Page images
PDF
EPUB

third Day at a Banquet with the King and Haman her Adversary.

NOTWITHSTANDING therefore this Objection, it appears that Jefus rofe from the Grave at the time foretold by him.

2 S. THE next Objection is, that his Difciples did not always Know him, when he appeared to them: or they knew him by fuch Signs, as could not be Sure Marks of its being Him.

FOR the obviating of which it may be observed, that, tho' our Lord more than once in his Life-time told them, that he fhould be put to Death, and fhould rife again on the third Day, yet they then understood not these things: Their hopes of a Temporal Deliverer were fo ftrong, and they had built fo much upon this false Notion, that, when they faw him Crucify'd, they immediately loft all Heart and all Expectation of ever seeing him again and in this Confternation, under this Defpair of Mind, if he had appear'd to them at once, in fuch a manner as to put his Refurrection out of all Doubt, it is Probable that their Joy would have been too Exceffive and Tumultuous for them to bear: He feems therefore to have chofen rather to discover himself to them by Degrees.

:

[ocr errors]

THE first Step towards any Notice of this Miraculous Fact was, that the Grave was found open, and the Body gone.

NEXT they received an Account of his being rifen from two Perfons, who had the Shape of Young men, but had at the fame time the appearance of a Brightness like that of Lightning in their Countenances, which gave reason to those who faw them, to fuppofe that they were not Men, but Angels.

AFTER this Jefus appeared to fome of his Followers, but it being not yet Day-light (Matt. xxviii. 1.) they miftook him for the Gardiner of the Place in which the Grave was, till upon looking more narrowly at him, they faw him to be their Mafter; but he prefently withdrew himself, leaving them little more than a Glimpfe or bare View of his Perfon, as not defigning yet fully to convince them of the Reality of his Resurrection.

AT another time he appeared to Two of the Difciples, as they were on their Journey to Emmaus; but it was (as the Evange lift fays) in another Form, Mark xvi. 12. i. e. another than what they had been used to fee him in, probably in the Drefs of a Traveller, for it is faid that he went into the Country with them. This Cirumftance, therefore, together with the Dusk of the Evening (at which time it happened), and the Defpair they were in of ever feeing him again, might contribute towards what is faid of these two Difciples, that their Eyes were holden, that they fhould not know him, or rather (as it may be rendered), fo as they did not know him, Luke xxiv. 16. till upon entring with him into an houfe, and fitting down with him to Supper, their Eyes were open'd, and they knew him. ib. 31. which difcovery the bringing in of Lights for their Meal may probably have occafion'd; at Jeaft this is a better account of the matter than the fanciful Sup

pofition,

pofition, which Mr. W. has advanced, as if Jefus was then difCover'd by an habitual Motion and Action of his hand in breaking of bread. At this time tho' he gave to thofe Difciples a farther proof of his being rifen, yet there were only Two present, and he chose to stay a very little time with them after he was known to them; for it is faid that he ftraightway vanifhed out of their Sight, or rather (as it is in the Margin of out Bibles) be ceafed to be feen of them: by which no more need be meant than that he left their Company and went away, without doing any thing more than is naturally in the Power of Bodies to do; juft as the word difappear (an Equivalent one) is us'd by Milton, Book VI. 414. Satan with his Rebellious disappear'd,

Far in the Dark diflodg'd.

Where it is not meant, that he made himself Invifible, but that he withdrew out of fight.

IN all these Appearances of our Saviour to his Difciples, there is no Chriftian who pretends that he gave them a Full and Satiffactory Proof of his Refurrection: They were but so many Steps to lead them on; they were only the Degrees by which he chofe to prepare them for a farther Discovery, and are therefore (I think) a good Reason why more than once the Disciples were not aware of his being their Master.

AND when, after all this, at another Appearance of his they fuppofed, that they had feen a Spirit, ib. ver. 37. he went a greater Length towards convincing them, by fhewing them his Hands, and his Feet, and his Side; and appealing to them, whether a Spirit had Flesh and Bones, as they faw him have.

THE laft Satisfaction, which he gave them in this particular, and which (as the Story relates) put an entire end to All Doubt among them, was his allowing the Apoftle Thomas not only to fee, but to handle him, and feel the marks in his Side, his Hands, and his Feet, which the Nails and the Spear had made, when he was on the Crofs: Upon This they were all fully convinced; and every time afterwards, when they faw Him, they made no Scruple to own and receive him as Jefus rifen from the Dead.

IF it can be made (e) clearly appear, that, after this ample Discovery, any of his Apoftles did not know him, when he was

(e) It may be thought, that This does appear from what St. Matthew fays in chap. xxviii. 17. And when they faw him, they worshipped him: but fome doubted. But I think, that fuch a Conclufion should not be made from this Paffage: For thofe eleven Disciples, when they first faw Jefus on that Mountain in Galilee, where he had ap pointed them to be, faw him at a Distance, and probably it was at no fmall Distance; it being faid in the next Verfe, that (after they had feen him) he came and spake unto them. Those therefore among the eleven Disciples who doubted, did fo, moft probably, only becaufe the Distance, at which they faw him, did not exhibit him clearly enough to their Sight.

Prefent

Part I. Prefent with them, there will be fome weight in the Objection; but at prefent every Inftance, that has been given of fuch Behaviour in them towards their Mafter, is taken from those Appearances of his which were prior to the above-mention'd one, when Thomas (the laft of the Apostles who ftood out) received fuch ftrong Conviction.

AND is it fair Dealing to pafs over thofe Later appearances, in which the Apoftles declare that they had full evidence, and to object his Former Imperfect appearances as not Satisfactory? Why, the Apostles acknowledge that at Firft they believ'd not; but the fame Writers fay that they believed Afterwards, and give us their Reasons for it: and fhall the One Story of the Apostles be credited, and the Other not?

[ocr errors]

I can fee no Reason why thefe Objectors fhould like their Teftimony in the Firft cafe better than that in the Laft, except it be that they were then Unbelievers; That perhaps They may look on as Merit, and reckon that the lefs Faith they had, they deferv'd the more Credit. But is it not ftrange, that in fuch a Cafe a man's Evidence fhould be turn'd against himself?

I met an old Acquaintance t'other day in Westminster-Hall, whom I did not know at firft; I was talking with him for fome time, 'till at laft recollecting myfelf I called him by his name, and we immediately knew each other, and fell to difcourfing upon feveral things that had formerly paffed between us, and upon the Circumstances and Welfare of feveral of our Common Friends. Shall any one tell me now, that this man was not the old Acquaintance that I took him to be, and use for his Argument, That I did not know him at Firft? What's that to the purpose? I knew him before we parted, and knew him by fuch Sure Marks, as I could not be Deceived in. There are few men of fo cool Tempers as not to be provok'd at fuch an Arguer as This; and what He might call a Conclufion of his Own Reason, They would look upon as an Affront to Theirs. But I have done with this Objection, and proceed to

3 S. THE Third which I mentioned to have been made against the Truth of Jesus's Refurrection, and which was, that He did not perfonally appear to the Chief Priests and Elders, as fome fay he ought to have done for their Confutation.

BUT if I fhew that This was not only not neceffary to be done, but that there are good Reasons affignable why it fhould not have been done, a fufficient Answer will be given to this Objection.

IT was not neceffary to be done, because the Chief Priests and Rulers had feen enough to convince them fully that Jefus came from God, if they had not been blinded with the most obftinate Prejudices: They had been Eye-Witneffes to many of his Miracles, and had but very lately (at his Death) feen the Veil of the Temple rent in twain, and Darkness over the whole Land: This would have been a full Proof to Them, if they had not been refolutely bent against admitting any.

BUT

BUT fuppofing that Chrift had appear'd to them, and that they had believed upon feeing him alive after his Refurrection, what would have been the Confequence? Why, all the Proof of this Fact, which they could have given to others, would have been their Teftimony only; and Teftimony We have Now for it, That of the Apoftles, Twelve in number, who said that they All faw him, and not only faid this, but wrought Miracles, and laid down their Lives in Atteftation to the Truth of their Report. And could the Chief Priefts and Elders (if they had been convinced) have done more than This for the convincing of Others?

LET us farther fuppofe, (f) that Their being convinced would have carried fuch Weight along with it, that not only all the Priests and Rulers, but the Body of the Jewish People would have been converted upon Their Teftimony: And let us fuppofe, that upon this the Apostles or any other Jews had fet out for foreign Countries, preaching the great Doctrine of Jesus's Refurrection, infifting upon This Proof of it, that not only They themselves, but the Chief Priefts and Elders had seen him, and that the whole Nation was fully perfuaded of the Truth of it; and producing Certificates to that purpose under the Hands and Seals of the great Council or Sanhedrim. If This had been the Cafe, can we think, that thofe, who now make Objections to the Teftimony of the Apoftles, would not have made much Greater and Stronger Objections to the united Teftimony of the Nation? Would not they have found more room to fufpect an Impofture, than they can Now? Would not they have called it a State Trick, a Political Craft, a National Contrivance of the Jews, to patch up their Credit after they had fo long talk'd of their Meffiah that was to come? Would not that have been objected (which Now cannot), that a Fraud might eafily have been carried on under the Shelter of the Jewish Magiftracy? If all the Power of Authority in Religion had been on the fide of this Fact, might it not be fufpected that fuch, as were Curious and Inquifitive to examine things to the Bottom, were intimidated and difcourag'd from the Attempt? Would not fuch a general Union in Belief have paffed with these Objectors for a General Confpiracy? And would not they have cry'd down the Fact, becaufe it had This Circumftance attending.it, much more justly than they now cry it down, because it wanted it?

PROVIDENCE takes its own Measures; we are not to prescribe to it which way was beft or wifeft: whatever method it

(f) See this Argument very largely and very clearly handled in two Pamphlets publish'd fince the first Edition of this Treatife; the one entitled, An Impartial Examination and full Confutation of the Argument brought by Mr. W's Rabbi, &c. The other, An Enquiry into the Force of the Objection against the Refurrection of Chrift, from the Circumftance of his not appearing openly to the Rulers and People of the Jews, &c.

fhould

fhould have pleas'd Heaven to take, it would not have fail'd to put its Defigns in Execution; but in the View wherein I have plac'd things above, there would have been ample Scope for Cavil, a large Field to fow the Tares of Doubts and Difficulties in. But will a Rational Man admit that for an Objection, which is liable to more and greater Objections? Fy upon fuch Freethinking! which marrs inftead of mending, and like the new Piece put into an Old Garment, makes the Rent worse. Mat. ix. 16.

SO that all things confider'd, it was fo far from being Neceffary, that Chrift fhould have appear'd upon his Resurrection to the Chief Priefts and Rulers of the Jews, as has been fuggefted; that (according to all the ways of Thinking which thefe Cavillers are us'd to) he, ought not to have appear'd to them. And God muft be allow'd to have taken a more Unexceptionable Method in making this Fact evident to a Few Men only, and those of no Figure, Character or Reputation in Life, except (as the Event fhew'd) for their Courage and Sincerity.

4 §. THE laft Objection which I mentioned runs thus: The Stone at the Mouth of the Grave being Sealed by the Chief Priefts, and the Seal being broken open, when they were not Prefent, here (fay fome) is room to fufpect a Fraud and Imposture.

BUT to make this Objection of any Weight, they muft fuppofe, that the Apoftles, who were the chofen Witneffes of the Refurrection, as well as the Chief Priefts, who were the Deniers of it, were concerned in the Sealing; and that both Parties confented to this method as a Sure way to discover, whether Jefus would rife or not; and that both likewife had engag❜d to be at the Opening of the Grave on fome Day and Hour appointed.

BUT all this Suppofal is not only without foundation, but is directly contrary to the Hiftory; for the Apoftles all fled for their Lives when their Mafter was Crucified; and when they met afterwards, they did it with the Doors fhut for fear of the Jews: Nay, fo far were they from agreeing with the Chief Priefts upon This or any other Teft of his Rifing again, that we are told in Scripture, that they did not expect him to rife again, and that for feveral days after his Refurrection they were flow of heart to believe it. And could This Sealing then be a Covenant enter'd into by the Apoftles? Or could their Consent be reasonably prefum'd to any Teft of a Fact which they never expected to happen?

BESIDES, what Right had the Chief Priefts to prescribe any Method for the Divine Power to act in? They Sealed the Grave, 'tis true; but the Treasure in it was none of Theirs: it was God's, and might not he open the Door of it, and take out his Own when ever he pleas'd? Where then is the Mark of Fraud, when God, the only Proprietor, was prefent at the opening of it? There may be Cavil in this, but there is no Argument, till it be made out, that a Fact fully prov'd to Some Men is Falfe,

because

« PreviousContinue »