صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

account of what happened at the death of Jesus, had not that account been gencrally known to be true.

LETTER VIII.

THE "tale of the resurrection," you say, " follows that of the crucifixion."-You have accustomed me so much to this kind of language, that when I find you speaking of a tale, I have no doubt of meeting with a truth. From the apparent disagreement in the accounts which the evangelists have given of some circumstances respecting the resurrection, you remark-" If the writers of these books had gone into any court of justice to prove an alibi (for it is of the nature of an alibi that is here attempted to be proved, namely, the absence of a dead body by supernatural means), and had given their evidence in the same contradictory manner as it is here given, they would have been in danger of having their ears cropt for perjury, and would have justly deserved it"-" hard words, or hanging," it seems, if you had been their judge. Now I maintain, that it is the brevity with which the account of the resurrection is given by all the evangelists, which has occasioned the seeming confusion; and that this confusion would have been cleared up at once, if the witnesses of the resurrection had been examined before any judicature. As we cannot have this viva voce examination of all the witnesses, let us call up and question the evangelists as witnesses to a supernatural alibi. Did you find the sepulchre of Jesus empty? One of us actually saw it empty, and the rest heard from eye-witnesses, that it was empty.-Did you, or any of the followers of Jesus, take away the dead body from the sepulchre? All answer, No.-Did the soldiers, or the Jews, take away the body? No.-How are you certain of that? Because we saw the body when it was dead, and we saw it

afterwards when it was alive.-How do you know that what you saw was the body of Jesus? We had been long and intimately acquainted with Jesus, and knew his person perfectly.-Were you not affrighted, and mistook a spirit for a body? No; the body had flesh and bones; we are sure that it was the very body which hung upon the cross, for we saw the wound in the side, and the print of the nails in the hands and feet.And all this you are ready to swear? We are; and we are ready to die also, sooner than we will deny any part of it. This is the testimony which all the evangelists would give, in whatever court of justice they were examined; and this, I apprehend, would sufficiently establish the alibi of the dead body from the sepulchre by supernatural means."

But as the resurrection of Jesus is a point which you attack with all your force, I will examine minutely the principal of your objections; I do not think them deserving of this notice; but they shall have it. The book of Matthew, you say, "states that when Christ was put in the sepulchre, the Jews applied to Pilate for a watch or a guard to be placed over the sepulchre, to prevent the body being stolen by the disciples. I admit this account, but it is not the whole of the account: you have omitted the reason for the request which the chief priests made to Pilate-" Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again."-It is material to remark this; for at the very time that Jesus predicted his resurrection, he predicted also his crucifixion, and all that he should suffer from the malice of those very men who now applied to Pilate for a guard." He showed to his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day." (Matt. xvi. 21.) These men knew full well that the first part of this prediction had been accurately fulfilled through their malignity; and, instead of repenting of what they had done, they were

so infatuated as to suppose, that by a guard of soldiers they could prevent the completion of the second.-The other books, you observe," say nothing about this application, nor about the scaling of the stone, nor the guard, nor the watch, and according to these accounts there were none."-This, Sir, I deny. The other books do not say that there were none of these things; how often must I repeat, that omissions are not contradictions, nor silence concerning a fact a denial of it?

You go on-" The book of Matthew continues its account, that at the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn, towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre-Mark says it was sun-rising, and John says it was dark. Luke says it was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James and other women, that came to the sepulchre; and John says that Mary Magdalene came alone. So well do they agree about their first evidence! They all appear, however, to have known most about Mary Magdalene; she was a woman of a large acquaintance, and it was not an ill conjecture that she might be upon the stroll."-This is a long paragraph; I will answer it distinctly-First, there is no disagreement of evidence with respect to the time when the women went to the sepulchre; all the evangelists agree as to the day on which they went; and, as to the time of the day, it was early in the morning: what court of justice in the world would set aside this evidence, as insufficient to substantiate the fact of the women's having gone to the sepulchre, because the witnesses differed as to the degree of twilight which lighted them on their way? Secondly, there is no disagreement of evidence with respect to the persons who went to the sepulchre, John states that Mary Magdalene went to the sepulchre; but he does not state, as you make him state, that Mary Magdalene went alone; she might, for any thing you have proved, or can prove, to the contrary,

have been accompanied by all the women mentioned by Luke. Is it an unusual thing to distinguish by name a principal person going on a visit, or an embassy, without mentioning his subordinate attendants? Thirdly, in opposition to your insinuation that Mary Magdalene was a common woman, I wish it to be considered, whether there is any scriptural authority for that imputation; and whether there be or not, I must contend, that a repentant and reformed woman ought not to be esteemed an improper witness of a fact. The conjecture, which you adopt concerning her, is nothing less than an illiberal, indecent, unfounded calumny, not excusable in the mouth of a libertine, and intolerable in yours.

The book of Matthew, you observe, goes on to say- And behold, there was an earthquake, for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it but the other books say nothing about any earthquake;"-What then? does their silence prove that there was none?" nor about the angel rolling back the stone and sitting upon it;"-What then? does their silence prove that the stone was not rolled back by an angel, and that he did not sit upon it?" and according to their accounts there was no angel sitting there." This conclusion I must deny; their accounts do not say there was no angel sitting there, at the time that Matthew says he sat upon the stone. They do not deny the fact, they simply omit the mention of it; and they all take notice that the women, when they arrived at the sepulchre, found the stone rolled away: hence it is evident that the stone was rolled away before the women arrived at the sepulchre; and the other evangelists, giving an account of what happened to the women when they reached the sepulchre, have merely omitted giving an account of a transaction previous to their arrival. Where is the contradiction? What space of time intervened between the rolling away the stone, and the arrival of the women at the

sepulchre, is no where mentioned; but it certainly was long enough for the angel to have changed his position; from sitting on the outside he might have entered into the sepulchre; and another angel might have made his appearance; or, from the first, there might have been two, one on the outside rolling away the stone, and the other within. Luke, you tell us, 66 says there were two, and they were both standing; and John says there were two, and both sitting.". It is impossible, I grant, even for an angel to be sitting and standing at the same instant of time; but Luke and John do not speak of the same instant, nor of the same appearance-Luke speaks of the appearance to all the women; and John of the appearance to Mary Magdalene alone, who tarried weeping at the sepulchre after Peter and John had left it. But I forbear making any more minute remarks on still minuter objections, all of which are grounded on this mistakethat the angels were seen at one particular time, in one particular place, and by the same individuals.

As to your inference, from Matthew's using the expression unto this day, " that the book must have been manufactured after a lapse of some generations at least," it cannot be admitted against the positive testimony of all antiquity. That the story about stealing away the body was a bungling story, I readily admit; but the chief priests are answerable for it; it is not worthy either your notice or mine, except as it is a strong instance to you, to me, and to every body, how far prejudice may mislead the understanding.

You come to that part of the evidence in those books that respects, you say, "the pretended appearances of Christ after his pretended resurrection; the writer of the book of Matthew relates, that the angel that was sitting on the stone at the mouth of the sepulchre, said to the two Mary's, (chap. xxviii. 7.) "Behold, Christ is gone before you into Galilee, there shall you see him." The Gospel, Sir, was preached to poor and illiterate men: and it is the duty of priests to

« السابقةمتابعة »