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.

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 everything 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 now see 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 introductory to what he had to add further.

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. 9-11, 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 further. 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 66 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 dis

ciples, 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 went 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, s rogOVTO arazzina, "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 mes