In another part of the same chapter, we are told that Jesus said to the eleven, when he appeared in their midst, "These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."*

These alleged instances of the application of Scripture to himself by Jesus, are recorded by Luke, and by him only. He, it will be remembered, was not an apostle or acquaintance of Jesus; and, not even in a solitary instance, does he assert or intimate, or give us any reason to surmise, that he ever saw him him anywhere, either dead or alive.

It is supposed that the same interview spoken of by Luke, is also referred to by Mark, when he relates the appearing of Jesus to the two who "walked and went into the country." His mention of it, however, (if the language alluded to can be considered as such) is very brief; and he records not a single syllable of the extended conversation which is detailed by Luke. Mark, you will recollect, never speaks of his having known Jesus personally; nor is he supposed, by any commentators or critics whose writings I have met with, to have seen him upon any occasion whatever.

Of the four evangelists, Matthew and John only were apostles and companions of Jesus; and concerning this ~ alleged personal appearing and colloquy, on the road to * Luke, xxiv. 44. † Mark, xvi. 12.

Emmaus, they say nothing. They do not allude to it, even in the most obscure and distant manner.

It appears from the account, that the two who met Jesus, or were overtaken by him, had, before his crucifixion, been among his most familiar acquaintances; and yet when he "himself drew near and went with them," while on their journey from Jerusalem to Emmaus, the whole distance of which was nearly eight miles,* and even after he had talked with them for some time, and "expounded unto them" the prophecies, they did not know who he was! It is said that "their eyes were holden that they should not know him." And not till he "sat at meat with them," and "took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them," did they realize who it was they had conversed with. Then, however, we are told, "their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight."+

When he appeared to Mary, in the garden, near the sepulchre where he had lain, and when he had spoken to her, it seems she did not recognize him at first, but thought he was the gardener. And when he "stood in the midst" of the eleven, who were assembled at Jerusalem, and said to them, Peace be unto you, "they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit."§

These accounts (especially the statement that he "appeared in another form"|| from that which the Marys

*Three-score furlongs:" Luke, xxiv. 13. tlb. 30, 31. Jno. xx. 14, 15. § Luke, xxiv. 36, 37. || Mark, xvi. 12.

saw, to the two disciples going to Emmaus, and that when he parted from them he "vanished out of their sight,") represent Jesus as being, after his resurrection, a sort of Proteus-changing his shape, and presenting upon almost every occasion a personal appearance so different from that which he wore before his crucifixion, that he was not recognized; but, at one time, was thought to be "a spirit."

And yet, it seems to have been the design of the writers to convey the idea that he arose with the self-same body that was suspended on the cross and afterward laid in the tomb. At least, so they are commonly understood: and John, though he does not say directly, yet seems to imply, by the connection in which his language occurs, that Jesus showed the wound in his side, and the nail-prints in his hands, when he was seen and touched by the doubting Thomas.*

It is difficult, however, for any of us to believe that the literal body of Christ-the corporeal system of flesh and blood, bone, sinew, muscle, teeth, eyes and hair, and whatever garment it may have been clothed with— actually passed through a door that was shut, or entered a room otherwise than through a visible aperture; which John apparently intends to say was the fact. The following is his language: "The same day at evening, being the first day of the week, wHEN THE DOORS WERE SHUT where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto * John, xx. 27.

them, Peace be unto you......And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, THE DOORS BEING SHUT, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.”*

This subject has been attended with perplexity in the minds of learned commentators of different religious persuasions. As I have no other wish than to give a perfectly fair representation of the case, I will here quote the remarks of three distinguished Biblical scholars.

DR. ADAM CLARKE. "The doors were shut-for fear of the Jews: We do not find that the Jews designed to molest the disciples:.....but as they had proceeded so far as to put Christ to death, the faith of the disciples not being very strong, they were led to think that they should be the next victims if found. Some think, therefore, that they had the doors not only shut but barricadoed: nevertheless, Jesus came in, the doors being shut, i. e. while they continued shut. But how? By his almighty power: and further we know not. Yet it is quite possible, that no miraculous influence is here intended. The doors might be shut for fear of the Jews; and Jesus might open them, and enter in the ordinary way. Where there is no need for a miracle, a miracle is never wrought."†

DR. GEO. CAMPBELL. "The words do not necessarily imply, that whilst the doors continued shut, our Lord entered miraculously. The original is even more

* John, xx. 19, 26. Commentary on N. T.

literally rendered having been shut, than being shut, or when they were shut; as it is the preterperfect, not the present or imperfect participle. They may have been, therefore, for aught related by the evangelist, made by miracle to fly open and give him access."*

PROF. THOLUCK, of Germany. "It may be asked whether the manner in which the Lord appeared to them involves in itself any thing miraculous? The first circumstance which may be adduced in favor of that supposition is the fact that "the doors were closed." The Fathers of the Church and the Lutheran theologians believe that the body of the Redeemer was transfigured or glorified, and that of a consequence he was able to enter in a supernatural manner without opening the door. The doctrine of the Ubiquity of Christ's body, which they sought to establish, was the chief reason why the Lutheran theologians maintained this view with so much zeal. The judgment denounced by Calvin against this explanation is severe: facessant istae pueriles argutiae! 'away with these puerile conceits!' That the body of the risen Saviour could not yet have been glorified is rendered apparent from what follows-the exhibition of his wounds, and, as stated by Luke, his eating with the disciples. It might now be said that his appearance before them took place altogether in the ordinary way; that the reason why the Evangelist mentions the closed doors is found in the circumstance that he wished to intimate the dangerous condition in which they stood on account of the Jews*Campbell's Notes on the Gospels.