Page images

that the Apostles fully understood our Lord's words, as St John only tells us that they did not believe them, till after the resurrection; that is to say, they did not comprehend how they were to be verified.” In evidence of this, the learned lecturer refers to Süskind's Observations on Henke's explanation of this passage-in “Flatts Magazin'as before; yet clearly intending that the reader should fancy that the commentators in general, “who adopt the ordinary interpretation ” of our Lord's words; make the same supposition. On referring to several of those commentators—Kuinoel and Rosenmüller are, of course, out of the question -I found, as I expected, not one of them in the least liable to the charge of maintaining that the disciples understood our Lord's expression at the time, but believed it not till after his resurrection nor do I, at present, conceive that the sentiment is to be found in any such commentator, of established reputation. Lampe's account of the matter is well worth attention. In the first place, he is one of those commentators “who adopt the ordinary interpretation;" in the second, he thinks that Jesus pointed to himself; and in the third, he observes upon the 22d verse-“When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said ”—“It is here supposed that, when Jesus spoke these things, the disciples were quite ignorant of the mystery. They often betrayed their ignorance concerning other truths; but on no subject were they so much in the dark, as on the prediction of the death and resurrection of Jesus*.” Lampe afterwards well illustrates the subject by referring to another passage of St John (xii. 16)—in which things at one time not understood are said to be remembered : “These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.” The distinction, indeed, attempted to be drawn in this case—with Dr Wiseman's approbation, I presume— between understanding and believing, cannot be defended, without utterly disregarding the import of Scriptural language—especially that of St John. Grotius, on John ii. 22, speaks of the disciples, as beginning to understand the Scriptures, not only by the event of the resurrection, but by divine illumination; and of their belief, as then conjoined with intelligence. He refers also to Luke xxiv. 45, where we read that, after the resurrection, “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scripturest." This is, to write like a man who is

* “Supponitur hic, quod discipuli, cum Jesus hæc loqueretur, mysterii hujus ignari planè fuerint. Inscitiam suam circa alias veritates sæpe indicarunt, sed circa nullam aliam rem magis obtenebrati erant, quam circa prædictionem mortis et resurrexionis Jesu.” Vol. 1. p. 544.

of The sentiments of Grotius, on the whole matter, are here given, as entitled to attention. On the words, v. 19. Destroy this temple,


master of his subject.... What, moreover, can be said in behalf of those who maintain that the disciples understood so figurative an expression, at the outset of our Lord's ministry—when it appears (Luke xviii. 33, 34) that, on being informed long afterwards, in plain words, that he was to be put to death, and on the third day to rise again, “they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.” Dr Wiseman's argument has long since been disposed of; and so far as that is concerned, it is of no consequence in what sense this passage of Scripture is understood. My object, in pointing out such misrepresentations as we are now considering, is to vindicate the character of the sacred volume.

So far, the object of Dr Wiseman's labours, on John ii. 18—20, has been to show that, taking all the circumstances of the case, the expression, “ destroy this temple” was so clear, that explanation was altogether superfluous. The learned lecturer has avowed a similar opinion, respecting expressions which were explained; but I will not he writes, “ Malignos obscurè alloquitur. Nam si probo fuissent animo, in hoc ipso facto miraculum agnovissent, quòd homo unus nullis instructus humanis viribus tantam turbam imperio suo cedere coegisset, solà turpis facti conscientiâ et Divinæ iræ sensu permotos. Stultos homines solemus ad operis finem rejicere: sic Christus, quanquam liberalis miraculorum, ad maximum miraculum et complementum, resurrectionem scilicet suam, frequenter responsatores rejicit.” Also, on the words, v. 22. When he was risen from the dead, “Cum non eventu tantum sed et Divinâ illustratione cæperunt Scripturas intelligere:"_and on the words, They believed, “Cum intellectu scilicet."

again urge this topic. His next step is to maintain that the expression, which he has so learnedly proved to be free from ambiguity, was made obscure by our Lord from design-that it was a dark intimation—"a mysterious emblem”—of the resurrection; and therefore not to be understood till the event to which it related had come to pass. Nothing less than some extraordinary dispensation, some peculiar privilege-- the nature of which we should have been glad to learn—can entitle the learned author to hold these contradictory opinions ; but even this topic I will not dwell upon. Let the expression be involved, as deeply as he pleases, in prophetic difficulty. We know, however, that it is prophetic of our Lord's death and resurrection. But the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood, if understood of the Eucharist, must also have been prophetic of that institution. How then does Dr Wiseman know that the language, in the sixth chapter of John, may not be as mysterious. figurative-as remote from the literal interpretation of the Jews in the one instance, as on the authority of the Apostle himself, we know the language, in the second chapter, to have been, on the other occasion ? My conclusion is, that, whether the learned author holds the expression to have been perfectly easy, or extremely hard, to be understood —to say nothing of his scheme of maintaining both opinions at once-the resulting argument is equally adverse to his own hypothesis.


Dr Wiseman's next mode of reasoning, on the case of John ii, must by all means be given without mutilation. It is to the full as remarkable as any that has yet been produced :

A third and principal difference, between the two passages under investigation, is this. I have never said that our Saviour was bound to answer the objections of the Jews; but I have examined only his practice, when he did answer or explain: and have found that his conduct was precisely that of an honest and upright teacher, who corrected mistakes, and enforced his doctrines. But in the case of John ii, he deems it right to give no answer at all. The passage,

therefore, does not belong to either of the classes above mentioned, and cannot form a term of comparison for explaining John vi. 53. It only proves that our Saviour sometimes declined answering an objection at all—and the prophetic nature of his declaration is a sufficient reason for acting so in this case:it cannot prove that he ever answered so as to mislead his hearers.” (pp. 109, 110.)

What does the learned author mean, by the last words of this extract-“it cannot prove that he ever answered so as to mislead his hearers ?” Who ever thought that our Lord did answer “so as to mislead his hearers," on that, or on any other, occasion ? If they were left in a state of wilful misapprehension, can it in the least signify whether they were so left without a reply at all, or with a repetition of the declaration which they had perverted ? ....But to the main object of the extract : Dr Wiseman writes, “I have never said that our Saviour was bound to answer the objection of the Jews.” Most undoubtedly, the learned writer “has never said that our Saviour was bound to answer;'

« PreviousContinue »