Six Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour Part 21

IF _your_ Lords.h.i.+p, _upon reading this_ Discourse, _should be of the same Mind with me, I beg of you to stroak the_ Clergy _into Temper, Patience and Compliance: Tell them, they have been long orthodox and glorious Victors over_ Infidels, _and that it would be now an Act of Generosity to yield to them in a_ small Point; _upon which such a Pacification would ensue, as nothing hereafter would be able to dissolve_.

BUT _I have another Favour_, my Lord, _here to crave of you_, viz.

_that you would be pleas'd to persuade my old Friend, the_ Bishop _of_ London, _to stay at Home this_ Lent, _and keep to his_ Prayers _and_ Fasting, _for the casting out a certain_ Kind _of ----, that by Fits he's unhapily troubled with; or upon the Publication of this_ Discourse, _I shall be in Danger of being soon knapp'd for it_.

IF _your_ Lords.h.i.+p _will do me that Favour, then I will do you as good a Turn; and praise you for your Doctrine of_ Pa.s.sive Obedience, _preach'd at the_ Coronation: _Tho' many may laugh at your Revival of that Doctrine, saying the_ Clergy _upon an Occasion, which our most excellent_ Sovereign _will never give them, would again have Recourse to their_ Reserves _and_ Distinctions; _yet I say it was well done of your_ Lords.h.i.+p _to preach it, that the Tongues and the Hands (to say nothing of the Hearts) of the_ Clergy _might go together in Subscriptions to_ Articles _and_ Homilies; _and so avoid that Prevarication and Inconsistency, which some now have no more Wit than to charge them with_.

SO _not questioning your_ Lords.h.i.+p's _Approbation of this_ Discourse _and the_ Dedication; _nor doubting but you'll make me as bountiful a Recompence for it, as any of my other Episcopal Patrons have done; I subscribe my self_,

[Sidenote: _Feb. 15th 1728-9_]

My Lord, The Admirer of your Pa.s.sive Obedience Sermon, _Thomas Woolston_.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

A SIXTH DISCOURSE ON THE MIRACLES OF OUR _SAVIOUR_, &c.

Here goes my sixth and last _Discourse_ on _Jesus_'s _Miracles_; the Subject whereof is the literal Story of his own Resurrection; which, according to the Proposition in Hand, I am to shew to consist of Absurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities. And I hope our _Bishops_ will quietly permit the Publication of this _Discourse_, especially if I a.s.sure them that I mean nothing worse by it, than to make way for the understanding what the Fathers write of the mystical Resurrection of _Jesus_ out of the Grave of the Letter of the Law and the Prophets; of which mystical Resurrection of our _spiritual Jesus_, the Evangelical Story of the Resurrection of a _carnal Christ_ is but mere Type and Shadow.

I am so far from designing any Service to Infidelity by this _Discourse_, that I aim at the Accomplishment of some of St. _John_'s Apocalyptical Visions. The Fathers say that a _Church_, built on the Letter of the Scriptures, particularly on the Letter of _Jesus_'s Miracles, is _Babylon_; and that antiliteral Arguments and mystical Interpretations will be the Downfal of her. Whether there is any Truth in this Opinion of the Fathers, I am minded to make the Experiment; and tho' I should bring the old House of the Church over my Head, and be crush'd to Pieces in its Ruins, I can't forbear it: But however, I would advise the _Clergy_ to make Haste and _come out of Babylon_, for Fear of the worst; or they, who upon the Authority of the Fathers are _the Merchants of Babylon_, will _weep_[309] _and mourn_ upon her Fall, because _none will buy their Merchandize_ of the Letter _any more_. Dear _Jesu_, that such a _Student_ as I am in the _Revelations_ of St. _John_, and an Interpreter of them too, upon the Authority of the Fathers, should be charg'd with Blasphemy and Infidelity!

So to Work I went; and I had not been long musing by myself, how to sap this Foundation of the Church, before I was sensible of my own Insufficiency for it. Whereupon I sent to my old Friend, the _Jewish Rabbi_, for his Thoughts on this grand Miracle of _Jesus_'s Resurrection, which he gave me some Promise of. But I desired him to forbear all Ludicrousness, Satire and Banter, for fear of Offence: For tho' our _Clergy_ liked Volumes of Jests and Facetiousness, if they were discharg'd against _Jews_, _Turks_, and _Infidels_; yet when they were levell'd at _Ministers_ of the _Letter_, the _Case was alter'd_, as quoth _Plowden_, and they were not to be borne with. Therefore he was to remember that Decency, Seriousness and Calmness of Argument, required by the _Bishop_ of _London_[310] or I durst not print it.

In Compliance with my Desires he sent me the following _Letter_, which, having purg'd it of a few _Puns_ and _Cunundrums_, because all Appearance of _Wit_, as of _Evil_, was to be abstain'd from, I here publish, and it runs thus.

_SIR_,

According to your Request, I here send you my Thoughts on _Jesus_'s Resurrection, in which I shall be shorter than I would be, because of the customary Bounds of your _Discourses_.

The Controversy between us _Jews_ and you _Christians_ about the _Messiah_ has. .h.i.therto been of a diffusive Nature: But as the Subject of _this_ is the Resurrection of your _Jesus_; so, by my Consent, we'll now reduce the Controversy to a narrow Compa.s.s, and let it turn intirely on this grand Miracle and Article of your Faith. If your _Divines_ can prove _Jesus_'s Resurrection against the following Objections, then I will acknowledge him to be the _Messiah_, and will turn Christian, otherwise he must still pa.s.s with us for an Impostor and false Prophet.

I have often lamented the Loss of such Writings, which our _Ancestors_ unquestionably dispers'd against _Jesus_, because of the clear Sight they would give us, into the Cheat and Imposture of his Religion. But I rejoice and thank G.o.d, there is little or no Want of them, to the Point in Hand. For I had not long meditated on the Story of _Jesus_'s Resurrection, as your _Evangelists_ have related it, but I plainly discern'd it to be the most notorious and monstrous Imposture, that ever was put upon Mankind. And if you please to attend to my following Arguments, which require no Depth of Judgment and Capacity to apprehend, I am persuaded that you and every one disinterested, will be of the same Mind too.

To overthrow and confute the Story of this monstrous and incredible Miracle, I was thinking once to premise an Argument of the Justice of the Sentence denounc'd against and executed upon _Jesus_, who was so far from being the innocent Person, you Christians would make of him, that, as may easily be proved, he was so grand a _Deceiver_, _Impostor_ and _Malefactor_, as no Punishment could be too great for him. But this Argument (which I reserve against a Day of perfect Liberty, to publish by it self in Defence of the Honour and Justice of our _Ancestors_) would be too long for the Compa.s.s of this Letter; and therefore I pa.s.s it by, tho' it would give Force to my following Objections; it being hard and even impossible to imagine, that G.o.d would vouchsafe the Favour of a miraculous Resurrection to one, who for his Crimes deservedly suffer'd and underwent Death.

But waving, I say, that Argument for the present, which of itself would be enough to prejudice a reasonable Man against the Belief of _Jesus_'s Resurrection; I will allow _Jesus_ to have been a much better Man, than I believe him to have been; or as good a one in Morals as your _Divines_ do suppose him; and will only consider the Circ.u.mstances of the Evangelical Story of his Resurrection; from which, if I don't prove it to have been the most bare-fac'd Imposture that ever was put upon the World, I deserve for the Vanity of this Attempt, a much worse Punishment, than he for his Frauds endured.

I have sometimes wonder'd, considering the Nature and Heinousness of _Jesus_'s Faults, for which he dy'd, that our _Chief Priests_ and _Pharisees_ had any Regard to his Prediction (which was so like a Bambouzlement of the Populace) that he was to rise again the _third Day_ after his Crucifixion. There's no other Nation in the World, which would not have slighted such a vain Prognostication of a known Impostor. Let him foretell with ever so much Confidence his speedy Return to Life, I dare say, any other Magistrates of ordinary Prudence would have despised him for a presumptuous _Enthusiast_: But, when I reflected on the Imposture of _Lazarus_'s Resurrection, and of what pernicious Consequence it had like to have proved to the Peace and Welfare of our Nation, if it had not been happily discover'd, my Wonder here ceas'd; and I as much admire now the Wisdom, Caution and Circ.u.mspection of our _Chief Priests_ against all possible Fraud and Deceit in the foretold Resurrection of _Jesus_. Tho' _Jesus_ himself, the Head of the Confederacy, and prime Projector of the design'd Cheat in the Case of _Lazarus_ was cut off, yet his a.s.sociates were still numerous; and it was not impossible, but they might concert a Project of a counterfeited Resurrection of him, in Accomplishment of his Prophecy, that might be of more fatal Consequence, and tend to such Confusions and Distractions among the People, as would not be soon quell'd and quieted. Whereupon our _Chief Priests_ very prudently consider of Precautions against Cheat here, and wisely make Application to _Pilate_ the _Governour_, that proper and effectual Measures may be taken against a false and feign'd Resurrection, for Fear of the ill Effects of it. And one of them, as the _Spokesman_ of their Company, seems, according to _Matthew_, Ch.

xxviii. to have made the Speech following.

_SIR_, "We remember that this Deceiver and Impostor _Jesus_, who was yesterday crucified, and justly suffer'd Death for his Blasphemy and many Delusions of the People (that were of bad Consequence, and might have been of much worse, if he had not been timely brought to condign Punishment) said repeatedly before, that notwithstanding the Death he was to undergo he should rise again to Life the _third Day_ after. It is not that we are at all apprehensive of such a wonderful and miraculous Event, which knowing him to have been a false Prophet as well as a deceitful Juggler, we have no Fears nor Belief of. But as it is not long since, that the Inhabitants in and about _Bethany_ had like to have been fatally deluded and imposed on by him, in the pretended Resuscitation of _Lazarus_, one of his Disciples and Confederates in Iniquity; so it is not altogether impossible nor improbable but his Disciples and Accomplices, who are many, may project a feign'd Resurrection of _Jesus_ (in Accomplishment of his Prediction) by stealing his Body away, and pretending he is risen from the dead.

Should such a Sham-Miracle be contrived amongst them, and cunningly executed, it would be p?a?? (_not an Error but_) an Imposture of worse Consequence to our Nation and Religion, than the former in _Lazarus_ could have been, if it had never been detected: We crave therefore the Favour of your _Excellency_, to give Command for the making his Sepulchre sure, till the _third_ Day is past, that neither his _dead_ Body may be taken away, and a Resurrection pretended; nor a _living_ one slipt into its Place, and a Miracle counterfeited on that Day, when we will be present at the opening of the Sepulchre, and give Satisfaction to the People of his being a false Prophet."

Whether _Pilate_ was at all intent on the Prevention of Fraud in this Case, or would not willingly have connived at it, to increase the Divisions and Distractions of our then unhappy Nation, may be question'd: But the Request of our _Chief Priests_ was so reasonable, and their Importunities so urgent, that he could not resist them; and therefore order'd them a _Watch_ for the Sepulchre, which they might make as sure, as they could, against Fraud and Imposture, till the _third Day_.

Whereupon our _Chief Priests_ deliberate, what Measures were fittest to be taken to this Purpose. And as I can't, and don't believe any Man else can, devise any better for the Security of the Sepulchre against Fraud, than what they took; so I admire and applaud their Prudence, Circ.u.mspection, and Precaution in the Case. They _seal'd the Stone_ at the Mouth of the Sepulchre, and placed a Guard of Soldiers about it; which were _Two_ such certain Means for the Prevention or Detection of Cheat in a Resurrection, as are not to be equall'd by any other.

They _seal'd the Stone_ of the Sepulchre, which, tho' it was no Security at all against Violence, yet was an absolute one against Fraud. How the _Stone_ which fitted the Mouth of the Sepulchre, as a Door does the Entrance into a Room, was seal'd, I need not describe. The Use and Manner of sealing the Doors of Closets, of Chests, and of Papers is common; and as it is an obvious Expedient, for the Satisfaction of the Signators, against Deceit; so it has been an antient as well as a modern Practice. _Darius_, King of _Babylon_,[311] seal'd the Door of the Den of Lions, wherein _Daniel_ was cast, with his own Signet: And wherefore did he so? For the Satisfaction of himself and of his Courtiers, when he came again to open and compare the Signature with his Signet, that no Art nor Artifice had been used for the Preservation of _Daniel_. So our _Chief Priests_ seal'd the Stone of _Jesus_'s Sepulchre, which they design'd to be present at the opening of, on the _third Day_, the Time appointed by _Jesus_ for his Resurrection, and then give ample Satisfaction to the People, that there was a real, or could be no Resurrection of his Body. Wherefore else did they _seal_ the Stone of his Sepulchre?

Your _Grotius_[312] thinks, that _Pilate_'s Seal was affix'd to the Stone of the Sepulchre; but, as I believe, _Pilate_ little concern'd himself about the Prevention of Deceit here; so I much question it. It is more reasonable to think that the _Chief Priests_ and other Civil Magistrates of _Jerusalem_ with their several Seals, which could not be open'd, but by themselves, without Suspicion of Fraud, sign'd the Stone, and intended to be present, on the Day appointed, at the opening of the Sepulchre; not doubting, what no body could question, but _Jesus_ would wait their coming, and arise to Life, if he could, in the Sight of themselves, and of a vast Concourse of People, that were sure to attend on them to behold the Miracle. Such a Resurrection would have been of Satisfaction to the whole Nation; and such a Resurrection, reasonably speaking, _Jesus_ would, if he could, have vouchsafed in Accommodation to the _sealing_ of the _Stone_.

But, notwithstanding this Precaution, in sealing of the Stone, the best that could be taken against Fraud, _Jesus_'s Body was privately slipt off, early in the Morning of the Day before, and a Resurrection pretended by his Disciples; and you would have us and our Ancestors to believe, there was no Deceit in the Case; tho' confessedly none of the _Sealers_ of the Sepulchre were present: Who can believe it? Was, or can there be, any Imposture more against Sense and Reason palm'd upon the Understandings of Mankind? If there had been a real Resurrection, the _Sealers_ of the _Stone_ would have been the _Openers_ of the Sepulchre; wherefore else was the _Stone seal'd_?

A Question, that here arises, is, On what Day, and what Time of the Day, did our _Chief Priests_, the Sealers of the Stone, expect, what they could not think would ever come to pa.s.s, _Jesus_'s Resurrection? Or what was the Extent of the Time meant by _Jesus_, when he said that after _three Days_, or on the _third Day_ after his Pa.s.sion, he should rise again? If any Impostor or Prophet like _Jesus_ should in this Age so predict his Resurrection, and be executed on _Friday_, the Day for his Resurrection would be presumed to be _Monday_, and not _Sunday_ Morning before Day. And I humbly conceive former Ages and Nations, and our Nation in particular did compute after this Fas.h.i.+on. Accordingly on _Monday_ our _Chief Priests_ I don't doubt, intended to be present at the opening of the Seals of the Sepulchre, and to behold the Miracle: But _Jesus_'s Body was clandestinely moved off early on _Sunday_ (the Day before _that_ signified and predicted for his Resurrection) to the Laughter more than the Surprize of our Ancestors, at the Notoriety of the Fraud committed, and at the Vanity of a Resurrection pretended upon it. And I may appeal even to your _Chief Priests_ of the Church, whether here's not another Note of Cheat and Imposture; and whether the Disciples were not afraid to trust _Jesus_'s Body, its full time, in the Grave; because of the greater Difficulty to carry it off afterwards, and pretend a Resurrection upon it.

But because your _Divines_ (who have singular Knacks at making two Nights and a full Day, that _Jesus_ was buried, to be _three Days_ and _three Nights_; and whose various Ways of Computation I always smile at) do a.s.sert that _Sunday_ was the _third Day_, on which, in Accomplishment of _Jonah_'s Prophecy, and of his Own Prediction, he was to rise again; I will suppose so with them, and will, if they please, grant that our _Chief Priests_, and the _Sealers_ of the Sepulchre, expected his Resurrection on that Day, and intended, for the opening of the Seals, to be present at it.

But at what Time of the Day were they to come or could be expected at the Sepulchre? Not long before Noon. But _Jesus_'s Body was gone betimes in the Morning, before our _Chief Priests_ could be out of their Beds; and a barefac'd Infringment of the Seals of the Sepulchre was made against the Laws of Honour and Honesty, and a Resurrection confidently talk'd of by the Disciples; and yet your Christian Priesthood at this Day would have us to believe, there was no Fraud and Deceit in all this! O most monstrous!

If our _Chief Priests_ had trespa.s.s'd upon _Jesus_'s Patience, and would not attend at the Sepulchre for the opening of the Seals, on the Day and Time appointed; if they had been for confining him longer in the Grave than was meet, according to Prophecy, then his Resurrection, without their Presence, had been excusable and justifiable. But this his pretended Rising to Life, not only a Day before the _Chief Priests_ could imagine he would, or earlier in the Morning than he should, for the Sake of their requisite Presence, is, together with the Fracture of the Seals against the Law of Security, such a manifest and indisputable Mark and Indication of Fraud, as is not to be equall'd in all or any of the Impostures, that ever were attempted to be put upon the World.

In short, by the sealing of the Stone of the Sepulchre, we are to understand nothing less than a Covenant enter'd into between our _Chief Priests_ and the _Apostles_, by which _Jesus_'s Veracity, Power and _Messiahs.h.i.+p_ was to be try'd. Tho' we read not of the Apostles giving their Consent to the Covenant, yet it was reasonably presum'd and could not have been refus'd, if ask'd. The Condition of the seal'd Covenant was, that if _Jesus_ arose from the dead in the Presence of our _Chief Priests_, upon their opening the Seals of the Sepulchre, at the Time appointed; then was he to be acknowledg'd to be the _Messiah_: But if he continued in a corrupt and putrified State of Mortality, then was he to be granted to be an _Impostor_: Very wisely and rightly agreed! And if the Apostles had stood to this Covenant, Christianity had been nipt in its Bud, and suppress'd in its Birth. But they had other Views, and another Game to play at all Adventures. The Body was to be removed and a Resurrection pretended, to the Delusion, if possible, of all Mankind, in which they have been more successful than could be imagin'd upon a Project that had so little Sense or Reason, so little Colour of Truth or Artifice in the Contrivance and Execution of it. Our _Chief Priests_ were apprehensive at first of their stealing the Body away, and pretending a Resurrection: But after the _sealing_ of the _Stone_, those Fears vanish'd; because upon the stealing the Body, away against such Security and Precaution, the Fraud would be self-evident, and want no Demonstration and Proof of it. But, for all this Precaution, I say, the Body was in a barefaced Manner taken away, a Resurrection talk'd of, and to the Amazement of every one, who can think freely, has been believed thro' all Ages of the Church since. Upon the whole then, I think, you may as well say, when a seal'd Closet is broken open, and the Treasure gone without the Privity of the Signators, that there's no Wrong done; as that in the Resurrection of _Jesus_, there was no Fraud. The Cases are equal and parallel. What then can your Christian _Priests_ say to this demonstrative Argument of a manifest and bare-faced Cheat in _Jesus_'s Resurrection? I have been thinking, what they will or can say; and upon the maturest Consideration I don't find they can make any other than one or more of these shuffling Answers to it, _viz._

1. That it was impossible for the Disciples to steal the Body of _Jesus_ away, because of the Watchfulness of the Guards, and therefore there was a real Resurrection, tho' the _Chief Priests_ and _Sealers_ of the Sepulchre were not present at it.

2. That, tho' the _Chief Priests_ and _Sealers_ of the Stone of the Sepulchre were not present, as I say they ought to have been, to behold the Miracle; yet his Resurrection was afterwards made as manifest to them, as if they had been there present.

3. That if _Jesus_ did not really arise from the dead, the Belief of his Resurrection could never have been so propagated at first, nor would have been retain'd in the World for so many Ages since.

I can think of no other Answers, and believe it impossible for your Christian _Priests_ to form any other, to the foresaid Argument of Fraud in _Jesus_'s Resurrection: But how weak, frivolous and insufficient they all and every one are, will appear upon a little Examination into them.

1. Then, against the aforesaid demonstrative Argument of Fraud, it may be pretended, _That it was impossible for the Disciples to steal the Body of_ Jesus _away, because of the Watchfulness of the Guards; and therefore there was a real Resurrection, tho' the_ Chief Priests, _the_ Sealers _of the Sepulchre were not present at it_.

To which I reply, and confess, that if it was impossible to evade the Guards of the Sepulchre, then there was a real Resurrection; but if there was but a bare Possibility of evading them, then this Answer is of no Force. And I am of Opinion, that the Thing was not only possible, but easy, feasible, and practicable. Tho' the _Roman_ Soldiers were of as much Fidelity and Integrity as any of their Profession; yet it is well known, that such Creatures are subject to Bribery and Corruption, if the Disciples had any Money to tempt them with: Or if their Faithfulness to their Trust was untainted; yet it is not improbable, but their Officers, at the Direction of _Pilate_, who found his Account in the Distractions of our Nation, might give them the Hint to wink hard at the Commission of such a Fraud. But not to insist on either of these Ways to evade the _Watch_; our Ancestors said, what your _Evangelist_ has recorded, that the Disciples taking the Opportunity of the Sleep of the Guards, carry'd the Body of _Jesus_ off; which was a thing both possible and probable.

Of what Number the _Watch_ did consist is uncertain. Your _Whitby_[313]

says they were _sixty_; but he has no Reason nor Authority to think, they were so many. If they had been to be a Guard against Violence, I could easily have believed they were more; but in as much as they were only a _Watch_ against Fraud, and against any casual defacing of the _Seals_ on the Stone, before the _Chief Priests_ came to open the Sepulchre, _three_ or _four_ Soldiers were sufficient, and I don't think, there were any more set to this Purpose.

It is not then at all improbable, that so few Soldiers should be fast asleep at that time of Night, or so early in the Morning, when the clandestine Work was done; especially after keeping such a _Gaudy-day_ as was the Feast of the Pa.s.sover, which, like the Festivals of other Nations, was celebrated with Excess. Foot Soldiers then, you may be sure, upon the Bounty of one or other, did no more want, than they would scruple to take their _Fill_, which like an Opiat, lock'd up their Senses for that Night, when the Disciples, being aware of the lucky Opportunity, carry'd the Body of _Jesus_ off safely.

And where's the Absurdity to suppose, that the Disciples themselves might contrive the Intoxication of the Guards? _Herodotus_ tells us a Story of a Deadbody's being stolen away by such an Artifice. And I don't think the Disciples of _Jesus_ either so foolish or conscientious, as not to take the Hint, and enterprize the like Fraud.

_Peter_, who, upon Occasion, could _swear_ and _curse_ like a _Trooper_, would hardly scruple to fuddle a few _Foot-Soldiers_. But which way soever it came to pa.s.s, the Watch were asleep, which is neither hard to conceive nor believe; and then the Disciples executed _that_ Fraud, which has been the Delusion of Nations and Ages since.

Your _Evangelists_ would hint that the _Chief Priests_ gave Money to the Soldiers to say, they were asleep, when the Disciples stole the Body of _Jesus_ away, as if they were brib'd to a false Testimony; but there neither was nor could be any such thing. If there had been a real Resurrection to their Astonishment and Amazement, as it is represented in your Gospels, no Money could so soon have corrupted them to a false Witness, being under such Fears of G.o.d and of _Jesus_.

I don't doubt but our _Chief Priests_ might reward the Soldiers for speaking the Truth, and exhort them to persist in it, with a Promise to _secure_ them against the Anger of _Pilate_ for their sleeping and Neglect of their Duty.

Here then is no _Answer_ to the foresaid Argument or Objection against _Jesus_'s Resurrection. It was not at all impossible for the Disciples, who stole the Body away, to avoid the Guards, who were and may reasonably be supposed to be lull'd asleep, when the Disciples did it. Neither is there any more Force in the

2. Second Answer to it, _viz. That tho' the Chief Priests, the Sealers of the Stone of the Sepulchre, were not present, opening the Seals and beholding the Miracle; yet his Resurrection was afterwards made as manifest to them, as if they had been there present_.

Ay, this is somewhat like an Answer, if there be any Truth in it. A Manifestation of _Christ risen_ afterwards to our _Chief Priests_ would have been equivalent to their Presence at and Sight of the Miracle. But how was his Resurrection manifested to them? did _Jesus_ ever afterwards appear personally to them, to their Satisfaction, that he was the same Person, whom they crucified and put to Death for a Deceiver and false Prophet? No; this is not once affected by your _Evangelists_ or ever insinuated by any antient or modern Writer. How then was _Jesus_'s Resurrection made manifest to our Chief Priests? Why; your _Divines_ say, what is all that can be said here, that the Words of the Disciples, who, being Men of Honesty, Simplicity and Integrity, would not lye, are to be taken for it. Very fine, indeed! our Chief Priests are to take the Words of the Disciples for _Jesus_'s Resurrection, and look upon them as Men of Veracity, when they knew and experienc'd them to be grand Cheats, not only in stealing the Body of _Jesus_ away, but in the _known Imposture_ of _Lazarus_'s Resurrection, or your _Evangelist_ had never implicitly called it so. When therefore Deceivers will not be _Lyars_; nor Thieves _Dissemblers_ of the Fact they are accused of, I will own _Jesus_'s Resurrection to have been manifest enough to our _Chief Priests_. There's no need of more Argument here: He that bellows more Words on it, loses Time.

It has been a constant Objection of us _Jews_, against the Resurrection of _Jesus_, that he appear'd not personally afterwards to our _Chief Priests_, to _Pilate_ and to others his Crucifiers and Insultors, to upbraid them with their Infidelity and ill Treatment of him. Whether _Jesus_ would not have done so, if he really arose from the dead; and whether he ought not in Reason, for the Conviction and Conversion of Unbelievers, to have done so, with me is no Question.

_Celsus_ of old[314] in the Name of the _Jews_ made the Objection; and _Olibio_, a late _Rabbi_[315] has repeated it. But in all my Reading and Conversation with Men or Books, I never met with a tolerable Answer to it. _Origen_ and _Limborch_, the Writers against _Celsus_ and _Olibio_, gently slide over the Objection, as if it was too hot or weighty to be touch'd and handled by them. To recite the poor, short and insufficient Answers of those two Great Authors, to the Objection, would be the Exposing of them, and giving such Strength to the Objection, which it don't want. Therefore I will leave the Objection, which _Origen_[316] owns to be a considerable one, to the Meditation of your modern Advocates for Christianity; and when they can prove, that _Jesus_, after his Resurrection did personally appear to his Crucifiers, the _Chief Priests_ and _Sealers_ of the Sepulchre, to their Confutation; or that, according to the Law of Reason, he ought not to have appear'd to them, then I will turn _Christian_, and grant, that in the Argument above, which proves plain Fraud in the Resurrection, there's no Force nor Truth. In the mean time _Jesus_'s Non-Appearance to the _Chief Priests_ is a Confirmation, that he did not arise from the Dead, but that his Body was stolen away, or he would have waited in the Grave, the coming of the Sealers of the Stone, and their regular opening of the Sepulchre, to the Conviction and Conversion of all there present, and Confirmation of the Faith of all Ages and Nations since. But,

3. A third Answer to the foresaid Argument of Fraud in the Resurrection of _Jesus_, drawn from the Nature, Use and Design of sealing the Stone of the Sepulchre, is, _that tho' the_ Sealers _of the Sepulchre were not present, opening the Seals and beholding the Miracle; yet_ Jesus _did certainly arise from the Dead, or the Belief of his Resurrection could never have been at first propagated by the Apostles, nor would for so many Ages of the Church since have stood its Ground_.