DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS.

URNING then to the first of the four historians, of whom Strauss says, '' We, as well as Baur, have always considered, and still do consider, the Gospel of Matthew as the most original, and, comparatively speaking, the most trustworthy," we find him testifying that Jesus on the cross cried with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit; that many women were there, beholding afar off, who had followed Him from Galilee, ministering unto Him, among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children; that a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple, went to Pilate, and begged the body, and, obtaining the consent of the Roman Governor, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock, and rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed, while Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting over against the sepulchre. The account then proceeds as follows: ''In the end of the sabbath [that is, about dusk of Saturday], as it began to dawn toward the first of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake, [or as the margin correctly renders it, there had been]: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here; for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. [We must not confound the visit of the women here with the visit of Mary Magdalene and the other Mary the previous evening, when the body of Jesus was still in the tomb, for we have simply a narrative of events, without defining the intervals of time, according to the custom of Matthew everywhere in his gospel]. 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. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre, with fear and great joy, and did run to bring his disciples word. . . . Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." Pray consider carefully whether a forger would have added the clause, "but some doubted?"

Mark, the second of the historians, informs us that Jesus cried with a loud voice on the cross, and yielded up His spirit; that there were also women looking on afar off; among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joses, and Salome; who also, when He was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto Him, and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem; that Joseph of Arimathæa, an honorable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. Mark does not hint at his reason for using the word boldly, but John's gospel tells us Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, showing an undesigned coincidence worthy of notice. Pilate, having ascertained the death of Jesus from the Roman Centurion, gave permission to Joseph to dispose of the body, and he bought fine linen, and took Him down from the cross, and wrapped Him in the linen, and laid Him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre. And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.

The account then proceeds as follows: "And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And 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. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they anything to any man; for they were afraid."

Luke, the third of the historians, writes that Jesus cried with a loud voice on the cross, and gave up His spirit; that all His acquaintance, and the women that followed Him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things; that a man named Joseph, a counsellor, a good man, and a just, who had not consented unto the counsel and deed of the Jewish Sanhedrim, a man of Arimathsea, a city of the Jews, who also himself waited for the kingdom of God, went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus; that he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man was laid before; that the women also, which came with Him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how His body was laid; and they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day, according to the commandment.

The account then proceeds as follows: "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: and as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, 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 rise again. And they remembered his words, and returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not."

John, the fourth of the historians, states that Jesus on the cross bowed His head, and gave up His spirit; that after this Joseph of Arimathsea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; that Pilate gave him leave; that he came, and took the body; and there came also Nicodemus, who is not mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, although it will be observed that they do not say that he was not present, nor do they say that Joseph was alone; that the two wound the body in linen clothes with the spices, and laid it in a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.

The account then proceeds as follows: The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. [Notice the force of the word we, plainly implying that other women had been with her]. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he, stooping down, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, 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. 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. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. 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. Jesus saith unto her, Mary I She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master."

Such are the four accounts, and it will be observed that they agree precisely in all of their leading characteristics and features. They all affirm that Jesus actually died upon the cross, not in a swoon betokening physical and mental exhaustion and weakness, but crying with a loud voice, and hence in possession of all His faculties. They all affirm that His body was given by Pilate to Joseph, although John adds that Nicodemus joined him in the last rites of respect to the dead. They all affirm that the body was laid in a new sepulchre, three of them mentioning the great stone that was placed at its entrance. They all affirm that He rose from the dead on the first day of the week, and that the sepulchre was found to be empty. Is this not enough to make out the case, so far as the narratives go, in any court in the land? Would any court throw out such testimony, because of apparent discrepancies in the minor and unimportant details of the several statements? The word '' apparent " is used designedly, for it can be proved that there are no real discrepancies, but admitting their existence, can they weaken the force of the positive and united testimony borne to the fact of the actual death and actual resurrection of Jesus?

Even while this is going through the press, three articles appeared in The Century Magazine, all relating to the battle of Shiloh, fought on the 6th and 7th of April, 1862, and all written by able, and distinguished, and, no doubt, conscientious men. Gen. Grant who commanded the Federal army says, " The effective strength of the Union force on the morning of the 6th was 33,000 at Shiloh. Lew Wallace brought 5,000 more after nightfall.... There was not a time during the 6th when we had more than 25,000 men in line. On the 7th Buell brought 20,000 more." Gen. William Preston Johnston, son of the General who commanded the Confederate army, and was killed during the battle, says that Grant "â– had an army of 58,000 men in camp, nearly 50,000 of whom were effectives. Buell was near at hand with 37,000 more." Gen. Grant says the story that Gen. Prentiss and his command "were surprised and captured in their camps is without any foundation whatever. "General Bragg says of the attack upon Prentiss' command, " The enemy was found utterly unprepared, many being surprised and captured in their tents, and others, though on the outside, in costumes better fitted to the bed-chamber than to the battle-field," Gen. Preston says, " General Johnston then went to the camp assailed, which was carried between 7 and 8 o'clock. The enemy were evidently surprised. The breakfasts were on the mess tables, the baggage unpacked, the knapsacks, stores, colors and ammunition abandoned. " Gen. William Johnston says that his father planned the battle, and gave peremptory orders to attack, in the face of earnest opposition from Gen. Beauregard. On the other hand. Gen. Jordan, another Confederate officer who took part in the battle, states that Gen. Beauregard insisted upon the assault in the face of General Johnston's objections.

There are many other discrepancies and positive contradictions in the three accounts, and if they are to be treated as infidelity treats the New Testament narratives of the resurrection, it is certain that there was no battle of Shiloh ever fought — the whole story is a lie, and belief in it is a silly delusion. Nay, according to the reasoning of skepticism, Napoleon Bonaparte never existed, as Archbishop Whately has clearly shown in his admirable little book, '' Historic Doubts;" and not only so, but never has an event of any importance occurred, about which the testimony of two or more witnesses was given.

Suppose that four men of unimpeachable integrity, with no conceivable selfish or sinister motive to actuate them, solemnly declare in a simple, sincere, unaffected manner, that they saw a person murdered, would the fact that they might slightly disagree as to the number of witnesses present, or as to the very moment the fatal blow was given, invalidate their testimony concerning the act itself? But suppose upon closer examination it is discovered that there was really no disagreement, that none of the witnesses said only so many persons were present, but one just supplied what the others omitted, or stated the time according to his reckoning, or spoke from the particular stand-point he occupied in relation to the event, would not the apparent discrepancies fully confirm the truth of the whole narrative? They would certainly prove the absence of all concert or collusion between the narrators, and convince every reasonable man not only of their independence but of their credibility.

If the four accounts of the resurrection of Jesus had corresponded word for word, how certain it is infidelity would have sneered at the manifest token of a secret agreement between the four writers for fraudulent purposes! And yet when they exactly agree as to the main points, and apparently differ only in trivial details, still infidelity cavils, awaking serious doubt whether it desires to know the truth. It is certain that one of these four narratives was written and published before the three that followed it, and that it was in the hands of the men who prepared their separate treatises. Why did they not servilely copy one another, for a school boy could have done this, and why are not skeptics candid enough to admit that they would have done it, if they had desired to perpetrate a fraud? It seems hard that their obvious honesty is the very ground upon which they are rejected as unworthy of confidence.

But let us take for granted that which indeed is easily discovered upon a careful study of the four gospels, the distinct design of each writer in the preparation of his biography of Jesus, and many things otherwise obscure will become plain. Matthew wrote of Him specially as King of the Jews, and specially for the Jews. Mark wrote of Him as the obedient servant of Jehovah, thus predicted and set forth in the prophets, having the Romans particularly in view in his narrative. Luke wrote of Him in His widest relations to the human race as the Son of man, having the cultured Greeks prominently before his mind. John wrote of Him as the Son of God for the comfort chiefly of believers. Now if the different accounts of His death, with the apparent discrepancies in the inscription placed by Pilate on the cross, and the different accounts of His resurrection with the apparent discrepancies in the visits of the women to the sepulchre, and in His appearances and the appearances of the angels, are thoughtfully considered in the light of the established and recognized principle just stated, if the difference between the Jewish and Roman mode of reckoning time is considered, if just and necessary allowance is made for the change in the meaning of words translated from Greek into English, if the different stand-points occupied by the historians is remembered, it will be found that the various narratives are in perfect harmony with the distinct designs of the four writers in the different gospels.

But let us go further, and see that the order of events may have been as follows: The earthquake and the resurrection occur before any one reaches the tomb; the women come to it very early, and find it empty; Mary Magdalene returns, and informs Peter and John; these two start upon a run, John in advance, but Peter arriving soon after, and with characteristic impetuosity entering the sepulchre; Mary Magdalene following; Jesus appears meanwhile to the other women; Peter and John return home; Mary lingers behind, sees Jesus, and reports to all of the disciples. Or, to enter a little more minutely into particulars: (1) Mary Magdalene and the other Mary did not go alone to the sepulchre early in the morning, but were accompanied by the other women. (2) When they drew nigh, and discovered that the stone was rolled away, Mary Magdalene instantly hurried to Peter and John. (3) Meantime the other women saw the vision of angels, were told of the resurrection and commanded to communicate the tidings to the disciples. (4) John first, then Peter, then Mary came to the sepulchre, the two men soon returning home, the woman remaining behind weeping. (5) She saw the angels, and immediately afterwards the Lord Himself. (6) The other women, who were hurrying back to the city were met by the risen Jesus, and permitted to worship Him. (7) Following this, which plainly occupied but a few minutes, were His appearances to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, then to Peter, and finally to the eleven as they were assembled in the evening.

When, therefore, the only discrepancies of any moment are so easily reconciled, without straining at effect, and without violence to the context, when the only discords that jar harshly upon the most sensitive ear are so readily reduced to harmony, is it not most ungenerous for skeptics still to spurn the entire narrative, and to brand the writers as vile impostors or deluded fanatics? Is then their character, in other respects unassailed and unassailable, to go for nothing? Is the charm of their style, is the marvellous beauty of the story they tell, is the transparent honesty of their statements concerning themselves, is the profundity of their doctrine which has called into delighted exercise the best intellects for eighteen centuries; is the comfort they have given to unnumbered millions of sad hearts, is the light they have brought into myriads of desolated homes, is the pardon they have spoken to countless multitudes of the guilty and despairing sons of men in successive generations, is the power they have wielded to lift the nations, that have at all heeded their voice, to a higher and nobler civilization — is all this to go for nothing, because a cursory reading may reveal inaccuracies in the mere filling up of the great picture that exhibits the resurrection of Jesus?

But how comes it that very many of the very best minds, aye, of the very best legal minds, long accustomed to the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and quick to detect the slightest flaw in evidence, have never discovered the discrepancies and contradictions which skeptics profess to find in the accounts of that resurrection? It will not be denied that the most distinguished jurists of Europe and America have been as a rule, devout, sincere Christians, and it will not do to say that they were weak, or superstitious, or cowardly, or inferior in any respect to the infidels of their day. Hence it would be well for those who are disposed to think that the story of the resurrection is an old wives' fable, if they would escape merited ridicule for stupid ignorance or inordinate self-conceit, to remember that their peers, to say the least, in intellect and knowledge firmly believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

If He did not, what became of His body? All who have the lowest degree of intelligence know and admit that He died, and was buried, and hence it is most pertinent to inquire, What became of His body? It was certainly in the hands either of His friends or His foes. If the former had it in possession, and pretended that He rose, although He remained in the grave, they are the most stupendous liars this world has ever seen, but no one but a brute too low to deserve the slightest notice believes that. If His foes had control of it, why did they not exhibit it, when a few days after His death, all Jerusalem was stirred to its depths by the announcement made on the streets that He was risen, and three thousand believed it in one day? All that His enemies had to do was to show the body, or to give some better explanation of its disappearance than the silly invention, that His few timid disciples had stolen it from the midst of a band of sleeping soldiers, and they would have dispelled the illusion forever, and plucked up the delicate plant of Christianity by the roots. What became of the body? In the light of this question, the theory of fraud, the theory of a swoon, the theory of a myth, the theory of hallucination, the theory of an apparition, each and all fade into nothingness, and there remains in its sublime proportions, reaching down to hell, towering up to heaven, stretching throughout eternity, the one great inquiry which must be met, What became of the body?