6

as is generally supposed, and saw our Saviour, and were coming back to the city, with the account of what they 'had seen and heard to the apostles, at the same time, that some of the watch came to relate all that was done, to the chief priests. And they did make their report to the apostles, before the two went from the rest of the company to Emmaus. No notice indeed is mentioned by the two in discourse with Christ of the women's having related 'their interview with Jesus, because it should seem none of the company believed a word of what the women said, 'Mark xvi. 11; Luke xxiv. 11. And none of the evange'lists pretend to give an exact detail of all circumstances.'

6

This I apprehend to be the truth, or nearly so. And it will be the key to this history. And I now intend to digest the several particulars of it, in their proper order, as well as I can. If I should at all differ from my friend, it will be in such points only as are not very material. And still I must acknowledge myself indebted to him for a clear insight into this history.

But before I enter upon the rehearsal of the several parts of the history, I must premise a few observations.

First of all, I reckon, I have showed, that your supposed journey of some of the women to the sepulchre, designed and begun, but not performed and finished, by them, about six or seven o'clock in the evening of Saturday, presently after the sabbath was over, is fictitious, and without foundation.

Secondly, You speak of a journey to the sepulchre made by some of the company of the apostles, who set out after Peter and John were gone. This you call, at p. 639, a second deputation from the apostles. You speak of it likewise at p. 633, 656, 657. I beg leave to say, that I cannot but consider this as a fiction, without any foundation. And perhaps I may take no farther notice of it hereafter.

Thirdly, You suppose St. Peter to have made a second visit to the sepulchre alone, different from that mentioned, John xx. 3-10. This you argue from Luke xxiv. 12, at p. 646, 647. But I think it to be the same visit which is mentioned by St. John; when "Peter, and that other disciple," went together. So this also is understood by Le Clerc, and all other interpreters and commentators in general, so far as I know. Therefore my friend says in his letter to me: St. Luke, xxiv. 12, mentions only Peter running to the sepulchre; but we do not conclude from thence, that ' he ran thither twice, once by himself. and at another time

⚫ along with John.' However, it is your opinion that two visits are here spoken of. And indeed this is agreeable to the usual method of your harmony; in which you make two stories of one, and account such passages of the gospels to be different, which are really parallel. Whereby, in my opinion, and so far as I am able to judge, you have oftentimes perverted the true order of things related by the evangelists.

6

6

I can now proceed to rehearse the several parts of this history, and to digest them in order as well as I can.

Says St. John, xx. 1, "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."

But though Mary Magdalene only be here mentioned, I suppose she was not alone. It is agreeable to what you say also, p. 626, In the morning of the first day of the week, according to our form of the day, all the women went out together very early, carrying the spices which they had prepared to the sepulchre, at which they arrived about the 'rising of the sun.' See Matt. xxviii. 1; Mark xvi. 1, 2; Luke xxiv. 10. And at p. 627, you observe, The women 'said to have made this journey, are in all the evangelists the same-Mary Magdalene therefore, Joanna, and Mary 'the mother of James, are the women who made the visit 'with the spices early in the morning. John indeed speaks of none of the women who made this visit to the sepulchre, but Mary Magdalene. Yet because he mentions none but her, it does not follow, that there was nobody with her. In the gospels there are many such omissionsWhere

'fore, since it is the manner of the sacred historians in other instances, John may be supposed to have mentioned Mary 'Magdalene singly in this part of his history, notwithstand

6

ing he knew that others had been with her at the sepul'chre, and the rather, because his intention was to relate only what things happened in consequence of her information, and not to speak of the transactions of the rest, which his brethren historians had handled at large.'

66

You say very well. We therefore proceed in considering St. John's narrative, which follows, ver. 2, " Then she runnetb, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them; They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him."

I do not believe that Mary Magdalene was now alone. All the women might be with her. If some only, the rest

stayed in the garden, expecting her return. For they knew that she went to tell Peter and John what she and the rest had seen, and to invite them to come to the sepulchre, and see how things were there.

It follows, ver. 3-10, " Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together. And the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he, stooping down, saw the linen clothes lying. Yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter, following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie: and the napkin that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw and believed. For as yet they knew not the scriptures, that he must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own home."

Here you say upon ver. 8, p. 636, "Then went in also that other disciple which came first to the sepulchre. And he saw and believed." Finding nothing in the sepulchre but the clothes, he believed the body was taken away, as Mary Magdalene had told him. This, as I take it, is all 'that John means, when he tells us, that Peter and he, after searching the sepulchre, "saw and believed." Mary Magdalene, it would appear, had told them not only that the body was taken away, but that the cloths were left behind, a circumstance which filled them with wonder. They saw them however with their own eyes, and believed her report-For that they had not the least suspicion of 'Christ's resurrection, is evident from the apology, which John himself makes for the stupidity of the disciples in this matter. Ver. 9, " For as yet they knew not the scriptures, that he must rise from the dead "- -Nor had she

6

' herself the least notion of it, even when Jesus appeared to her, as is plain from what she says, ver. 13 and 15.' You say very right, in my opinion. And Grotius has spoken to the like purpose in his annotationsi upon these verses.

St. Luke says, ch. xxiv. 12, "Then arose Peter, and ran

Et vidit, et credidit,' ver. 8.] Credidit certo abesse corpus, quod Mariæ referenti non crediderat, et de quo conspectis fasciis dubitaverat. Gr. ad Joh. xx. 8.

Ver. 9, Nondum enim sciebant scripturam.'] Quasi dicat, Corpus illud vitæ redditum nondum credebat Joannes. Nam et ille et discipuli alii nondum satis perceperant id quod scriptura prædixerat de ejus resurrectione. Sæpe quidem audiverant Dominum id pollicentem. Sed rei magnitudo et ingenii tarditas obstabant, quo minus hoc in animum adm.tterent. Lucæ xxiv. 12. Gr. ad Jo. xx. 9.

unto the sepulchre, and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which had come to pass.' This I take not

to be another or a second visit of Peter, or different from that mentioned by St. John, but the same. And as this is the general opinion of interpreters, I need not say any thing to prove it.

66

St. John goes on, ver. 11-18, " But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping. And as she wept she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, and seeth two angels in white, sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. And they say unto her: Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them: Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing. Aud knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her: Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him: Sir, if thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her: Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him; Rabboni, which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her: Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her."

This I suppose to be what is related by St. Mark xvi. 9, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven demons." And I can suppose that Mary Magdalene was now alone, or only one of the other women with her, and she, perhaps, not one of the most honourable: which, I think, is the opinion of some learned interpreter, though I do not now recollect his name.

Our Lord having shown himself to Mary Magdalene, and discoursed with her, as related by St. John, I think, he withdrew to a small distance, out of sight. Mary, then, immediately went to the other women, who were not afar off, and told them that she had " seen the Lord," and that he had spoken unto her. They assented to what she said, and were willing to go down with her presently to the

* Grotius has in one place intimated, that Mary Magdalene had a maidservant with her--nisi dicere malumus, quod credibile est, ancillam Magdalenæ adfuisse. Gr. in Matt. xxviii. 9.

apostles, and acquaint them with the glad tidings, that the Lord was risen. Whilst they were going, and not yet got out of the garden, Jesus came to them, and showed himself to them all. Which is what is related by St. Matthew, xxviii. 5-9," And the angel answered and said unto the women: Fear ye not. For I know that For I know that ye seek Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here. For he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples, that he is risen from the dead. And behold, he goes before you into Galilee. There shall ye see him. Lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre, with fear, and joy, and did run [that is, they were setting out] to bring his disciples word. And as they went, [or were going,] to tell his disciples, behold Jesus met them, saying, All hail, [or a good day to you.] And they came, and held him by the feet, and worshipped him." And now, undoubtedly, Mary Magdalene likewise was admitted to embrace our Lord's feet, if she did it not before. For the words, " touch me not," need not to be understood of an absolute prohibition not to touch him at all, but only that she was not to expect to be indulged in a long conversation. And now they were all fully satisfied that it was Jesus himself, who was alive again. He had given them all the evidences which they could desire. They saw him, they heard his voice, they handled him. "Then [ver. 10.] said Jesus unto them: Be not afraid; go, tell my brethren, that they go into Galilee; and there shall they

see me."

Now all the women together had a joint appearance of Jesus, resembling that made to the eleven disciples, in the evening of the same day. And perhaps there was some peculiar fitness in our Lord showing himself first to Mary Magdalene, either alone, or when one more only was with her, and then to the rest all together. So before he showed himself to the eleven, he appeared to the two going to Emmaus, and to Peter, much about the same time; though we cannot exactly say when orm where.

This appearance to Mary Magdalene, and the other women with her, may be considered as one and the same appearance. It is so considered by Lightfoot. Harmony of the N. T. Vol. I. p. 269, 270.

Amplexæ sunt,' Exọarnoɑv.] Vulg. tenuerunt. Sic prehensis videlicet ejus pedibus, quasi eum illic retenturæ, quo spectat Christi responsum. Mihi propterea magis placuit amplectendi, quam prehendendi verbum. Bez. in loc.

Postea etiam Jesus se conspiciendum præbuit Petro, quamvis rei circumstantiæ ad posteros transmissæ non sunt. Cleric. Harmon. p. 487.