are seven of us," as in Mark v. is Legion, for we are many;" or, 2. That after relapsing into her former sins, she had again fallen into the possession of the devil, and been seven times successively delivered from him; or, 3. That she had been delivered from seven severe natural disorders, termed possessions by the devil, and which were, perhaps, seven hysteric and spasmodic attacks. Here it is not possible for me to give any opinion, nor even to lay before my readers what appears to me the probable solution of this question, since I have had no opportunity of discussing the words "possessed by a devil," and those who have written upon the subject come to no conclusion, and refer us to no authority. In fact, the question belongs more properly to Luke, who was not only no anonymous, but a medical writer. VII. LUKE'S SPECIAL NARRATION OF PETER. LUKE XXIV. 12. 12. "Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre, and stooping down he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass." That this is the same story with John xx. 2— 10, every reasonable man will soon see, only John, who was present, relates it as an eyewitness, with more accuracy. 1. Here it is said, "Peter ran unto the sepulchre." John not only mentions the approach to the tomb, but that he also went with him, and arrived there before Peter. 2. Luke has only" stooping down," as far as relates to Peter; but John did still more, he went in himself. In this I see no contradiction, . nor have the enemies of Christianity seen any; it only shows the greater accuracy with which an eye-witness speaks of a transaction. 3. In Luke we see "the linen clothes alone," independent of the dead body. John adds only the slight circumstance, that he saw the cloth which was over the face, wrapped up, and lying in a place by itself. This is no contradiction. The enemies of Christianity contend that there is here a contradiction between Luke and John, for, according to John, Peter went to the tomb before Mary Magdalene had seen an angel, but according to Luke, the women had already seen an angel at the sepulchre, and had communicated to his disciples the information which the angel had given them of Jesus having risen from the grave. But supposing the contradiction to remain unanswered, Luke is the only evangelist who loses by it; it would be his error, and John, who had read the gospel of Luke before he composed his own, corrects the error by his superior accuracy. But, in point of fact, I see no contradiction; because Luke relates that Peter ran to the grave, subsequently to the return of the women, it does not therefore follow that he ran there immediately after their return; it may have taken place, and this is in conformity with John, during the time that the women were still at the sepulchre, and when Mary Magdalene had alone returned Luke: probably was not acquainted with this circumstance; he was no eye-witness, he would otherwise have mentioned it. But he does not K say, therefore, what is untrue, for he did not promise to write a journal of minutes and of hours, and he may have ended the history of the women when they first went to the sepulchre. He then proceeds to relate the arrival of Peter, without, however, stating, or probably knowing, what was the cause of his running to the sepulchre. I do not deny, if we had Luke alone, we might conceive Peter to have run down to the grave in the first instance, when the women had brought back into the city the account of the vision of angels, but even then this would have created some doubt, as Luke would naturally have added, "that he, Peter, had found no angel," but it is upon this account also, that an eye-witness gives more correctness to the history, that is, he does not show that Luke wrote an untruth, but he only relates with more detailed accuracy, so that every fact may be appropriated to its proper place. A doubt, however, of another kind, not against Luke, but against the perfect fidelity of our copied text, arises at this verse. I have already alluded to it in my Introduction to the New Testament, it would seem as if something were wantingnamely, a narration of the appearance of Jesus, whom, according to 1 Cor. xv. 5, and even ac cording to Luke xxiv. 34, have seen on the first day. Peter is stated to that Luke should have made the apostles say, "The Lord is indeed risen, and has appeared to Simon," without having communicated some circumstances connected with this appearance to his readers, and this silence is the more extraordinary, as he had been previously speaking of Peter, and related his surprise at the sepulchre having been found empty. Nor do I see rightly what this verse means, if it is not intended for the beginning of a more important narration. It is clear with what view John relates Peter running to the sepulchre, examining it minutely, and finding it empty. But the whole connection, so obvious in John, is here lost, it is not even mentioned that John and Mary Magdalene were present at the time; why this history, which without the connection loses its importance, is here related, is scarcely imaginable, except as an introduction to one more important, namely, that Jesus relieved Peter from his embarrassment, and appeared himself unto him. If this history had commenced with "And behold," the omission would have been conceivable, as the narration in the succeeding 13th verse, of the disciples going to Emmaus |