The Harmony of the Gospel Narratives of the Resurrection of Jesus the Christ.

The friends and the foes of Christianity have alike recognised the central position and cardinal importance of the fact of the resurrection of Jesus the Christ in relation to the existence of the Christian faith. By no one has that vital relation been more decisively expressed than by the Apostle Paul, in the fifteenth chapter of his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, where we find him saying, "If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain; yea, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ." In seeking to overthrow the credibility of this fact, the gospel narratives relating thereto are keenly criticised, and the differences in these narratives are declared to be essential discrepancies, contradictory, and altogether irreconcilable with one another; and so the historical testimony is said to be deprived of all value, and the evidence of these witnesses rendered worthless. Now, it is with this one branch of the discussion regarding the Resurrection that I have to deal in my paper to-night, and in doing so I will have special regard to recent lectures on the Resurrection, delivered in Dunedin by Mr. Robert Stout, as President of the so-called Freethought Association, and published under their auspices. In these lectures Mr. Stout displays his well-known abilities as a barrister, in the art of putting things to catch a popular verdict. But I humbly submit, that where truth is the end aimed at, the special pleading, one-sided statements, and plausible marshalling of arguments—appropriate enough in a barrister conducting his case, to be there and then replied to by opposing counsel, and the whole case as stated on both sides summed up by an impartial judge, and laid thus completely before the jury,—is not the appropriate style of treatment of a great question like this of the Resurrection; and more especially by one speaking from the position of President, of a Freethought Association—unless, indeed, we are to take Freethought, in this connection, as synonymous with "The Bible-to-be-put-down-at-all-hazards"—for which understanding of the meaning of the term there is abundant evidence. In dealing with the gospel narratives of the Resurrection, what is wanted to serve the ends of truth is not the barrister's acuteness in picking holes, bamboozling wit-nesses, and skilfully making them appear to contradict one another; but the judge's patient calmness—unravelling intricacies, and weighing evidence, taking note of the different standpoints occupied by witnesses, causing diversities in testimony, but which, instead of weakening the value or the truth of such testimony, greatly strengthen it and confirm its credibility. And when the gospel narratives are examined in that spirit, I have not, fear that they will be found to be untrustworthy or contradictory witnesses. Even a, were it found that there were irreconcilable discrepancies and contradictions, it would be a most illogical conclusion to come to, that we would therefore be justified in rejecting all of the narratives as false, and disbelieving the whole story, or the main fact of the Resurrection. That might do for a barrister's if putting of the issues to the jury, but it would not do for a judge's. Granted that there were such irreconcilable discrepancies in some of the details, that would only sustain the conclusion that some one of the narratives, in the special items where there is such disagreement, is inaccurate; and it would then be the duty of truth-seekers to endeavour to find out which is the inaccurate and which is the true statement. To reject the whole thing, is the foolish act of prejudiced unreasonableness. The course in general pursued in relation to these apparent discrepancies by opponents of the belief in the general fact (and followed by Mr Stout in particular), is to put them forward with all pointedness as inconsistencies and contradictions, invalidating the whole testimony, while resolute silence is observed as to all in which these representations agree. The apparent discords in minor details are placed in the harshest possible light so as to blind to the existing harmony in the main facts, and so to deceive as to the value of the whole. But, as in music there are discords which are not blemishes in the composition, but effective passages to bring out musical effects connected with the laws of harmony, so there are discords in historical testimony, which more effectively establish the general result of the harmony of the whole, than complete identity of testimony in every particular would have done. Let Mr. Stout get four witnesses for the plaintiff in any case in which he is counsel for the defence, to step into the witness box one after another, and to repeat their story unhesitatingly in the exact same order, and very much in the same words, without varying in the minutest details, would he, desire anything better to urge most conclusively that the whole evidence was a concocted. page 4 thing, and so they came there and gave it off cut and dry? We may be deeply thankful that the evidence of the four evangelists, in connection with the Resurrection is not of that character, but is evidently the evidence of four independent witnesses telling the story each from his own point of view, and in harmony with the general object and tenor of his whole gospel story, and thus producing dis-similarity in the details recorded, but without destroying the general harmony of their testimony, and presenting us with a more complete account of what took place in connection with the one main fact, than if we had only the one narrative. And it will be my endeavour to bring out the perfect harmony subsisting between their different records.

Mr. Stout prefaces his statement of the alleged fatal discrepancies with these general remarks—"We must remember that from the orthodox standpoint, the Gospels are believed to have been dictated by the Deity. We would therefore expect to find in them a greater harmony than would be found in the writings of men who had not such guidance. If, however, we find that, not only the accounts disagree, but that they are irreconcilable, What are we to conclude?" Well, surely that wherein they are irreconcilable, someone has blundered, but surely not that the whole story is a myth or a fiction; and, if in the main part of the story there is substantial agreement, while in details there are differences, it shows that there is no collusion between the narrators, or mere retailing of a concocted story. I may just remark in passing that, while it may not be intentional on Mr. Stout's part in the above-quoted sentences, to misrepresent the orthodox standpoint, yet it is a misleading statement with regard thereto, and [gap — reason: illegible]tted to create a prejudice against it to say, If the Gospels are believed to have been [unclear: d]ictated by the Deity." If he does not Know the orthodox point of view more correctly than is implied in such a statement, it would be well for him to take the trouble to make himself acquainted with it; and if he does know it, he should be careful to state it more exactly. But this is just a turn of expression where the art of the barrister crops but in the statement of the case, rather than the fairness of the judge. "Dictated by the Deity" and "inspired by the Holy Spirit" do not express the same thing, nor suggest the same ideas. He is quite right in stating, however, that the orthodox standpoint in [unclear: r]eference to the Gospels 'leads us to expect a [unclear: g]reater harmony than would be found in the [unclear: wr]itings of men who had not such guidance." and such greater harmony does exist—a harmony which I trust to be able to show you, evidencing at once the individual operation of each writer's mind in the telling of his story, and the underlying operation of One inspiring and controlling mind guiding them all. So that each tells his own story, and all four tell a consistent and complementary story, filling up together a more complete record of what took place on that ever memorable morning, which has so far revolutionized the ordinary computation of time, as well as given existence I and vitality to the most potent influence which has ever been at work in this world, and which has its continual commemoration in the weekly Christian Sabbath.

On the so-called orthodox side of this question I do not think that the harmony of the narratives has always been very wisely stated, or, indeed, been very clearly perceived; and so attempts at reconciliation have manifested not a little clumsiness, and explanations not a little unsatisfactoriness. Some, indeed, whilst holding fast by the main facts narrated, admit that there are discrepancies, for the explanation or reconciliation of which we cannot find a solution, on account of our not having full knowledge of the facts of the case, and take shelter from any hostile inferences under the plea that there is some reconciling fact which has not been put on record, but which, if we could lay hold of, would banish the apparent discrepancy. So far, this might, be true, and opens a door of escape, but it cannot be said to be very satisfactory. As an illustration, however of what is meant, and to show that it has a degree of feasibility about it, I may take an example from the narrative in the Acts of the conversion of the Apostle Paul. In the first historical account of that incident we are told, "that the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." In his own speech to the multitude at Jerusalem, who had been incited against him, so that they would have killed him, had he not been delivered by the opportune arrival on the scene of the riot of the chief captain of the Roman guard, he distinctly declares, "they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." There, there is a discrepancy between the two accounts, the one saying that "they that were with me heard the voice," the other, as positively, that "they that were with me heard not the voice." We would say there is a discrepancy which it would certainly be very puzzling to reconcile—indeed, a contradiction which it would be impossible to reconcile. But, fortunately, we have a third account, this time also from the lips of the Apostle himself, when he was permitted to speak for himself before Agrippa, and in this account page 5 we get the needful information to enable us to reconcile the two statements very simply and very satisfactorily. Paul says, "I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue." These words, "In the Hebrew tongue," explain and justify both the previous statements. Those who were with him, being Roman soldiers, they heard the sound of the voice, but they understood not the words spoken, as they understood not the Hebrew tongue. And so, whilst it was true, according to the narrative, they heard the voice, yet also was it quite true according to Paul's hurried narration in addressing the excited multitude, they heard not the voice—they could not tell what was said. Without the third account, and its fuller and more complete statement, we would, however, have been in very great straights to explain the apparent contradiction. And so it may be in other cases;—and so it might be in relation to some statements connected with the Resurrection. But I do not think we need resort to such a plea, to save the credibility of the narratives connected with the Resurrection.

Samuel Butler, best known as the author of "Erewhon" (and who was by the way formerly a Canterbury settler), in a subsequent word entitled, "Fairhaven : or, a Work in Defence of the Miraculous Element of our Lord's Ministry upon earth, both as against Rationalistic Impugners, and certain Orthodox Defenders," boasts—"That in an age when rationalism has become recognised as the only basis upon which faith can rest securely, he has established the Christian faith upon a rationalistic basis." And recognising the central position and vital importance of the fact of the Resurrection in relation to the Christian faith, his argument is necessarily mainly concerned with that fact. Holding it to be a fact, he has to deal with the differing narratives of the Gospel records; but he solves the difficulty by throwing out altogether Matthew's account. He says, "One of the most serious difficulties to the unbeliever is the inextricable confusion in which the accounts of the Resurrection have reached us. No one can reconcile these accounts with one another—not only in minute particulars, but on matters on which it is of the highest importance to come to a clear understanding. . . . Now this is not one of those cases in which the supposition can be tolerated, that all would be clear if the whole facts of the case were known to us. The only question to be raised is, which is the more correct account of the Resurrection—Matthew's, or those given by the other three evangelists? How far is Matthew's account true, and how far is it exaggerated? for there must be exaggeration or invention somewhere." And his conclusion is "That the account of the Resurrection given in St. Matthew's Gospel must be looked upon as the invention of some copyist, or possibly of the translators of the original work, at time when men who had been eye-witnesses to the actual facts of the Resurrection were be coming scarce, and when it was felt that some more unmistakeably miraculous account than that given in the other three Gospels would be a comfort and encouragement to succeeding generations." So he proposes, let us now say to the unbeliever, "We do not deny the truth of much which you assert—we give up Matthew's account of the Resurrection; we may perhaps, accept parts of those of Mark and Luke and John, but it is impossible to say which parts, unless those in which all three agree with one another: and, this being so, if becomes wise to regard all the accounts as early and precious memorials of the certainty felt by the Apostles that Christ died and rose again, but as having little historic value with regard to the time and manner of the resurrection." This is his "Rationalistic basis," on which the Christian Faith is henceforth to rest securely, of which he says vauntingly "I have made no concession to Rationalisim[unclear: s] which did not place the vital parts of Christianity in a far stronger position than they were in before, yet I have conceded everything I which a sincere rationalist is likely to desire—I have cleared the ground for reconciliation." No wonder it has been disputed whether the I man is speaking honestly and sincerely on ironically,—whether he be a misguided friend or a cunning covert foe to Christianity. To I me it appears as a proposal to make friends with the enemy by giving up to them the citadel. Christianity, on such a basis, would not stand very long Faith in the resurrection of Christ would soon die out if the credibility of the Gospel records be given up.

I have entered thus largely on the preliminary discussion to show you the importance of arriving at a fair and proper harmony of the narratives, and that you may weigh the more cautiously and critically my explanation of the differences in the records, and my harmony of the whole

In examining the alleged discrepancies, will follow Mr. Stout's marshalling of them First—As to the time when the visit to the sepulchre was paid, and the discovery that Jesus' body was not there, he says—"We fine a great difference," and after stating the differences adds, "Here, then, about the time of the visit, there are three accounts; which one in to be believed?" He admits an agreement between Mark and Luke, the one of whom says, "And very early, on the first day of the page 6 week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun "; the other, "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre." So far, then, we have two witnesses agreeing. It was very early in the morning of the first day of the week—Mark, in his more vivid, descriptive manner, adding, "at the rising of the sun" (or more strongly, "when the sun had risen"). Matthew says, "They came in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn." Where is there a great difference there from Mark's and Luke's account? Surely, it would begin to dawn when the sun had risen, but had not yet appeared above the mountains of Moab. And so again John's account, who says, "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene, when it was yet dark" (or, "there being yet darkness"—. What pleasure of darkness is not fixed, and the expression is quite consistent with its being the beginning of dawn—the dim, grey twilight ere the sun has risen far enough to shine direct. Any of us going out at that time might say with perfect consistency, and propriety, either—"We went out very early in the morning, it sunrise"; or "Very early in the morning, when it began to dawn; or "In the morning, when it was yet dark." There is surely no discrepancy of statement there; and what difference there is rather serves to confirm the independence of the witnesses as they narrate each from his own standpoint. To find a "great" difference of statement on that point, raising a difficulty as to which narrative we are to believe, is surely the result of some mental mist or moral squint, and savours more of the carping critic and pettifogging [unclear: h]oleader than the earnest seeker after truth, If this be a specimen of the sharpening of intellect arising from Freethought, it reminds me of that sharpness of his razors alleged by the itinerant vendor, as putting them beyond comparison the sharpest blades to be found in he kingdom, that they cut three inches before the point. But I omitted to mention that Mr. Stout evidently places great stress upon Matthew's saying, "In the end of the sabbath," throwing in this comment—"Now the end of the Jewish sabbath was Saturday afternoon, it any rate, some time between twelve noon and six in the evening." And this is what, I suppose, he thinks justifies his saying that there is a great difference in the statements of time. But Matthew explains what he means by the end of the sabbath, adding, "as it began to dawn towards (or, more exactly, into) the first day of the week," and We must take his full statement into account. We are not, if we wish to deal fairly with the narrative, to take the statement "in the end of the sabbath" apart from and unqualified by the further explanation "as it began to dawn into the first day of the week." He mentions first their waiting till the sabbath was past, as it would not have been lawful for them to do what they proposed on the sabbath; but they could not go immediately at the close of the sabbath, as it would then be growing dark, and so they had to wait until it began to dawn into the first day of the week. To raise a difficulty and allege a discrepancy here is not to find but to make and magnify differences in mode of statement into differences in the matter of the statement. And I should just like to hear Mr. Stout criticising a brother barrister on the other side, who had the temerity to attempt any such unfair and unreasonable handling of the testimony of his witnesses. I think he would say his learned brother must be hard up for something to find fault with, when he would attempt to construe such differences of statement into discrepancies casting doubt on the whole testimony.

The second alleged discrepancies are in reference to who went to the sepulchre. Mr. Stout says—"Matthew mentions two women, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary; M ark mentions these two, and adds, 'Salome' (making three); Luke mentions the two Marys and Joanna and the other women; John mentions only Mary Magdalene." Now, none of those who mention the smaller numbers say that those only whom they mention went, precluding the possibility of others having gone as well as these. It is surely absurd to say, as Mr Stout does, "There is therefore no agreement as to who went to the sepulchre." They all agree that Mary Magdalene went; and though, in John's narrative, she alone is mentioned in the first instance, that is evidently because she it was who hastened back to tell John and Peter what she had seen on her arrival at the place where Christ had been buried—the sepulchre opened; and what she feared that betokened, viz—that the enemies of Christ had cruelly rifled his tomb, and taken away her Lord during the night. But John's own narrative implies that there had been others with her, for he reports her saying, "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him." "We know not," that is, she and those who had gone with her. That Mark and Luke mention others besides the two Marys mentioned by Matthew is no discrepancy; the same sort of thing occurs with us daily. We may narrate the going anywhere of two persons, when really there were more than two in the company. That latter fact we did not mean to deny, but did page 7 not think it necessary to mention the others at the time. At some other time we are narrating the same story, and we may mention one or more of the others besides the two we first mentioned; and so, on a third occasion, we may mention that there were some others present besides those specially named. It would, of course, be a different matter if Mr. Stout had his four witnesses in the box, and, cross-examining them, had asked them to mention all the parties present; or, on their mentioning only one or two, he had asked, "Do you mean to tell us that these were the only persons present?" and they answered, "Yes." Then he might establish a decided discrepancy of statement. But that is not the case. We have here, not four witnesses in the box asked in succession to name all the parties present on the occasion to which we refer—but four different narratives, written by four different authors, for different readers; and the differences in their naming of individuals present establishes the fact of their thorough independence, and consequent greater credibility. The manufacturing of discrepancies out of such differences as to who went to the sepulchre, shows either a hostile animus or a defective mental grasp.

The third alleged discrepancies are as to what the women saw. First, Mr. Stout alleges that Matthew says, "I here was a great earthquake, and the women coming to the sepulchre saw an angel from heaven come and roll back the stone from the door of the sepulchre and sit on it; and that his countenance was like lightning, his raiment white as snow; and he struck such terror into the keepers that they were rendered insensible, they became as dead men." He continues—"Mark, Luke, and John all agree that the stone had been rolled away when the women came to the sepulchre, and none of them mention an earthquake or the terror of the keepers." There is, then, on Mr. Stout's own confession, an agreement between three of them (Mark, Luke, and John), that the stone had been rolled away when the women came;—this is so far satisfactory. Is it true that Matthew says the opposite, and—as Mr. Stout makes him say—that the women coming to the sepulchre "saw" an angel from heaven come and roll back the stone and sit upon it? Matthew does not say that the women saw the angel come and roll away the stone, nor does his narrative necessarily imply it, though it does imply that they saw the angel still sitting on the stone when they came. In the first verse of chapter xxviii. He says—"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, cometh Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre; (ver. 2) and behold [that is, simply lo[unclear: d] and not at all equivalent to 'they saw' simply lo,] there was a great earthquake, fe[unclear: w] the angel of the Lord descended from heave, and came and rolled back the stone from the door of the sepulchre, and sat upon it. Though, in order of narration, the record [unclear: of] the earthquake and descent of the angel come after the mention of the coming of the women, to the sepulchre, it does not necessarily follow, that it took place after. It is not said that was after their coming, or that they saw if As it stands in our English version, it simple reads, "there was," which we are quite entitled to regard as equivalent to "there has been." The tense of the verb in the Greek [unclear: word] the aorist, and denotes what is absolutely, past, and answers to the English perfect; and when used in narration, an aorist that start[unclear: it] from a time already past, may be translated by the pluperfect, or "had." Now, in the Greek, the words "there was," "descended," "rolled back," and "sat," are all aorists, and may be translated as pluperfects. To show you that neither as regards the force of the, tense nor the order of narration, am I doing, any violence to the narrative, I refer you to parallel instance in this same Gospel. In the fourteenth chapter (ver. 1 and 2), the evangelist tells us of Herod's strange fears regarding Jesus, "He said, this is John the Baptist he is risen from the dead, and therefor mighty works do show forth themselves [unclear: for] him." But then he goes on to say—"Fo[unclear: r] Herod had laid hold on John and bound him and put him in prison." This laying hold &c, had taken place eighteen months or [unclear: the] prior to what is mentioned immediately before and, though translated "had laid hold," &c. the verbs are in precisely the same tense as in the xxviii. Chapter in regard to the earth quake, &c. They are aorists, which must be translated as pluperfects. There is an inartificial freedom of composition in the Gospe narratives appropriate to the men who wrote them. As has been well said of the Evangelist in general—"Their narratives are all artless in the greatest degree"; "They write with that simplicity which men big with their subject, but unversed in letters, might be expected to write"; "Inartificial writers in particular who have no theory about the unities of composition, and no literary aim, or literary ideal in view, are particularly liable to abrupt breaks, turnings, over-lappings, and other in equalities or inconcinnities of style. It is doing them infinite injustice to apply to then artless deliverances the rules of a nicely adjusted and fully-developed scheme of composition." In both these instances referred to, Matthew, having started to tell his story page 8 [unclear: Fo]und it necessary to turn back to tell something that had taken place before, in order to [unclear: t]he right understanding of his story. It is a [unclear: p]ort of thing constantly occuring in ordinary [unclear: c]arration, and to press it in this instance into, contradiction of the other evangelists be-[unclear: r]okens more zeal for a conviction than simple regard for the ends of truth. Read as it may be, without the slightest violence or straining, Lo, there had been an earthquake, for the angel of the Lord, having descended from heaven, had come and had rolled back the [unclear: s]tone from the door, and sat upon it"—read [unclear: it] that way, there is no contradiction, but perfect consistency. The earthquake, the [unclear: r]lescent of the angel, the rolling back of the [unclear: s]tone, had all taken place before they came; [unclear: b]ut it is all mentioned in connection with heir coming to account for their finding the tone rolled away. Then, that none of the others mention the earthquake and the terror of the keepers, is no contradiction of Matthew's report of these things. They do not [unclear: s]ay that these things did not take place. None of the others mentioned the setting of this guard on the night before, and so they do not mention anything about them now. But Matthew had mentioned that fact, and so now he tells of the terror of the guard, and of the earthquake and descent of the angel, as accounting for that terror. The setting of the guard was a most important fact for Matthew [unclear: to] mention, in pursuance of the object of his Gospel, and in relation to those for whom he wrote. It was not of the same importance in relation to those for whom the others wrote, and they do not mention it. As none of them profess in this, or in any part of their narration, to give a full and particular account of all that took place, but only a selection. Matthew's selection from first to last has evidently the Jews in view, to convince them that this Jesus was indeed the Messiah promised to their fathers. So he points out what careful precautions the enemies of Jesus had made to prevent any imposture in connection with his dead body: how they had gone to Pilate and got from him a Roman guard to watch the tomb till that ominous third day was past, of which Jesus had mysteriously spoken. Imposture they prevented, but the Resurrection they could not prevent. By the supernatural events which took place they had been struck down helpless in terror, and then, recovering themselves, they had, in haste and fright, made off to tell their baffled employers what had taken place. They were not there when the women arrived at the sepulchre, but they may have been met on the way, hurrying into the city; and this meeting of them, hurrying in hot haste and with strange excited manner, may have foreboded something wrong to Mary, and prepared her for her quick gloomy suspicion immediately on getting sight of the stone rolled away, which made her hurry back with the sad tidings to Peter and John, "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him" Thus, another alleged contradiction vanishes when fairly looked into.

But in regard to what further the women saw, there is also said to be contradiction; and, from the second lecture delivered by Mr. Stout, this seems to be the point on which he chiefly relies in support of his strong and decided statements, that the narratives are hopelessly irreconcilable and contradictory. It behoves us, therefore, to give this point the most rigid scrutiny. He gives two summaries of what he professes to find in the four narratives on this point—a longer and a shorter one. Both of these I will require to quote. The longer one reads as follows :—"Matthew says the women saw the angel sitting on the stone at the door of the sepulchre, and this angel spoke to the two women. Mark says the women saw nobody outside the sepulchre, but inside the sepulchre they saw, not an angel, but a young man draped in a long white garment, sitting on the right side of the sepulchre. Luke says, the women saw nobody outside, and when they went inside they saw no one, and they were much perplexed. In the midst of their perplexity two men stood by them in shining garments. John pays, Mary saw nothing on her first visit, but simply that the stone was taken away. Here, then, you have four accounts, all differing as to what the women saw when they went to the sepulchre." Such is Mr. Stout's statement of what the four evangelists say. Now, carefully note the word "says," used by Mr. Stout; for either a grosser misrepresentation of what is written can hardly be conceived, or else Mr. Stout uses language loosely and carelessly. I would ask him to point out where Mark and Luke "say," "the women saw nobody outside the sepulchre." They say nothing of the sort. Had he said, they do not say anything about the women seeing anyone outside the sepulchre, he would have been correct. But that is a very different thing from what he represents them as saying. If I say, that on coming into this room I saw twenty persons, no one has a right to say that I said I saw no one outside it, or that my statement about seeing these persons inside implied that I did not see any outside. Or, if I again say, that outside I saw a man at the door, no one has a right to say I said I saw no one inside, or that my statement implies it; and that my saying at one time, I page 9 saw twenty persons inside, and at another, I saw one man outside, is a hopelessly irreconcilable contradiction. But it is after that fashion Mr. Stout makes the evangelists contradict one another; and if the disciples of Freethought cannot see through such a fallacy in argument, it certainly does not augur well for their intellectual culture or acumen, or the intellectual fruits of Freethought training. Mr. Stout will require to give us a new logic to justify his representations of what these two evangelists (Mark and Luke) say. To what he represents Matthew and John saying, I will raise no objection, though even there he might have been a little more careful and exact. Now, setting aside the statement, that Mark and Luke say that the women saw nobody outside the sepulchre, as an apocryphal reading of Mr. Stout's own manufacture, you will at once perceive that there is no direct contradiction between the narratives; and it remains to be seen whether the difficulties in these narratives admit of a fairly probable or reasonably harmonious reading. I think they do, and will ask your special attention and the exercise of your most critical judgment to test the fairness and reasonableness of my reading of what the evangelists say. Let us take first what John says. He is reporting only what Mary Magdalene did and saw and said. Mr. Stout summarises his report correctly enough, thus—"Mary saw nothing on her first visit, but simply that the stone was taken away." Evidently when she, in company with the other women, came in sight of the sepulchre and saw that the stone was rolled away, she at once jumped to the conclusion that Christ's enemies had spitefully rifled the tomb and stolen away the body of Jesus; and, without waiting to verify or test this conclusion in any way, turned about, and with all the speed she could, made her way back to the city and told Peter and John as fact what was merely her suspicion or conclusion, drawn from the fact that the stone was rolled away from the mouth of the sepulchre. She bye and bye returned to the sepulchre, following Peter and John as speedily as she could, but necessarily very considerably behind them, arriving only after they had set out on their return to the city. What happened when there I do not at present take note of. So much for John's account, in reference to Mary. Now we take Matthew's narrative, and him we find not concerned particularly with what Mary did. He is narrating what the women saw. Without referring to Mary's leaving them to go back to the city, he tells us that, on going up to the sepulchre, they not only found the stone rolled away, but saw an angel (whose appearance is described) sitting upon the stone, who said to them—"Fear not ye, for know that ye seek Jesus which was crucified he is not here, for he is risen as he said.' Then, having thus endeavoured to calm then fears, he invited them to draw near and enter the sepulchre, saying—"Come, sec the place where the Lord lay; and go quickly and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead, and behold he goeth before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him; lo, I have told you." He then tells us nothing of their coming and seeing the place where the Lord lay, but jumps at once to their departing quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy. It is scarcely to be doubted, however, that they did come and see the place where the Lord lay; and in Mark we find the account of what they saw there and then. He is very precise in stating, "that entering into the sepulchre they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment, and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified : he is risen, he is not here; behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him as he said unto you." Thus, Mark's narrative is not by any means a contradiction of Matthew's, but, on the opposite, fits into it, and fills up a blank in his—and that with the easy simplicity of truthful independent narrative, and without any indication of laboured or intentional adding thereto. When we turn to Luke's narrative, we find that he evidently records still further what the other two leave unrecorded. He tells of the women having entered in, and "that they found not the body of the Lord Jesus." And it came to pass as they were much perplexed thereabout"—the state of mind they were still in, notwithstanding the assurance of first, the angel outside seated on the stone; and then again, of the angel sitting on the right side as they entered in,—and as they "were afraid and bowed down their faces to the earth" (dumb-foundered, as we might say,—and no wonder—unable to take in what had been told them, or to grasp the fact of their Lord's resurrection, though the empty tomb was there in confirmation of the angelic testimony already given them), lo, other two witness-bearers, clad in shining garments, come and take their stand by their side, and gently chide them, saying, "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen; remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified, and the third day page 10 rise again; and they remembered his words." Now they began to recover from their stupor. The glorious fact began to dawn upon them that the Resurrection was a reality, and that Jesus had Himself before told them of it. Luke's account is thus still further supplementary—not contradictory—of the others And the whole we might summarise thus—"John tells of Mary's hastening back alone at the first sight of the opened sepulchre. Matthew tells us of the welcome given to her companions by the angel seated on the rolled-away stone as they advanced toward the sepulchre. Mark tells of the welcome they received from a second angel as they entered the sepulchre in response to the first angel's invitation; and Luke tells its of the appearance to them of other two angels, confirming the testimony already borne by the first two, and bringing to their remembrance Christ's own pre-intimation of His resurrection. Thus, out of the mouths of four angelic witnesses had they the fact confirmed to them before they believed it: and, from the difficulty with which they were brought to realise or accept the fact, we see that they were not the easily-persuaded, credulously-inclined or prejudiced, magi native enthusiasts they are sometimes represented by the enemies of the gospel. The exact opposite is the truth. They were slow to believe or accept it, and did not think it possible to be true, until after repeated testimony from the lips of witness-bearing angels—testimony, which was afterwards confirmed by the appearance of Christ to themselves And it was natural that John, as personally interested in Mary Magdalene's return by her-self with her sad message, should record that incident, though it was passed over by the others. And, as the substance of the testimony borne by the three successive angelic witness-bearers was the same, it was but natural that each of the evangelists (not processing to give a full and particular account of all that took place) should just record that part which to himself personally, or in relation to the purpose of his narrative, appeared to be she most suitable or desirable for him to narrate. And so it is evident that Matthew recorded the outside angelic interview and testimony, as more immediately connected with what he had recorded concerning the descent of the angel, the terrifying of the guard, and the rolling away of the stone. Mark, again, writing very much as the alter ego, or, as we might say, the echo of the Apostle Peter, records the interview and testimony of the angel within the tomb; as in his address he specially mentioned Peter as one to whom they were to carry the tidings of the resurrection. Then Luke tells of the further testimony of the two, because, to him, that was the most important, as that which finally roused the women to a realization of the grand fact of the resurrection, and that it was in accordance with Christ's own previous intimation to them. And thus, in these several narratives, instead of irreconcilable contradiction, we find, not merely a substantial harmony with each other—each being the undesigned complement of the other;—but we find also, each narrative harmonizing with the particular record in which it is found. And thus, our faith in them is much more confirmed than if we found in them all a cut-and-dry similarity. And I fearlessly ask, whether the handling of these narratives by Mr. Stout, to make out irreconcilable contradictions—or mine, in drawing out their substantial harmony, is the most natural, fair, and reasonable handling of them? I might now have let alone his second and shorter summary of the alleged discrepancies and contradictions as to what the women saw, but for its going beyond the other, and referring to the second visit of Mary. The whole statement is this—"Matthew's account, one angel on the stone : Mark's, a young man sitting inside: Luke's, two men standing in-side : John's, no one out or in on the first visit; on the second, two angels inside, but in different posture from the two men mentioned in Luke." As we have seen, though the three accounts by Matthew, Mark, and Luke differ, as stated, yet, their accounts are not contradictory, but supplementary, or perhaps better to say, complementary. John's account of what Mary saw on her return to the sepulchre, after she had told him and Peter of the rolling away of the stone and, as she supposed, the rifling of the tomb, is evidently an account of another transaction, at a different time, and to a different person from what is referred to in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and should have no place in an examination of alleged or apparent discrepancies or contradictions. But the attorney's subtle art crops out there again, in mixing up the transactions.

The fourth branch of Mr. Stout's alleged contradictions is in regard to what the writers of the Gospels say the women heard. Under this head, he quotes the various testimonies of the different angels as if the writers were all recording the same testimony of the same angel or angels;—here, again, taking in also what was said to Mary by herself, on her second visit. But this branch of objections is answered by anticipation in the previous setting forth of what the women saw.

There remains now only one other set of contradictions to be dealt with, or—as they are a little more mildly and modestly called—"disagreements," and they need not detain us page 11 long. They relate to what the women did. Mr. Stout's statement under this head is—"Matthew says, They departed quickly with fear and great joy, and did run to bring the disciples word. Mark says, They went out quickly and fled from the sepulchre, for they trembled and were sore amazed; neither said they anything to any man, for they were afraid. Luke says, They returned from the sepulchre and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. John says, Mary Magdalene ran and came to Peter and John and told them that Jesus had been removed from the sepulchre." This statement is so far just a quotation from each of the evangelists, and no exception can be taken to it. But Mr. Stout goes on to say, "Here there is disagreement. Matthew and Luke agree in saying the women at once told the disciples; Mark says the women told no one, and John says that only Peter and John were told." Mr. Stout is here again playing the part, of the bamboozling brief-hoder, under the garb of "that fearful moral elevation which it is given to none but brief-holders to attain"—as Professor De Morgan says of them in his preface to a work with which I daresay Mr. Stout is familiar, belonging, as it does, to the literature of Spiritualism, and entitled "From Matter to Spirit." Though, as the Professor says in another part of the same preface, "People are apt to think that learned counsel are the fools they are paid to be taken for," I do not think Mr. Stout is the fool he appears to be in carrying out his brief on this occasion; but rather that he took the audience he was addressing to be fools, and in consenting to publish his criticism of the Gospel narratives, trusted to the general maxim that "the public is a gullible animal." Is it not the art of the brief-holder that comes into play when he places John's account of what Mary did when she came back alone from the sepulchre, over against what the other Evangelists record the other women did at a later time, when they returned, as a disagreement in regard to what is recorded the women did? I fancy his attempting any such thing in court, to bamboozle a jury. I am pretty sure he would be very promptly pulled up, by the judge re-minding him that the women were not the same women in the two cases; and so, the statement as to what the one woman did at one time, could not possibly be a disagreement with a statement of what the other women did at a later time. So much for the one alleged disagreement between John and the other three. Now for the other alleged disagreement between what Mark says and Matthew and Luke, as to what the fame women did. Matthew and Luke, as Mr. Stout says, agree in saying the women at once told the! disciples. So far, then, we have two witnesses agreeing. If the third disagrees, then surely common sense would say, we must take the testimony of the two against that of the one. "No! no," says the Freethought brief-holder, "we must reject all three!" One is equal to two, and two are no better than one; and so the three must be set aside. This, I suppose, is in accordance with the new logic of Freethought, and only orthodox blindness or prejudice, prevent me appreciating its beauty and subtlety. But is there disagreement, necessitating the setting aside of one as contradicting or contradicted by the other two? The alleged contradiction is, That, while Matthew and Luke say that the women hastened back from the tomb and told the disciples what they had seen and heard, Mark says, They said nothing to anyone. But, is Mark referring here to the time of their return to the city and their coming to the disciples, or is he referring to the time whilst they were on the way from the sepulchre to the city? Whilst they were on their way back they must have met many persons, and what Mark is re-cording is the fact that they did not stop by the way to speak to any upon the matter, but hastened without delay to the disciples with their tidings. In the verse immediately preceding, he records the instruction given by the angel to "go and tell his disciples, and Peter." Are we to suppose that he means, in the immediately succeeding verse, to record that they did not fulfil this mission, and went away and said not a word to any one—not even to the disciples? It is at once most improbable that the women would act in that way, and that Mark means anything of the kind. But it is most probable that in their eager haste and glad excitement they would not halt by the way to speak to anyone, but sought out first the disciples to tell them. Take careful note of what Mark says—"They trembled and were amazed," or (as it is in the new-revised version) "Trembling and astonishment had come upon them." The word "astonish-ment" is literally "ecstasy." That is just the Greek word, and is expressive of their being in a high state of mental and spiritual excitement. The natural accompaniment of that state of ecstasy was trembling—the trembling not of fright, but of agitation. And in this state of mind and feeling, what more natural than that they should not stay to speak to any by the way, but hasten with all speed to carry their tidings to those whom they loved and trusted, and to whom they were commissioned. "For they were afraid," adds the evangelist—that is, to stop by the way to speak of what had happened to any whom page 12 they met; but they were certainly not afraid, and had no cause for being afraid, to speak of it to the disciples. It is further to be observed, that at this point there is a sudden break in the evangelist's narrative, as if some interruption had occurred before he had completed his story, and it is left unfinished. The verses which follow, forming the completion of this Gospel, are not found in the two oldest manuscripts—Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus—and they are also omitted by some other authorities. In the revised version they are separated from what goes before by a blank space, and a note is given explaining that they are not found in the two oldest manuscripts and some other authorities. On this accouut many critics reject them as lot belonging to the Gospel as written by Mark; but even those who uphold their genuineness (and much may be said on this side of the question also) note that "the evangelist does not follow out the line of things that runs through the preceding verses. He takes up a new line and goes on with it." So that we must, in any case, take the evan-gelist's narrative of what the women did as incomplete, and so it does not imply that the women did not tell the disciples what had happened at the sepulchre. He does not get he length in his narrative of telling of the arrival of the women in the city, when the interruption occurs which breaks him off, and in resuming he does not continue from the point, at which he had broken off, but hastens [unclear: t]o bring his writing to a close. Thus, we see here is no such contradiction or disagreement [unclear: M]s Mr. Stout would fain make out between dark on the one hand and Matthew and Luke in the other. Here I must point out what is [unclear: r]ither a careless or reckless statement by Mr. tout, in his second lecture, in regard to this [unclear: c]oncluding portion of Mark's Gospel. On [unclear: P]age 8 I find the very strong statement—"I [unclear: a]ssert that there is no evidence that the Gospels, in their present condition, were written by the men whose names they bare." and in support of this assertion, which smacks strongly of the barrister's style of appeal to a [unclear: s]ury, whom he hoped to prejudice against the use on the other side, he says—"The part of lark's Gospel that specially deals with the occurrences of the resurrection—that is, he sixteenth chapter, from verse 9 to the end, not in the oldest MS., and competent, orthodox critics admit that this part is not [unclear: g]enuine." Now, let anyone turn to the said Chapter, and they will find that "the occurrences of the resurrection" are dealt with in the first eight verses, and it is the subsequent appearances that are dealt with in the after and disputed verses. But this is just one of many reckless, slipshod statements, which serve a purpose with those who care not to examine for themselves. I might just point out that Luke says nothing of the women departing quickly from the sepulchre—or of their fear, their great joy, their trembling—or their ecstasy, which are so particularly mentioned by Matthew a d Mark; but simply says, in the most matter-of-fact manner possible, "They returned from the sepulchre and told all these things." And out of this Mr. Stout might as well have manufactured another contradiction or disagreement, as he does out of other silences of some one of the evangelists on points on which the others are very precise.

I have now examined the alleged contradictions in the Gospel narratives regarding the Resurrection of Jesus the Christ, and what took place in connection therewith. The further alleged contradictions regarding the appearances of the Risen One, I cannot take up in this paper, which has already largely exceeded the limits I first proposed. But I have thought it best to take up this one branch of the subject and deal with it fully, rather than touch lightly upon the whole ground of philosophical objection to miracles in general, as well as criticism of the narratives of the Resurrection and subsequent appearances of Christ, travelled over by Mr. Stout. I have taken up what I consider the most important branch of the subject, and now leave it with you to say whether I have dealt fairly and satisfactorily therewith, or not. I have spoken of Mr. Stout as manifesting in his lectures the attorney's art of putting things (that point having strongly impressed me in reading them), along with a certain flippancy and unfairness of statement which I would not have expected from one professing to be a seeker after truth. No doubt the compliment may be returned me, that I have manifested the bias and the spirit of the attorney for the other side. All I can say is, I desire only that the truth may prevail, on whosever side it is; and I ask you to exercise your own judgments upon the readings of the narratives given, as on the one side and upon the other; and whichever commends itself to you as the fairest, most natural, and straightforward reading—that accept and that hold fast by, ever remembering—

"Truth, drawn like truth, must blaze divinely bright;
But drawn like error, truth may cheat the sight.
Some awkward epithet, with skill applied,
Some specious hints, which half their meanings hide,
Can right and wrong most courteously confound,
Banditti-like, to stun us ere they wound.'