evangelists in this particular. They treat of different occurrences; and though they omit each other's statement, they do not contradict each other. The one does not deny that an angel was seen outside, nor does the other deny that an angel was seen inside; but, on the contrary, gives you notice of something extraordinary to follow.

The chief difficulty in this solution of the angelic visions still remains behind, and that is, to reconcile Mark and Luke; for while the former speaks of only one angel inside, the latter speaks of two angels being seen. This is an apparent contradiction, because they are both narrating the inside occurrence at the tomb; and the query is, Which of the two evangelists are we to credit? We reply, Both; and if it be asked, How? we answer, Because both are, and must be, as inspired penmen, perfectly correct. On an attentive examination, we find that Mark's and Luke's are two distinct and separate visions, succeeding one another in the tomb, and presenting themselves to one and the same company.

Mark treats of the angelic vision which presented itself to the women at their first entrance into the tomb. There they beheld one angel only, seated on the right side, and guarding, as it were, the sanctity of the tomb till the women's arrival, that they and we might have an undoubted proof that the contents of the sepulchre remained undisturbed by sacrilegious hands. This angel having received them courteously, and having addressed them in language similar to the one outside, and having bid them examine the sepulchre for the verification of his statement that Christ was risen, disappeared, and left them to pursue their anxious search amid the memorials of his decease, imprisonment, and escape, viz., the linen clothes, and the napkin that was about his head. Not finding the body of the Lord Jesus, and "being much perplexed thereabout" (an expression which implies that some moments or minutes must have passed in the examination of the tomb and its contents, and also that the angel of Mark had disappeared, else they might have appealed to him for farther examination), behold two men stood by them in shining garments, and addressed them in words very different from either of the previous angelic messengers: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen; remember how he spake unto you, when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. Then they returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." The whole of the presumed discrepancy, then, that subsists between Mark and Luke resolves itself into this point, that Mark omits Luke's recorded vision of two angels, and Luke omits his recorded vision of one angel; but let us remember that omissions are not contradictions.

Each of the evangelists gives a new particular, omitting what had been told before; but this is no objection to their veracity, so long as their narrations do not clash with one another; and though it be perfectly true that the women saw but one angel when they entered, it may also be perfectly true that, previous to their exit, and after examining the tomb, the place of this angel, who had disappeared to relieve the women from their fright, might be supplied by two angels. If it be argued that this system of harmony makes the same company to see three distinct visions, and to receive three distinct assurances of the resurrection of Christ from the dead; we reply, that this is nothing wonderful, considering the vast importance of the event, and their extreme slowness of heart to believe all that the prophets had written.

John's vision alone now remains to be considered. Here no difficulty presents itself. It was not the same as that of Luke's; the circumstances are totally different. It was seen by Mary Magdalene alone. It was seen by her at her second visit to the tomb, not before, but after she had seen Peter; and remember that they give, her no message, as in the former case; that she immediately thereafter has an interview with the Lord, and goes to tell the disciples, not that Christ was risen, as in the previous vision of Luke, but that she had beheld the Lord." It was seen by her while she stood outside of the tomb, whereas the former was seen inside of the tomb; for it is stated, that as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre. The first objection that occurs to us is this: If Mary had seen three distinct visions, and received three distinct assurances before of the resurrection of Christ, why is she represented here as still doubting. "Woman, why weepest thou?" "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him." We reply, that her unbelief was most unreasonable; but it was common to her with the apostles, to whom the words of the women seemed as idle tales, and they believed them not; and it is not improbable that their coldness, and perhaps expressed incredulity, might have had a pernicious effect on her mind, in leading her to doubt the reality of the resurrection, even in the face of angelic testimony.

Granting the probability of this view of the harmony of the visions, it may, however, be still objected, that John represents Mary Magdalene as running away by herself, while the other evangelists declare, that she returned as she went first, in company with the other women. For what says John? "Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter." Is it not probable, that if she had

visited the tomb in company, and returned in company, that John would have mentioned this fact? And may we not infer, therefore, that Mary was not among the company that staid to inspect the tomb, but, as stated by Bishop Horsley, retreated so soon as she came within sight of it, and beheld the stone rolled away? We reply, that if the silence of John, as to her having company in her flight, is to be regarded as of any weight, that silence must be regarded as of equal weight in reference to the fact of her having company in her visit to the tomb; but all the other evangelists, in reality, admit that she had company with her in her first visit to the tomb; and consequently it follows, that the silence of John is no argument against the express statement of the other evange lists, to the effect that she did not run away by herself at the first sight of the sepulchre, but tarcied to examine it, was a witness of all the three angelic visions, and returned along with Joanna, the other Mary, Salome, and the other women. The fact is, and this settles the point, that John, who had no doubt seen the other accounts, did not deem it necessary to recapitulate what they had narrated, but contents himself with giving some additional particulars of the resurrection, in so far as Mary Magdalene alone was concerned. For this reason he mentions her name only; while, by using the plural word we, she acknowledges that she had associates,-"We know not where they have laid him." And it must be confessed, that the account of the resurrection would have been very imperfect without the additional and interesting information here conveyed relative to Mary's second visit, and personal interview with our blessed Lord.

Still, it may be urged that this theory cannot be correct, because if Mary Magdalene had returned to Jerusalem in company with the other women, she must have seen our blessed Lord before she beheld him singly at the tomb, and that Christ did not appear to her first, as testified by Mark and John, but at a time when the other women witnessed it; for Matthew declares, chap. xxxviii. 9, "And as they (the women) went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him."

We admit the force of this objection. We admit that it is apparently impossible to get over it; andence the origin of all those theories which separate Mary Magdalene from her company, and make her return alone. Nevertheless, we still adhere to our own theory, as the only one that will ultimately reconcile all difficulties, that Mary Magdalene never left her company till she returned to Jerusalem. We go farther, and affirm that Christ did appear to her first, on her second visit, as John shows, and as Mark testifies. And we deny the basis of the objection, that Christ appeared to the women on their first return to Jerusalem; and for this reason, that the women made no communication of this kind to the apostles and disciples. Is it reasonable to think, that if Christ had personally appeared to the women, they would have concealed this pre-eminently important event, and contented themselves with announcing the angelic visions? In this case they would now have had ocular evidence of his resurrection; they could now say, Not that angels assured us of the fact, but that we have seen the Lord, have beheld him, and have heard him speak, saying, "Be not afraid; but go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.' they not have done so? Could they have withheld the expressions of their joy? Could they have cherished still an evil heart of unbelief, as we find they did from Mary Magdalene's speech to the angels at the tomb? Impossible. But instead of coming to the apostles with the glad tidings of a personal interview with our blessed Lord, what did they say? Why, they came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said; but him they saw not." Luke xxiv. 23, 34. At whatever period, then, the women might be favoured with the sight of the Lord, it could not possibly be on their return from their first visit; for then the Lord had not manifested himself to Mary Magdalene; nor did the women, at this time, make that manifestation any part of their communication to the apostles, as they most certainly would, and actually were bound to do.

66

And would

But the question still occurs, What are we to make of Matthew's statement? Does not he expressly declare (Matt. xxviii. 9), that as they went to tell the disciples, Jesus met them?" True, but Matthew does not say whether this meeting was at their return from their first or second visit to the sepulchre. This is the pith and marrow of the solution. That all the women returned, or made an attempt to return, after they had found out the eleven and other disciples, and delivered the angelic message, is very probable, either that they might prosecute their inquiries farther, or perhaps in the fond hope of meeting with their risen Lord; it is certain that Mary Magdalene returned to the tomb-and what should hinder us from believing that the same curiosity, or the same holy affection for Christ, or the same desire to see the end of the wonderful scenes that passed at the tomb, should have prompted them also to retrace their steps? More especially, when they found, upon inquiry, that Mary Magdalene had returned in haste to the tomb, and when they had probably learned from Peter and John, now panting for breath before them, that

they had left her there solitary and unattended. This view is not opposed unto, as is generally thought, but corroborated by, the words of Matthew, when rightly translated, for they will bear the following translation, which clearly marks the distinction between the first and second visit: “And as they went away from telling his disciples,"—that is, after delivering their message, they went away, no doubt to visit the tomb, or to meet Mary Magdalene; and while they were on the road, and just as Mary Magdalene joined their company in returning to Jerusalem, "behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail." And what is singular, after refusing Mary Magdalene, a little before, liberty to touch him, he allows them now to hold his feet, and to worship him. Matt. xix. 15 is an example of the same translation, "Departed thence," or, more literally, "Went away from that place." Matt. ii. 9, also xi. 7, and especially xxiv. 1, are instances where the same word bears the sense of "going away from " any place. Schrevelius, a high authority, translates this word by the Latin verb abivi, which means, "I went away from." And thus when we translate the passage under consideration," And when they went away from telling," or rather, "from having told, his disciples," it is manifest that we are not forging a translation for the purpose; that the new translation is fair, and perfectly conformable to usage; and that it must have been overlooked by the translators, from their not thoroughly understanding the circumstances attendant on the history of the resurrection of Christ, as given by the four evangelists. But if these translations be fair, and conformable to usage, then the whole difficulty of the harmony vanishes, then each historian is perfectly consistent with the other, then the scruples of the sincere inquirer are removed, and then the triumph of the infidel is turned into shame and defeat. A powerful weapon is wrenched out of the hands of the enemies of the faith; and a wide and long standing breach in the bulwarks of our Zion is filled up, and made strong against the rudest attacks. Let it not be for a moment imagined that the evangelists contradict one another in their narratives of Christ's resurrection. Their perfect harmony is now completely established, and every shade of mystery and darkness is now dispelled. The principle of the solution is simple, viz., the integrity or oneness of the company of the women, as proved by the various lists, and by the unity of the time of their arrival. This thread conducts us through every chamber of the labyrinth with unerring certainty, and brings us out of darkness that may be felt into the unclouded light of meridian day; for let us observe how simply and safely it directs our steps. The women all arrive a little before sunrise, or just when the sun was rising, and while there was some degree of remaining obscurity, in consequence of the brevity of the twilight in these latitudes; they see an angel seated upon the stone, which he had rolled away from the door of the sepulchre, who frightens the guards and encourages the women, inviting them to enter the supulchre; they enter the sepulchre accordingly, and see an angel seated on the right side, who also encourages and invites them, not to enter, for this had already been done, but to behold the place where the Lord lay, and then, his mission being fulfilled, he disappears; they examine the place, the clothes, the napkin, their order and position, but find not the body, and are thereby much perplexed and discouraged, when, lo! two angels appear, and assure them of Christ's resurrection, and bid them go and bring the disciples word; they depart quickly, and run to Jerusalem and tell the eleven; but Mary Magdalene confines her attentions to Peter and John, who run to the tomb, followed also by Mary Magdalene, who remains, after their departure, till she had seen the Lord; meanwhile, the other women having delivered their message, and hearing of Mary Magdalene's second visit to the tomb, went away, either to meet Mary, or to visit the tomb, in expectation of more wonders, when, lo! Christ meets them on the road, and greets them with the welcome salutation, "All hail." The same day Christ appears first to Simon Peter, then to the two disciples in their way to Emmaus, and then to the eleven in the evening. From this view of the harmony, it

appears,

1. That though the evangelists, in narrating any event, may give different particulars, yet they substantially agree; and this variation in particulars, so far from being an argument against their veracity, is the strongest possible confirmation of it; for, let us observe how the case stands. Professing only to give us some memoirs of Christ, they are not bound to furnish us with every particular in any occurrence which they mention; and this being the case, it is easy to see how four writers, acting independently of each other, might vary in their description of it—each admitting the fact, but giving along with it some circumstance not noticed by the others, yet not inconsistent with their details. All the evangelists, for example, mention the fact of the crowing of the cock at the third denial of Christ by Peter, and they all agree that this event was predicted by Christ, in some such general terms as these,- "Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice;" but Mark alone (who gives a fuller history of this occurrence than any of the rest) adds a particular, which, while it does not contradict, but admits the truth of their statements, yet seems to have been the full and perfect account of the matter. That particular is the word twice," Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice." Here no contradiction exists, but an omission merely of a particular

not essential to the main fact-the denial of his Lord by Peter for the third time. The same remark applies to the circumstances of this fact. They all agree that three questions were put to Peter, by three different persons. Matthew and Mark agree as to the persons; they were two maids of the high priest, and some of those standing by. Luke and John agree in so far that the first person who put the question was a maid; but Luke declares the other two were men; and John, that one of them was a man, and the others those that stood by-thus agreeing with the first two in every particular, except in the article of calling one of the querists a man instead of a maid. Here is substantial concord, but circumstantial difference-a difference which, at first sight, affects their veracity, but which, on a closer and more critical inspection, only serves to enhance the credit of their independent testimony. The reconciliation is perfectly simple. The second maid of Matthew and Mark only mentioned her suspicions to "those that stood by," she did not directly accuse Peter; so that, in fact, we are left to infer, that while it was a maid that suggested the matter, it was the man of Luke and John that made the charge, even that man of the company whose relation had his ear cut off by Peter. And with regard to Luke's third man, it is perfectly reconcileable to the They that stood by" of the other evangelists, on this simple principle, that his third man was merely the utterer of an accusation in which they all agreed, and to which they all, by an outward sign, or audibly, gave in their adherence. Now the accusation, in this view, might be said to have been made either by all that stood by, or by the spokesman for the rest, just as the second charge might be said to have been made either by the woman that suggested it to the company, or by the man who took up the maid's accusation and charged Peter with it. Thus it is with the account of the resurrection. The writers all agree in the main facts; they differ in the narration of particulars; yet all these differences are capable of being satisfactorily reconciled-and, when reconciled, they serve mightily to strengthen the evidences for the truth of Christianity. And if the reason be asked, we reply, Because they take away the appearance of collusion between the historians, and give us as many independent witnesses as there are evangelists for the truth of the facts which they record; for had the four evangelists verbally agreed in every description of events or orations, who does not see that a violent suspicion of collusion would have been engendered, whheir testimony, at best, could have been considered only as the testimony of one man.. But as the case now stands, while their differences prove that they did not copy from one another, their concord in main facts, and their exemption from the charge of contradicting one another, equally prove that they drew from one living Original.

2. From this view of the harmony, it appears that infidelity, in so far as it springs from incidental variations among the evangelists, is unreasonable.

These variations in no case contradict one another-they are all capable of being perfectly harmonized. They are not greater than what might be expected from independent biographers, professing to give an abridgment of some principal discourses, miracles, and occurrences, in the life and preaching of Jesus of Nazareth; they are not greater, in fact, than what is necessary to take away the suspicion of collusion. An examination of these variations only serves to confirm the evangelist's veracity, and quadruply to strengthen the proof of Christianity derived from their testimony. We admit that if the evangelists really and truly contradicted one another, if one denied the resurrection while the others affirmed its truth, the infidel would be justified in rejecting their testimony; but not, surely, because, while they all admit the fact of the resurrection, they differ in circumstantial details, of such a nature as not to contradict one another. What would the infidel have said, had not this been the case? Would he not have asserted that the life of Christ was a trumped up story by the four evangelists acting in concert? By this admirable and wise arrangement, however, this objection is entirely done away, and the truth of the Christian story is established on a surer basis. We have the testimony of four instead of one, without the suspicion of collusion, which would otherwise have been engendered. How unreasonable, then, is the objection of the infidel to Christianity drawn from circumstantial differences in the narrations of the evangelists! These circumstantial differences, so long as they are capable of being harmonized or accounted for on rational principles, instead of furnishing a just ground for infidelity, only serve to strengthen the cause of Christianity. Now, we hold that all these circumstantial differences are capable of being thus harmonized or accounted for on a rational principle; we have given some specimens, and we might contribute many more, were it necessary to our argument; and till the infidel can produce circumstantial differences impossible to be reconciled, and really contradictory statements and averments, we are entitled to maintain that his infidelity, in so far as it springs from this source, is perfectly unreasonable.

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY JOHN JOHNSTONE, EDINBURGH,