalty is due. Royalties are + payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation" + the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were + legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent + periodic) tax return. Please contact us beforehand to + let us know your plans and to work out the details. + +WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO? +Project Gutenberg is dedicated to increasing the number of +public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed +in machine readable form. + +The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time, +public domain materials, or royalty free copyright licenses. +Money should be paid to the: +"Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or +software or other items, please contact Michael Hart at: +hart@pobox.com + +[Portions of this eBook's header and trailer may be reprinted only +when distributed free of all fees. Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 by +Michael S. Hart. Project Gutenberg is a TradeMark and may not be +used in any sales of Project Gutenberg eBooks or other materials be +they hardware or software or any other related product without +express permission.] + +*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS*Ver.02/11/02*END* + diff --git a/5608.zip b/5608.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..ec9b0b8 --- /dev/null +++ b/5608.zip diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f025b2c --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #5608 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5608) |