1

us?" implies a fenfe of their own inability, and of the neceffity of calling in others; after which the only thing to be confidered was whom and how many: this therefore was the point under deliberation when they approached the fepulchre. 2dly, It is alfo plain, from thefe words, that they did not expect to find any body there, and confequently that they knew nothing of the guard which the High-prieft had fet to watch the fepulchre; of which had they received any intelligence, they would hardly have ventured to come at all, or would not have deliberated about rolling away the ftone, as the only or greatest difficulty.

66

.66

§ 6. St. Luke, Chap. xxiv.

"NOW upon the firft day of the week, very early in the morn ing, they came unto the fepulchre, bringing the fpices which they "had prepared, and certain others with them: And they found the "ftone rolled away from the fepulchre. And they entered in, and "found not the body of the Lord Jefus. And it came to pafs as they "were much perplexed thereabout, behold two men stood by them in fhining garments; and as they were afraid, and bowed down -"their faces to the earth, they faid unto them, Why feck ye the living among the dead? he is not here, but is rifen. Remember "how he spake unto you, when he was yet in Galilee, faying, The "Son of man must be delivered into the hands of finful men, and be "crucified, and the third day rife again. And they remembered his "words, and returned from the fepulchre, and told all these things t unto the eleven, and to all the reft. It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that "were with them, which told these things unto the Apostles. And "their words feemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them "not. Then arofe Peter, and ran unto the fepulchre, and ftooping "down he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, "wondering in himself at that which was come to país."

66

In this relation of St. Luke's are many particulars that differ greatly from thofe mentioned by the other Evangelifts. For 1ft, The women entering into the fepulchre fee neither angel nor angels: And 2dly, Not finding the body of the Lord Jefus, they fall into great perplexity. 3dly, In the midst of this perplexity, "there ftood by "them two men in fhining garments;" Who, 4thly, fay to them words very different from thofe fpoken by the angel in St. Matthew and St Mark. 5thly, When thofe women return from the fepulchre, and tell all these things unto the eleven and all the reft, St. Peter is made to be prefent, and upon their report to rife immediately and run to the fepulchre, &c. These marks of difference, one would imagine, were fufficient to keep any one from confounding the ftories above-cited of Joanna and St. Peter with thofe concerning the Marys, and that difciple related in the other gofpels; efpecially as they have been obferved and acknowledged as well by the Chriftian as the infidel; the latter of whom hath produced them to fupport the charge of inconfiftency and contradiction, which he hath endeavoured to fix upon the facred writers; while the former, feduced and dazzled by

fome

fome few points of refemblance, hath agreed with him in allowing thefe different facts to be the fame; but, denying his conclufion, hath laboured to reconcile the inconfiftencies by rules and methods of interpretation, which, as they are ftrained and unnatural, tend only to difcover the greatness of his embarraffment. Whereas the true way, in my opinion, of anfwering this charge, is to fhew that it is founded upon a mistake, by fhewing that the evangelifts relate different, but not inconfiftent facts; and that, inftead of clashing and difagreeing, they mutually confirm, illuftrate, and support each other's evidence. This therefore I fhall now endeavour to -do, by making a few remarks upon the feveral articles above-mentioned. I fhall begin with that relating to St Peter, because the fettling of that will fettle many other points. "Then arofe Peter, ." and ran unto the fepulchre, and stooping down he beheld the linen. "clothes laid by themfelves, and departed, wondering in himself at "that which was come to pass." This fact has always been taken to be the fame with that related by St. John, from which however it differs, among other things, in this very material circumftance, viz. That whereas St. John exprefly fays, "that Peter went into the fe"pulchre, while he [John], who got thither first, contented himself with barely ftooping down, and looking into it," St. Luke, in the paffage before us, tells us, "that Peter stooping down, and looking in, beheld the linen clothes by themfelves, and departed." The word wapanufas (stooping down and looking in), used by both evangelifts, and in the latter applied only to St. Peter, in the former only to St. John, is in his Gofpel plainly distinguished from the word ion (entered in), and fet in direct oppofition to it and that not by the force of etymology and conftruction only, but by fome particulars refulting from the actions fignified by thofe two words, which prove them to be diftinct and different from each other. He who went into the fepulchre faw more than he, who, ftaying without, only stooped down and looked in.' Thus Peter and John, when they entered into the fepulchre, faw not only the linen clothes lie, but the napkin that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itfelf: but when they only ftooped down and looked in, they could fee only the linen clothes, as is evident from the words of St. John. The whole paffage runs thus : Peter therefore went forth, and that other difciple, and came to the fepulchre, and the other difciple did out-run Peter, and came first to the fepulchre, and he ftooping down, and looking in, faw the linen clothes lying, yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the fepulchre, and feeth 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 alfo that other difciple, and faw,' &c. Now these two actions being by thefe marks as clearly diftinguished from each other in St. John, as the different places where they were performed can be by the terms entrance and infide of the fepulchre, and as fo diftinguifhed having been feparately performet by that Apoftle, they must alfo neceffarily

X 2

neceffarily be taken for feparate and diftinct actions, when related of St. Peter. And if it be reafonable to conclude, from St. John's account, that Peter, when he came with him to the fepulchre, did not ftop at the entrance, ftoop down and look in, but that he entered into it; it is no lefs reasonable to conclude, from St. Luke's narration, that, when he came at the time mentioned by him, he did not enter in, but ftooping down beheld the linen clothes and departed, efpecially if the force of the Greek word uova be confidered, and the whole paffage rendered, as it ought to have been, beheld the linen clothes only lying, τà éléva xsíμeva uova. From all which it eviτὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα μόνα. dently follows, that the fact here related of St. Peter, and that related of him by St. John, are feparate and diftinct facts, and not one and the fame, as has been imagined. And as the facts were different, fo did they take their rife from two different occafions, or in other words, as it is evident from all that has been juft now faid, that Peter went twice to the fepulchre, fo there are two diftinct reafons for his fo doing affigned if the gofpels of Luke and John, viz. the report of Mary Magdalene, and that of Joanna and the other women. By the former having been told that the body of Jefus was taken out of the fepulchre, he ran in great hafte to examine into the truth of that account, and in purfuance of this intent entered into the fepulchre, that he might receive a thorough fatisfaction upon that point. In the latter were two additional circumftances of importance fufficient to awaken the curiofity of a lefs zealous difciple than St. Peter, whose affection for his Lord was, like his natural temper, fervent and impetuous. When he heard therefore from Joanna and the other women of a vifion of angels, who had appeared to them at the fepulchre, and inforined them that Chrift was rifen, can we wonder at his running thither a fecond time, in hopes of receiving fome confirmation of the truth of that report, which, though treated by the reft of the apoftles as an idle tale, he certainly gave credit to, as the whole tenor of this paffage implies? I fay a fecond time; becaufe, had he gone for the firft time upon this report of Joanna's, he could have had no inducement to have gone to the fepulchre a fecond time from any thing he could learn from the first report made by Mary Magdalene, whofe account contained nothing but what was implied in that given by Joanna and the other women. His behaviour alfo upon this occafion, when he only stooped down and looked into the fepulchre, fo different from the former, when he entered into it, is very rational, and confonant with the purpofe of this fecond vifit, which was, to fee if the angels, who had appeared to the women at the fepulchre, were ftill there; this could as well be difcovered by looking, as by going, into the fepulchre, as is plain from the ftory of Mary Magdalene, who ftooping down and looking in faw two angels fitting, the one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jefus had lain, as St. John tells us.

Having now, as I hope, proved that this vifit of St. Peter's to the fepulchre, mentioned by St Luke, must have been his fecond vifit,

I have

I have cleared this paffage from two objections that lay against it; one, that it did not agree with the relation given by St. John; and the other, that it disturbed and confounded the whole order of St. Luke's narration; fo that, notwithstanding this verfe is wanting both in the Greek and Latin copies of Beza, there is no reafon for rejecting it, as fome have propofed

This point being fettled, I beg leave to make a few inferences from it, in order to explain fome paffages in the preceding verses of this chapter.

First, then, it is plain from this and the ninth verfe, that St. Peter, after he had been with St. John and Mary Magdalene at the fepulchre, was now got together with the other apoftles and difciples, whom, in all probability, he and John had affembled upon the occafion of Mary Magdalene's report. Peter, I fay, and John, had in all probability affembled the other difciples and apoftles, to inform them of what they had heard from Mary Magdalene, and of their having been themselves at the fepulchre to examine into the truth of her report. For it is not to be imagined, that these apoftles would not have immediately communicated to the reft an event of fo much confequence to them all, as that of the Lord's body being mifling from the fepulchre. And as we now find them gathered together and Peter with them, it is no unnatural fuppofition that they had been fummoned thither by John and Peter at leaft their meeting together fo early in the morning is this way accounted for. Here then we fee the reafon of St. Luke's naming Mary Magdalene and the other Mary among those which told these things to the apoftles. For although thefe two women were not with Joanna and her fet, and confequently could not have joined with them in relating to the apoftles the vifion of of the two angels, &c. yet as the account of their having found the ftone rolled away, and the body of Jefus miffing, had been reported from them by Peter and John to the other apoftles, before the return of Joanna from the fepulchre, St. Luke thought fit to fet them down as evidences of fome of the facts related by him; and, indeed, it was very proper to produce the teftimony of the two Marys concerning the ftone's being rolled away, and the body gone. because they went first to the fepulchre, and first gave an account of thofe two particulars to the apoftles. I here join the other Mary with Mary Magdalene; for though I think it is pretty plain, from St. John, that the alone brought this account; yet it is remarkable that in her narration fhe fays, "We know not where they have laid him," fpeaking, as it were, in the name of the other Mary and her own; and doubtlefs fhe did not omit to acquaint them that the other Mary came with her to the fepulchre; fo that this report, though made by Mary Mag dalene alone, may fairly be taken for the joint report of the two Marys, and was probably ftyled fo by Peter and John, and therefore reprefented as fuch by St. Luke in the paffage before us.

Secondly, from hence alfo 1 infer, that the reports of the women were made feparately, and at different times. For, if Peter went twice to the fepulchre, there must have been two diftin&t reafons for his

fo doing, which reafons I have fhewn to be the reports of Mary Magdalene and Joanna: and as there was a confiderable interval between his first and fecond vifit, a proportionable space of time must have intervened between the two reports. After Mary Magdalene's, he had been at the fepulchre, had returned from thence to his own home, and was now got with the other apoftles and difciples, whom, as I faid, he and John had in all probability called together before Joanna and the women with her came to make theirs.

66

Thirdly, as the reports were made at different times, and by different women, as the facts reported were different, and said to have happened all in the fame place, vix, at the fepulchre, and as these facts muft of confequence have happened at different times; it follows, that the women, who reported thofe facts as happening in their prefence, must have been at the fepulchre at different times. For, had they been all present at each of thefe events, no reafon can be given for their differing fo widely in their relations, and pretty difficult will it be to account for their varying fo much as to the time of mak ing their reports. Here then is a strong argument in favour of what I have before advanced concerning the women's coming at different times to the fepulchre, and particularly about the Marys coming thither earlier than the reft, The reafon for their fo doing I have already pointed out in my obfervations upon St. Mark; and have fhewn, that, upon the fuppofition of that reafon's being the true one, their whole conduct was proper and confiftent: which leads me to confider that of Joanna and the other women, who came fomewhat later, and with another purpose, to the fepulchre. The former came to take a view or furvey of the fepulchre," as St. Matthew exprefly fays; the latter came to "embalm or anoint the Lord's body,' and for that end not only "brought the fpices, which they had pre"pared," but were alfo accompanied by other women. Other women muft mean fome befides thofe who followed Jefus from Galilee, of whom alone St. Luke speaks in the former part of this verse and the latter part of the preceding chapter. By thefe therefore, as contradiftinguished from the Galilean women, he probably means the women of Jerufalem, a great company of whom followed Jefus as he was going to his crucifixion, bewailing and lamenting him. But what number of them went upon this occafion with the women of Galilee is not any where faid; neither, of thefe, are any named befides Joanna, Mary Mag-, dalene. and Mary the mother of James, though many others followed Jefus from Galilee to Jerufalem, as both Matthew, c. 27. v. 55. and St. Mark, c. 15. v. 41. inform us, and were prefent at the crucifixion. It is therefore very probable that most, if not all, of thofe who were wont to minifter to him in Galilee, who attended him to Jerufalem, and accompanied him even to Mount Calvary, contributed to this pious office of embalming their Mafter's body, either by buying and preparing the unguents and fpices, and carrying them to the fepulchre, or by going to affift their companions in embalming the body and rolling away the ftone, for which purpose I fuppofe the women

See the 27th verfe of the preceding chapter.

of