centrated state *." It was not indeed offered to Jesus, for this latter purpose; but hence a sufficient reason is suggested for there being both a vessel of vinegar, and a sponge, in the place. Ver. 31. The breaking the legs of those crucified, seems to be a cruel method of accelerating their death; but from this Jesus was exempt, owing to his being dead already. However, in order to render his death the more certain, 66 one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came thereout blood and water." Some have endeavoured to explain this phenomenon from the piercing of the pericardium, in which it is true that there is found a certain quantity of watery fluid. But in a healthy man the amount of this is so inconsiderable, hardly exceeding two or three teaspoonfuls, that it could not without a miracle be discernible after passing through a bleeding wound. We should do better to consider the whole as a miracle significant of the purity and justification derived from Jesus Christ. For water and blood were the indispensable instruments of cleansing and expiation under the * In sanguinis fluxione post excisos calculos, et omni alia, foris in spongia impositum, intus potum cyathis binis quam acerrimum. (Plin. N. H. 23, 27.) law; and they were typical of the real cleansing of the conscience by the water of baptism, and the real expiation of guilt by the blood of Christ. The flowing therefore of this water, and this blood, immediately upon our Lord's death, from the wound opened in his side, was a notification that the real expiation was now complete, and the cleansing fount set open ". The manner of the Jewish sepulture was before described on the occasion of Lazarus's death and resuscitation. So likewise in the case of our Saviour, we are not to imagine that his body was deposited in a hole dug in the ground; but that it was laid in a niche, or chamber, excavated in a rock in a garden near the place where he had been crucified. And the body was wrapped in fine linen †, with spices ‡, and buried with every mark of honour usually paid to persons of distinction at that time; so that it might justly be said, "he was with the rich in his § death." The entrance to the sepulchre was then closed by a large stone . * Horsley, Serm. IX. vol. 1. John xix. 39. + Mark xv. 46. § Isa. liii. 9. | Matt. xxvii. 60. See Appendix, No. IV. CHAPTER XX. Yet NOTHING can be more plain and simple, than the account of the resurrection which follows, accompanied by those natural touches, which it would be as hard to invent, as to discredit. it must not be concealed that there is some difficulty in reconciling the narrations of the several Evangelists on this subject. For, first, St. John, giving a particular account of the part which Mary Magdalene bare in these transactions, has taken no notice of the other women, who certainly went with her to the sepulchre; though it is observable that when he represents her as carrying to the disciples the news of what had happened, it is put in the plural number, "They have taken the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him *" But on a subsequent occasion, when she was left alone at the sepulchre, it is said, "and I know not," &c t. Again, Matthew does not distinguish the angel who rolled back the stone from the sepulchre and sat upon it, from the two angels who, St. Luke * John xx. 2. Matt. xxviii, 2. + John xx. 13. says *, were seen in the sepulchre; though the concomitant circumstances prove that these Evangelists are speaking of the same occurrence. And Mark, relating the same event, mentions one angel, not two, perhaps because one only addressed the women. Again, Luke, when he says that Peter arose and ran to the sepulchre, makes no mention of John, who has told us himself that Peter and he ran both together. Again, from Matt. xxviii. 9, it would seem as if all the women had seen Jesus; while Mark §, and John ||, more accurately inform us that it was Mary Magdalene alone. Many instances of similar inaccuracies may be pointed out in the Gospel histories. Thus from reading of the dove-like descent of the Spirit, as described by Matthew ¶, we should be led to suppose it was exhibited to Christ himself; but there Luke xxiv. 4. ↑ John xx. 4. + Luke xxiv. 12. § Mark xvi. 9. John xx. 14. The identity of the appearances related by Matthew and John may be inferred partly from the unusual sense of the words adeλpoɩ μov, which are found in both Gospels; but more particularly from the agreement of Matthew, saying that the women 66 clung to Jesus's feet," with that of John, un pov àπтov, "do not cling to me." Matt. iii. 16. can be little doubt of John's account being more accurate, when he informs us it was a signal specially given to the Baptist, and probably to him alone, by which he was to know Jesus *. In another place, Matthew mentions two demoniacs †, while Mark 1, and Luke §, in reporting the same story, speak only of one. Likewise in the case of the malefactors, who were crucified with Jesus, St. Matthew attributes to them collectively that railing, which St. Luke more accurately restricts to one. Precisely the same thing has been done upon another occasion, when Matthew ||, speaking of the ointment which was poured upon Jesus as he sat at meat, says, "But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, to what purpose is this waste?" St. Mark ¶ reports that "some had indignation." But St. John ** assures us it was one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot." And it is not improbable that when St. Matthew †† says, 66 some doubted," he may have alluded to the single case of Thomas ‡‡. On the other hand, Mark, when he relates the case of Bartimeus §§, omits all 66 + Matt. viii. 28. Matt. xxvi. 8. * John i. 32. ** John xii. 4. ++ Matt. xxviii. 17. Mark v. 2. ¶ Mark xiv. 4. ‡‡ John xx. 25. |