that John omits to mention the fact that the disciples opened the door, simply because it was a matter which would be self-evident. But, even though this view might not be altogether inadmissible, it is still not the most probable one. Here and in verse 26, 'he stood in their midst,' seems to convey the impression that the disciples did not observe his arrival, but that they saw him all of a sudden. The Persic version here translates: 'they saw him suddenly standing among them.' The Spanish translation corresponds with this. And besides, since we find it stated in Luke 24: 37, that at his entrance the disciples, instead of hastening to him full of joy as Mary did, were in astonishment, and supposed that they saw a spirit; this also furnishes evidence that the mode of his entrance was not the ordinary one. And finally, a consideration which appears to be one of especial moment here is, that John could have had no cause whatever to repeat in ver. 26 that the doors were closed, unless that fact were particulary connected with the manner of Jesus' entrance. To all of which must be added the circumstance mentioned in Luke 24: 31, 'and he vanished out of their sight.' True, even in recent times, Jahn, in his Theological Remains, has attempted to establish the view set forth in the Syriac, which refers it simply to his going away; but to the unprejudiced exegetical sense the expression evidently implies something different. Without undertaking to determine therefore the manner in which Jesus suddenly entered into the midst of his disciples, we must still believe

that it involved somewhat of a miraculous character."*

It will be recollected by those who heard the lectures of Prof. BUSH, delivered in this village, about a year since, that he advanced, and with no little ingenuity endeavored to sustain by reasoning, the idea that Jesus did not arise, and subsequently appear to the women and the disciples, in the identical body which was crucified; but in a spiritual body-an incorporeal, impalpable spirit-identity, which (to use his own expression) was "eliminated" from the natural body. He argued that the alleged appearing and disappearing of Jesus, his instantaneously recognized presence in the midst of his disciples, and his sudden vanishing, resulted solely from the sudden and miraculous opening and shutting of a spiritual eye in each of the beholders, whereby they were enabled to gaze in upon the realities of the spiritual world, and to see there the risen and glorified Christ. This view of the subject, he thought, would completely obviate the difficulty arising from the opposite view, when considered in connection with the plain declaration that the door was shut when Jesus entered the room: for gross matter is not impervious to spirit.

In reply to the objection, founded on the following words of Jesus to the agitated and fearful disciples, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and *Commentary on the Gospel of John. Kaufman's translation.

bones, as ye see me have,"*-he remarked that the original word rendered "spirit" in our version, was currently employed by the Jews, in the time of Christ, to signify a "ghost," or a spectral appearance of any kind. He suppose that the disciples' alarm was occasioned by their having fancied "that they had seen a spirit” of this sort. And he construed the language of Jesus, as meaning simply that a "spirit," or indefinitely-shapen ghost, had not a perceptible identity, such as they saw that he had. He considered the phrase "flesh and bones" as implying nothing more than recognizable identity.

There is certainly something very ingenious in this mode of interpretation; and the sincere and devout manner in which it was set forth inspired me with a sentiment of profound respect for its learned projector. But, as it seems to me, it seriously conflicts with the plain statement of Luke, (supposing him to refer to the same meeting mentioned by John) which is, that Jesus "said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of a honey-comb. And he took it, and did eat before them."+ Is it reasonable to suppose that a materially incorporeal being has a mouth and a stomach, with which to eat and digest material food?

WHAT DOES THE STORY OF THE RESURRECTION PROVE?

Admitting it to be true, just as related, what great fact does it demonstrate? Why, this—and this only: that Christ's body was somehow resuscitated, and he

*Luke, xxiv. 39. tlbid, 41-43.

returned to this state of existence wherein we now are, after having once departed from it. I am unable to see in this event any thing like a demonstration of human immortality: for Jesus tarried here but a short time after his return-only forty days, at the utmost, according to the testimony contained in the book called the Acts of the Apostles.*

How could his coming back to this corporeal state of sentient being, show demonstrably that he or any one else would live forever in a sphere of existence that is purely spiritual? What analogical coherence is there, between the idea of a man's return to this world, after leaving it, and the endless existence of himself, and kindred humanity, in another world? How could the reinvestment of his spirit with the cast-off robe of mortality, furnish demonstrative proof that he and all mankind would finally be clothed with the garment of immortality?

As far as the idea of spiritual and immortal existence may be concerned, is not the hypothesis of Prof. Bush (however much it may conflict with the letter of the evangelical records) far more significant and demonstrative than the theory which is commonly received? His belief is, that Jesus was already in a spiritual and incorruptible state of entity, when his disciples saw and conversed with him. He believes that when, as they say, Christ appeared, a miraculous effect was wrought upon them, not upon Jesus; he supposes that a window of this "earthly house" was opened, through which they gazed into the *Acts, i. 3.

boundless region of spiritual existence, and beheld Jesus there, and held blissful communion with him. I confess that though I am not convinced that this theory is correct, as a scriptural exegesis; yet, to my mind, it seems more satisfactory and is fraught with deeper meaning, in the way of demonstrating immortality, than the opposite idea of the re-animation of Christ's physical body.

No

Whether Christ was sentient or entirely unconscious during the three days that intervened between the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, we are not informed. language is ascribed to him, in the accounts of the several interviews which he held with the disciples and with his faithful female friends, which expresses or implies that he uttered, in their presence, a single syllable concerning the character of the future life. Nay, we are in no instance given to understand, by the evangelists, that he so much as barely alluded to the future state in any way! If he arose from the dead for the express purpose of confirming man's hope of immortality, is it not likely that he would have said something on that subject, to the trembling, doubting apostles? If he gave them no information concerning the mode of man's immortal existence, and imparted not the slightest degree of knowledge in relation to our future employments, or condition as respects weal or woe, how did the simple fact of his return to this life demonstrate to his disciples that he and they should live beyond the grave, any more conclusively than the resurrection of Lazarus, of