consequence at all; the stress does not lie on that circumstance. Jesus in an instant appeared in the midst of the company; he was not seen to enter. Doubtless, then, the united force of all these circumstances operating on the mind of Thomas, which was evidently opened by Jesus on this occasion, as were the minds of the others on previous occasions, to see the spiritual body of the Redeemer, drew from him this plain, but rapturous expression of his full conviction that he was the LORD GOD. It may not be altogether irrelevant just to notice here the absurdity of the objection that Jesus did not shew himself to the multitude after his resur disciples after his resurrection, it would seem that they took place under different forms. This we think is clear, not only from its being mentioned, Mark xvi. 12., but also from the circumstance of his being in general unknown to those to whom he appeared, at least for some time, till "their eyes were opened." As far as this difficulty can be solved, we must look for the solution in the circumstance of our Lord's body being now, in the strictest sense of the apostle's words, 66 a spiritual body," of the properties of which we can form but a very inadequate conception. One thing however is plain, namely, that the appearances of Jesus during his personal ministry were in all respects in strict ac-rection as he had done before. Those cordance with those laws by which we know the operations of nature to be limited; after his resurrection the case was far otherwise: his appearances were sudden and unexpected, and under such forms as evidently prevented those from recognising him with whom he had been most intimate. On those occasions also our Lord's disappearance from the view of his disciples seems to have been equally sudden and striking; and there evidently was some very particular reason why those who saw him should not venture to touch him, John XX. 17. It may be objected to this that the disciples did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead; but so did the patriarchs with spiritual beings who appeared unto them. It may also be said that some of the women to whom he appeared embraced his feet and adored him; so also we are told of Jacob wrestling with an angel: and if Jesus permitted this in one instance it does not appear certain that it was permitted in any other or even rendered necessary. Others indeed were invited to do so, Luke xxiv. 39., but the invitation and the immediate exposure to their view of the marks of his crucifixion seem to have produced the desired conviction. And this appears very obvious in the case of Thomas. Our Lord's address to Thomas was the language of omniscience; it was a reply to the strong expressions of his incredulity which he had uttered before he had seen the Lord. Besides, Jesus entered the apartment where Thomas and the others were assembled in such a way as bespoke omnipotence: the doors were shut;-whether as some suppose they were strongly fastened within is of no who make this objection, do not seem aware that to have done so would have been to open the eyes of the multitude in a miraculous manner, to see what could not be discovered by the natural power of vision. The manifestation of Jesus to those who saw him after his resurrection was a matter of pure distinguishing favour, and as much an instance of supernatural power upon the mind as when Stephen saw the heavens opened and Jesus standing on the right hand of God; or as when Jesus appeared to Paul on his way to Damascus, or when he was caught up to the third heavens in a vision; or as when John saw Jesus in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks. Jesus was as much present in the city of Jerusalem after he rose from the dead, as when he was teaching in the temple; but the multitude saw him not; they could not see him;-the gospel of salvation was to be published to all the ends of the earth for the obedience of faith; and therefore, it was sufficient that the witnesses chosen of God should see him of whom they were to testify; and as to the number of those, infinite wisdom was the best judge. In concluding his remarks on the homage which Jesus permitted to be paid to him, Dr. Smith remarks that: "It was a point which the Lord Jesus evidently held very important and sacred, never to countenance any claims of worldly sovereignty, either acknowledged by himself or made by others on his behalf. He strongly disavowed the receiving of honour from men." He decidedly refused to interfere in civil affairs, and rebuked one who used towards him the language of compliment: "Why callest thou me good?" When creatures against the crime of idolatry, or less modest, less humble, less cautious, than his servants were, if he were not conscious of possessing a NATURE entitled to receive divine honours? Can he be acquitted of arrogance and presumption, or even of flagrant impiety?" p. 291. And our Lord's consciousness of the existence of this superior NATURE in himself, as intimated in various declarations of Jesus, Dr. Smith has illustrated in a close and unanswerable argument. In the references which our Lord, in some of his discourses, makes to several particulars of the divine law, he evidently represents his own authority as equivalent to that which gave the law:-"which will involve, that the authority of Jesus and the authority of Jehovah are the same." What autho attempts were made to invest him with regal dignity, he inflexibly disclaimed them, yet he refused not those tokens of homage which were the known signs of regal dignity, or at least denoted some kind of secular honour, those he received with approbation. "They must, therefore, have been regarded by him as the due acknowledgments of a spiritual and sacred supremacy, a supremacy which he openly claimed as the Lord, and Master, and King of his church." The Unitarians argue, however, that this homage paid to Jesus, and accepted by him, might be paid to him as a most distinguished messenger of the Most High, as the beloved Son of God. But upon the hypothesis of this allegation he must have regarded the homage paid to him, as carrying no implication, or seeming implication of ac-rity but that which gave the law could, cepting the honour which belongeth to in reference to the spiritual import of it, God only. And there is abundant evi- say: "Ye have heard that it hath been dence that, "The same action, when said by them of old time, but 1 say offered to other persons, whose moral unto you." Yet this was the common worth and divine commission entitled form in which Jesus expressed himself them to every token of human respect, when he was shewing his disciples and was apprehended to imply a more than others that the commandments of God created dignity, and was therefore re- are "exceeding broad." And it was the jected in the strongest manner." This difference between our Lord's language was the case when the centurion Cor- and that of the highest human delegate nelius fell down at Peter's feet and by whom God ever spake to man that worshipped him; Peter raised him up, filled his auditors with astonishment:saying, Arise, I myself also am a man; 'He taught as one having authority, plainly intimating that this act of ho- and not as the Scribes." When Moses, image was "prompted by feelings wrong when the apostles gave commandments in kind and degree," and that to have to men, it was always in language which received it would have been an arrogat- intimated that they acted in a delegated ing of a dignity superior to that of man. capacity: but Jesus always uses the So also when the apostle John was language of his own personal authority, favoured with the apocalyptic visions, without any corrective or modification "dazzled by the display of glory which whatever:-" he claimed religious obe he beheld, and not improbably mistak- dience in his own right." The highest ing the celestial attendant for his Lord, display of this underived authority at whose feet he had before fallen as which Jesus when on earth could posdead, he fell down to worship before the sibly make was, the exercising of that feet of the angel who shewed him those prerogative which, if we may form our things;" but he was prevented by the opinion from the word of God, constiadmonition-"See thou do it not! for I tutes the leading characteristic in the am thy fellow-servant." "Thus tender name of Jehovah; when he said without and jealous, says Dr. Smith, have the any intimation of an authority superior inspired messengers of Jehovah shewed to his own, and was understood by all themselves to avoid, in action or con- around him as speaking from his own nivance, the smallest appearance of in- authority: "Son, be of good cheer; thy fringing upon those honours which are sins be forgiven thee," he used landue to the Eternal Majesty alone. And guage which, in the mouth of any being could Jesus, the meek and lowly servant besides the incomprehensible Jehovah, of his Father; the most circumspect of would be the highest blasphemy. It teachers; the wisest and best of men be belongs to Jehovah,-to Jehovah,-merless moved with jealousy for his Father's ciful and gracious, and to him alone, to honour, less careful to guard his fellow-pardon iniquity, transgression and sin. 66 When our adorable Lord left this earth and ascended on high, he communicated to his apostles that power which was necessary for the part they acted in establishing his kingdom on earth. What had already been done was but as it were the dawning of the day of the Lord Jesus had withheld the manifestation of his power in a great degree during his own ministry; but when he ascended to his glory, it burst forth in the most overwhelming and irresistible manner. It was in reference to this display of his power that Jesus said to his disciples, greater works than these shall he do, who believeth on me. Hence we find the apostles uniformly ascribing the power by which they performed the works which they wrought in confirmation of their mission to Jesus Christ; yet the apostle, in writing to the Hebrews, says, it was GoD who bore them witness with signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will. The truth is, the apostles used the words God and Christ as synonymous: they knew of no other God but God manifest in the flesh-from him they received their commission, and the necessary qualifications for the discharge of it: what they did, therefore, they did in the name of JESUS OF NAZARETH: and it was thus they shewed that the excellency of the power was of GoD and not of themselves." Having thus incontrovertibly established the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, Dr. Smith proceeds to the con ́sideration of our Lord's HUMANITY, its characters and affections. "A being," he says, "who acts and speaks, and is addressed as a man, and who exhibits all the properties that distinguish man from other beings, must be a real man. To such a being, possessing the nature and essential attributes of a man, it is correct to ascribe a proper humanity; even if it should be the fact that, by the possession of a different class of properties which are known to be the attributes of another nature, this other nature should appear to be preternaturally conjoined with that being. Therefore a believer in the proper Deity of the Messiah has no obstruction, on that account, to an equal assurance of the Messiah's humanity. He regards it as a case absolutely of its own kind, having no known analogy to any other fact or existence in the universe, and which is to be judged of VOL. VIII. solely from its own evidence-competent testimony." By himself and by all others he was spoken of as a human being; his childhood was adorned with filial affections, and the discharge of filial duty. His intellectual powers, like those of other children, were progressive: and so was the developement of his moral excellencies. "He had large experience of human suffering. His lot was one of severe labour, poverty, weariness, hunger, and thirst. While he mingled in the common sociability and the innocent festivities of life, he sus tained a weight of inward anguish which no mortal could know: he was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. He experienced disappointment of expectation, the pain of ungrateful and injurious requital, the attachments and the griefs of friendship, sorrow for the miseries, and still more for the sins of men." In treating of the causes and the peculiar nature of the Redeemer's sufferings, Dr. Smith hath said much that is truly excellent, and certainly enough to prove the truth of the grand point for which he contends: but at the same time we cannot but think that this is a subject on which there yet remains much light to be thrown, and we sincerely wish that a greater number of the pages of the volume before us had been occupied by such an investigation. There is no subject that is more frequently handled, yet certainly none on which less of a satisfactory nature is said: thousands of treatises have been written on it, and ten thousands of sermons have been preached on it, but they are generally occupied with mere declamation. Even some of these, by eminent preachers both in our own country and on the Continent, which are so much admired would be found, if analyzed, to contain little more than a pathetic appeal to the passions. A celebrated modern preacher has touched upon the point, a proper understanding of which would, in our opinion, tend greatly to facilitate the investigation of the subject. The discourse to which we refer, is "On the contest for an ascendency over man, amongst the higher orders of intelligence." But as the design of Dr. Chalmers in this discourse is to shew, in opposition to the reason of modern infidelity, the "high and extensive bearings which the moral history of our globe may have on the system of God's universal administra 2 D tion," his arguments are confined chiefly terms as involve the recognition of to that one point. He has, however, suggested several highly important thoughts which, if followed out, would shew the extreme ignorance of infidels who ridicule the sentiment of the existence of evil spirits; the rashness and inconsistency of those professed Christians who join issue with them on this head; and, unless we are greatly mistaken, would shew that, the Bible does something more than "offer a dim transparency, through which we may catch a partial view of such designs, and of such enterprizes as are now afloat among the upper order of intelligences." Astronomical Discourses, p. 202. another nature; and that superior, pre- When we attempt to contemplate the sufferings of Jesus, the mind is overwhelmed with inexpressible awe: we feel that we are treading on the verge of the world of spirits. We have a scene before us that demonstrates to a certainty the existence of that spiritual being whom our Redeemer denominates "The Prince of this world." When we behold him who was manifested for the express purpose of destroying "the works of the devil," manifesting anguish and bitterness of soul far surpassing the most excruciating bodily suffering, and hear him utter the "exceedingly bitter and piercing cry, My God! My God! why hast thou forsaken me?"we instantly recognize that hour as the hour of the power of darkness, -the hour when He who was mighty to save trode the wine-press of the wrath of God alone, and judged, and spoiled, and cast out the prince of darkness. The anticipation of this hour made his soul exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death; "he was in an agony, and prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was as drops of blood on the ground;-he fell upon his face and prayed, and said, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me!" And is it really possible to contemplate this suffering, and particularly the concluding scene, without having the mind forcibly impressed with the reality of a conflict, of the most tremendous magnitude which, at that very moment, was being determined by spiritual, and, therefore, invisible agents? Surely not. In the remaining part of his arguments for the Messiah's humanity, Dr. Smith directs the attention of his readers to " a class of passages which speak of the human condition and circumstances of the Saviour, in such "1. The first question is, How far, in the construction of this sentence, does that part extend which was called by the ancient rhetoricians the protasis; that is, the proposal of the terms or considerations, which prepare the way for the rest of the sentence, called the apodixis, and from which it is to flow as a deduction, or application to the matter in hand?" The common version sup poses this to be at the close of the third by Cameron, a Scottish divine, who spoke and wrote the Greek language with as much ease as his native tongue, is truly beautiful:-"He made not a triumph or trophy, of his being equal with God; that is, he did not ostentatiously shew it, he did not seem to glory or boast of it." 3. "On a parity with God." It was not without much perplexity and hesitation, Dr. S. informs us, that he adopted this as the most just rendering he could devise of a . The expressions like God, and as God, appear below the proper signification: and the mode used in the common version, and many others, On the other hand, Dr. S. considers the just construction as terminating the protasis with the clause, "existing in the form of God;" and that the subsequent members all belong to the apodosis, and point to our Lord's unspeak-equal with God, has the objection of not able condescension. a note, a considerable number of instances, which will enable even those who have not studied the Greek literature, to form a satisfactory opinion of the propriety of the mode of translation which he has adopted. preserving the adverbial form of the 2. Another important consideration phrase, and, therefore, of assuming a is the meaning of the word açπayμós. more defined sense than it can be at The verb from which it is derived sig once said, that the peculiar form justi nifies, to seize, to catch at, suddenly to lay fies. The great importance attached to hold of, to take by force; and it is used the interpretation of this phrase, has with respect to the prey of a wild ani-induced our author to throw together, in mal, the booty captured by a warrior, &c. With regard to the noun, the question is, whether it denotes the act of seizing, or the thing seized. The word occurs no where besides, in the New Testament, the Septuagint, or the Apocrypha; nor, it is believed, in any Greek classic except once in Plutarch, and as Wetstein has discovered, once in the writings of Cyril of Alexandria. In these two instances, however, the authorities are opposed to each other, so that it is impossible to determine which of the writers used the word in the sense in which it is used by the apostle. Dr. Smith has, therefore, adopted that construction which is supported by the authority of the Greek fathers, from the earliest example of a quotation of the passage to the fourth century and downwards; who, he remarks, are reasonably entitled to great regard in mere verbal questions, which refer to the signification of the terms and idioms of their own language. After adducing a few examples from the earliest Greek writers, he observes: "The difficulty of the case must be admitted to be considerable and perhaps neither of the constructions can be adopted without some hesitation. The preponderance, however, appears to me to be in favour of that which has been already stated, and which I believe to have been approved by many, at least, of the most learned, judicious, and moderate interThe rendering of the passage preters.' After fully shewing in what this parity, or equality, of the Messiah with God consists, and ably combating the opinions of the Unitarians on the subject;-after illustrating in the same luminous manner the import of the phrases" being in the form of God, taking the form of a servant, becom ing, or being made in the likeness of men,-being found in condition as a man, humbling himself, and becoming obedient unto death"-the Doctor thus concludes: "The reader will recollect that this passage was brought under consideration, in addition to others from the New Testament, for the purpose of shewing that the human nature of Jesus Christ is described by such terms, and in such connexion of argument, as imply a superior, pre-existent, and divine nature, equally belonging to him. It is now for his serious judgment to say, whether the passages which have been produced, and the reasonings founded upon them, amount to satisfactory proof that such is the fact.". [To be concluded in our next.] |