VI. MARY MAGDALENE SEES JESUS AFTER HIS RESURRECTION, AND RECEIVES IN- I think I shall make it easier to my readers, if I begin with John, who describes the history accurately and diffusely; and I do this, with the more readiness, because it always remains a doubt, whether that, which we read in Mark xvi. 9, 10, 11, is genuine. But of this, in its place. JOHN XX. 11-18. 11. "But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping; and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre. 12. "And seeth two angels in white, sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. 13. "And they say unto her, woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. 14. "And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. 15. "Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. 16. "Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni, which is to say, Master. 17. "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. 18. " Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her." 12. It is clear from this verse, that the angels, who showed themselves, appeared quickly, and vanished quickly, for neither Peter nor John had previously seen them in the sepulchre, in which sepulchre they had both been: and it is from this alternation of appearance and absence, from what occurred to the other women, of whom some did not see any angels, some saw one, and others perhaps two, that the evangelists concluded with reason, that they actually were angels, and as such, gave them that name. But Mary Magdalene seems to have been so entirely absorbed in thought and grief, that her mind did not draw this conclusion; she spoke with them, as mere men, without reflecting, that, (but the instant before,) they were not in the grave. Therefore, if there are here two angels, and only one in Matthew, and in Mark, this produces no contradiction between the evangelists, for it does not relate to one and the same history. The two latter state, what was seen by several women, who were together. John relates that which was seen by Mary Magdalene, who remained after the rest were gone, alone near the sepulchre and therefore this rapid change in the appearance of the angels is not so absurd, but that, as I have already said, we are justified in concluding from the changes, that they were angels. I do not, myself, for instance, believe in ghosts, but I will suppose, by way of illustration, that my servants, or to come nearer to the mark, that my female servants in the house had seen a ghost dressed in a particular manner that I should go to the spot where he was said to have been seen, with some instrument in my hand, with a view to ascertain the existence of the fact; and that I found the apparition to be there as had been stated. I still should not believe in the truth of the story, but insist upon examining the ghost, by forcible means. But if, after having entered the room, where a ghost was said to have been, and which it had no means of getting out of, I found no ghost in the room; if, after having searched in different directions, having applied lights, wherever I could apply them, I still found the room empty; if I remained before the door, and afterwards went a second time into the room, and found two men in it, clothed in a manner that fixed the attention, standing before me, I must have been as strongly, and indeed more strongly, fortified than I am now, in the belief, that there are no ghosts, if I did not believe, that there had been ghosts in that room. If God, upon extraordinary occasions, permits beings of a superior order to be messengers to us mortals, it strikes me as a fair conclusion from such authority, that they would differ, in some respects, from men who have flesh and bone. "Sitting, the one at the head, the other at the feet."] This is also different from the appearances of the angels, witnessed by the other women, and related by the evangelists. 13. "My Lord."] Mary Magdalene was I of the number of those, who had ministered to him, and who had contributed to provide for him, (Luke viii. 1-3.) She belonged, therefore, in a certain sense, to what we may call the family of Jesus, and in this sense, she may call him "her Lord." The word "Lord" here is not to be understood in the same elevated sense, in which" our Lord" is used for a higher object in the New Testament; according to the Syriac, it is the name given to kings. We may collect, from the direct beginning of the history to this very point, from what the other evangelists relate of the three women, and from the simplicity of the narration itself, that the resurrection of Jesus is not the invention of premeditated hope. The resurrection was not a subject of hope, for, as John says, they did not understand the Scriptures, and knew not that such an event was predicted. Mary Magdalene comes with others to the sepulchre,-they see it contrary to their expectation, open and without a stone. She perceives, that it is empty,they are at a loss to account for it, and without thinking of a resurrection, they conclude the body to have been taken away. The fact, that the sepulchre was open, unguarded and empty, could not be a question of imagination, and the |