CHAPTER V.
The Resurrection.
Where is men's reason, when they talk about probability of such stuff as this?
The second solution of this alleged resurrection from the dead, suppose Jesus never to have been seen by his disciples after his crucifixion,
but that they were duped by some one who pretended to be Jesus. There are some improbabilities attending this solution, yet none of them, I think, will be found to bear any comparison with that of a man's returning to life
after he had once died. The testimony tending to prove that he was seen alive, is but the statements of two men, (Mark and Luke) who do not pretend to have seen him, and of three other
men, (Matthew, John and Paul), who say that they did see him. As the return of the dead to life would be a supernatural event, it is so improbable that it appears
little less than ridiculous to regard at all any stories told by men, who do not pretend to have seen the man, and who only relate what they heard,
probably years afterwards. Few words only will therefore be devoted to the testimony of Mark and Luke. But since Matthew, John and Paul say that they saw him, their testimony will be more particularly examined-although, if the same fact had been related of any person but Jesus, or in any other book than the Bible, it would not be regarded as in the slightest degree possible, whether testified to by the two, by ten, or even ten thousand men. If, in the case last supposed, we were not to doubt the honesty of the witnesses, we should still disbelieve their testimony, however direct and positive it may be- for we should say, and say it to with the most entire confidence, that they must in some way or another have been mistaken, even though the circumstances had been such as that the witnesses should deem it impossible that they could have been, and such that we could not tell how they were. We should believe that they had seen an individual, who so nearly
resembled the deceased, that they were in an error as to the identity of the person, or we should say that some delusion had seized on and deceived them. No possible amount of human
testimony could make us believe for a moment, that Mahonet rose from the dead, although the fact were universally disbelieved by his followers. Even if it were said that Mahonet, after his death, was seen alive again and again,
daily and hourly for years, by great multitudes who had known him intimately before his death, we could not be made to believe that the individual seen was he. Even if it were said that this individual assumed to be
Mahonet; to fill the place, and take the station, which he had occupied; that he conversed about having been dead, and gave a reason for having suffered death; that he had marks about his person that resembled those about the
person of Mahonet; still we should not believe; we should say that the man was an impostor; that he had disguised himself so as to resemble Mahonet as nearly as he could, and that he was by this art, deceiving all who
credited his pretensions, however numerous and respectable those persons might be. But this is supposing a much stronger case than that related by the biographers of Jesus. The
individual, whom they supposed to be Jesus, did not show himself as such to the multitude, although, if he were really Jesus, and a belief in him as a Saviour were necessary to their future happiness, he would seem to have been
bound by the strongest principles of moral obligation to have thus shown himself, that he might have inevitably convinced those who had before been incredulous- and the fact that he did not show himself to the world as the one who
had been dead, is very strong evidence of itself that he was not the real Jesus. This individual was seen by eleven, who had been followers of Jesus, and perhaps also the same individual was
seen by three or four persons, although it is very doubtful whether the person seen by the eleven was the one seen by Mary.
This individual was seen (as John says) by a part of the disciples of Jesus at three different times, and unless he were the one whom Mary and the to going to Emmaus saw, we have hardly a
shadow of evidence that he was seen and recognised as Jesus, at any other times, or by any other persons, after the crucifixion. And yet Luke says (Acts 1-3) that Jesus was on the earth forty days
after that event. If he himself were on earth for forty days, where was he, and what was he doing during all this time, that he should be seen not at all by the public, and but three times by his own disciples? If he
were the genuine Jesus, a tenth part of this time was sufficient for him to have shown himself so publicly to the Jews, and proved his identity so unequivocally, as that the conversion of the whole Jewish nation would
have been the probable result. Yet he did not thus exhibit himself, but left about sixty generations of a whole nation, as believers must say, eternally to perish, merely because they were not convinced thathe was the
Messiah. Even if he were really the Messiah, and did actually exhibit a disregard of men's happiness so inhuman as he is here represented to have done, a man must have an exceedingly degraded moral taste, or very obtuse moral
perceptions, to be capable of feeling any respect for his character. But let us look more minutely at the evidence. We are told (Mat. 27-66) that
the sepulcre was made sure, the stone placed against the door being sealed, or made fast, and a watch set. The inference, which the believer draws from these facts, is, that no one could have stolen the body
without being detected. But the reader will here recollect tile evidence, before offered, to prove that, if there were tiny watch, they were asleep, and also to prove that there was no watch. I shall here take it for
granted that that evidence was satisfactory to prove one or the other of those positions. There was then opportunity enough to steal this body I- and if it were possible to steal it, the single fact that [*57] it was absent,
is conclusive proof that, if it were dead, it was carried away; because, as long as we can imagine a natural way in which this body could be removed, we are not to suppose it to have been supernaturally done. Let us now look at the evidence of Jesus having been seen by Mary. Matthew says (28-9 & 10) that as Mary Magdalen and the other Mary were going from the sepulcre, Jesus met
them, and commanded them, saying, "All hail," (precisely as a man, who, on seeing these women coming from the tomb, should infer that they had been followers of Jesus, and should feel disgusted at the thought of their believing that he would rise again,
If John's story stood alone, and uncontradicted, it contains enough to show that there was no Jesus there. If there were why did he not show
himself to Peter and John, instead of Mary alone? Why did not Mary know him at first? Why did he not suffer her to touch him? How did it happen that he had not as yet been to his father? He had told his disciples (John 14-28), "I
go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said I go unto my father." And yet John represents him as telling Mary, after his supposed resurrection, that he had not yet been to his
father. Where, then, if he were Jesus, had he been during that time which he allotted to go to the Father? Mary's mistake in supposing this man to be Jesus, is easily accounted for. She was an
exceedingly simple and superstitious woman, as is proved by the facts that she supposed Jesus had cast out her seven devils, (Mark 16-9) and that she imagined she saw angels at the sepulcre, She would naturally, at such a time and
place, be in the greatest trepidation of mind, and her imagination would be filled with superstitious fancies. When therefore, the man addressed her by her own name, and doubtless in a tone a little more emphatic or authoritative
than he had before used, it is not at all strange that she should at the moment imagine him to be Jesus, and address him as such. He then, seeing her simplicity and delusion, took advantage of her state of mind to dupe her
father, and told her not to touch him, &c. Here the interview closed before she had time to recover her self possession and discover her mistake. But the stories if all are so dissimilar, and
in some of the most, if not the only, important particulars, so inconsistent with each other, that we cannot determine how much or how little of either may be true, or how much of all may be false; but we may safely infer from
either alone, or from all together, that she really saw no Jesus there. We are laid under the stronger necessity of coming to this conclusion by the circumstance that the apostles themselves did not, at the time, believe her
story, (Mark 16-10 & 11- Luke 24-10 &11) but consider it an "idle tale." The next time what he is said to have been seen, was when two, who had been his followers, were going to Emmaus. Luke says (24-13
to 31) that Jesus, on the same day that he [*58] rose from the dead, fell into the company of these two men, and conversed with them on the way, and yet that during all this time they did not know him. Luke accounts for the
fact that they did not know him, by saying that "their eyes were (miraculously) holden that they should not know him." But to perform a miracle to prevent
an individual from being recognised, would be a singular way of making it manifest that that individual had risen from the dead. Be that as it may, this man walked with them, and they told him that they had been believers in Jesus. And furthermore they told him that certain women had, that morning, been to the sepulchre, that the body was missing, and that the women said they had seen angels, who told talent that Jesus was alive. The supposed Jesus must have by this time discovered what sort of persons he was talking with. He must have seen that they were strongly inclined to believe that Jesus really was alive, and thus he must have been satisfied that they could easily be imposed upon. He therefore attempts it, and in order to bring their minds into such a state as to be easily duped by any artifice he might choose to adopt, he tries to convince them
entirely
that Jesus was alive, by attempting to show from their scriptures that "Christ ought to have died," (and of course to rise again). Before they had reached the place where the two were to stop, he had undoubtedly brought them to believe that the story of the women was true, and that Jesus was really alive. They were then ready to be caught by his trick, which was this, viz. after they had set down to eat, he took bread, "and blessed it, (in the manner of Jesus) and break, and gave to them." The result was such as might have been expected, viz. "their eyes were opened, and they knew him."
His conduct was then such as might be expected, viz. "he vanished out of -their sight." Mark tells the story, more briefly. He merely says (16-12 & 13)
"and after that, he appeared, in another form
unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue neither believed they them" And well they might not believe them and well may we not believe them, for if he appeared "in another form," how could the witnesses know that it was he?
Mark and Luke, who were not
of the twelve, tell these stories, but Matthew and John who were of the twelve say nothing about the matter-which circumstance is pretty good evidence that they always supposed there was some deception or mistake in it.
Another circumstance which renders it probable that this individual was deceiving these simple men, is, that it is difficult, if not actually impossible, to conceive of any reason, that he could
have had, if he were Jesus, for not wishing to be known by them at the first. Still another circumstance, of the same strong, character, is the language, which he employed to
bring them to believe that Jesus was alive. He even went so far as to call them "fools", (language not very well becoming a saviour), on account of their backwardness to believe the strange stories they had heard. If he
had commended their good sense in not believing them, he would have shown himself a man of more judgment or more honesty. But such language as he used, when it comes from a superior, is often, with simple men, who doubt their
own capacity to judge the most persuasive of all arguments. Although neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke (in his gospel)
I have before said that no number of witnesses, however respectable, themselves, and however direct and positive their testimony, would be sufficient to convince us that any man but Jesus ever
rose from the dead. Although they were to testify to circumstances, which we should be unable to account for in any other way than by supposing the man to have risen from the dead, still we should believe, we should know,
as absolutely as we can know anything, that there was a mistake or a deception somewhere. In these three cases, related by John, or Jesus's being seen by his disciples, their is abundant room for mistakes and deception.
Of those numerous pretended Messiahs, who were about in the days of Jesus, it was perfectly natural that some one should seek to avail himself of the notoriety which Jesus had
acquired, and of the additional notoriety that might be acquired by assuming his name, and pretending to have risen from, the dead. Such an one, knowing the superstitious character of these disciples, would see, that if
he could disguise himself so as to resemble in any degree the person of Jesus, he could pass himself off to his disciples as him. This too would be an easy matter for him to accomplish, for they were so superstitious, and so ready
and eager to believe any thing marvelous in relation to Jesus, that if they were to see one whose looks or dress did but remind them of him, thy could, by persuasion and the power of their imaginations, be brought to believe
what they must have so earnestly desired to believe, viz; that the individual was really Jesus. if such were the motives, that governed the one, who, at three different interviews, assumed to be Jesus, he then probably found that
it would be impossible longer to keep up the deception, and never attempted it again. There us a different motive that might have induced some one to attempt this deception. The credulity and
ignorance of these simple fishermen must have been well known among the [*59] more enlightened part of the community. If some one, after having witnessed the delusion which had led them on before the death of Jesus, should,
from a mere waggish curiosity to learn the extent to which they might still be further duped, disguise himself so as to resemble Jesus so far as to recal him to their minds when they should see him, and then, taking advantage
of their flurried imaginations, should stoutly declare himself to be Jesus, the deception, with such men, would certainly succeed. It appears that the individual, who had passed himself
off as Jesus with the two going to Emmaus, was the same who afterwards appeared to the disciples, because Mark says (16-14) that he upbraided the eleven for not believing those, who had said that they had seen
him. If then the one, who went to Emmaus, was an impostor, the one whom the eleven saw, was also and probably his success is duping the two induced him to try the same experiment with the eleven.
Very little disguise would be sufficient for his purpose- because the eleven were well prepared, by the stories of the women, and of the two, to believe that Jesus was alive. The success of the
artifice, at the first interview, was aided also by other circumstances. The time chosen was the most favorable for the plot that could have been selected, viz: evening, (John 20-19). The place was favorable, for the doors
were shut. The state of their minds, in other respects that one above mentioned, was favorable, for they had assembled "through fear of the Jews," and their thoughts were undoubtedly engrossed by the idea of his
being alive- and they were undoubtedly querying with each other whether he were
alive; and probably all had come to the conclusion that he actually was. In the midst of this state of things the man enters, and says, solemnly "Peace be unto you,"- the best language he could have chosen to impress their imaginations. Soon he
repeats, "Peace be unto you- as my father hath sent me, even so send I you." Then he "breathed on them! and said receive ye the Holy Ghost." What means such disgusting mummery, unless it were a
studied imposition? Breathing on them ! He then closes the interview by one by one of the most arrant pieces of humbling that was ever attempted, viz: by pretending to confer on them the power to forgive sins!
To proceed with the evidence. John
says he showed unto them his hands and his side. John would have us believe, from this language, that the disciples plainly saw the scars or wounds; yet he does not say absolutely that they did; and if they only saw his hands and
his side, without any scars or wounds, the prevarication would hardly be more palpable than the one which John was convicted of on a preceeding page. But even the story, that he offered to show them his scars, is very
improbable for several reasons,- such as, in the first place, that it is not likely that it was necessary, for they would generally believe him readily enough without seeing them. In the second place, if he were to show them his
hands, he would not be likely to show them his side- the real Jesus would certainly be able to prove his identity, to men so ready to believe as they were, without submitting to so critical an examination. A third reason is,
that it was probably so dark that they could not have seen the scars even if there were any- for John says it was even in the evening, and that the doors were shut through the fear of the Jews. If they were so fearful of
being discovered by the Jews, they would not be likely to have light enough in the room to enable them to detect a scar on a man's hand. Eight days after this affair, John says (20-26)
thy were together, probably in the same place, for he says they were "within," and also that the doors were shut as before. The individual comes again, and says to them-as before-"Peace be unto you." He then said to Thomas,
"Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands, and reach hither thy hand, and thrust into my side, and be not faithless, but believing." Then, says John, "Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Now here is
room again for another of John's equivocations. He does not say that Thomas actually did examine either his hands or his side- he only says that he man proposed that he should do so. Thomas, having been half incredulous and half
believing, would not be likely, after such a proposal had been made to him, to do anything that would imply so much doubt, not only of the reality of the person, but also of the truth of the man's declaration, as, after the offer
had been made to him, in a tone of confidence, meant to proceed to make the examination in earnest. Probably the mans apparent willingness to be examined confirmed Thomas in the belief that he was Jesus without any
examination- if so, it would have appeared to him indecent irreverence to make the examination, and he would be satisfied without making it, as the others had been. But supposing he did
actually did put his hand upon the side, and even suppose (what would not be very probable) that the side was naked, it is hardly possible that there should have been such a scar there as that a person, who expected as a matter of
course (as Thomas by this time must have done) to find
the scar there, would not be very liable to be deceived, in just pacing his finger for a moment on a substance so yielding as flesh. Besides, such a sphere as those used for piercing the sides of those, who were executed, would undoubtedly be but a small instrument, and would leave but a trifling mark, and not such an one as John speaks of, into which a man might "thrust his hand." [*60]
Or supposing that Thomas did go far as to look at, or feel of, the hand of the man, and supposing he actually did discover some appearance of a slight wound there; we must remember that
it had been eight days since this man had been seen by the others, and if he were one of the spurious Messiahs, and designed at this time to attach this sect to him, he would naturaly think that some new corroborating circumstance
would at this time be necessary to keep up the deception which he had practised once, and might slightly wound his hand so as to give it just enough of the desired appearance to impose on the credulity of a man like
Thomas, who was nine-tenths imposed on before. The fact that the man had not been seen for eight days is very strong evidence that some cheat of this kind was practised on Thomas, if it were true
that he examined the hand at all- a circumstance, which I entirely disbelieve. This whole story of Thomas's examination of Jesus is an exceedingly suspicious one. It is such an one as one
might be most easily manufactured, and one too very necessary to be manufactured, or otherwise supplied, in order to make out any thing of a plausible case in favor of a resurrection.
But even if Thomas did proceed to examine both the hand and the side, and even if he found makes there which satisfied him, still, the fact that he made so critical an
examination, would argue most forcibly that the personal appearance of the individual did not well correspond with that of Jesus, and, of course, that the marks were counterfit.
There is still another objection to the whole testimony of these alleged scars or wounds, and that is, that if a divine being were to be restored to life miraculously, it appears a little probable that he would be restored
unblemished, and bearing no mark of man's violence, instead of thus bringing back his scars or wounds with him- otherwise the work of restoration would seem to have been but half performed. Supposing his legs had been broken
on the cross, as the legs of the others were, would he have come back with broken legs? John says again that this man was seen by a part of the
disciples a third time. This appearance must have been thirty days or more after the last, if the individual was seen by the disciples but three times in all, (and we have none but hearsay evidence to show that he was seen
more than three time); because Luke says (Acts 1-3) that Jesus was on the earth forty days, and the second time that he was seen was only eight days after he was supposed to have risen and they could not have known that he was on
the earth forty days, unless they saw him at the end of that time. This individual, whoever he might be, appeared to them standing on the shore in the morning, after they
had been fishing through the night, (John 21-3 and 4). John acknowledges that when they first saw him on the shore, they did not know that the man was Jesus. It is evident also that, even after they had come to him on the shore,
they were in doubt as to the identity of the man, for John says (21-12) that "none of his disciples durst ask him, who art thou? Knowing that it was the Lord." Now if they knew that it was Jesus, how happened it that they
thought of asking him who he was? yet the fact that they did not dare to ask him, proves that they desired to ask, or thought of asking, him; and the fact that they thought of asking, or desired to ask him, proves that they
were in doubt. So that here is another case (only one of many as I believe) where John has attempted to make his story stronger than the truth. He probably, in years afterward, on recurring to this incident, and dwelling upon it,
brought himself to believe that the man seen was Jesus. There are some good reasons for believing that John has colored his whole account of this supposed Jesus much beyond the
reality. He was under strong temptation to exaggerate. His object, was stated before, in writing his narrative, was to prove that Jesus was not a mere man.
The testimony of Paul is (1 Cor. 15-5 to 8) that Jesus was once seen by five hundred at once, and that lastly he was seen by himself. I contend that it is not at all probable that even the
individual, who pretended to be Jesus, ever made that pretension in the presence of five [*61] hundred, and for these reasons among others, viz: first, that we have only Pauls word for it, and as he has, as the reader will
recollect, been already convicted of direct falsehood in one incident, But
supposing that the individual were seen by five hundred persons- we should not then know whether they believed him to be the real Jesus or not. Even Paul does not go so far as to say that they did-and, in the absence of
further proof, the probability is altogether that they did not. John says (11-45, 46) that many Jews saw Lazarus raised from the dead, but also virtually says that a part of them believed that Jesus only
attempted to practice a cheat upon them. So also some of the Pharisees saw the pretended miracle of restoring the withered hand, but, instead of believing it a miracle, evidently believed it a hoax. This case of
the five hundred is very likely to have been another of those, where men saw but did not believe, and therefore the fact that the individual was seen by five hundred, if such were the fact, would be worth nothing
to prove that that individual was Jesus, unless it be shown also that the five hundred recognised him as such. But Paul says also he himself once saw him. Now since all the
evidence heretofore offered of Paul's dishonesty and of his readiness to assert positively any thing that was necessary for his cause, if it had the slightest foundation in hearsay, might go for nothing, in some mens
minds, against the positive declaration of so great an apostle as he, I esteem it fortunate that he has in this instance, by contradicting his own testimony, saved me the neccessity of laboring to do it in
any other way than by referring to his own acts. I say therefore, that he has proved, by his own conduct, that if (what is not very probable) he ever saw the individual who pretended
to be Jesus, he did not at the time believe him to be him, because, if he had, he would of course, have been converted at once-whereas he was not converted until long afterwards, nor until he been accessory to the murder of Stephen, on account of his preaching in the name of this same Jesus.
Perhaps Paul might have seen an individual, who pretended to be Jesus, and, thou he did, not at the time, believe him to be real one, he might nevertheless, after his conversion, on recurring
to the circumstance, have brought himself to a different belief, and then in his reckless manner declare positively that, which he believed, but which was nevertheless untrue, thus appears to me the most charitable
supposition that the case will admit. Another circumstance in addition to those heretofore mentioned against the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, is, that he is not said in either of
the four gospels, to have shown himself, even to his intimate friends and followers but three times for forty days. Where was he during all this time? Where is it possible that the real Jesus could have kept himself so long
concealed. Another circumstance, and one of the strongest character, against the same fact, is, that he did not show himself to the world. Could any man be so destitute of common sense, as to
suppose that reasonable men would believe that a corpse came to life, on the bare assertion of those ignorant fisherman who had all along been viewed, by the most enlightened part of the community, as deluded fanatics?- And
that too, when no good reason could be imagined why, if the man were really alive, he should not exhibit himself personally. Every motive of duty, and every argument of expediency would seem to have
conspired to induce this man to show himself to the world, if he were alive, yet he did not. Is it possible for the ingenuity of a man to conceive of a reason why he should remain on the earth forty days, unless it were for
the express purpose of exhibiting himself openly, and thus furnishing as much testimony as possible, for the benefit of succeeding generations, of the reality of his resurrection? But the
different accounts given by these narrators are sufficient to show that there were various and disagreeing stories afloat, even among those who had been his most immediate an confidential followers, as well respecting his
resurrection and ascension as about his acts before his death. For example, Luke, in his chapter on the resurrection, (the 24th), says nothing of Jesus having but one
interview with his disciples, and he says (24-50 & 51) that (manifestly at the close of this first
interview) "he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted p his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried into heaven." This is a manifest contradiction of his [*62] declaration, in the first chapter of Acts, that Jesus was on the earth forty days. Mark also, immediately after detailing the particulars of the first and only interview, of which he speaks as having been had by Jesus with his disciples, says (16-19) "so then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into Heaven and set on the right hand of God." 'These representations contradict the story of John, who says that he was seen once
eight days after the first interview, and again after that time. Again Matthew does not speak of his being seen by his disciples but once after his death John says he was seen three
times. Further-more Matthew and John say not a word about his going up into heaven, although they most assuredly would have done so, if they had seen him, and Mark and Luke represent them to have seen him. Such
difference of testimony show that there were unfounded reports in circulation about him, and believed among those who ought to have known the truth and the whole truth; that these reports differed materially from
each other; that therefore no confidence is to be placed in any of them, and that we, of course, are without evidence that can be relied on. There is another circumstance, which, of
itself alone, ought to decide this question, in opposition to all the evidence together that can be found on the other side. It is this, that at the only interview, which Matthew (28-16 & 17) represents this supposed
Jesus to have had with the eleven who had been his immediate and confidential followers, a part of those very eleven doubted whether the individual were he.
If any one of these eleven after having once been an implicit believer in Jesus, after having been reminded of the intimations that Jesus had given that he should die and rise again, after knowing that the body was missing from the sepulchre, after having heard the stories of the women who had been to the sepulchre, and of the two going to Emmaus, after having gone "to a mountain which Jesus had appointed" with the
expectation
of meeting him, would then, on seeing the individual, doubt, while the rest believed, it is madness, it is the height of superstitious fully, for us to believe, on such testimony, that an individual rose from the dead.
I will mention another circumstance bearing upon this point-one very insignificant and unimportant standing alone, but which considered in relation to the resurrection of Jesus,
must, it appears to me, if men have a spark of reason in judging of this question, put an extinguisher on the last pretence that he ever rose from the dead. John
says (20-1 to 7) that he himself ("the disciple whom Jesus loved is the language used) was the first one of the disciples, and undoubtedly the first person, who arrived at the sepulchre -after
Mary had told them that the stone was rolled away from the door- and he says that "the napkin, that was about his head, was not lying with the linen clothes,
but was wrapped together in a place by itself." Did Jesus, when rising, from the dead, leave a part of his grave clothes, in one part, and a part in another. Did he stop to wrap and lay aside this napkin? Or was it done by someone who carried, or assisted in carrying away the body? Which is the most probable? If a chimney sweep were to rise from the dead, he would no more think of wrapping up and laying aside the napkin that had been about his head, than he would of waiting in the tomb for his breakfast. But if the Son of God, or a Saviour of a world, or any such being, when rising from the dead to "bring life and immortality to light," should do an act of this kind, such an incident would present the most remarkable illustration, that the world ever furnished, of the truth of the adage, that "there is but a step between the sublime and the ridiculous."
Finally, the fact that no one of the eleven ever knew what became of this individual, whom they supposed to be Jesus, is invincible evidence that he did not rise from the dead. TIis not a question
to be argued, whether a Son of God, or a man who had risen from the dead, would have served his friends and followers the trick, which this man did the disciples, of going on and leaving them forever, without letting them know
where he had gone.