CHAPTER V.
The Resurrection. We now come to the question of the resurrection of Jesus-the last of those alleged
Supernatural events, the truth of which it is necessary to inquire into. Two solutions of this occurrence may be given, either of which, I apprehend, will be a sufficient answer to
all the evidence leading to prove a real return from death to life. The first, and perhaps most probable solution is, that the person seen by the disciples was actually
Jesus, but that he had never been actually dead. The instances have been numerous, where criminals, who have submitted to all the forms of execution, and have been supposed to have died
as really as any others, have afterwards been found alive. The cases are also, as it were, of daily occurrence, where soldiers wounded in battle, or personal sick of some common disease, have apparently died, and have afterwards
returned to full life. Now what does the circumstance of their being thus afterwards alive, prove? Why, it proves that the apparent death was only a temporary suspension of animation, and that they have never
really been dead. It proves those facts positively, and it proves nothing more. Now will any man say that, in the case of Jesus, a supernatural [*51] event is proved by evidence, which, in other cases, proves only a
natural one? Or that, in his case, we are to presume an event to have been supernatural, in when there have been millions of natural ones precisely like it? If not, then he must admit, that the re-appearance of Jesus,
is, of itself, positive proof that he had never been dead. But perhaps it will be said that the prediction of Jesus before big crucifixion, that, in three days after that
event, he should rise from the dead, and the fact that, in three days he was found alive, furnish too extraordinary a coincidence to be attributed to any natural cause. One answer to this objection, is, that
there is no impossibility of such an event's taking place naturally, and that anything, which is naturally possible, is in the highest degree probable, in comparison with an event, that is
naturally impossible. Another answer is that he did not rise in just three days, as he ought to have done to have properly fulfilled such a prediction. He died (or was supposed to die) about three o'clock in the afternoon
of Friday, and he left the tomb at least as soon as sometime in the course of Saturday night; whereas he ought to have remained in it until the middle of the afternoon of the next Monday, in order to
in order t make the coincidence as remarkable as believers would have it understood to be. The probability is, that the time, during which he was in the tomb, instead of being three days, was less than half that
time. Still another answer to this objection is, that it is not probable that Jesus predicted that he would rise from the dead at all. His alleged predictions of this kind all appear to have been made in such manner,
as that none of his disciples so understood them, at the time. When the news first came to them that he was alive, it occasioned the greatest surprise among them. They considered the reports as but "idle tales," (Mark. 16-10
to 13. Luke 24-11), "and they believed them not." They appeared to have been wholly unprepared for such an occurrence. John also acknowledges (20-9) that previous to the resurrection, they had not known "the scripture that
he must rise from the dead." But when they find that he is really alone, thy brush up their memories, and recall some things , which he had said, and which they now construe to have meant
that he should rise again, although they had gathered no such idea from them at the time they were uttered. Is it not sufficiently manifest from these facts, that all his alleged predictions in relation to his resurrection, either were never made at all, or were made in some language as that in relation to his rebuilding the temple? a prediction, which John, after the re-appearance of Jesus, sagaciously construed to have referred to "the temple of his body," instead of the temple in which they stood when the words were spoken, (John 2-19 to 21).
But it may be asked, if he did not mean to predict his death and resurrection, what did he mean, when he said, at the supper, the evening before he was taken, (John 13-33), "yet a little while
I am with you. Ye shall seek me, and wither I go, ye cannot come?" and again (John 14-28) when he said "I go away and come again
unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the father?" and again (John 16-16) when he said "a little while and ye shall not see me; and a little while again and ye shall not see me because I go to the father?" It may be asked, I say, what he meant by these remarks, if he did not mean that he was going to die, and rise again? And it so happens that I have but a poor answer to give, viz: that if he did not mean that he was going to die and rise again, he probably meant something nearly a little more like what he said: and that is that was going to be off for a while and then return again. Nothing would be more natural under the circumstances in which he was then placed- he had found he was in imminent peril of his life- his enemies were on the watch for him- Judas had already left the room to go and disclose to the Chief Priests (as Jesus supposed) where he was; and he saw that it would not do for him to remain there any longer. He therefore determined to abscond, as he had sometimes done before, and return again to his disciples when the danger was over. But, as he probably considered it unfavorable to secrecy to have a dozen men accompany him, he must give his disciples some reason why it was necessary for him to go alone- he therefore very
judiciously told them "he was going to the Father." Now, if Jesus wished to have us believe that he intended, at this time, to predict that he was about to die and rise again on
earth, why did he not so predict it plainly? Why did he not do it in language that his disciples would have so understood at the time?
Why did he leave this prediction to be tortured, conjure or "glorified," after the events should have happened, out of some remarks, which, when uttered, the disciples understood, and ought o have understood, as having reference to something else? "Undoubtedly for some
wise reason," will be the deliverers wise answer. I have thought of but one other objection that can be made to the supposition that Jesus had never been dead. That objection rests
upon the facts, that, after his re-appearance, he still claimed to be the Messiah. And it may, perhaps, be said, that if he had never been dead, he was dishonest
in continuing to make these pretensions. One answer to this objection is, that it is a supposable case, and much evidence had already been exhibited tending to show, that he was a dishonest man; and a second answer is, that if he had always been honest in imagining himself to be what he pretended to be, his return to life would naturally appear as wonderful and miraculous to himself, as to his disciples, and would tend to confirm, rather than weaken the delusion which had previously occupied his mind.
But there is no lack of evidence tending to prove that Jesus did not die at the time of his crucifixion. Circumstances enough are related, to render it in a high degree probable that, [*52]
when he was taken down from the cross, an intelligent person would not even have supposed him dead. In the first place it does not appear that he received any
mortal wounds. Those in his hands and feet, of course, were not; and as respects the one in his side, we know not that it was a dangerous one. It is certain that his apparent death was caused solely by his protracted torture on the
cross, because it took place before his side was pierced. It is also certain that, if he died at all, he did not die as soon as the bystanders supposed, because they thought he was dead before his side was pierced; but when that
came to be pierced, his blood was still in circulation (John 19-33 and 34). Now this suspension on the cross appears to be precisely that kind of torture, that would naturally cause fainting, a suspension of animation, and apparent
death, before real death. And it is further evident that Jesus was taken down very soon after his first swooning, or indication of death, for Mark says (15-14) that when Joseph of Arimethea went to Pilate to get permission to take
the body into his care, "Pilate marvelled if he were already dead," but being told by the centurion that he was dead, he thereupon gave Joseph permission to take the body, which he would undoubtedly do immediately. Now the
fact that when Joseph came to him, Pilate marvelled that Jesus could have been dead so soon, is sufficient evidence that he had just the given signs of death. There can therefore be no reasonable doubt that he was taken
down very soon after the first swooning, that was caused by his suspension on the cross. Would any intelligent man now-a-days suppose that a person, in this situation, and at this time, was dead beyond recovery?
Let now the following facts be considered, 1st, that Pilate marvelled at the hearing tat Jesus had died so soon; 2d, that when he was supposed to be dead, those, who were crucified with him,
were still alive, (John 19-32 and 33); 3d, that in order to insure the death of those who were crucified, it was customary, (and therefore probably considered necessary) to break their legs, and that his legs were not broken; 4th,
that he was undoubtedly taken down very soon after the first sign of death; 5th, that he probably received no dangerous wounds; and 6th, that he was not dead at the time his side was pierced, (as is proved by the circulation of his
blood), although the people had previously considered him dead; let all these facts be considered, I say, and it appears to me the evidence is abundant to satisfy any intelligent and reasonable man of the probability that Jesus was
not at this time dead; that he was in fact in such a condition, as he would have been likely to recover from, without any artificial aid at all. But he was not left without artificial means of
recovery. The blood-letting, caused by the wound in the side, would naturally tend to revive him. John says also (19-38 to 41) that the body was laid in an open tomb, (by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus), confined by nothing but
linen clothes, and that, with it, was wrapped in linen clothes, a large quantity of strongly scented gums, viz. myrrh and aloes. The odour of these would act as a restorative of considerable power. These circumstances
sufficiently account for the restoration of this man from such a condition as I would think he satisfactorily been shewn to have been in. How next did Jesus escape from the tomb? There are two ways, in
which this may have been done. In the first place, he himself may have been able to force open the door, and make his escape alone. In the second place, Joseph and Nicodemus, who had taken so much pains in regard to this body,
would not be very likely to let one day and two nights pass away without their going to the tomb to ascertain the condition of its inmate, and if they found him recovered, he had then nothing to do but walk off; ad if they found
him still insensible, they had nothing to o but carry him away, and take the necessary measures to restore him. But here the Christian will say that neither of these things cold have been down,
because a watch was set there for the express purpose of preventing any thing of that kind. This matter of watch must therefore be inquired into. And it so happens that there is abundant evidence to shew that, if there were any
watch there, they were asleep. In the first place, the stone rolled away from the door and the door was open. If these acts had been done physically by an angel, as Matthew (28-2) says they were,
the watch, f awake, would have been as likely to observe them, when being done, as if they had been done by Jesus himself, or by Joseph and Nicodemus; and the single fact, that they did not see these acts done, alone prove that
they were asleep. But even if Jesus was restored to life supernaturally, he of course walked out the door, for an angel is represented to have been sent from heaven to open the door and
let him out. Now, if the watch had been awake, they would have been just as likely to have discovered Jesus when he came out then, as they would if he had recovered naturally, and had then come out alone, or as they would to
have detected any one (Joseph and Nicodemus for instance), who should have come and taken the body; but the fact that they did not se him at all when he came out, is alone sufficient evidence that they were asleep.
Again. It was perfectly natural that the watch should sleep. If they saw a corpse safely deposited in a tomb, the door closed, and a stone placed against it, they would not b made very wakeful by any
fear, either that the body itself would return to life and make its escape, or that it would be stolen by men, who should know that a watch was near- and it was probably their feeling of security, that made them sleep so soundly
that neither the noise of the rolling of the stone, nor the opening if the door, by whomever caused, awake them.
But Matthew says (28-4) that when Mary came to sepulcre, and angel had rolled [*53]