result of his own mere motion. Nevertheless, it is interesting to enquire why it was that Jesus died so soon: for this circumstance appears to have caused surprise to Pilate and others. This might have been accounted for, by what Jesus had previously undergone: in fact must be partly attributed to that. He seems to have passed the whole of the previous night without sleep he had been subjected to cruel insults: he was left without a friend in the world, in his hour of greatest humiliation. This was enough to break the stoutest heart of man. But, in addition to all these cruel hardships, he bore one burthen which none but himself can tell: JEHOVAH HAD LAID ON HIM THE INIQUITY OF US ALL. Isa. liii. 6. This was his agony in the garden of Gethsemane: this was the grief that bowed down his soul, and brought him near to death. Mat. xxvi. 38. But Scripture has not left us to conjecture, here. The mode of his death is distinctly and expressly told. Matthew says that Jesus kpáĝas porn μeyán, died. Luke informs us what were the words of this φωνὴ μεγάλη ̇ to wit, Πάτερ, εἰς χεῖράς σου παραθήσομαι τὸ TVEUμá pov Luke xxiii. 46. These words are cited from Psal. xxxi. 5, and are in fact a Prayer: the wish of the speaker is expressed in the word παραθήσομαι. So Mat. v. 48, ἔσεσθε ὑμεῖς τέλειοι· where cσcode is to be understood in an optative or imperative sense. The thing which is desired, is said to be future. This mode of expression is not peculiar to N. T. but lies in the idiom of the Greek language. Thus those to whom ill is wished, are said by Aristophanes to be οἰμωξόμενοι, and κακῶς ἀπολούμενοι, phrases which are familiar to every Scholar. So in the words of Luke, Tapadnooμaι expresses the last Prayer of Jesus on the Cross. And it was immediately answered: as in fact is said by Luke: ταῦτα εἰπὼν ἐξέπνευσεν. Here is the Scriptural account of the death of Jesus. It was not by mere exercise of his own will, but by prayer addressed to God, that he passed out of this life. This agrees with all other Scripture. It was not the practice of Jesus to work a miracle for his own personal and private advantage. On the other hand, we know that whatever he asked of God, would be, and was, immediately granted. Mat. xxvi. 53, Joh. xi. 42. And now may be seen the meaning of the words of Mark xv. 39, which are very remarkable: idwv ó kevtupíwv ötl οὕτω κράξας ἐξέπνευσεν, εἶπεν· ̓Αληθῶς ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος υἱὸς ἦν Θεοῦ. Where it may be observed that Mark says, not oтi kpáέas ἐξέπνευσε, but ὅτι οὕτω κράξας ἐξέπνευσε, referring to the words which Jesus had uttered, and which Luke has recorded, but which Mark has omitted. Thus it seems that the Centurion heard the last words of Jesus, and understood their import, and was astonished to see that his prayer was immediately granted. This made him exclaim, "Οντως ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος δίκαιος ἦν. Luke xxiii. 47. Where it may be observed that Luke ascribes the Centurion's remark to the same event, but describes it indistinctly as τὸ γενόμενον words, which Mark explains to mean ὅτι οὕτω κpáĝas ¿¿éπVEVσe. Thus Luke explains Mark, and Mark explains Luke: a wonderful proof, that although divers hands held the pen, One Holy Spirit superintended, and directed the work of all. ἀφῆκε τὸ πνεῦμα] These words mean nothing more than ἐξέπνευσεν οι ἐξέψυξεν as we should say, expired, or breathed his last. The phrase is not peculiar to N. T. E.g. ἐπεὶ δ ̓ ἀφῆκε πνεῦμα θανασίμῳ σφαγῇ. Eur. Hec. 569. And a like expression is used by Homer, X. 467. ἤριπε δ' ἐξοπίσω, ἀπὸ δὲ ψυχὴν ἐκάπυσσε. Homer never uses the word veûμа, but uses yuxý as its equivalent: e.g. τὸν δ ̓ ἔλιπε ψυχὴ, κατὰ δ ̓ ὀφθαλμῶν κέχυτ ̓ ἀχλύς αὖτις δ ̓ ἀμπνύνθη, περὶ δὲ πνοιὴ Βορέαο ζώγρει ἐπιπνείουσα κακῶς κεκαφηότα θυμόν. Ε. 696. where it may be observed that yuxn which had fled, returns under the form of πνεῦμα, involved in ἀμπνύνθη. So Χ. 467, cited above, is presently answered by ἡ δ ̓ ἐπεὶ οὖν ἄμπνυτο, καὶ ἐς φρένα θυμὸς ἀγέρθη. 475. 51. τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη] The rending of the Veil, was a symbol of the end of the Jewish dispensation, and of the opening of the kingdom of heaven to all nations. This has been observed by others. But the same event appears to have a further meaning. In the Jewish Temple were two Veils: the first, or outer Veil, screened off the Holy Tabernacle: within this Veil, the Priests on duty might go at all times of the year. The second, or inner, Veil, screened off the Holy of Holies: and herein none might enter except the High Priest, and he only once in the year, when he went in to make an Atonement for the people. But by the death of Jesus Christ, the Law was fulfilled: the Old Covenant was superseded, and the mediatorial character of the Priest was abolished. Our High Priest is Jesus Christ alone and the Layman needs no other Priest to stand between himself and God. Hebr. ix. But the Jewish Priests had taken pains to defeat the purposes of God. Instead of explaining what was mysterious in Scripture, they endeavoured to mystify what was plain. Mat. xxiii. 4. They added traditions of man to the Word of God, and rendered it of no effect. Mat. xv. 6. They attached immense importance to formal observances, and neglected what was really important. Mat. xxiii. 23. Thus the Jewish Priesthood became a Veil to hide the face of God from man. They shut up the kingdom of heaven before men: they would neither go in themselves, nor allow others to go in who : would. Mat. xxiii. 14. It was now time that such a Veil should be rent asunder: and this was done by the naked arm of JEHOVAH, But the events of Jewish history are symbolical of other events in the history of Christendom. The corruptions of the Jewish Priesthood have been acted over again by the Bishops and Clergy of the Holy Catholic Church. This may be seen at the present day, not only in the corrupt Church of Rome, but also in the Reformed Church of England. The Churchman talks about Water sanctified to the mystical washing away of Sin, Holy Eucharist, Church Catechism, Apostles' Creed, Holy Catholic Church, &c., things which are nowhere named in Scripture, and which ought not to be named out of Scripture. But here it must be observed, that the learned Layman is not in any way hampered by the Doctrines of the Church. His business is with the written Word of God, and with that alone: he knows that man may be mistaken, and that the Holy Catholic Church is no more infallible than the Great Western Railway, or any other Corporate Body. But with those who cannot read Scripture for themselves, the case is different. They are at the mercy of the Priesthood. And the Priests take advantage of the ignorance of the people, and teach many things for which there is no warrant in Scripture. To give one instance; the Child is taught to say, what is called The Apostles' Creed: a Creed which tells us that the Apostles believed in the Holy Catholic Church. But no such thing is said in Scripture. The Creed is a work of no authority. This is one instance out of many, in which a class of men who call themselves the Church, mix up répara ↓eúdovs, i. e. monstrous lies, with the pure Word of God, and then teach the people to believe them. Thus the Priesthood of the Christian Church, like their Jewish predecessors, have shut up the kingdom of heaven in the face of mankind. And this seems to be foreshewn by the Apocalyptic Prophecy : οὐδεὶς ἠδύνατο εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὸν ναὸν, ἄχρι τελεστ θῶσιν αἱ ἑπτὰ πληγαὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλων. Apoc. xv. 8. Here is an obvious allusion to the rending of the Veil of the Jewish temple. When the Veil was rent, there was liberty to go in. So with the Apocalyptic Temple: no one can go in, until after the Seven Vials have run out. This must mean that there will be a great diffusion of religious light, and explosion of error, after the judgments of God, indicated by the Seven Vials, shall have been accomplished. It is supposed by many students of Apocalyptic Prophecy, that the Seventh Vial has begun to flow just about this time and the present appearance of the political atmosphere of Europe, favours that hypothesis. If so, the time may be near at hand when the monstrous idol of the Holy Catholic Church shall be ground to powder, and scattered to the four winds of heaven. Dan. ii. 35. 52. Kekoiμnμévov ȧyiwv] Those who die, are frequently said in Scripture to sleep. But this usage is not peculiar to Scripture, nor to the Hebrew Poets. The same expression is found in Greek Poetry. E. g. ὡς ὁ μὲν αὖθι πεσὼν κοιμήσατο χάλκεον ὕπνον. Λ. 241. εὔτε γὰρ ὁ ποντισθεὶς Μύρτιλος ἐκοιμάθη. Soph. Εl. 509. Πρόμαχος δεδμημένος εὕδει Εγχει ἐμῷ. Ξ. 482. ὁππόκα πρᾶτα θάνωμες, ἀνάκοοι ἐν χθονὶ κοίλα εὔδομες εὖ μάλα μακρὸν ἀτέρμονα νήγρετον ύπνον. Mosch. iii. 110. ἵν ̓ οὗμὸς εὔδων καὶ κεκρυμμένος νέκυς ψυχρός ποτ' αὐτῶν θερμὸν αἷμα πίεται. Soph. Ο. C. 621. In fact, the resemblance between Sleep and Death is so obvious that the Master-Poet could not fail to notice it: e.g. ἔνθ ̓ ὕπνῳ ξύμβλητο, κασιγνήτῳ Θανάτοιο. Ξ. 231. nyépon] They awoke in glory: 1 Cor. xv. 43. This awaking must not be likened to that of Lazarus and five others mentioned by Wordsworth here, which were merely cases of restoring suspended animation: Lazarus was indeed awoke, but only to natural life, and was still subject to death, like every body else on this side of the river; Joh. xii. 9, 10: so of all the rest. But this awaking was of the same kind with that of Jesus Christ himself: they awoke with glorified bodies, and joined Moses who had previously done the like, Luke ix. 31; and Elias, who had passed at once into glory without the intervention of death: 2 Kings ii. This awaking of a few, may perhaps be intended to symbolise the first resurrection of Apoc. xx. 5. 53. ȧyíav módi] This is a rare expression in N. T. and seems to have a symbolical meaning. Mat. iv. 5, Apoc. xxi. 2, and xxii. 19. 55. yuvaîkes Todλai] Mary, the mother of Jesus, was present on this occasion, Joh. xix. 25. But she is not mentioned by Matthew, nor Mark, nor Luke: from which it may be inferred that Mary was still alive when their Gospels were written, John appears to have written after her death. 56. Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωσῆ μήτηρ] This Mary must not be confounded with the Mary of Mat. xiii. 55, and Mar. vi. 3, who was the mother of another James and Joses and other children. For that Mary was the mother of Jesus: and if Matthew had named her, he would have put her name first, and would have called her the mother of Jesus. But it seems on comparing this passage with Mar. xv. 40, and Joh. xix. 25, that this Mary was the wife of Klopas, and that her son James was known by the name of μкpós i. e. short of stature, Luke xix. 3. It has been supposed by some Ecclesiastical writers, that this James was the same with the Apostle James, son of Alphee. But that hypothesis is not required by Scripture, and is attended with great difficulty. For if this Mary was the mother of the Apostle James, then she must have been the wife of Alphee and if so, then Alphee must be the same with the Kλwrâs of Joh. xix. 25. And that might be for as John has nowhere named 'Aλpaîos, he might intend the same person by another name: just as the Nathanael of John seems to be the Bartholomew of the other Evangelists. But, unfortunately for that hypothesis, we find the same name of Κλωπας, οι Κλεόπας, and apparently the same person, in Luke xxiv. 18: and as Luke has elsewhere named 'Arpaios, viz. Luke vi. 15, Acts i. 13, it is unreasonable to suppose that Luke intended him by the name of Kλeóras here. Besides which, we seem to see in Luke xxiv. 10, the three women of Mat. xxvii. 56, Mar. xv. 40, and Joh. xix. 25: among whom the mother of Zebedee's sons is called by Mark Eaλoun, by Luke 'Iwávva, and by John the sister of the mother of Jesus: and then, the mother of James and Joses is called by Luke Μαρία Ιακώβου, i. e. Mary wife of James ; and by John Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπά. So that Ιάκωβος of Luke xxiv. 10, seems to be the same with Kλwrâs of Joh. xix. 25, and Kλeónas of Luke xxiv. 18. Nor is there anything improbable in this : for if Ιάκωβος were another name of Κλεόπας, that would account for the name of his son Ιάκωβος ̇ and if ̓Ιωάννα were another name of Eaλwun, that would account for the name of her son 'lwávvns. Luke ii. 61. Thus Little James and his brother Joses, seem to have been sons of another James, who was also called Kleopas or Klopas: and that is all that we know of them. ἡ μήτηρ τῶν υἱῶν Ζεβεδαίου] Her name appears from Mar. xv. 40, and xvi. 1, to have been Eaλaun and she seems to be the same with 'Iwávva of Luke xxiv. 10. She was sister to Mary the mother of Jesus, Joh. xxv. 19: so that John and James, sons of Zebedee, were first cousins to Jesus. Here is an answer provided by JEHOVAH, to the monstrous lies of the Holy Catholic Church. Where the adeλpoì of Jesus are mentioned in N. T. the Churchman says, "Adexpoì must be rendered cousins: for you must not suppose that Joseph, who was married to Mary, ever dared to assert his privilege of a husband: far from it: you must for ever believe that Mary died an old maid; according to the faith of the Holy Catholic Church." Eir' eywy' ¿gnypóμnv. But the reader of Scripture will observe that Zebedee's sons, who really were first cousins, are nowhere in N. T. called the adeλpoì of Jesus. 64. μήποτε ἐλθόντες οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ] The common reading here adds vʊkrós but this word is wanting in divers MSS. and is rejected by Tischendorf. In this narrative is shewn the folly and misery of the Jewish Priesthood, and their inability to defeat the purposes of JEHOVAH. They knew not that a Spiritual Body was not to be restrained by bars and bolts like a natural subject. Thus the precautions which they took to prevent the resurrection of Jesus, became a proof of the fact of it: as has already been illustrated by other writers. But beyond what meets the eye, the whole of this incident has a symbolical mean |