rate provision of such articles in each case suggests the same distinction. Had the parties been one and the same, a single provision would have sufficed for both. It is not clear, indeed, whether the party of Johanna had not their spices procured before the interment of the body there is no assertion that they were bought, but only that they were prepared, before the sabbath; and this would be a distinct thing from that. The spices, even after they had been provided, would still require a certain mixture and preparation, the most important part of the process, before they could be ready for use. The party of Salome, however, had not merely to prepare, but also to purchase their spices before the sabbath.

If these considerations, then, should render it probable a priori that the parties in question were distinct, and consequently, though they might act in concert with respect to the common end in view, yet might set out at different junctures of time, or from different places, and consequently arrive at the tomb in a different order of succession; the argument a posteriori, or the comparison of particulars, as recorded to have transpired upon the actual arrival of each, will confirm this conclusion; and place it beyond a question that the visit of the one party was a distinct thing from the visit of the other.

I. If we contrast the account of the visit in St. Matthew with the relation of the visit in St. Luke; when the women arrived at the tomb, according to the former, they found the stone removed from the entrance -an angel sitting upon it-and the watch still present about the sepulchre—but in a state of great alarm and consternation; according to the latter, they found the stone removed indeed, but no one visible either in or about the tomb-and the entrance in particular entirely

unoccupied and free. If the visits were one and the same, these different accounts would not be consistent: but if the visits themselves were distinct, each of them may be true. The first party of the women being gone, the stone would continue removed from the entrance as before; but the angel might cease to be visible: and the watch also might be departed to make their report of what had happened.

Besides which, the visit in St. Matthew was preceded by a great earthquake; which accompanied the descent of the angel a particular altogether so remarkable, that had it formed one of the circumstances connected with the visit in St. Luke, we can scarcely suppose that he would have omitted it. For the descent of the angel was preliminary to the rolling away of the stone; without which there could have been no access to the sepulchre. Nor can it be objected here that St. Mark also omits the same circumstance: for St. Mark's account, as I shall shew by and by, is critically supplementary of St. Matthew's.

Again, according to St. Matthew's account, it does not distinctly appear that the parties even entered the tomb: every thing which he relates seems to have taken place outside of the tomb: but according to St. Luke's, the party must have entered the tomb; and whatsoever he records to have happened unto them, must have happened within the tomb.

II. If we compare St. Mark's account with St. Luke's; according to the former, upon entering the tomb, and before they had time to examine whether the body was still to be seen or not, the women perceived an angel, in a sitting posture and on their right: according to St. Luke, upon entering the tomb they saw no one present; and before the appearance of any angel they had time to examine and to discover that the body was

missing; and to feel all the effects of the surprise and the perplexity produced by the discovery: and after this, when the angels appeared to them, they appeared both together, or at once; and not in a sitting, but in a standing position. These circumstances also cannot be consistent as parts of the same account, but may be very compatible with each other if they belonged to distinct occasions.

III. If we compare St. Matthew and St. Mark in conjunction with St. Luke, then, though there had been no other appearance of discrepancy between them, yet the language ascribed to the angels respectively in each is so different, as to prove that the visions themselves, and the occasions out of which they arose, must have been distinct. There is so much disparity both in the particular expressions and in the general drift and purport of the two addresses, that to suppose them the same would be utterly incongruous and inexplicable. But if they were delivered at different times, and on distinct occasions, then either may be shewn to be so consistent with the special circumstances of its own occasion, that this very consistency shall be one of the strongest arguments to prove the reality of each; and yet its entire independence upon the other. For first, to admit for argument's sake the difference of the two occasions; since one of the visits in that case must have preceded the other, we may take it for granted that if it was either, it was the visit in St. Matthew or in St. Mark, not the visit in St. Luke. The earthquake and the descent of the angel, before which the stone was not removed from the entrance, preceded that visit ; and from the place which they occupy in the narrative, preceded it but by a little. They might have taken place in the interval between the setting out of the party and the time of their arrival at the tomb.

I know it is usual to give the principal verbs, éyéveto and άTEKÚλισev, a meaning at variance with this conclusion; and making them signify not what took place at the time, but what had taken place some time before. This construction, however, does violence to the proper signification of the indefinite tense; and besides is irreconcilable with the final end of the dispensation itself, combined as it is with the historical circumstances of the context. The mission of the angels must have had for its object one of two purposes, or both either to minister to the resurrection of our Lord himself or to facilitate the access of the women to the sepulchre, as the first link necessary to the integrity of the chain of the evidence, by which the fact of the resurrection was about to be confirmed-or, what is equally possible, to do both. On either of these suppositions the descent of the angel would nearly coincide with the time of the setting out of the women; for our Lord rose soon after the dawn of day, and they set out at the dawn of day. Much more, if it was designed for the latter of the abovementioned purposes. To that end two things would be requisite, each of them effected by the presence or the agency of the angels; one to intimidate the guard, the other to remove the stone. The guard would have resisted the admission of the women, though the stone had created no difficulty; and yet the stone by itself was greater than they could re

move.

Having accomplished these purposes, the angel sat down on the stone at the entrance of the cave; and was found there, still seated, when the women arrived. The guard, too, must have continued in their original position; being so far overcome by their fear itself as to have lost the power of motion: nor did they recover themselves, or venture to quit their situation, until the

women were departed again, and the angel' also had ceased to be visible without the tomb. For it is not said that they repaired to the city and made their report of what had happened, until the women were on their return with the message sent to the Apostles. These considerations ought to be decisive proofs that, if every visit to the tomb was not the same, the visit recorded by St. Matthew must have been the earliest of

any.

Now the appearance of the angel was as likely to intimidate the women as the soldiers; the former being just as unprepared for it as the latter: and such was the effect which it produced at first upon them. The language of the angel, then, is very naturally, and yet very clearly, addressed first of all to their fears: μn poßeîo be vμeis-Do not ye be afraid: a very distinct intimation that there were others present and others afraid as well as they; who, considering for what purpose they were there, had good reason to be afraid. But not so they who had come with the pious and praiseworthy intent of doing honour to the crucified body of Jesus.

Having thus shewn them that he was acquainted with their motive in visiting the tomb, he adds, in the next place, (what was clearly to be expected in reference to such a purpose,) that Jesus, whom they sought, was not to be found there; for he was risen. Next, in direct confirmation of the truth of this assertion, he appeals to the sensible testimony of the place where his body had been deposited-in which place they themselves had seen it laid; and which was now empty. Lastly, he promises a still clearer proof of its truth, by a personal manifestation of Jesus himself, as soon as they returned into Galilee; whither he should precede them, as they had attended him from thence.. All these particulars are naturally connected together;