portance 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 shewed himself to the eleven apostles? This, I think, is granted. And do they not farther 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 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.

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 shew 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 ?

Had the Considerer had the least inclination to treat the gospel with any fairness, he could not have mistaken so egregiously in this part. "Matthew 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 rising 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 evening of the same day unto the eleven, mentioned by Saint Mark, xvi. 14, and Saint Luke, xxiv. 36, and Saint John, xx. 19. Saint Luke and Saint John plainly enough describe the time of this appearance; and that Saint Mark means the same appearance may be collected from our Saviour upbraiding the eleven, "because they believed not them vhich had seen him after he was risen;" which shews that this was the first time he had appeared to them himself.

5. The appearance to the eleven when Thomas was with them, John, xx. 26, which was eight days after.

6. The appearance to the seventy disciples at the sea of Tiberias, John, xxi. 1.

7. The appearance in Galilee mentioned expressly by Saint Matthew only, but referred to Acts, i. 4.

stay at Jerusalem, and was the appearance appointed in Galilee by our Lord in his lifetime, and by the angels at the sepulchre. The eighth was the last, and is rightly placed as to the order of time and as to the place; for it followed the injunction to stay at Jerusalem, and was that wherein our Lord ascended, which was the last appearance to the apostles.

Let us see now whether by this light we can account for the manner in which the evangelists relate these appearances. If you read Matthew by himself, you have an account of one appearance only. The same may be said with respect to Mark and Luke, who both seem to speak of the same appearance, but manifestly a different one from that of Saint Matthew, which was in Galilee; whereas the other was at Jerusalem. How comes it now to pass that these evangelists mention each of them but one appearance, if there were indeed so many more? The truth is, that the evangelists did not write full histories of our Saviour's life, but short annals or commentaries; and sometimes contracted into one discourse or narration things relating to the same matter, though spoken or done at different times. What Saint John says of his own gospel, "many other signs did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book," (John, xx. 30) may be said very fairly of the rest. The words of Saint John follow immediately after the account he has given of the appearances to the disciples after the resurrection, and probably referred to the opinion in his gospel of many other appearances made to the disciples.

Now, though Saint Matthew reports only the appearance in Galilee, and Saint Mark and Saint Luke seem to report only that on the day of the resurrection at Jerusalem ; yet Saint Mark has given a plain intimation of that in Galilee, by the message from the angels to the disciples; and Saint John has reported and distinguished three appearances, and given notice that there were others not written in his book.

Saint Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, has referred to several appearances, telling us that "Jesus shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertain

The time of the five first appearances is clear enough. The sixth, which is the appearance at the sea of Tiberias, was before the command given them not to depart from Jerusalem, for after that command they could not have gone to the sea of Tiberias. The seventh then was that wherein they received the command to

have here a concise general account of our Lord's appearing to his disciples, and of the subject-matter of his discourses to them at those times, that he spoke "of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." After this general account he mentions two distinct appearances, which were necessary to be taken notice of, to introduce the account he had to give of the ascension. The first is that wherein he orders them to "tarry at Jerusalem;" the second is that at Jerusalem, when he took leave of them and ascended. The first

of these appearances is remarkably introduced, ver. 4, "and being assembled together with them;" the original is, xai σuvaλicóμsvos: supple abrous; which words are properly to be rendered, "and having assembled them together." The other appearances recorded seem to be accidental, by our Lord's coming in when the eleven were not together; but this is spoken of as a meeting summoned by himself, and was, I doubt not, that meeting which he had appointed the day of his resurrection, by the message sent to the disciples by the angels and by himself, and is the very same meeting in Galilee mentioned by Saint Matthew. At this meeting Saint Luke says, the disciples received the order to tarry at Jerusalem; after which they could not travel into Galilee, as they were commanded, and consequently this appearance was itself the appearance at Galilee; or happened after it, which there is no reason to think.

The disciples being thus ordered to Jerusalem, repair thither. "When they therefore were come together, they asked him, Wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" ver. 6. This question was not asked at the assembling mentioned ver. 4, which is clearly distinct from that mentioned ver. 6, for what occasion was there to mention again their coming together, after we had been just told they were together? Had it been said, "then they asked," &c. it would have been a continuation of the discourse with the same assembly; but when their meeting together is so distinctly mentioned, it shews it to be another and a different meeting, after the disciples were got together at Jerusalem.

At this meeting our Lord assures them they should receive power by the coming of the Holy Ghost, then led them to Bethany, or Mount Olivet, and in their presence ascended.

Let us examine now how far these particular accounts will enable us to adjust the abridged narration of our Saviour's appearances in the three first evangelists. The fullest is that of Saint Luke; he mentions our Lord's appearing to the eleven, and those with them in the evening of the resurrection. But it is manifest, under that appearance, he brought together the sum of what was done and said by our Saviour, during his abode on earth after the resurrection. For he begins to speak of his appearing the dayof the resurrection, xxiv. 38, and continues his narration to the ascension, ver. 51. He tells us himself in the Acts, that there were forty days between the resurrection and ascension. It is undeniable then that his account in the gospel is an abridged account of what passed in our Lord's meeting his disciples during that time; and this clearly appears to be the case by comparing his abridged account with the more particular accounts already mentioned.

Vide Grotium in loc.

Saint Luke says that our Lord came to the eleven just as the two disciples had reported what had passed in the journey to Emmaus; and as our Lord expounded to them the Scriptures and eat with them, so now he gives the same evidence and the same exposition of the Scriptures to the rest and surely it was a natural thing to take up the same discourse, and open the understandings of the eleven, as he had opened the understanding of the two before, and to give them the same evidence of the reality of his resurrection, and this takes up from verse 41 to 48.

Saint Mark's narration is shorter than Saint Luke's, but plainly of the same kind : he begins with an account of our Saviour's appearing, as Saint Luke does, (xvi. 14,) and ends with his ascension, (verse 19.)

But as much abridged as these accounts are, one material thing there is, which none of the writers have omitted, namely, the commission then given to the apostles "to teach all nations," and in consequence of it a promise of power and assistance from above.* Saint Luke says, (Acts, i. 3,) that the subject of his discourses to his disciples were things pertaining to the kingdom of God." These things are transmitted to us by every writer; and though none has mentioned every particular appearance, yet the sum of what was said at all the appearances is faithfully recorded by all.

"the

I have stated this part of our Saviour's history for the sake of those who have patience and attention enough to consider it; and I hope such may find some light and satisfaction from what has been said. But with regard not only to this, but to all other parts of the history, it may be proper to observe, that the number of writers makes amends for the deficiencies of any one. The Christian has a large field to range in; he is not to seek his faith in one evangelist, but in all. In all together he is sure to find a satisfactory account of his Master's life and doctrine; abundantly sufficient to direct his judgment, to convince his understanding, and to give

* Matt. xxviii. 19, 20; Mark, xvi. 15; Luke, xxiv. 47-49; John, xx. 21, 22

him the satisfaction that is proper for a rational being.

It is to no purpose to go over the Considerer's objections to this part of the history. All he has said will, by comparing it with the foregoing account, be found to be built on his own mistakes. Some of them seem to be wilful; he supposes Matthew and Mark, who report our Lord's order to meet him in Galilee, to be contradicted by Saint Luke, who reports an order to them not to depart from Jerusalem. He could not, I think, but see that these were different orders, given at different times and on different occasions. But be it to himself.

His objections to the relation given of the ascension of Jesus are of the same kind, and they will be easily accounted for by considering the series of the transactions above.

It is scarce worth while to observe, because it is obvious to the most indifferent reader, that after the revolt of Judas, the eleven was the current style for the whole college of apostles; and after the call of Matthias to the apostolate, they were again called the twelve. In virtue of this style, a general meeting of the apostles is called a meeting of the eleven, or of the twelve, though one or more may happen to be absent. This is agreeable to both ancient and modern usage in the case of senates, councils, and the like. Hence it is that Saint Luke says, (xxiv. 20,)" the eleven were gathered together," though it appears by Saint John, (xx. 24,) that Thomas was absent. Saint Paul (1 Cor. xv. 5) calls it a meeting of the twelve, because he was not converted till after the election of Matthias, when that came again to be the usual style. Had the Considerer had sense enough to have seen this, (and a very little would have been sufficient for the purpose,) he might have spared himself the trouble and the shame of charging Saint John, Saint Luke, and Saint Paul with contradicting one another. But he might perhaps hope that his readers would excuse a small blunder, for the sake of some beauties that rise out of it; such as his query with regard to Saint Paul's account," whether Judas was there to make up the number?" And his excuse for the apostle, that "perhaps he had forgotten that one of them was fallen asleep" conceits which he is so fond of, that they have passed the censure of his and his friend's second thoughts.

The story which Saint John has left us of Saint Thomas is so strong a proof of the resurrection of Christ, and so remarkable an evidence of the reality of his body, that I do not wonder to find the Considerer displeased with it. He has attacked it with a double portion of the spirit of folly and impiety, and has not, that I can find, dropped any thing that carries the face of an objection. He thinks his infidelity very extraordinary, be

cause he would not believe that Jesus was risen from the dead, except he saw and felt the wounds that caused his death, and asks it these were better to be known than the form of his person, which they had so often seen. This, I am afraid, carries an implication with it which the Considerer was not aware of; that Thomas had no reason to be so nice and scrupulous; that the evidence of sight and the well known idea of his face and person were sufficient for conviction. Truth, I find, will sometimes obtrude itself on a man, eveu against his thoughts and inclinations. As to the wounds that caused his death, there is not, that I can find, one word about wounds in this whole story. The τύπος τῶν ὅλων, the print of the nails, or the scar that was left after the wounds were cured, is two or three times repeated, but nothing farther. Why then does the Considerer talk of wounds? Why, to introduce this very wise question: "Is it to be supposed that the power which raised him to life did not cure those wounds?" It is with just as little meaning that he asks, whether "another person, who might have a mind to deceive, could not make scars?" The reader, I believe, will not expect to have a formal confutation of such impertinent and senseless suggestions; barely reciting them, is exposing them effectually.

Much about the same size with these is another exception he makes to this story. Because the wound in the side is mentioned only by Saint John, he thinks Thomas and the other apostles know nothing of the matter, -as if so extraordinary a circumstance was likely to be a secret to any of them, and as if Thomas's direct appeal to this circumstance was not a demonstration that it was no secret

to him. I leave it with the reader, without any farther answer, as one instance amongst a thousand, of the folly and absurdity into which a man is sure to be betrayed when the unclean spirit of singularity has once seized him. The Considerer has said something more of this piece of history, but it is so like the sample already given, that it would be an affront to the reader to take any farther notice of it.

After having gone through his proofs against the credit of the gospel history, the Considerer returns to the "Trial of the Witnesses." The author of the Trial had observed that in all cases of consequence men take care to make choice of proper unexceptionable witnesses, that the same care was taken in the resurrection, and then adds, "How comes it to pass, then, that the very thing which shuts out all suspicion in other cases, should, in this case only, be of all others the most suspicious thing itself." The Considerer answers, "Because this case, of all others, is the most uncommon." Is that a reason why it should not be supported by the best evidence that human wisdom is able to

E