rectly after appeared to the other Mary and Salome, as they returned to the city. In the mean time Joanna and her company arrived at the sepulchre bear. ing the spices: for though the other women are said to have bought the spices; yet it is probable that Joanna, and those accompanying her, carried them to the place. When therefore they first entered the sepulchre, they only observed that the body was gone: but afterwards two angels appeared and accosted them.† Then they returned into the city in haste, and meeting with the apostles, before the other women had seen them, they informed them of what they had observed; upon which Peter went again to the sepulchre. About this time the two disciples set out for Emmaus, having heard only the report of these women; and neither that of Mary Magdalene, nor that of the other Mary and Sa. lome.

These at length arriving, informed the apostles that they had seen Jesus himself: and soon after on the same day he appeared to Peter also.

There are other ways of reconciling, the apparent disagreement between the evangelists, in respect of this transaction: yet none can certainly say, that things occurred exactly in this or the other manner. It suffices to shew, that things might thus happen, and that the evangelists do not contradict each other. Had the apostles been examined in open court, to prove what Mr. P. calls an alibi, I am persuaded the explanations which they could have given of the general narrative, would have removed all appearance of inconsistency,

Matt. xxviii. 9-11.

+ Luke xxiv. I—9.

Luke xxiv. 12-34.

as this arises entirely from the brevity, with which they touched upon the leading circumstances. It may, however, be observed, that the primitive enemies of christianity were as implacable at least as any are at present; that they were engaged by interest and reputaion, as well as inclination, to prove the apostles false witnesses; that they desired exceedingly to put them to death; and that they certainly possessed more advantages for detecting the imposture, if there had been any, than a modern unbeliever can pretend to after seventeen hundred years: yet they never attempted to disprove the testimony of the apostles respecting the resurrection, or to shew that they contradicted each other.

The variations, in the narratives of the evangelists, are in fact no more than what arose from the occasion. Four men, relating the outlines of such an event, with great conciseness as circumstances impressed their minds, without trying to coincide in their several accounts, will always seem to disagree to the superficial observer. Such abstracts must appear in some measure abstruse to strangers, and especially in future ages: but if fuller investigation remove the difficulties, they rather confirm than invalidate the leading facts which they concur to establish. Let any man consult Rapin, Hume, Burnet, and Macauley, upon some parts of the English history which they have all written: and he will find, even where prejudices have not misled them, that circumstantial variations are discoverable, which require pains to reconcile, and to form into one consistent narrative, without omiting the most minute particular.

We do not pretend, that the inspired historians were changed into elegant and methodical writers; but that they were preserved from error, misrepresentation, or material omission. Should their narratives, therefore, not stand the ordeal of criticism, as to the arrangement and manner of composition, it would not at all affect the argument.

Some detached remarks must be added on Mr. P.'s misrepresentations of the subject. The different accounts given by the evangelists, of the time when the women arrived at the sepulchre, may be reconciled by considering that they did not all come together. In general none reached the spot before day-break, none after sun-rise; and minute exactness, in such things, is not at all requisite to historical truth.

Matthew alone mentions the angel's rolling away the stone, but all the other evangelists say it was rolled away: so that in fact they confirm his testimony. Matthew says the angel sat on the stone: Mr. P. says, that, according to the others, there was no angel 'sitting on it.'* According to Matthew, the angel sat on the stone, when he appeared to the keepers or Roman soldiers; "and for fear of him they became as "dead men!" But they had so far recovered themselves, as to flee from the place, before any of the women arrived: and the angel or angels then appeared, not on the stone, but in the sepulchre. As no intimation is given, that any of the women saw the soldiers, on their arrival at the sepulchre; it is almost certain that they had previously left the place. Matthew in

P. ii. p. 74, 75.

409

deed seems to state the report made by some of them to the chief priests, as subsequent to the women's departure from the sepulchre: but the whole time required for all these transactions would be very short: and probably the soldiers retired in confusion to their quarters, and did not at first resume their confidence, or come to any determination what to do; till after a while, some of them went to inform the chief priests, and others dispersed rumours among their acquaintance concerning what had happened.-There is not, however, the least ground for Mr. P.'s confident assertion, that they were present, during the conver'sation of the women with the angel.'

'Thomas, as they say, would not believe, without having ocular and manual demonstration; so nei' ther will I: and the reason is as good for me, and ⚫ for every person as for Thomas!"* Most certainly, because it was good for nothing in Thomas; but he was guilty of a most absurd incredulity. He that will not believe the combined testimony of several unexceptionable witnesses, is an obstinate unreasonable sceptick: and, if he carry his principles into temporal concerns, he must cease from business, food, and medicine, and die like a wrong-headed fanatick; because he cannot have ocular or manual demonstration, that he shall not be cheated in all his concerns, or poisoned by his cook or apothecary. In respect of another world, and its infinite concerns, the required proof cannot be had, till it be for ever too late.

Mr. P. introduces the angel as saying of Christ, according to Matthew's account, behold he is gone into Galilee; instead of behold he goeth, or is going: though the same evangelist just after mentions his meeting the women! Matthew indeed says, "Then "the eleven disciples went into Galilee:" but he does not say that they went on the day when Christ arose; how then does he contradict the account of John?

It appears from John, that the apostles staid at least eight days at Jerusalem, after our Lord's resurrection: for it was so long before Thomas was convinced, and owned Christ as his Lord and his God; and this does not at all disagree with Matthew's compendious narrative. But Mr. P. boldly says,*It appears from the • evangelists, that the whole space of time, from the 'crucifixion to what is called the ascension, is but a few days, apparently not more than three or four; and all the circumstances are reported to have happened nearly about the same spot.' Either Mr. P. is more ignorant of the writings which he would expose, than any other author ever was of his subject, or else he wilfully asserts what he knows to be false. No man, who reads the evangelists, can help seeing, that much longer time, than three or four days, was taken up in these transactions, and that some of them occurred at the sea of Tiberias in Galilee, at least sixty or seventy miles distant from Jerusalem. The writer of the Acts of the Apostles says expressly that our Lord continued forty days on earth, previously to his ascension; and

* P. ii. p. 8.