But it may be proper here to take notice of the second message given by our Saviour himself, and mentioned by Saint Matthew and Saint John. Saint Matthew gives the second message in the same words with the first: "Tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me." Saint John says, tell them, "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." It is very probable that the words in Saint Matthew and those in Saint John are parts of the same message; and Saint John, finding the first part reported by the evangelists before him, left it as he found it, adding only the second part. As the first message imported no more than that they should see him again before he left them, and plainly intimated that the time was come to take leave of them, (otherwise what occasion was there to appoint this meeting merely to see him, if he was to continue with them?) this being, I say, the case, the other evangelists mention the first part of the message as including the whole; Saint John adds the latter part to explain and ascertain the meaning. The whole message, then, will stand thus: " Go, tell my disciples to go into Galilee; there shall they see me before I leave this world, and ascend to my Father, and your Father," &c. Is not this message all of a piece? Does not one part imply and infer the other? If the Considerer can think otherwise, he has a greater talent (and indeed I think he has) of raising contradictions than any philosopher, either moral or immoral, ever had before him.

The Considerer has further difficulties still. "By Saint Luke," he says, "it appears that the men were at the sepulchre after the angels were gone; but by Saint John, that they were there be

fore the angels came. Therefore, either the men did not see the angels, or the witnesses do not agree in their evidence about it." What a work is here about nothing! Who told him the men did see the angels? It is manifest they did not. The first appearance of angels was before Peter and John came; the second was after they were gone. But the Considerer wants a reason to be given why the angels withdrew, as he expresses it, on the men's coming? He may as well inquire why they are withdrawn now? If God thought proper to inform the women of the resurrection by an appearance of angels, and not the men, he had his reasons, and wise ones doubtless, though the Considerer cannot see them.

But we have not yet done: Saint Matthew reports that Mary "held Jesus by the feet, and worshipped him;" Saint John, that Jesus said to her, "Touch me not." Here the Considerer is puzzled again; but what offends him I cannot imagine. If Mary had not laid hold of Jesus's feet, he could have had no occasion to say, "Touch me not." These words, therefore, in Saint John, suppose the case to have been as represented by Saint Matthew; and yet the Considerer cannot or will not see it.

From the words, "touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father," a suspicion had been raised by Woolston that Christ's body was not a real tangible body; and the author of the Trial had exposed and confuted so weak and groundless a suggestion. "It could not, as he had proved, be inferred from the words, "touch me not;" for thousands say it every day, without giving the least suspicion that their bodies are not capable of being touched: nor from the words, "I am not

yet ascended to my Father;" for though there is a difficulty in these words, there is no difficulty in seeing that they have no relation to Christ's body, for of his body nothing is said. And what says the Considerer? Why, if the words, "touch me not," says he, did not signify "touch not my body," what did they signify? The author of the Trial, you see, had said that these words, "I am not ascended to my Father," had no relation to Christ's body, and the Considerer represents him as saying that the words "touch me not" had no relation to it. This is the Considerer's method of answering books: because he finds it difficult to answer what the author has said, he is resolved to confute what he has not said.

The next appearance of Christ was on the day of the resurrection, to two disciples in their road to Emmaus. Saint Mark has just mentioned this story, (xvi. 12;) but we are indebted to St. Luke for the particulars of it, (xxiv. 13, &c.) One of the two, Saint Luke tells us, was Cleopas; and the other, if we may believe the Considerer, was Simon Peter. Who it really was is of little importance in itself; that it was not Simon Peter, whatever he thinks of the matter, is most evident. Had Peter been present, it is not likely that an inferior disciple would have been the principal spokesman; especially when a part of the conversation turned on Peter himself. It is the less likely, because Saint Peter was probably then at Jerusalem, where, the same evangelist informs us, the eleven were gathered together, (xxiv. 24.) But to put the matter out of all doubt, when the two disciples returned from Emmaus to the apostles at Jerusalem, they found them discoursing about an appearance of Christ to Simon Peter: "The Lord

is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon," (ver. 34.) I desire to know what appearance the evangelist means here? Is it that to the two disciples in the road to Emmaus? Impossible. These disciples had not yet made their report; and it will be too much for the Considerer to say that the eleven knew it by inspiration.

If the reader is desirous to know how the Considerer came by this notion, I think I can inform him. It is founded, if I mistake not, on this very passage, "the Lord is risen, and hath appeared to Simon," which proves the direct contrary. Had the Considerer argued that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, therefore Simon Peter was the companion of Cleopas, it would have been much more excusable; because, though it would not have proved his conclusion to be true, it would not, as this text does, prove it to be false. The Considerer supposes that to be a report of the two disciples to the eleven, which was in fact a report of the eleven to them, namely, that "the Lord was risen, and had appeared to Simon." Insensible of this blunder, evident as it is, he goes on, and raises this very wise reflection on it, that it "seems as if it did not appear to be the Lord to Cleopas, but to Simon only;" an inference impertinent enough, had this construction of the passage been right; but what can be said of it, when the construction is so manifestly wrong?

His remarks on the story itself are just as groundless as those on the persons of the two disciples. He is, I suppose, offended at it, because there appears to be something miraculous in it. Miracles he treats every where as absurd and impossible, and seems to think that God has no more authority in his own creation than he and I have.

Saint Mark says, our Saviour appeared to the two disciples in another form; Saint Luke, that "their eyes were holden;" and this the Considerer places to the account of contradictions; 66 one evangelist making the cause to be in the object, and the other in the eyes." It is strange the gentleman will not understand common language. Who does not see that the evangelists meant to express the self-same thing? If Jesus appeared in another form, their eyes of course were holden that they should not know him: all that the historians mean to intimate is, that there was an impediment which prevented their knowing him. That this might happen either in a natural or supernatural way, the author of the Trial has shown in a manner agreeable to reason and true philosophy, and such as will correspond exactly with the expressions of both evangelists. The Considerer has thought proper to take no notice of this, or none that deserves any

answer.

One question, however, he has put in regard to this story, to which I shall give him an answer. The question is this: "Can any good reason be given why Jesus did not discover himself to them by the way, and give them the joy which such discovery would have made?"

Now the point discussed on the road was whether it was not agreeable to prophecy that Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead. Christ himself undertook to prove this proposition at large. from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and the argument seemed to have its intended effect. Suppose now he had first made himself known, and then entered on this argument, what would have been the consequence? Plainly this; the surprise of seeing one from the dead, and the authority of