other words the distance which would require to be traversed in coming from Bethany to Calvary, besides the mile and three quarters already specified, cannot be computed at less than one mile more *. Considering, therefore, the many additional delays which might occur by the way, I do not think that it would be possible for any party of persons to have accomplished the journey, however expeditiously, in less than an hour's time: so that though the women had set out at daybreak, they would not arrive at the garden before sunrise for at the equinox, or soon after it, day-break

In the Epistle ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem, (Operum 305.) and addressed to the emperor Constantius, there is an account of a remarkable phenomenon, in the form of a cross, which appeared in the heavens on Whitsunday, Nonis Maiis, (May 7,) at the third hour, or nine o'clock in the morning; and extended from the summit of mount Golgotha, over a distance of fifteen stades, to the mount of Olives. Vide the same account in Socrates, Hist. Eccles. ii. 28. 120. D: and Sozomen, Hist. Eccles. iv. v. 541: Julius Pollux, Chronicon, 338, 340: Nicephorus, ix. 32. Socrates dates this phenomenon, A. D. 350. or 351. Philostorgius, if he is rightly represented by Photius, iii. 26. 490, supposes this same phenomenon visible not only at Jerusalem, but in Gaul to the contending armies of Constantius and Magnentius -at a time the date of which also might be A. D. 351. The Fasti Idatiani confirm Socrates by dating the appearance in question, In oriente, post Consulatum Sergii et Nigriniani, A. D. 351 : though as to the day of the

month, they place it not, Nonis Maiis, but iii. Kal. Februares, January 30. I cite the fact merely in illustration of the present question. By the mount of Olives I think we must understand its kaтáßaσis, or basebetween which and the walls of Jerusalem St. Luke tells us there was a sabbath day's journey's interval, and Josephus about five or six stades, which amounts to the same thing. From the top of mount Calvary, then, to the foot of the mount of Olives, there was in a straight line, not less than fifteen stades' interval; and from the foot of mount Olivet to the village of Bethany, as we learn from St. John, there was not less than ten. The whole distance, therefore, from the summit of Calvary to the village of Bethany, in a right line, was not less than twenty-five stadia; which by the road, especially if that lay through or by Jerusalem, might easily be increased to seven or eight stades more; making in all a distance of four Roman miles at least in extent.

precedes sunrise by little more than the time in question. Besides, our Lord, as we have seen already, was certainly risen even when the first party arrived: but St. Mark himself says that he rose at pw-and though that should be understood of the dawn of day, still the women could not have arrived until sometime after. My opinion indeed is that the women set out at dawn, and arrived about the time of sunrise and that our Lord rose just before the latter period, at the time when the daily sacrifice, accompanied by the offering of the wave-sheaf, was beginning in the temple; the descent of the angel—the earthquake and the removal of the stone-having also been critically interposed.

II. It is hardly necessary, for the sake of the end which we have now in view, to compare St. Luke either with St.Matthew or with St. Mark. The whole of the preceding discussion has been directed principally to prove the distinctness of the visit recorded by him from that which is recorded by them: in which case his account must be clearly supplementary to their's. I think it is plain that he even refers to their account, or supposes their's to go along with his own; for, xxiv. 2, he alludes to the stone as removed from the mouth of the cave, though the fact of such removal was to be collected only from the two former Evangelists. From the narrative of St. Luke, there would be no reason to suspect even the existence of such a stone. No mention of its apposition occurred in the account which he gave of the burial.

It is obvious however, that St. Matthew and St. Mark each record only one visit, while St. Luke records two visits; the second of which, if not the first, is clearly a distinct event from any thing in their accounts; and so far a supplementary one. I shall say no more then upon

this point, except to observe that, if the visits were really different, and that in St. Matthew or in St. Mark was the first of the two, they would naturally select that visit for record in particular, both on other accounts, which might be mentioned, and especially because upon that visit only was the message transmitted to the Apostles, designed to prepare them for our Lord's personal manifestation in Galilee; on which subject more will be said hereafter. Yet the second visit was a memorable event as well as the first, and an important fact in the general evidence of the resurrection, which deserved not to be lost to the Christian world: and for this reason, as having been passed over by his predecessors, it came within the scope of St. Luke's plan, and might be made the subject of a distinct narration.

III. St. John has related two visits to the tomb; the first of which, as made at the same time with the visit in St. Matthew and St. Mark, and by one among others who was equally concerned in that, I see no reason why we should not consider the same with it. The second, as a visit which arose out of the report of the individual who had made the first, and as a visit ascribed to Simon Peter in particular, I consider it equally probable, is the same with the second in St. Luke. The circumstances of the two visits are perfectly consistent with each other: the only difference between them is that St. John enters more into particulars.

It is usual, indeed, to assume that Peter made a double visit; once with St. John, and again by himself. But this double visit is not only unnecessary, but I will venture to say impossible. There is no room for any such visit except where St. John has placed it, after the report of Mary Magdalene, but before any manifestation of Christ. If it did not arise from that

report, our Saviour must already have been seen, at least by Mary; before it took place. But this is the visit referred to by Cleopas, Luke xxvi. 24: and, as it is there implied, when that visit took place our Lord had as yet appeared unto nobody. Moreover the same text speaks of the visit as made by more than one person it recognises, therefore, the presence of John along with Peter-though, indeed, the absence of the name of John, Luke xxiv. 12, would be no objection; for there is a similar omission at xxii. 54, under precisely the same circumstances.

In other respects, St. Luke's visit and St. John's are substantially the same. The former by no means affirms that Peter did not go into the cave, as well as stoop down to look into it: he merely affirms that he did the one first; but he leaves it open to conjecture that he might still do the other afterwards. And, what is a critical circumstance, both the accounts specify the haste of the parties who made the visit; which, as a common feature of resemblance between them, proves the occasions to be the same. For this haste was the natural effect of the first intelligence that the grave of Christ had been found open, and the body, as it was supposed, removed. It would not have occurred on a second occasion, after these facts had been ascertained by ocular testimony on a former.

St. John's account, then, manifestly may be supplementary to St. Luke's: let us see, in the next place, what purpose it serves with respect to St. Matthew's or St. Mark's.

Early in the morning on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary of Magdala, says he, epXeTaι, which may very well mean sets out to go, to the tomb; and seeth the stone removed from the tomb. There is no intimation in these words that she had yet

χεται,

entered the tomb. She runneth, therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved; to make a report of this discovery. The language of the original is descriptive of haste and surprise; and leads to the same conclusion, that she could not have stayed to enter the tomb, but, as soon as she saw that the stone had been removed, she must have run back directly, to tell Peter and John.

Now what would be the state of the case with respect to this discovery? It would be such, that it must needs be made without the necessity of approaching close to the tomb, much less of entering into it. Our Lord had been crucified on mount Calvary, that is, upon elevated ground; and he had been buried hard by where he was crucified, that is, upon elevated ground. His sepulchre was hewn out of the rock, descending with steps into an antechamber, below the surface of the ground*. The mouth, the only part visible externally, was a large orifice, covered by an equally large stone. The women had accurately marked the site of the grave on the Friday evening; and when the beams of the morning sun at that very moment were probably shining directly upon the tomb, the stone at its mouth might be seen in the daytime a good way off. The approach to the garden was necessarily up a rising ground; the garden, and the rock which contained the sepulchre, lying somewhere upon the top, or perhaps in the slope of the hill. The women would approach it in front, where

* In Dr. Townson's Observations on section i. of his Harmony of the Accounts of the Resurrection, (vol. ii. 78. London, 1810.) there is a ground plan of the Holy sepulchre, taken from Cotovicus and Sandys; that is, of what has been exhibited as the Holy sepulchre,

since the time of Constantine. This also fronts to the east. In other respects, however, the description which is given of it does not appear to me to answer to the idea of the place of our Saviour's burial, such as it may be collected from the gospel accounts.