would he not immediately enter into it: he snatched not at the reward, the high reward of his sufferings, with eagerness and haste; but delayed for some time his solemn inauguration to the regal office; his taking possession of the joys of heaven, and sitting on the right hand of God, while there was any thing yet left undone for his church, and his elect, which it was requisite for him to transact here in person. A noble instance of self-denial! which seems to have wrought mightily in his apostles, and to have produced excellent fruits; particularly in St. Paul, who, though he earnestly desired to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord, to depart and be with Christ; yet, for the sake of his flock here below, repressed those desires, and was contented to want, what he so earnestly longed after: to abide in the flesh (said he to them) is more needful for you, Phil. i. 24; and on that account, and that only, he chose to abide in it.

Expedient therefore it was for the disciples of Christ, that he should tarry some time with them after he arose : and that time was, it seems, forty days; a circumstance not to be neglected by us, since the pen of St. Luke hath thought fit to record it; probably, for this reason, -because Moses and Elijah, the types of Christ, on two very solemn occasions, and Christ himself, just before he publicly exercised his ministry, had for the same number of days, retired into the wilderness. Our Lord therefore having, in conformity with these types, taken forty days to prepare himself for the discharge of his prophetic offices on earth, did in like manner retire, as it were, and separate himself for forty days also, ere he entered upon his regal and mediatorial offices in heaven, and there sat at the right hand of power, making intercession to God for us.

But I proceed to what I have to offer to you on the

II. Second particular, our Saviour's appearing, throughout this time, chiefly to his apostles.

There are indeed two instances of his appearing to

others than the apostles, i. e., to the women at the sepulchre, and to the five hundred brethren mentioned by St. Paul to which some add a third, his appearing to two disciples on the way towards Emmaus: the relation of St. Luke (as they apprehend) leaving it doubtful, whether these were of the number of the eleven, or only disciples at large. But these instances were rare, and little stress therefore is laid upon them by the holy writers; who generally place the whole proof of the resurrection of Christ, upon the apostles' testimony, because they saw him most frequently, and conversed most familiarly with him: and therefore he is said here, by St. Luke, to have shewed himself alive to the apostles whom he had chosen, Acts x. 40, 41; and by St. Peter, to have shewed himself openly, not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us [i. e., to us, the apostles] who did eat and drink with him after he arose from the dead.

Now the reasons of his appearing chiefly to the apostles are manifest: they have been already, in some measure, suggested; and there may be occasion, in what follows, further to explain them. But, why he appeared not to others besides the apostles, why not to such as were averse to his person and doctrine, to the sanhedrim itself, or even to all the people, the whole body of the Jews then assembled at the passover, is a question that may seem to require and deserve a particular answer : since infidelity on this head finds room to object, that the most effectual way of proving his resurrection had been to have made his enemies his witnesses; whereas our Saviour manifested himself only to his friends and followers.

He did so; and with very good reason. For,

1. It was no ways fit, that such a favour should be indulged to his murderers; to those, who had treated this messenger, and his message, with scorn and blasphemy, had resisted the evidence of all his miracles, and notwithstanding the sanctity of his life and doctrine, had pursued him to his cross with such a complication

of obstinacy, malice, and cruelty, as can, in no other instance, be paralleled. Had Christ appeared, after he arose, to men of so flagitious a character, his conduct, in that case, would have been so far from promoting the interests of his Gospel (which is the doctrine of holiness) that it would have given a great and dangerous encouragement to wickedness, to men's continuing and abounding in sin that so grace might abound. So far was our Lord from being obliged to afford those who crucified him, such an extraordinary proof of his resurrection, that he might, with great justice, have denied them any evidence at all of it, and not have suffered even the testimony of his apostles concerning it to have reached them. But,

2. The only reason assignable, why God should have tried such an experiment as this, is a probability of converting the whole Jewish nation by the means of it. But experience, on our Lord's express decision in the case, assures us, that this end would not have been attained by it. Had he appeared at mid-day to all the people, yet all the people would not have believed in him. The sincere and honest-hearted Jews would have surrendered to such an evidence, as they did afterwards to that which was given by the apostles; but the malicious and obstinate would have found out colours and

excuses, to evade the force of it. What! (might one of them have said) though there has been an apparition in the likeness of Jesus, whom we crucified, must we necessarily from thence conclude, that he is really alive? No such matter! This is no new thing; sorcery hath often effected it: Samuel was dead, and in his grave, even then, when the witch of Endor made his likeness appear before Saul, 1 Sam. xxviii. 14. Thus would they have reasoned against their own reason and their very senses, and have kept their infidelity, in spite of such a demonstration; according to that saying of our Lord, which he uttered not, perhaps, without an eye to this very supposition: If they hear not Moses and the

prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose (and appeared to them) from the dead. Luke xvi. 31.

In fact, the resurrection of Lazarus, and their conversing with him afterwards, had not convinced them; and we may be sure, that they, who could impute this great miracle, and the others wrought by our Saviour, while alive, to the power of magic, and a confederacy with Beelzebub, would have found out a way of arguing themselves out of the certainty of our Lord's resurrection, though they themselves had had an ocular assurance concerning it. However,

3. Should we suppose, that such a glaring proof of his resurrection could not have been resisted by them, yet it ought not to have been indulged to them for this very reason; because it was irresistible. God never intended to compel, but only to persuade, us into a reception of divine truth; and we are properly said to be persuaded, when we close with such motives and arguments as are sufficient indeed to convince us, but such however, by which we need not be convinced, unless we please. All beyond this is force, not persuasion; and is very unfit therefore to be applied to creatures endued with liberty and reason, and who are to be rewarded, or punished, according as they employ it. The belief of the Gospel was designed to be the test of sincere and ingenuous minds, and as such was to be attended with mighty blessings and benefits! for blessed are they which have not seen, and yet have believed, John xx. 29. But what reason, what room is there for blessing those, who shall on that account alone believe the Gospel, because they are surrounded every way with so much light and conviction, that it is absolutely impossible for them not to believe it? Such a faith can have no degree of desert in it, and is therefore absolutely incapable of any reward.

The true question in this case is, Whether the proof of Christ's resurrection, by the testimony of the apostles, be not satisfactory and full, abundantly full to all the

purposes of conviction? If it be, are we not very unreasonable and absurd in complaining, that a fact was not attested with ten times more evidence than was needful? Nay, but who art thou, O man, who, whilst thou acknowledgest the wisdom and goodness of God to be sufficiently justified in his own method, wilt yet prescribe to him the use of thine, because it seems to thee more fit and convenient? At this rate, how many things are there, which we (full of our own wisdom and schemes) should think fit to have been done, which yet God hath not thought fit to do for us? We perhaps may think it very convenient, that we should at first have been made impeccable, and secured from falling; we, upon a view of the several heresies that have sprung from the misinterpretation of Holy Writ, may judge, it would have been much better for the church, if the Scripture had been so clear in every point, that no well-meaning man could have mistaken the sense of it: at least, we might be apt to imagine it highly expedient, that God should have appointed some infallible judge, to whom we might have resorted for the clearing up of all difficulties, and ending all controversies. But in all these cases the wisdom of man is foolishness with God, 1 Cor. iii. 19; for he hath ordered things quite otherwise. He placed us indeed in such a state at first, from which we could not fall, without the utmost folly and weakness; but from which, however, fall we did, as soon almost as we were possessed of that happiness. He gave us a rule of faith and manners, easy enough to be understood by honest humble minds; but capable of being strained, perverted, and abused to ill purposes by proud opinionative readers. He left every man to judge for himself in matters of religion; and yet so, as to leave him without excuse also, if he made an ill use of that judgment. And in like manner hath he dealt with us, in relation to those great matters of fact, upon which the truth of our religion is founded: he hath built the belief of them upon such proofs, as cannot fail of convincing those, who are sincere, and willing