6

Jesus, it is hard to conceive that there is any difficulty whatever in the way. The ignorance of the Pharisees, at this rate, simply resolves itself into ignorance of the commonly received doctrine of the Trinity. But if that doctrine, as held by religious systems, be erroneous, as I believe it to be; or, to say no more, if religious systems cannot explain this glorious doctrine, as I am persuaded they cannot; then the puzzle, leaving the Pharisees on one side, and taking only the mind of the propounder of the question, must be sought for elsewhere. Now how strikingly opposed to this Creator and creature solution of the riddle propounded by our spiritual Sampson, does the following statement of the general expectation of the Jewish nation, with regard to their Messiah, appear. I speak not of their knowledge of the true bearing and import of that expectation, only of the expectation itself. "The general opinion of the Jews," says Dr. Lightfoot, "looked forward to a period of consummation or restitution, frequently called the last day,' the world to come,' 'the reign of the Messiah,' when a new order of things was to be ushered in, among which was the event denominated the resurrection of the dead. Connected with this resurrection, was the deliverance of the Jewish nation from the yoke of their enemies— their advancement to acknowledged pre-eminence over all other people -the restoration of the Shekinah- the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its temple in renovated splendour-the endowment of the earth with a new and unexampled fertility—the cessation of wars and bloodshed and an indefinite period of peace, prosperity, and happiness, from the rising to the going down of the sun.' A very slight acquaintance with Old Testament prophecies will suffice to shew from what source the Jews had derived their expectations; and a knowledge of the spiritual meaning and application of those prophecies will clear up the point of the Pharisees' inability to answer the question put to them by Jesus, an inability totally independent of any view of the common doctrine of the Trinity. As the Jewish nation overlooked the previous ordained humiliation of Messiah, so they were entirely mistaken in the notions which they entertained of his glory. When he had entered into his glory, when he was set down at the right hand of God, angels, authorities, and powers being subject unto him, all the thought that his own, who received him not, cherished concerning him was conveyed by the reproach, That deceiver.' In the days of his ministry, he testified, "This people's heart is waxed gross, their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed." In the judgment-hall of Pilate this saying was very manifest, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight; but now is my kingdom not from hence." But if we enter into a discussion of the mistakes and misapprehensions of the Jews respecting their Messiah, we shall only be repeating what has been already advanced. Let it suffice to have pointed out the "why and wherefore" of Sadducean and Pharisaic ignorance; and having done so, let us proceed with the great matter in hand, our examination of Peter's Pentecostal sermon, the glories of which sermon, I think, will never be exhausted, and of which I can only hope to give an account which shall be little more than the shadow of the substance. It has been shewn that the doctrine of the resurrection does not derive its importance from the presumption

that the resurrection of Christ was a pledge of the resurrection of human bodies. It has been likewise demonstrated, that Christ, during his ministry, pointed to times subsequent to his ascension for an exposition of the things concerning himself, and for an interpretation of the doctrine of the resurrection, upon which the Pharisees were in error. It has been proved, moreover, that these erroneous notions are not corrected by the knowledge of David having appeared first in order of time, and Messiah second. The exposition of the resurrection doctrine, then, is yet to be given from the question, If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? We shall be assisted much in this exposition by a prophecy in Isaiah xi., for I confess that I am well nigh overwhelmed with the vastness of the subject. The chapter referred to begins thus: "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots." The next verse explains what and what manner of time the prophet did speak of, when he thus testified before hand :-" And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding." We have only to compare this with a scripture often before quoted, which Jesus read in the synagogue of Nazareth: "He opened the book where it was written, The spirit of the Lord God is upon me; and he closed the book, saying, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.' It will be admitted on all hands, that this prophecy relates to Christ's first appearance in the days of his flesh, as the offspring of David, and of the fruit of David's loins; as the tender plant, and the root out of a dry ground, out of the dry and withered stock of David, the glory of whose house had long departed from Judah. But in Isaiah xi. 10, we read, "In that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people." The day in question is the day when, as we read in verse 6, "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them." I remember being much amused, at the last exhibition of paintings in Liverpool, by a picture actually representing this passage in a literal interpretation. There were depicted all these different and discordant animals, living together in harmony. It is hardly possible to credit the evidence of our senses, when we see such preposterous imaginations concerning Him who is spirit, and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth. And yet, for aught we know to the contrary, it is as reasonable to suppose that the fierce, carnivorous animals mentioned by the prophet, should become gentle and harmless as the lamb, as it is to imagine, what really is entertained, that a hundred antagonistic religious parties should eat of the same bread, and drink out of the same cup. How gloriously in contrast to the views of systems, stands the exposition which the Lion of the tribe of Judah gave of the above-quoted passage, through the instrumentality of his servants the Apostles. I allude to the vision of Peter, when he saw a certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, upon the which, when he had fastened his eyes, he considered, and saw four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air; and he heard a voice saying unto him, "Arise, Peter, slay and eat." Peter's answer opens up Isaiah's prophecy; "Not so, Lord, for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered my mouth." What follows?

"The voice answered again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, call not thou common. And while Peter doubted what this vision should mean, and while he thought upon it, behold three men which were sent from Cornelius stood before the gate, and the Spirit said unto him, Arise, get thee down, go with them, nothing doubting, for I have sent them." The issue was, that as Peter preached to Cornelius and his house, the Holy Ghost fell on the Gentiles, as on the circumcision; and Peter seeing this, said, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons." He then understood, and could explain, the prophecy of Isaiah concerning the clean and unclean beasts (under the law,) feeding together; the unclean-the wolf, leopard, lion, and bear, representing those who were aliens to the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenant of promise; the clean—the lamb, the kid, the calf, and the cow, representing them of the circumcision; and the lying down together prefiguring Jew and Gentile, bond and free, feeding in the same green pasture, and reclining beside the same still waters of the gospel of Jesus Christ, of him of whom it is written, " He is our peace, who hath made both one, that he might reconcile both unto God in one body on the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." This exposition recommends itself at once to an enlightened mind. There is however to me some obscurity as to the application of the word Gentile. It seems quite clear that the ten tribes are included in Isaiah's description of the clean and unclean beasts living in harmony, because we read that this root should be an ensign for the nations, and should assemble the outcasts of Israel, and that then should the envy of Ephraim depart, and the adversaries of Judah be cut off; then Ephraim (Israel) should not envy Judah, and Judah should not vex Ephraim; that then, in the last days of Judah and Jerusalem, they should beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation should not lift up sword against nation, neither should they (Israel and Judah,) learn war any more." I cannot avoid including the ten tribes under the term Gentiles, as I see the passage in Isa. xi. including them among the unclean beasts; and it may be asked, Were they not unclean, as being cut off that they should be no more a people under the old covenant; and does not the description of their uncleanness agree with the description of the ten tribes in the parables; as, for instance, Lazarus full of sores, and the prodigal feeding on swine's husks? There is something worthy of consideration in this. Israel and the Heathen were undoubtedly on a level, as being neither of them "the people of God;" but still, Israel having once been a people, while the rest, who are included (as we think,) under the term Gentile, never were the people of God, as never having been in covenant; the Holy Ghost marks a difference between them, as in Hosea ii. 18, where is a passage somewhat parallel to that which we have commented upon in Isaiah xi., "In that day will I make a covenant for them (Israel, or Ephraim,) with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground.” The Lord is here speaking of Israel as again "a people," but under the new and better covenant, and so in contrast with the heathen world; just as in Ezekiel xxxiv., where Ephraim, being addressed as under covenant, or in the everlasting remembrance of the promise to

M

Abraham, is styled scattered and lost sheep. We may remark, by the way, that in the 25th verse of the same chapter of Ezekiel, there is mention of the covenant with the beasts of the field, as in Hosea; "I will make with them a covenant of peace, and will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the land:" and this should be when the Lord's servant David should be a prince among them. This subject is interesting as a subject for inquiry; but, however, it alters not the time of fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy in chapter xi. If Christ have been lifted up, as a light to lighten the Gentiles, then, as Mr. Wilkinson, in his "Last Days," observes, the wolf and the lamb, &c. have been reconciled, in the new spiritual state, and have been brought to lie down together in peace and amity in the gospel dispensation; for the prophet says, "In that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people." If the figure of the clean and unclean animals has not been fulfilled, then Christ has not stood an ensign for the nations, and the Gentiles have never sought after him.

But to return from this digression. When we read, "In that day there shall be a root out of Jesse," we suppose that it will be admitted that this relates to the gospel dispensation. The question arises, When was Christ the root of Jesse? During his ministry, when he asked the Pharisees, "If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?' By no means. Throughout his ministry, and up to the time of his resurrection, Christ was but the offspring of David, and the rod out of the stem of Jesse. It was in the resurrection that he was the root of David, and so he testifies in the Revelation given to John, "I Jesus, am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star." Here we have an explanation of that which really is still a mystery to all Judaizing systems, as much as it ever was to the Sadducees and Pharisees. When Christ was seen of John, in the vision, he said, "I am he that liveth, and was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore :" and John, whose Revelation we believe to have been written at least before any of the Epistles, styles that same Jesus, whom the Jews had crucified, "the faithful witness, the first-begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth." Kings of the earth! How remarkable this expression, and how clear the meaning! In the resurrection, when Jesus appeared the root of David, we behold the fulfilment of a prophecy in the 45th Psalm, "Instead of thy fathers, shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth." This is a solution of the riddle which Jesus propounded to the Pharisees, as we are taught by inspired testimony in Hebrews i., where the Apostle, discoursing of the resurrection glory of Christ, quotes the 6th and 7th verses of the Psalm. How glorious is the harmony of the Scriptures! Christ saith to John, "I am the root and offspring of David; so David, seeing this before, spake of it, saying, "Instead of thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and David, shall be thy children; for a seed shall serve thee; and thy name, thy resurrection name, shall be called Wonderful, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the prince of peace." These children were to be made princes in all the earth; so John, in the Revelation, ascribes the glory unto the prince of the kings of the earth, saying, "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath

66

made us kings and priests unto God and his Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever." These children doubtless embraced all that had fallen asleep in hope of the resurrection of the dead; and thus Abraham and the patriarchs, being the fathers of Christ according to the flesh, became his children in the resurrection. This magnificent subject shines out from almost every page of Scripture. In the resurrection, Jesus was declared to be the Son of God with power; 66 As the Father," said he, "bath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." Thus he spake in the time of his personal ministry; and in the same conversation wherein he spake of some coming forth to the resurrection, and of the dead hearing his voice. Now, "this life in himself," was manifested at the resurrection, as Peter bears witness in his sermon; Having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be holden of it." As having life in himself, we behold him the root of David; and as the root of David, he speaks of himself and his disciples, in the following beautiful figure: "I am the vine, ye are the branches." Now the branches bear not the root, but the root the branches. In the root is the life, and thus Christ, being the root of David, according to the Spirit, in his resurrection, we understand what that scripture meaneth which saith, "I am the resurrection and the life." Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him; and therefore and thereafter comes in the glorious assurance of faith, "Because I live, ye shall live also:" " yea, though ye were dead, yet shall ye live; for whosoever liveth and believeth in me, shall never die." Here, we repeat, (and we dwell with untold satisfaction on the repetition,) here, in the resurrection, was the life. But what life? That of dead bodies? Not so, otherwise David is not yet ascended into the heavens; otherwise the first-fruits have been gathered in, but not another grain of the harvest; otherwise the corn of wheat hath fallen into the ground, and though it were said that it should bring forth much fruit, as yet it hath brought forth none. But thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift, we have not so learned Christ; we have learned to compare spiritual things with spiritual, and dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves. It is the interpretation of the inspired Peter, that David spake of the resurrection of Christ," that his soul was not left in hell;" and we know that the first Adam was made a living soul, but the last Adam, in resurrection power, was made a quickening spirit; and thus it is that Paul speaks of the word which in one place he calls his gospel, and says, that it is a divider asunder of soul and spirit; of the living soul, and the quickening spirit; of the first Adam, and the second. The confusion that has arisen upon the doctrine of the resurrection, is, I believe, to be attributed mainly to a want of attention to these words in the passage above quoted, "His soul was not left in hell." It is generally supposed that the death of the first Adam related to the human bodies of men. So far from this being fact, I consider that the death of the body, or animal death, has no more importance attached to it in the Bible, than in any other history of successive generations of men. Just as is the case with the word time. Death and time are dispensation matters in Scripture: we hold that at the close of the dispensations, in the fall of Jerusalem, there was time