Christ reasoning from the Scriptures, must have disturbed their judgment, and made them perhaps submit to his interpretation of the prophecies, without considering whether just or not. The plain reason, therefore, why the discovery was not made sooner is, that he might convince their understandings first on the strength of reason and argument, whilst their minds were yet free from any impression by the event itself, and the irresistible force of Christ's own authority. This reason ought to have great weight with the Considerer, because it is founded on a maxim very much talked of, though very little observed by the gentlemen of his stamp, that all prejudice and prepossession should be excluded in searching after truth.

The appearance of our Saviour at different times to the women and to one or two of the disciples detached from the rest, adds no small weight to the general evidence of the resurrection. But the greatest point singly considered, is his showing himself to the whole body of disciples; eating, drinking, and conversing with them, and giving them an opportunity of being satisfied of the fact at leisure, by all proper methods of trial, and by the variety of evidence that a matter of fact is capable of. Such appearances there are several. The credit of them stands on the united testimony of all the New Testament writers. The four evangelists, the author of the Acts, and Saint Paul, are unanimous in the point. And what has the Considerer opposed to evidence so full and strong? Why he is puzzling himself and his readers with some circumstances of time and place, which he either does not or will not understand; comparing the conciseness of one writer with the copiousness of another, mistaking one appearance for another,

and with his usual decency calling them inconsistencies, improbabilities, absurdities, and contradictions.

Be his objections what they will, the importance of the subject demands what the writer has no claim to, a serious answer. I shall therefore compare the several writers of the gospel together, as to the manner of stating the fact, and take notice of the Considerer's exceptions as they fall in my way. I would ask then, wherein do Matthew, Mark, and Luke differ as to the point in question? Do they not agree one and all that Christ showed himself to the eleven apostles? This, I think, is granted. And do they not further agree with regard to his discourse, that it was in sum and substance the same? This the Considerer does not deny. Where then lies the difference? Why Matthew, it seems, disagrees with Luke as to the time and place; for Matthew says it was at a mountain in Galilee; whereas, according to Luke, it was at Jerusalem." The Considerer will excuse me if I take no notice of his pretended difference of time; the matter of place being once explained, the time will rectify itself.

66

It is allowed then that the place of interview, according to Saint Matthew, was in Galilee; according to Saint Luke, at Jerusalem. What then? Does Saint Matthew say that he met his disciples nowhere but in Galilee, or Saint Luke that he saw them only at Jerusalem? Nothing like it. What hinders then, but that they might meet both in Galilee and Jerusalem? The Considerer thinks that, in the sense of these writers, they met for the first and last time; but here again he concludes, as usual, a great deal too fast, and outruns his evidence. Does either of them declare that it was the

first and last time? No. What circumstance then is it, on which the Considerer builds so positive a conclusion? Why it is this; neither of these writers mentions more than one interview with Christ and his apostles, therefore in their sense of the matter there could be but one. Is this the logic that is to prove Christ and his apostles to be cheats and impostors? "to show mankind the stupid nature of bigotry, and to hold forth the acceptable light of truth?" Is it not amazing that a man should set up for a disturber of religion, who is so poorly provided with that natural logic of common sense which all men are born with?

"Mat

Had the Considerer had the least inclination to treat the gospel with any fairness, he could not have mistaken so egregiously in this part. thew and Luke," he observes, “ disagree in time and place.' Is it not a natural consequence that they speak of different appearances? Doubtless it is. But instead of making this use of it, he supposes them, without the least proof for it, to speak of one and the same appearance, and to contradict one another in assigning different times and places.

But that there may not remain any doubt or obscurity on this part of the history, it is proper to take notice of the reason why the message sent from the sepulchre appointed the disciples to go into Galilee to see Jesus, though he notwithstanding appeared to them that very night at Jerusalem. Our blessed Lord before his crucifixion told his disciples, "After that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee," Matt. xxvi. 32; Mark xiv. 28. This was the evidence he promised to give of his resurrection and Galilee probably was chosen for the place, because he had spent much time, and had many disciples there who were to have this

evidence given them. This then was the public appearance of which our Lord had given notice in his lifetime; whereas the appearances at Jerusalem were not on notice given, and were to the eleven apostles, and to such only as happened to be with them.

The angels therefore, and our Lord himself in his first appearance, remind the disciples to go into Galilee to receive the evidence he had promised to give them of his resurrection. There was no occasion to mention his intention to see them that night at Jerusalem, of which no expectation had been given.

Now though the appearance at Jerusalem was to the eleven only, yet the message to meet him in Galilee was to all his disciples. Saint Mark makes the promise of this appearance to concern the women as well as the men. The words of the angels to the women are," there shall ye see him as he said unto you." This then was a public meeting before an assembly warned to be present: and here it was (as there is great reason to suppose) that our Lord appeared to about five hundred brethren at once, according to the relation made by Saint Paul, (1 Cor. xv.)

The intermediate appearance to the apostles interfered not with this appointment, which was observed by the apostles who went into Galilee to see Jesus there. This being the appearance foretold, and the evidence specially promised, Saint Matthew passes over all the other appearances, and reports this as the completion of our Lord's prophecy, as the assurance given in his lifetime, repeated by the angels, and by himself at the sepulchre. He mentions the eleven only as travelling into Galilee, in obedience to the command they

received; but it is to be collected from his short account that others were present and saw the Lord; for he says of the eleven, "when they saw him they worshipped him❞—and adds, “but some doubted;" who can hardly be supposed to be any of those who had seen him before at Jerusalem, and on seeing him now worshipped him.

But it may be proper to consider under one view the several appearances of Jesus, and the order of them, as it may be called, from the sacred historians.

1. The first, which was at or near the sepulchre, to Mary Magdalene and other women, has been accounted for at large already.

2. That to the two disciples going to Emmaus was on the day of the resurrection, and is attended with no material difficulty arising from the account as to time or place, or any other circumstances. The Considerer has no fault to find, but that there is something miraculous in the circumstances of it. This too has been considered, as far as `was necessary.

3. The same day our Lord appeared to Saint Peter, but whether before he conversed with the two disciples or after, is not certain. It was not till after the two disciples had left Jerusalem, and set out for Emmaus; for it appears in the account they give our Lord of what had come to their knowledge, that they knew nothing of any appearance to Peter; and yet it was before these two disciples returned to Jerusalem, for they found the eleven discoursing of this appearance to Peter. It is doubtful therefore whether of the two last mentioned should be placed first; but they both happened on the day of the resurrection.

4. The next in order is the appearance on the