And this explanation supplies the only altogether natural interpretation of the words in v. 17-" but some doubted which have often been felt as a difficulty. "Oi vdeka ἰδόντες αυτὸν προσεκύνησαν αυτῷ, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν.” If the words referred to the Apostles, their more natural meaning would be, that "the Apostles in general worshipped Him, but some of them doubted"; and S. Matthew would thus be brought into virtual collision with S. Luke and S. John. But we submit that, even as a matter of verbal criticism, this rendering is not unexceptionable: that where this form of expression is used, the principal subject is always a kind of crowd; certainly many more than eleven. See e.g. Matt. xxvi. 67: “ ἐνέπτυσαν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκολάφισαν αὐτόν· οἱ δὲ ἐῤῥάπισαν.”* According to our suggestion, the two verses may be thus paraphrased :-"The Eleven, and all the brethren in their company, went to Galilee and when Jesus appeared, the mass of them worshipped Him; but some of them momentarily doubted."+

In fact almost all Christian commentators have been driven, by the very necessity of the case, to identify this manifestation on the Galilean mountain with the appearance to "more than five hundred brethren at once" recorded by S. Paul (1 Cor. xv. 6). Such a meeting (as we have already pointed out) could not possibly have taken place in Jerusalem. Moreover, as Greswell truly argues, "five hundred brethren could never have been present at the same time and place, except by appointment" and no other manifestation but this is mentioned in the Gospels, as having been made by appointment. It was before the assembled five hundred then, that Jesus said to the Eleven "Go ye and teach all nations," for "lo I am with you all days even to the end of the world." And S. Matthew, by thus concluding his Gospel, emphatically corroborates what we have said, as to the special purpose which he kept before his mind in his whole treatment of the Resurrection. All three synoptists conclude, in one shape or other, with our Lord's pronouncement of the Apostolic commission: but whereas that pronouncement was uttered on two different occasions, S. Matthew characteristically chooses that which was made in the face of the whole Church. We may add, that he himself implies the fragmentariness of his narrative, by neither mentioning an ascension nor any other termination of our Lord's earthly ministry. And when we consider that those

* Alford quotes from Xenophon: “ᾤχοντο εἰς Δεκέλειαν, οἱ δ' ἐςέ Μγαρα.” + We do not understand this "doubt" to have continued, after they had gazed upon Him more closely and heard His voice.

who saw Jesus on the mountain were more than five hundred, -while those who saw him otherwise did not at the utmost amount to thirty, we can well understand why the other manifestations, from his stand-point, appeared to S. Matthew of little account.

The other great end, to which our Risen Lord's appearances were directed, was His training of the Apostles for their great work, and His final preparation of them for the coming of the Holy Ghost. For this end, three things (to mention no others) were important. Firstly, that they should enable themselves, by repeated interviews with Him, to testify to the world with indubitable authority that He had risen indeed. Secondly it was important that-in regard to His Death and Resurrection -they should understand the deep harmony which exists, between these two central verities on one hand, and the antecedent testimony both of the Old Testament and of our Lord Himself on the other. Thirdly it was important, that those great truths concerning "the Kingdom of God" (Acts i. 3), which the Apostles "could not bear" (John xvi. 12) during His earlier ministry, should be set forth by His oral teaching, before the Holy Ghost came to place the whole of that teaching in an unspeakably clearer and fuller light.* It was moreover included in God's counsels, that at that period certain power of remitting sins should be conferred on the Apostles, the precise nature of which this is not the place to investigate.

Of these four particulars, it is the first and second which S. Luke especially bears in mind, throughout the last chapter of his Gospel and it is plain at once that the great Galilean manifestation had no bearing on them at all. Thus what is it in his narrative, which the Angels say to the holy women? "He has risen: remember how He spoke to you, &c." Then, when conferring with the two disciples on their road to Emmaus, "He began with Moses and the Prophets, and interpreted to them those things which were written concerning Himself in all the Scripture" (v. 27). Later in the day He refers the Eleven to the predictions He

"He shall not speak of Himself. declare to you."-John xvi. 13, 14.

We must not for a moment be understood as thinking that the Angels did not in fact on this occasion-just as on the occasion narrated by S. Matthew declare to those holy women our Lord's approaching manifestation in Galilee. It is plain to our mind, from the whole drift of S. Matthew's last chapter, that they must have done so. S. Luke in no way implies that he has recorded the whole of what they said. He records what bears on his own

purpose.

had made before His death, as well as to the utterances of the Scriptures (v. 44). And as regards the first particular we recited-His giving them means of testifying with absolute authority that He had truly risen-observe vv. 31, 2; v. 39; vv. 42, 3.

We have already pointed out that by far the more obvious interpretation of v. 45-" then He opened their mind that they should understand the Scripture "-is to take it as implying a continuous course of instruction. We would thus paraphrase vv. 45, 6:-" At that time He began a course of instruction, on the references to Himself in the Old Testament; an instruction continued by Him at intervals when He visited them during the Forty Days. Then in his final interview-on Ascension Day itself-He summed up His lessons, that He might leave them deeply impressed on their memory, saying thus it was written in Scripture, &c.""

We will now consider the other two Evangelists; commencing with S. John. It will be found in his case that,so far from any difficulties being presented by his narrative— it corroborates in various ways what we have been saying. It is plain on the surface to a Christian reader, that he writes throughout his Gospel as supplementing the synoptists, especially S. Luke; and as thereby endorsing their substantial accuracy. It has been observed indeed more than once in this REVIEW, that almost the whole of S. John might be inserted in large sections between various breaks in the third Gospel, and a continuous history be thus made up of the two. In no part of S. John's Gospel is his reference to his predecessors more conspicuous, than in his 20th chapter; and Hengstenberg for one is to our mind very successful in pointing out this fact.

Thus in v. 1 S. John says that "Mary Magdalene cometh very early, and seeth the stone (ròv Xílov) removed from the sepulchre." But S. John had not himself spoken of any stone, in connection with the sepulchre.

Then, whereas it might have been fancied from v. 1 that S. John regarded S. Mary Magdelene as having gone by herself to the sepulchre, this supposition is negatived by v. 2: "they have taken away the Lord, and we know not where they have lain him." Plainly he intended his readers to understand his v. 1 by the light of the earlier evangelists.

We next come to his account of S. Peter's and his own visit to the sepulchre. S. Luke had only said that "Peter rose and went to the sepulchre," &c. (xxiv. 12); but S. John explains (vv. 3-10) that he had himself accompanied S. Peter on this occasion. And there is an obvious harmony between the two accounts: compare e.g. the "anλ0v πρòç έavròν"

of Luke xxiv. 12, with the "anov рòç έaνтоÙÇ" of ἀπῆλθον πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς” John xx. 10. But it is further remarkable, that S. Luke himself was indubitably aware of S. Peter not having been alone in his visit. For (v. 24) he represents the two disciples as saying: "certain of our brethren went to the sepulchre, and found things to be as the women said, but Him they found not."

We proceed to our Lord's appearance among the Apostles, on the evening of Easter Day. In his account of this, S. John rapidly summarizes what has already been said by S. Luke, adding in their appropriate place supplementary details of his own. Thus S. Luke says: "they were frightened and thought they saw a spirit" (v. 37). Why should they think this? Because "the doors were shut" (John xx. 19), and He entered without their being opened. A parallel incident is mentioned in Matt. xiv. 26: "When they saw Him walking on the sea, they were troubled saying it is a spirit"; because He seemed above the laws of a material body. Again S. Luke had said (v. 40) that "He showed them His hands and feet": and S. John adds (v. 20) that He also showed them His side; a supplement especially appropriate in him, who alone had mentioned the wound in the side (xix. 34). Lastly S. John adds, what S. Luke had omitted, that on this occasion the Apostles received a certain power of remitting sins.

An objection has been made, that S. Luke (v. 33) mentions "the Eleven" as present on this occasion, whereas it is seen from S. John that only ten of the Apostles were there. But it is really quite an obvious supposition, that during these Forty Days "the Eleven " was as it were an official name for " the Apostles." So in 1 Cor. xv. 5-according to the reading of the "textus receptus," the reading followed by S. Chrysostom-S. Paul says that our Lord, after appearing to S. Peter, "appeared to the Twelve." Certainly S. Paul did not include Judas Iscariot; and he must have said "the Twelve " therefore as meaning "the Apostles."* In like manner-as Alford suggests-the Romans of a certain period would naturally have spoken of appearing before the "decemviri," without at all meaning to imply that all ten had been present.†

*The Vulgate reading is "Undecim." We believe however that the great preponderance of authority is for the reading of the "textus receptus." Moreover it is indefinitely easier to understand how some copyist should have been induced to substitute "eleven" for "twelve," than how he should have been induced to make the opposite substitution.

+ Luke xxiv. 33, "the Eleven and those who were with them." Who were these latter? Alford appositely refers to Acts i. 14. We may infer with much probability that "those who were with," i.e. who lived with "the Eleven," were the devout women and the brethren of our Lord.

--

S. John next proceeds to mention S. Thomas's absence on this occasion, in order that he may more intelligibly describe the manifestation on Low sunday which the synoptists had omitted.

We may also draw attention to the similarity between John xx. 30 and Acts i. 3, as indicating the frequency of our Lord's appearances: "Multa alia signa fecit Jesus in conspectu discipulorum." For the reasons given by Maldonatus, we think that these "signa" were manifestations after the Resurrection.

Lastly, though he does not narrate the Ascension which had already been recorded by SS. Mark and Luke, St. John emphatically confirms the testimony borne by them to that fact, by mentioning our Lord's words to S. Mary Magdalene (xx. 17): "I ascend to My Father and your Father, My God and your God."

S. John's twentieth chapter then-not only presents no additional difficulty-but in fact greatly confirms the appearance of truthfulness presented by S. Matthew and S. Luke. We may add, that S. John's narrative as a whole corroborates what we have said, on the perfect consistency between those two earlier evangelists. In his twentieth chapter he is as profoundly silent as S. Luke himself, in regard to any hint or suggestion that our Lord appeared in Galilee; and yet in his twenty-first chapter he relates a remarkable manifestation as having there taken place. It may be well to add that, though many Protestants do not consider this chapter to have been contained in his original Gospel, yet we believe that almost all, who admit the rest to be genuine, accept the genuineness of this chapter. Several of them indeed think that S. John added it at a later period by way of appendix; but for that matter we do not know why any Catholic may not regard this as a probable opinion.

A difficulty has been derived from the twenty-first chapter, in consequence of S. John saying (v. 14): "this is the third time on which Jesus manifested Himself to His disciples, after He had risen from the dead." If these words however were understood to mean that this was only the third time Jesus had appeared to any disciple, S. John would be brought into conflict, not with the synoptists only, but with himself; as in his twentieth chapter he has mentioned three appearances (vv. 14, 19, 26). It is very easy however to take the verse as meaning, that this was the third time, on which Jesus appeared before a collected number of Apostles sufficient to represent the whole body. This is in full accordance with S. John's own narrative; and it is equally in accordance with the narrative of all three synoptists.