You see Saint Matthew is the only one who mentions the earthquake, and the angel's descending to roll away the stone. As the rest say nothing of it, it is very absurd to say, as the Considerer does, that they contradict it. I shall only therefore observe on this part, that our English translation is not exact; for after relating the coming of the women to the sepulchre, it follows, "and behold there was a great earthquake," &c. which may lead the reader to imagine that the earthquake happened whilst the women were at the sepulchre; which it did not. Saint Matthew was to account for the women's finding the stone rolled, and therefore inserts what happened just before their coming; and his words should be rendered, "and behold there had been an earthquake," &c.

If you compare these three evangelists together in other respects, the difference between them will lie in these particulars.

1. Saint Mark and Saint Luke say, the women came early to the sepulchre, bringing spices to anoint the body; Saint Matthew says they came early to the sepulchre, but says nothing of their bringing spices.

2. Saint Matthew says, the two Marys came to the sepulchre; Saint Mark, the two Marys and Salome; Saint Luke says, the women who came from Galilee with him, and he tells us, (verse 11,) that they were the two Marys, Joanna, and other women with them.

3. The three evangelists agree that the women saw a vision; Saint Matthew says, an angel; Saint Mark, a young man ; Saint Luke, two men, whom (verse 23) he calls two angels.

4. Saint Matthew and Saint Mark agree in the message sent by the angels to the disciples,

Saint Matt. chap. xxviii.

3. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:

that he would go before them into Galilee Saint Luke does not mention this message expressly, but that the angels remind the women of what Jesus had said, being with them in Galilee, of his death and resurrection.

These differences cannot be accounted for by any thing added in the gospel of Saint John; and therefore I shall postpone the consideration of them for the sake of pursuing the view before me.

The next and most material difference occurs in the account given of our Lord's ap pearing to Mary Magdalene. Saint 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. Saint 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. Saint Luke gives no account of our Lord's appearing to Mary.

These accounts considered together, the case will stand thus: stop at Saint Matthew's account of what passed at the sepulchre, to the women's going with the angel's message to the disciples, which ends with ver. 8. and take Saint Mark's account, without tacking to it the seperate relation of the appearance to Mary Magdalene, (which is indeed no part of the account as given by Saint 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 Saint Luke's saying nothing of this

shake, and became as dead men.

5. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

6. He is not here; for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

7. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

8. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy, and did run to bring his disciples word.

9. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

10. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid; go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

Saint Luke, chap xxiv.

3. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

4. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

5. And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

6. He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

7. Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. 8. And they remembered his words, 9. And returned from the sepulchre, an told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

10. It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

11. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.

12. Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre, and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.

appearance; for Saint Mark's speaking of it as distinct from what happened at the sepulchre; for Saint 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 Saint 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 Saint Matthew and Saint Mark, who relate this appearance, at variance. They agree in the appearance, agree that it was early on the first day of the week; Saint Matthew says, it was as they went to tell the disciples;" and so it might be consistently with Saint 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.

66

When Saint 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 eye-witness; which testimony the other evangelists had omitted. Compare Saint John and Saint Luke together, and Saint John plainly carries on the account where Saint Luke left it. Saint 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 Saint John went and was a witness of these things as well as Peter : he leaves therefore Saint 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. (John, xx. 1, 2.) He then gives an account of what he and Saint 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 Saint 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 Saint John:

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

Secondly, since Saint Luke's account agrees with Saint Matthew's and Saint Mark's in relating what passed at the sepulchre, it follows that their accounts are relations of what passed only at Mary's first coming, that is, Saint Matthew's account to ver. 8 inclusive, and Saint Mark's to ver. 8. inclusive.

Thirdly, Saint 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 Saint Matthew says, ver. 9, 10. and Saint Mark, ver. 9, 10, 11, happened at her second coming to the sepulchre.

Thus Saint John's additional account has given us a clear order of the whole transaction. And it appears that Saint 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. Saint Mark, in like manner, but adds the appearance to Mary as a distinct and separate thing by itself.

Saint 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 Saint Mark has mentioned it, without making any connection 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 Saint Matthew connects these two parts together; he says that Jesus appeared to the women as they went to tell the disciples :" Saint 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 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. Saint Matthew's account may very well consist with Saint John's. Saint Matthew does not say the women had delivered no message to the disciples, nor does Saint 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 Saint 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 Saint 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 sepulchre 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 Saint Matthew, throwing the whole transaction into one continued story, would naturally consider no more than the general order in which things happened, without distinguishing the short time which the whole took up into different periods.

3. Because the language used by Saint Matthew does really import no more than the

general order in which things happened: he says, ὡς ἐπορεύοντο ἀπαγγεῖλαι, as they were 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, "Now when they (the women) were going, behold the watch came into the city, and shewed 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 Saint Matthew and in other writers of the New Testament.

As 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," (Luke, xxiv. 21. &c.) Compare this with Saint Luke's own account, and Saint 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 two disciples left Jerusalem as soon as Peter and John had made their report, and before Mary Magdalene had reported the appearance of Christ to her, or had delivered his message to the disciples; which proves that the account as it stands in Saint Matthew, including the appearance to Mary Magdalene, was not told to the disciples at once, but must be accounted for in the manner above mentioned; otherwise these two disciples must have known of the appearance of Christ, as well as of the other circumstances prior to it, which they so punctually relate.

You see here plainly that the two disciples, speaking of the first visit the women made to the sepulchre, say, "they found not his body;" and thence the Considerer infers they never saw him; expressly contrary to the account given by Saint John of their second visit to the sepulchre. And for want of observing the series of the story, he goes on mistaking and confounding the circumstances which belong to the first and the second visit to the

sepulchre, and triumphs in discovering contradictions in the evangelists; whereas, in truth, the only thing he has discovered is, that he does not understand them.

In stating thus the series and order of what passed at the sepulchre, there is one difficulty only to be accounted for; namely, Saint John speaks of the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene only; Saint Matthew speaks of it as made to more than one; and Saint Mark says that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magda- | lene, which may be thought not to agree with Saint Matthew's account.

Now though Saint John speaks only of Mary Magdalene, she being the principal person; and it being not at all necessary to his purpose to mention more (for a message delivered by her accounts as well for his going to the sepulchre as if it had been delivered by twenty yet if you consider what Mary Magdalene says herself, it will appear that she was not alone. Her words are, "they have taken the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.” We imports that she had others with her at delivering this message; and if she had, it cannot be supposed that they left her to go alone to the sepulchre when she followed Peter and John, or permitted her to stay behind them alone at the sepulchre. Consequently the appearance was to Mary Magdalene when others were with her, though she only is mentioned by Saint John throughout his

account.

As to Saint Mark, he says, "Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene." His meaning is, hat the first appearance he made was to her; but that it was to her only he does not say. And it is manifest that the word first (grov) relates to the order of appearances; for it follows, (ver. 12,) after that he appeared in another form to two of them, and, (ver. 14,) afterward he appeared unto the eleven. The first appearance then was certainly to Mary Magdalene; but whether to her alone depends on a careful comparison of the evangelists together. And on the whole, I think the account here given seems to me to be the most probable; which I would be understood to say, without prejudice to other interpretations which many worthy and learned writers have followed.

But let us now look back to the variations between the three first evangelists, which we passed over before.

1. The first is, that Saint Mark and Saint Luke say, "the women came early to the sepulchre bringing spices;" Saint Matthew says nothing of their bringing spices.

It gives light to any piece of history to shew the motives of the principal actions recorded; but where the fact itself is the only material thing, such circumstances may or may not be added, as the historian pleases.

In the present case, the fact itself, that the women were early at the sepulchre, saw the stone rolled away, and the body not there, are the only material things in the narration. And whether they came early to the sepulchre for one reason or for another, is of little consequence; and is in the discretion of the writer to add or omit the reason as he pleases, without prejudice to the history, which depends on the truth of the fact only. Saint Matthew has said nothing to intimate that they did not bring spices, nor has he assigned any other reason for their coming; and the Considerer excepted, I believe no man can discern any contrariety in the accounts.

2. The second is, that Saint Matthew says the two Marys came to the sepulchre; Saint Mark, the two Marys and Salome; Saint Luke, the women who came from Galilee, and he reckons (ver. 11) the two Marys, Joanna, and other women with them.

The three evangelists agree in naming the two Marys as the principal persons concerned; some of them mention others as being in their company. And this is a variation which I believe happens in every part of story reported by different writers, and is no discredit to any. Suppose that three news-writers should give an account of opening a sessions of parliament. The first should say, "the king, attended by the prince, came to parliament;" the second, "the king, attended by the prince and the duke;" the third, "the king, attended by the prince, the duke, and the principal officers of state;" would any man living imagine he saw contradictions in these accounts? Why then is the gospel suspected in a case where no other history in the world would be suspected?

3. The same answer may be applied to the third variation, so far as it relates to the number of angels seen. The mentioning one was sufficient to answer all the purposes of the history; and he who says there were two does not contradict him who mentions one, unless he has said there was but one, which none of the evangelists has said.

The Considerer thinks there is no harmony among the evangelists, because some speak of the women seeing angels, others call them

men.

He might have said Saint Luke contradicts himself; for he calls them both men and angels in different parts of his relation. The truth is, the angels are sometimes called men, because they appeared in the form of men; for the same reason that Abraham called the angels men, who appeared to him on the plains of Mamre.

4. Saint Matthew and Saint Mark agree in the message sent by the angels to the disciples, that he would "go before them into Galilee." Saint Luke has not expressly mentioned the message, but has said nothing inconsistent with it. The angels tell the women, " He is

not here; he is risen; remember how he spake unto you;" exactly agreeable to Saint Matthew's account, "He is not here; he is risen, as he said." As soon as the women had received this information from the angels, he says they went and told the disciples; and so says Saint Matthew. The message, then, as delivered by the angels, and whatever else happened at the sepulchre at the first visit made by the women, stands clear of all difficulties.

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 farther 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 before 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 appear ance 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 Saint 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