Matthew says that as the women went from the sepulchre to carry the message to the disciples, Jesus met them, and gave them another message to the disciples. St. Mark, after concluding the account of what passed at the sepulchre says, 'Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene,' He does not mention this as part of what happened at the sepulchre, but as a new and distinct account of itself. St. Luke gives no account of our Lord's appearing to Mary.

These accounts considered together, the case will stand thus: stop at St. Matthew's account of what passed at the sepulchre, to the women's going with the angels' message to the disciples, which ends with ver. 8. and take St. Mark's account without tacking to it the separate relation of the appearance to Mary Magdalene, (which is indeed no part of the account as given by St. Mark of what happened at the sepulchre,) and then the three accounts are (excepting the small variations before mentioned, and hereafter to be accounted for) perfectly consistent.

The difficulty then remaining is to account for St. Luke's saying nothing of this appearance; for St. Mark's speaking of it as distinct from what happened at the sepulchre; for St. Matthew's placing it before he had accounted for the delivery of the first message, and adding a second message of like import from Christ himself.

The difficulty with respect to St. Luke is not great; he has omitted the appearance, for it came not within the compass of what he proposed to relate, as will appear presently, Neither are St. Matthew and St. Mark, who relate this appearance, at variance. They agree in the appearance, agree that it was early on the first day of the week; St. Matthew says, it was as they went to tell the disciples;' and so it might be consistently with St. Mark, for he has said nothing to the contrary. Thus the case would stand, had we only the history as given by these three evangelists.

When St. John wrote his gospel, he had reason to enlarge the account given of what passed at the sepulchre, for the sake of adding his own testimony, who had been himself an eyewitness; which testimony the other evangelists had omitted. Compare St. John and St. Luke together, and St. John plainly

carries on the account where St. Luke left it. St. Luke relates how the women went to the sepulchre, saw angels, received a message to the disciples; that they delivered the message, and that Peter on hearing it went away to the sepulchre, and found every thing to answer the relation. Now St. John went and was a witness of these things as well as Peter; he leaves therefore St. Luke's account (which was exact as to what happened before Peter went) as he found it; and carries it on by beginning with a clear and distinct account of his own going with Peter to the sepulchre. To introduce this account he says the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth; and cometh to Simon Peter, and the other disciple whom Jesus loved,' &c. He then gives an account of what he and St. Peter observed of the state of the sepulchre. It appears at ver. 11. that Mary returned to the sepulchre, and staid there after him; that she saw again a vision of angels, and saw Jesus himself, who gave her a message to deliver to the disciples.

Let us see now how their accounts will correspond together. 1. It is manifest that Mary went twice to the sepulchre. 2. That St. John gives no other account of what passed at her first being there, except that she found the stone taken away from the sepulchre, and this only as introductive to what he had to add farther.

3. That the story of her first going, and what related to it, ended at the relation she made of what she had seen to Peter and John.

4. That the appearance of Jesus to her, and the message given to her, was at her second being at the sepulchre.

It comes out from these lights given by St. John:

First, that St. Luke's account related only to what happened at Mary's first going to the sepulchre; for it ends at St. Peter's setting out to view the sepulchre, where St. John begins.

Secondly, since St. Luke's account agrees with St. Matthew's and St. Mark's, in relating what passed at the sepulchre, it

* John xx. 1. 2.

follows that their accounts are relations of what passed only at Mary's first coming, that is, St. Matthew's account to ver. 8. inclusive, and St. Mark's to ver. 8. inclusive.

Thirdly, St. John having informed us that Christ appeared to Mary, and delivered his message to her at her second coming to the sepulchre, it follows that what St. Matthew says ver. 9. 10. and St. Mark ver. 9. 10. 11. happened at her second coming to the sepulchre.

Thus St. John's additional account has given us a clear order of the whole transaction. And it appears that St. Luke considered the women merely as messengers of the news to the disciples; and as soon as the message was delivered, and the disciples made acquainted with it, he prosecutes their story no farther. St. Mark in like manner, but adds the appearance to Mary as a distinct and separate thing by itself.

St. Matthew has given an account of what happened at the first going to the sepulchre, and has also mentioned the appearance to Mary, which he has connected to the former account as part (and so indeed it was) of the same transaction. Had he mentioned this appearance, as St. Mark has mentioned it, without making any connexion between the appearance and the story of the first visit to the sepulchre, there had been no difficulty in this part of the case.

The difficulty there now is, arises from the manner in which St. Matthew connects these two parts together; he says that Jesus appeared to the women as they went to tell the disciples: St. John's account is, that he appeared to Mary after she had delivered the message (not to the disciples, but) to himself and Peter, and had returned a second time to the sepulchre.

I believe there are very few histories in the world where difficulties of this sort, were they nicely inquired into, do not frequently occur. Writers of history, to make one thread of story, lay hold of any circumstances to make a transition from one fact to another. A little agreement of the facts in place or time often serves; and we read in or near the same place, or about the same time such and such things happened; in which exactness is not intended or expected. And had we

SHERL.

VOL. V.

N

nothing else to say on the present difficulty, it would be sufficient with reasonable men.

But as this seeming disagreement has been so strongly insisted on, I desire the reader to consider the following observations.

1. St. Matthew's account may very well consist with St. John's. St. Matthew does not say the women had delivered no message to the disciples, nor does St. John say they had delivered it to any but to himself and Peter. Consider then ; the women who received the message from the angel at their first going to the sepulchre could not deliver it to the disciples all at once; for it is not to be supposed that they were all together so early in the morning: for which reason the women probably divided themselves, and some went to some of the disciples, and some to others; and that Mary Magdalene, and whoever else attended her, went in the first place to Peter and John to inform them, intending to go to others with like notice. But when they found that Peter and John went directly to the sepulchre, they did, as it was extremely natural for them to do, go after them, to see the sepulchre, which they had left in fear, but very desirous to view it again in company of the men, intending soon to return and deliver the message to the other disciples. On this case it is evident they returned to the sepulchre before they had delivered their message, as they were required to do, to the disciples; and St. Matthew might very well consider the appearance of Jesus as happening whilst they were employed in carrying the first message. And this accounts likewise for our Saviour's giving them a second message, much to the same purpose and import as the first.

2. There is no reason to think that St. Matthew's words are to be taken so strictly as to limit the appearance of Jesus to the women, to the very moment in which they passed from the sepulchre with the first message to the disciples.

1. Because there could not, from the first going to the se pulchre to the end of the whole account, including the appearance to Mary, be more than an hour at most employed; and facts crowded so close together are scarcely ever reported under different dates.

2. Because St. Matthew, throwing the whole transaction into one continued story, would naturally consider no more than the general order in which things happened, without dis tinguishing the short time which the whole took up into dif ferent periods.

3. Because the language used by St, Matthew does really import no more than the general order in which things hap

pened he says, is éтopеvovтo ȧrayyeiλaι, as they were : ἐπορεύοντο ἀπαγγεῖλαι, going to tell.' You have at verse 11, the very same way of speaking, πορευομένων δὲ αὐτῶν. It is the very same note of time; for he speaks of the women's going with the message, and says, 6 now when they (the women) were going, behold the watch came into the city, and showed the chief priests all the things that were done.' Can any one suppose that the evangelist means more than that the watch went to the city about the same time that the women went to the disciples? Or if it could possibly appear that the watch were really a quarter of an hour sooner or later than the women, would this, in the opinion of any man living, impeach the credit of the historian? If any person desires more instances of these transitions, they occur frequently in St. Matthew and in other writers of the New Testament.

A's to the order in which we have placed the transactions at the sepulchre, by comparison of the four evangelists together, it is confirmed and established beyond all doubt by the account which the two disciples going to Emmaus give our Saviour. This, say they, is the third day since the crucifixion; yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; and when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. And certain of them that were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said; but him they saw not." Compare this with St. Luke's own account, and St. John's as far as it relates to what himself and Peter did at the sepulchre, and you will find the facts reported in the same order. These