parties and the largest party, when they saw the sepulchre empty, was again subdivided by the apprehension that the removal of the body was a scheme of the Pharisees for bringing on all the disciples the fate of their Master. The intelligence and fears of these last women, detached from their associates the two disciples who went to Emmaus. John had a house at Jerusalem; and, being united to Peter with more than the affections of a brother, he now entertained his friend, together with Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus, under his hospitable roof. Thus were the men also divided into three parties; and as John's residence was at some distance from the temporary abode of the rest, and not in the same line with the sepulchre; the parties passed unknown to each other, while going to and returning from the tomb. These minute circumstances were unimportant in themselves, as altogether independent of the truth of the main fact, namely, the resurrection of Jesus. The Evangelists therefore passed them over in silence, when selecting those incidents which the peculiarity of their situation rendered necessary to be stated. They could not conceive it possible to charge them with contradictions, when every one of the four was scrupulous to write nothing but the truth. By the omission of these circumstances, however, their narratives, when compared with one another, become a labyrinth, in the mazes of which the inquirer after truth is apt to be entangled and lost; and it is only after they are supplied, that the intricacies complained of disappear, and his path stretches before him a smooth and level lawn. And it may be asserted with perfect confidence, that four writers without communing one with another, could not have recorded events apparently so discordant, yet capable of being reduced to perfect harmony, unless they copied them from memories, on which they had been previously deposited by actual occurrence.

But this is not all: the four Evangelists, while they

appear to contradict, do in reality confirm one another. Aiming at brevity, they divided some of the incidents recorded by them into fragments: each takes up one and leaves the rest; and it is only when we have brought the four together, that we find a perfect whole. Thus, Matthew says merely that the women came to see the grave, xxviii. 1. It was not necessary for him, as writing in Judea, to add what their object was: but Mark, who published his Gospel in Rome, felt the necessity of adding that the women wished to embalm the body. According to this Evangelist, the women went into the sepulchre; this is not said by Matthew, yet he says that they went out of the sepulchre with fear and great joy, xxviii. 8. When Luke and John say that the women went, when it was yet dark, or when it was beginning to dawn, they mean the two Maries who went first to the sepulchre from John's house: but when Mark writes that the women went at the rising of the sun, he means the party of women who came from the other disciples : yet it is manifest that this Evangelist had both parties in his mind: for in reference to Mary Magdalene and her companion, he says that they came "very early ;" and it is in allusion to the others, that he adds "at the rising of the sun." The party of women who next to Mary Magdalene came to the grave, saw one angel. According to Mark, this angel was in the sepulchre ; according to Matthew, he sat on the stone. But the latter adds, "Come and see the place where the Lord lay." This supposes that the angel led them into the sepulchre, and of course was seen by them in both places. Mark omitted the first part related by Matthew, Matthew omitted the last part related by Mark, and yet the substance of their testimony is the same. But how is Luke's narrative to be reconciled with these?

“And it came to pass as they were perplexed, behold two men stood by them in shining garments. And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth,

the men said unto them, 'Why seek ye him that is alive, 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 up into the hands of sinners, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." Matthew says that an angel appeared and spoke to the women; Mark calls him a young man in white garments: but here the persons who appeared are said to have been two men in shining garments. This seems a direct contradiction, yet the Evangelists confirm one another in a surprising manner. According to Matthew and Mark, an angel in the form of a man, and Jesus a real man, appeared unto the women. And Jesus is one of the two men meant by Luke. This we may infer for two reasons, first, because Luke calls them men, one of them being a real man, the other a man in appearance; secondly, because, if our Lord is not meant by one of the men, he did not, according to Luke, at all appear to the women. This Evangelist then must have understood Jesus to be one of the two men and hence he presents us with an additional fact, namely, that our Lord appeared to all the women, though in disguise, before the first party of them left the tomb to apprize the disciples of the removal of the body, and then discovered himself first to Mary, and next to the remainder of the other women, as is stated by Matthew, Mark and John. And here I cannot but observe the pleasing gradation that took place in the development of this wonderful scene. Mary Magdalene first discovers the stone rolled away, and she carries this news to Peter and John: these run to the sepulchre, and they find the body removed. Of this the disciples are all informed. Next an angel appears to the women, assuring them that Jesus was alive after that he shows himself, first in disguise, and next in his real form and character. And this discovery he makes, first to one of the women, then to several of them, next to Peter, after that to the two dis

:

ciples going to Emmaus, then to the ten disciples when collected together, and at length to Thomas, and last of all to a multitude of his friends in Galilee.

The seal put upon the tomb, the guard, the descent of the angel, the earthquake, the stealing of the body, are circumstances omitted by Mark. The story of the body being stolen, as countenanced by the chief priests and Pharisees, became current in Judea. But in Rome and in the provinces, its base authors had no influence or authority, and the tale was not believed. Mark, therefore, was not called upon to notice the tale: but he relates the counterpart of it, in order to show that the removal of the body, by whomsoever effected, would prove certain death to the disciples. Though the angel desired the women to go and tell the disciples that Christ was risen, "they said not a word to any man, for they were afraid." Here this Evangelist had in view those women who left the tomb to apprize the disciples of their danger before Jesus made himself known to them : and hence it is that the two disciples, who, in consequence, returned to Emmaus, had not yet heard that he was seen alive. This is evident from Luke's narrative. "Also some women of our company have amazed us, who being early at the sepulchre, and not having found the body there, came saying that they saw a vision of angels, who say that he is alive, and some of our party went to the sepulchre, and found it so as the women had said; but him they saw not." Luke xxiv. 22. In this passage it is implied that Peter and John, after having been at the tomb without finding the body, joined the other disciples, before the two who went to Emmaus had departed; and also that the women, who, under alarm, instantly came away after having seen the angels, had also reached the disciples before the departure of their companions. What these women said, was not that they themselves saw Jesus, but that the angels whom they saw, told them that he was alive. It is manifest,

therefore, that the other women who stood behind with the hope of discovering the body, and to whom Jesus made himself known, did not return to the disciples till the two were gone to Emmaus. Indeed, it would have been inconsistent with the purpose of our Lord, that they should have been told that he was seen alive by any of their party, till he had prepared them by a certain conversation for the discovery. Besides, had the women informed them that they had themselves seen Christ, the two disciples would not have left Jerusalem, because their motive in leaving was to avoid the danger which the apprehended charge of having stolen the body brought upon them and their companions. Here then we find Mark and Luke, while they pass over in silence the charge of the disciples having stolen the body, relate facts which show that, so far from having done this, they considered the very charge, though false, as sure to involve them in immediate destruction.

We may infer from Luke's narrative, that Peter went a second time to the sepulchre. This inference might be deemed improbable, if we did not find in Mark the cause of it, namely, that the women brought him an especial message from his divine Master, that he was risen. In the Gospel of Matthew we learn that some of the guards did not join their comrades in going to the chief priests. The Gospels of Mark and Luke explain the probable cause, namely, that during his crucifixion they considered the sufferer to be a righteous man, and the Son of God. Believing therefore the justice of his claims, they joined his followers, and disclosed to them the convulsions at the tomb, and the money given by the priests to the guard.

But let us return to Matthew.-Q. Is it not singular, Matthew, that you should have omitted an incident so characteristic as the account given by Luke, of the conversation of Jesus with the two disciples going to Emmaus ?-A. It was a maxim with the four Evangelists, that each should relate those things which he was best