CHAPTER V.
The Resurrection.
[*53] Away the stone from the door, and sat upon it, and that "for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became dead men."
Few probably will believe that an angel was there, simply because a simple, superstitious and timid woman imagined she saw one- at such a time
and place too, where a woman, who believed in angels, would be more likely to see one than at any other. But there is no certainty, I think I may say probability, that she even imagined that she saw one sitting on the stone,
for Mark says nothing about her seeing an angel without her sepulcre, but says (16-5) that the woman saw a young man clothed in a long white garment within the; and Luke only says (24-3 & 4) that after
they had entered into the sepulcre; "two men stood by them in shining garments," &c. John says nothing about Mary's seeing an angel at all the first time she went to the sepulcre.
But perhaps the Christians will ask, if there were no angel there, why did these keepers appear "like dead men?" Why, for the very good reason that they lay out on the ground asleep, as I
have supposed them to have done; and this undoubtedly is as far as they did resemble dead men. But Matthew says these "keepers did shake," and it may be argued that this could not be if they lay on the ground. To this
it may be replied, that neither could they "become like dead men," and yet continued standing. The unbeliever has a right to take his choice of these contradictory statements- I therefore take the last, that they "became
like dead men," and then account for it by saying that they were asleep. The time when Mary saw these men in this situation was just at dawn of day, Matthew says; (John says (20-1) that the time of Mary's being there was
just" when it was yet dark"), and that is the time when they would naturally be asleep. Matthew acknowledges that the watch told the governor that they had been asleep.; but he says that this story
was a falsehood, and that soldiers were bribed by the Chief Priests to tell it. But it is pretty certain that Matthew manufactured this story, so far as it relates to the falsehood and bribery, or that he adopted it without
knowing anything of its truth- for how could he know that they had not slept? Or how could this outcast fisherman, or any of his feather, know anything about the Chief Priests making a bargain with these soldiers? Was he, or such
fellows as he, let into their counsels? The simple declaration of these soldiers is sufficient evidence that they were asleep,- for it is not in human nature that men, in their
situation, knowing that Jesus had pretended to be the Messiah, Son of God, &c., should see an angel come and roll away the stone from the door of the sepulcre where he was buried, that they should feel such
fear, on account of seeing this angel, as to "shake and become like dead men," and then that they should all go away and deny all this, and say that they had been asleep. Still less,
if possible, is it in human nature, that the Chief Priests, who knew what Jesus had claimed to be, when they learned that he had risen from the dead, and knew also, as they then of necessity must, that he was a being not to
be controlled or baffled in his designs by them, should think of giving "large money" to these soldiers to hire them to say that the body had been stolen. Men never would have dared do such a thing. But supposing them to have dared
to do it, what could they expect to gain by such a fraud? Or how long could they expect to conceal it? If they knew that Jesus was alive, they could not but have been assured that the fact would be immediately known; and they
must also have been aware that as soon as the fact should have become public, the falsehood of the soldiers would be exposed and their own knavery in the greatest danger of detection. The absurdity of pretending that men would act
thus, under such circumstance, is so gross as to be perfectly disgusting. I here take for granted that it has been established, by evidence, which Christians must abide by, that, if there were a
watch at this tomb, they were asleep. There is still another subject of inquiry, viz. whether there were any watch at all there? The evidence is very strong in tending to shew that there was none.
In the first place, nobody but Matthew says anything about there being any, and his reputation for truth is decidedly too bad to have anything improbable, which, if true, would make for his
cause, believed on the strength of his assertion. He has told too many stories about soldiers being bribed to tell falsehoods, about Chief Priests bribing the, about the earth quaking, rocks rending, graves opening, dead
rising, about sermons on the mount, &c. &c. to be entitled to any ,mercy when his statements are to be examined, or any credit when those statements are improbable. Matthew had a strong
inducement to make up a story of this kind, if it were false. It appears (28-13 &15) that, at the time he wrote, it was the current opinion among Jews that the body was stolen from the tomb in the night. And he knew that this
would be the natural inference of people in general, unless something were told by the friends of Jesus to prove that such could not have been the case. He therefore says that there was a guard there. But even when he has said
this, he seems to be aware that he has not relieved his case from all embarrassment, and that it was necessary for him to account, in some way, for the fact, that the circumstance of a guard's being there did not
satisfy the Jews, as well as himself, that the body was not stolen. He could account for this I no way but by charging the soldiers with having told a falsehood, by which the Jews were deceived. He therefore declares
that they did tell a falsehood, and in making this declaration, he shews that he himself was a man too dishonest to be trusted, because he certainly could not have known that they [*54] did not sleep. On his own showing, therefore,
he, without any certain knowledge of the facts in the case, contradicts those who did know them perfectly, and asks us to believe, merely because be says so, that those others were all liars; although he acknowledges
that the Jewish nation believed, and continued to believe, that they told the truth. A very modest man truly! But even when he has accused the soldiers or lying, he has not
done all that was necessary to be done. He must, in order to make this story against them believed, show that they had some motive for lying. He therefore makes another charge, which he could not have known to be
true, even if it were true, the Chief Priests, and says that they bribed the soldiers to do it. But even when he has done this, he has not cleared his case of all the difficulty in which it is involved. It is
necessary that he should also account for the fact that the soldiers were not punished
for sleeping, when they had been set as a guard. One falsehood more, if it be but believed, will now make out this case- he therefore represents that the Chief Priests, those wicked Chief Priests, who were full of all manner of iniquity- interfered for these soldiers, according to agreement, and made such representations in their favor (false ones, of course, unless he means to charge the governor also with corruption) as saved them.
Such is Matthews story, a story that might have been valuable to Christianity, were it not that, like many other stories of the same author, it failed to "keep probability in view."
The circumstances that neither Mark, Luke, nor John make any mention of the guard, is very strong evidence that there was none; because they must almost necessarily have known that the way, in which
the Jews accounted for, the absence of the body from the tomb, was, by supposing it to have been stolen; and if, they had common sense, they must have known that this supposition was a reasonable one, and that therefore, if there
were any facts tending to contradict it, it was immensely important to their cause to state them. Yet they have said not one syllable on the subject. Besides, if there had been a guard there, that of itself was an incident so
prominent, one would think, that these men would have been likely to have mentioned it, even if they had not seen its particular importance.
Another ground for believing that there was no watch there, is, that there seems to have been no good reason why there should have been one. The man was dead, as they all supposed, and the body
had been taken down and given to its friends, and what more was necessary? But Matthew says (27-63 &c.) that the reason assigned by the Chief Priests and Pharisees, who wished to have a guard set, was, that "the remembered
that Jesus had said that in three days he should rise again." Now this story is perfectly ridiculous, because it is evident that even the disciples, not only had never heard him say plainly that in three days he should rise again, but that they had not even heard him say any thing, which they considered equivalent to such a declaration- how supremely absurd then is it to pretend that others had heard such a statement from him. If then the Chief Priests had ever heard any thing about his rising again, the motive, which Matthew says induced them to get a watch set, did not exist; and if that part of the story, that relates to the motive be false, the whole is probably false.
There is still another circumstance, which, in my mind, stamps this story of the watch as fabrication- and that is, that all the preparations for having the watch set, &c., are said
to have been made on the Sabbath day, (Mat. 27-62 &c.). There seems to have been an attempt to conceal the fact of his being done on that day, by calling it, instead of the Sabbath, "the next day that followed the day of
preparation." If the story, instead of running as it does, had run thus, "now on the Sabbath day the Chief Priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate" &c. the improbability would have been so glaring as to be
dangerous; a man would notice it at first glance; but "now, the next day that followed the day of preparation, the Chief Priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate" &c. does not suggest the improbability so readily, and
was therefore the better form of expression, in this particular instance, notwithstanding it is awkward and unnatural.
For my part I believe the whole of this story to have been the work of a knave, and probably of a more modern
knave than Matthew. Some pious priests (before priests had become as honest as they are now) probably saw what was wanting, and attempted to supply it. One consideration is here worthy of
notice, viz. that if there were no watch it is not improbable that Jesus went, or was carried, from the tomb even sooner than the second night. It is indeed probable that when Joseph and Nicodemus (who appear to have been more
intelligent men than the friends of Jesus generally) had him taken down from the cross, and asked of Pilate the privilege of taking the body into their care, they believed that he could be restored; that their object in
seeking to get the body was to restore it; and that, on the very first night, as soon as the women and the other friends of Jesus, whom it would not do to trust with a secret, had gone, and it had become dark, they took measures to
recover him. It is evident that the disciples did not go to the tomb on the day of the Sabbath day- so that if the body had been absent on that day, they would not have known it. All they knew about the time of the exit of
Jesus from the tomb, was, that very early on the second morning he was gone- but of the length of time he had been gone they knew nothing. If it be true that the individuals seen by the
disciples, was really Jesus, his whole course, after his reappearance, tends to confirm all I have supposed in relation to his natural restoration. Had he actually risen from the dead, he would undoubtedly have shown himself in
[*55] the most open manner, so as to have made the fact of his resurrection notorious. But he kept himself timidly concealed from the public eye. He skulked about like a fugitive, who had luckily escaped the clutches of the
executioner. He saw none but his friends. Peter says (Acts 10-41) he did not shew himself "to all people," but (only) to his disciples. His first interview even with then was had in the evening and behind closed doors, (John
20-19). Eight days afterwards he met them again, and within closed doors, (John 20-26). Perhaps he saw them
a few times more, but he carefully avoided being seen openly. He lurked about among his former adherents for forty days, and at the end of that time he was among the missing.
It is now incumbent upon those, who maintain that he was supernaturally restored to life, to show, by reasonable evidence, what became of him at the end of these forty days. Thos who believe only that animation was naturally
restored in him, can easily satisfy themselves as to his fate, by supposing that he was detected and privately slain; that he sought a residence where he might be safe from a second crucifixion; or that he went off with the
intention of living concealed for a while, and then returning at a more favorable time to renew his attempt to make himself a king of the Jews, and that he died before such an opportunity presented itself. But neither of these
suppositions will answer the purpose of those, who maintain that he was supernaturally
revived. They must dispose of him in a more dignified manner. Now, on what evidence can they do it? Matthew and John give no intimation that they ever knew what became of him. Nor do any of the eleven ever speak of having witnessed this miraculous "ascent." Yet Mark and Luke, who are our only authority for believing that he ascended at all, both say (mark 16-19. Luke 24-50 to 51. Acts 1
Besides, what become of the dress he had on? Did he wear that into the world of spirits? But this is not all. There is, in this story, still another
absurdity, gross as any preceding one. The testimony of the witness is, that he ascended "up" into heaven. Now, which way from this earth is up ? [*56]