When all this was done, (fays St. Mark, reckoning in the Jewish manner) it was the third hour, that is, nine o'clock in the morning, and they crucified him. This perfectly reconciles the two evangelifts. There is no fign of a contradiction in the places.

The tefti

Matthew and St. Mark's ac

counts of the refurrection of Jesus.

As to St. Matthew and St. Mark's accounts of the refur-mony of St. rection of Jefus, they are not fo free from obfcurity, but I can fee no inconsistency in them. If St. Matthew fays, the Lord appeared to Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, that might be, without a contradiction, tho' St. Mark fays, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene. The cafe to me appears to be this. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and the other women, went with fpices and ointments to embalm the body, Sunday the 28th of April, early in the morning, about fix-and-thirty hours after it had been laid in the fepulchre, and when they arrived at the place, found not the body, but two angels, as young men in white apparel, who told them Jefus of Nazareth was rifen to life again, as he himself foretold, and therefore they must make hafte to his apoftles, to acquaint them with the news, and let them know that they would fee him in Galilee, according to

his prediction. With thefe joyful tidings the women haftened away to the eleven disciples, and related to them what they had heard and feen. The apoftles looked upon this account as a dream or vision; but however, on Mary Magdalene's affuring Peter and John apart, that he had really been in the tomb, and found it' empty; from whence it was most certain, that either Jefus was rifen, or they had removed his body, these apostles ran both to the fepulchre, and Mary Magdalene went with them. Peter and John then faw, that it was as fhe had affirmed, and after they had viewed the tomb, the clothes, and the napkin, returned from the fepulchre, greatly wondering what was become of their master's body: but Mary continued at the monument, lamenting very greatly, that fhe could not fee Jefus either alive or dead; and while fhe thus bemoaned herself, the Lord appeared to her. As St. Mark fays, Jefus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he bad caft out feven devils: and after she had reverenced her dear Lord and Mafter, he bid her go immediately to his dif ciples, and tell them she had feen him: let them alfo know that I have affured thee, I fhall quickly leave this world, and ascend to the God and Father of us all, my Father and your Father, my God and your God, unto

those

thofe happy manfions where he manifefts his prefence in a moft efpecial manner; there to receive full power over all things both in heaven and earth, and to prepare a place for you; that where I am, there ye may be alfo. Mary accordingly departed. She told the apoftles that Jefus had appeared to her, and acquainted them with the joyful meffage.

As to the other women, it is evident that they likewife went a fecond time to the fepulchre, to look for the body of their master, and having in vain fearched for it, were returning to the apostles, to let them know they had enquired to no purpose, when Jefus himself met them, faying, All hail. Does not this reconcile Mark's account with Matthew's? I think fo. To me it is so very plain from what all the facred relators have declared of the matter, that I anı astonished how Ferom could be fo perplexed with the two accounts, as to fay, that Mark's account (the last twelve verses of his gofpel) might be rejected here as fpurious, because it was found only in a few copies of that gofpel, and contradicted the other evangelists. Non recipimus Marci teftimonium, quod in raris fertur evangeliis præfertim cum diverfa atque contraria evangeliftis ceteris narrare videatur.

In the next place, if the account I have given was liable to any objection, and you could fhew me that it was not the truth of the cafe; which, at prefent, I think impoffible: If it was evident from the gospels, that the women were not a second time at the tomb, but that Jefus appeared to Mary Magdalene and the other women, the firft time they were all there together, yet this may be, as I apprehend, without Mark's contradicting Matthew. The meaning of the words of Mark--he appeared first to Mary Magdalene--might be, that as fhe and the women were returning from the monument, to tell the news to the apostles, Jefus appeared to them, and in particular addreffed himself to Mary Magdalene; di recting his difcourfe to her, and speaking familiarly and affectionately to her, to dif tinguish her as his conftant follower in his life-time, and one on whom he had worked a great miracle of healing. This, I imagine, might very juftly be termed--be appeared first to Mary Magdalene.—To appear firft to any one of a company, as I take it, is to come up to, or ftand before fome particular perfon, in order to speak to fuch perfon. This, in my imagination, removes the difficulty, and reconciles Mark to Matthew: but to this explication I pre- 1 fer the women's being at fecond times at

the

the fepulchre; that is, Mary Magdalene a second time, when Peter and John went to the tomb, on what she had earnestly told them apart and afterwards, the other Mary, Salome, Joanna, &c. a second time. The gofpels, in my opinion, make this very plain (42.)

What has been faid, (Mr. Berrisfort told me), feems plaufible, and ought to fatisfy every honeft man. It gives me content: but there is one thing ftill that perplexes me, and that is, the various lections of the New Teftament. Do they not hurt the hook?

No: (Jack Buncle replied) notwithstanding the cry of infidels, and that fome learned men of the church of Rome have endea

(42) Long fince my converfation with Mr. Berrisfort, I have feen an excellent book, written by the learned minister of Maybole, in which he labours, thro' feveral 4to pages, from p. 213, to reconcile Mark and Matthew, by virtue of a fecond vifit to the monument by Mary Magdalene, when the Lord appeared first to her ;- -and a fecond vifit to the fepulchre by the other women, when Jefus appeared next to those women; and, in my opinion, he has proved it beyond a poffibility of rational reply. See Mr. Macknight's Harmony. Le Clerc, in his Harmony, does likewife evince the thing