H

four in

events oc

sons, comit E

ence of moneT

He who

is required a elevated, and wonderful narra

dicule or inqu they all slept sight or bea the Christ

much of Jes was circulated dence, what confidence

(for sooner

thew ta

biographers

learnt the

2.

Va} ! :་,,-་

be some error: an earthquake is very extensive, and it would be an extraordinary statement, if we were to say, "there was a great earthquake, for an angel rolled back the stone from the sepulchre. But if we translate it as a convulsive motion of the earth, we should not give it the extensive and popular term of earthquake. I would rather state it thus:-"The ground about the grave was completely shaken, and that something fell, which could only be compared to lightning, and had the effect of driving away the stone from the door, to such a distance, as to create this violent concussion." This may be the sense, but I have my doubts. The same Greek word, which we translate "earthquake," is applied to the keepers in the fourth verse, and yet in that exact sense, no man would apply it to them. My own opinion "that something very terrible occurred, for an angel of the Lord," &c., and we should always remember, that we have here only a translation from the Hebrew, which is expressed in the Syriac translation by what means great terror and trembling, as well as a great earthquake.

is,

"For the angel of the Lord."] If, in this place, there appears a contradiction of the other evangelists, who mention two angels, this will

not apply to our present discussion, nor should we unnecessarily meet difficulties. The question here is, not what the women saw, when they came to the tomb, after it was deserted by the keepers, but what the keepers themselves

saw.

3. "His countenance was like lightning."] The Greek word translated here as countenance, occurs Genesis v. 3, and Daniel i. 23, as bodily form. This could not, however, apply here, for an assumed form in a white garment, would not act upon the sight, like lightning. But the 2 Maccabees iii. 16, justifies the translation of the word "countenance." Beza conceived it to signify that brilliancy of eye, which shone like lightning. This is the more probable, and it has often struck me, that something like this might be the meaning. "The keepers, at first saw what appeared to be lightning, descend from heaven, and the stone was rolled back when they recovered from their first terror, they saw a human form in a white garment, sitting upon the stone." Of course I do not presume to give this opinion, as founded upon certainty.

4. It appears that the keepers fell, through terror, upon the ground, and lay, as if dead,

upon the earth: when they came to themselves, they ran away; consequently the women, who, according to Matthew, come to the sepulchre, see no keepers, and in John xx. neither Mary Magdalene, Peter, or John himself, meet with any keepers, either in the garden, or at the tomb.

5. "And the angel answered, und said."] This is the translation, but as the women had asked no questions, it should be "the angel addressing them, spake unto the women." The Greek, both in the Septuagint, and in the New Testament, will bear this signification. We must observe here, that the angel does not sit, where the keepers saw him, upon the stone, but in the tomb. Matthew does not expressly say this; but it may be inferred from the 6th and 8th verses; for he says "He is not here; come, see the place, where the Lord lay." He must have been consequently in the tomb, and when the angel had ceased speaking, "they departed quickly from the sepulchre." The other evangelists state it more clearly, so that there is no contradiction, but less detail.

6. "The Lord."] Even those commentators, who do not believe in the eternal Divinity of Christ, (and I wish to include them in this re

mark,) consider it as worthy of much regard, that an angel should have given Jesus this surpassing distinction. There are, indeed, a few manuscripts who omit the word "Lord," but they are too few to justify a reading distinct from the established version.

7. "Tell his disciples."] I see no reason why this information should be confined to the eleven apostles, as all who believed and heard him, were his disciples: or why it should not embrace those who considered him as the Messiah, as for instance, Joseph of Arimathea, who, we are told (xxvii. 57.), was his disciple. This observation seems scarcely necessary, but as arguments have been raised upon it, in order to show an apparent contradiction, between Matthew xxviii. 9, 11, and Mark xvi. 7, founded upon this limited construction of the word, I shall remark upon it when I come to this last evangelist.

Lo! I have told you."] This certainly seems unnecessary, especially when Jesus, (Matthew xxvi. 32, and Mark xiv. 28.) had already told them. Learned men have suggested it should be, "Lo! he has told you," in consequence of the same reading in Mark. The two Greek vowels, which constitute the difference,