Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, are said, Mark xvi. 1. to have bought the spices, and to have come to the sepulchre very early in the morning. Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and certain others with them, consequently Salome whom Mark has mentioned, are said, Luke xxiv. 10. to have told the apostles that the door of the sepulchre was open, and the Lord's body taken away, and that they had seen a vision of angels* which assured them he was arisen. Mary Magdalene, therefore, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, were the women who made the visit with the spices early in the morning, described by Luke as the foundation of this information. 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 no body with her. In the gospels there are many such omissions: for instance, Mark and Luke speak of one demoniac only who was cured at Gadara, though Matthew tells us there were two who had devils expelled out of them at that time. In like manner, Mark and Luke speak only of one blind man to whom Jesus gave sight near Jericho, while from Matthew it is certain two had that benefit conferred on them there. Before Jesus rode into Jerusalem, both the ass and its colt were brought to him, though Mark, Luke, and John speak only of the colt. Wherefore, 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, notwithstanding he knew that others had been with her at the sepulchre; and the rather, that 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. Yet he seems to insinuate that some person had been with Mary Magdalene at the sepulchre, for he tells us that she spake to the apostles

in

According to Mr West, indeed, Luke does not mean that the two Marys informed the apostles of the vision, but only that Joseph and Nico. demus had laid the body in the sepulchre, and that the stone was rolled away. But this interpretation does not appear quite natural, even on his own supposition of taking the passage in construction with the precedent chapter. Besides, Mary and Salome, said by Luke to have concurred in that information, had not, on Mr West's scheme, arrived when Joanna gave it; and therefore they could not join so much as in the small cir cumstance of the stone's being rolled away. With respect to Mary Magdalene, taking it for granted that Luke speaks of her first infromation, the history of which we have John xx. and that he joins it with the informa tion of Joanna and her companions, it is very difficult to conceive how she could affirm that the body was taken away, if, as Mr West finds himself obliged to suppose, she had not been then in the sepulchre. I should think it not only more consonant to her information, but more agreeable to nature also to suppose, that seeing the door open, she went up with her com panions, and entering, found it empty before she had any thoughts of going to the apostles, as Luke also seems to insinuate.

in the plural number, We know not where they have laid him. This argument, I acknowledge, by itself does not prove the point; nevertheless, set in the light of the several histories joined together, it is of moment. In a word, since the time fixed by all the evangelists for this journey is precisely the same, and the women who made it mentioned by all are the same, it is evident that they do not speak of two different journies made by different companies of women, but of one journey only made by the women in a body.

"Mark xvi. 3. And now while the women were going along, they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? 4. For it was very great. It seems they knew not what had happened; for those of them who had set out the preceding evening had not got to the sepulchre. At length drawing near, they had their uneasiness removed, the stone was rolled away, and the door open. And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away. Luke xxiv. 3. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. Though they felt all round the sepulchre, they could not find the body. Being therefore in great perplexity, it is natural to imagine that they would consult among themselves about the steps they were next to take. The issue of their deliberation seems to have been, that Mary Magdalene, whose zeal disposed her cheerfully to undertake the office, should go immediately to the apostles, and inquire of them whether the body had been removed with their knowledge, and where they had directed it to be laid; and that in the mean time the rest were to search the garden carefully, in order to find it. Coming out of the sepulchre, therefore, Mary Magdalene departed and ran into the city, where she found the apostles, and told them that the body was taken away. John xx. 2. Then she runneth 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. Peter and John only are mentioned in this relation, but the circumstances taken notice of by the other evangelists, shew that the apostles lodged all together in one house, as they used to do while their Master was alive. If so, it is reasonable to believe that they all heard Mary Magdalene's report, and were anxious to know the truth of it, But in their present situation they would judge it imprudent to go out in a body to examine the matter, and would rather depute two of their number for that purpose. Accordingly I suppose that Peter and John went to the sepulchre by the advice and appointment of the rest. 3. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came (or rather, avent) to the sepulchre, as is plain from the following verse, 4. So they ran both together.

"While these things were doing in the city, the women at

the

the sepulchre having searched the garden to no purpose, resolved, now that they had more light, to examine the sepulchre a second time, when, to their great surprise, just as they entered, they saw a beautiful young man, in shining raiment, very glorious to behold, sitting on the right side. Mark xvi. 5. And entering into the sepulchre, (a second time, namely, after Magdalene was gone, and after they had searched a while for the body in the garden) they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment. Matthew (verse 4, 5.) says, that it was the angel who had rolled away the stone, and frightened the guards from the sepulchre. It seems he had now laid aside the terrors in which he was arrayed, and assumed the form and dress of a human being, in order that when the women saw him, they might be as little terrified as possible. Mark xvi. 5. And they were affrighted. So affrighted, we may suppose, that they were on the point of turning back. But the angel, to banish their fears, told them with a gentle accent that he knew their errand. Matt. xxviii. 5. And the angel answered and said unto the ro men, Fear not ye: (Mark, Be not affrighted) for I know that ye seek Jesus (Mark, of Nazareth) which was crucified. 6. He is not here; for he is risen, as he said :-then invited them to come down and see the place where he had lain, i. e. to look on the linen-rollers and the napkin which had been about his body, but which he had left behind when he arose; for to look at the place in any other view, would not have been a confirmation of their faith in his resurrection: Come see (Mark, behold) the place where the Lord lay: (Mark, where they laid him.) This is the appearance of the one angel which Matthew and Mark have described. The women, much encouraged by the agreeable news, as well as by the sweet accent with which the heavenly being spake, went down into the sepulchre, and lo another angel appeared. Probably the one sat at the head, the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain; the situation in which they shewed themselves by and by to Mary Magdalene, John xx. 12. This latter is the vision of two angels, which Luke, who wrote his gospel first, (see Prelim. Observ. VII.) has described as the principal vision, xxvi. 3, 4.”

If the reader will attend to the supposed form of the sepulchre, and to the position of our Lord's body therein, he will find this method of reconciling the evangelists easy, natural, and probable. The sepulchre seems to have been a square room hewn out of a rock, partly above ground, its roof being as high as the top of the door which formed its entrance. This door opened upon a stair which ran down straight to the bottom of the sepulchre, along the side of its left wall. Such, I say, may have been the form of the sepulchre. Having therefore carried the body down with its feet foremost, they would naturally place it lengthwise

by

by the right-side wall of the sepulchre in such a manner that its head lay pointing towards what might be called the front, had the sepulchre been wholly above ground, and its feet to the backwall. They laid the body on the floor, close to the right-side wall of the sepulchre, because in that position it was most out of the way of those who might come down. This description is agreeable to the accounts which travellers give us of the Jewish sepulchres, particularly Mr Maundrel, who was on the spot, and saw several of them. They were generally caves or rooms, hewn out of rocks. And as the Jews did not make use of coffins, they placed their dead separately in niches *, or little cells cut into the sides of these caves or rooms. See Maundrel's Description of the Sepulchres of the Kings, p. 76. But Joseph's sepulchre being a new one, was in all probability unfinished; and particularly it might have no niches cut into its sides, where they could deposit the dead; for which reason they laid Jesus on the floor (see John xx. 12.) in the manner described, intending, when the Sabbath was passed, to remove him to some finished burial place †, John

This form of the Jewish sepulchres suggests an easy solution of a very important difficulty in the history of Lazarus's resurrection, and consequently is much confirmed by that history. It is said that when Jesus called upon Lazarus to come forth. He came out bound hand and foot." But Deists talking of this miracle, commonly ask, with a sheer, How he could come out of a grave, who was bound in that manner? The answer however is obvious. The evangelist does not mean that Lazarus walked out of the sepulchre, but that, lying on his back, he raised himself into a sitting posture, then putting his legs over the edge of his niche or cell, slid down, and stood upright upon the floor: all which he might easily do, notwithstanding his arms were close bound to his body, and his legs were tied strait together by means of the shroud and rollers with which he was swathed. See on John xix. 40. 148. Accordingly, when he was come forth, it is said that Jesus ordered them to loose him and let him go; a circumstance plainly importing that the historian knew that Lazarus could not walk till he was unbound.

+ To the above description it cannot be objected, that what is shewed at this day as our Lord's sepulchre is of a different form. For the real sepulchre being originally a matter of private property, must have passed. from one owner to another, and of course have undergone various changes; especially as it does not appear that the first Christians were led to preserve it from that veneration for places and things, which in latter ages engrossed the attention of the world. Besides, it should be considered, that though superstition did teach Christians very early to venerate and pervetuate things of this kind, their enemies on the other hand would do what they could to destroy them, as having a tendency to confirm the followers of the new religion in their opinions. And therefore if our Lord's suichre was visited by Christians before they obtained the protection of the civil government in Judea, the rulers would certainly destroy it. Nor is this supposition rendered improbable by the accounts that are given of the sepulchre as subsisting in latter times. For when the Roman empire became Christian, and superstition grew apace, the monks would repair the repository of the Lord's body; or if it was entirely destroyed, would make a new one to supply its place. Farther, it ought to be considered, that

although

John xix. 42.-Admitting these suppositions, the most of which are founded on some authority, and all of them perfectly natural, the women designing to search the sepulchre a second time, might, as soon as they came upon the threshold, see the angel who sat on the right side, where the feet of Jesus had been, that is, who sat in the farthermost right corner of the sepulchre. And though his companion, who sat on the same side at the head, or in the hithermost right corner, had been then visible, they would not have observed him; so that at the first they must have seen one angel only, as Matthew and Mark tell us. But stepping down the stair, upon the invitation of the angel who appeared, they got the whole cavity of the sepulchre under their eye, and discovered the other heavenly being also. Thus they saw two angels, as Luke expressly affirms. Besides, the brilliant appearance of him who spake to them, might so fix their eyes as to hinder them from taking notice of his companion, till landing at the bottom of the stair they turned themselves about upon the floor. Their fear and confusion also might have some influence upon them.

"Luke xxiv. 3. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. 4. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed

although the sepulchre had actually subsisted safe till it came into the possession of the monks, it was liable to many accidents after that period.. For during the wars which the Mahometans waged with the Christians about the possession of the holy land, it is natural to suppose, that when the former carried their victorious armies into Judea, they would destroy every monument of Christianity, as well as of learning. After they were driven out, indeed, the Christians would be equally assiduous to repair the devastations occasioned by the Mahometans; and in particular they would take care not to be without the holy places, so necessary to the superstition of the times. And what confirms this conjecture is, that in the descriptions given of those places, as they now subsist, things evidently and grossly fictitious are found. For example, before our Lord's sepulchre there lies a great marble stone, on which they affirm his body was anointed. And near at hand is another sepulchre, in which Joseph of Arimathea is said to have been buried. Nay, they even shew the room where the Virgin Mary was saluted by the angel; with many other things, the knowledge of which could not possibly be preserved during the course of so many ages. Farther, it is certain that the sepulchre in Bede's time was different not only from what it is at present, but from that which the evangelists have described. For he tells us, that the travellers of those days affirmed it had a niche, into which our Lord's body was put. Whereas, from John xx. 11, 12. it appears that his body was laid on the floor. Maldonat. on Matt. xxvii. 6c." Describit hoc loco Beda Christi monumentum ex eoruin fide, qui suo tempore religionis causa Hierosolyman ibant. De monumento, in-. quit, Domini fuerunt qui nostræ ætatis tempore de Ierosolymis venere, quod dcmus fuerit rotunda, de subjacente rupe excisa, tantæ altitudinis, ut intro consistens bomo vix manu extenta culmen possit attingere, que habet introitum ab oriente, cui lapis ille magnus advolutus atque impositus est; in cujus marumenti parte aquilanari sepulchrum ipsum, hoc est, locus Dominici corporis de eadem petra factus est, septem habens pedes longitudinis, trium vero pa.marson niensura cætero pavimento altius eminens. Qui videlicet locus, non desuper sed a latere me ridiano per totum patulus est, unde corpus inferebatur. Color autem ejusdem monumenti ac loculi, rubicundo et albo dicitur esse permixtus.