end, Mark. xi. Luke xix. 45. both in the Jewish and Christian church, to contract in their names, whose act is looked From Matth. upon, and accepted by God, as theirs. In the mean time, that infants and young chil- 10. to the dren, though insensible of what is done for them, may have favours conferred on them, 15. to the end, and are capable of receiving spiritual advantages to their souls, is plain from that pas-kend, and sage in the evangelical history, where, when (a) "young children were brought to Christ, John xii. 19. to he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them," namely, by the end. praying for a blessing, by pronouncing a blessing, and by actually conferring a blessing on them; and if they are capable of being blessed, why should they be thought incapable of being baptized, since baptism, in the main, is but a solemn benediction, as it instates us in the privileges and benefits of the Gospel, such as adoption and grace, the pardon of our sins, and the acceptance of our persons? In short (b), the covenant of grace is a deed of gift made to us by Christ, wherein he promises to bestow upon us eternal life and happiness: And as it would be absurd to say, that a child's name ought not to be put into any deed or legacy, until he came of age to understand it; so it is equally absurd, and far more injurious, to exclude our children from this heavenly legacy which Christ, out of the riches of his goodness, has bequeathed unto them: Especially, considering (c) that the primitive church did all along, and (d) every national church at this day in the world does, admit their children into the Christian covenant by this ordinance; that (e) many of the most ancient writers plead the necessity of it, for the expiation of original guilt, and (ƒ) speak of it as a great sin in parents, and others, that have opportunity, to suffer any child of theirs, or any other person under their care, to die unbaptized. 66 In relation to the other sacrament, there can be no great difficulty in our Saviour's words, if we will but admit, that the Scripture very frequently makes use of figurative expressions, and, in matters of a sacramental nature more especially, is apt to put the sign for the thing signified. (g) “ The three baskets are three days, (h) the seven good kine are seven years, (i) the ram with the two horns are the kings of Media and Persia, (k) Sarah and Agar are the two covenants, and (1) the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches," are instances of this kind: And when Moses, speaking of the paschal lamb, tells the Israelites (m) "This is the Lord's passover," even before the Lord had passed over them, and smitten the Egyptians; and of the unleavened bread used at the paschal feast, "This is the bread of affliction which your fathers did eat in the land of Egypt," his meaning can be no other, than that these things were a representation and memorial of what had befallen their forefathers in Egypt: And therefore it is no wonder that our Blessed Saviour, in the institution of this sacrament, should make choice of the like form of expression, as was in use in the Jewish church upon the like occasion; and, consequently, that when he says, "This is my body," and "this is my blood," his meaning must be, that "this bread in my hand, and the wine in this cup, do signify and represent to you my body and blood, and that, in eating and drinking of these, you are made partakers of my body and blood,' i. e. of the real benefits of my death and passion.". (n) And indeed, if we consider, that our Blessed Saviour celebrated this sacrament before his passion, we shall soon perceive that his words could not possibly bear any other construction: For how could he hold himself in his own hand, or give his disciples his body broken, and his blood shed, when at this time he was alive, and no violence had passed upon him? (o) They saw his body whole before them, and knew that his blood was in his veins, and therefore could not but conclude, that what they eat (a) Luke xviii. 15. (b) Hopkins's Doctrine of the Two Sacraments. of Infant Baptism, part i. passim. (c) Wall's History (e) Ibid. part i. passim. (i) Dan. viii. 20. (n) Tillotson's Sermons in Ann. Dom. Vulg. Er. 33, &c. or 31. A. M. 4037, and drank, according to the evidence of their senses, was bread and wine; for, had they &c. or 5112. understood our Saviour's words in their literal meaning, it is hardly imaginable, but that they who upon all other occasions were so full of their questions and objections, would, upon the first hearing of this paradox, have started some such scruple as this,— "We see this to be bread, and that to be wine, and we see that thy body is distinct from both; we see that thy body is not broken, nor is thy blood shed, how therefore can these things be ?". The ancient apologists for our holy religion take notice, that this is one of the greatest accusations which the heathens brought against Christians, that they did eat human flesh; which they endeavour to refute, and constantly rejected, as the vilest calumny, and most abominable thing: but now, had they understood our Saviour's words in a literal sense, and thereupon made it an article of faith, that they did daily "eat the flesh of the Son of Man," with what sincerity could they, without all limitation or distinction, not only have denied, but even detested the doing so? (a) Nay, nothing is more obvious than that primitive writers continually ridicule the heathens for worshipping such deities as might be eaten, and instance particularly in the Egyptians, “who made the same flesh, which some of them did consecrate as a god, the food of others." But how can it possibly be conceived, that they should thus ridicule and expose the religion of heathens, for that very thing which made so great a part in their own; or brand that, as the very extremity of madness and folly, when done by others, which their faith taught them was the highest act of religious worship, when performed by themselves? (b) These things surely give us sufficient reason (with Scotus) to admire, that "such an interpretation should be put upon this one article, as makes our faith contemptible to all that are guided with reason; and at the same time to assert, that as it is apparently against humanity and against piety to break with our hands, to tear with our teeth, and to devour, as we do common food, the flesh and blood of Christ, and that the scorn of atheists and infidels will never cease, until the doctrine which established these positions be banished from the Christian church. We own, indeed, that the whole stress of the Christian cause lies upon the truth of our Lord's resurrection, and that all proper methods of convincing the world were necessary upon this occasion; but then it should be considered, (c) that our Lord being now, after his resurrection, to act according to the majesty of the Divine nature, and not according to the infirmities and condescension of the human, it did not so well comport with the dignity he had assumed, to converse publicly, or to submit himself to the censures, and fresh affronts of his enemes. [His familiar conversation with the world before his passion, was a principal branch of his humiliation (d), and his humiliation was an essential part of those sufferings by which the guilt of man was expiated. But the atonement being once made, the form of a servant was to be forever removed; Christ was to reassume his glory, and to be seen no more but as the only begotten of the Father. The scheme of redemption required, that before the passion the form of the servant should be predominant in the Redeemer's appearance; but that after his resurrection the form of God should be conspicuous. Accordingly, throughout his previous life, his manners, though grave, were unreserved; and though serious, not severe; whilst his whole deportment was indeed highly dignified, but never assuming. How great was the change after his resurrection? Even in his interviews with his disciples we find no trace of that easy familiarity of intercourse, which, obtained between him and them before his death, when he condescended to lead his whole life in their society, as a man with his equals. He had then a home at Capernaum where he lived with his mother and her family, except when the stated festivals called him to Jerusalem, or (a) Whitby's Annotations on Matth. xxvi. 26. the Christian Religion, vol. ii. (b) Ibid. (c) Jenkins's Reasonableness of (d) Bishop Horsley's Sermons on our Lord's Resurrection. end, Mark xi. Luke xix. 45. the business of his ministry induced him to visit other towns. But, after his resurrec- From Matth. tion, the place of his abode for a single night is not once mentioned; nor, from the xx. 10. to the most diligent examination of the history, can any place of abode on earth be assigned 15. to the end, to him. His body being glorified, as the bodies of all the saints shall be at the resur- to the end, and rection in the last day, required neither food for its subsistence, nor a lodging for its John xii. 19. to shelter and repose. He was become the inhabitant of another region, from which he the end. came occasionally to converse with his disciples. His appearances to them were for the most part unforeseen and sudden; nor less suddenly did he disappear. He was found in their company without apparently coming in; and he was again perceived to have left them without apparently going away. In all his interviews with them he maintained an awful dignity, whilst they kept themselves at a great distance. was natural to him before seems now to be miraculous, and whatever was miraculous appears now to be natural; for except certain actions, which were done to give his disciples proof that they saw in him their crucified Lord arisen from the grave, he seems to have done nothing like a common man.] But supposing it to have been consistent with the scheme of redemption, surely (a) the unbelieving Jews, especially the chief priests and rulers, were, of all men, most unworthy to have so extraordinary a way of conviction afforded to them. Whatever They had already despised the evidence that was given them; and not only so, but maliciously imputed the plainest miracles that ever were wrought, to the power and operation of the devil. Now, if any thing can render men incapable of the favour of a farther conviction, such a malicious resistance of the evidence which our Saviour's miracles carried along with them, would probably do it; especially if we consider that the greatest of all the miracles which he wrought in his lifetime, (I mean the raising of Lazarus from the grave, after he had been dead four days) was so far from convincing them, that, though they could not deny the thing, they took occasion to resolve to put him to death: And therefore, what reason was there that Christ should appear to them for their conviction, who had conspired to compass his death, even because they knew that he had raised one from the dead? But supposing, for the present, that our Saviour had appeared publicly to the Jewish rulers; yet, since neither the darkness at his death, nor the earthquake at his resurrection, neither the declaration of the centurion on the one, nor the confession of the soldiers on the other occasion, had wrought in them any remorse, we can hardly suppose but that, had he so appeared, they would have offered to lay violent hands upon him, as they before designed against Lazarus, and for the same reasons. (b) In which case, had our Saviour vanished out of their hands, (as doubtless he would) what would they have concluded from thence, but that they had seen a ghost, a spectre, or apparition? And what conviction would that have wrought, but that their senses had been imposed upon by some magical illusion? And what effect would this have had upon their minds towards bringing them to a belief that Christ was truly risen? None at all. In many of the Jews, (especially their chief priests and elders) " the god of this world had so blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts," that they would not have believed one tittle of our Saviour's resurrection; or in case they did believe it, such was their malice and perverseness, that they would not have testified that they ever had seen him after his resurrection. (c) Now they that are wicked enough to deny what they be\\lieve, will, at a pinch, deny also what they know to be true; and therefore, supposing that our Lord had shown himself to all his enemies, and to all the people, and but some of them (especially of the great men in authority) had denied that ever they saw him after his resurrection, this would have exceedingly weakened the testimony of those who vouched and confessed it: For he that appeals to the knowledge of another for the (a) Tillotson's Sermons. VOL. III. (b) South's Sermons, vol. v. (c) Clagget's Sermons, vol. i. &c. or 5442. &c. or 31. A. M. 4037, truth of a matter of fact, is so far from gaining, that he loses credit by the appeal, if Ann. Dom. the other person denies that he knows any thing of it. If therefore our Lord had apVulg. Er. 33, peared to his persecutors, (it being likely that his disciples would appeal to their knowledge) they, by protesting the contrary, would have made a terrible advantage against the Christians upon that appeal. Herein therefore is manifest the wisdom of Christ, that in making choice of particular witnesses, viz. such persons only as would be so far from dissembling their knowledge, that they would always be ready to seal their testimony with their blood, he hath settled the Christian faith upon a better foundation than if he had appeared in the temple, or in the midst of Jerusalem, to the whole people of the Jews. [The truth is, (a) that it is not the number of the witnesses, but their character and qualifications, together with the consistency of the evidence which they bear, that in all cases are to be chiefly regarded. The number of the apostles was fully sufficient to prove any matter of fact, that can be proved by testimony; and, for the reasons stated in the Supplementary Dissertation on the miracles of our Saviour, &c., their bearing false witness in a case of this kind, and all agreeing in that witness, would have been as great a deviation from the known laws of nature, as any miracle that ever was wrought. Had our Lord appeared publicly in the streets of Jerusalem, in the temple, or before the Sanhedrim, such appearances could have to us added no weight to the concurring testimony of the apostles. Once he certainly did appear publicly in Galilee to five hundred persons who believed in him, besides others who doubted, and therefore could not have been disciples; but this appearance is never appealed to by the apostles and evangelists in proof of the resurrection, though it is once mentioned by St Paul for a different purpose. The reason is obvious. "To have seen our Lord ever so often after his resurrection would have qualified no one to be a witness of the fact, who had not such a previous knowledge of his person, as might enable him to perceive and attest its identity. Perhaps we may insist upon another circumstance, that every one pretending to avouch the resurrection, should have been an eye-witness of the crucifixion; for the fact to be attested was, that this same man had been dead and was alive again;" and of the multitudes who were present at the crucifixion, how few besides the disciples could have given this attestation! The appearance of Jesus writhing in agony on the cross must have been very different from that of the same Jesus calmly teaching in the temple, and working his miracles of mercy. Even of those few who could have sworn to the identity of his person, none were qualified to be witnesses of his resurrection to the world, but they, whose knowledge of his person was a fact of public notoriety. "For to establish the credit of a witness, it is not sufficient that he be really competent to judge for himself of the reality of the fact, which he takes it upon him to attest, but his competency in the matter must be generally known and understood. Now this was the case of the apostles," but of none else. Others might have had a sufficient knowledge of his person to identify it to themselves after his resurrection; but this was known only to themselves-certainly not to all Jerusalem. It appears, therefore, upon a nice discussion of the question, that the evidence which we actually have of our Lord's resurrection, in the testimony of the chosen witnesses, is indeed the greatest of which the fact is capable; for it is the evidence not of men only, but of God also.] If but a few men can (as the apostles did) make it sufficiently appear, by undeniable miracles, that what they say is true, and that God himself confirms the truth of it; they can appeal to every man's own senses, before whom they work miracles, and make every one that sees them a witness to the truth of their doctrines. In this case, God himself bears witness to it; and what the high priest said upon a very different occasion, every stander-by finds himself constrained to declare in (a) Bishop Horsley's Sermons on the Resurrection. this, "What need have we of any farther witnesses? For we ourselves have heard of From Matth. their own mouths, (in the miraculous gift of tongues) and seen with our own eyes," (in xx. 10. to the the many wonderful works which they have publicly wrought) a full and authentic tes- 15. to the end, timony of Christ's resurrection. end, Mark xi. Luke xix. 45. to the end, and And this possibly may suggest the reason why God permitted the apostle St Thomas John xii. 19. to be so scrupulous and doubtful in this great article of our faith. He had been told to the end. that our Saviour was risen from the dead, and the truth of it had been attested to him by evidences beyond exception: (a) Several companies who had seen him and conversed with him several times, to whom he had exposed the sight and feeling of his wounds; to whom he had expounded the Scriptures concerning himself; with whom he had broken the sacramental bread, and conferred on them the benediction of the Holy Ghost: All these, with all these convincing tokens, had told Thomas that Christ was risen ; but Thomas's reply was, (b) "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." It might indeed be urged before, that our Lord had not given all the proofs of his resurrection that the nature of the thing was capable of; but (c) now, when nothing is left unasked, that the most sceptical doubts could pretend to desire; when the very apostles themselves had one of their number that held out a while, and they preached not this doctrine until his scruples were removed; when even this doubter himself was no less vigorous and positive afterwards in asserting the truth of a point, which nothing but demonstration could make him believe; this takes off all imputation of credulity and easiness. It shows that the apostles proceeded with great caution, before they embarked in the cause of Christianity, which could not but reap great advantages from the backwardness of one of their number to believe; and therefore our church justly acknowledges, that (d)" God, in his wisdom, suffered Thomas to doubt, for the greater confirmation of our faith," according to that saying of one of the ancients, Plus nobis Thomæ infidelitas ad fidem, quam fides discipulorum profuit; quia dum ille ad fidem palpando reducitur, nostra mens, omni dubitatione postposita, in fide solidatur." This disciple, in short, doubted, and was satisfied for us all. His former unbelief adds strength to the cause he pleads, and makes him a witness so much above exception, that the scruples, which in him were weaknesses, in those that pretend to follow him, and know his story, will be wilfulness, and resolved infidelity. His story indeed, and the means which (as we therein read) our Saviour made use of to convince him, will instruct us in this,―That, whatever changes our Saviour's glori fied body might undergo after his resurrection, it was not altered, as to the properties of a body, whereof our outward senses are competent judges. To these senses it is that our Lord appealed; by these he composed the disciples, suspecting him to be a phantom; by these he satisfied the doubtful and incredulous; and by these the apostles make it their business to persuade the world, when they so frequently testify, that they (e) "had seen and heard him, had eaten and drank with him." But now, if our Saviour's body was not subject to the same laws with other corporeal substances; if it could then pass through the doors in the manner of a spirit, and may at this time be, where our senses can discern nothing of it, though no other body can be so; then what satisfaction could Thomas receive in feeling his hands and side? or wherein would the strength of St John's argument lie, when he declares to his proselytes, (f) "that he had seen and heard, and his hands had handled, of the word of life?" The indulgence indeed which our Saviour gave his apostles, to try all their senses upon him, gave them full satisfaction, both as to the materiality and identity of his body. But then, as all philosophy informs us, that no body can penetrate through ano (a) Young's Sermons, vol. ii. Gospels, vol. iv. (b) John xx. 25. (d) Collect on St Thomas's Day. (c) Stanhope on the Epistles and (e) Acts x. 41. |