is no difference in import between this and aparns which is several times applied in the Old Testament to the sudden disappearance of angels. Thus, 2 Macc. 3. 34, "And having spoken thus, they (the angels) appeared no more (άpavɛis ¿yśvovto)." Here, then, we are undoubtedly taught that our Lord suddenly and miraculously disappeared from the view of the disciples. He vanished in the breaking of bread. And this act is explained by the explanation of their seeing him. If they saw him by the supernatural opening of their inward eye, they ceased to see him by the equally supernatural closing of that eye. As for himself, there was no necessity for any local removal. He disappeared just as an audience would disappear from the view of a speaker upon closing his eyes. They would remain just where they were before. As before remarked, we know nothing about the relation of spiritual or angelic bodies to space.

SIV. Fourth Appearance.

Mark 16: 14-18. Luke 24: 36-49. John 20: 19-29.

The next appearance mentioned was still on the evening of the same day, at Jerusalem: "And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for

and see;

joy, and wondered, he 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. And he said unto them, 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. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures. And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." Luke 24. 36-49.

Here we infer again the sudden and instantaneous apparition of our Lord. "And as they thus spake, Jesus stood (orn) in the midst of them." Nothing is said of his entrance by the door or in any other way. The first they know, he is there-they see him.

It is indeed true that the language of John is slightly different: "Then 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 (298 xaì orη) in the midst, and said," &c. Upon this Dr. Robinson argues as follows: "The question here again is raised, whether this entrance of our Lord was miraculous? That it might have been so, there is no reason to doubt. He who in the days of his flesh walked upon the waters, and before whose angel the iron gate of the prison opened of its

own accord, so that Peter might pass out ;* he who was himself just risen from the dead; might well in some miraculous way present himself to his followers in spite of bolts and bars. But does the language here necessarily imply a miracle? The doors indeed were shut; but the word used does not of itself signify that they were bolted or fastened. The object no doubt was, to prevent access to spies from the Jews; or also to guard themselves from the danger of being arrested; and both these objects might perhaps have been as effectually accomplished by a watch at or before the door. Nor do the words used of our Lord strictly indicate any thing miraculous. We do not find here a form of ¿œiorηui, the word commonly employed to express the sudden appearance of angels; but,' he came and stood (λs nai OT) in the midst of them;' implying per se nothing more than the ordinary mode of approach. There is in fact nothing in the whole account to suggest a miracle, except the remark of John respecting the doors; and as this circumstance is not mentioned either by Mark or Luke, it may be doubtful, whether we are necessarily compelled by the language to regard the mode of our Lord's entrance as miraculous."

In reply to this, we think it can be shown that the intimation of our Saviour's " coming" in connexion with his " standing" in the presence of his disciples on this occasion, detracts nothing from the force of our previous reasoning in support of the miraculous character of his appearance at this time. Our argument, it will be observed, is built on the assumption that our Lord's manifestations of himself from time to time to his disci

*Acts 12: 10.
2*

ples during the forty days, were of the nature of the scriptural angelophanies. Now if it can be made to appear, that the use of the same phraseology is common in such narratives-that an angel is frequently said to come," even when he must have appeared to an internal vision-then it is clear that the weight of the objection drawn from the occurrence of this term in John's account, is essentially impaired. Let the following passages speak for themselves on this point: Judg. 6. 11, "And there came (λ9ɛ) an angel of the Lord, and sat under an oak which was in Ophrah." That this was properly the vision of an angel is to be gathered from its being said, v. 12, " And the angel of the Lord appeared (won) unto him," which we have already shown to be the appropriated language for this kind of appearances made to the inward perception. Dan. 11. 18, "Then there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man, and strengthened me." Rev. 8. 3., "And another angel came and stood (329ŋ xaì šorŋ) at

the altar."

Bringing with us, therefore, to this manifestation the evidence collected from the former ones, we are certainly authorized to conclude that the nature of it was the same with that of the former. And I would desire especial attention to this consideration, for I cannot perceive but that this fact must necessarily govern our interpretation of the incidents that followed. The opposite view to that which I am now defending, supposes that the body now exhibited was the veritable, unchanged body of flesh and bones which had been taken down from the cross and deposited in the sepulchre. Consequently, its advocates begin by denying that there was any thing miraculous implied by the phrase, "stood in

We

the midst of them," unless possibly it might be that our Lord, by his omnipotent will, opened the door, as the angel did the prison door when Peter was delivered. But if this were so, would not this miracle of itself have been worthy of record ?* We plant ourselves, however, upon the simple letter of the narrative as it stands. contend that the plain, obvious import of the text is, that this appearance was sudden and supernatural. As they were convened together in a closed room, "Jesus stood in the midst of them." He made himself visible to them. And how was this but by the same process with that which he had before seen fit to employ, viz., the sudden development of an interior power of vision which

*Thus the writer of a review on my work on the Resurrection, in a recent number of the Princeton Repertory, remarks that "With only a moiety of Professor Bush's philological dexterity, and a tithe of his temerity, we could make it appear, that the language used of those events, is such as to be capable of being consistently understood without the implication,' that in the cases of our Saviour's appearance there was, on the supposition of a material body, any supernatural phenomenon at all. For instance, Jesus is said to have stood in the midst of them, the doors being shut. It is not said 'explicitly' that the doors were shut when he came in ; and how natural the conclusion, that while the doors were open he entered and sat; and after the doors were shut, rose and addressed his disciples. Or on the other occasion, while the two disciples were relating the occurrences on the way to Emmaus, and at the table there, and Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, it is not said even that the doors were shut, and the presumption is allowable that he entered in the natural way. And as to his evanishing at the house in Emmaus, it was at the instant of the disciples' confusion, after their sudden and overwhelming discernment of him as their Lord, while their faces, perhaps, were hidden with astonishment, and their hearts 'burning within them" with the lingering fire of his eloquence along the road, that he abruptly and silently withdrew, they knew not how."