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.