 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN THE FIRST CENTURY.
BY
SAMUEL
HINDS
LATE
BISHOP OF NORWICH;
AND
JOHN HENRY
NEWMAN
CONTENTS.
Introduction
Religion
of the Jews,
Religion
of the Samaritans,
PART I.
THE
MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
I. His
Example,
III.His
Miracles,...
V. His
Prophecies,
VI. The Temptation
VII. THe Transfiguration,
CONCLUSION,
PART II.
APOSTOLIC
AGE.
CHAP. I Distinction between
Christianity as taught BY our Saviour,
and by his Apostles,
CHAP.
II.—Preaching to the Jews,
CHAP. III.—Preaching to
Jews and devout Gentiles
CHAP. IV.—Preachiks to Jews, devout Gektiles, and Idolaters,
St. Paul's First Apostolical Journey
CHAP. V.—Sr. Paul’s Second Apostolical Journey
CHAP. VI.—St. Paul’s Timed Apostolical Journey
CHAP.
VII.—St. Paul’s Fourth Apostolical Journey
CHAP. VIII.—St. Paul’s Fifth Apostolical Journey
Neronian Persecution,
CHAP. IX.—Ministry op St. P*teb, St. James, and tiie other Apostles, and their Coadjutors
CHAP. X.--Christian Unity, Heretics
PART III.
AGE OF THE
APOSTOLICAL FATHERS.
Baku abas, Hermas, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp
CHAP. I.—'What parts op tub Apostolic Ministry were
intended
CHAP. II.—"What parts op the Apostolical Ministry
were
DESIGNED
FOR TnE PERPETUATION Or CHRISTIANITY. . . . 200
CHAP. Ill How PAR THE DESIGN OP THE CHURCH’S INSPIRED
Founders was pre&erved or followed up by the first Uninspired Churches, or theui Rilers
CHAP. IV.—HOW the first Uninspired Church rcLrii.LiiD its OFFICES or DlSPENSINO TnE TRUTHS
CONTAINED IN THE SaCRED
CIIAP. V.—HOW
THE FIRST UNINSPIRED CHURCH FULFILLED ITS office
or convening Divine Grace,
CHAP. VI What Measures
the first Uninspired Church pursued FOR SELF-PRESERVATION,
CHAP. VII.—What Measures the first Uninspired Church pursued for
Self-defence,
THE RISE AND EARLY PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY.
INTRODUCTION.
History records no event so interesting and important to man as
the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ upon earth. Considered
merely in its results on the temporal condition of mankind, neither conquest,
legislation, nor philosophy, has affected society so intimately, so
extensively, and so permanently, as Christianity; whilst all that concerns our
heavenly connexions, seems important, chiefly in proportion as it has been
subservient to, or otherwise connected with, this institution. With the former
of these views the present inquiry is not concerned; it is directed to the rise
and progress of Christianity, considered only so far as it has affected the
relation and intercourse between God and men.
And in
order to estimate the nature and extent of that change, which the
Saviour’s coming has wrought on the religious condition of mankind,
as well as the fitness of the means employed for effecting it, it will be
first necessary to take a brief survey of the state in which he found
religion. It is well known, that, for many centuries preceding the Advent, all
the world, except the Jews, a small ard otherwise inconsiderable people, were
not only in the grossest error on the subject, but without any authentic source
to supply them with more correct information. An account therefore of the
religion of the Gentiles (as all other nations were termed in distinction from
the one favoured people of God) will be rather an account of their ignorance
than of their knovieclge. But however widely removed from truth are the
opinions and practices which such an account must contain, it will serve the
twofold purpose, of instructing us in the sources of that ignorance, and of
discovering the propriety of the Christian scheme, wherein truth was so dispensed,
as to apply specially to the more important varieties of existing error.
Proceeding
from the religion of the Gentiles to that of the Jews, the need of the Gospel
dispensation will appear not less in the state of their knowledge, than in that
of the heathen ignorance. It was
AH
religions from one common origin.
knowledge
insufficient not only in quantity but in kind; partial, not because confined to
a few truths, hut because the truths which it embraced were each designedly
incomplete, and requiring some afterpiece of revelation to render it
intelligible and effective.
Besides
the religion of the Gentile's and of the Jews, that of the Samaritans (narrow
as was its extent and influence) will deserve some slight separate notice,
owing to certain peculiarities in its origin and character, which distinguish
it from the Jewish on the one hand, and still niui'Q, from all the heathen
creeds and modes of worship 011 the other.
Were history silent, the concurrent traditions and fables of
all nations concern'ng a ehaos, a deluge, and a re-peopling of the earth from a
single family, would suggest the inference, that out of one origin proceeded
the religions of all the Gentile world. But this conclusion is more directly
deduced from the Bible. At the dispersion of mankind after the attempt to build
Babel,1 the wanderers, we know, possessed a certain portion of
revelation, which they must have carried with them into their respective
settlements; nor is it reasonable to suppose that this knowledge, however it
might be neglected, would be soon altogether effaced. Limited as the compass of
sacred history becomes from that period, still it affords instances amongst the
heathen of priests and worshippers of Jehovah. Such were Job, Melchisedech, and
Jethro the father-in law of Moses. In Balaam we recognise not only a believer,
but one divinely inspired.
Without
denying, then, the tendency or the capacity of mankind to create a system of
religion for themselves, it may be fairly assumed that no period has yet
occurred, which has afforded an opportunity for the experiment. Certainly the
ancient heathen creeds could not have been originally the mere invention of
fancy, or the independent deductions of reason, but rather the corruption of revealed
religion—extending, it may be, in most instances, so far, that in process of
time the foundation should be concealed and
Reasoning
from the scriptural account of the several lapses of the,
That the
Israelites then did not consider polytheism as implying a disbelief in the
unity of God, will hardly be denied. That the heathen originally adopted it
under the same impression, is also highly probable. But what, it may be asked,
could have suggested to the early world, possessing as they did the knowledge
and belief that God is one, a system so strange, and apparently incongruous, as
polytheism? Was it the mere wantonness of fancy? or was there any doctrine of
revelation known to all, and thus liable to bccome perverted by all? Such a
doctrine there is. A belief in Thedoctrine angels and ministering spirits
appears in the earliest records of “rd^ofher God’s dispensations; nor can there
be any difficulty in fixing oa £”n!s‘ertil5’(f
this article of belief as the point from which religion first began to point
from diverge into error, and superstition, and impiety. Men, for instance,
Rei'j^o™' attributing whatever blessings they received fr^m God to the inter-
diverged mediate agency of his good angels, would (if neglectful of the '
appointed
preservatives against error) fall into an undue regard and reverence for these
ministers of good. A kindly season, the rains These which caused their com to
grow, the sun which ripened it, would wYuTtbi^ become associated in their
effects with some invisible superintendent, h™yenij the agent and the creature
of God. Hence the worship of the »nd other heavenly bodies, and of the various
parts and operations of nature, fibres of Again, men great and good in their
generation would, as time rendered their history more and more marvellous, be
converted 2 Exod. xxxii. p. In tlie original it is “ Jehovah.”
Algo with
public benefactors: And with persons eminently mischievous to society.
Transition
to idolatry or image worship.
Idolatry
the source of immorality as well as of impiety;
Not
confined to human figures.
Ljrjpt
notorious for lirute worship: occasioned by their use of hieroglyphics.
into
Beings above man's ordinary nature, and connected more with the invisible than
the visible world; whilst the robbers, tyrants, and mighty “ hunters ” of the
earth, would supply the popular creed with evil deities. It is observable, too,
that neither the good deities were represented as perfectly good, nor the evil
deities as altogether evil. The Grecian Furies are terrible, but just. The
dwellers in the Heavenly Olympus have human passions, human infirmities, and
human vices. The notion of good and evil, as separate prin ciples in the
constitution of the un'verse, was philosophical.
Idolatry
would be the necessary and early result of these popular notions. An image,
originally that of a man, (for to sensible objects only would images be
originally applied,) would, in process of time, represent the super-human being
into which fable had converted him; and to the deity, so represented, rites
would be instituted, consisting partly of the sepulchral honours paid to the
man, and partly of such as were appropriated to the tutelary spirit. In the
former we may discern the origin of the impurities and immorality of heathen
worship; in the latter its impiety. Kites commemorative of human benefactors,
naturally contained some reference to those habits of life, to which when
living they had been most addicted. Hence, even in the memorials of the wise
and brave, the warrior’s grave would be stained with the blood of human
victims; -whilst the frailties and infirmities of the sage and legislator,
would be preserved in Bacchanalian revels, or in the filthy and disgusting
emblems of the Pliallics.
Nor was
this motley adoration addressed to men alone. Whatever was admirable or useful
in the whole compass of nature, (it being once assumed that its effects on
mankind depended on the exercise of a power delegated to one of the host of
heaven,) became invested with similar associations, and was adopted as
symbolical of these unseen stewards of Providence. This was most remarkably the
case in Egypt, -where beasts, birds, reptiles, and plants became instruments of
idolatry, and tile works of nature were made to answer the purpose of graven
images and other artificial symbols. With the Egyptians, too, the use of
hieroglyphic characters co-operated to produce the same etFect. The ox, for
instance, was an obvious symbol of husbandry; and an ox, distinguished by
colour or by any other arbitrary sign, of him who was their first or chief
instructor in agriculture. When ceremonies at'd sacrifices were appropriated to
this public benefactor, and his human character had been lost or blended with
that of a tutelary spirit, the hieroglyphic figure under which he had been
recorded in this monumental history, would suggest in the living animal a still
more appropriate and vivid emblem. Thus the ox would become to the Egyptian
idolater what the work of Phidias or Praxiteles was to the Greek. Then a
further process of association would produce further results.3 The
deity
would in
time be believed to be mysteriously combined with the animal;4 and
thus the same principle, which led at Athens to the banishment of him who was
hardy enough to assert that the statue of Minerva was hut a block of dull
marble,5 made it sacrilege in Egypt to slay a cat or a stork.
To advert
once more to the case of the Israelites.—The methods iilastntion adopted by
Divine wisdom in the Mosaic dispensation to preserve mation’ofi" them from
false worship, are highly illustrative of this view of its JJJ , origin and
early nature. That they might have the less temptation statrmeni and pretext
for worshipping any of the host of heaven, Jehovah J^n^use-i condescended to
become to them God in both senses of the term; byi>h-ine
Providence
not only
as the one, distinct, supreme, uncreated Being, but also as to preserve the
tutelary Power presiding over their nation. “ I am the Lord, from Mse'' thy
God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt,” is a worship, declaration,
which, considered together with the errors into which they so soon fell after
their departure from Egypt, may be fairly ’nterpreted as indicating, that in
his dispensation to them he employed no ministering spirit. With the same view,
it would seem, that the remonstrance was made against their desire to have a
king, inasmuch as without a king they were likely to look more, i Sam. viii.
immediately to Jehovah as their governor, and guide, and judge.
In several
other peculiarities of their polity as directed by God, we may trace the same
merciful® intent to remove from them a temptation which proved so fatal to all
the nations of the world: in none more, than in the exclusion from their view
of a state of future rewards and punishments,7 whereby their
attention was tixed and limited to that portion of his dispensation, which,
with a more comprehensive revelation, they might have rashly deemed the less
worthy of him, and likely to be delegated to angels or to men. Nor was it until
the original character of idolatry, as practised by the nations around them,
was changed and lost, that their prophets were commissioned to point to a
better country than Canaan, and a worse bondage than that of Egypt or Assyria.
To this
state of change and utter depravation the Gentile religion Region rapidly
advanced. The worship of God being once transferred to corrupted his creatures,
henceforth religion became liable to all the accidents soonbee»m« and
modifications of a mere human institution. Its claim to a lep 'aved. holier
name and a higher authority was admitted as a matter of courtesy, but proofs
and title-deeds wrere lost. To the inquiring
i
Herodotus, Lib. II. Cap. 65, repre- taught
them the doctrine of one supreme
sents the
Egyptians as i&xe/asvei 8tS Being. He
was condemned to aie for
tw i* *} to which indicates that calling their Apolio (or the Sun) a mass
their
worship was not addressed to the of
burning matter. (Ibid. Sect. 12.)
brute, but
to the deity with which it was 6
I.E. merciful to mankind at large,
supposed
to be possessed. for it should be borne
in mind, that Goa’s
favour to
his chosen people was shown
f The name
of this unfortunate fr^e- with a view to
preserve religion, not for
thinker
was Stilpo. (See Dio^. Laert. them
exclusively, but for all the world.
L. IT.
Sect. 116.) A similar fate befel 7
Warburton’s Divine Legation of
Anaxagoras,
the first who is said to have Moses.
c>
INTRODUCTION.
Stages of
corruption different in different countries.
Differences
occasioned by certain national
peculiarities
mind all
was foolishness and futile, to the vulgar it was only custom. And thus it was
handed down from one generation to another, sometimes the toy of fancy,
sometimes the engine of state policy; or, if the serious regard of any were
arrested by it, as by an ancient monument of unearthly reeord, the characters
on it were so worn, through time,.neglect, and outrage, that all attempt to
decipher them was fruitless, and all reasoning 011 their import conjectural.
It is
scarcely necessary to observe, that the progress of false religion through its
various shapes was not the same among the several Gentile nations. It has been
questioned, for instance, whether the Persians ever proceeded to
image-xvorship, and it has been also asserted that the Scythians never did.
Among the Celtic nations, undoubtedly, (and they were probably of the same
faith originally, as they were of the same stock with these latter,) idolatrous
figures were Urst introduced by their Roman invaders.3 Egypt, on the
other hand, luxuriated in all the refinement and subtlety of idolatry, so as
even to excite the. disgust and contempt of other nations.
“ Quis nescit,
Volusi Bithynice, qualia demens TEgyptns portenta colat I Crocodilon adorat
Pars naec; ilia jiavet saturam serpentibus Ibin.
Kffigies
sacri nitet aurea cercopitneci,
Dimidio magicse resonant ubi Menmone chorda?,
Atque vetus Thebe centum iacet obruta portis.
Illiccceruieos, hie piscem fluminis, iliic Oppida tota canem venerantur,
nemo Dianam.
Porrum etca?pe nefas violare, aut frangere morsn.
O sancta.s gentes, quibus hsec nascuntur in
hortis Numina!”9
And
besides this difference of form and outward cast, whieh is observable in the
different branches of the Gentile religion, there are other characteristics
belonging to eaeh, more strongly marked, and more essentially distinct. Thus,
the Persian kindling his devotion in the blaze of an eastern sun ; the German
and the Briton seeking it beside the blood-stained altar in the chilling gloom
of a forest ; the Egyptian carrying it about him like a disease, which rendered
him morbidly sensitive to the supposed influence of the herb beneath his feet,
and the reptile which crossed his path: the Roman combining it with war,
triumph, or luxury; and the Greek with the arts, with poetry, and with
philosophy,—are worshippers differing not so much 111 the nature of the objects
adored, as in the frame of their devotion, in the ties which bound them to
their faith, and in whatever may be supposed to result from a combination of
national peculiarities, imparting each something to religion, and
fl Tacitus
(De Morihus Germ. C. 9,) 84.) w no
speaks of the various forms of
represents
the Germans as worshipping Kgyptian
idolatry, as more easy to relate
originally
"secretum illud quod sola than to
credit^ Mosheim has reconciled
reverentia
vident.,, See also Ca2sar, Lib. the
apparent inconsistencies of history,
VI. C. 20. wilh
respect to these and the like statements, in an admirable note on ( ud-
e Juvenal,
Sat. X Y. See also Diodo- worth’s
Intellectual System, O. IV. Sect.
ins
Siculus, (Bibl, Hist. Lib. I. Cap. 83, 18.
operating
all to force it into that shape which might best accord with the whole national
character. _ _
Among
these sources of difference, none deserve a specific notice more than the fine
arts, especially sculpture and poetry.
Brief
mention has already been made of the probable rise and ebxm progress of image worship. Its result on the popular
conceptions p of the Divine nature is curious and instructive.
Sculpture, of all the imitative arts, addresses itself most palpably and
unequivocally to the bodily perceptions. Let it represent what it may, its
subject forthwith becomes material; its form must be defined, its substance
measured, and to all incorporeal associations it yields unkindly and
reluctantly. What wonder then that the groat mass of a people, habituated from
childhood to contemplate their deities so represented, should, in defiance of
reason itself, entertain no higher notions of the Divine than of the human
nature ? One can hardly say how far such early impressions may retain their
hold, even on moro enlightened and'speculative minds; nor, with the existence
of such a phenomenon, can we wonder at the doctrine which some attributed to
the Stoics, that the Supreme Being was corporeal.11'
What has
been here suggested will derive some support from contrasting the Greek and
Roman superstitions with those, of the northern and oriental nations. In the
former a divine vision was somewhat familiar to mortal eyes, at best “ the gods
came down to men in the shape of men;nrbut the Persian found no description
immaterial and extra-human enough for liis Gen:i and Peris; and in
the sombre imagination of the northern enthusiast,
“ The
mountain mist took form ami limb Of noontide hag:, or gohiin £ririit”
It is
true, that, with the highly-gifted idolaters of ancient Greece, sculpture
became not. merely an imitative but an imaginative art.
In their
hands it went as far into the province of fancy and pure intellect, as its
nature possibly allows it to go. With them, therefore, ts use for religious
purposes had not exactly the same tendency, as with nations among whom it was more
rude and uncouth. The brutal thirst for blood, for instance, instilled into the
heart of the warrior who bowed before a monster like Bel or Dagon, could have
found no incitement in the classical image of liars, arrayed in £>,11 the
beauty of art, and conveying the stern inspiration of war, softened and
humanized by the medium through which it passed. It was more like, in its
effects, to the fair hand buckling on the spur nr presenting the banner, in the
days of chivalry. Still all this was no corrective of that peculiar bias which
the mind received from the habitual contemplation of sculptured deity; and in
none more conspicuously than in the most refined nations, has the wisdom of
that restriction been justified, which forbade, the Israelites, not the worfhip
alone, but the most harmless use of images.
w See Cic.
Do Nat. Deomm, Lib. II. C. 17, compared with Lib. III. C. 9—23.
Rffeet of
Poetry,
Still
greater was the effect of poetry. What Ilerodntus11 has asserted of
Hesiod and Homer, that from them the Greeks leajnod their theology, is nearly
true of the earlier poets of all nations. The ancient heroes of each country
form the first anil natural theme of its hards; and these either had passed
into the rank of gods, or were intimately connected with others who had
attained that eminence.
Embracing
then as his subject gods and departed heroes, the poet encountered a twofold
difficulty. In his description of the gods, it required no slight exercise of
genius and fancy to create a definite image of a divine nature, active, arid
employed in an appropriate sphere of activity, without exposing it to so exact
a sorutiny, as might betray the materials of which it was composed, and destroy
the illusion. The task was doubtless easier where it was aided by the same
efforts in the sculptor, but in oil nations the method adopted was the same.
They took as their basis a human being, and by amplifying its several
qualities, and extending the sphere of their exercise, undertook to produce a
god —a being not merely superior, but of a different nature from man. All their
taste o.nd ingenuity were put to the test, in keeping out of view those
qualities which might betray the real character of this pretended divinity.
But a more
trying task aw aited the poet, in his representation of man as existing in a
future state. The popular creed admitted no idea of bodily existence in a
future state, but only of the existence of the soul. How then were men to be
brought on the scene, divested of all which rendered them objects of perception
? The same materials were again resorted to, and human nature was again moulded
by the fancy into an immaterial essence. In the former instance it was a system
of amplification, in (his it was one of diminution. The disembodied man ^as
described, by sometimes concealing one of his corporeal qualities, sometimes
another, and so shifting the point of view, as never to expose more, at once,
than was barely enough to render the figure perceptible. For an illustration
of this we may refer to almost any passage in the sixth book of the lEneid, or
the twelfth book of the Odyssey. Thus whan \ irgil brings his hero into the
presence of the Grecian ghosts:1
“ Ut
w'der* viram, fulgentiaque arms per umbras,
Ingenti ti'epidare metu : pare vertcre Itrga,
Ceu quondam petit-re rates.”
He had
made them see, move, and turn their backs. This was carrying the image almost
too near; he therefore makes his escape at the close:
“ j>ars
tollere vooem Exisuam : ineeptu, c!amor/ras/ra'ar hiantes.”
Homer, who
was a more plain-spoken and inartificial poet, by a
H Lib. II.
C. S3.
„£neid,
Lib. Vi . 490.
whimsical
contrivance allowed himself greater latitude in his pan- tasmagoria; hut, as if
apologizing for his boldness,- h>.' occasionally puts in an avowal, that
what he has so dressed up as to seem flesh and blood, has no more substance
than a dream: /
aurri t<rri fiooTMv, %<ri xev rc @a.*iutriv'
Oo yaa ’in craonaf n xat otrriot ms
*AXX<z
rti pi* ri Woos xgxnoov psvas ai0op.tvat»
Ax/avx, i'Tii xi -Tatara. XjV*j Xtvx* otrnat 6vy.9$' y¥v%h S'
nor qvu^os a.irc<rTtt.(A\ri
Tixoryrtu,^
Now these
fictions being interwoven with the most vivid, if not the most serious, notions
of religion, to the Divine nature was attributed all that was found in the
human character-—passions, prejudices, infirmities; and the stories which
adhered to each god out of his true and original history as a man were
perpetuated, aad contributed still further to degrade the character of the
deities.
Add to
this, that so palpable were the fabulous ingredients which 'oetry »s a were
mixed up with what was taught as serious truth, that the least “J reflection on
the subject was productive of scepticism and disbelief, *torj Hence Pythagoras
represented Hesiod and Homer doing penance in liell,14 and Plato,
the most poetical of philosophers, condemned all mythological poetry, even that
of Homer, as unfit for the perusal of the young.13
Similar to
this was the effect produced on the belief of a future state. The efforts of
the poets, to make positive images of what onlv admitted of a negative
description, reduced the notion of future existence to nothing. The rewards of
the good were only shadows dealt out to shadows, and the punishments of the
wicked the same.
No wonder
that the chequered scene of real life should he boldly maintained to be
preferable to the fair hut unsubstantial glories of Elysium, or even of the
heavenly mansions.
BouXotfinv
x twagavgos im drirtviftev aXXw woto axXygy, a fth (liiro; Tikiif *?•»,
* H Ta.triv y&xvi<r<rt
xa,ra<p0t{AtvoKriv otvavffuyt *
was a
sentiment, thought not unworthy of the high-minded Achilles, by the poet from
whose works so many were content to derive their creed.
From this
view of the subject it would appear, that the religion rredi» of of the
Gentiles must have lost ground from its connexion with the fine arts and
poetry. In another point of view, however, (which through the will be briefly
adverted to by and by,) they made ample amends >1, ‘ie'
to it for the injury. It is time now to consider what provision had
Odyss.
Lib. XI. 217. 11,) where Plato’s
censur . is spoken of,
14 Diogenes Laertius, Lib. VIII. s^ems to have overlooked the chief mo-
15 De Republica, Lib. [ 11 Cicero, in tive
for it.
h i
Tusculan Disputations, (Lib. II. C. 10 Odyss. Lib. XI. 488.
Conjectures
respecting their origin.
The secret
of the Mysteries twofold:
The reason
ot this.
■been made
by tlie policy of legislators against these and other casual sources of
irre-ligion.
This
consisted in the establishment of those remarkable institutions, the
Mysteries. Their origin ha* generally been attributed to Egypt, and their
progress from that country to the rest of the Gentile- world, has been traced
through the legislators or founders of states, which Egypt either sent forth or
instructed. According to the conjectures of some, they were the invention of a
crafty priesthood, employed in^maintainiug their iulluence by investing
religion with imposing and solemn circumstances. The author of the “ Divine
Legation of Moses ” has, by the application of an immense body of learning to
the subject, set them in the light of political devices, originating with the
legislators, and designed to support civil society, by inculcating the doctrine
of a future state. 1
Probably
the priests devised these, or the institutions out of which they were formed,
solely with a view to the support of religion; and statesmen and legislators,
observing the success of the stratagem, contrived to have them moulded so as to
suit their political views. Co-operating with the priest in the furtherance of
l.is
general object, they might both combine to give prominence to the great
political doctrine of a future state of reward and punishment. In many
instances, doubtless, the priest would himself bo the chief man of the nation,
as was the case with Melchisedech, and with Anius, whoa* Virgil describes as
“ rex idem hominum, Phccbique saeerdos.”18
Their
general adoption by states and people widely different in their other customs,
plainly shows their importance to religion, whether supported on its own
account, or for the sake of good government. Every where the celebration of
the rites was a secret, and the most awful penalties were affixed to the
divulging of it.19 Every where also the secret was twofold, one for
the great body of those who applied for admission, and another contained in a
second initiation, reserved for a select few. In both some preparatory
discipline was requisite, but in this latter it was rendered so inconvenient
and even terrihle, as to repress the curiosity or ambition of all, except-
those who from their rank in society, or from a higher tone of mind, sought it
as a mark of distinction from the vulgar
In this
was displayed the policy of the institution. The exoteric doctrine, contained
in the first initiation, was essential to the support of the popular religion,
and of its great political feature, the dread of punishment after death. In
this, therefore, was asserted the real existence of the gods, and the duty of
public sacrifice and of
*9
See Meursii Eleusinia, C. 20.
obedience
to the laws, as constituting a character meet foi future reward.
Those who
were admitted to the second initiation, and instructed in the esoteric
doctrine, were intrusted, it appears, with a secret, which at tirst view might
seem inconsistent with the alleged application and intent of the Mysteries;
for it exposed the true nature of the gods, and made a future state a dream.20
But it might have been deemed necessary or useful that the nature of the error
should he partially known, so that there might be always a supply cf persons
the better qualified to preserve it, from their very knowledge of its weakness.
It might also have been deemed more prudent to confess the tiuih to bold and
inquiring minds, than to allow men to discover it for themselves, and to make
use of it as their own acquisition and property. On this principle we may
conjecture why Soerates declined initiation, and why this refusal was imputed
to him as somewhat suspicious in his character.21 In this, then, the
tales of Tartarus and Elysium were explained awav into fable and allegory, and
the soul was represented as a portion of the Divine essence in a state of
temporary separation from its source, and destined to return to its original
condition either immediately upon death, or after passing through certain
migrations, the object and necessity of which was to purify it from all that
was extraneous to it.
Over all
this scene of darkness, superstition, and fraud, the wide whether dispersion of
the Jews might be expected to have scattered some derived*™^ ravs of truth. To
this source has been traced the general expeeta- e!<'arel;
o jl views trom
tion which
preceded the birth of the Messiah. National vanity, and n,eais[ersc4
the approaching crisis of long-cherished hopes, might have prompted Je,is'
the Jews to disclose this part of the Scriptures, however reserved they may be
supposed to have been on other topics of religion. In their zeal for making
proselytes, they might likewise have occasionally taught purer views of the
Divine nature; but if so, their instruction does not appear to have created
generally any higher notion concerning Jehovah, than as of the tutelary deity
of their nation. Their boasted claim to his peculiar care, jSerhaps tended to
encourage this misconstruction.
One
doctrine certainly there was, vaguely bat universally enter- rniikiij tained by
the Gentile world, which was inconsistent with more beiieVm thu correct views
of God. than those above attributed to it. It was the belief in fate,
necessity, or by whatever other name was expressed that mysterious principle,
by which all that is divine or human was supposed to be controlled. Its supreme
dominion was a main article in the popular creeds of all nations. It was
supposed to circumscribe the free agency of the gods themselves, and even to
assign a term to their existence. Prometheus is represented by ^Esehylus as
Warburton's
Divine Legation, B. II.
21 Luciani
Demonax. Sect. II.
It
The notion
of Fate considered further.
Superstitious
arts which seem to have arisen out of it.
These arts
differing according to the general character of Religion in the several parts
of the world.
so'acing
his spirit, when galled under the tyranny of Jupiter, by tha reflection, that
even this Lord of gods and men eould not escape the sentence which fate had
pronounced on him. And that sentence was annihilation.23
The effeet
of this notion, even 011 the creed of the learned, was considerable. It was
professedly maintained by the Stoics, and occasionally and perhaps
unconsciously biassed the speculations of all sects, even of those who
discarded it from their systems, or refused to recognise its existence as an independent
principle.
The term
late, in its original import, is something uttered, a decrec, a law, or
expression of authority of some kind. To admit the existence of such a law,
involves the admission of two further truths,—that there is a being who framed it,
ami that there is a subject to which it is applicable. Now if in its subject be
embraced human affairs, (as was the Gentile doctrine,) and the law be not
derived from God, nor controllable by him, the Being from whom it proceeds must
at least hold divided empire with him, and the notion of one distinct and
supreme nature is destroyed. Nevertheless, in this doctrine of fate, however
corrupted and abused,—in this universal impression of a supreme Word which
could not be reversed or gainsaid, we may possibly discover the last imperfect
remnant of the true religion, as it existed at the era when men first began to
corrupt it.
With the
Gentiles, however, it rather served to perplex their view of a Supreme Being,
and gave rise to the most mischievous and artful contrhanees of their religion.
Under a pretence of discovering the application of the eternal decrees of fate
to any given case, the wily, or enthusiastic, took on them the characters of
soothsayers, augurs, and magicians. The abodes of those most famous for their
skill became the seats of oracles, and their art was transferred to their
successors, and at length associated with the places. Agreeably to this notion,
few oracles appear to have existed in the earliest ages of which there is any
record, and the business of the oracle was performed by the soothsayer.
These arts
and fraudulent practices of course took a tinge from the general character of
religion, as it existed in different parts of the world. Thus in Egypt, where
the doctrine of the Metempsychosis was most prevalent, they were connected
with magical rites, and the consulting of departed souls. In the East, where
the heavenly bodies were worshipped and were supposed to represent demons and
spirits, the Wise men pretended to apply to these sources for supernatural
information. So arose the practice and the name of Astrology. The flight of
birds, and the character of the entrails
^vEschyli
Protn. v. 5V. Many simLar «>*}; -*.
Pliile monk Reliq. Rpp the
sentiments
will readily occur to the clas- remarks
of Gassendi and others in the
sical
reader: e.g. j* notes on Cud worth’s Intellect. System,
"A
jr,? Sophoclis Frag. r>. 56, and Moslieim’s Dissert.^ ad Hist.
p<x.n\iotv
ilrtr i Si fixfflXtve ©taJ*. & @wj Keel.
Pertincntes, Vol. I. p. 355.
in
victims, (the materials of augury,) may perhaps have been connected with the
notion of the soul, the divine principle, migrating through the bodies of
these animals; a doctrine not unknown to the ancient Etrurians, to whom i3
attributed the invention of this art.*3
Of all
these, the influence of oracles, originally the greatest, was Cause ot th« the
earliest overturned. Their extinction at the period of the Advent
oracles."°f has been attributed to the miraculous expulsion of
the spirits which presided over them on the appearance of Christ in the world,
l)ut there are natural causes to which it might certainly be referred.
The
machinery employed in them was more complicated and clumsy, aud less easily
disguised, than that used in the other sinriar arts, except perhaps magic.
Besides which, all the arts of prescience had at some period or other enjoyed
the patronage of the great empires and ruling powers of the world, and through
their influence had been spread and upheld. Such had been the. ease with
oracles in Greece, with magic in Egypt, astrology in Uhaldrea and the East,
with augury at Rome. At the commencement of the Christian era,
Rome was
all and sole powerful. Augury being the national art, was patronized by the
government; astrology and magic (although contrary to law) received a still
more powerful support from the secret practice of individuals of rank, even of
the Emperors themselves.24 Oracles alone, having lost all
accidental support, fell into disrepute and disuse. Something like an allusion
to this capricious transfer of credulity may be observed in those lines of
Juvenal:—
“ Quicquid
Dixerit Astrologus, credent a fonte relatum Ammonis; quoniam Delphis oracula
eessant,
Et genus
humanum darnnat caligo futuri.”25
As long as
the learning of the Gentile world was confined to the whether the priest, the
statesman, and the lawgiver, it was uniformly employed Heathen the
in these and whatever other superstitious practices tended to main- received
any tain the popular religion, and, through that, order and decorum. frormection
The Brachmans and the Magi might have despised the vulgar befor^he* errors of
their countrymen, hut their more enlightened views were rise of the kept to
themselves, or else cautiously communicated through the sect&an
interior doctrine of the Mysteries. But, in truth, as far as there is any
ground for conjecture, the wise men of old, comprehending
23 Cicero de
Diyinat. Lib. I. C. 2. of divination
practised by the Cimbrian
Ovidii
Met. Lib. XV. 558. The con- women on
human victims. See Lib. VII.
nexion,
which has been here suggested, p. 425,
ed. Falconer,
between
augury and the belief that life, 24
tv,.:*: a t-u ttt « TT ,
in man and
brute alike, was a particle of p”,,;,
5! - c? 8
the Divine
essence, seems to be coun- ’ a?
the several allusions to the
tenanced
by the fact, that the entrails ma£lc»
which are found m
were
examined whilst in the act appar- ® awrvlng3’
Pf0''® ^°.w popular the
ently of
parting with, and exhibiting, as IS a^in-
+ ef^l?nTr
it were,
this imaginary subtle principle, Epod. ^ .
Lpist. Lib. II. 2, V. 208,
“
Spirantia consulit exta.” There is a
ghastly
description in Strabo, of the mode 35
Sat. VI. 553.
It
INTRODUCTION.
How far
these were
influenced in the publication of their opinions by ancient custom.
The double
doctrine of the Philosophers.
Their
peculations
on the divine and human nature not always of a Religious character.
the Magi,
the Braehtnans, the T * mid s, ami even the far-famed sages of ancient Greece,
exercised tlieir reasoning powers hut little, in investigating the truths of
religion. They were occupied in perpetuating and expounding immemorial
traditions, rather than in pursuing independent inquiries bv the light of
nature. They were priests and politicians, not philosophers.
To this
latter character none have any claim before the rise of those celebrated
schools of Greek philosophy, which divided the learned world at the period of
the Advent.
Yet even
with these so strongly did the old custom operate, that in their teaching and
writing they preserved a distinction similar to that which obtained in the
Mysteries, and always framed an exoteric, as well as an esoteric system.20
Their genuine opinions on religion were intrusted as secrets to a few, whilst
publicly they maintained the grossest doctrines of the popular creed. Nay, to
such an extent did they carry this sense of duty as good citizens, that when
liuemerus made the alarming discovery of the secret of the Mysteries, the
philosophers were the most active in replacing the veil which had been drawn
aside ; and much of that allegorical interpretation of the more absurd parts of
the popular theology was applied to this purpose,27 which has since
exercised the ingenuity of one greater than the aneient sages.23
Owing to
this double doctrine, the religious views of the philosophers exhibit- an
endless tissue of inconsistency, which renders it (even with this key) not
always easy to discover what was their opinion as philosophers, what their
doctrine as good citizens; and to the age for which they w'rote, it doubtless
answered the purjio.se of keeping their light under a bushel.
Besides,
although they speculated much on the nature of God and of man, yet these
speculations wore not always applicable to religion. All religious inquiry,
strictly speaking, is directed to the nature of God as conncclwl with man, or
age.in to the nature and condition of man as conncclcd u~ith God. Metaphysical
discussions on the Divine nature, similar to those in •which an attempt is made
to analyze or arrange the principles of the human mind, arc sometimes indeed
confounded with religious views, but are really compatible with the most
complete denial of all religion, lleligious obligation arises not from the
absolute nature of God, but from its relation to us. Accordingly Epicurus and
his followers were content to admit the existence of a divine Being, as a
philosophical truth, provided it was granted that he had no connexion with the
20
Pythagoras, who redded many years in Egypt, and was there initiated in the
Mysteries, introduced the practice into the famous Italic school, (Jamblichus,
de Vita Pytlia<r. C. VI.) which was the parent of the Eleatic, HeraclitaUj
Epicurean, and Sceptic sects. But it was net confined to the sects of any one
fam
ily, nor
to the philosophy of any one country. For an account of Aristotle’s two
Classes, see A. Geliius, Lib. XX. C. 5.
27 See Appendix [B.]
28 See Lord Bacon’s Wisdom of the Ancients.
■world.59
Now much of the speculation of the philosophers was directed to this object,
that is, to the absolute nature of God. It was indeed the chief, because it
seemed the more scientific inquiry, and the other was only incidental.
The world,
at the period in which Christianity was published to Prevail.ng it, was divided
bv the opinions of Epicureans, the Stoics, the Aca- perfod’of * demies, and the
Oriental philosophy; which last had arisen out of an the Advent, alliance
between the school of Plato and the eastern creed. To these may be added the
Alexandrian school, although it was not until the close of the second century,
that this last assumed its peculiar character and importance, in attempting to
combine in one Eclectic system, as it was termed, the Christian doctrines, the
tenets of the Greek philosophy, and the fanciful theories of Egypt and of the
East.
Of these,
the Epicureans, denying the existence, or, what amounts Epicureans to the same,
the authority and providence of God, contributed nothing to the general stock
of religious knowledge. The remaining sects, however at issue in other
respects, agreed thus far, that the relation between the divine and human
nature was that of a whole to its parts; a doctrine which may be considered
under two heads.
First, as
to the divine essence; that it was the source of the Theistioai human soul, and
the principle into which it would, either immediately Sect5, after
death, or ultimately after certain stages of purification, return and be
absorbed. Secondly, as to human nature; that it was partly mortal, partly
immortal; destined in one sense to survive death, in another to be destroyed by
it. Now both these views fell very far short of what is commonly understood,
when the ancients are said to have admitted or discovered the existence, of the
one true God, and the immortality of the soul. As far as the mere expres-
Th-irviej sion goes, they doubtless acknowledged the existence of one God as
divine unequivocally as a Jew or a Christian; but if by the term God they nature-
understood a being of a different nature from him acknowledged by Jeiv and
Christian, their mode of expression cannot be reason ably urged as a proof that
they coincided with enlightened believers in this fundamental article of faith.
Now that this was the ease is plain. Taking the human soul as a portion and a
sample of the Godhead,30 their view of a divine source could not
have differed ^essentially from their view of the human soul; it was
necessarily endued with parts and passions, and its nature measured and judged
of by reference to ours. The Stoics, indeed, (as was before observed,) are by
some understood to have gone so far, as to deem a body requisite for the
existence of the Divine mind.
* Cicero represents Velleius as tracing vifanlrm et mgitantem, et animadvertcn-
tbe evils
of a belief in relieion, not to the tern,
et omnia ad se pertinere pufatntem,
doctrine
that there is z Go i, but to the mriomim,
et plenum negotii Deam.”—Do
doctrine
tha- he is Lord of the universe. Nat. Dcorum, Lib. J. C. 20.
Iinposuhtis in cerviribus rostris sempi-
Urnur/i dominum, gmem dies et nodes tim- Mo?ix
© oi; krr<i<mruZ.'nK. Arriani
eremus, qms enim von timeat omnia pro- Diss.
in Epict. Lib. I. (J. 14.
Of the
immortality
ot the soul.
The
discussion
of Religfous subjects by the Grenk philosophers unfriendly to the credit of the
Gentile Religion.
Their
notions on the second point, were still further removed from what we are apt to
understand, when it is asserted that the ancients admitted the immortality of
the soul. In truth, tlio immortality which they inculcated was even
inconsistent with ihu future existence of man as man. Far from implying any
futuro consciousness of separate existence, of happiness or misery, it amounted
to this,—that a portion of the divine essence had gono forth, (which process
some illustrated by the image of emanations and rays proceeding from the
fountain of light, until they nearly confounded the thing represented with its
emblem,) that whatever substance it pervaded became endued with some modification
of life or reason; and that the withdrawing and resuming this vital ray
occasioned the phenomena of death. This taking place, the deserted mass of
matter went to annihilation, or else returned to a clmos, to await another
union with auother portion of creative virtue. What has all this in common with
the Christian doctrine, of the resurreetion ? Was it not natural that men
should consider that doctrine when preached to them as somewhat new, and contradicting
all their pre-eonceived opinions ?
From this
view of the philosophical creed of the Gentile world, it will not appear
essentially to have differed from the esoteric doctrines of the Mysteries. The
credit and authority of those doctrines were nevertheless greatly shaken by
their appearance in this new form. Removed from the old basis of tradition,
mystery, and state authority, the unsoundness of their foundation became more
apparent to vulgar eyes; and the endless \ariety of opinion which prevailed,
without any acknowledged standard, gave a doubtful character to the subject,
and deprived every view of it alike of the appearance of divine sanction.
Accordingly,
with the rise and diffusion of philosophy, a disbelief and contempt of religion
increased and spread abroad. The ruin of social order began to be predicted in
the further growth of scepticism so produced. The wisdom of OTher nations was
extolled, because thev did no more than expound the traditions of their
fathers, and the Greek philosophy was stigmatized as the source of innovation,
and as tending to unsettle men’s minds. “ Can one do otherwise,” exclaims
ylvlian, “ than commend the wisdom of the Barbarians ? Amongst them, no one
ever fell into atheism ; amongst them there are 110 controversies about the
gods, 110 questioning whether there, are really such things or not, and whether
they are interested about us or not.”31 In the same spirit Diodorus
Siculus complains of the perpetual innovation* of the Greek philosophers in the
views of their predecessors, even on the most important topics: “ The
Barbarians,” he observes, “ go on in one unvarying course, and are firm to
their principles; but the Greeks, who consider
31 Var. Ilist. Lib II. C. 31.
philosophy
as a gainful profession, are for setting up new sects, and opposing theory to
theory on the most momentous subjects, so that their pupils only acquire the
habit of doubting, their m nds wander in perpetual uncertainty, and become in
short incapable of any firm conviction.”32
■ Not that
the belief of the Gentile world was then first shaken, or The poplar only by
these means. The behaviour of professed believers, under "hSthai
circumstances wherein faith is put to the test, is every where decisive
against the existence of such a principle, to any great extent at disbelieve i
least.83 Thus the Athenians are represented by their observant and
faithful historian and fellow-eitizen, as becoming mare and more irreligious,
as the ravages of the famous plague at Athens increased ;M and
Plinv, in his account of the eruption of Vesuvius, in which his uncle perished,
records amongst the striking events of that awful scene, a general distrust of
Divine aid, arising from the notion that the gods themselves were possibly
involved in the impending rui i.35
Powerful
ties there were which bound men to the religion of their why they fathers; ties
which only a Divine hand could have unloosed, but n.-vtTthek-" they were
not the result of conviction. Religion had become, partly adneredto through
accident, partly through the policy of legislators, interwoven into the whole
system of public and private life. Never separated from the glories of war, or
the repose of peace, it came to be considered inseparable from eaeh. Its
genius haunted every path of life, and adapted itself to every change of
manners and circumstances.
In the
theatre, the circus, and the midnight revel, it continued as familiar to the
degenerate Romans, as when it gave a zest to the rustic festival, or animated
the rude pageantry of a triumph, in their days of simple hardihood. The
tasteful and imaginative Greek believed it, if belief it may be called, not for
its own sake, but for the sake of Homer, and Phidias, and Apelles,—for the sake
of the bard whose song was voucher for its truth, and the monuments of art, in
which it stood embodied and enshrined. When the suppliant seated himself beside
the household gods, and placed on his knee the child of his enemy, he
calculated wisely on the principle, which sanctified the gods themselves in the
eyes of the father and the master of the family:36 nor did Julian
display less policy, when in his endeavours to restore the reign of paganism,
he directed his eifurts, not so much to the couviction of men’s minds, as to
the renewal of these broken associations.37
With this
view of the Gentile world before us, we shall be able to estimate how far they
stood in need of a revelation, what reception they might be expected to give to
Christianity, and how the first Christian preachers were likely to shape their
teaching, so as to
32 Bibiioth. Hist. Lib. XI. C. 29. 88 See the description of
Themistooles
^33
See Whately’s Essays on some Peeu- taking
refuge with Admetus. Tliucyd.
liarities
of the Christian Religion. Lib. I.
0.13®,
Thucyd.
Lib. II. C. 53. v See Gibbon’s Decline and
Fall of the
35 Epist. Lib. VI. Ep. 20. Roman Empire, Vol. IV. C. 23.
Application
of the foregoing remarks to illustrate the mode in which
Christianity
was first preached and received among the Gentiles John xviii. 38.
Probable
unwillingness to examine into the evidence of its truth.
Prejudice likely
to be strong against its claim to exclusive reception.
General
expectation that an extraordinary person was about to appear.
Bishop
Horsley's account of it.
render it
acceptable or intelligible, and to guard against the errors to which the
heathen were most liable. All their systems, we see, were recommended and
embraced, because they were useful, oi honourable, or convenient. Christianity
alone advanced the singular claim of being true, and of being adopted because
it was true. Religion had not yet become the subject of a creed. Its evidences,
a theme so familiar to Christian ears, sounded to the Gentiles as an idle
topic, the discussion of which they couid not understand to be necessary to the
reception of a religion. “ What is truths” said l’ilate to Jesus, not surely in
jest, as Lord Bacon would explain it, but as if he had asked, What mean you by
speaking about truth ? what has truth to do with the subject? It was altogether
a new way of propagating a religion, to in\ite converts, not to conform to its
institutions, but to bdkve, and to let their actions be agreeable to truth; and
nothing was more natural, than that Christianity should receive names
expressive of this grand peculiarity, the Truth end the Faith.
Independently
then of any agreement or disagreement which the Gentiles might tind between the
doctrines of the Gospel, and theii preconceived notions, they would be
indisposed to attend to the evidence which attested its Divine authority. There
was another unfavourable circumstance about its claims. It could not but seem
unreasonable and presumptuous, that one religion should be expected to prevail
all over the world, to the exclusion of every other; and that too a religion
derived, as it appeared, from a small contemptible tributary of the empire. Had
the proposal been merely to have Christianity admitted as one among the many
foreign systems patronized at Rome, it woojd hardly have been rejected; and
this indeed seems to have been actually contemplated by Tiberius 5s8
but it was deemed preposterous in the Christians to insist on an exclusive
eleim.
There was
one circumstance, indeed, which might seem likely to have awakened the
attention of the Gentiles to a more candid and earnest consideration even of
these unusual claims. It is well attested, that, at the birth of our Saviour, a
very general rumour prevailed, that an extraordinary person was about to
appear, and to effect some great change in the condition of the world. Bishop
Horsley, leaim d and ingenious on this as on every subject, accounts 1 for it
by supposing prophecies of the Messiah to have been preserved, together with
other records of the primitive religion of mankind, in the Sibylline verses,
and in other writings of a similar character.59 Admitting that lie
lias made out a plausible case, his theory is nevertheless liable to this
objection, that it supposes the prophecies derived from patriarchal times, to
have been more determinate ana
*" T‘
rtu'.liani Apol. C. V. Eusi-bii llist. relating ‘o *he Mefsiab, dispersed among
Lih. II. C. 2. tli.' ’iieaihen.
f9
See Di-sertation on the Prophteies
more
easily interpreted, than the corresponding prophecies recorded in Genesis, or
even than those of a much later period. For, if we imagine the case of'the
scriptural prophecies themselves being brought under the notice of the
Gentiles, in the same manner as the Sibylline verses were, the Gentiles would
never surely have elicited, even from them, the alleged expectation, embracing
as it does the precise period of the Messiah’s appearance. Perhaps, too, it may
be fairly questioned, whether the records of the patriarchal era would not in
ail likelihood have been handed down in the histrionic form, such as was
exhibited in the Mysteries, or by means of rude monuments, rather than as “the
Sibyl’s leaves.” Whether indeed the character and contents of these strange
productions were really and altogether such as they are represented, is itself
a point 011 which the inquirer has no means of judging for himself, inasmuch as
no specimen of the genuine Sibylline verses has been preserved.
Those,
then, to whom Bishop Horsley’s view shall seem unsatis- °th factory,
may be disposed to refer the origin of the expectation (at 0
least as
regards the eastern nations) to the Jewish Scriptures.
Tacitus
and Suetonius, it is to be observed, limit to the eastern world this
expectation of an universal monarch arising thence ;40 and nothing
is more probable, than that the prophecies of Daniel especially should be
familiar to the Persian Magi.
Indeed,
that the Gentile view should, like that of the Jewish nation, have been
directed to an universal king, forms of itself a powerful objection to the
notion, that the source of that view was distinct. In the original and
primitive view of the Messiah, he would surely have been characterised as the
Antagonist of evil, or the Purifier of man's corrupt nature. The notion of
dominion as a prominent feature in his office, carries on the face of it the
Jewish bias of interpreting literally their later prophecies, which described
him 'metaphorically as one qui rerum potiretur.
It is
remarkable, too, that- the Jews, from the period of their being intrusted with
those prophecies which were likely to be most intelligible to the heathen,
were, as if by special appointment, brought more immediately into intercourse
with the most powerful and influentia1 nations of the world,—with
the Assyrians and Babylonians, with the Persians, with the Greeks, and lastly
with the Remans. Of these, the Greeks and Romans, it may be said, were tittle
likely to have studied the sacred volume, even had their attention been
solicited to it by those in whose hands it was deposited. Yet even these could
hardly fail of imbibing some notion of the Messiah, and of the fulness of the
time, from the conversation of the Jews, who were every where resident amongst
them. National vanity,
L.nd the
ardour of a hope such as theirs about to be fulfilled, must have tempted them
to descant on this, however reserved 111 genera]
Taciti
Hist. Lib. V. C. 13. fjneton. Vespasian, C.>J.
Why
Christianity
received no support Ji-ora this expectation.
its moral
precept*
generally
such as to
meet with
a
ready
reception.
on
religious topics; and the more as the fated period drew nearer. The notion
having onee gained ground among the Gentiles, they would naturally enough see
it intimated likewise in their national oracles, whose number, variety, and
generality, fitted them to furnish almost any view of any subject. Thus the
attention of men being once directed to the topic, the vague descriptions of
tho Sibvlline verses might have been applied to a specific time and person, and
have become useful for the intrigue of the politician, or the delicate flattery
of the poet.41
Viewing
this general expectation of the heathen world, then, as derived cither directly
or indirectly from the Holy Scriptures, we shall be at no loss to account for
the small influence it had in cxcifing the curiosity of the Gentiles to inquire
more eagerly concerning the expected Great One, of those who proclaimed him as
having now appeared, and as having sent them forth as his delegates. He who was
to eome, was viewed, through the prejudiced medium of Judaism, as a temporal
prince. But the obscure birth of Jesus, his unambitious course of life, and his
meek submission to a humiliating death, seemed at once to render tho prophecy
inapplicable to him. ^sone other appearing to claim its application, according
to this view, it was probably soon forgotten or disregarded. !No appeal, none
at least that we know of, was ever made to it by the Apostles, nor do any of
the Gentiles, to whom they went, appear to have connected their mission with
it.*3
As to the
Gospel itself, its doctrines and its precepts, the facility with which the
Genriles would understand or embrace them, wouid of course depend much on their
existing views of morals, of the I'ivine nature, and of a future state.
Iu the
systems of the Greek philosophers they possessed moral rules, the close
agreement of which with the Gospel precepts could not but cause the latter to
be familiar, and ensure them a favour able reception. Here was the proper
sphere of Reason, and she had done her part nobly. It is not perhaps too much
to assert, that, with the exception of forgiveness of injury and humility, the
heathen sketch of the moral character (such as is found, for instance, in the
Ethics of Aristotle) required no feature to be added, but only some correction
and a higher finish. This, be it remembered, detracts nothing from the
character of the Gospel. To deny it, were indeed to wrong religion and its
inspired teachers, in more respects than one. For, first, if the Gentiles had
not the faculties
41 See
Virgil’s Pollio, and Heyne’a Divinatione,
(L. II. C. 54,) “eumantisti-
prefatory
remarks. It appears from Dio bus
again us, ut quid vis potius ex iiiis
Cassius
and Plutarch, that Julius Ca?sar libris,
quam Regem proferant.”
(•searched
the Sibylline verses lor some
prediction
respecting a great king and 42
It was again brought into notice by
conqueror,
for the purpose of applying the
rebellion of the Jews, who are said
it to
himself, and assuming the title of to
have rested their hopes of snecour on
king. (Dio
Cass. Lib. XLIY. p. £47, it; and it
was then appliul by some lu
atid
Plutarch in Caesare, C 00.) Cicero Vespasian
and Titus. Su- Tacit. Hist,
probably
alludes to the fact in his De Lib. V. C.
13, and Eii£cb. Lib. III. C.
to enable
them to arrive at just notions of their duty, how could Evid«i<v to
they be
chargeable with that sinfulness which St. Paul imputes to
them? Again,
what right has the Christian advocate to recommend « ^ingfrom
the Gospel
on the score of its morality, if from the Gospel mankind i^Umentof
first
learned what morality was? It is only arguing in a circle. UithMUh*1***
The truest
statement will always be found the most favourable to conclusions
the Gospel
of truth. rfE?en~.,
m • i i* . lightened
1 he
connexion between religion and morals is another matter. Eca,on-
To this
indeed the Gentiles were strangers, and not easily to be nkS^tJTbT reconciled.
What Josephus has asserted of his countrymen, was *ltwt00fh*
stil more applicable to the Christians, contrasted with the heathen.42
Morijity »• Others made religion a part of virtue, they made virtue a part of
withect&i religion. The duties of sacrifice, of prayer, and of
reverence for Rel:*ion- the gods, nnplied no obligation
to practise virtue ; and the observance of these duties was no otherwise
connected with moral behaviour, than as it constituted a part of the character
of a good cit’zen.
There was
withal i deep-rooted prejudice concerning the dignity And or luman nature. Men
were supposed capable of raising themselve " ‘
doctrine
to any
.... ^ ui raising inemseives
by meut to
the highest scale of existence, and of deserving to be should numbered with the
srods. 0 d “tra<'t from
° the
self-
“ Hae arte Pollux et vagus Hercules sufficiency
Jt-nisus, arces attigit igneas.” 4* * ir*«e*
That
virtue should not be entitled to reward ; that the good should fit <t a
place in heaven, not as their natural right, but as a favour; and that a great
and mysterious atonement was requisite for the sins of each and of all; these
were doctrines not merely unacceptable, but almost incomprehensible.
Enough has
been already said of the prevailing notions concerning the nature of the gods,
to show that the Gentiles were tar. iliar frith the conception of a Deity
assuming the form and body of man.15 IJie doctrine of God manifested
in the flesh would not, therefore, be likely to startle them, nor do we
accordingly hear of any surprise or scruple which it occasioned. At the same
time, nothing could be m ire revolting to their natural views of such a Being,
than that e lea<1 a
life of humiliation and persecution, and submit to
an
ignominious death. It was Christ crucified that was “ foolishness to the
Greeks.”
^Adv
Apion, Lib. It. C. 14.
« Horat. Carm. Lib. III. 3. So Virril, <En. IX. 64U:--
■’Macte
no'a rirtuie puer, sic itur ad
astro,.’1
45 The heathen view must not, however, be
confounded with the Christian doctrine ot the Incarnation. It so far resembled
it, as to prevent it from being strange and unacceptable; but it differed very
materially from it. The heathen
supposed
the human form, on these occasions, not to be perfect man, but a body animated
by the Deity. It is not surprising, accordingly, that among the ancient
heresies there should be this very view taken of the person of Christ.
1 rie Docetas denied his human nature, and
asserted him to be Grod only, in the likeness of man, or rather, a human frame,
inhabited and animated, not by a human sou], but by the Mon only, which they
called the Word.
whether
th* Another popular view which they entertained, conocrninq; the theMme1”
nature of a Deity, must not pass unnoticed. It is well known, that become1'*'*1
Ui ^le common creed of Greece, Diana, Hecate, and Luna, were
n-or. thm held to be different objects of worship, and yet one and the same
ofironilij) i'eity. The Jupiter and Apollo of one place could not always be
aJectedthei ^ie Jupifcer
and Apollo of another,*6 yet was there only
reception
of one Jupiter and one Apollo. A striking illustration of this may be 'fadTrin!t>
found in Xenophon’s account of the retreat of the ten thousand, in Unity. He
had made a vow tu Ephesian Diana of a portion of the spoils of war, and lie
fulfilled it, according to his own account, not bv sending these gifts to
Ephesus, but by consecrating a temple to Ephesian Diana in Urccce.47
How far
this notion may have operated, in enabling the Gentiles to understand, or in
disposing them to listen to the Christian preachers, who taught that there was
one God, and that he was to be worshipped in the person of God the Father, who
created all the world, of God the Son, who redeemed all mankind, and of God the
lloly Ghost, who sanctitieth all the elect people of God, the Christian reader
may determine for himself. Certain it is, that no scriptural truth is more
clearly taught than this. It is equally certain that, while for so many
centuries, of all the Christian doctrines, that of a Trinity i'i Unity has been
considered as the most obscure and mysterious; in the records and writings of
the Apostles, there is not a trace of any scruple which it created—it seems to
have called for 110 explanation, and is not even spoken of as a mysten.
Contempt
That a general disbelief of a future state, prevailed, has been pneonnii- a'ready
stated. The subject had indeed long ceased to furnish any serious argument for
hope or fear. When Pericles is represented byl the historian, as exhausting
every topic of consolation, ivi his eloquent address to the surviving friends
of those who had fallen in battle; he speaks of their glorious memory, and of
the parents' hope that insurrection other sous may be born to fill their place
and emulate their worth,
<
future ])Ut not one Syiluye js there
of their future life and immortality.43 Cicero acknowledges, that
the Epistle of Sulpicius on the death of Tullia comprehended every argument for
comfort which the ease admitted; yet we search that Epistle in \aln for the
slightest allusion to the one topic, which would have been uppermost in the
mind of a believer, professedly consoling a father for the loss of his
daughter.411 Even in the Roman Senate, Julius Caesar once ventured
«*d
notions were likely to inspire of the Christian doctrine of th
»no
stwie.
46 Thus Herodotus, enumerating the privileges
of the kings of Sparta, distinguishes the Priesthood of the Lacedemonian
Jupiter from that of the Heavenly Jupiter.—Eraton C. 06.
47 Anab. Lib. V. C. 3.
48 Thucyd. Lib. [I. C.
35. et seq.
49 Ciceronis Epist. Lib. IV. Kp. 5 and 6. “
Quod si eliam in/eris sensus est,”
&c.t
is a mode of expression, which conveys more than a doubt, whether the dead
were sensible of joy or sorrow. The introduction of the remark, too?
without a single suggestion of Tullia’s immortal destiny, proves, not merely
that Sulpicius was himself a sceptic, but that he considered the mention of it
as unfit lor a serious argument. We may, in short.
to appeal
to tlie real opinion of his audience, that a future state contained nothing
either to hope for or to dread; and +a= seconded in the avowal by Cato.51*
It was,
therefore, nothing wonderful that St. Paul should be mocked by His Athenian
audience for preaching Jesus and the resurrection. The doctrine seemed beneath
their serious notice, Actsxvii.3s and was despised for its apparent absurdity.
And this, not merely because it was disbelieved, but because men’s minds had
never been accustomed to it, even in the fables of Elysium and Tartarus. A bodily
resurrection was unheard of, the idea of man’s identity in a future state was
altogether new; and heathen records agree with the statement of the Bible, that
it was Jesus Christ who brought life and immortality to light through the
Gospel.
II.—RELIGION
OF THE JEWS.
Is
estimating the state of religion among the Jews at the period of the Advent of
our Saviour, two points of inquiry must be kept distinct: the one, what their
Law and Prophets were apparently designed to teach them; the other, what they
actually did learn from these sources.51 That the Jewish Scriptures
were so interpreted as to render the promised Messiah unacceptable to the
great body of the nation, is plain from a cursory perusal of the Gospels.
Id
is equally plain that the Jewish Scriptures were calculated to produce a quite
contrary effect. With reference, therefore, to this, and to other points, it
will be necessary to consider both the Jewish dispensation in itself, and as it
wTas received by the people at large, and by the various sects which
existed among them.
In God’s
occasional communications with any people or individual Allegorical of old, his
messages were conveyed a3 much by signs and types as Jewish0^0
by words. Of a practice so well known, no example or illustration Religion, can
be necessary. Agreeably to this method, we find the religion of the Jews
deposited, partly in their Scriptures, partly in ceremonies and institutions,
and the service required of them consisting even more in representation than in
verbal expression. They sacrificed more than they prayed. Instead of a form of
words annually addressed to Heaven on account of their deliverance from Egypt,
the scene was annually represented by the ceremony of the Passover.
A religion
so constituted would naturally contain a vast body of its object, rites, many
of them in themselves trivial and unmeaning, and deriving importance and
significance only from being viewed as
1st. the
same argument to disprove the IV.
0; and the conclusion he draws
heliet of
a future state amonsi the Hea- there,
from an omission in a letter tro.n
’.hen who
spoke of the immortality of Paneet.ius to Q. Tubero.
the soul,
that < icero himself does to dis- r, ,, - .. . ~
prove the
belief of the Stoics that pain Sallust,
in Catihn. C. ol, 52.
»aa notan
evil. See Dr. Finibus, 1 ib. « See Appendix [C.]
symbols.
Had the ceremonial Law, indeed, heen composed of rites and observances
important or more than trivial in themselves, those who practised them would
have been still more likely to regard them as valuable on their own account,
and not for the further object to which they pointed. Considered thus, then,
the ceremonial portion of the Law will appear as another mode of conveying the
same instruction as its verbal precepts. It was unto each man "a sign upon
his hand, and a memorial between his eyes, that the Lord’s E*o«L*tH,s. law
might be in his mouth." Some of its ordinances, no doubt, had reference to
the idolatrous practices of the neighbouring Gentiles, concerning which our
information is too imperfect for us to estimate fully the iitness of those
ordinances. Others, again, were obviously lessons of morality and piety. A
third, and the most important class, were calculated to prepare the nation for
a candid and ready admission of the Messiah’s claims, and of the Christian
revelation. One or more of these objects was probably intended in each rite,
however trivial.
T'ie
minute directions, for instance, respect'ng the treatment of lepers. To the
Jews these directions furnished a sort of histrionic sermon, displaying the
foul nature of sin, its contagious charpeter, the precautions requisite to
enable the healthiest and strongest m;nds to escape its influence;
lastly, its offensiveness to God, and the necessity ot' a mysterious cleansing
and sanctification by blood. In all cases of legal defilement, purity was to be
restored hv the intervention of a high priest, by the offering of a sacrifice,
and (whenever it was practicable) by the blood of a victim. The continual
repetition of these, scenes was like the continual reading of moral and
religious lessons to the Jews, in a language agreeable to the habits of the
most ancient times, and therefore impressive and intelligible. And if these
rites did not actually convey a notion of the one great High l’riest, who was
to cleanse all mankind from moral defilement by the sacrifice of himself, yet
they were calculated to habituate the Jews to that wav of thinking, which
should render the doctrine nothing strange fcnd revolting, but, on the
contrary, highly natural and acceptable.
Nevertheless,
Christ crucified was to the Jews a stumbling-block ; which must have been owing
to some wrong bias, which their minds received from those who pretended to
guide them in the interpretation of the Law and the 1’rophets.
Causes To explain the nature and origin of this
bias, two passages of
thrir'misin0 History must be brought under notice.
The one is the
terprctation.
intercourse between the Jews and the Gentiles, especially the Egyptians ; the
other is the rise of the traditional law into supreme authority.
conni\ion
I. As early as the period of the Babylonian captivity some settlc-
ler.'iHLxti!, nient of the Jews in Egypt appears to have been formed. At all
cvebts, from the foundation of Alexandria they began to be e;Ub-
lished there
m great numbers. The illustrious founder of that city allowed them a share, of
privileges in common with his Macedonian colonists, and the free exercise of
their religion ; and his I'beral policy towards them was continued by his
successors."2 Increasing in numbers and importance, they at
length obtained permission to build a temple for themselves in Egypt, in order
to avoid the inconvenience attending the yearly resort of so many to Jerusalem.03
This was a most important step. Weakening the ties of filial dependence by
which the Jews of Egypt were bound to the holy citv, it was the occasion of
their becoming more devotedly attached to the place of their abode, and more
liable to the mischievous effects produced 011 their faith by their connexion
with it. It was in itself indeed a bold violation of their Law, which expressly
directed that they should perform their temple worship at the one place only
which the Lord had appointed. They now began to Dent j>l imbibe many of the absurd fancies of the heathen
philosophy, so much cultivated at that time at Alexandria, and blended it it)
their view of their own sacred doctrines. Accustomed to contemplate a secondary
meaning in their Law and Prophets, they too readily yielded to the seduction of
the famous Platonic school of Alexandria, Platonic the aim of which was, by
allegorical interpretation, so to adapt SchooU itself to every other
sj^stem, as that all should appear consistent and the same—a method afterwards
practised with the like success on .Christianity. This false wisdom soon
spreading from Egypt to Judaea, the Jewish creed, both at home and abroad,
became not a little changed and distorted by the artificial light thus thrown
on it.54
As the
period of the Advent drew nigh, the rest also of the Gentile world became so
interspersed with Jews, as to justify almost a literal acceptation of St.
James’s assertion, that Jloses had in every city them that preached him. Yet it
does not appear that Acts m u. the Jewish creed was generally aft’eeted by this
varied intercourse.
Egypt was
the channel, at least, through which any foreign impression was conveyed.
There was a fatality in the connexion of the Jews with Egypt, and when it
ceased to be a scourge, it became a snare to them.
At the
same time, it must not be supposed that the intercourse between the Jews and
Gentiles was productive of nnmixed mischief to the former." Part, indeed,
of the scheme of Providence, in
i3 Joseplii
Ant Jud. Lib. XI. C. S, subsequent
acquaintance with the Greek
and Lib.
XII. C. 1. philosophy. Their previous
religious
6S
Ejusdem, Lib. XIII. C. 3. knowledge
enabled them, he observes, to
c o 1 • tt- - •* • .* TiL-i derive from the heathen writings an ad-
l?ee
Bruekeri Histona Cntica Philo- vantage
of which the heathen themselves
soplnse, Tome
II. pp. 690 and (U7. were incapable.
The wiser and better
55 Warburton
has suggested that the sort of Gentiles
learned to despise indeed
Jews were
cured of idolatry from the the authority
of their popular supersti-
period of
the Babylonish captivity, not so tions,
but they had no means of going
much by
the severity of the punishment beyond
this scepticism and infidelity.
v.hich
they had undergone, as by their The
Jews learned from the same sources
Probable
reasons for the permission of this intercourse with the Gentiles.
Traditional
Law.
11 s
probable origin.
Its
effects.
extending
that intercourse so greatly at that precise period, might have been to afford
the Jews, as well as the Gentiles, an opportunity of aequi-ing more preparatory
light than either enjoyed, for the glorious scene which as approaching. And
although this opportunity was not generally embraced by either, there were,
doubtless, many, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles, 011 whom it was not
lost; . many among the Jews, such as Simeon and Anna; many among the Gentiles,
such as the good Centurion a-nd Cornelius. From this intercourse* the Genriles
might have derived clearer notions of the character of that universal Lord, who
was expected to arrive out of the East, if, indeed, the expectation were not
wholly derived from that source. On the other hand, the Jews might have been
roused to search their Scriptures for the true account of certain matters on
which the Gentiles speculated largely, and which were so imperfectly revealed
to the Jews, as to be likely to be unnoticed without some call for
investigation—as, for instance, the doctrine, of a future state. How much the
publication of the Gospel was facilitated by the establishment of synagogues in
every great city is obvious ; and this, too, was not an exclusive benefit to
the Gentiles, for the Jew abroad was likely to be more free and fearless in
submitting his mind to the humiliating truths which were to be disclosed,
inasmuch as he was removed from the chief seat of national prejudice, and was
unawed by the presence of that authority which upheld it.
II. Of the true origin of the traditional Law
there is 110 certain account, which is remarkable, considering that it
constituted the main line of separation between the contending sects. According
to its advocates, it was delivered by God to Moses 011 Mount Sinai, together
with the written Law, and was therefore asserted to be of equal authority with
it. Their opponents contented themselves with refusing assent to this
statement, without, however, either denying the antiquity of these traditions,
or assigning them any specific source or date.56
It is
probable, from this uncertainty, as well as from the character of the
traditions themselves, (for, if they have been faithfully recorded in the Talmuds,
they are little more than a tissue of minute rules superadded to those in
Scripture concerning the observance of the ritual law,) that they were the
gradual accumulation of many centuries. Originally, perhaps, mere directions
for determining matters left indeterminate in Scripture, /hoy acquired from
usage and habitual compliant* an equal authority with the law itself.57
Be it as it may, the enlargement of the ritual law suited well with that bias
of mind in the nation at large, which in those latter days
to view
the heathen worship in its true 66
Josephi Antiq. Jud., Lib. XIII.
light; but
this immediately confirmed C. 10.
them in
their own faith, ihe contrasted 67
See Prideaux’s Connexion, Part I. character of which left diem no room to B. V., where the source of these ttadipause
in general scepticism. See Divine tions is
assigned to the age of Ezra and Legation* Book V. Sect. 2. the return from the Captivity.
was more
fully displayed in the character of the Pharisee—a tendency, namely, to forget
the twofold nature of the Law, and to consider that as valuable on its own
account, which there was every reason to believe was only valuable from its
reference to some other object, even although that object might not always have
been clear and distinctly to be seen. Going then on the principle, that the
works of the Law were to be regarded as an ultimate and independent object,
that its intent was to make the comers thereunto perfect, not to shadow out the
good things appointed for that purpose, the traditionist thought, consistently
enough, that by adding rite to rite, and rule to rule, he should enlarge the
sphere of meritorious conduct. And if the written Law contained enough for
justification, the superadded value of the works of the unwritten Law would be
more than the purchase of Divine reward.
This was
the righteousness of the Pharisees, the most consider- ttif able sect at the period of the Advent. They were the
class into ph!’isec,‘ which the learned naturally fell,
and being reverenced for their Scriptural erudition, and for the strictness of
their lives, the great body of the people was content to subscribe to their
doctrines, and to adopt their views of Scripture, without aspiring to be
Pharisees in holiness any more than in learning. On them the vulgar gazed, as
on men whose righteous attainments went so far beyond what was needful, as to
be admirable rather than good, and beheld them in their long fastings, their
reiterated prayers, and their profound meditations, advancing ever, as it seemed,
from superior to supreme sanctity.58 It will be readily conceived,
that to such men the doctrine of good works being insufficient and ineffectual
for salvation, and of the necessity of atonement for the sins of all, must have
been light too distressing for them to open their eyes upon without a painful
etfort; and that they were likely for the most part to be obstinately blind to
all evidence. And what must have been the result on the people who were under
their guidance? The Pharisees bade them, indeed, conform to the Law, and
especially to the ceremonial Law, but they took away the key of knowledge, that
unlocked its mysterious meaning, or else, substituted for its true secondary
meaning, something that was fanciful and foreign. They enjoined obedience to
the Divine precepts, even to the letter of the commandment; but whenever
obedience proved hard or inconvenient, some one of the numerous traditions (the
Divine source and authority of which they maintained) was readily found to make
the case an exception.
58 Roodwin,
in his “Moses and Aaron,” walked, to cause
the greater opinion of
pives a
quaint and graphic description of his
meditation.
the
varieties of the Pharisaical character, “
Pharisceus mortarius, so called, be-
as
represented in the Talmuds. Among cause he
wore a hat in manner of a deep
them he
enumerates mortar, such as they use to
bray spice
in,
insomuch that he could not look up-
‘
Pkarisczus truncates, so called, as if ward,
nor of either side; only downward
he had no
feet, because he would scarce on the
ground, and forward, or forth-
liit them
from the ground when lie right.”—Lib.
I. 0. X.
Tho
badducees.
It might
haYO been expected, that the sect which professedly stood forth to oppose the
corruptions of the Pharisees would have done something towards bringing the
Jews back to a purer view of their Scriptures, Hut this was very far from being
the ease. The sect alluded to—that of the Sadducees—is the only other
(religious sect at least) noticed in the New Testament. These pseudo-reformers
rejected, indeed, the traditions of the Pharisees, but they continued to look
as blindly as their opponents on the genuine Scriptures; and they have even
been charged with denying the authority of all except those written by
Moses."'1 This, it must be confessed, does not appear probable;
at least such a tenet would seem inconsistent with the office of the high
priesthood, from which it is certain that they were not excluded.6"
Nor, again, is it likely that, in their controversy with the Pharisees, the
latter would have appealed to tho Prophets, (as appears to have been the case,61)
unless the Prophets had been acknowledged as authority by both. The Sadducees
were in truth freethinkers and scoffers; a society which was the receptacle of
all who were willing or able to free themselves from the restraints of
religion. The Sadducee was the rich sensualist, and the man of the world ; and
his tenets were, doubtless, pliable enough not to interfere with his promotion
to the highest office in the Jewish Church.
It is
observable, that one of the distinguishing features of a sect so characterised,
should be the assertion that man’s good and evil destiny depends entirely on
his own exertions. Whilst the Pharisee contended for a fated course of events,
so contrived however as to be compatible with a free agency in man, the
Sadducee maintained that he w as left altogether to himself, to work out his
own happiness or misery.6" And yet (notwithstanding his belief
in those Scriptures which represented reward as attached to virtue, and
punishment to vice,) he lived the life which, a priori, would be assigned to
the fatalist. So requisite does it seem, from every experimental view of human
conduct, that other motives to the practice of virtue should be added to the
hope of reward, and the fear of punishment.
The
doctrine of the Sadducees took its rise, it is said, from a refinement which
their founder, Sadoc, made on the teaching of his master, Antigonus Sochseus.
The latter had been wont to dwell on the duty of serving God, not like a slave
with a view to reward and punishment, but from disinterested motives.63
Upon this Sadoe built his theory, that 110 reward or punishment would be
distributed in a future state. From this point it was a very easy step to the
Origen.
con. Celstim, Lib. I. C. 49. Tertullian asserts the same,
430 Acts v.
17* and Josephi Antiq. Lib. XIII. C. 10.
61 See Basnaee, Hist. L. II. C. 6, and
Bruckeri Hist. Crit. Phil. Tome II. 7'Z'Z.
62 Josephi Antiq. Jud. Lib, XIII. C. o.
C3 The
Pharisees themselves seem to have been divided on this question; henon the
distinction made in the Talmuds between Pharisceus ex amove, and Phari- scevs
ex timore.
denial of
man’s immortality, and that was as easily followed up with a denial of the
existence of angels and of spirits.64 I Where and when the
fraternity of the Essenes was first formed is TheEssenei not clearly made out.
Most probably they owed their origin to Egypt, where the Jewish refugees who
fled for security after the murder of Gedaliali, were compelled, upon the captivity
of the greater part of their body, to lead a recluse life, out of which this
monkish institution might have grown.6'5 In direct
contrast with the Sadducees, they renounced the pomp and pleasures, and the
very conveniences of life, and, retiring to caves and deserts, formed so
distinct a community, as to withdraw themselves even from the customary
attendance on the temple, essential as this was deemed to every true Israelite.
Another point in which they stood opposed to the Sadducees, as to their speculative
tenets, is, that they were unqualified fatalists.08
rr Their
secession from the great body of the nation seems a good reason why they should
not be noticed in the Gospel narratives of our Lord’s ministry. They had little
better claim, indeed, to be regarded as a portion of the lost sheep of the
house uf Israel, to which he confined his labours, than the Samaritans. It is
not improbable, however, that they might have formed part of the hearers of
John the Baptist, whose rude mode of life, and wanderings in the desert, were
likely to attraet some of them into the class of his disciples, and to make the
whole body early acquainted with the offer of salvation through Christ.
The
mention of this distinguished forerunner of the Messiah sug- John *he gests the
propriety of some brief notice of the probable effect of his preaching, in
correcting those false views which, agreeably to the foregoing remarks and
statements, must have prevailed amongst the
Jjjews.
What we gather from the New Testament is, that he was employed in calling on
men to repent, and in establishing clearer notions of Christ’s approaching
kingdom than were generally entertained. Thus his admonition to “ bring forth
fruits meet for repentance,” seems to have been addressed to the prevailing
error, Lukem l; that an outward observance of religion was
sufficient. By *■ the axe kid to the root of the tree,”
he intimated, that the Jewish dispensa- Matt m. in; tion was not, as
men fondly thought, to be perpetual, hut was even Lukeu*' ' now hastening
to its fall. And lastly, his assertion that V. Gnd was able, out of the stones
of the desert, to raise up children unto Abraham,” seems to point to the
adoption of the Gentilss into the 9:
covenant.
xVdd to this, that his peculiar office being to prepare the u e S'
“ Basnage,
Ijir. II. C. 6. and Bruck- properly
speaking, its gradations of
?ri Hist.
Crit. Phil. Tome II. p. 7I(J. ascetic
life. A very interesting sketch
, „ „ , T
„ ul their character and habits
is given in
* See Brucker, Lib. C. p. 762. Celi- " The Pilgrimage of Helon.” bacy
was enjoined upon the greater part,
but not
upon the whole body of the 6° Joseph.
Antiq. Lib. XIII. C. 5, and
PEssenea;
for even this small community Lib.
XVIII. C. 1, secund. edit. Hud-
liad its
subdivisions, or, perhaps, more soni.
of
hi*>
mission.
Matt.
xvii. 1",
Mark ix.
II.
K
xpectation of a temporal Saviour.
way of the
Lord, it is proLalile that lie might also have taught tho application of the
prophecies to s spiritual, not a temporal, Saviour.
The need
of some divine messenger to prepare the way of the Lord, is indeed manifest
from the foregoing sketch of the state in' religion as it then existed among
tho Jews. Such a messenger had been useful, even supposing the Jews to have
employed their dispensation aright, for it was in itself of a nature to leave
their minds doubtful, anil to render error, on certain points relating to the
Messiah, natural and excusable. "W'tli a view to these points, then, the
coining of John would have been, at all events, acceptable, liut he is
described as coming in the spirit of Elias, who was to restore all things, llis
ministry, then, was chiefly a merciful provision, to supply (as fur as was
consistent with the general scheme of Providence) the deficiencies of that
preparation which the Jews had failed to derive from their Law and Prophets. He
came to restore, the appearance of the law,—that mouldering and defaced
image, which had been given them, to the intent that the original might be
recognised when it appeared amongst men/’1
The first
object which the Jews were naturally led from their Scriptures to look for in
the dawn of the Sun of Righteousness, was the coming of a messenger, such as
John the Baptist. But that messenger had been announced under the title of
Elijah the prophet. Hence, the mistake to which they obstinately adhered, that
“ Elias must first come,”—a mistake in itself natural enough, hut one which the
actual arrival of the messenger so strongly characterised as the Baptist was,
ought to lmve been sufficient to remove, even before the scene was more fully
opened by our Lord himself. That the claims of John should be left liable to
misapprehension, or rather that they should require more than a careless, and
much more than an uneandid consideration, in order to be recognised, is only in
consistency with the usual tenor of God’s dealing with man kind. And it may be
further observed, that while it was necessary that men should know who Christ
really was, in order that the beneficial effects of his ministry might be felt,
this was a point not necessary to the reaping of the frurt-s of the Baptist’s
mission.
Their
recognition of the Messiah himself would, of course, depend on their
interpretation of their Scriptures, together with whatever notions they might
have elsewhere derived concerning him. Of the general impression so produced,
the most prominent feature, and that which operated most strongly to blind them
to all his mighty works, was the opinion that he was to be a temporal Sa-wour.
This
*7 It is
to be observed, that the pro- “ Jiehuhl
i will send you Elijah the
phetie
promise of Elijah's comma; prophet,
before the coming ot the gieat
immediately
follows the injunction to and
dreadful day of the Lord.”— Mai. iv.
remember
the law of Moses.” 4, o.
“ Remember
\e the law of Moses ni> It is
necessary to consider these two servant, which 1 commanded unto hm verses as connected, in order to underin
Horebfor all Israel, with the statutes stand
why Elijah was expected as the and the judgments. restorer.
arose, not
merely from a speculative view of the Scriptures relating to him, but much more
from the habit of mind wrought into them by living under a dispensation, the
sanctions of which were wholly temporal. This tone of feeling was vastly
increased by the severe chastisements which the nation had endured from the
Babylonian captivity down to their then degraded condition, as a distant tributary
of Rome. These circumstances must be viewed as falling in with the natural
propensity of human hope towards “the things which are seen,” in order to
account for that monstrous blindness which the Jews evinced towards those
passages of their Scriptures, which they acknowledged to he predictive of
Christ, and which yet represented him under circumstances wholly inconsistent
with temporal greatness in himself, or with temporal deliverance to be wrought
for his people.
So strong
was this prejudice, that the apostles themselves could riie .pasties not, until
after the resurrection, understand how his death was con- fr°onfthis
sLstent with his character as the Messiah. “ We trusted that it prejudice, had
been he which should have redeemed Israel,” was the tone of Lukexnr. misgiving
in which they spoke ; and it is no unreasonable conjecture, that when Judas
betrayed him to death, it was under an impression that he would be miraculously
delivered from his enemies.68 Certain it is, that not only during
his life did Peter, James, and John question one with another, what the rising
from the dead should mean, Mark « 10. but on the visit to the holy sepulchre,
the Evangelist expressly states, that *• as yet they knew not the Scripture,
that he must rise again from the dead;” and accordingly it was the point which
John xx. a. appears to have required more particular explanation from him in
the last interview, immediately before his ascension. “ Then opened he their
understandings, that they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them,
Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Cl. 'ist to suffer, and to rise from
the dead the third day.” 4->, 4«." ’ So that Christ crucified was as
strictly a stumbling-bloek to the ■'Jews, as it appears
to have been foolishness to the Greeks.
That they
should expect the Gentiles to be excluded from the imme- Prejudice diate
benefits of the Messiah’s reign, is another prejudice, the origin *aM »f\he of
which must be. sought for, not merely in their mode of interpreting Scripture,
but in the notions naturally imbibed by living under a for, Iheocracy. God had
hitherto dealt with them, not merely as a portion of the general human race,
but as his peculiar people. Now, being the only people on earth who worshipped
Jehovah at all, they had never learned to think of him distinctly as the God of
all mankind, and also as the God of Israel. These two views of him became inseparably
blended in their mind*. They knew indeed that ail the nations of the earth were
to be blessed, and they doubtless understood that it was to be a common
blessing with that whicfe was
68 See
Thruston’s “ Night of Treason,” p. 33.
Party
spirit strong p mong the Jews.
Why they
demanded a sign of Christ.
reserved
for themselves; but agreeably to the above mentioned mode of thinking, it
seemed a requisite step to that object, that the nations of the earth should be
incorporated with themselves by conquest, that Jerusalem should be the seat of
empire, and the Messiah the universal and eternal monarch. With this prejudice,
the metaphorical images emblematic of his spiritual reign were regarded as
literal descriptions ; and thus finally, when baffled in their attempts to
render all the prophetic picture conformable to this view, they boldly adopted
the suggestion that two Messiahs might be intended, tiie one a lowly sufferer,
the other a triumphant conqueror.65
\\ hen
therefore he did appear, even those whom his miracles convinced, onh looked
011 in dim suspense for the development of the mysterious scheme, still
supposing that the preparatory step would be his assumption of temporal power
O11 the other hand, the bitterness with which his adversaries caught his hints
respecting the call of the Gentiles, was not, if we consider this prejudice
aright, mere national selfishness. They doubtless considered the threatened
transfer of God’s kingdom as a transfer of his peculiar government to some
other separate nation. Nay, it may he doubted whether their dark policy in
del'ncring him over to the. Roman governor, charged with treason, might not
ha^e arisen from this suspicion, that he was meditating a transfer of the
temporal kingdom of God from them to tlie Romans, and intending (if indeed he
were the Messiah) to assume with them his reign.™ The design is at least artful
enough to be probable? for the object would be, to render the Romans unfit for
the intended favour, if they failed in their attempts to crucify him, and if
they succeeded, their success would be a surety that he was not the Messiah.
And an accidental circumstance not a little inflamed this prejudice against the
extension of the promised blessing. This was the rise of the Hellenistic
faction in Egypt. Party spirit was roused, and Jews at home and abroad burned
with zeal for Jerusalem, Juda>a, and whatever savoured of Judaism.71
What was
likely, too, to confirm the Jews in adhering to their erroneous view of the
Messiah, was a notion several times alluded to in the Gospels. Daniel had
described him, in the metaphorical phrase of prophecy, as “coming in the
cloud.-, of heaven.” “ This
»
Bmiijikc. Liv. IV. C. 85, Sect. lft. i;\‘s Connex. p. ii. B. YUL; lNtcock's
Commentary on Malachi; and Calmet’s Diet, under the word Messiah.
•0 When he
was presented with a Roman coin, and questioned respecting Csesar, and
Caesar’s rights, it might have been with a design to tempt or try him 011 this
point. (Matt. xxiu 17.) The circumstance was alluded to in his accusation
before Pilate. “ We found this lei low perverting the nation, and forbidding
to give tribute to Caesar, say in# {hut Jic himself is Christ a King.** (Luke
xxiii. 2.)
i"1
Basnage, Lib. VI. C. 5, Sect. 14.
?2
Daniel vii. 13. From our Saviour’s application of this prophecy, it is generally
understood to point to the destruction of Jerusalem. (See Matt. xxiv. 30; Mark
xiii. 26; Luke xxi. 27.) It may be doubted, however, whether we are correct in
assigning it to that event, so as to make it mean the coming of the Son of man
in the clouds of heaven, in ordtr to take vengeance on the unbelieving city.
The destruction of Jerusalem was the main sign, that the Son of man’s new
kingdom was now completely founded, because the existence of the Jewish
they
understood literally, and under the impression that if Jesus were indeed the
Messiah, he would, in fulfilment of this prophecy, exhibit himself visibly
descending from the skies; they were slow to assent jtatt. xii.ss; to the
testimony of any other miracles, but continually and perse- HarkrVn- veringlv
demanded of him “ the sign of the Son of man in heaven.” L kexi ,6.’
In
.reference to this point of error, again, it may be suggested, that the Jews
were justified in adhering to the literal and more obvious meaning of their
prophecies. But this is not the case.
For, as
was before observed, the form of Divine communication to them was not usually
literal, but conveyed in types, symbols, and metaphors. With them, therefore, a
secondary meaning in a prophecy was more natural than the primary.73
It should be observed, too, that such a method seems in strict unison with the
general character of the Mosaic dispensation, which was not so much a
revelation, as a deposit of truths to be revealed; the form in which these truths
were deposited being calculated rather to mould men’s minds for their
reception, than positively to teach them. It was the Gospel which was to bring
them to light.
That, with
these perverse views, the Jewish people at large should The doctrine be unfavourably
disposed towards the claim of Jesus to be the incarnation Christ, is what might
be expected. That which to ua might seem most startling, most to demand doubt
and hesitation, in the character of a being so wonderful, and a doctrine so
spiritual, was to them possibly no ground of scruple or surprise. That God
manifested himself to mankind by his Spirit, they knew from the character of
their prophets, and from the record of the creation. That he should also
manifest himself in the flesh, this could not have been strange or unexpected.
Their familiarity with the term Immanuel,74 and their acquaintance
with the early mode of Divine intercourse through those mysterious messengers,
who at sundry times conversed with On. *»ih.
the patriarchs, must have rendered the doctrine of the Incarnation :'lx'
xxx,i' familiar and intelligible. In Jesus the assertion of this was
accounted JIatt. nvi. blasphemy, not because of the doctrine, but
because they did not Markiiv.mj receive him as the Messiah. J.ukex*n.7i.
temple and
ot the Jewish polity was inconsistent with that event; and it was tiiu
establishment of this new theocracy which was expressed agreeably to the
prophetic language respecting change of government, by the phrase of the new
Lord Coming in the clouds of heaven. The abolition of the temple service would
Have been the appropriate sign of the Son 3f man coming in the clouds of
heaven, supposing the Jews, instead of rejecting rim, to have welcomed him, and
not to lave incurred the heavy chastisement -vhich befel them.
>3 For
this, among other reasons, our .ord mi^Vit have chosen to convey his nstruction
to them in parables and alhi- ions. J4.V conforming his plan of teach-
rag tims
far to the spirit of the Jewish Scriptures, he reminded them of the true character
of those Scriptures, which were so composed, that the indocile and un- candid
“seeing might not see, and hearing might not understand.”—Luke viii. U. _ g
74 To the
Christian, the prophetical application - of the term Immanuel to Christ seems
to be (unless the mind be greatly prejudiced) an unanswerable proof of his
Divine nature. For if the Messiah was to be Immanuel, he could be so only in
two ways, either as being so named, or as being what that name signified, i.e.
“God with us.” He was not called Immanuel by name, and therefore he was “ tfod
with us.”
D
The
doctrine i f the .Atonoment familiar to the Jews:
Isaiah
liii. 10, 12.
And that
<>f a future state.
So also
with regard to the Atonement. It was obviously a notion to v\hich their minds
were long habituated. And yet it is not unlikely that the same principle which
afterwards led then to separate the suffering from the triumphant Messiah,
might hove blinded them to the union of the victim ar.d the prie3t in one
person ; utnl have led them to consider him whose soul was to be an offering
for sin, as distinct from him who was to make intercession for the
trangressors. One part of this doctrine, too, could not but be unacceptable to
the Pharisaical party, namely, that the atonement was one, once 'inade, for the
sins of all. That all, even the righteous, should require this atonement, was
of itself mortifying and revolting to the self approving Pharisee,• hut that
ail the rites and forms which tvpitied or alluded to this act should be
pronounccd henceforth null and void, deprived them of every pretence of
accumulating merit by the laborious observance of them, and was perhaps to them
the hardest obstacle which they had to overcome.
That the
doctrine of a future state was familiar to the Jews at the period of the Advent
admits of no question. It is well known to have been one of the points of
controversy between the Pharisees and Sadducees; and as the former gave the
tone of opinion and faith to the people, their belief in a future state may be
fairly ascribed to the nation at large. The doctrine had been gradually
developed by their prophets, together with that of the Messiah's spiritual
reign, of which indeed it was a necessary adjunct. Those then among the Jews,
who so understood their Scriptures, as to admit the spiritual application of
these latter prophecies, may be. said to have seen their way far into this
great secret of revelation. But the case was somewhat different with the rest,
and these we know formed an exceeding great majority. For it is obvious, that
to expect a temporal authority to he established, and a temporal government to
be conducted, by means of eternal rewards and punishments, is incongruous and
absurd; and under bueh a confused and disjointed view, not only did those
labour who rejected Jesus, but many of those who (however much convinced that
he was the Messiah) were yet so encumbered with their national prejudices, as
to continue to expect from him the assumption of temporal power. So closely did
the habits of the Mosaic dispensation adhere to those who had lived under it,
and so great pains did it require to clear awav the old incrustation, as it
were, of the Law, with which Christianity had been plastered up and concealed,
until it was safe to bring it forth into the light. Of all its glorious
features which were then made manifest, life and immortality were the chief.
III.—RELIGION
OF THE SAMARITANS.
Although the Samaritans claimed for themselves all the
privileges of the Mosaic covenant, yet our Saviour in his first mission of the
apostles distinguishes these from “ the lost sheep of the house >;a*t. * 6,
of Israel,” and, it may he added, from the Gentiles also. Accord- a‘J
” * ingly, if we look to the accounts which are given of their origin and of
the nature of their faith, we shall find religion amongst them assuming a
somewhat different character from that under which it has appeared, either in
the Jewish or in the Gentile world. With the Jews it was revelation neglected,
with the Gentiles it was revelation perverted, with the Samaritans it was
revelation corrupted.
Their
origin and the history of their faith Is this.” When the History of ‘ling of
Assyria carried away the ten tribes into captivity, he re- thelr falth-
peopled Samaria with colonists drawn from various parts of his dominions. The
new settlement becoming infested by wild Leasts,
:he
calamity was attributed to the wrath of the neglected God of Israel; and
accordingly, on the application of the colonists, one of the captive priests
was sent from Assyria “ to teach them how to fear the Lord.” Thus was the
knowledge of Jehovah introduced among them, although, in the first instance at
least, they could only have regarded him as the tutelary deity of the land,
whom it was I incumbent on them to associate with the former objects of their
worship. Nor is it likely that their views would be greatly corrected or
improved by the continual accession of Jewish refugees to their community;
these being for the most part criminals, outcasts, the very refuse of the
people.18
Under all
these disadvantages, the true faith mu3t nevertheless have been gaining ground
amongst them, for we find them at a subsequent period anxious to become
incorporated with the Jews, so as to form one people and one Church. Sanballat
their governor sought to bring this about, by giving his daughter in marriage
to Manasses, brother to J add us the Jewish high priest. But the Jews could not
brook the union. Manasses was forced into banishment, i:ud with him went a
numerous train of adherents into Samaria.
The
benefit which must have accrued to the Samaritan religion from this- event is
obvious. The immediate result was the erection of an Temple m. independent
temple on Mount Gerizim, and the more orderly observance of that which they
maintained to be the pure Mosaic law;
. because
on the writings of Moses alone did they found their faith 1 and their practice.77
And
certainly, whatever were the deficiencies or the mistakes of Christ's the
Samaritan creed, to them, and not to the Jews, we know the Uessiah vouchsafed,
in express terms, to declare who he was. Both himself to
them.
I r. 76 2 Kin^s xvii. Joseph. Antiq. Lib. IX. Cap. ultim.
* *
Josephi Ant. Lib. XI. C.8, in fin. 77
ibid. C. 7,8.
Jews and
Samaritans were anxiously expecting liim; hut it is plain, that the expectation
of the Samaritans was widely different from that of the Jews; for when the
inhabitants of Syoliar thronged forth to gaze on him who was reported as
fulfilling the prophetie marks of the Christ, they were neither surprised nor
offended, at meeting with no greater personage than a lowly traveller, seated
beside Jacob’s well, and asking for a draught of water. The grounds of this
difference form the most interesting point of the inquiry concerning the
religion of the Samaritans ; and to the superior clearness and correctness of
their notions it was doubtless owing, that they were favoured with this more
explicit avowal of himself by the Messiah, and were otherwise noticed by him in
the course of his ministry.
Tiuir Amongst the heresies of the Samaritans
was their rejection of all
^tT,ri0n
tne Scriptures save the Pentateuch,78 so that if their
expectation was distinct founded solely on the Scripture propheeies, to the Pentateuch
we iv.im'tw of must look for the ground-work of their faith. Now, whoever will
tho Jews. mn trough these early promises of a Saviour, wili perceive
that the most prominent feature in them, as far as regards the objects of the
blessing, is, that all the nations of the earth shall be partakers of it.78
It was the. extension of the blessing then to all nations which formed the
essential feature in their expectation, as distinguished from that of the
Jews. Of spurious descent, and having now failed to identify their case with
that of their rivals, they Lad not like them any prejudices to obstruct the
ready admission of this great truth. Indeed, their unsuccessful rivalry with
the Jews, might be supposed to have rendered them more sharp-sighted, in eliciting
what to them was a consolatory view of the prophecies. Seasons ter Now this
being the point, which beyond all others formed the avowal8 greatest
obstacle to the reception of the Messiah by his own people, it is not to be
wondered at, that with a view to this the Samaritans should receive some
particular notice from our Lord.
Thus much
on the supposition, that the Samaritan expectation was derived solely from the
Jewish Scriptures. But if (as has been stated to be the opinion of some) the
general expectation of the heathen world had some origin independent of this,
it is but natural to conjecture further, that those who were by dcseent almost
altogether heathen, would not have been excluded from these sourccs of
traditionary prophecy enjoyed by the rest of (lie Gentiles; and that their
knowledge of these might have helped them to a clearer exposition of the Jewish
record than the Jews themselves generally adopted.
w Rep
Appendix TR-.,
**
Seeespocially Gen. xii. 3; x\iii. IS; xxii. 18; xivi. 4; Ziv'iii. 14
THE
MINISTRY OF CHRIST
The period which will pass under review in the following
inquiry, embraces the three great stages in the establishment of Christianity.
In the
first, it was taught by our Saviour himself on earth : in the second, it was intrusted
to the ministry of men divinely inspired and extraordinarily assisted; in the
last, it was permanently placed in the hands of governors and teachers neither
divinely inspired nor extraordinarily assisted.
There are
several remarkable omissions in our Lord’s personal omiMiona ministry, such as
that he never baptized, although baptism was the Ministry * rite of admission
into his religion; that he did not preach to thei explained. Gentiles, although
the most distinguishing feature of the new dispensation was its extension to
all mankind; that he established no church during his abode on earth, and left
110 written laws behind him: all which seem to indicate, (what the Gospel
account of him more expressly declares,) that he came to be the subject of Christianity
more than the author of it. In the former view, he appears as God manifested in
the flesh, and in that character accomplishing our redemption by his mysterious
sufferings and death.
Ia the
latter, he appears as the teacher of mankind, instructing them in the method
whereby they might attain to the Divine favour thus made accessible to all. His
ministry so considered may be conveniently classed under the following heads:—
I. His ordinary Life, considered in the
light of an Example.
IL His
Teaching.
III. His Miracles.
IV. His Institutions.
V. His Prophecies.
This view
will not include a detailed account of the events of his life, obviously
because the Bible is in the hands of all. A familiarity with them is presumed,
and on this presumption they will be 1 introduced or clluded to, not
in the way of narrative, but as they fall under the several divisions into
which the subject has been ivrranged.1
1 In the mode of considering Christ’s the
question of its duration, and also the Ministry which has been here adopted,
chronological arrangement of its several
Want of an
example in the Mosaic dispensation
Tiie
importance of example and precept united in tho same person is obvious, and
consists in the learner being at once impressed with a conviction that the
teachcr is sincere and his precept practicable, and being furnished with a
pattern to excite and guide him in the practice of it. If, added to this, the
same person be moreover the source of that object, on account of which the
rules enjoined are valuable, the combined effect is of course considerably
heightened.
That the
Divine commandments, as delivered to mankind before the incarnation of the Son
of God, laboured under a disadvantage, arising from the want of such an
example, cannot be questioned. The disciple of the old dispensation, was
circumstanced like the tyro, who has to learn an art from written rules, for
want of a master to practise under. To obviate this disadvantage, it was
necessary that the commands should be more numerous, more minute and specific,
and more literally enforced. Still, in some points, it would seem impossible,
that any mode of instruction should produce a similar effect, to that which has
resulted from the grea^ Christian mystery, lie, for instance, whom we have
never seen nor conceived in thought, cannot become an object of the affections,
in the same manner as he with whom we are familiar. The command to love the
Lord our God with all our heart, and all our soul, and all our strength, could
never effect the same purpose, as God manifested in the flesh, so as to become
the natural object of sympathy, of love, and of gratitude.
On this
principle doubtless it is, that the resurrection of Christ
parts, are
necessarily excluded. On the former point, namely, the period which it
embraced, there is now perhaps little difference of opinion, at least controversy
has been long silent on the subject. But few questions historical or doctrinal
have been more frequently renewed from the earliest period of the church. It is
quite marvellous, too, to find the immense difference of time ascribed to our
Lord’s Ministry among those who differed concerning the point in the period
nearest the source of information. Ter- tullian * and Origenf have been
supposed to fix it, the one within the coTnpass of a year, the other a little
beyond it; whilst Irenacus seems to assert a period of twenty years. The
subject has been discussed by Bp. Marsh in his notes to Michaelis with his
usual learning and judgment. See Vol. III. C. II. Sect. 7, note.
* Adv. Judieos, C. 8. t II ip^Svi Lib. IV.
C. 5.
Bp. Kaye,
in his Eccl. Hist. p. 158, attributes Tertullian’s statement to a mistake of
the year in which Christ was revealed, for the year in which he suffered. See
also Benson’s Chronology of our Saviour’s Life, C. VII. page 241.
The
arrangement of the several portions of Christ’s Ministry by Archbishop Newcome
in his Harmony, is perhaps as probable as can be suggested. The events of the
Resurrection are those to the right disposition of which the most importance
attaches, and it is on this part , of the subject that most difficulty is like-
iy to be felt. West on the Resurrection is too popular a book to require any
reference to be made to it, as containing the ablest solution of the apparent
inconsistencies which the Gospel narrative presents, but like Dr. Less’s work
on the Authenticity of the Scriptures, it derives I a value from one
circumstance, w hich | cannot be too often brought into notice; it was the
result of real doubt and scepticism.
is so much
insisted on as an earnest of our own resurrection. Not Advantage that the same
truth would have admitted of a doubt, if only a
Christianity
declaration
of it had been made by our Lord or the Holy Spirit; J1nlntsht‘rsll^“
uor, again, that other proofs of liis ability to raise us would not have
sufficed; but it was a sample of the general resurrection, if the first-fruits
of them that slept;” aud a truth so experimentally 1 C0r.xv.2a proved, differs
as much in its effect 011 the beliet and feelings, as mere precept differs from
example, or rather as the effect of precept, disjoined from the example of him
on whose authority it rests, differs from the effect of precept, example, and
authority, united in the same person.
For this
end also the chastisement of our sins may have been exhibited in the person of
a suffering Redeemer. For it is evident, that (for aught we know) the
redemption of mankind might have been effected, and the scene neither exhibited
nor revealed to men.
As it is,
we feel the force cf St. Paul’s appeal, “ He that spared R'>m viii. not his
own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not 3i with
him also freely give us all things ? ’ ’
J esus
Christ is set forth by the sacred writers as the perfect N»t'ire of pattern of
Christian duty. By which we must understand, not that Sample, he fulfilled all
the duties which a Christian life may embrace, but all which were within his
sphere of action. It is perfection in the node, rather than in the extent which
it embraces. It will nevertheless be found, on a very little reflection, to be
extensive enough to furnish a, model for the chief part of every man’s life,
and to be applicable in many points, which would appear at first to lie beyond
its compass. Thus, as a worker of miracles, his example cannot indeed be
literally imitated, but it may still be adapted to the case of all. The same
benevolence which was evinced in the exercise of Divine means by him, may be testified
in our behaviour, by the use of human means conducive to the same purpose. We
cannot, indeed, redeem a world by the sacrifice of our lives, but many
sacrifices and personal denials there are which conduce to the welfare of
others, and in making these we shall he acting like our great example. We
cannot save men’s souls, but we may help them into the way of salvation; and
altlu ugh we have no power to ascend to heaven by any efforts of our own, by
looking stedfastly on Him who has gone before us, we may kindle that hope, and
that faith, whereby we shall ascend to heaven like Him.
Again,
there are relations of domestic and public life out of which duties arise, such
as the Saviour cannot be literally said to have fulfilled, because he stood not
in those relations, and had no opportunity of exemplifying the practice of the
duties. AVe cannot contemplate him as a father ami master of a household, but
we see him in the bosom of his apostolic family,—those whom, as if with this
design, he calls his mother aud his brethren; and what example Matt xii.w.
could more forcibly recommend the observance of family prayer, for
Matt. xxvL
i(J;
Luke vi.
12; Luke ix. 28; Matt vi. y.
His
teaching not Philosophical:
John xili.
A; Matt, xviii.2.
Importance
of remembering this fact:
Probable
Reasons for it.
instance,
than that which ho has so exhibited, by adding to his solitary devotions, and
to his attendance 011 the public servico of the synagogue, the custom of
praying in private with his disciples?
If we
consider the sphere of life in which our Lord moved, it will be seen that,
although his example thus became applicable to many oases strictly beyond it,
yet it was more particularly suited to the exercise of those moral duties which
are peculiar to the Christian scheme, viz. humility and forgiveness of
injuries. The propriety and advantage of this is obvious. To the heathen
moralist these qualities, considered as virtues, were as new* as the doctrines
of the Atonement and the Resurrection. To the Jew, the latter at lea<t was
equally so; and both required that the practice of them should be recommended
by a life such as the Saviour led, in which his condescension in dwelling
amongst us was more apparent from his poverty and lowliness, than if he had
been numbered with the rich and powerful; whilst his every act of mercy, and
his every word of exhortation to the Jews, was a return of good for evil. The
closing scene of his ministry was only a more prominent display of those Gospel
virtues exemplified in the whole course of it. lie submitted voluntarily to a
death appropriated to the meanest criminals, and he died praying for his
enemies.
As to his
mode of teaching, it was not systematic; and in this kis example was imitated
by the apostles. The language and form in whieh it was delivered was
unphilosophical; that is, instead of employing terms of science, he formed his
expressions from passing occurrences, and whatever objects happened to be
present to his hearers at the time of his addressing them. Or else he spoke in
parables, or made use of that ancient symbolical language so often adopted by
the Jewish prophets, as, when he. washed his disciples’ feet, and set a child
in the midst of them.
Whatever
be assigned as tnc probable motive which occasioned our Lord to choose this
unphilosophical and unsystematic mode of instruction, it is highly important
that the faet should be clearly kept in view by the Christian who searches the
New Testament for the great doctrines of Christianity. Without doing so, he cannot
fail to be surprised, and somewhat confounded, at finding these doctrines,
neither arranged in order, nor often directly' asserted, but lying in detached
portions, each difficult perhaps to be found entire, but easily produced by
combining one passage with another.
As by this
method it often happens, that one portion of the. doctrine sought for will be
found in the Old Testament, another in the New, the connexion and unity of the
two dispensations, of which they are the several records, become the more
apparent, and this might have been one end contemplated by our Lord in adopting
it.
It
entailed on the disciple of the Gospel the necessity of searching; the earlier
Scriptures for the words of eternal life.
A further
advantage accrues from it to the evidence of Christianity. Its doctrines being
thus diffused and intermingled with other matter, could not by any possibility
have been so forged and inserted, as to leave no occasional murk of seaming and
joining.
Our
Saviour’s Gospel is like his robe, “without seam, woven throughout, ’ and he
who receives it, must take it all, for it cannot be divided.
As to the
matter of his teaching, his discourses aim either at cor- Matter ot rectiiig
what was perverted, and explaining what was obscure in doewm«. the preceding
state of morals and religious knowledge, or else they declare truths not before
revealed. With the several leading topics which they embrace, the Christian
reader is presumed to be familiar; and it is sufficient to observe briefly,
that of the former kind are his exhortations to inv.'ard purity, as opposed to
mere outward acts of obedience, and compliance with the spirit rather than with
the letter of the precept. To the latter class belong the doctrines of Atonement
and Grace ; of the Trinity in unity; certain points of revelation relating to
a future state ; and whatever else may be considered as peculiar to the
Christian revelation.
I’ll.—KW
MIRACLES.
Tiie chief object of our Lord’s miracles was to prove his
mission ; Object of and it may be observed, that in this case, and in that of
Moses, (of piracies, all who ever pretended to found a religion on them,) the
miracles supported the credit of the religion, not the religion the credit of
the miracles. As testimony, however, they do not properly form part of his
ministry (as a teacher,) but they have likewise a moral and a religious
meaning, and in this point of view they do so.
They have
a moral meaning, because they are all benevolent, whereas as proofs they might
have been destructive or indifferent, as were the miracles of Moses and the
Prophets. As it is, they not only prove that Christ came from God, but declare
that he came with a benevolent purpose.
They have
also a religious meaning, because, they typified some Th«ir of the chief
doctrines of his Gospel. Thus when he converted into ^itb’iiu wine the water
set for purification, he taught that sin was cleansed doctrnms. by his blood,
and not by the ritual observances of the law. His divine nature was asserted by
walking on the sea,2 and by whatever other miracles iuvested him
with the scriptural characteristics of Jehovah. When he healed the sick, gave
sight to the blind, and enabled the lame to walk, he not only proved his
authority, and exercised his compassion, but suggested the inference, that he
had
2 “'Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in
the great waters.”—Psalm Ixxvii. 19.
“Tae Lord
is mightier than mighty waves. ”-~Psalm xciii, 4.
Symbols
loug
retained
in
Religious
worship.
comp to
restore our corrupted nature to its original purity, to enlighten the ignorant,
as all men were, and to enable us to stand in the path of life, when without
him we could not but fail and sink.
Hence
possibly the necessity of faith in the persons on whom the miracles of healing
were wrought; for if these miracles had no further intent than to prove his
power, or even his benevolence, it is obvious that he, to whom were committed
all things in heaven and in earth, did not need the concurrence of any object
of power or of benevolence. Hut as h*' h;ul made Faith necessary to that
eternal salvation which he came to oiler, it was fitting that the temporal
deliverance should in like manner he offered with the same condition,.® if we
suppose the latter to be intended as a type of the former; else the symbolical
lesson would have been incomplete, and liable to misconstruction.
One
observation more on our Lord’s miracles. They were not only proofs of his
authority, and means of instruction, but also ! specimens of that merev, the
lull and entire, display of which is reserved for hereafter.
To
understand this, it must be borne 'n mind, that Satan brought into the world
both sin and death, moral and natural evil; anil the result of our Lord’s
triumph over l.'.ni was to be the removal of both. \ In healing the sick, then,
and raising the dead, the Saviour may be considered as giving an instance of
the exercise of bis power in removing noturcl evil; whilst the same was evinced
with regard to | moral evil, by casting out devils, the agents of him who was
the source of sin. It was doubtless in reference to this latter object Ml that
he caused them on one occasion to depart into a herd of swine, thus proving
that the possession was real, ami not the result of a disordered imagination.
The same end might have been likewise contemplated in the record of the
Temptation; for in neither of these instances at least could the power of
imagination account for the phenomenon. In the first the Divine Being was above
its delusions, in the other the brute was as much below it.3
In
the first rude state of language, signs, gestures, and actions were no doubt
the, chief mode of expressing all ideas. But in religion, custom being more
sacred than in the ordinary intercourse ! of life, the primitive vehicle of
thought continued here longest in use, and was still the chief form of worship
for ages after language became more intelligible than signs and symbols. In
proof of this, we may observe how large a proportion of the latter was
preserved in the religious service of the Israelites.
As the
progress of language advanced, the primitive usago j
* W’arburton’5 Divine Legation, B IX. C. V.
gradually
declined, and in tlie last establishment of religion, only christi»n two
symbolical institutions were appointed, Baptism and the Lord’s ermbols
Supper.
These,
then, we might expect to find expressing the most impor- Theirnhject tant
truths of that last revelation, in a form intelligible to the savage as well as
to the philosopher, to men of all languages, and in all ages; and that such is the
instruction which they convey is obvious. Atonement for sin by Christ’s death
on the cross, and the influences of the Holy Spirit in regenerating and
sanctifying us—these are the main features of the Christian scheme; and these
are embodied in the two Sacraments. Baptism, under the symbol of washing with
water, represents our spiritual purification. In the Lord’s Supper the symbol
is twofold. The bread is broken, and the wine poured out, to denote his dying
for us ; the bread is also eaten, and the wine drunk, to denote the spiritual
strength and refreshment, the life, which we derive from his mysterious
presence and union with us.
But why
not, it may be said, in this latter, as in the former Their sacrament, adopt
the most direct and exact representation of the dlstmetlun- scene so
recorded, such as would be the flesh and blood of an animal? The case appears
to be this: the atonement was so represented before the event took place,
because a greater exactness was requisite to render the agreement of the event
with its type so apparent as to be easily recognised and admitted: but so close
a resemblance not being necessary in a commemorative symbol, (the event being
already known, and the connexion between them admitted,) that symbol was
changed, to prevent any confusion between the old rite, which was prophetic,
and the new one, which was commemorative; between the Jewish sacrifice, which
had no independent and inherent efficacy, and the Christian sacrifice, which
possessed it.
V.—1IIS
PROPHECIES.
A PROl’HECY
is a miracle performed for posterity, and to our our Lord's Lord’s prophecies
the same observation applies as to his miracles. Pr01,hecic'i-
One intent of them was to prove the truth of his mission: “ Now jobnxm.
1 tell you
before it come, that when it is ccme to pass ye may 19; *lT-
**• believe that I am he.” So considered, the prophecies are not, strictly
speaking, a portion of his ministry. But, like his miracles, they were also the
vehicles of instruction, and this view of them falls under the preseni subject
of remark. They may be conveniently arranged under four heads, as treating,
1. Of Himself.
2. Of his Church or Religion.
3. Of certain individuals of his Church.
4. Of the Jewish Church or Religion.
Th«ir pr.-
Christ, ii delivering prophecies concerning himself, may be con- ov’Jroihcr
sidei'<yl as employed in framing an index to the work which he had
l'rophecitu. jn hand. It is natural to suppose, that those points
which he thus selected, were by him considered as the leading features of it;
and were selected in order to direct attention to them especially, and above
all others. »
Accordingly
lie foretold his betrayal, his death, his resurrection, bis ascension, and his
second coining. Now if he had merely marked these for special notice by the
linger of prophecy, and left the doctrines arising out of them to be gathered
from other parts of his own discourses, or from the preaching and writings of
his inspired servants, (as is the case to a certain extent,) still, to these doctrines
would belong a character of importance, corresponding to that bestowed on the
events by his notice of them. But his prophecies are frequently not only
predictive, but explanatory; declaring at once the event to be, and the meaning
and intent of it. Thus, in foretelling his death, the prediction conveys also
the doctrine John iii. u of the Atonement. “ As Moses lifted up the serpent in
the wilder* 15, ness, even so
must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever
believeth
in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” “ I am John x. 11. the good
Shepherd, the good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep,” These and similar
predictions then, when accomplished, became a commentary on the events. As in
the first mentioned, for instance, when he was seen lifted up on the cross,
there could be no doubt that by this means it was effected, that “ whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”
II.—CONCERNING
ITIS CHURCH.
A didactic
character may also he traced in the prophecies relating to his Church or
Kingdom on earth. Viewed as the display of foreknowledge, they are, like other
prophecies, only miracles in reserve, the germ of evidence which time was to
unfold and bring instruction to maturity. But the application of these prophecies
to a specific derived purpose of instruction, is the circumstance which
entitles them to from tnem. be considered as part of the Saviour’s
ministry. It is said that a Peter i. 1, *•'holy men ” of old spake
not of themselves, but as “the Holy Spirit moved them.” Not so our Lord. He was
not the instrument of prophecy, but prophecy was an instrument in his hands,
employed at his discretion, and so employed as to make a part of his didactic
ministry.
Prophecynf
Speaking of his Church, he sometimes alludes to it as already iSwtrf'al
established; sometimes he points to the process by which that Christianity,
object was to be accomplished. Of the former subject, the leading
topic,
was, that kia Cliurch was to embrace 'within its pale all tho world. Contrasted
with its origin, it was as the stately tree compared with the seed from which
it sprang; and as a little leaven leaveneth the whole mass, even so his little
family of believers were to impart the gift which they had received from him,
not to any one favoured people or sect, but to all nations. Occasionally, too,
his Church is represented as a field in which tares had sprung up, or by images
of a like import.
Now,
keeping all this in view, let us call to mind how much the early progress of
the Gospel was impeded by the Jewish prejudices respecting the nature of a
Divine dispensation, which even those who were converts to Christianity could
not conceive to be a thing intended alike for Centile and Jew. The ideas of a
Divine dispensation and of a chosen people were nearly inseparable. What then
could be more appropriate and useful, than that our Lord’s prophecies concerning
his Church should point chiefly to its universality? In this point of view they
were instruction, reproof, and prevention of error.
Again, the
prophecies relating to the establishing of his Church, of the are full of the
difficulties and distresses which awaited those who were employed in this work.
The very assurance, that the gates propagation, of bell should not prevail
against the fabric which they were appointed to rear, is an implied declaration
of extreme peril to be expected; as the promise that he would be with them
always, denotes that they should always need him. Of what use now could this
view of the matter be to his followers in their arduous enterprise ? that is,
of vvliat use, beyond the evidence arising from the fulfilment of prophecy ? It
was, doubtless, no small consolation to them, to know that their Master had
foreseen all their difficulties, and provided against them. But there appears
also a further design. Under the Mosaic dispensation, men had imbibed two
prejudices which were inconsistent with the new covenant: the one, that all
Divine revelation was confined to a particular people ; the other, that God’s
people were to expect from him temporal rewards and punishments.
As the
former notion was counteracted by the prophecies relating to the universality
of the Gospel, so the latter was to be corrected, by presenting to their minds
continual warnings of persecution, hardship, and death. Agreeably .0 the
doctrine of temporal rewards and punishments, the Jews had
looked for a Messiah who should confer on his followers worldly glory and
prosperity; but these earthly motives to obedience were henceforth to be cast
out of religion, and the prophecies in question were placed as a guard to
prevent their re-entrance.
It is
probable then that the Saviour’s prophecies relating to his Church, considered
as part of his didactic ministry, were designed principally to correct the erroneous
notion, that that Church was to he established on the same principles as the
Jewish dispensation, which it was to supersede.
Matt. xvl.
1H, 19, explained.
III.—CONCERNING
CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS.
St. Peter.
Three
prophecies relating to St. Peter are recorded in the Gospels. Of these the
most important will be first considered.
“ Thou art
Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall lie loosed in heaven.”
As we have
no clue to any connexion between this saying and any future supremacy vested in
the apostle because of it, it is to be considered as a prophecy of the part he
was to occupy, rather than an appointment; and as such its didactic character
will be here examined.
By many
indeed the words are understood as having no peculiar reference to St. Peter;
or rather, as declaring no more concerning him than is elsewhere declared of
the other apostles. And, indeed, if Peter had been the apostle’s original name,
and not applied to him by our Lord himself, as if on account of some
peculiarity in his character or condition, it might be fairly argued, that our
Lord’s language to him only differed from that which he addressed to the
others, in being an allusion to his name. But the name was obviously given him
because of his future destination, not that destination so expressed because of
the name. r>ishop Marsh,4 accordingly, has applied the prophecy
to him viewed as the founder of the Church at Jerusalem, which was, as he
contends, more peculiarly the Church of Christ. Ilis argument certainly rests
upon the surest ground, the result. St. Peter was not the founder of an
Universal Church, hut of the Church at Jerusalem.5
The ’mages
of which the prophecy is composed are a rock—a church bu;lt on it—the keys of
it--and the gates of hell. At least, these are all the images coi tained in
that portion of the prophecy which was addressed to St. Peter, and to none
else. Now, whatever meaning we choose to elicit from them, it will hardly be
denied, on a moment's consideration, that they were amongst the most familiar
to Jewish ears, because amongst the most common of their scriptural figures.
Secondly, that they apply in their literal signification most remarkably to the
Jewish temple, its situation, and other circumstances. Built on a rock—the one
Church of God
‘See
Comparative View, App. p. 23. the
precis* import of fhe promise to St.
Peter;
tha* is, as far as it affects the con-
6 The reader may here require to lie troversybetween Protestants andPapists;
reminded
of the remark already niade for,
whatever kind of foundation St. Pater
i in the recurrence of the same topics in was to the Ohurrh, it is obviou; that the
the
various discourses of oitr tiord. Iriiace
employed in the metajhnr ex-
But, after
all, tlie Protestant advocate eludes the
notion of ixsitccession<>f persons
need not
he verj solicitous ab"ut settling similarly
circamstuncrd.
heretofore,
and its keys the badge of authority to him who held them that Church was now
given over to the gates of Hades, and the > /.ristian (’hurch was to be
established instead.
Accordingly
in this prophecy, concerning the founder of the new Church at Jerusalem, our
Lord has crowded together some of the most familiar Jewish images, and those of
a kind calculated to recall the ancient temple to men’s rmnds. Now, however
obscure his language might become to others, by reason of this assemblage ut
National figures, to the Jews it would on that very account be the more
explicit, and they would the more readily recognise its particular application
to them. We hear of no doubts originating it these words, as to St. Peter’s
rank and authority—of no question, in short, about the meaning, being agitated
in the early Church, vljen St. Peter took on him the ministry of the
circumcision, and still more on his first preaching at Jerusalem, the converted
Jew
I, 'i™ remembered the words of the
Lord Jesus, and understood that the former temple was now consigned to
destruction, and the ’iew one m the hands of him who bore the office designated
by the keys. '
St. John.
“ If this
man tarry till I pome, what Is thut to thee ?”
Jonn xxj. 22,
What was
affirmed in these words concerning St. John, --------------- e*Pla'ned-
was
applied on
another occasion to some whose names are not specified.
‘‘ i.here
be some standing here who shall not taste of death, till Matt. xu they see the
Son of Man coming in his kingdom. ” The didactic use 2J?;.
, ot these prophecies seems to have been to check the erroneous L-aie u. 27.
notion, that whenever Christ spoke of his “ coming,” it meant his commg to
judge the world at the last day. For the expressior
0 11 taste of death
until,’ <fcc., rather implies that those persons snould afterwards taste
death; and that this expression concerning St, ToLn wap intended only to
convey the same meaning,
"e '-arn
from that apostle himself: “ Then went this saying abroad johnxxi. n. among the
brethren, that that disciple should not die"; vet Jesus said not unto him,
He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarrv till 1 come, <fcc.
Jnus Iscariot.
As our
Lord was to be betrayed by one of bis apostles, it seems Matt xx,i. ut natur.il
that this should be made the subject of prophecy by 25,, turn, in
order to prevent any possible objection respecting his want *'' of foresight in
the choice of the twelve. Such, then, might have been the primary design of
this prophecy. But, like his others, its record might have been intended to
convey also some instruction to the Church in after times—even to us.
1 deed it cannot but strike one as
remarkable, not that he should be betrayed, but that his betrayal (and that by
one of his own
Matt. xxtI. i:<;
Mark xiv.
9; John xl. 1, explained
friends)
should be made a necessary part in his scheme of life, as marked out for him in
ancient prophecy, and that he should point to it, as to one of those important
figures in the great prophetic painting, at which we are to pause and learn
something.
Now the
circumstances of the betrayal were such, as to make it highly probable that
Judas did nut intend the death of his Master, but rather designed to foreo him
to an open declaration of himself as a temporal King; the character under which
he was at that time obstinately contemplated, even by his most faithful
followers. Otherwise, indeed, it would be impossible to account for his behaviour
at the last supper. As, for instance, that he should leavo the room to execute
his purpose, knowing that our Lord v\as aware whither ho was going, and with
what intent. Doubtless he thought, that if his stratagem succeeded, his
impatient zeal would not only have been excused, hut even honoured and
rewarded. The rejection of the wages of his guilt too, the natural result of
severe disappointment, is perfectly consistent with this view.6
It is
probable, therefore, that the apostles considered the crime of Judas simply as
an act of treachery or treason. lie is not called murderer, bloody, or inhuman,
hut traitor. Ivegarding the Church | as a kingdom of v\hich Christ is the head,
his otfence was not so properly moral as political. It was a presumptuous
attempt to change the constitution of that kingdom, by introducing into it the
pomp and power of this world. And if so, this prophecy might have served (among
many others more obviously framed with this view) to warn the apostles and
their successors, not to betray the holy charge with yshich they were
intrusted, by attempting, whether from motives of avarice and ambition, or from
want of confidence in the support of Heaven, to convert Christ’s spiritual
crown into an earthly one.
I’RoriiECT
coscekxisg Mary.
The
incident which gave occasion to this was the anointing the Lord’s feet by Mary,
who is said to have been the sister to Lazarus: and the prophecy was, “
Whercsover this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also
this that this woman hath done . be told for a memorial of her.” Our Lord adds
the reason, why he made a circumstance apparently so trivial, the oecasion of
so marked a prophetic declaration; “for in that she hath poured the ointment on
iny body, she did it for my burial.”
May we not
venture to infer, that Mary’s faith was clearer than
“ The comnnm
view of Judas’s crime, treacherv to
revenge for the rt-bul.i
that it
proceeded from avarice, is so uti- which
Judas received respecting the
satisfactory,
that many have been at no unction at
Bethany. Mr. Thrnston’s
small
pa-ins to set the transaction in a very'
ingenious hook, “The Nighi ot
more
intelligible light. Aliehaelis (sea Treason,”
seems to leave no room for
Introd. to
the New fes*. vol. iii. pp. 11'!, further
doubt or controversy. — See
24,
Marsh’s edition,) attributes the act of Thrustofi’s
" N ight of Treason.”
that of
the other disciples, in that she did not find in our Lord’s death a scruple to
her belief in him as the Messiah? Our Lord’s words seem to intimate this.
Immediately after the anointing,
Judas went
out to betray him, and a discussion commenced respecting the rank his
followers w'ere to hold in his kingdom, as if arising out of some remark which
he had made on what Mary had done.
Lastly, we
read his declaration, “ I appoint unto you a kingdom as Lukcxxii. my Father
hath appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at ' ' my table in my
kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ”
Nathanael, and the Thief on the Cnoss.
There are
two other prophetic declarations whieh our Lord made Lukeisiii. to individuals,
and which may seem to require notice in the view e’’pialnf,d.
here taken of his prophecies. The first is that to Nathanael.
“
Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascend- John i. si.
ing and descending upon the Son of man.” J5ut if this be applicable indeed to
Nathanael individually, fur it is expressed iu the plural, it can only be
considered as a general figurative allusion to those signs of Divine
communication, the miracles,7 by which he was to prove that he was
the Son of God, the King of Israel, and is not therefore specific enough to be
classed among the prophecies.
The other
was a prophetic promise relating to a state beyond the ordinary use of
prophecy. We cannot recognise its fulfilment, nor was it, from its very nature,
mc.de with the common object and intent of all his prophecics, “that when these
things come to pass ye may knew that I am he.” It is therefore rather to be
classed with his other revelations of a future state, and as such belongs not
to the present point of inquiry.
IV.—CONCEENING
THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM.
The holy
city, the temple and its service, together with the existence of the Jews as a
nation, comprised the externals of the old dispensation. All that was real and
vital in that dispensation, had been done away with on the opening of our
Lord’s mission; but the closing scene, which was to annihilate the outward
form, thus deprived of its living principle, was the destruction of Jerusalem
and the temple, and the dispersion of its worshippers. The visible church
having been ever regarded as co-existent with, and inseparable from, the
dispensation itself, the total removal of the former ”aa the sign and pledge
that the latter was indeed taken away.
Until this
event the slow believing Jew might have had some plea tor asserting, that “in
Judah alone was God known,” and “ that r*.lzxv;. 1. Jerusalem was still the
place where men ought to worship;” but Jcl1111Vl 20
7 The original word translated “
hercaftar,” is which means literally
from now,-’ “ from this time forth.”
II. E
the
prophetic fiager which charactered its downfal, wrote a language, the
interpretation of which was well understood to be, “The kingdom of heaven is
departed from tliee.”
No wonder
then that our Lord should dwell on this subject with such minuteness and
solemnity, as to give the prophecy an air of importance beyond all his others.
He came to do awav with the old covenant and to establish the new. This was bis
work, and with reference to this, the propriety of those expressions whereby ho
announces himself as tjie author of this formal consummation of his ministry is
obvious. Looking to the principle on which these remarks have proceeded, we may
expect to lind, too, the didactic tendency of such a prophecy bearing upon some
point of proportionate consequence; and a brief analysis of the structure of
its language will show that such is remarkably the case. That language may be
arranged under three heads:—
1. The literal description of the events
prophesied; for instance, Mark viii. 2; “ As for these things which ye behold,
the days will come in the Luk»*i.v.44; whiofe
there' shall not be left one stone upon another.”
2. The metaphorical, or rather hieroglyphic
language adopted from the Jewish Scriptures, especially the prophets; for
instance,
Yarkxiii.23.
“ The sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the
stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.”
3. The third source of imagery is the day of
our Lord’s second coming to judge the world; and as in this is suspended the
moral of the prophecy, to this all further remarks will be confincd.
Up to the
period of our Saviour’s advent, the, progress of the I Jewish dispensation had
been so ordained, as to bo made applicable in its several successive parts to
the Christian, when it should be given; applicable, as the type to its
counterpart, the shadow to its substance. Much of the history of the Jewish
church is, according to the interpretation of inspired wisdom, a series of
proplieeies or emblems designed to be fulfilled in the Christian. When our
Saviour came, and commenced his ministry, the closing scene of the old covenant
was all that remained ; and here, by a reversed order, the. closing scene of
the Christian dispensation was made to furnish the instruments and emblems of
prophecy for the end of the Jewish. It may be necessary to explain what is
meant by this assertion, before the didactic import of the prophecy so framed
is pointed out.
It is not
unusual to say, that our Lord has blended in this prophecy, the events of the
last day with those of the downfal of, Jerusalem; vhich is not a complete view
of the case, ana hurdlv a correct one as far as it does go. Ilis use of these
mysterious images, should rather be considered the same as his use of the
hieroglyphic symbols of ancient prophecy; that is, they are employed in the
prophecy Only in their secondary and .w/mbulical meaning. When, for instance,
we read, that the Lord “-will send his angels
und Katlier
together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other,”
the only meaning of the description in this place is, that which relates to the
fate of his elect on the destruction of Jerusalem I do not deny that it is
capable of another interpretation, and that it is a description of part of the
last day’s eventful scene; nay more I should say, that is its literal and
original meaning; and 1 should say in like manner of the expressions, “ the
stars falling from heaven,” end “the sun being turned into darkness,” that u
they were not taking a part, as it were, in the figurative ^presentation oi
prophecy, they would signify the actual derangement _ of the heavenly system.
lSut as, in this latter case, The descriptions are here introduced only in
their secondary application so we may conclude that in the former instance the
same only is intended, lor it is to be observed, that all the revelation concL-
mg the last day contained m these prophecies had been previously detailed n one
form or another. The revelation had been already made and this was only an
adaptation of its imagery to the destruc- 0U 1,1 Je™salem. The
propriety of this method is another ques- ' , ^ose who are disposed to regard
it as Intricate and unnatural should remember, that the revealed circumstances
of the last day, had to the mind of a believer already assumed the for n and
certainty of recorded events, and admitted, in an address to him, of tfie same
use as historical facts. For, to a believer what is prophecy but anticipated
history ? ’
Such
appears to be the true character of this prophecy. At the same time, that some
indistinctness and confusion should exkt in a cursory view of it is natural
enough, considering that a portion of its imagery is derived from a state of
things which “ eye hath no seen, nor ear heard.” It is the necessary result 0f
ourVanti an appropriate and literal language for unearthly revelation All
description of such mysteries can only be con posed of terms adopted oi
metaphorical; ana where (as in this prophecy) a second transfer of these tei ms
has beeii made, it is not Immediately obvious, whether the objects from which
that language is borrowed, be those whose ginal pi operty it is, or those
others which have invaded and .aken possession of it, for want of a language of
their own '
L 1 the
introduction of these topics into the prophecy in ouestion Has not made with a
view to reveal the mysteries of the Inst 1 what was the intent ? It has been
ulready^u jested that the
tiTf’tfi
end"?tr'’ rep£Bented th* fate of *6 old
dispensation.
, he dfst
'iction r f T T WaS t0 v° £hfistito '^^nsation what the
destr actionof Jerusalem was to the Mosaic, the inference forced
on men s
minds by having these two corresponding events contin-
v brought
m close connexion before them* was tint PhriattnnH
was the
final covenant of God with man, that Christ havino-once
dgir* neVCT
t0 l0°k fw an°ther Mediato:’ and “other
That such
was actually the impression wrought by these means on the earliest ages, may be
not unfairly presumed, from the transition which soon took place in the
application of the terms, “ the last days," “ the end of the world,” ire.
First adopted as descriptive of the end of Jerusalem, from the hint they
continually afforded, by the mode of their use, that Christianity was the final
dispensation, they gradually came to be used for the whole Christian period,
considered in that light. Thus the Epistle to the Hebrew* (die main object of
which is to assert this very truth) opens with a contrast between the old and
the new covenants, and designates the H>b. i. 1.3. period of the latter by
“these last days.” “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in
time past by the prophets unto the fathers, hath in these last days spoken uuto
us by his Son.”
In short,
the images of the end of the world were first employed in our Saviour’s
prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, in tho same manner as if, using
hieroglyphics, he had expressed that event by a picture of the circumstances
under which the world was to end : ! in his choice of these images he probably
designed to inculcate tlie doctrine, that Christianity was the final
dispensation of God to mankind; and from the impression thus produced, the
phrases, “ the ! last days, the “end of the world,” and the like, eume to
signify the '.'hole period of the Christian dispensation, viewed in the light
of God’s final covenant with his creatures.
VI.--THE
TEMPTATION AND TRANSFIGURATION.
. . , . 1
Thkkh are twTo events in our Saviour’s history, which, although '
not
generally considered as making part of his ministry to man, yet
are so fur
mysteriously connected with it as to deserve a particular
notice.
Tho first is,
The Temptation.
Matt. iv.
i; In the exposition of this, mure perhaps than of any other passage '"v
tv a’ of Scripture, the theologian requires to be reminded of his proper I
province. Many, exercisijg their ingenuity in the unprofitable 11
attempt to explain the real nature of those mysteries which God has 1
disclosed to us, instead of their reference to us, have made it, and other
awful and glorious spectacles of revelation, subjects of contemplation and
wonder, rather than symbols of instruction. Revelation has been fitly called “
Light.” Its great author has designated himself as “ Light.-’ Rut it
is a light to see by, not to gaze at. i It is analogous, not to any dazzling
meteor ,n the appearance of nature, or to any splendid spectacle produced by
art, but to that glorious luminary, which is not the less serviceable in
enabling us to be sure of our path, that we cannot stedfastly behold it.
Out of
this arises another error. Mistaking tho character of theologieal knowledge, we
naturally mistake its extent, and limits. If a subject be proposed to us, tho
real nature of which we are to
study, it
seems just and reasonable that it should he placed before us in a complete
form. If agriculture, for instance, had been a subject of revelation, men would
doubtless not only have been instructed in the right method of preparing the
earth, hut the necessity of sowing the seed; and whatever else might be
requisite to secure a complete harvest, would have been included in the
revelation. Accordingly the theologian who expects so to understand such parts
of the scheme of redemption as have been revealed, as if the knowledge were
absolute and not relative, naturally attempts to fill up that scheme, so as to
make all appear rational, intelligible, wise, merciful,—in short, perfect. All
which is contrary to Scripture. For, St. Paul affirms, in the first place, that
“now l12cgr-**"■ we see
through a glass darkly,” and secondly, that “we know in ' ' part.’' Scenes
infinitely more mysterious, unaccountable, and awful than the temptation, or
even than the death of Christ, may have taken place in the scheme of man’s
redemption, of which we know no more than the unborn does of life. And even
with regard to those points which are revealed, we shall strangely bewilder ourselves
if we sp use them, as forgetting that they are lights to see b\\ not to look
at. .
The
character and design of the temptation may perhaps be best understood by
contrasting it with the crucifixion. The former was the commencement, the
latter the close of Christ’s work. They correspond, too, in one remarkable
circumstance. Each U'as the hour of Satan. In the first, Christ was led into
the wilderness purposely to be tempted by him, and that ended, the devil
departed from him “for a season.” That the concluding scene of his minis- Lukt'>1
try was the occasion when he was permitted to return, and once more to display
the utmost exertion of his power, is not only probable from the character of
the event, but seems to be clearly inti mated by our Saviour’s words, “This is
your hour, and the power Lukexxn.ss. of darkness“ The prince of this world
cometh.” Jolln
xiv-3a-
Now the
great object of Christ’s ministry was to undo the mischief which the evil being
had done. And this was twofold: first, he had introduced into the world sin;
secondly, he had introduced death. Now it is admitted by all rational
Christians, that the solemn spectacle on the cross had reference to the latter.
Christ’s death there is said to he vicarious, that is, he died instead of those
who were the proper subjects of death: he died, “that whosoever J<lhnsi-
i3. believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life;”
in ‘ other words, lie died for his Church. In the mysterious scene of the
crucifixion, he may be considered as representing the universal Church,
undergoing (as it must collectively, and in its members separately) the mortal
decay and dissolution of this world, hut escaping from the spiritual evils
accompanying that decay and dissolution in a world to come. Christ died and
rose again from the dead, fa order to exhibit death as it was in future to take
place; that is
separated
from all that was most horrible in it, divested of its “ terrors,” disarmed of
its “ sting,” and no longer the same death.
Now let us
turn to our more immediate subject, the temptation. Satan had brought into the
world sin as well as death ; sin before death ; its forerunner, and its cause.
Now the. temptation appears to have been with regard to sin, what the
crucifixion was with regard to death. It was a vicarious representation. Christ
was first tempted instead of his Church, and afterwards died instead of it.
But, as his death did not imply that his Church was not afterwards to be
subject to mortality, but only that the worst and most characteristic evil of
death was done away with; so, with regard to the temptation, he was tempted
instead of his Church, not in order that his Church should be no more tempted,
but to show that the strongest temptations should no longer be necessarily
fatal; that he who was then the earthly abode of the Godhead, having
manifested, and given a specimen of, the curtailed and no longer resistless
power of the evil one, his followers might know, that when he left the world,
and God was manifested in another way, namely, by his Iloly Spirit, that the
abode of the Godhead on earth should still be equally secure against
temptation, if the same use were made of the same power “ working in it;”8
that his Church, which is now the earthly residence of the Godhead, and whose
members are “ the l Cor vi.is. temple of the Holy Ghost,” should still indeed
be tempted, as was Col. ii. 9. he in whom “ dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead
bodily,” but like him not necessarily unto sin.
The Transfiguration.
M«tt.
xvii.s; One cannot hut be struck, on perusing the Gospels, with the Luke ii. ii
continual request of the Jews to have a sign given them from heaven, even
whilst our Lord was in the act of performing his signs and miracles for their
conversion. Their desire (as was before observed) appears to have been founded
on the prophecy of Daniel, which Dan vii. is. describes the Son of man as
“coming with the clouds of heaven.” The belief evidently was, that the Messiah
should be seen literally descending from the heavens, and arrayed in some
brilliant emblem of his glory. That the fulfilment of this expectation might
have been intended in the transfiguration, seems not improbable, from the
remark of the apostles who were permitted to be witnesses of it. Their words
seem to denote that all ground of scruple was now Uatt.ivii.io. removed: “Why
say the Scribes then that Elias must first come?” The appearance of Moses and
Elias conversing with him was obviously a token that the covenant was changed,
and the Law and the Prophets succeeded by the Gospel.
8 “Destroy this temple, and in three Christ
was then what the Jewish temple days I will raise it up,” are words, which had
been, and what the Church was to can be onlv understood as implying, that be,
viz., the abode of the Godhead.
CONCLUSION.
Before I
close this part of my subject, the allegorical interpretation which has been
claimed for certain passages of our Lord’s ministry, may seem to call for some
further remarks. It may be asked, “ Why should such a mode of instruction he
adopted, the more natural way being for our Lord to deliver his doctrines in
express terms; and as he has actually done so, what need of another language to
convey the same truth?”
In the
first place, then, to the Jews the more natural method was the allegorical;
such being the character of their numerous rites, and of the greater part of
their Scriptures.
Besides
which, the Christian’s view of the doctrines of his religion was hereby
connected with the proofs of it. The same miracle furnished at once instruction
and proof of the teacher’s authority to instruct; so also did the completion of
a prophecy.9
To which I
may add, that in the case of a miracle assuming the character of a prophecy,
the miracle carrirs with it its own proof that it was not a forgery or
delusion. The importance, then, of perceiving the secondary character of such
miracles, at least, is obvious.
It cannot
be denied that an injudicious application of the method very soon prevailed
among Christians, and to this it is owing that it has so long fallen into
disuse, and is so generally regarded as at best but fanciful.
Nevertheless,
to reject it altogether (as many are disposed to do) is, perhaps, to close our
eyes against one half of the meaning of Scripture; and it may always be at
least safdy adopted, when it is not made the ground of any new doctrine.
• Se^ Appendix [K.J
PART II. APOSTOLIC
AGE.
» Trum
A.l>. S3—100.
DISTINCTION
15 CHRIStLWlTT, AH TAUGHT ISY OCR SAVIOrR AKD EV
ms Apostles.
Ix
treating of our Lord’s ministry, it was remarked, that some of the most
important points of the Christian scheme were either w holly omitted by him, or
lightly touched on. Pew, even preparatory, steps appear to Lave been taken for
the establishment of his Church —that kingdom which was to comprehend all
mankind. As if the very office of initiating members into this great society
did not properly belong to him, lie baptized none. Ilis revelations were for the
most part communicated in parables, or by hints and allusions equally obscure;
and although it is true, that his apostles werej allowed an explanation of
these, yet it is clear that at his death, and even after his ascension, they
were as much in the dark on some of the main truths of redemption, as were the
Jews who crucified him.
It is
evident, indeed, that our Saviour’s object in his ministry was not to teach
Christianity, nor to establish the Christian society. It was necessary that he
should leave the world, in order that he might become the subject of the one,
and the head of the other.
Juhii xvi.
7. “ It is expedient for you that 1 go away,” are words in which he plainly
declares this himself. The offiee of making Christians was the office of the Comforter.
God manifested himself in the flesh, to redeem the world, and to atone for
sin—to be made the object of a new faith, the subject of a new religion. God
manifested himself by the Spirit, to instruct men in what he had done, and to
teach them what they were bound, in consequence of this, to do.
Evident as
this may be when stated, it is very apt to be overlooked or forgotten. Many
have been the fruitless and unsatisfactory attempts to reconcile the Gospels
with the Epistles,—one part of the new covenant with the other, proceeding on a
vague cunception,
Chap. I.]
DISTINCTION
IX CHRISTIANITY, Ac.
57
of the
whole being promulgated at the same time, and with the same intent.
It may be
useful therefore, for the purpose of marking clearly the distinction alluded
to, to consider it more exactly, as exhibited in what was taught and what was
done—in the words and the works of our Lord on the one hand, and of our Lord’s
apostles on the other; both proceeding from the same Divine source, and
harmonizing so as to produce one common result; yet so different in their
character and import, as to occasion serious error in those who ■leglect
the difference.
First,
then, our Saviour wrought miracles, and so did the Apostles, piffer™™ and so
did Moses, Elias, and many others commissioned by Heaven. SfcSckfc To a
careless observer, then, it may be satisfactory to say, that Christ’s were
superior to the others, because they were more in number, and perhaps greater
in kind, than had been performed by his predecessors, or were to be performed
by his followers. Granting this, however, we may still reasonably expect to
find in Christ’s miracles, not merely superior power, but somewhat in that
superiority which should especially denote the character of his mission. Else
the manifestation of superiority would be only a barren display of power, a
thing very inconsistent wTith the general scheme of God’s dealings.
Indeed, as if to denote that the difference was not to be sought for in
superiority of power, he expressly told his disciples,
" He
that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; Johnxiv.12, and
greater works than these shall he do; because I go to my Father.” Let any one,
then, candidly and attentively examine the mode of exercising this power in
both cases, and he will scarcely fail to observe,
I. That in our Lord’s miracles, he was the
primary agent; in Christ in iris those of the apostles and others, they were
instruments. Several primary the incidental circumstances may be
noticed in illustration of this position. No one, for instance, was more fully
invested with the power of healing than was St. Paul; for we read, that certain
sick Acts xii 12. folk recovered only by touching his garments; yet wo are
equally sure, that he was but the medium through which the Comforter performed
these miraculous cures; because we find him, on one occa- 2Tim. iv.20. sion,
leaving behind him at Miletum a useful coadjutor, because he was sick, and on
another occasion suggesting to Timothy an ordinary 1 Tim. v. 23. remedy for an
infirmity under which he was labouring. In our Saviour’s ministry, on the
contrary, human means are never resorted to, so as to imply the want of
miraculous power. His miracles are at one time the result of persevering
importunity,1 at another the dictate of friendship or of pity ;2
and on one remarkable occasion he rebuked them for having recourse to ordinary
means, as implying the failure of this resource in him. “ Thinkest thou that I
cannot now pray
1 E.G. Luke xviii. 33; Matt. xv. 22.
2 E.G. The case of Lazarus, that of the
widow of Nain’s son, &c.
John xi.
43. Luke vii. 14,
John xi.
21,
32.
His
Miracles
generally
bymboiioaL
1 Cor. ix
1(1
fils
unlimited
power of imparting Spiritual gifts.
to my
Father, and be shall presently give, me more than twelve legions of angels ?”
All this was surely intended to point to the discretionary power which was
peculiarly his. To him alone God gave the spirit not by measure. The very words
which he used in the exercise of miraculous power have a distinct character; such
as, “ Lazarus, come forth,” “ Young man, I say unto thee, Arise;” whilst in the
miracles themselves, in many of them at least, the marks .are more unequivocal.
Take the cure of Malchus’s ear—who does not see in such an act as this, the
unconstrained agency of Divinity, called into exercise by the circumstances
themselves, and not connected, as in the case of the Apostles, with anv
special commission, nor directed to any special purpose, beyond the display of
Christ’s real character ? Who, in short, can peruse the course of his ministry,
and not sympathize with the sister of Lazarus, in that tone of mind which
caused her to exclaim, “ Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother hud not died
?”
II. There is another line of distinction, still
more discernible, between our Lord’s miracles and those of the Apostles, and of
all others. They were generally symbolical—the vehicles of instruction, as well
as the signs of power. Like the voice from Mount Sinai, they were at once
miracles and revelations, a Divine language, conveying a Divine message. And
this circumstance, if rightly considered, not a little confirms the view which
has been taken of the primory, immediate, and independent agency of Christ, as
contrasted with the instrumental character of his Apostles; the former, not
only performing acts above human nature, but moulding them at will to serve
occasional purposes, as if the power were his own, part of his original nature;
the latter humbly, fearfully, and almost passively obeying the dictates of a
secretly controlling power, , and avowing that they “had nothing to glory of,
for necessity was laid on them. "
III. Among all the miraculous acts, in which our
Lord and his Apostles maj be contrasted, the one wherein an equality between
them is most likely to be presumed, is the power of imparting the gifts of the
Holy Ghost. Of this more particular notice will be i taken by and by. At
present it deserves attention, merely in the light of a miraculous power, as
distinctly superior to all others, as the power of imparting life exceeds the
privilege of partaking it. Yet it is obvious, that in their use of this, as of
the other powers, the Apostles were restricted, whereas our Lord’s conduct
exhibits no signs of any limitation. A» no one would suppose the Apostles to be
the authors of life, because they were occasionally permitted to recall the
dead to life; so, the office of imparting the gifts of the t Holy
Spirit did not imply that these gifts proceeded originally fromj them, or that
they were any but the instruments and agents of communication.
A similar
character (as has been already pointed out) pervades
our Lord's
prophecies, as distinguished from all others, whether of Distinction the Old or
the New Testament. tEeun
The
exercise of the predictive power, proved in all cases alike, Prophecies, that
the prophet was commissioned by God. But the constant and unvaried employment
of that very prophetic spirit for doctrinal instruction—its use, in short, for
purposes not prophetical, could only have been designed to indicate, what it
does most plainly, that the prophet wielded that Divine instrument at pleasure,
and not as one, “ who spake only as the Holy Ghost moved him." In Christ,
the prophetic faculty was exercised as his own; in his Apostles and others, it
was only exhibited as through agents and instruments.
The
language of the inspired mortal is, “ I cannot go beyond the Sum x%u.
commandment of the Lord, to do either good or bad of mine own 'x
' mind;” that of the Author of inspiration, “ If I will that he tarry
Johnixi.it till I come, what is that to thee ?”
It would
be easy to pursue this subject further, but it may be sufficient merely to add,
that in considering the secondary use to which Christ applied the Divine
agency, as an indication that he was a Divine person, it deserves notice that
it was of himself, or of his kingdom, or of his work—of himself, in short, either
immediately or remotely, that he caused his miracles to speak. So that every
miracle, every prophecy, is used by him for some purpose beyond its specific
and appropriate one, and that purpose one connected ivith himself, “ The works
which the Father hath given rne John v. 36. to finish, the same leorks that I
do, bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me.”
His
sermons, exhortations, precepts, commandments, all lead us General forcibly to
the same conclusion. A11 are addressed to mankind, no ofhis less than the law
from Mount Sinai, in the person of God himself. L)lscourses- As to
the language, it is, “A new commandment I give unto you.” John xiii 3t “ It was
said to them3 of old time, Thou shalt not kill; but I say unto you.
That .yhosoqver is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger
of tho judgment.” Still more may the matter of his discourses be appealed to,
for marks of a difference occasioned by the same cause. Our Lord did not,
indeed could not, preach the whole of Christianity to his disciples and to the
world; because the subject was incomplete, until he had suffered on the cross,
risen from the dead, and ascended nto heaven. The most essential points of
Christian instruction were precisely those which could not yet be given, for
the simple reason, that the events out of which they arose had not yet taken
place. Ilence his assertion, “ It is John xvi t, expedient for you that I go
away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I
depart, I will send him unto Jou ' _ _ _ _ _
Christianity
then, strictly speaking, commcnced with the preaching
3 Matt. v. 21,22, and Whitby on the
parage.
Christianity
of the apostles. It is the dispensation of the Spirit, anti by the
'voatios.",u Spirit only has it been conducted. Our Lord is the
subject, the foundation stone,4 not the founder of it. It holds lip
to ua as the jTim.m. 16. object of our faith, “ God manifested in the flesh;”
but the world is directed to this truth, and assisted in embracing it, and
acting on it, by God manifested by the Spirit. The apostles accordingly were
expressly forbidden to begin their ministry, until the formal sign was given,
that the Comforter had descended amongst them. Until that event, the world was
no more under the Christian dispensation than Israel was under the Mosaic
before the Law was actually given,—whatever anticipation, either Moses on the
one hand or the apostles on the other, might be supposed to have had of the
revelation vi hieii was preparing. That the apostles were imperfectly
acquainted with the leading principle* of Christianity, is evident beyond a
doubt. Why else, indeeil, should it be necessary to send John*hr. 10. one, not
only “to bring al! things to their remembrance,’1 but “to teach them
all things?” Why that expression of disappointment i.uke iiir. and despondency,
“We trusted that it hud been he which should have redeemed Israel,” if indeed
they knew aught of the doet-ine of redemption by his death? None, surely, who
understood the nature of Christ and of Christ’s kingdom can be supposed to have
put such Acts l 6. a question to him as, “ Lord, wilt thou at this time restore
again the kingdom to Israel?” a question which goes the farther to prove that
our Lord was not fully quaiiiying his disciples to instruct the world; that
manifestly as it arose from ignorance and error, he did not attempt to correct
them ; but only referred them to the coming of Him, whose proper office it was
to do so, and reminded them of the only part which he had qualified them to
assume, to be his Acts l. 7, s. witnesses. “He said unto them. It is not for
you,” (or as it may be rendered,) you cannot be expected, “ to know the times
or seasons which the Father hath put in his own power. Eat ye shall receive power
after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be my witnesses.”
Threp Even after that first descent of the
Holy Ghost, Christianity was
a^o'moMo *n 'ts infancy. The illumination
of the Spirit was gradual, and as Eliftorj. rnore light was required, then, and
then only, was the supply given.
It is easy
to trace three distinct periods in the Apostolic History, in the first of which
the Church was kept in ignorance of the second, and had advanced far upon the
second before the third was declared to them, and each by a special revelation.4
Their ministry commenced with the Jews alone. It appears certain, that the
apostles themselves did not then understand that it was ever to be extended
bevotid their countrymen. Their ancient national error was not yet
* Thus St. Paul, in his use of this for an habitation of God through the
very
metaphor, addresses the Ephesian Spirit.”—Eph.
ii. 22.
Church, as
a building whose “ chief _ _
corner-stone
was Jesus Christ, in whom,” 6
Pee Lord Uainngton’s Miscellanea
adds he,
“ye also are huilded together Sacra.
removed,
that through Judaism the world must he admitted to the Tt» Gospel benefits of
the Messiah’s advent—must be saved, not as the sons of t0
fallen
Adam, but as the children of righteous Abraham. Under a.d. 33-41. this impression they taught through Judtea,
Samaria, and at last Acts *i. ta at Antioch.
Then it
Iras, that, by a special vision sent to Peter, his scruples Acts x. io. were
first removed, and he was made to understand, by the conversion of Cornelius
and his household, that a door was opened to the Gentiles. But to what
Gentiles? Not to all indiscriminately, but to To Jews mid such as, like
Cornelius, were “devout Gentiles,” “ fearing God,” Gentiies. otherwise known as
“proselytes of the gate.” Gentiles who, without becoming altogether Jews, had
adopted their belief in tho one true God, and sought acceptance with him by
alms, by fasting, and by prayer. Yet of the baptism even of these, St. Peter’s
report a.d. 41-4r>. to the Church of Jerusalem is but an apology. “
Forasmuch then Acts si. 17. as God gave them the like gift, as ho did unto us
who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I, that I could withstand God?”
Lastly, a
further light broke forth on the Church, when, by To Jews, another express
revelation, Paul and Barnabas were separated for GCTti!es,an>i the
conversion of the idolatrous Gentiles. Of all the wonderful %
counsel of
the Lord, this was considered tho most wonderful. This ' ' it is which is
especially styled “the mystery of godliness,” the revealing of which produced a
sensation, both within and without the Church, to which no one who world
understand the writings and the history of the great apostle of the GeDtiles,
should be inattentive.
These
three classes of converts—the Jewish, the devout Gentile, and the idolatrous
Gentile—continued to be addressed and treated as in certain respects distinct,
until “the end of all things,” tho grand consummation which took place in the
destruction of Jerusa- a.d. 70. lem,
and the downfal of the nation. By this act of Divine visitation, the Jewish
society was dissolved, and the Jews were 110 longer entitled to be treated as a
distinct civil body. With this event, accordingly, ceased that scrupulous
regard which previously the Christian preachcrs had paid to them as such. The
converted Jew ’.vas henceforth under no civil obligation to retain the customs
of his fathers, and the proselyte of the gate was released from obedience to a
society which was extinct, and was henceforth no more bound to abstain from
things strangled and from blood, than was the idolater who had never entered
into a compact with, the worshippers of the temple. Christ’s kingdom was come.6
6 Lardner argues from this slow and missible. For, the apostles, as witnesses,
gradual
illumination of the inspired may have
recorded or assisted others in
Church,
that neither St. Matthew nor recording
facts, before the full import
St. Luke’s
Gospel could have been com- of those
iacts was revealed to them; and
posed very
early; inasmuch as both dis- St. Luke
and St. Matthew write narra-
play an
insight into that mystery, which tives in
the strictest sense, and not trea-
was
reserved for the last stage of re vela- tises.
tion. But his reasoning is scarcely ad-
Matt. x. 5, 7 Mark vi.7,12 l.uke ix. I, H 1,9.
Prophetic
character
His
teaching.
WHAT
PREPARATION ClIHIST II \D MADE BEFORE IIIS DEPARTURE FuR HIE ESTABLISHMENT OF
CHRISTIANITY.
Notwithstanding
the assertion, that tlie establishment of Christianity was the province of the
Comforter—of God the Holy Ghost —that assertion by no means implies that our
Saviour’s ministry : contributed nothing towards the forming of that
institution, of which he was properly the subject. During his abode on earth,
he had sent forth twelve of Lis followers, and again seventy, with a com:
mission to baptize, and to proclaim “ the kingdom of heaven is at ' hand.” lie
had instituted the sacraments, and hud appointed a ’ form of prayer. All which
may be considered as preparatory to that which w as peculiarly the work of the
IIolv Spirit, and analogous to that preparation which had been made for his
appearance on earth as our Redeemer, by the previous manifestations of God.
Accordingly, although his teaching, it may be, embraces all the essential
doctrines of Christianity, yet from the very form adopted, that of parables,
.symbolical miracles, and didactic prophecies, the ! truths so deposited with
his followers were plainly not designed to be understood, until the IIolv
Spirit should not only have brought all Christ’s ministry to their remembrance,
but taught them also all things implied and intended by it. Until such
assistance was given, they were in possessiun of a revelation which they did
not understand; and without this assistance there can be no question that the
Christian doctrines could never have been understood, explained, and preached.
So, likewise, the Mosaic establishment had continued in its most important
features inexpressive, ingffectual, and useless, until our Saviour's fulfilment
of the law displayed it in its true character, and explained its chief meaning.
In short, from • Adam until Christ, tho scheme of man’s redemption was
prefigured; in Christ’s ministry it was accomplished; by the Spirit it was
explained. From Adam until Christ, the religious knowledge of the world was
like the gradual dawning of light which precedes the '■ sunrise,
and from which wo infer the existence and anticipate the approach of the sun
itself. Christ came; but his coming was as when the sun has risen in mist and
cloud, and can scarcely be discerned. And then came the Holy Spirit, like the
breath of heaven which blows aside the cloud, and enables us to look upon the
source of ail the day-light with which we have been gradually blessed. So,
also, our present condition as a Church may have some latent connexion with
futurity, which we shall then only be qualified to perceive, when God shall
again manifest himself, and we “see him even as he is.”
What is
now to be considered is, how far the ministry of the Holy Spirit had been
anticipated by our Saviour. f 1. His promulgation of the. Christian
doctrines has already been i noticed, as conveyed in a fnrm not designed to be
understood until
the
illumination of the Holy Ghost should he applied; many of them iepeuivng on
events which hud not as yet taken place J as ?• the loctrine of the Atonement,
which arose out of his death, and of the Resurrection, which was testified by
himself rising from the grave.
The most
remarkable anticipation, however, was the command to baptize in the name of the
Holy Ghost, as well as of the Father anil the Son ; inasmuch as God, in the
person of the Spirit, had not yet assumed the government of the Church. ‘
II. With a like prospective
view, the twelve apostles had been The commissioned, first, by baptism and
preaching repentance, to prepare A»ostles- men for the
new era; secondly, in his last interview with them, to be his witnesses. Their
former commission (as from its nature \night seem natural) expired on their
return to resume their attendance on him; but this latter (as appears from its
character and from his own words) they were intended to bear permanently under
the new dispensation. Hence the office of apostle was really twofold. He was a
witness of Christ, and he was a minister of the witness of Iloly Ghost. By
virtue of his former appu'ntment he was invested MinUtm*1 with the
power of working miracles, which power lie accordingly |[f0t]yeGh0St-
received from Christ himself. In the latter capacity he was fur- ’ nished -with
those extraordinary endowments of the Holy Ghost, which, are therefore called
peculiarly the gifts of the Spirit, Of these it is the Psalmist speaks, when he
describes our Lord as “ ascending up on high to rcceive gifts for men.” For
thus Christ Fs.iMiB.wi. also said, “ If I go not away, the Comforter will not
come; hut if jolmxvi.7. I go I will send him unto you.” As witnesses, then, the
apostles performed those miracles which are termed “signs” and
“wonders;”
(tsj«t«); and inasmuch as this office was of our Lord’s appointing, to him
perpetually, and not to the Holy Spirit, they refer them.7 Thus
Peter bids the lame man at the beautiful gate of the
7 The scriptural expression is ** in his pronoun this, they attached a solemn and
name,” and
“ in that name;” a mode mysterious
meaning, from the days of
of
speaking, which seems to denote an Moses.
The origin of this is plainly set
anxiety to
avoid conveying the notion of forth in
Exodus, (iii. 13,) “ And .Moses
Tritheism,
in teaching the doctrine of said
unto God, Behold, when I come
the
Trinity. It reminds the Christian, unto
the children of Israel, and shall say
that he of
whom the Scriptures are speak- unto them,
The God of your fathers hath
ing, was
the same God, in whose for- sent me unto
yo.u; and they shall say
mer name
the old revelations had been unto me, What
is his name ? what shall I
made, and
the miracles of old had been say unto
then?? And God said unto
wrought;
that it was “ God in Christ Moses, I AM
That I AM : and he said,
reconciling
the world unto himself.”— Thus shalt thou
say unto the children of
2 Cor. v. 19. Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you: and
Accordingly,
when the apostles were God said moreover
unto Moses, Thus
forbidden
to preach Christianity to the shalt thou
say unto the children of Israel,
Jews, the
prohibition is said to have been The
Lord God of your fathers, the God
“ that
they speak henceforth to no man of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and
in this
name(Acts iv. 17.) No one the God of
Jacob, hath sent me unto
acquainted
with the Scriptures of the you: this is my
name for ever, and this is
Ola
Testament can suppose that the my
memorial unto all generations.” God
Jews, in
making use of this expression, commanded
Moses to announce to his
were
pointing to Jesus either as a people,
that he had appeared in a new
preacher
or as a worker of miracles. To name; but
God said moreover to him,
the term,
used in a second intention, that ho must
caution his people, that he which is here denoted by the emphatic was still the
same God of their fathers,
Acts Hi.
6; Ix 34.
A cts v.
9.
TlieSevonty.
Lake x. i.
temple, “
In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk:” and to ./Enaas he
says, “ Jesus Christ maketh thee whole;” | because in each instance he was
proring his credibility as a witness. I But when he passes sentence on Ananias
and Sappliira, he is acting as minister of the Holy Ghost; and therefore so
expresses himself as to imply that, their death was a miracle wrought by God
the llolv Ghost, for the purpose of proving and vindicating the reality of his
' agency. “ How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the
Lord ? ^ Behold, the feet of them which have buried I thy husband are at the
door, and shall carry thee out.” Another act of Christ’s preparatory ministry
then v.as, his ordaining an order of men—his apostles—for the special purpose
of being witnesses to what he had said and done; and also, qualifying them to
becomc agents and ministers in the new state of religion, which was to commence
after his departure.
III. Besides this, he had appointed seventy
disciples, apparently with the same temporary commission as that with which his
apostle# were first sent. Perhaps by this time a greater number of missionaries
might have been required ; or the apostles might have been i detained about the
person of our Lord, on account of some passages of his life, which rendered
their presence necessary as his witnesses, their permanent and peculiar duty.
However that may be, the commission of the seventy had expired before the
descent of the Holy Ghost; indeed, as far as we can see, immediately on their
return to him. Meanwhile they, as well as the apostles, had scattered abroad
much instruction, which God’s blessed Spirit was surei to render effectual in
all honest and good hearts. And although they were found oil the descent of the
Holy Ghost without any com-
&c. In
a subsequent interview Moses promise is,
that “he would give them *
was
reminded of this in these terms: “I a
name, an everlasting name; that they
appeared
unto Abraliam, untoIsaae,and should
be called by a new name;” and i
unto
Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, Christ
himself is spoken of as one “ whose 11
but by my
name Jehovah was 1 not known name
is holj'.^—Isa. lvj. 5; lxii. 2. unto them.”—Kxod. vi. 3. The Jews who
attempted to stone him v
The
expression thus adopted to denote for
making himself “equal with God,” ;
a new
manifestation of the Godhead, because
he had said, “ My Father work- .1
naturally
enough became an object ot' eth hitherto,
and I work,” must {with*
scrupulous
veneration to the Israelites, these
prophecies before them) have
They
studiously avoided all mention of understood
him as claiming to be this
the name
which denoted God in his new new
manifestation of the Godhead, and
dispensation:
a scruple which may be applying to
himself this additional Hame,*!]
considered
as sanctioned by the com- nnder which
God was to appear for the
mandment,
“Thou shalt not take the purpose of
establishing a new dispensa- M
name of
the Lord thy God in vain.” tion. (John
v. 17.) Our form of baptism .
Through
every successive period of their is an
obvious allusion to it, and is equiva- ‘'
history
the same feeling is recorded. It lent
to a command to baptize unto the
was the
name of the Lord that dwelt at Father
as God, unto the Son as God, and
Jerusalem,
in that name i.he pious are unto
the Holy Ghost as God. By this, '
said to
walk, his name it is which is too,
may be explained (what is elsewhere j
praised,
and in his name their enemies remarked)
that our Saviour’s commandII
are to be
destroyed. to address prayer to the Father
in his ' i
When,
therefore, the Messiah was fore- name,
appears to have been fulfilled bj
told,
Isaiah had not only used the term the
Apostles and early Christians, bj
Immanuel,
but this expression, which to addressing
their prayers to the Lord Jesus ,
the Jews
equally indicated another mani- See
Archbishop Whately’s Sermons
festation
of the God of their fathers. The Serm.
2.
mission,
yet it is highly probable that the first appointments to ministerial otfices in
the infant Chureh were made from this class: as from persons already prepared
and practised by our Lord in a portion of his ministerial service, and, like
the apostles themselves peculiarly fitted for a second commission from the Holy
Ghost.
To this
number, indeed, tradition lias assigned more than one of the primitive worthies
of the Chureh—Barnabas, Stephen, and others.6
IV. In addition to these, Christ had left behind
him a body of The other disciples; adherents pledged to the good cause by the
sacrament of Disoii'!ts- baptism, and prepared, by the
instruction which' they had received from him and his apostles, fur the
Christian truths with which tlie world was now to be enlightened. Of their
number and precise character as a body, there is little to be learned, beyond
the fact, that one hundred and twenty were found assembled on the election of
Acts! 15-26. Matthias. Some have supposed them to have constituted a peculiar
assembly ; and consider them to be intended by “the apostles' ao* iv 2a company, to which Peter
and John retired after their appearance before the Sanhedrim. Whether this were
so or not, certainly thev must have been so far prepared by their admission
into the train of our Lord, as to have famished capable and ready ministers for
the spirit, at that, peculiar season when the harvest was greatest and the
reapers fewest. Here then was a third order of faithful and experienced men,
who, like the apostles and the seventv, were left qualified for a commission
from that Comforter whom he had promised'
A . The
sacraments form another portion of the Christian insti< 1- The iion which
was embraced, by our Lord’s preparatory ministry. Their Sacraments*
abject and character have already been pointed out Why they Were instituted by
him, and not, like all the other forms and ceremonies, left to the Holy
Spirit, and to the Church under its giiid- >nce, is worthy of inquiry.
Looking to the character of the apostles is appointed by our Lord, they appear
only in the light of witnesses 's there, then, any thmg in the sacraments which
rendered these sen under that character peculiarly fitting to be trustees, as
it were )t those sacred rites? If there be, an answer may be thereby tiven to
the inquiry; the question being alwavs considered with that umuence and
humility, which the wisdom of Christ, in his arrange- nent of the scheme of
salvation, claims from every Christian. Now
1 a
connc*um is discoverable. Baptism, first, is the symbol
of Bapti™
- I?'®*11*
,betwe™ two parties—between the Christian" and his ' ' Mord On
the part of the Saviour, it was instituted as the means
• hereby grace was given; and, as a proof
of this, in the primitive l/hurck it was always perhaps accompanied by some
extraordinary jifts of the Spirit. On the part of the redeemed, it was a pledge
he Thus, when the eunuch
requested to be baptized
H. _
Acts
xvi,3t.
Tho Lord’s
bupper.
Acts vttj
37 by Philip, his answer i«, “ If thou leUcrcst w-ith all thy heart thou
M&vest ” To the gaoler at Philipp., St. Paul made the same reply, when
usk-d what was the requisite qualification to fit him for admission into tho
covenant of salvation; “Believe 011 the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall be
saved,”(i.e. made a ( hnsti&n.) Baptism then was, on the part of the
Christian, the pledge that /* believed Now the apostles were the especial witnesses
ot what was to be believed, they ware the persons whose report was to be
credited- and to them, therefore, most suitably wm committed the sacrament of
admission into the Church, "the key, ol the kingdom us to man already
intrusted with the password into it. Thus, the appointment of witnesses and the
rite of baptism seem to be nrtur.1\f connected, and to belong to one and the
same period of the ineti- |
“ The
sacrament of the Lord’s supper is emphatically termed a memorial. It was
enjoined on the apostles, and through them on all Christians, as a symbolical
rite to be observedfor evei in rem< m- brance of Christ, in remembrance of
him especially in Ins fulf Imsnt of the most important part of his ministry.
Being, then, in i sc a sort of monument, or histrionic record, of tne most
mysterious of those events to which they were appointed witnesses a reason
presents itself, why the institution of this sacrament, also, should have been
assigned to the same period of the new dispensation, as the appointment of the
witnesses themselves. They could surely best understand and explain its origin,
who were chosen to bear testimony to the event which it was to call to
remembrance, and who if not all present like St. John at the awful scene, were
ye present 011 thpee various occasions, when it had been prefigured anc Sid, bv
words and by signs, by allusions to mysterious prophecies bv parables, or by
typical miracles.
VI Tt*
Lord’s Prayer is another portion of his preparatory jninistrv. Brief as it is,
it is very important. \\ e have in it not cmly a ‘sanction for praying ^r, but
lor usmg ^
mon
prayer. We learn from it. too, the manner in which we should address ourselves
to God. and the nature of the petitions which wo should make to Him. Nor is its
value as one of our forms of coS man prayer inconsiderable. Besides its
intrinsic ‘loeUcncej, tbj s incthy which attaches to it from having been
dictated by Diune wisdom, it derives a peculiar character from the
circumstances unde whicl it was composed, and the immediate purpose for whwh it
wa* imposed. It was giro at the request of those who were m constant
attendance on our Lord, that he would teach them to pray, aj
John also
taught his disciples; meaning obviously, not that they did JOI1I1 iubv o ’ • * * *, — -i— some form o.
The Lord’s
l'ruyer.
Luke xi. 1
not know
how to pray, but that they desired to have some form « prayer provided for
their use, m»l suitable to their condition a
attendant*
on our of family prayer.
and suitable to
Lord. Its
immediate purpose was that of a sor llavino* come down to us lvitb this
cbaraetc.j
impressed
on it, its use is a perpetual reminiscence to us, that we are still brethren,
still members of one holy family, although that family has enlarged and spread
over the world. The simple wordino- of the prayer contributes to this effect.
To its original character, too, as composed for the use of those who were our
Lord’s companions while on earth, we may attribute certain omissions which.
may
presume, would not have been made, had it been composed originally in reference
to the Lord's future Church. There is no mention in it, e.g. of the Holy
Spirit—&at new Comforter8 was not to come until Christ had gone
away. The petitions in it are not made m Christ’s name, and yet, his promise
is, “Whatsoever ye John xv c; shall ask ot the Father in my name, he
will give it you.” Now, *vi' supposing this prayer to have been
composed for his' apostles and disciples, in the character of his companions
and helpers vMe on earth, this is exactly what we should expect; for it was not
"until he should be glorified that prayer was to be made to him, or in his
narae. Accordingly, when that time was now approaching, he tells his
disciples,^ “Hitherto liave ye asked nothing in my name; ask John xvl 24. anu
receive. \» hicli amounted to this, “Henceforth ye are to pray in another
character and another form. I go to be myself thu object of prayer, and even to
the Father must prayers be addressed m my name.” Look, too, a* the first
prayers of‘the Church and you will observe precisely this change. Take, e.g.
that before ‘he ejection of Matthias, “ Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of
all Actsi. i4. men: or that of Stephen “ Lord Jesus, receive my spirit;
Lord, Aeuvii.su, lay not this sin to their charge. x his last is most to the
point C0‘ because it is obviously an imitation of the prayer which
the blessed Jesus made on the cross for his murderers, “ Father, forgive them,”
Luke^m. *!?■’
Pre?lse change to which we have been alluding beine::
adopted. It is not any more, “Oar Father,” but “ Lord Jesus "a
9 “ 1 will pray the Fattier, and he shall
give yon mother Comforter.”-John xiv. 15.
. Fr.im a.d. ,‘i3—41.
Shall we say, then, that the period of the Christian
dispensation, of that dispensation under which we now live, commences where our
Lord’s ministry closes ? Such appears to he the case, that ministry being only
preparatory: first, as forming and furnishing the subject of Christianity:
secondly, as providing certain instruments, and making certain arrangements to
facilitate the first measures of the Holy Spirit, whose office it was to
Christianize the world.
The
history of that great work naturally falls into a twofol 1 division: the former
portion extending through the period in which the Holy Guide and Governor of
the Church effected his purpose by a. manifest interference ; by extraordinary
gifts and endowments bestowed on his agents, and an extraordinary and sensible
reception, and welcome, as it were, of ail, who by their means were introduced
into tho new kingdom of God. In due season, this manifest and sensible
interference of the Iloly Spirit was withdrawn, and ha3 continued to be so unto
the present day. The history of the latter period will be, therefore, treated
separately from that of the former,] because of this great line of division. In
that, the extraordinary display of the Spirit was a necessary guide and beacon
to direct men to the Church, and to keep them from wandering in their progress
to it. It served a similar purpose with the pillar and cloud, which for a time
were manifested to guide the Israelite* to the earthly Canaan. In this, the
kingdom being settled, although the God of the true Israel still resides
amongst his people, that residence is secret and invisible—within a holy of
holies—within the hearts of the faithful. Like tho Jews, we only for a short
season enjoyed the open and palpable symbol of God’s guiding presence, but,
like havui. 1,2. them, we were not left comfortless. “ We have such an High
Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the
heavens ; a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle, which the
Lord pitched and not man,” and through him, and by him, we have access unto
God. -
It is the
first of these periods, however, to which our attention must be now confined;
that is, to Christianity as it was taught and conducted by the apostles and
other inspired ministers of God. And here it will be proper to mark distinctly
the breaks by which oven
this brief
period is itself subdivided. For the new dispensation was not communicated to
mankind at once, but gradually, and, it would seem, just in proportion as their
weak and prejudiced minds could bear it. According to St. Paul’s illustration,
they were at first fed with milk; and as they gained strength, truths harder of
digestion weie presented to them. It is quite necessary, therefore, to consider
the records of the infant Church with reference to these stages, else we shall
be continually startled by apparent inconsistencies: what is the subject of a
command in one part, in another appearing, perhaps, as the subject of a
prohibition, and what is at one time spoken of as a portion of Christian law,
at another being disclaimed and disowned. What indistinctness end confusion,
for instance, may be occasioned by the want of some such principle, in
attempting to reconcile the decree of the council of Jerusalem, respecting the
obligation of Gentile converts to adhere to certain portions of the Jewish
ceremonial law, with those passages in St. Paul’s writings which expressly
condemn such a compliance as sinful!
Some
allusion has been already made to this distinction of periods, Three which will
now be more fully pointed out. Periods.
I —THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THE JEWS ONLY.
The first
instruction of the Holy Ghost was, like that of our i. period. Loid, addressed
only to the Jews. Of this, the apostles were informed by our Saviour before he
left them. “Ye shall receive Acts i. a. power, after that the Holy Ghost is
come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all
Judcea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost pari of the earth."
Precisely in this order was the course of their ministry directed. They
preached at Jerusalem until Stephen’s martyrdom, ar.d the persecution which
ensued dispersed the brethren through the rest of Judsea and Samaria, in which
places the word was of course next preached. a.d. 33-41.
II.—1THE
GOSPEL PREACHED TO THE DEVOUT GEXTILES.
Notwithstanding
the frequent allusions of our Lord to this event, 11. period, notwithstanding
his last words respecting the extent of their preaching and witnessing even to
the uttermost parts of the earth, the anostles were still as much in the dark
on the subject, as they had before been about his death and resurrection, after
all his repeated declarations concerning both. As they formerly wondered what
the rising from the dead could mean, so they now marvelled, what weald be the
explanation of the prophecy concerning the call of tile Gentiles.
Of these
Gentiles there were two descriptions; the idolatrous ar.d unbelieving Gentries,
and those who were termed by the Jews
proselytes
of the gate. These latter are designated in the New Arts x 1,‘si. Testament as
“ devout men,” “ fraring God,” “ testified of by the Jews.” They were those
who. in consequence of the dispersion of the Jews through their respective
countries, had renounced idolatry, and had become worshippers of the one true
God. As a sign and pledge of this change of belief, they conformed to some few
observances of the Jewish law. Like the Jews and proselytes of righteousness,
they abstained from things offered unto idols, and never used blood as food, or
the flesh of any animal strangled, as retaining the blnod.10 In
opposition, perhaps, to a very general corruption of the moral perception in
this respect, they also bound themselves to consider fornication as an offence
against the law of God; and, of course, as suelx to abstain from it. Other
portions of the moral code, being already acknowledged by the Gentiles in
common with the Jews, were probably on that account not formally enjoined on
them.
Next in
order to the Jews, it was reasonable that the Gospel should be preached to
these, both as being better prepared than the idolaters to receive it, and also
because the prejudices of the Jewish converts were less likely to be startled,
than if all Gentiles had been at once called. For, if the apostles themselves
were at first unable to bear this hard truth, what may we suppose to have been
the ca3e with the great mass of Christians ? The event, indeed, fully justifies
the wisdom of God in this gradual disclosure of his scheme. Although it was not
until the seventh year of the Holy Spirit’s descent, that any steps were taken
for the_ admission even of the devout Gentiles, yet it was necessary to prepare
one apostle especially for the opening of this commission ; and this, too,
after having so frequently exercised him bv divine impulses, as to render him
of all others the least liable to mistake, or to distrust its suggestions, and
the rest more likely, from the conspicuous part he had taken, to confide now in
his assurance. Even at this late period, then, it was necessary that the
Gentile Cornelius, although a man who “ feared Acts*. 2. God and all his
house,” and could appeal for his character to the Jews themselves, should be
emboldened by a special revelation to seek for admission into the Church; and
that Peter, by a corresponding vision, should be required to lay aside his
scruples, and be taught then for the first time to see, that God having
cleansed the Gentiles, they were to be received on a footing with the clean and
holy Israelites. The pains 'nbich he. was at to justify his conduct to the
Church of Jerusalem, and the opposition which he subsequently encountered,
prove the delicate nature of his commission, and the need of some extraordinary
and special interference of the Holy Ghost to enforce it. The time which
elapsed from the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Tentecost to the
conversion of
Miscell.m.1
a Sacia;—Essay on tlie Decree.
Cornelius,
forms what may be termed the first period in the dispensation of the Spirit.
From this, again, to the further extension of the Gospel kingdom, forms a
second distinct period, extending from s..n. 41-45. A.D. 41 to A.D. 45.
III.—THE
GOSPEL PREACHED TO THE IDOLATROUS GENTILES.
At that
time Paul and Barnabas were callcd on by a special in. reriod. revelation to
undertake an extension of spiritual conquest and Acts xiii. dominion, far
beyond that with which Peter had been commissioned. ‘
It was
then seen that the fulness of the time was come for the offer of salvation to
the Gentile idolaters. What preparation Barnabas had for this great attempt,
we are not informed. It is only said, that he was a “ good man, full of faith
and of the Holy Ghost. ” Acts«. 24. But of St. Paul, as of St. Peter, a speoial
and distinct revelation is recorded: one, indeed, more solemn and mysterious,
because involving what he describes as “ the mystery, which in other ages was
Eph. in. 5. not made known unto the sons of men,” whereof he was made minister.
This was the dispensation of the grace of God which was given unto him, and for
a right view of which he was taken up into 2 Cor. \ii. % the third heaven.
That his
apostleship to the Gentiles was conferred on him in his second visit to
Jerusalem, aud by the revelation which he describes as having then received in
the temple, is evident from the terms of the command addressed to him, “Make
haste and get thee quickly out ' cts of Jerusalem, for they will not receive
thy testimony concerning me:" ' ‘ and again, “ Depart, for L will send
thee far hence to the Gentiles,”
“ delivering
thee from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom Acts j^i. noio I send
thee; to open their eyes, and to turn them from dark- ‘ ness to light, and from
the power of Satan unto God;” allusions which are manifestly applicable to the
idolatrous Gentiles only. For, as to the devout Gentiles, Peter, and Paul
himself, had for many years been preaching to them; nor could they be said so
properly to be in darkness and under the power of Satan. His appointment, in
conjunction with Barnabas, by the Church of Antioch, took place not long after,
and, as we know, by the especial command of the Holy Ghost.
From this
time the ministry of the Spirit appears to have been directed to throe distinct
orders of persons; each of which required some slight difference of discipline
and government, although the doctrines of Christianity were alike imparted to
all. The Jews compose the first, whether Jews by birth or proselytism. To
these, and it would seem to these alone, ministered all the apostles, except
Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, who had also special commissions. The second are the
devout Gentiles, who w-ere first intrusted to the ministry of Peter, and
afterwards included in Paul’s charge also.
Acts L
2&
Luke xxtv.
19; Acts L 4.
Acts I. 8,
22.
Mode of
Election.
The last
are the idolatrous Gentiles, to whom Paul nnd Barnabas alone of all the
apostles were sent, but more especially, as it would seem from the memoirs of
their labours, Paul.
This stage
in the administration of the Spirit will be found to comprehend a period of
twenty-five years, extending from a.d. 45, when St. Paul received his
apostleship, to a.d. 70, when Jerusalem -was taken, the Jewish polity
dissolved, and the grounds on which the above-mentioned distinctions were
founded were for ever removed.
The appointment of Matthias to be an Apostle.
Between
the ascension of our Lord and the coming of the Comforter, a short interval of
ten days occurs, during which the only measure taken for the furtherance of
Christianity was the election of an apostle in the room of Judas. This pause in
the work of God may have been intended to mark more strongly the distinction,
between the former and latter ministration—that of Jesus, which was now
completed, and that of the Comforter, which was to succeed. That this intermission
was not accidental, at least, but part of the general scheme of Providence, was
expressly declared to the disciples by their Master They remained inactive by
his command.
This
interval, then, was only marked by the repair of that portion of the Church’s
preparatory structure which had been injured by the fall of Judas. An apostle
was wanting to complete “ the twelve,” as they were emphatically styled. Peter
accordingly proposed to his fellow apostles and the other disciples, (who, to
the number of one hundred ur.d twenty men, were collected in an upper room, for
fear of the Jews,) the expediency—or shall we rather say, he explained to them,
that it was the will of Heaven?—that another disciple should supply the
vacancy. As yet, it must be borne in mind, of the two offices of an apostle,
that only with which they had been invested by Christ was known. As yet they
were only witnesses, or, as they are often called, in allusion to the most
material circumstance in their evidence, “witnesses of the resurrection.” Two,
therefore, qualified for this office by their constant attendance on the Lord,
were presented as candidates; and the choice fell on Matthias in preference to
Joseph, who was surnamed Barsabas.
The mode
in which this election was conducted has not been viewed in the same light by
all, the sacred narrative admitting, certainly, great variety of
interpretation. Moslieim supposes that the election was made by the suifrages
of the assembled Christians, the apostles having previously nominated the candidates.11
Others understand the nomination to have been made by the assembly, and the
decision by the rival candidates drawing lots. This latter, which is the more
usual view of it, seems also, on a careful consideration of all the
circumstances, to be the true one. For,
11 lie Sebu9 Christiaiwrum ante Const.
Majn. p. 7S.
Chap. IL] APPOIXTHEXT OF MATTHIAS. 73
^ First,
the election is expressly referred to the Lord, who had himself appointed all
the other apostles, and who, even after the dispensation of the Spirit had
commenced, manifested himself when a further apostolic appointment was to be
made. They prayed and said, “ Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men,
show whether Acts of tiif-se tv, o thou host chosen. .Add to this, that the
assembly was not inspired, fur the Holy Ghost was not yet given, and therefore
could not knoiv what was the Divine will and pleasure. Mosheim’s conjecture
throughout proceeds on a forgetfulness of this circumstance, which makes this
so materially to differ from any cono-reo’a- tion of primitive Christians
assembled after the descent of the Spirit.
Whether
the apostles or the assembly proposed the two candidates
a point
which the narrative leaves doubtful—cannot with this view of the case, then, be
of any moment.12
Another
still more cogent reason there is for considering the question of the
nomination immaterial, as to any argument which may be founded on it respecting
the constitution of the primitive assemblies. The rule was laid down, according
to which the quali- fieation x’or a candidate was to be ascertained. So that
whether the. expression “ they appointed ” (inTr.Tctu) refers to the apostles,
or to the whole assembly, it seems certain, that they did no more than
ascertain who, out of all then present, possessed the great quali- fceation For
an apostle,—the claim of having been constantly in attendance on the Lord from
his baptism until his death. What if Matthias and Barsabas were the only two of
that whole assembH vho, besides the apostles, were so circumstanced? This is
indeed extremely probaMe. First, because the number of those who had been
constantly with Jesus from the very beginning of his ministry com.l nc t have
been very great. Secondly, because those few, being from that very circumstance
more known and marked by the Jews and more certainly obnoxious to persecution,
would be the most
12 The terras of the narrative strongly an
assemble and tW Wvnto is* r
few^0p-uHr
opirv“d s*
against
Moshenn s; notwithstanding his Luke meant to sav that * *
accommodation
of the tef t to been fiTct^’/the lSMSS?
ffiven'asseparate!*
Firstcwnesthe^liotce
i. 24
DESCENT OF
THE HOLY GHOST. [1’iicrII.
as not
u <s I
r. dutainfcd ''>V an extraordinary sense of diit), 1-Y the f cs> yre
deUrned y m)t so forcibly
operate
who «^e
Pro°fefXnd office of apostle.,- the one
.upply»g ai It T- t, ^ the .mterval between
the ascension oi
from the
great body of Christians.
Descent or
the IIolt Ghost, (a-d. • *■!
t* tt i Pi»r.ct
fin tho dav of Pentecost natural! Av-i* n. The
descent of the Holy Glu>st^on t ti t;lat
holy da
leads
us to call to mmd Ihe “j^ *,r
contained s
among the
Jews, presumi g, Christ we may leam
froi
much
instructive allus.ee to the “ J^
‘(LiforU*.
this also
a similar lesson respecting . feast
0f Pentecost
An,io?r Fifty days from the pascha sacn of Chrlgt U) tlu, (leSCer
“*■? ' dni8e
HoW Ghost “in the former, the rite of the Passover reminde i«wi h an'* of the
lion < -lost, in u deliverance
; the feast
the
observers of a te,mporaURation ami^el, « ^ ^
^
rsod.
xxiii. Pentecost, of the \u\ giv Christ
had been the new ai
15-,0-
himself speaking from Mount Sinai. Chust bad » ci
^ 1. there is a corresponding dcscripti j
the true
Passover, and, in like manner and after a like interval, our Passover was
followed up by the promulgation of a new law, delivered also by God himself.
By means
of this contrast, wo may see more clearly the distinction which has been drawn
between the ministry of Jesus and of the Holy Spirit. ^ With the delivery of
the law from Mount Sinai commenced the Mosaic dispensation ; with the
Christian Pentccost that under which we now live. In each case, all that
preceded was preparatory; the signs, miracles, and other acts which
authenticated ;the commission of Moses, and those which bore witness to that
treater Prophet who “arose like unto him;” the blood of the Deut. xviii. iamb
which saved the Israelites from the destroyer, as well as the sacrifice of Him
who by his blood has saved us all from °3 " lestruction.11
VVith the
records of that day the Christian reader needs not to ie instructed here; nor
does it enter into my plan, on this or any Jther part of the inspired history,
to attempt a substitute for the larratives of the Bible. I ain only like the
travellers5 guide, point- ng out the remarkable features of a
venerable portrait, and placin»
-he
observer in the most favourable light for seeing them, and not naking sketches
or copies for persons who want the opportunity or .he inclination frequently to
visit the original. This kind of assis- ;ance, however, the present occasion
more especially requires. For he history of Christianity being the history if
the dispensation of •ou s ^ Spirit, it is proper that, together with the notice
of the Holy -host s first manifestation as the guide and dispenser of religion,
here should be given whatever hints may seem useful to show ihe •onncxion
between the incidents recorded in that historv, and the biding wisdom of that
Holy One,—in other words, to clear away ill that might hinder the events
preserved in the Scriptures from icing contemplated as parte of the scheme of
the Divine Dispenser, ind that schemc itself from appearing fully adapted to
the purposes "r which it was framed, and which it has so
signally answered. The irst point to which with this view I would advert,'is,
!. The
distinction between the modes whereby the Roly Ghost, was Mode, of
'ommunicated, and its effects manifested on the members of the rtimdive Church.
Now this was done in two ways^ either, as in 1 &Pirlt his first
instance,'immediately and visibly, or ly the laying on of ie apostles' ha,ids,
when the communication was secret and invisible. n the former case, a flame,
shaped like a tongue, was seen to immediate eecrend, and rest on the persons so
favoured, and the descent is <m<l TisiWe' herefore said to be
visible, that is, accompanied with a 'visible sign.
he imP°rtanee
°!' but,th3
narrative is prefaced in a pointed
lie
analogy on our ettention, we are not and
particular wav. “ When the n t f
mply told
that the descent of the Holy Pentecost w
fully’ come • ■ and
thence
«* for IS
day ° £lnte- St'.Luke-
Proceeds to deta’il the glorias
vBfetoirtl
■ •
? readei- have and gracious
manifestation of the Spirit,
verlooked
the coincidence as casual; in this solemn
entrance on iLs office.
John !.
18; l John iv. 12,
Three
occasions on which tht- Holy Ghost manife-tly descended. Acts ii. 1.
Acts. x.
45.
For God
himself no man both seen at any time; and these fiery tongues, like the llame
in the bush at Iloreb, and that of the Shechi- na’n, only denoted a peculiar
character in the several communications •which were accompanied by such tokens.
Simple and obvious as is: this view of the subject, it is requisite to keep it
distinctly before us, because much confusion of thought, not to say impiety of
doc trine, may result from mistaking the various modes in which it hat pleased
God to provide an intercourse between himself and hi; creatures, for views t)f
his real nature.
Thus, when
it is written that God appeared to Closes in the hush our first unthinking
apprehension may be, that an object of sight before invisible, was then made
visible. But then, a moment’s reflection reminds us, that “ no man hath seen
God at any time;’ and we learn to consider the expression as an accommodation o
language, like “ the wrath of God,’’ “the counsels of God,” anc even the “ eye”
and the “ arm” of the Lord.13 On the other hand if we chance to
overlook this, it is impossible to say how far we maj go wrong. To return,
however, to the immediate point of inquiry.
The
descent of the Holy Ghost, when accompanied with this sign must have been what
our Saviour meant when he spoke, to tht apostles of being baptized with lire
and the Holy Ghost. It wan manifested only on some great occasion; and appears
to have pro duced effects, if not always greater in kind, certainly greater ill
decree, than when the communication was made through the media tion of the
apostles. Those who were thus favoured, were, by waj of distinction from the
others, said to be “filled with the Hoh Ghost,’’ and probably, from their
superior spiritual endowments formed the class out of which all elections were
made to the liighei offices in the Church. It was so e.g. in the case of the
Seven whose appointment is recorded in the sixth chapter of the Acts, anc in
that of Barnabas. Through this “baptism” all the apostle: (unless we are to
except St. Paul,) passed; and by virtue, of it taei certainly obtained gifts
greater, not in degree only, but in kind, a: we shall presently observe.
There are
only three occasions on which it is expressly recorded that the Holy Ghost was
thus communicated, and in each there wa. some great object to be effected, some
signal event to be marked First, it occurred on the day of Pentecost. iNext, on
the return o the apostles from the Jewish council to their brethren.18
The thin occasion was the admission of the first devout Gentiles or proselyte:
of the gate unto the Church.
An
ingenious writer, to whom 1 have more than once had occasioi to acknowledge my
obligations,17 maintained, that the Holy Ghos] was thus communicated
on two other occasions. On the first con version of the idolatrous Gentiles at
Antioch in Pisidia, and on tin
15 See Apb.
King’s Sermon on Predestination.
15 nit
r.c-f, Acts iv. 31. 17
Barrington's Miscel. Sacra, Essay II.
appointment
of St. Taul to the apoatleship. The scriptural expressions, however, on which
he rests his assertion,w do not prove it; nor would he, probably,
have put any such interpretation on them had it not been suggested, in the one
case by the analogy between the third extension of the Gospel kingdom, and the
two which preceded it; and, in the other, by a wish to make St. Paul’s case
more completely analogous to that of the origiiial apostles. Possibly, the case
might have been as he supposes; and had we scriptural warrant for it, we should
doubtless feel that there was a fitness in ts being so; but we have not.
On all
other occasions, the descent of the Holy Ghost was such insensible is our Lord
alluded to, when he said to Nicodemus, “ The wind ca!?onUJf’ loweth
where it listetli, and thou hearest the sound thereof, butthe
spirit, tanst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every John
iiL s- jne that is born of the Spirit.” In other words, its operation was
ot accompanied by any impression on the senses. It was known >nly by its
effects. .But, the effects themselves being partly sensible ind extraordinary,
it was still in one sense a palpable eommuniea- ion. The apostles laid their
hands on the disciples, and the Holy jihost was given. The gifts which followed
in this, as in the former ase, were various, and imparted in different degrees,
as will be nore distinctly pointed out as we proceed. It does not appear,
.owever,
to have been attended with ail the effects or gifts of the Ipirit; as, for
instance, the power of conferring the Holy Ghost, r'liieh was confined to the
apostles, and therefore conveyed by the irmer manifestation of the Comforter.
The gifts which it did onvey were probably, too, imparted in a lower degree.
This
communication of the Spirit appears to have been dispensed ldiscriminately to
all believers. All who were baptized, either at he time of their baptism, or as
soon afterwards as an opportunity ffered, were favoured through the apostles
with “some spiritual ift. ” Hence the desire so earnestly expressed by St.
Paul', to be ith the Romans, in order to impart to them this their right and
rivilege.19 The members of the Roman Church had been baptized, ut
not by an apostle; and had as yet therefore no opportunity of
:s “ Being
filled with the Holy Ghost," mother's
womb, to denote, by the strong id the like. St. Luke seems to apply expression,
what is-elsewhere described ie phrase to cases wherein immediate by voice
cruing old, Prepare ye tiie
lerahce
was the result—to the overflow- way
of the Lord.”
igs, as it
were, of the Spirit. In like u' " I long to
see you, that I may im-
lanner
heathen writers use the expres- part
unto you some spiritual .gift, to the on, plenus deo. Accordingly, whilst in
end that ?e may be established.” (Rom. i.
le Acts it
is confined (as it would seem) 11.)
ATany other texts of Scripture may i the instances of the Holy Ghost’s
beadded,in confirmation of thi* view, e.g. sscent which v ere marked by the
sym- the same apostle, in Eph. i. 13, '4, speaks
)1 of
fiery tongues, and the gift of lan- generally
of believers, that they “ were
uages,
which it typified, in the Gospel, sealed
with that Holy Spirit of promise,
is applied
to Zacharias, whose inspira- which is
the earriest of o ir inheritance”
on was
manifested by an extempo- St. John's
words are still more appli-
meous and
dhinely suggested hymn, cable: “ Hereby
know we that we dwell
o too Johr. Baptist is said to have in him,
and he in us, because he hath ien filled with tl.e Holy Ghost from his given us
of his Spirit.”—1 John iv. 13.
Gifts
thereby conferred. I Cor. xii. 4-10.
Advantages
of thefr enumeration.
? Cor. i.
23, 24.
receiving
this seal of their baptism—tliis evidence, which it was thought good to grant
to every member of tho earl_v Church, to satisfy him that he was indeed a
portion of that edifice which was the temple of the Holy Ghost—that the descent
of the Spirit, the i natural, ordinary, and proper descent, was real, although
insensible. I So to the Israelites, the pillar of fire, and the flame of the
Shecliiuah, were long left visible even to all, until a belief in the Divine
presence amongst them had been not only proved as an object of faith, but
familiarized into an habitual impression.
Various
terms occur in the New Testament, expressive of the offices and powers with
which the Holy Spirit thus invested the members of the primitive Church. We
read of the word of wisdom, and the word of knowledge, of prophecy, discerning
of spirits, the utterance and the interpretation of languages, besides
teaching, faith, and several other names which served the temporary purpo.se of
marking a minute subdivision of ministerial qualifications, which it would be
impossible, as it is unnecessary, for us now to ascertain. To a certain extent,
however, this enumeration of gifts is not uneJifving to succeeding ages. In the
number of persons gifted, and still more, perhaps, in the distribution of
endowments, we are presented at least with a fact, which makes it morally
impossible that the inspired persons could either have imposed on themselves or
on others. When enthusiasm and fanaticism spread themselves, the symptoms are
uniform. That morbid sympathy, which is, as it were, the moral conductor of the
delusion, requires that it should bet so. One man’s pretension to “discern
spirits,” may act on the heated imagination of another, until that other
supposes that he too is endowed with the same faculty; but this would never
lead him to fancy himself learned in a foreign language. On considering the
manner, too, in which the various terms are used, together with their previous
and ordinary import, we are not a little guided in our view' of the economy of
the Christian society, during this interesting period of its incompleteness and
infancy, ami are enabled to distinguish the characteristic endowments of those
at least who held the highest rank. Some occasional use will accordingly be
made of this source of information. The word of wisdom, for instance, may be
fairly interpreted to mean, that insight into the true import ot Christ’s
ministry which it pertained to the apostles more especially to possess, and
which, as wras before observed, they were without, until they
received it of the Spirit. Such tin interpretation is fairi and reasonable;
because St. Paul speaks of it as “the hidden wisdom,” as if to intimate, that
it comprised things either not before revealed, or not so revealed os to be at
the time comprehended. One of these points, and the most remarkable, is called,
by the same apostle, “ the wisdom of God.” “ We preach Christ crucified, unto
the Jews a stumbling-block, but unto them which are called, Christ the power of
God, and the wisdom of God.” Again, then
can be
little doubt that “ the word of knowledge ” was an expression used to denote
sacred lore—knowledge of the scheme of past revelations recorded in Scripture,
their reference to Christianity, and, perhaps, their connexion and extension
through futurity, such as appears in the Revelations of St. John. This gift is
accordingly described, both as unlocking the Scriptures of the prophets,
wherein was “the mystery that was kept from ages, but was then made Rom. xvt.
manifest,” and also as that whereby the ancient prophets had fore- cohl^o. seen
this mystery.
Without
pursuing these remarks further, it may be sufficient to observe, that these two
gifts of wisdom and of knowledge seem to have been peculiar to the apostles,
and to have been distinguished, the former from teaching, the latter from
prophecy, on this very account; the apostles possessing so much clearer views
of Christ’s ministry and of the future state of the Church, as to entitle their
endowments to names distinct from teaching and prophecy.
The event
which suggested these remarks was the descent of the Descent on Holy Ghost on
the day of Pentecost, filling the apostles and their pente'co”/. company each
with his proper gifts. This then being the first, not only of the three
manifestations of the Spirit, but of all its manifestations as guide and
Comforter, the propriety of a visible and symbolical descent is easily
perceived. It has been already observed, that the office of apostle was
twofold: first, ho had an appointment from Christ as liis witness; secondly, he
was ordained by the Holy Ghost as minister of the word—expounder and preacher
of the word of wisdom and the word of knowledge. In his former capacity, he
bore testimony to facts, which he was qualified to do, whether he understood
the import of those facts or not. In his second office, he became also an
expounder of the true character of those facts. To qualify the apostles for the
former, it was requisite, for their own satisfaction, that they should be in
constant attendance on the Lord;20 for that of others, that they
should possess the power of working miracles. Both these qualifications,
therefore, they derived from our Lord himself. At his command they left all and
followed him while on earth, and before his departure received
Sthe power
of performing signs and wonders. Still, as the office of testifying was not to
begin until the new dispensation was opened by the Spirit, they were commanded
to wait for that event. So that the first descent of the Holy Ghost appears to
have been made in its most illustrious and striking form, first as a sign that
that great
_3
What pood end was probably at- soon.
With this object in view, when-
tained, by
qualifying them to be witnesses ever our
Lord was more than usually
of the
facts before they were even moder- explicit
with them or-with others, his
ately
acquainted with the doctrines de- disclosure
was accompanied with a
pending on
them ? The question may charge “ that they
should tell no man.” be partly answered, by considering how —JIatt. xvi. 20;
xvii. y; Mark viii. 30; important it was that the apostles should ix. 9. not
begin to preach Christianity too
period was
come, and next for the purpose of ordaining the apostles as the chief ministers
of the Spirit.
From this
period the apostles and their t’ellow-labourers appear in tlieir full course of
dutv. On a single address from Feter, three thousand were converted, baptized,
and gifted with the Holy Ghost, and thereby admitted to the constaut
instruction of the apostles, and the communion of the Church. These religious duties
were performed in private houses," and by them as Christians. Nevertheless,
as Jewish citizens,they continued to frequent the temple. Thus
such an
aa-cmUy to have l'epn lield sub
21 KitT*
oixov, as opposed to the temple service, of which mention is made immediately
after. _
The
expression, taken in connexion with the existing circumstances of the Church,
may however imply more, as the following considerations show. At this time the
believers were more in number than three thousand, and besides the regular
increase which was going on from day to day, about live thousand were shortly
after added at once. Now it is impossible that any one private house (and those
of the Christians must have been among the humblest) could have had an upper
room, or any place within its precincts, capable of containing so large a
number. And if any such house there were, still it is equally difficult to
understand how such a crowd of suspected persons should have been allowed, in
the irritable suite ot'the Jewish antiehristian spirit, to assemble thus
regularly for prayer and other Christian intercourse.^
Is it not
likely, or rather certain, that the Church almost from the first mu3t have been
divided into several congregations ? If so, each must have had one at least to
preside, and also some one place of worship.
This
supposition furnishes a key to many expressions of the New Testament, some of
which are of no very obvious import. St. Paul is said before his conversion to
have gone xa.ru rwe oixouf^ haling men and women to prison. Now, where was an
inquisitor so likely to go in search of Christians, as into their ordinary
places of meeting? and what would more naturally express these than the term
o'ixcve, the, houses, i.e. the houses of prayer ? St. Paul sends to the Corinthians
the salutation of Aquila and Priscilla, and of “the Churcn which is in their
house.” May it not here too be meant that theirs was a house so used, that it
served the purpose of a church, and was appropriated to a particular
congregation \ Similar expressions, suggesting the same interpretation, will
readily occur to the reader of the New Testament. _
But, now,
if this be so, what shall he said of the assembly of the whole Church, such as
took place at Jerusalem when the famous decree was issued I Supposing
dio, (for
no private room could have contained them,) still it is almost absurd to
suppose that their meeting would have been allowed to proceed without molestation;
and the more public we suppose such a meeting to be rendered, from the numbers
composing it, the greater the difficulty.
One
solution naturally presents itself. Why may not some one order in the Church
have been called the Church, x*f have
conducted the internal
atfairs of
the whole soeiety of which they were a part—ha\e represented it in its
intercourse with other Churches? Perhaps each presiding elder took the sense
of his own congregation, and then the matter in >question was
decided by a meeting of these elders and the apostles. The apostles themselves
might either have belonged to some one privileged congregation, such as the
original one hundred and twenty, or have Wen divided. The latter is the more
probable. Peter and John are said to have returned after their release from
prison tie re-* ti/cvs, and perhaps their preaching together may have arisen
from this very circumstance, that they were attacheu to the same congregation.
But again,
if the .assemblies of the
fmn.itive
Christians were held inseparaie louses, what shall we say of the descuit of the
Holy Spirit on the return of Peter and John from the .Sanhedrim I Was it a
partial favour, and not extended to tiie u hole Church ? This follows
necessarily, and is in itself not unlikely, A particular manifestation of
God’s> Spirit, in which the endowments conferred were of a
superior kind, was likely to be limited. Certainly, the term r*bs fo-ovs, which
is used to denote the congregation to which they returned, seems to imply a
particular class of Christians. Those who consider it to have been formed out
of the original one hundred and twenty, w ill see an obvious reason for the
privilege in the circumstance, that they were fellow-labourers with the
apostles and feliow-disciples of the Lord Jesus himself. At all events, it
would be nothing strange, that this sign should be given only to that
congregation to which those apostles were attached whose ministrv was the
occasion of it.
Peter and
John, when they wrought the celebrated miracle on the Acts Hi. i. man lame from
his birth, did it as they were entering the beautiful gate at the hour of
prayer. This and other instances, which will occur to the reader of the history
of the apostles, clearly show that, for a time, that is, as long as Jerusalem
and the Jewish polity remained, Jewish converts generally conformed to the ceremonials
of the law; not indeed as Christians, but agreeably to the spirit of
Christianity, which interfered not with national or other institutions, further
than they were incompatible with the Gospel faith and practice. The Jew
remained, as far as regarded conformity to the customs and habits of his
country, still a Jew, even after his conversion. The devout Gentile, likewise,
although received into the Christian society, was still not only permitted but
enjoined to retain hi, customs as proselyte of the gate, and as such to abstain
from Acts *V, so. things offered to iiols, and from blood. The converted
idolater, on the other hand, was left free to eat of meat offered to idols, and
to violate also the mere ceremonial parts of God’s superseded dispensation. To
have attached any spiritual grace to these ordinances would, indeed, in the
Jewish convert have been a sin, and was forbidden; to have sought a fuller
participation in the Jewish ceremonies and ritual communion, under an idea that
they could render “the comers thereunto perfect,” would have been Heb. x. i.
equally sinful in the converted proselyte of the gate; and the converted
idolater also, although free to eat of meat offered to idols, and. ;.n
short, to enjoy from the tirst the full “liberty” of the Gospel of Christ,
sinned, if there were so much of the taint of old superstition remaining on
his mind, as to make him feel, that while he eat and associated with the
revellers, an evil being was receiving his homage —or that while he was
indulging in any act, indifferent and innocent in itself, it was too strongly
associated in his mind with guilty meaning, to be indifferent and innocent to
him,. Regard to icor. viii.7 the feelings of weaker and more scrupulous
brethren might in some instances render more restraint requisite, but these
were the main clauses of the character of Christian liberty, as it stood before
the destruction of Jerusalem.
Second extraordinary Manifestation of the Holy Ghost.
11 The wonderful success of
Peter’s first address, and the effect of Peter heal, the miracle which had been
wrought by the hands of John r.ndthe!am<“ himself, soon aroused
the attention of" the Jewish rulers. The Act’s Hi. *nd cripple whose limbs
had been restored, clinging to the apostles, detained them as they were
proceeding to join the public service, nhile the people as they arrived for the
same purpose flocked round and formed ^ i crowd. The high priest and chief
police officer, hearing the disturbance, came out; and, assisted by the
Sadducees, seized the persons who appeared to them to be the cause of all the
umnlt an 1 interruption of the public worship. Peter was already H. G
far
advanced in a harangue, in which, as in the last, he was fulfilling his office
of witness, and inviting his countrymen to baptism n the name of Jesus, when
John and himself were arrested and imprisoned. Next morning they were brought
before the rulers and elders, who had assembled at Jerusalem for examination of
the culpr.ts. Ihe man whose lameness had been removed was in attendance, and
Ins evidence sccured them from the charge of imposture. But the influence
which their doctrine was gaining, was more alarming to the council than any cthu* which could have been laid to
their charge. Three thousand converts had been made by their first appeal: by
this second, notwithstanding the interruption, five thousand more were added:
and in the interval no day had passed without -lie Holy Spirit giving proof of
Divine power and care, in bringing those qualified into the Church. They were dismissed
therefore from the council, with repeated warnings, that if they continued to
preach “as witnesses of Jesus,” they did it at their peril. It was on their
Aet.hr 31. return to their partv, and bile all were engaged in prayer and
thanksgiving, that the symbol of the Spirits communication was recognised, ami
his second descent was manifested. .
An
extraordinary display on this occasion was obviously in unison with the rest of
that Divine Person’s ministry. Thus it fell on the tirs^ devour Gentile converts.
T1 us it fell also (as we have endeavoured to prove) at Antioch in Tisidia, on
the first idolaters who embraced Christianity. The first-fruits of the Jewish
conversion would naturally seem to require a corresponding blessing and
honouring
of the Spirit. .... \
MM upon Of
those on whom this descent of the Comforter (n.
Ki rnabas.
rro(jucej the most st-iking effects, Barnabas
was so conspicuous as
ir as to
derive his familiar name from the circumstance, {Mi
and to
deserve especial notice from the brief historian of the e'tnt Bevond the gifts
bestowed on the rest, perhaps, lie then rcceivwl the full endowments of an
apostle, and was thenceforth qualified for the occasion when he was called on
to act as one, m eMjwbj with St. Paul That his qualifications as a witness had
been already ascertained, was suggested as probable in the remarks on
Matthias’s election. In the present ...stance the a|r « that singular title to
him, “ the son of consolation - -the recorf too of certain little circumstances
in his history such as that Le was a Levite of a Cyprian family-all seem to
denote that bo thing had at this
time occurred, and was alluded to respect g . which was important in the
history of the CH*rch—something w distinguished him from the number of those
who no less than he, sold their possessions, and laid the money at the apostles
to . interpretation subjoined to the word Barnabas explain. , ■ serves
perhaps to point out, what is not elsewhere alluded to, the time and occasion
of his inspiration and appointment as an apostle.
Ananias akd Sappiiira.
. Among
those who, like Barnabas, converted their possessions Acts r. into money, and
placed the amount at the disposal of the apostles, appeared Ananias and his
wife Sapphira. They, however, are said to have “ Kept back part of the price,”
and thereby to have “lied to the Holy Ghost.” For which crime the Spirit of
God, as if to vindicate his authority as ruler in the new dispensation, smote
them publicly and separately with death.
As their
case involves two interesting questions, in the solution of which all are not
agreed, it may be as well to pause, and to consider the incident with
reference to both of these inquiries. The one is, the community of goods among
the primitive Christians; the other, the sin against the Holy Ghost. As the two
subjects are by this event accidentally thrown together, so by their concur
rente they seem to illustrate and explain each other.”
\fj.ny
commentators and ecclesiastical writers have represented ComnwnAy this
community of goods as implying a literal resignation of all private and
individual property,—each surrendering his all to the Frim l‘vl
public, .uid all receiving from the common stock what was requisite christism-
for their support. What end would have been gained by this, it is not easy to
understand ; and to meet the question concerning its inutility, and also its
impracticability, it has been conjectured,"that the custom was, from
certain peculiar circumstances, rendered necessary in the Church of Jerusalem,
but did not extend to other ( I'urches. But that such was not the custom, even
of the Church ut Jerusalem, may be proved from this very instance. For Peter
expressly reminds Ananias, that he had no temptation to commit this crime of
falsehood, inasmuch as he was not called on, merely as a member of the
Christian society, to sell his property, or, if sold to bestow any of it on the
Church. “ While it remained, was it not thine own ? ai'd after it was sold, was
it not in thine own power ? The Thirty-eighth Article of the Church of England,
it. opposition to the mischievous tenets of the early anabaptists, merely
disavows the obligation of Christians, as such, to surrender their property to
the Church, without adopting (as was indeed uncalled for) any explanation of
the primitive custom. The difficulty, however, under whkf the ordinary view of
it laboured, has rot escaped notice. _ Mosheim accordingly attempts to
prove,’that &t ■ •tike
s account implies . community of wse. and not of posies- rnn that the supply of
what was needed by the society and by individuate, was acknowledged by all as a
bounden duty, and unam- raously complied with!* But here, again, the case of
Ananias, of mrmibas, and of others similarly circumstanced proves, that from
whatever motive they contributed, they resigned not a part, but all
* Dissertationes ail Hist. Eceles. Pert.
Yol. II. p. II.
I'.xplained,
Mutt. xix,21* Mark x. 21; Luke xviit
s«.
Luke
xviii. 29, 30.
Ps. IxtIH.
II.
of their
property. Else, wherein the offence of’Ananias? The following suggestion, then,
mav perhaps be more satisfactory.
Nothing is
more certain than that the ministers of the word, including the apostles, were
maintained out of this public purse. If some, like St. Paul, relieved it by
daily labour, his own words prove that they were not required to do so. And why
were they thus maintained ? Because, no doubt, they had, in strict conformity
with our Lord’s words, forsaken lands, houses, and all their goods for his
sake, for his service. “ Sell all that thou hast, and follow me,' may perhaps
aptly describe the first qualification of one who was to have, for the most
part, no certain abode, and whose time and attention were necessarily to be
withdrawn from the pursuits of ga'n, and even from the ordinary cares for the
morrow. From the character, then, in which the original preachers of
Christianity present themselves to our notice, from the promise of our Lord to
those “ who should forsake lands, houses, <fcc. for his sake and the
Gospel,” and from the fact, that they til did receive support from the public
fund—from these circumstances taken together, does it not seem likely, that a
resignation of all individual ond separate property into the apostles’ hands,
was the first step taken by those who devoted themselves to the ministry ?— the
pledge, that they, having now forsaken all, were ready to follow the standard
of the Cross ? On this pledge, perhaps, then, they were put into office by the
apostles, tlieir other qualifications having been at the same time ascertained
by the power of discerning spirits.13
One remark
there is, certainly, in St. Luke’s account, which may be considered by some to
stand in the way of this suggestion. lie states, that on the second
manifestation of the Holy Ghost, “all who had lands and houses sold them, and
brought in the amount.” But, when we remember the prophetic exclamation of the
Psalmist, “The Lord spake, and great was the company of the preachers,” and
consider how many were required now for the dispersion of the faith, this, in
a, society of pcor men, cannot imply a very disproportionate number. Add to
this, that the statement of their bringing in their money to the apostles, by
no means implies that it was in all instances accepted, in the general
excitement, produced by two rapidly successive manifestations of the Holy Ghost
and of its gifts,
23 There is a passage in Eusebius’s his* Therapeutrt were Christians, (Lib. II. C.
tory,
(Lib. III. C. 137,) which certainly 17,)
lie argues in favour of their being so,
seems to
confirm tins suggestion. Ad- from the
existence of such a custom
verting to
the fact, that in the first days amongst
them, and, appealing to this
of
Christianity, a great portion of the very
passage of the Acts, asserts that it
converts
became themselves preachers was
practised in one period of the Church,
and
ministers of the word, he expressly That
the custom should require this kind
mentions,
as a preparatory step, the resig- of
notice by the historian, at the close of
nation of
their property for die relief of the
third century, proves, however, that
the poor,
rr,* r&>rr,(nn> IIPQTfPQN i<rs*- it
was soon abandoned. The temptation
«ra.(otxb.iv<r(v,
Uikiet nfxovrtf reif to employ
spiritual talents for worldly
EnEITA AE
xwedri'UtKf CTt\x<>,u.‘voi advantage,
might have created anexpe-
i<rtr&ovv
tuotyyiXitrrur. Again in diepcy and
need for the rule, which
discussing
the question, whether the would only last
during the inspired age.
Chap. II-7
ANANIAS
AND SAPPHIRA.
S5
all may
have rushed eagerly to claim employment in a service so evidently Divine, and
so gloriously sanctioned by God. All who had property would naturally have
thrown it up, as a pledge that they were ready to be employed, leaving the
apostles and the Iloly Spirit who guided them to decide whether the offer of
themselves would be accepted.
So
considering the matter, the crime of Ananias and Sapphira sin against assumes a
very peculiar character. They sought to obtain the office ohmi!* of ministry,
and the spiritual gifts and privileges attached to it, under a false pretence.
The pledge which they gave, in offering, as their all, only a portion of their
property, to the apostles,—the agents of God the Holy Ghost,—was a bold test
applied to the omniscience of God in his present government of the Church, a
practical lie unto the God of truth. Theirs was not a negative but a positive
offence against the Holy Spirit; not, like other sins, an act of disobedience,
but one of aggression; and as such perhaps falling under that denomination, of
which Christ had said, that they should not be forgiven, “neither in this
world, neither in the world iiatt xii.31 to come.” Their awful sentence might
have been twofold in its ^jrl. iH effects, the one
temporal, the other eternal; the one for the crime ; of treason, in attempting
to corrupt the pure constitution of the ' ' Church, the other for the sin of
blasphemy against the omniscient God
That
besides this consecration of the whole of the ministers' property to the
service of the Church, frequent and large contributions were made by others,
cannot be doubted. Mosheim’s inter pretation, therefore, as applicable to the
great body of Christians, is undoubtedly true, that with them it was a
community of use, not of possession. Besides the ministers, the poor were
supplied from this fund; and especial mention is made of “the widows,” if
indeed these were not rather an order of ministers than part of the poor.
More
p’-operly, perhaps, they belonged to both classes. As deaconesses were early
required in the Church, it seems most natural,
■hat those
females who, from their poverty and widowhood, were deriving support from the
Church, should be employed in this capacity, according to the apostle’s
precept, “If any work not, JThcss. iii. neither should he eat.” The name of
deaconesses might not have i0‘ iieen given them for some time after
they exercised the duties belonging to that order, for they are called widows
before the term deacon even appears in the Acts. Wherein their service
consisted, may be sufficiently understood from the office of deacons, which
will 'je next considered. It may be enough to observe, that their order was
requisite in the first promulgation of Christianity; because the frequent
intercourse between male catechists and the young female catechumens might have
brought a scandal on the Church. In the East, where, the strict separation
between male and female society 'vas then as now proverbial, this measure was
quite indispensable
Acta Ti.
3.
John xiv.
12.
Discontent
respecting the Grecian Widows.
(»Her of
L>e»cons,
Act* vi.
5.
Appointment of tiie Seven Beacons.
The
terrible display of the Holy Spirit’s power, in the death of Ananias and
Sapphira, was succeeded by many illustrious mirarles, performed through the
apostle I’cter. In frequency, and perhaps in their extraordinary character,
they equalled our Lord's; agreeably to his promise, “ lie that believeth oil
me, the works that 1 do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he
do.” On the line of ditference between them, some remarks have been already
made and a reason suggested, why, during this first period of the Holy Spirit’s
dispensation, this apostle's ministry was so proni'nent. Tins latter point, as
one of some importance, will be again adverted to.
The effect
of all this was what might be expected. The number of converts daily increased,
and the spirit of persecution was exasperated. The apostles were again
imprisoned, scourged, and threatened with heavier vengeance. But God released
them by his angels; and, in proportion to their need, his Spirit emboldened and
guided them, and “his strength was made perfect in weakness.” But the storm was
now only gathering.
Jleannhile
within the Church itself were displayed some, slight symptoms of discontent,
which deserve to be noticed particularly, on account of the measure to which
they gave rise. The complaint is called “ a murmuring of the Grecians (or
foreign Jews) against the Hebrews, for native Jews,) bceause their widows were
neglected in the daily ministration.” Who these widows probably were has
already been suggested; and t’ the suggestion, that they were deaconesses, be
admitted, the grounds of the complaint may be readily suimised. As the greater
share of duty would at this time devolve on the Hebrew widows or deaconesses,
they might have been paid more, liberally, as their services seemed to require,
and hence the discontent.
This, it
is true, supposes that the order of deacons and deaconesses already existed,
and may seem at first to contradict the staiement of St. Luke, that in
consequence of this murmuring deacons were appointed. It does not however
really contradict it; for evidently some diupcrtsers there must have been, and
if so, either the apostles must have officiated as deacons, or special deacons
there must have been, by whatever name they went. That the apostles did not
officiate, is plain from the tenor of the narrative, which indicates that the
appeal was made to them, and that they excused themselves from presiding
personally at the ••ministration, ' (as was probably desired by the
discontented party.) alleging that it «as incompatible with their proper
duties. “ It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and sene
tables.” This very assertion, then, is proof certain that they did not
officiate. Again, on reading over the names of the sev< u deacons, we lind
them all of the Grecian or Hellenistic party. Stephen, Philip, l’rochorus,
Nicanor, Trnion,
Parmenas,
and Nicolas, the last of whom is expressly described as a proselyte of Antioch
Now this surely would have produced a murmuring' of the Hebrews against the
Grecians, uuless they had already some in office interested in looking after
their rights. With these presumptions in favour of a previous appointment of
deacons, it would seem, then, that these seven were added to the former number
because of the complaint.24
Ail that
is thus far intimated of their office is, that they were employed in the daily
distribution of the alras and the stipends due from the public fund. Whether,
even at the first, then- duties were limited to this department of service,a
may be reasonably doubted.
Of this
portion of their duties we are now informed, obviously, because to the
unsatisfactory mode in which this had been hitherto performed it was owing,
that the new appointment took place, and that, the subject was noticed at all.
It is, however, by no means improbable, that the young men who carried out the
dead bodies of Ananias and Sapphira, and who are described as “ready’ in
attendance, were of the same order; in other words, deacons by office, if not
by name.* What may serve to confirm this view of it is, the opposition between
what would seem to have been their original title, and another order in the
Church. They are called “juniors” and “young men,” epot and j>eo«»/»••;,)
terms so stronglv opposed to presbyters or elders, as to ;neline one
at the
9 first
glance to consider them as expressive of the two orders of the ministry, the
seniors and the juniors, the TpmSvripoi 5ixurai and the viuTtpat Iicikov'ji ; the two orders, in
short, which at length received the fixed and perpetual titles of presbyters
and deacons.27
Accordingly,
there is no just ground for supposing, that when the same term deacon occurs in
the Epistles of St. Paul, a different i Tin; order of men is intended; first,
because an office may preserve its li'13' original name
long after the duties originally attached to it have been I ^.changed; and,
secondly, because whatever duties may have been added to the office of deacons,
it is certain that the duty of attending to the poor was for several centuries
attached to it. Even after the deacons ceased to hold the office of treasurers,
and the bishops began to receive the revenues of their respective sees, the
distribu tion of that portion which was allotted to charity still passed
through
24 Vitringa
de Synagoga Vetere, Lib.
Tit. p.
ii. C. 5; or p. 188 of the excellent English compendium of that work, by the
Rev. J. L. Bernard.
25 Aiecxovt*.
26 ft should be observed that, in the
Scripture narrative, “the seven” are not called Deacons.
27 It may be objected, indeed, that although
the terms might have been different at different periods, yet the writer would
have adopted one onlyf
because
that one would now have been expressive of the class as it existed at all
times. But the case is not necessarily so. There might have been some distinction
coincident with the change ot names, which occasioned him to adopt ihe one to a
certain period of his history, and the other subsequently. So he has applied
the name of Saul to the great (xentile apostle in the early part of die Acts,
and afterwards as invariably that of Paul, although no one can doubt the
identity of the person, '
Acta Vi 8;
viii 5,
Mode of appointment.
Acia tL 2.
the hands
of the deacons-. lienee, in a still later period, the title of cardinal deacon;
and hence, too, the appropriation of the term diaconi(B to those Churches
wherein alms used to be collected aiid distributed to the poor.30
Not that
it is possible to point out, with any tiling like precision, the course of duty
which belonged to the primitive deacons. Tlict it corresponded entirely with
that of our present order of deacons, is very unlikely, whatever analogy bo
allowed from their relative situation in the Church. As the Church, during the
greater part of the first century, was a shifting and progressive institution,
their duties probably underwent continual change and modification. If v e were
to be guided, for instance, by tlie office in which we find the “young men”
(«*wV*o/) engaged when the dead bodies of Ananias and Sapphira were removed, we
should say that they performed the business, which, in the present day, would
devolve on the inferior attendants of our churches. If, again, we were to judge
of their character from the occasion on which we find them acting as stewards
of the Church fund, a higher station would be doubtless assigned to them ; but
still, one not more nearly connected with the ministry of the word, nor
approaching more to the sphere of duty which belongs to our deacons. On the
other hand, the instances of Stephen and Philip prove, that the title was
applied to those who were engaged in the higher departments of the ministrv,
although not in the highest.
After all,
it is most likely tliat the word deacon was originally applied, as its
etymology suggests, to all the ministers of the Gospel establishment.2-
But the apostles having from the first a specific title, it more properly
denoted any minister inferior to them,—any, however employed in the scrrice of
the Church. Between these, also, there soon obtained a distinction. If we
suppose, then, that the seniors, or superior class, were distinguished by the
ob\ious title of elder deacons, (TpsaSvTipci S/«U*»w,) the generic and
unappropriated term “ deacon ” would devolve on the remaining class. And thus
the present order in the Church, to which that name is applied, may be truly
asserted to be deacons in the apostolical and primitive sense of the word; and
yet, nevertheless, much may be said about deacons, both in the New Testament
and in the writings of the early fathers, which will not apply to them.
The mode
in which the present appointment was made must not pass unnoticed. The apostles
are said to have called to them "the multitude of the disciples; to have
specified the qualifications fur
SxJjud.
\nfon. Murat >ri A"ti.]uitates sion
are represented a* «pealiinff of their
Italiraj
Medii .,E\i, Tuir III. p. 671. okn ottiee under the title ot a
'teaoonship,
.Also Dll
Canute, iij (ilossur. LaMn. Medii vuut It ry xat
tx AI AhoMA. res
iEvi: aa
v. iJiaconia, Diacijnites, I)hi~ So also St. Paul coitus. Moslieir 'i Comm. De
Keb. i'hiist. writes to the Corinthians, 1 Ep. \ii. 4,
ante
Const, p. 121. 5: Aiaiptrus xccl>,a'fJ*LTOi>>
kvt*
rnviut
xa.1 hxipiras AIAKONlilN, tlri9
Thus the
apostles on this very oeea- *<** '» KCptos.
the office;
and to have ordained them, when elected and presented for that purpose, by
prayer and the laying on of hands. The assembly is described as vested with
the power of election, the apostles with the office of ordaining.
But of
whom, it may be asked, was this general assembly composed? Was it made up of
all the disciples who chose to attend and vote; or of certain, whose privilege
or duty it was to represent the whole body ? The literal import of the Greek
favours the former supposition ; the circumstances of the case itself, the
latter; and this so greatly as to render it by far the most probable. In the
first place, that there should be either a place found, or permission granted,
in Jerusalem, for eight or ten thousand suspected persons to assemble, and
unmolested to discuss the very questions which rendered them obnoxious, is very
improbable. Equally improbable is it, that so mixed a multitude should be able,
under any circumstances, to transact business such as this; except, indeed, by
means of some miraculous interference, of which there is no intimation. Some
other meaning then must be sought for in this expression, “the multitude of the
disciples;” and why should it not mean the full assembly of the disciples
appointed for forming suck assemblies ? Such a phrase would not be more harsh
and unnatural than when we speak of “the Commons of Great Britain in Parliament
assembled, ” applying, in the latter as in the former case, to the representative
body, the term which properly belongs to the body represented.30
^ 93
St. Luke,in describing the assembly correspond, it may throw some light on in
which Matthias was elected, employs, both to place these points of coincidence
apparently as an equivalent phrase, I in a scheme side by side. The difference
tov iJLotdviTMv. As this is not the only between these will be found to arise
out coincidence of expression in the two of the circumstance before noticed,
viz. passages, and as the forms and proceed- the absence of inspired wisdom
from the mgs described likewise very strikingly one, and its presence in the
other.
I. II.
Election
of Matthias. Election of the Seven
Deacons.
1. ’Avec.a-’roti TLlrsos sv
ruv fzxGxr'Zv. 1.
H^enrxKXiffizfj.ivot Zl oi to jrAijfW
rm //.ccBvitSv.
2. Efy- *5iX<£e/. ^ 2. ET<roV‘ - "-ASeXfla/.
>
3. Au r«v trvvi\6avro>y XfMtv
etvfyiap st. *r. X. 3. ’E'riirxi-J/cco-dt
oth a.v$%cte vf.iSy fitMPTvga. ecvectTTKirtBiis ccvTOtj, yivi<rSa,t ffbv (lovfj-ivovi x. t* X. t>£$ zetTatr* Xjj.1v
>ta tootmv. rxtri'UO art rxg
xf&tctt retvrr.g.
4. K«< is"rt,tru.v 3vo. 4 Kai &£sXe£«>»r0—tug \cTvictt.'t
ruv
ctrroffToKuM.
5. Hpoa'tvZalu.tvoi. 5. H^oa-tv^icuetoi,
i fi.
"ESaixocv x\rp*vf eiyruv x. r. X. xati <rvy- 6. 'ExsOxxccv otvroTr rag tuv e>3s»*.
In the
proceedings of the two assem- empty form.
What in other ordinations
blies, the
only material difference is in was
effected by the laying on of the
the last
point. In Matthias’s case no apostles’hands,
in Matthias’s was effected
laying on
of hands is mentioned, because by the
descent of the Spirit on the day of
the Holy
Ghost not having then been Pentecost; with
a view to which it is
given, (or
we should perhaps rather say, likely that
his election was made to take
the gift
of conferring the Holy Ghost.) place
before that event. Again, in the
this sign,
whereby it was afterwards election of
deaeons only a single office
communicated,
would have been a mere was conferred,
and that they held from
General
Assembly.
Acts vii.
Acts i. 8*
Acts vill.
1,
Acts ▼iii. 9
In the
narrative of their proceedings, then, what niore natural than that these should
be called “the disciples,” in opposition to the apostles, who were likewise
present The term multitude (•zAtidi,) may then be understood, either as
indicating that the meeting was a full one, or, what is certainly more in accordance
with the general analogy of the original language, it may be used for “the
great body of the disciples,” by the same obvious figure of speech which we
employ when we call the representatives of the commonalty of England “ tl.e
Commons.”
Effects of Stephen’s Marttrdom.
It was,
obviously, an important feature in the Divine scheme, that the sceptre should
depart from Judah soon after the coming of the Messiah. Had the Jews continued
to possess the right of inflicting capital punishment, an effectual cheek must
immediately have been given to the progress of the Gospel. Even as it was, the
disciples hod to dread every th:ng which calumny, intrigue, and
tumultuary violence, could etfeet. Imprisonments, stripes, and menaces, had
proved of no avail. The populace thirsted fur blood, and Stephen was the first
victim.
His death
as preparatory to the preaching of the Gospel beyond Jerusalem and Judsea. In
exact conformity with the words of the Son of God to his apostles, “ Ye shail
he witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judsea, and in Samaria, and
to the. utter most part of the earth.’1 his Ilolv Spirit directed
the course uf that light which he was dispensing. To cscape further acts of
outrage, al‘ the disciples once more forsook Jerusalem and tied. But the dispersion
was not as on the day of the crucifixion. They were no longer comfortless, no
longer dispirited, no longer at a loss what to do, or what to expect. As in the
former dispersion, the apostles, and it may be some few besides, remained m Jerusalem,
whilst the Holy Spirit guided the flight of the others through “all Jud»a tnd
Samaria.’’ Philip,—he whose name appears second in the list of the seven
deacons,—no less than Stepnen. justified the wisdom of his appointment.
Samaria being already prepared for the Gospel, gladly heard the word from him.
Here the far-famed Simon, who was endeavouring, as it would seem, to impose on
his countrymen under the pretended character of the Messiah, if not converted,
was defeated in his scheme of imposture. Philip, however, could only preach and
baptize. The privilege of recen ing some extraordinary gift of the Spirit, as a
pledge
God the
Iloty Gliost. or his arent*. who rai
l appear* first to havp received his as such laid their hands on llitm. But and
apostltship, hi* appoint-
i"
lihp flection ot Matthias, his first i
ent us trilfiMB trom the Lora Jtsus
uppointn.pl.t
preceded thp dispensation Christ at
.li ri salern, and tin n, atter a
cl thp
Spirit. 1 .ike the other apostles, considpiabie
interval, the imposition ot'
hf Wii4
ordained a witness I V tlie L<rU hands,
as a servant of ihe Church and a
ltimself,
iiid his ordina on by the S1 irit minister
ot Llie Spirit, waa a fcubstyuent proeeduie. Thus, St.
Chap. II.]
EFFECTS OF STEPHEN’S MARTYRDOM.
91
to the young
anil inexperienced Church that that unseen Spirit had indeed taken up its abode
with them and withm them, could only be conferred by an apostle. Philip's
baptism, no doubt, conveyed all the beneficial effects of Christian baptism ;
and the Iloly Ghost was as reallv and fully communicated thereby, as if it had
been performed by an apostle. The descent and operation of the Holy Ghost was
then, as now, unseen, unfelt,—the object of faith only. But while this doctrine
was yet strange and new, some assurance of it was requisite, in order to induce
each believer to be satisfied that the Comforter was present to him,—that these
effects, though impalpable, were real. For the purpose of granting this sign of
assurance, then, to the Samaritan converts, Peter and John were sent to them
from Jerusalem. The form, as has been already noticed, consisted in the laying
on of hands, and in prayer, and must have corresponded to our present ceremony
of Confirmation, which, doubtless, arose out of it. As the apostles were gradually
removed from the earth, those on whom their perpetual ministry devolved, might
have continued this temporary custom, from a view of its expediency for other
purposes beyond its original and specific one; and thus Confirmation may have
rightly and reasonably retained a place among the ceremonies of the Church for
ever, although the sign of Confirmation, to which it owes its name has been
long withdrawn,
The fact,
that the apostles only could impart the extraordinary rimr gifts of the Holy
Spirit, may serve to guide us in an inquiry, which ordina has never perhaps
been satisfactorily concluded, as to the precise *itts time when
those gifts ceased. For, if the above assertion be true, they must, of course,
have ceased with the generation which was contemporary with the last of the
apostles. If St. John then eon ■ lined to the close
of his life, to exercise his apostolical power of imparting the Holy Ghost, his
life being prolonged to the end of the first century, some workers of miracles
may have been found as late as the middle of the second century, but we cannot
account (on scriptural grounds) for the existence of any beyond that period.
That the
Holy Ghost may after this have interposed, and empowered its agents to perform
miracles, cannot certainly be denied, any more than wre can now pretend to
affirm, that the same power will never again be granted. It wouid seem, too,
from the writings of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Cyprian, that they were
familiar with the exercise of such a power in the Church. Gregory, Bishop of
Neoc;esarsea, who lived as late as the third century, received the title of
Thaumaturgus from his miracles, or pretended miracles. And, if we may credit
Theodoret and Sozomen, there were instances of well attested miracles later than
his. The earliest positive testimony to their cessation, perhaps, is to be
found in the writings of Chrysostom. In his Sermons, for instance, on the
Piesurrection, and in that on the Pentecost; in both of which he attempts to
remove any scruples which the fact might have
occasioned,
by suggesting the reason why miraculous power should have been withdrawn from
the Church.13
This is a
species of evidence which outweighs anymore direct assertion to the contrary.
When we read accordingly in Augustin, and other writers, that at the very
period when Chrysostom was thus w riting and preaching, miracles were commonly
wrought at the tombs of the saints, such testimony only tends to make us look
back with suspicion and distrust on the accounts given of those of an earlier
date, and to attribute a similar inaccuracy and rash credulity to Kuffinus,
Theodoret, Sozomen, and others, which is proved against Augustin and many of
his contemporaries.
Indeed,
even during the latter part of the apostolical era, instances cannot bo
supposed to have been common, when we consider the true character and probable
intent for which such a power was lodged for a time with the Church, and put to
ourselves the questions, Why was such extraordinary assistance granted for a
season, and then withdrawn, not at once, but gradually ? Why were the apostles
themselves, who certainly possessed the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, in a
degree, beyond that which they could impart to others, restrained in the
exercise of them, so as to employ them, not at their own discretion, but as the
Spirit moved them i
Philip's
labours in Samaria having been superseded by the arrival Acts thi 20. of the
two apostles, he was sent by tiie Holy Spirit to meet an Ethiopian eunuch in
his return from Jerusalem to his home, and to baptize him. Who this person
was, and whether he was afterwards employed amongst his own people by the
blessed Spirit, and for that purpose converted and baptized thus early by an
especial mission, are points left untouched. It may be observed, however, that
he was by religion a Jew, a proselyte of righteousness, and not merely a
proselyte of the gate; for to this latter description of persons the Church was
not yet thrown open. That he was so, appears both Acts viii.2s. from his being
found by Philip busied with a passage in the Jewish Scriptures, and also from
the very remarkable circumstances which Acts x, afterward* attended the
conversion and baptism of Cornelius.
CONTERSIOX
OF SACL.
Acts tx.
The holy Comforter rendered the murder of Stephen subservient in another way to
the furtherance of his great work. He who out of the stones of Jerusalem could
have raised up children unto Abraham, ehoso to form the noblest champion of his
cause on earth out of one of its most strenuous and bitter persecutors.32
Con-
S1 Chrysost.
Op. (e<l. Front. Ducasi is a matter
of arbitrary election. But to
Rani
1621.) Vol. V. pp. 521.553. what was
St. Paul “ separated ” and
32 He states, in his Lpistle to the Gala- “ called \ ” Clearly not to eternal life,
tians,
that “ God separated him from his but
to a particular station of duty, which, mother’s womb, and called him by his
while it awakened in him the most anxious grace;” on which, and other the like
sense of extraordinary responsibility, left
expressions,
has been founded the doc- him still
to work out hia salvation with
trine that
the salvation of every individual fear and
trembling, lest, as he tells us,
spicuous
in the sceno of lawless violence to which we have been alluding, was Saul of
Tarsus. Subsequently he was zealously oeeupied in searching out, and finding
grounds for imprisonment against, those Christians who still lurked in
Jerusalem. Having exhausted his misguided zeal there, he departed for Damascus
with a sort of inquisitorial commission from the high priest. It was on his
journey thither, that his miraculous conversion took Actsix, a place. Although
the details of that signal event must he familiar a.d. 35. to all, and although
the subject has been often thoroughly and ably diseussed, still the following
notices may to many he not unacceptable.
The point
which is perhaps the most likely to be overlooked is, Two that this first
revelation was totally distinct in its object from that JiVen to0"*
which Saul afterwards received at Jerusalem.33 All intended by s*ul-
the first was, to convert him to Christianity; by the second he was conm«J«L
appointed an apostle. That he immediately began to propagate a.d. 14 the faith
which he once destroyed, is no proof to the contrary. For this was the
privilege, if not the duty, of all Christians: as it had been before supposed
to be of all Jews. Besides, although not yet appointed a witness, he was at his
baptism “ filled with the Holy- Ghost,” and thereby ordained a minister of the
Spirit. Certain it is, that although, after his conversion, he began forthwith
to preach, and preached first at Damascus, then, perhaps, in Arabia,54
and then again at Damascus, even so as to endanger his life; yet on his going
ultimately to Jerusalem, he needed the introduction and assurance of Barnabas,
to remove from the apostles their suspicion of him. Possessing as they did the
gift of discerning spirits, this could hardly have happened if St. Paul were
then an apostle.
This will
be more apparent from a slight consideration of the narrative of his
conversion. IIs was struck blind by the glorious light which shone round about
him, and he heard and answered a Divine voice, but it does not appear that he
then saio the Lord.
The
contrary indeed is implied. Now his appointment to the 2i On hia apostlcship is
described by hitn, as taking place in a visible interview with the Lord,—with
God manifest in the flesh, in the person of Apw*u. Jesus Christ. Again, Ananias
wras sent to him; for what purpose ?
Not,
surely, to appoint him an apostle: Ananias w'as not himself an apostle, and
could not therefore, as wre suppose, confer any extraordinary gifts
of the Spirit, much less the greatest of those gifts. He was sent to restore
his sight, and to baptize him. This is, clearly, all that Ananias was commissioned
to do, twid all he is represented as doing. He laid his hands on Saul, and Saul
recovered
“when he
had preached to others, he he went
immediately from Damascus to
should
himself be a castaway1 Cor. Jerusalem,
yet by comparing the passage
ix. 27. with his own account in the Galatians,
it
83 a.d. 44,
or, according to some, 38. is certain
that he went first into Arabia,
See the
reasons for assigning the former returned
to Damascus, then, after an
date in
note, page 103. interval of three
years, proceeded to
34 Although
from the narrative of the Jerusalem.—See
Acts ix. compared with
Acts,
taken alone, it would appear that Galatians
i.
his sight.
lie baptized him, and the Holy Ghost descended on him.
That the
descent was marked by the peculiar symbol of the Comforter, and consequently
conferred on him gifts of the highest order, hap been before pointed out, as an
inference fairly to he drawn from the sacred records of his ministry. Ananias's
declaration alone may he taken as strong presumption of the fact. “ The Lord
hath sent me that thou n.avest receive thy sight," and “if filial with (he
Holy Ghaut.” It is in itself, we say, a strong presumption of the fact, because
(independently of the consideration that lie did possess extraordinary gifts) the
latter expression does not ever seem to have been extended to a communication
of the Spirit by the imposition 01 hands. St. Luke, to whose writings it is
peculiar, uses it from the first only on those occasions when the immediate
agency of God is his subject, e.g. the appointment of John the Baptist, and the
baptism and manifestation of Christ. Obsening this same phrase in his account
also of the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, his sparing use
of it subsequently, and the very reinaik- able occasions on which it does
occur, the conclusion is inevitable.
PREACHING
TO JEWS AND DEVOUT GENTILES.
From A
,i>. 41—45.
Conversion of Cornelius.
Hitherto
the messengers of Christ and of the Holy Spirit had An, been sent only to the
Jews, to “the lost sheep of the house of Matt, x 6; Israel,” or to those to
whom they had communicated their privileges x>' and hopes.
Hitherto all who had been baptized were, either by birth or proselytism.
members of that society which God had set apart as “his own,” had elected,
sanctified, taught, and governed.
Meanwhile
the Divine Dispenser was preparing, by a buld and unexpected innovation, to
extend his sphere of operation. Among the 'insanctified and unclean, of those
who belonged not to the Mosaic covenant, and held no interest in its promises,
a portion was now to be invited on equal terms into the kingdom of the Messiah.
Saul hud
been converted, and was engaged in a course of duty which might train him for
still hardier efforts in his peculiar and more important commission. By his
removal from the persecuting faction at Jerusalem, too, “ the churches
throughout all Juda>a and Acts ix 3i. Galileo and Samaria” were left
unmolested. Ali was ripe, then, for the counsel of God to take effect.
In one
sense this change was not unexpected. It had been too The often and too plainly
intimated by our Lord, for his apostles, at “th”™” least, to have misunderstood
him. In those remarkable parables, «*>!«» h»d especially, of the great
supper, and of the labourers in the vineyard, predicted the very circumstance
of the gradual admission of the Gentiles is ^ 16. unfolded.
Nevertheless, they were far from comprehending the Matt xi. i. ’ exact import
of these hints and declarations, ar.d seem in this instance, as on the subject
of Christ's death, to have received them in bumble faith, expecting still that
some unforeseen method would be devised, to reconcile the truth of their
Master’s assertions with their own preconceived views. Few points in the
general character of the apostles is more worthy of attention than this
uncertainty, this vague surmise, with which they received so many important
objects of faith, It is thoroughly in keeping, not as e feature of
Early
Ijrouiinence
of t>t. Peter Jn the Apostolic History.
Reasons
fcr this.
Judaism merely,
l>ut of human nature; and explains to us why our Lord so often repeated his
admonition to them to believe. Belief under such circumstances formed their
chief triul during his aliode 011 earth. It was the trial under which Judas
sank, Peter wavered, and all forsook him and fled. Ill fares it with the
Christian, w hen he attempts to force the doctrine of his Master into an
unnatural accordance with prejudices however sanctified.
So it was,
then, that nothing less than an express and particular revelation, corroborated
by a tram of circumstances equally extraordinary, was found requisite to
induce the apostle chosen for this new ministry to engage in an enterprise so
strange and revolting to the whole church. Doubtless, he (and so also t’le
Jews) conceived that God regarded with some difference of favour those
"devout Gentiles” who, having forsaken idolatry, worshipped him in spirit
and iu truth; but that this favour should be so far extended, as to make them
fellow-heirs with the Israelites of the promises of tho Messiah’s reign,
promises which they had ever considered as peculiar and unalienable, this was
as vet quite incomprehensible.
Up to this
period in the history of the infant church, we may observe that Peter occupies
the chicf, almost the whole attention of the sacred historian. Whatever of an
extraordinary nature is to be done, whatever implies a more immediate
intercourse with the Iloly Spirit, is committed to Peter, either alone, or as
the principal agent.
It is he
who first rouses the drooping brethren to exertion. It is he whose inspired
preaching on the uay of Pentecost works conviction I iu three thousand souls.
It is he who passes the sentence of the Holy Ghost on Ananias and Sapphira; if
is he whose prayer is made effectual for the lame, the palsied, and the
dead—whose shadow is deemed holy, and whose very garments eonvcy virtue in
their touch. It i3 Peter who is prominent, and first in every gift . and
endowment of the Spirit, and in none more than in that “ boldness” or “
freedom of speech ”3“ before the people of the Sanhedrim, which was
an especial and 1 igh characteristic of an apostle.30
One cannot
help perceiving in all this, and in the attention which (j the sacred writer
has directed to it, that some object must have been intended by the Holy Spirit
in thus selecting /or a time one apostle j for repeated communications,
instructions, and powers, and also in leaving a record of this preference,
whilst the contemporary labours of the others are scarcely noticed. Peter was evidently
going.i through a course of discipline and preparation for this peculiar and
trying office. It « as—or we should rather say it might have been — necessary
thus tc accustom him to the frequent instructions of the Spirit, in order that
he might be so familiar with the heavenly vision, as to entertain no momentary
doubt as to its reality, however much the import of its message should astonish
and confound him.
s. gee Acta i. 15; ii. 14; v. 15,1C, 2s);
ix. 34, 3G; iv. 13.
“Rise and
go with them, nothing doubting, because I have sent thee;” L the voice with
which thou art familiar. For the better assurance of the church, that the
apostle had not been deluded, it might have been requisite that they should be
accustomed to regard Lim as the chief agent of the Spirit, and the great worker
ox miracles. With their strong disposition to revolt against the unexpected
turn which the new dispensation was taking, it might have been nccessarv that
he who was the agent in so unpopular a work, shuuld, bj this course of eminent
ministry, and especially by acting as the mainspring in the regulation of such
affairs as were left to their uninspired decision, acquire an authority and
weight of official character, which might of itself repress or soften down the
spirit of murmuring. That all this might have been requisite, the event proves.
For although it was Peter who converted the first Gentile convert; although he
pleaded in his defence an express revelation; although that revelation had
received a counterpart in a vision to the devout Gentile, who was to be the
first-fruits of his order; although the Holy Spirit had, as it were, reproved
his backwardness, by descending before baptism on the destined converts:
stili, on this subject, there long lurked in the bosoms of the. elder member®
of the church a stubborn and implacable feeling. This ill-suppressed jealousy
at length showed itself in the disputes at Syrian Antioch, g«i mi. concerning the conformity of
these converts to the Jewish law, and subsequently so far prevailed over the
firmness of their own apostle, as to subject him to the well-known rebuke of
St. Paul.
Soma few
circumstances attending this opening of the Gospel com-
inission
to the devout Gentiles will be now considered. At the same
■me, in
confirmation of the remarks which have just been made on
he
preparatory discipline of Peter for this work, it may be observed,
hat with
the conversion of Cornelius, all that exclusive or peculiar
•egard to
him in the narrative of the Acts ceases.37 Henceforward it
,ie is not
represented as taking a more prominent part in the apostolic teaselWd3
ministry
than others. The object of his having been made to do
;o was
accomplished, and with the same view the remainder, and
)y far the
greater portion, of the Acts is occupied with St. Paul.
n his
ministry was henceforth developed the mystery of godliness, And is
o trace
the progressive stages of which is the main object of St.
-uke’s
history. Merely judging from the result of their collective linistry, we know
that the other apostles and ministers of the 'jiirit must have been actively
engaged, each in his own course of uty; but St. Paul’s line was the main road
in the course of uristianity, into which St. Peter’s gradually widened, and to
jicli therefore the brief historian of the Holy Spirit’s progressive
1'"‘
His imprisonment is indeed subse- sinn
on all partis. Herod imprisoned
ientl\
recorded in full detail, bat only, him,
and designed to tJke away his life,
would
seem, in order the more fully to because
he saw that it was pleasing to
ustrate
the effect of his new comm is- the
Jeivs.—Acts xii. 3.
II H
the Devout
Gentiles to bt. Peter.
dispensation
naturally and judiciously contined tlic residue of his narrative.
Revelation
I have remarked that St. Peter, at the time he was sent to the sdraiiticw uf
devout Gentiles, had no more intimation than the great body of the Church, that
tho Gospel was ever to be preached to the idolatrous Gentiles also. It may be
observed, that Cornelius is particularly described as a devout Gentile, “ who
feared God with all his house.” The representation under which he was announced
to Peter, is that of “ a righteous man, and one who feared God, and could
appeal for his character to the whole nation of the Jews.”38 Peter,
knowing all this, and having communicated personally with the good centurion,
>et prefaces his address to those assembled in his house by saying, that he
bad hitherto considered such as he shut out frum communion with God’s people;
but that God having declared39 the contrary, by telling him to call
no man common or unclean, he had come to them without scruple. This shows that
he understood his revelation as intended only to remove tho barrier between the
Jew and the proselyte of the gate, or mere believer in Jehovah. That he
certaiidy considered the extension as proceeding no further, may be made more
clear from the words which he exultingly uttered on the descent of the Holy
Ghost upon Cornelius and his household —words spoken in the rapture of the
moment, arid therefore the more likely to convey the liveliest impression which
his mind had conceived of the liberality and unreservedness of the Spirit’s
dispensation. “ Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons;
but in every nation he that feareth him and- vxyrketh righteousness is accepted
by him.” This unquestionably limits his view to those uf the Gentiles who had
already renounced idolatry—in short, the devout Gentiles. It explains, also, in
what sense he had understood the Divine, communication made to him. that “ what
God had cleansed, it was not for him to call common;” namely, that, in every
nation he who already feared God, and worked righteousness, and he only, had
been cleansed and accepted by God. With the same sentiment, the Church of
Jerusalem received his statement of what had taken place, “ glorifying God and
saying, Then hath God also granted even to the Gentiles repentance unto life.’
In this sense, then, it will be necessary to consider the admission of the
Gentiles to be spoken of, until the period when it shall appear that the Church
beeame acquainted ■with the design of the Holy Spirit to
offer baptism to the idolatrous Gentiles also.
33 MafTv£oCf&tvof irro ckov lOvove and
circumstances y c.q. that
he was j
'louioiiui.
39 * ES«|«.
Is there not some probability that Cornelius, and the centurion, whose sick
servant Jesus healed, were one and the same 1 Several points in the brief
description of the latter coincide very closely with Cornelius’* character
and
circumstances j e.g. that he was anxiously careful ot his household, and was
held in very high estimation by the Jews. Otherwise, too, it seems strange*
that nothing further should have been noticed of one so promising, as to
receive the Saviour’s praise, ** I have not found so great faith, no, not in
Israel.”—Matt, viii. 10.
Another
remark was, that on this occasion, as 011 one of the vitibie greatest moment,
the Holy Ghost manifested his descent by the {J,e ilo,j°f same
visible signs as on the day of Pentecost. To this conclusion Ghost, we are led
by remarking, first, in the narrative of the event, “ that the Holy Ghcst fdl
on them,” and was “poured ovt on them;” expressions which could only properly
apply to the above-mendoned extraordinary descent of the Holy Ghost. Again, as
on the day of Pentecost, it was followed by aa involuntary display of the gift
of tongues, that gift which was especially denoted by the visible symbol of “
tongues of fire.” By this, no doubt, God gave now the same proof to the Jewish
Christians, that the devout Gentiles were called, as he had before given to the
unbelieving Jews, in favour of their converted brethren. And accordingly those
believers of the circumcision who had come with Peter, were amazed at the
gifts of the Holy Ghost having been poured out even on the Gentiles; for they
heard them “ speaking in divers tongues, and magnifying God.”
Lastly,
St. Peter’s words are decisive of the fact, that the mode of the Spirit’s
descent was the same as on the day of Pentecost; “ The Acts 15. Holy Ghost,”
said he, “fell on them as on us at the beginning, putting no difference between
them and us.”
It was
further observed, as a solitary instance on record, that the Holy Ghost
descended on the candidates for baptism before the ceremony was performed. This
strongly confirms the view already taken of the extraordinary manifestations of
the Spirit. They were for confirmation of its real but uiiseen and perpetual
descent, and residence in the heart of every member of the Church in every age.
Baptism,
which was to be our perpetual rite of admission to this privilege, was not
superseded by the miraculous signs ; those signs were only hailed as a sanction
for baptism, inasmuch as they proved that even the Gentiles were admissible to
the mysterious and insensible influence of the Spirit through it. The signs
were the appropriate mirades of God manifested by the Spirit; as healing the
sick, cleansing the lepers, ■n alking on the sea,
raising the dead, and the like, wore the miraculous evidence of God manifested
in the fiesli. When the apostles healed the sick and raised the dead, they did
it by virtue of their appointment by Christ as his witnesses; but when they
exercised the gifts of “ tongues,” of “ wisdom,” <fcc. or imparted any
divine powers to others, they did so by virtue of their appointment by the
Spirit. The one class of miraculous evidence exactly corresponds to the other.
Nor is this correspondence diminished by the circumstance, that these gifts
were also the means whereby the Holy Spirit taught and spread Christianity, but
is rather increased thereby; for a like purpose did even the testimonial
miracles wrought by our Saviour serve, as has been ilready, it is presumed,
sufficiently proved and illustrated.
Foundation or the
Ciiurcii of Antioch.
Acts xL
22. This second period of the Holy Spirit’s dispensation does not require that
we should pause long on any of the transactions which it embraces. Whilst the
conversion of Corix lius was taking place, and indeed after l’eter had made the
Church acquainted with the new enactment of the Spirit respecting the devout
Gentiles, those Christians who were scattered abroad still continued to call
and to baptize only Jews. At length, certain converts of Cyprus and Cyrene
having, doubtless, beard of Peter’s revelation, boldly followed his example, and
obeyed the command of their Divine Guide, in attempting the conversion of the
Gentiles also. Going to Antioch xctsxi.i&- of Syria, they there commenced
their labours; “and the hand of *'■ the Lord was with them, and a great
multitude believed and turned
First
Gentile unto the Lord.” On tidings of this being brought to the Church at
Jerusalem, they took the matter into their own hands, and gave directions for
the formation of the first Gentile Church. The commission v\as intrusted to
Barnabas, although, from the sacred narrative, it does not appear under what
precise character he went. Little more is specified, than that he exhorted them
to perseverance on his arrival, and, (as a reason probably fur his
appointment,) that he was “ a good man, full of faith and of the Holy Ghost.”
This description might merely imply, that being more highly and fully endowed
with the gifts of the Holy Ghost, than the above-mentioned Cyprian and Cyrenian
preachers, he was better fitted for the work of conversion. But when we also
read that the hand of the Lord was already with these, and that the work
prospered greatly under their management, this could hardly be the reason. What
seems more likely is, that they had no presbyter among them, and that therefore
their Church establishment was incomplete without one. Barnabas then might have
been sent to them in that capacity. But rnbabij as a more probable reason still
suggests itself. Is there not some bn A^ostli ground to suppose that he v,ent
in the character of an apostle? In this ease this higher office might
supersede, and for a time render unnecessary, the inferior ono of presbyter.
What gives some show Acts xW. 14. of plausibility to this is, that we know
Barnabas had the tide of apostle. If appointed as such, and in the same manner
as the others, that appointment, as was before suggested, must have taken place
at a period preceding this. Now we know that when Samaria was first converted,
although he who instructed and baptized there was no less a person than Philip
the deacon, yet the Chureh at Acts-viii. 14. Jerusalem sent thither two
apostles. The reason for sending these.
has been
explained. It was because none but apostles could confer the extraordinary
gifts of the Spirit, and these gifts or some of them were probably granted to
all members of the infant Church. The instance of St. Paul regretting that he
had not been able to visit the Roman converts for this purpose, was noticed in
illustration
Church
founded by Barnabas.
A.D. 40.
of the
truth of this statement. On so important a conversion, then, as this at
Antioch, we are naturally led to expect the same procedure on the part of the
Church of Jerusalem, as was observed in the conversion of Samaria.
Finding it
recorded that, as on that occasion, an official embassy was appointed to
Antioch, we naturally expect that he whom they sent {dmmtka.il) should be an
apostle, and that he should be sent for a similar purpose as Peter and John had
been to Samaria. In Barnabas accordingly we find much which renders it by no
means improbable that he was one, especially if viewed in connexion with the
presumption arising out of that embassy. To all that has been already
suggested, in accordance with this view, it may be added, that, for no reason
assigned, Barnabas’s name always precedes Paul’s, although the latter was
equally proved to be “full of the Holy Ghost,” until by inflicting blindness on
the sorcerer Elymas he displayed his evidence, that he was not only a minister
of the Spirit, but one bearing a commission also from the Lord Jesus,—in short,
an apostle.'10 Does not this then seem to intimate, that up to that
period Barnabas was treated as Paul’s superior ? Afterwards, we may observe,
the order is not reversed, but sometimes the one name, sometimes the other,
takes precedence. Doubtless, Paul’s is thenceforward more frequently placed
first; but this, if it affect the argument at all, only renders the
circumstance noticed more remarkable.
Supposing
Barnabas to have been an apostle, a reason obviously suggests itself, why, in
preference to the others, lie should be’chosen for this mission. “ A Levite and
of the country of Cyprus,” is the Actsiv. 35. character under which he is first
introduced to our notice. Belonging then to the numerous settlement of Jews in
that island, he was naturally fixed on as the most proper apostle for converts
who had received their first instruction and baptism from his fellow-countrv-
men, perhaps from his friends or acquaintance.41
40 Acts
xjii. S. He is however called the
reader of the_ New Testament in the
a prophet
in verse 1, perhaps because he original
Greek will perceive, that of the
is there
described as exercising the office two
rival readings given in Acts xi. 20,
of
prophet, which was no doubt compre- "Eaa^ve? has been adopted in
preference
I bended in the apostolic commission, to 'Exxwirot/. Waiving so much of the
Eusebius (Lib. I. C. 12) suggests, that question
as depends on the balance of others besides the twelve must have been authority between the manuscripts, the called
apostles during our Lord’s abode circumstances
of the record, and the con- on earth. His conjecture is founded on text itself plainly determine the former St.
Paul’s account of the Resurrection, to
be genuine. For the opposition exin the fifteenth chapter of his first Epistle pressed by the particles, /llsv and 3e. indi- to the
Corinthians. _ It must be confessed, cate
that the Cyprians and Cyrenians however, that his interpretation of the were not doing what the dispersed were passage
is a forced one ; and the notion doing,
namely, preaching to the Jews is besides inconsistent with the indifferent alone; but that they, on the contrary,
\ise which
is constantly made by the were
preaching, to whom? Not h
Evangelists
of the terms “ the apostles ” 'EXA^y^rrots,
for they were Jews, and to
and “ the
twelve.” It is moreover ex- them by the
dispersed the Gospel had
mressly
contradicted by St. Luke’s asser- been
preached as in the case of Philip,
tion, (vi.
13,) “ He chose twelve, whom but
Tele —to the Gentiles,
he named
apostles.” namely, the devout Gentiles.
I he : a
In this
view of the Church of Antioch, Among the circumstances which con-
Acta xiii xxil. 17.
A.D. 42.
St. 1’aul’s Revelation and Appointment.
2:
To die establishment of the Church of Antiooh, the first society which admitted
the Gentiles as brethren and members of one Christian body, we may reasonably
attribute the second burst of malignant feeling in the Jewish unbelievers
towards their believing brethren. At their instance, Herod put to death James
the brother uf John; and his imprisonment of Peter, with the intent to execute
him also, is said to haw- taken place, because he observed that the former
“pleased the Jews.” Peter, indeed, would at this time be naturally the chief
object of their vengeance, and could have escaped from the fate which they had
prepared for him only by the interposition of God’s angel. On his deliverance
from prison ho left Jerusalem, as it is probable all the other apostles had
already done. St. Paul, at least, when he undertakes to show the impossibility
of his having received his instruction from the other apostles, instead of what
he asserted to be the case, from Christ himself, and for this purpose
enumerates his several visits43 to Jerusalem, makes no
firm this,
it would be wrong to pass over the notice, that at Antioch the disciples were
first called Christians. Why such a record should be left by the inspired
historian—why the name should appear just there, and should have been wanted
and coined just then, are questions which will be naturally answered bjr
reference to the event which had lately and only now taken place. That it was
not given to the members of Christ's Church by themselves, is clear from the
sacred narrative, in which they are still called, not Christians, but “ believers,5
* “disciples,” “brethren.” Neither could it have originated with the
unbelieving Jews; for they denied that Jesus was the Christ, and would never,
therefore, have called his followers by a name which implied that he was. We
cannot doubt, therefore, that it was the name bestowed on our Lord’s disciples
by the Gentile or Heathen world; and that the occasion of it was that which is
intimated by the sacred record—the extension of the Gospel to all men. As long
as the disciples of Christ were converts from Jews, and from those who had
previously adopted, in part, the religious faith of the Jews, they were
regarded by the heathen world at large as only a sect of the Jews. But when the
new creed began to be adopted by the idolatrous heathen, who had no previous
connexion with the Jews, a new word was required to designate a body of men who
were neither Jews nor heathen, and the word Christian, derived from the title
which, as applied to Jesus, was the main point at issue between the Jews and
his disciples, was iust the word which was most natural ana obvious.
It may be
regarded, by the way, as a
proof that
the New Testament histories were not the production of an age much later than
the facte they record, that in them the members of the Church are not called Christians;
bat are designated by the terms which that word gradually superseded.
An
argument similar to this has been suggested for the early date of the four
Gospels, from the fact that our Lord is called in them Jesus, and Christ in the
Epistles, as of later date.—See “ Dobbin’s Antiquity of the Gospels.” i
43 St. Paul,
after his conversion, appears to have visited Jerusalem five times.
I. After his return from Arabia to Damascus,
at which time he was introduced to Peter and James by Barnabas. —See Acts ix.
26, 28, and Gal. i. 18.
II. When he and Barnabas were sent from Antioch
with the contribution. No apostle was then at Jerusalem, but the management of
affairs was left to the elders. It was during this visit that he
probably received his revelation in the temple, as mentioned in 2 Cor.
xii.—This visit is omitted in his Epistle to the Galatians.—See Acts xi. 30. ^
III. On his return from his first apostolical
journev, when he went with Barnabas to consult the Church of Jerusalem,
concerning the obligation of the Mosaic law on the Gentile Christians. It was
during this visit that he communicated “his Gospel” privately to Peter, and
James, and John.—See Aets xv. and Gal. ii.
IV. When, in fulfilment of a vow made at
Cenchrsea, he went from Ephesus, aud returned after a very short stay.— Acts
xviii. 18, 22. 4
V. Tins was at the close of his third
apostolical journey, when he went up to
mention of
this, which the course of his argument required, htid there been at that time
any one apostle at Jerusalem.43
Trifling
as the circumstance is, it becomes important when connected with the evidence
of Paul’s immediate and apostolic revelation How it happened that he should go
to Jerusalem at that particular juncture will he readily recollected. Soon
after Tiamabas had been sent to preside over the Church of Antioch, he went to
Tarsus, and brought back with him Saul as his coadjutor. Tradition reports,
that they were educated together under Gamaliel; which, if true, accounts for
the friendly office which he had previously performed in introducing him to
Peter and James ;** as well as for his now choosing him to he his associate. At
the very commencement of their joint labours, the disturbances to which we
have been adverting occurred at Jerusalem. Among those who, together with the
apostles, withdrew from the scene of danger, were very probably the prophets,
who then made their appearance at Antioch, and gave notice of a famine which
was to take place throughout Tudxa. It was for the purpose of conveying to
Jerusalem a contribution, which was in .consequence raised and sent as a
provision against the season of distress, that Barnabas and liis companion went
thither. They went accordingly, not commissioned to the apostles •—nor to the
apostles and brethren—but only to the presbyters. Acts xi. 30. The apostles
were absent, and the presbyters, or those who represented the disciples at
large, were all who composed the assembly.
During
this visit then of Saul to Jerusalem, he received that Revelation revelation
which was hitherto wanting to complete in him the char- to ' au'
acter of an apostle.45 Falling into a trance in the temple, he was
permitted, like the other apostles, to be an “eye-witness of the 2Cor.x;\.
resurrection,” to see his Lord and his God manifested in the flesh; and, like
the rest, to receive from Jesus himself the appointment of witness, and the
powers attached to it.4S All that portion of the
keep the
feast of Pentecost, and to declare that
after that first visit he was still
openly to
all the Church “his Gospel,” or unknown by
face to the Churches of
his
mission to the idolatrous Gentiles. Judsea.
See the
first and second chapters of 45 ’iSsJV
rbv uxevtrou Quvyv ix
his
Epistle to the Galatians. His state- rov
<rTOf^»T6( "Ot# fyjj §rv* «ur*T
ment there
is, that he could have had no sravr** m
iu>{u,xas xu) yxov-
opportunitp
of being instructed by the «**?•
apostles,
because on his first visit to Jeru- 46
The period when this took place is
salera he
only saw two of them, and that not
distinctly marked in the New Testa-
for
fifteen days, and no more; and, when ment;
and it is generally referred to the
again he
was' fourteen years afterwards first
visit to Jerusalem. But direct testi-
in their
company, he was employed, not mony being
wanting, it is surely more
in
receiving, but communicating his reve- natural
to assign it to the visit which
lafcion to
them. The account in the Acts immediately
preceded his formal appoint-
agrees
with this, but then, between these ment by
the Church at Antioch, and his
two
visits, occurs the one in question; entrance
on the course of duty, with a
and, if he
had found any apostles at view to which
the revelation was made.
Jerusalem,
his argument was of course This, too, is
more agreeable to the train
open to
the objection—how do we know of
argument which he adopts in his
that the
borrowed information may not Kpistle to
the Galatians, and to which
then have
been received ? allusion has already
been made. If he
Only to
these, by his own account, professed
to have received his Gospel
(aee Gal.
L) and accordingly he asserts, during the
fifteen days of his first visit
Acts xiL
25.
apostolical
character, which it was the office of the Iloly Ghost to confer, had been
previously bestowed on him. He hail now all the endowments of an apostle, and,
thus qualified, he returned with Barnabas to Antioeli, ready to enter upon the
work with which the third period of the Holy Spirit’s dispensation commences.
John (better known by the name of Mark) accompanied thorn.
to Jerusalem,
it 'nieht have been sup- posable, at least by his objectors, that it came from
Peter and John,S.nd not, as tie asserts, from Jesus Christ; but, in the absence
of all the apostles from the scene, even this slight ground for suspicion was
removed.
It is
somewhat surprising-, by the wav, that any doubt on the subject of Paul’s
apostleship should have existed, consid
ering that
an apostle was known by so unequivocal a mark as the possession of superior
miraculous power. On this, accordingly, he ultimately rests his claims, and
prevails over the jealous attempts of his rivals and enemies.—It is surprising,
but it is, after all, quite consistent with the waywardness of man’s heart.
PREACHING
TO JEWS, DEVOUT GENTILES, AND IDOLATERS.
St. Paul’s
fibst Apostolical Jocbkey. a.d. 43—52.
ROUTE.
Antioch in
Syria; Selencia; Salami-; i’aphos; Perga in Pamphylia; Antioch in Acts xiii. to
Pisidia; Iconium; Lystra; Derbe; Lystra again; Iconium again; Pisidia again;
xv. 30.
Perga
again; AttcJia; Antioeh 'n Syria, (second time;) Phoenicia; Samaria; Jerusalem;
Antioch in Sjria, (third time.)
The return
of Paul and Barnabas to Antioch was followed by Acts xi 2<i. their formal
mission to the idolatrous Gentiles. And here we cannot but observe how
carefully the Holy Spirit lias declared, in iis dealings with the early Church,
that from the first its operations, as guide and governor, were twofold; that
it exercised an occasional and extraordinary authority, by means of visions,
and sundry forms of revelation, inspiration, and endowment; and also a
permanent authority, unaccompanied by extraordinary signs, by means of the
Church as a body, which Church was and is its Temple. Thus the intercourse of
the Holy Spirit with Christians, as a society, v.-at> not unlike
his intercourse with them as individuals. Of the Church He required certain
forms, such as the laying on of hands and prayer; and to these attached his
ordinary operations. These were indispensable to its authority, whatever
manifestations of the Spirit were made independently of them. Notwithstanding,
then, that Barna- separation has and Saul had been appointed to the conversion
of the Gentiles by an especial communication of the Holy Ghost, it was
necessary, their offices we find, that some further grace should be
imparted,—soma further bytheSplnt- sanction given to them, which
couiu only be conveyed, according to the system of the Spirit’s dispensation,
through certain forms and ceremonies of the Church. Without these forms the
Church hjul Acts i* is; no power to confer, and the individuals were
incapable of receiving, xm" 2‘ a portion of the
spiritual endowment.
The mode
in which grace was conferred on individuals, was analogous to that in which
authority was given to the Church. It mattered not what extraordinary gifts
were bestowed; as Christians,
The Holy
Ghost
conveyed
under
particular
forms.
Acts xill
3, 4.
Acts xiii
2.
—as
redeemed, they were obliged to be formally baptized. The, extraordinary gifts
of the Spirit descended on them as agents and instruments, employed for the general
welfare; the ordinary gifts, as objects of regeneration and redemption, and
for their individual welfare. Many individuals are conspicuous for both kinds
of endowment ; and so it was with the Church itself. There was an ordinary
grace or authority in it, which it exercised by means of stated forms, and
independently of all extraordinary manifestations: and ever as occasion
required, that same Phine Person, who dwelt in it, and from whom the authority
proceeded, gave some, extraordinary display of his government. In both cases
what was occasional has passed away ; what was regular and continual still
remains.
In making
these assertions, however, we must be prepared to meet two questions.
The tirst
is, IIow do we know, that there was in the early Church a secret and regular
operation of the Holy Ghost exercised in these outward forms ?
Seeondly,
How do we know, that it did not cease with the extraordinary operation ?
The case
now offering itself for consideration, namely, the appointment of Barnabas and
Saul, is one of several which furnish to every candid mind a sufficient reply
to the tirst question. The bare circumstance, that the forms of fasting, laying
on of hands, and prayer, were observed even with persons “ full of the Holy
Ghost,” and already called to be apostles of the Lord, is a strong ground of
presumption that such was the case. But the terms of the narrative render it
yet stronger: “Then having fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them,
dismissed them; they then, having been sent forth by the Holy Spirit,” d'c.
In the original, the connexion between the two sentences is perhaps more
forcibly marked by t»», than by the English illative conjunction “then.’’
Without reference, however, to grammatical nicety, no one can read the
sentences, and attend to the train of thought running through them, and through
the whole passage to which they belong, without acknowledging that their being
sent forth by the Holy Ghost referred to the ceremony of prayer, <te. Nor
does it aifect the argument, that the Holy Ghost had specially directed the
Church to ordain these men. For, that this was only a revelation of God’s will
and special interference, and not an investiture of power delegated to the
Church, is manifest,—inasmuch as the investiture of power had already taken
place, and the words of the I)ivine message contain a reference to it as already
in force, and are, indeed, an acknowledgment and proof that it was so. “ The
Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have
called them.”
The next
question was, Supposing this ordinary and indispensable operation of the Spirit
to have been exercised in the primitive Church, how do we certainly know that
it did not cease with that
Ciiat. IV.] ST. PAUL'S FIRST APOSTOLICAL JOURNEY.'
107
whicli was
extraordinary ? I? the latter was given as a sign of the reality of the former,
the sign being removed, what proof have we now that the thing attested exists ?
To this
also there is an adequate reply; and it depends on the Ana still truth of this
proposition, “ If we are assured that God has appointed to
any
outward forms as the means of Divine grace or Divine authority, conveyed, we
are bound to believe that they will continue effectual, until God has annulled
the appointment.” If instead of the ceremony of baptism, e.g. it had pleased
Him to appoint a pool like that of Bethesda, which at certain seasons should be
troubled by his angel; and to ordain, that all who had diseases should go to
that pool on these occasions to bathe for their recovery: we should be bound to
rely on the efficacy of the pool, until God should make known that his decree
had been annulled. In the case of the pool, this would require no positive sign
; because, the effects being sensible, when the waters ceased to heal, its
failure would be of itself proof that God had ceased to impart a virtue to it.
On the same principle, no formal, no positive sign or revelation was necessary,
to infurm the Church that the extraordinary operation of the Spirit and the
power of working miracles were withdrawn. The failure of its ministers in their
attempts to work miracles, was itself the sign that God had annulled the
temporary grant. But as the ordinary operations of the Spirit were always
unseen and unfelt, the only indication of their failure and cessation would be
a positive revelation. Until such is given, we are obliged to believe in them
as a duty, and have as much reason to do so, as to suppose that to-morrow the
sun will be the means of conveying light and warmth.
But to
return to Barnabas, Saul, and their assistant, Mark, Route of whom we left
preparing for their journey. Their course was through Cyprus tirst, (probably
on account of the connexion of Acts iiii. i Barnabas witli that island,) thence
across to the continent, and through the countries of Pamphylia, Pisidia, and
Lycaonia. On their arrival in Pamphylia, Mark must have become more alive to
Mi»rkqui:s the risk of the enterprise; for, although thus far their reception them'
had been gracious, he forsook the apostles and returned. His place Actsxiii.
13. seems to have been supplied by Titus, although it is not expressly so
stated. Adverting to what has been already observed of the office of deacons,
it is not unlikely that Mark had accompanied the apostles in that capacity, and
that on his refusal to proceed, some one would be wanted to act as deacor. in
the performance of the Christian Church service, wherever there might be an
opportunity.
That Titus
was accordingly sent for—possibly from Antioch—is inferred from his being found
in their company at the end of the Gal. K. 1. journey.
The mode
in which the mission was conducted was, as the reader Their may recollect, to
preach first to the Jews and proselyted Gentiles, prtShln0/ and then
to the idolaters. Notwithstanding this marked precedence Actsxiii 4H.
and
preference, all their persecutions arose from the former. From the Gentiles
(when the Jews did not prepossess their minds against them) all they had to
fear as yet, was a misapprehension of their object,—lest their miracles might
make them appear to the malti- Actmlt. 11. tudo as “gods come down to them in
tho shape of men.”
Another
point to be observed in their proceedings is, that they Acts xiv. 23. ordained
presbyters in every Chureh on their return. So brief a ministry could hardly
have qualified any of tho new converts for the office, unless some ‘miraculous
interposition of the Spirit had Acts xi. 96. taken place, such as was supposed
to have occurred at Antioch in Pisitlia—the first scene of idolatrous
conversion.
Acts xv. Decree
of tiie Council of Jerusalem.
a.d. 52.
Before St. Paul renewed his labours among the idolatrous Gentiles, he was
commissioned by the Chureh of Syrian Antioch to Acts xv. i,2. proceed with
Barnabas to Jerusalem, for the purpose of taking the sense of the Church there
respecting a question which was now warmly eamassed at Antioch. Peter’s
mission, as was observed, received indeed the sanction of Judaizing Christians;
but their old prejudices were still so strong, as to make them expect that
these new associates, to whom the apostles had opened the gate of Christianity,
should first pass through that of Judaism. They accordingly insisted on the
Gentile converts at Antioch being circumcised, and made to conform to all the
Jewish law. Jerusalem being still the residence of the apostles, and therefore the
chief seat of Chureh authority, to Jerusalem was the decision of the question
referred.
That the
decree of the Christian body there only related to the devout Gentile
Christians, is certain ; because none but these had as yet been admitted into
the Church of Antioch. What confirms tliis is, that tho decree was obviously
framed with reference to their condition as such.
Debate in
St. Peter spoke first in the assembly which had been called for LssemWj.
discussing the question, and declared his opinion to be, that on the Gentile
party the Church ought not to impose a burthen of ceremonies which neither the
Jewish party nor their fathers could bear. St. James supported him in his view
of the question, and proposed the words of the decree, in a manner which shows
that he fully coincided with St. Peter, and did not think that he was placing
any yoke on the neck of tho Gentile converts which they had not. borne ■ctsxv 19,
before their conversion. “ Wherefore
my opinion is, not to introduce any thing which may disturb and confound those
Gentiles who turn to God;41 but to command them to abstain from
meats offered to
47 This is
certainjy the force of mind of a
convert taught Judaism and
The word
ivoxXu* expresses that cod- Christianity
together, as two distinct lusion of thought which would almost systems. He was
in danger of consider-
uertaiuly
have been produced in the ing them both
necessary and both coex-
idols, and
from fornication, and from things strangled, and from
blood,”—that
is, to command them to observe just so much and no
more of
the Jewish law as they had observed before Christianity
was
preached to them. To this they would hardly object, (as the
apostle
probably means to say,) because in every part of the world,
the devout
Gentiles readily consented to keep these few observances
of the
Jewish law, however unwilling to burthen themselves further,
and to
become proselytes of righteousness. “For Moses of old Acts xv. *i.
time hath
in every city them that preach him, being read in the
synagogues
every sabbath-day.”
When,
therefore, Paul is afterwards represented as distributing Quaiifica- this
sentence or opinion of the Council of Jerusalem to the several D«CTe&thl*
Churches through which he passed in his second journey, it cannot be supposed
that he intended to recommend it as a rule binding on the converts from
idolatry also. This, indeed, would be wholly irreconcileable with his own
repeated declarations to them in his Epistles,48 and is not implied
by any statement in St. Luke’s narrative. It may be even doubted whether St.
Paul’s preaching to the idolatrous Gentiles, was at that time known generally
to the Churches of Jud:ea, or to that particular Council of Jerusalem. It is
said, indeed, that the conversion of the Gentiles was proclaimed by Paul and
Barnabas as they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria in their journey to
Jerusalem, and that they even reported to the Church there, “all things that
God had done with them."*3 But *c«j> 4. still the
whole account, considered as a whole, looks very much as if they were
understood by all—by all, at least, cxcept the apostles —to speak of the devout
Gentiles. That there was a good reason why St. Faul should not yet venture to
give publicity to his mission, nobody will question, who considers the
rancorous persecution which assailed him, when the Jewish Christians, (for the
first time, as it seems,) became acquainted with it. Possibly for this very
reason the appointment took place at Antioch, and not at Jerusalem. His own
account of this transaction, too, as given in his Epistle to the
istent,
rather than successive portions of mediately
derived from the Jews. Some,
the same
religion. doubtless, were immediately
drawn from
Even as it
was, such was doubtless the Gentile
practices; but not all which
impression
made on the minds of many, correspond with
heathen rites,
for the
first century, and |onger% That &
Inter al* Rom.xiv. 14: “ I know and
Terttillian,
e.g. considered it in this light am
persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that
is more
than probable.—See Apol. sect. 9. there is
nothing unclean in itself.” 1
This
non-interference with established Cor.
x. 25: “ Whatsoever is sold in the
usages
beyond what w'as absolutely shambles,
that eat, asking no questions
necessary,
was, it is to be observed, in for
conscience sake.” Rom.xiv. 17: “The
exact
conformity with the method by kingdom of
God is not meat and drink.”
which the
Jewish religion had been Col. ii. 16: “
Let no man judge you in
established.
The Jews had been allowed meat or in
drink.” 1 Tim.iv.4: “ Every
to retain
many Egyptian rites, as War- creature of
God is good, and nothing to burton points out in his fourth book of be refused,
if it be received with thanks-
the Divine
Legation; and hence, the giving.”
error of
assigning a heathen origin to 49
This and the like expressions may be
several of
the corruptions of the Christian noticed
in reference to the distinction
Church,
which, although manifestly (re- pointed
out between the miracles of
sembling
heathen ceremonies, were ini- J esus
and those of his apostles.
Galatians,
is, that lie told the secret prhately, and only to l’eter, Gal ii. 2 .Tames,
and John, “ lest by any means he should run, or had run, in vain.” The
narrative of the last visit which he paid to Jerusalem tends to produce the
same impression. lie is represented as explaining his ministry to the Church,
in terms which strongly indicate that the whole Church then for the first time
understood the nature of it. On this occasion it is particularly recorded, that
Acts xxi. is. all the jyrcsbyters were present. Ilia Gospel is then more
pointedly '..its ixi. is. declared to be one appropriated to him, the details
of it are given one by one, \x.a.S' h txairro*,) and the assembly glorify God,
as for some new and marvellous act. Then, too, it is for the first time thought
necessary to warn him of the danger to which his mission was likely to expose
him from the Jewish party; and it is then, indeed, that he first incurs any
risk amongst his countrymen at Jerusalem; although the same reason had long
been operating to render him an object of deadly hatred to Jews and Judaizing
Christians out of Palestine.
And how
did the persecution commence ? Not with the Jews residing at Jerusalem; but
after he had been almost seven days in the temple, without incurring any
suspicion from them, “ the Jews which were of Asia,’’ (and who doubtless
recognised him as the person they had often seen preaching to the idolaters,
and wbof perhaps, had before this assaulted him,) when they saw him in the Acts
xjci. it, temple, stirred up ull the people, and laid hands on him, “ crying
out, Men of Israel, help; this is the man that teacheth all men every where
against the people, and the law, and this place,” <fcc. Objection One
powerful objection, it must be confessed, bears upon this answered,
supposition. If it be correct, the most important aet of the blessed Spirit’s
dispensation, and the most remarkable, must have remained a secret from the
Church of Jerusalem (the apostles being excepted) for fifteen years. Whether
our famil-arity with the ordinary modes of communication in modern days, may
not cause us unduly to magnify the objection, espeeirlly as the want of such
modes must have been peculiarly felt in the intercourse between the members of
a poor and suspected sect on domestic affairs, the reader is left to consider.
However, be it allowed or not, it must be admitted that this would not be a
solitary instance of a strange ignorance in one part of the Christian society
of its proceedings elsewhere. What, for instance, could have been a more
interesting subject of report than the conversion of St. Paul ? And yet,
although this took place almost on the borders of Judtea, it is clear that the
apostles themselves could not have known it for certain, when after an interval
of several years he visited Jerusalem; else it would not Acts ix. 27. have been
necessary for Barnabas to assure them of it, before they received him to their
confidence and fellowship. The ignorance of Art* .tviii. those disciples of
Jolm Baptist, whom St. Paul met with in Asia ' ui&x,*. Minor, whether there
was any Holy Ghost, is another similar case.
But,
whatever was the information of the Church of Jerusalem respecting the
admission- of idolatrous converts to Christianity, the decree of the council
could not, for the reasons assigned, have been intended to apply to them also.
The proselytes of the gate—the devout Gentiles—wero enjoined to observe the
rules enumerated, on the principle, that Christianity did not interfere with
any civil or social institution, but left the members of all societies bound,
as before, by their social or civil obligations. On this principle it was,
doubtless, that St. Paul circumcised Timothy, and not Titus; Acts. xvi. 3; and,
on the same principle, the Church was not inconsistent in "•3-
observing the first day of the week, as appears from Acts xx. 7, and also the
seventh day of the week, a3 appears from Acts xiii.
14, 42,
and xvi. 13. These observances they retained as partial adherents of the Jewish
society; and accordingly, when Jerusalem was destroyed, its rites overthrown,
and the nation, as a nation, annihilated, they, as wall as the Jewish
Christians themselves, considered themselves released from the obligation.
Some superstitious observance of the decree indeed long existed in the Church,
although it does not appear to have been by any means generally looked on as
binding.80 Still, its directions are sanctioned in the decrees of at
least one council,01 and its authority has from time to time beeu
recognised by several Christian communities.53
Individuals,
too, among the most learned and enlightened of later whether the times, have
maintained its perpetual authority,—Grotius awrjng po^prtuni ° others. That the
introduction of one moral rule into the list of antl")nty-
injunctions might have biassed these, in their view of it, is not impossible.
In rejecting it they seemed to be annulling, not only the precept to abstain
from meats offered to idols and from blood, but that also which forbade
fornication. Lightfoot accordingly avoids the scruple by making fornication and
polygamy synonymous.
And, that
the w ord translated “ fornication ” should embrace under its general
signification polygamy and adultery is perhaps admissible ; but that it should
be applied to either specifically, is more than can be proved. In truth, all
the doubt and difficulty may be traced to a false, or rather an indistinct,
view of the true character of the Jewish law, of which this was, after all,
only a portion.
As the
observance of the old law was sanctioned by the apostle in
50 See Justm
Martyr, Dialog, cum acquiesce, and were on
that account stig-
Trypho, p.
237. Origen, cont. Celsum, matised as
Quartodecimani.
Lib. VIII.
C.30, and Tertullian Apolog. ^ o
C. 0. In
like manner, we find the 51
Coi,c' Cr»n«r- can- 2‘
eastern
Churches in the second century 62
The more rigid Anabaptists have
alleging
the example of St. John and St. maintained
its perpetual obligation on
Philip for
celebrating Easter on the day Christians;
and likewise the sect founded
of the
Jewish Passover, ■while the western by Glass and Sandeman in the beginning
Churches
urged the practice of St. Peter of the
last century. The Copts are re-
and St.
Paul in support of their obser- ported not
only to observe the decree, but
vance of
the day of the Resurrection. The to
circumcise; probably with the view
Question
was not set at rest until the of
conciliating the Mahometans.—See
ecree of
the Nicene Council on the sub* Boone’s
Book of Churches and Sects, p.
ject; and
even then some refused to 103.
the case
of those Christians who had been subject to it before their conversion; so, in
the ease of the proselytes of the gate* -that portion of it which they had
previously embraced received a similar sanction.
The Mosaic
law, it is well known, comprises moral commandments and ceremonial rules all
blended together, not only in the great body of Jewish Scripture, but even in
the Ten Commandments written bv the finger of God. The command to keep the
seventh day as u sabbath is there found side by side with those whieli enjoin
love to God ard our neighbour, rnd with those which prohibit murder, theft,
adultery, and false-« itness. Nevertheless, a distinction is drawn bv universal
consent between the two portions of the law'. It is agreed, that the ceremonial
part has been abrogated, the moral left in foree ; mid this is true, and for
all practical purposes sufficient. It would, however, be. a more exact and
correct mode of expressing the truth, to say, that the whole of the Mosaic, law
was done away w ith, as far as it was binding because found in the law of
Moses; but that, the moral portion of the law continues in force, because it
was in force prior to the promulgation of the Mosaic law. If, for instance, the
sinfulness of murder depends on its being a violation of the sixta commandment, then was Cain
guiltless.83
Why what
was already written on men’s hearts should have been specified in God’s written
law; whether it be, that in this, as in the whole course of God’s dealings with
man, each succeeding revelation was a comment on the former; or that these
precepts were incorporated w itli the ceremonial or judicial law-, in order to
annex to them civil and temporal rewards and punishments, are questions which
need not now be discussed. It is enough for the present purpose that such was
the case. Now, the Gentiles, as members of the hvman race, had all the moral
law engraven on their hearts;
Rom. ii.
15. “ thjcir consciences,” as St. Paul tells us, “accusing or else excusing
them. " In adm'tting these, therefore, to a partial fellowship with them,
(such as the proselyte of the gate enjoyed,) it was not to be expected that the
Jews would enjoin on them any rules beyond those which were ceremonial, and of
these only enough to serve as a badge of distinction, and a test of sincere
proselytism. The observance of the moral law would be considered ss otherwise
binding. History, however, sufficiently explains why it may have been expedient
to place among these ceremonial rules one moral precept, that, namely, which
enjoined them to abstain from fornication. Murder, theft, false-witness, and
all other moral offences, were sti’l universally recognised as such by the
consent of conscience
63
Tertullian points out the manner in port
to the Decalogue. Such a law has
which our
first parents may be convicted l>een
communicated and is registered on
of having
violated every command in the ever}'
man’s conscience.—See his Tract.
Decalogue
by eating the forbidden fruit; adv.
Judseos, O. 2. See also Whately’s
and thence
argues for the prior existence Essays,
Second Series, Ess ay 5. of a law equivalent in authority and im-
in all.
Fornication, alone, was not merely a common vice, but liad ceased to be
generally regarded as a sin. In its excess only it was held to bo blameworthy.'4
What more natural, therefore, than that the Jews should bind the proselyte, by
an express law, to abstain from this vice, when he had ccased to feci himself
bound to do so by the law of nature. And it is a coincidence worthy of notice,
that the denial of a moral obligation in this particular has formed a prominent
feature in the ethical systems of the most celebrated modern infidels,
Bolingbroke, Hume, Voltaire, Helvetius.
If this
view of the subject be correct, it will appear, that when the authority of the
decree of Jerusalem ceased, Christians were thereby no more absolved from the
duty of continence, than they were, by the cessation of the authority of the
whole law of Moses, from the duty of honouring their parents, or abstaining
from theft and murder. Indeed, he who is contented to do only what forms aa
express precept in holy writ, and to abstain from that only which is formally
forbidden, misapplies the Scriptures. On man's conscience alone it is that the
whole moral law is writren, like the Ten Commandments, by the finger of God
himself, but not, like these,
I in
perishable characters. This was the first revelation of God to man, and
co-existent with his creation; and even the last dispen- | sation was not at
all designed to supersede the use of this original internal revelation. The New
Testament does not contain any code j of ethics; it only alludes to the moral
law as already known and provided; or seeks to correct and reform those parts
which, although ’ engraven perfect on man’s heart by God, had become
indistinct, and, in some few instances, nearly effaced. It furnishes motives to
the observance of this law, and promises assistance in the performance of it.
This, and not a revelation of the moral law, is the instruction which a
Christian is to expect from his Bible. As the author of this instruction, our
Lord speaks of himself, and of him whom he was to send to us, under the title
of God encouraging us, (that is, xciting us by new motives, and new promises of
aid,) and not under hat of lawgiver: “ IlajaxX/Tos
Cfih—He shall give you Johnxiv. i^
* mother Comforter.”
So much
for the temporary character of this famous decree, whatever authority it may
be supposed to have had while it remained in orce. On this point much
difference of opinion has existed. Our sstimate of its authority must, of
course, greatly depend on the haraetcr we assign to the persons who composed
the assembly, and he circumstances under which they were acting. Without,
there- ore, referring to the specific conclusions which have been drawn, ither
for or against the authority of general councils, from the f jarious
assumptions with regard to this, it will be plainer, and less edious, to state
concisely the leading questions by which thoso views
** “ Ne sequerer moeeha.? coneessa cum Venere uti,
Possem,”
&c.—Horace.
H i
Extent of
this Council.
Acts xv.
*22.
Inquiry
into its inapt ration.
may bo
elicited, and to direct the attention to that which appears on the whole to be
the most satisfactory reply.
X. The
first question is, Was this a general council ? that is, did it represent the
whole Church ? or onl\ one branch of it, namely, the Ohureh of Jerusalem ?
There is nothing in St. Luke’s account of it to imply, even remotely, that it
assumed the former character. It was not general, as composed of the heads of
all the Churches, for none were present but tiie ambassadors of Antioch; and
these came to consult, and npt to join the council: nor again as composed of
all the apostles; for St. Paul, and doubtless St. Barnabas too, were npostles;
and they were present indeed, but it was in ihe character of ambassadors, and
not. of delegates.
II. The next question is, Was it an inspired or
uninspired council? The opponents of the authority of general councils, in
later times, have mainly insisted on the former view; and point out this circumstance
as creating the essential line between this and any that has been subsequently
held. The learned and candid Mosheim agrees so far with this view, as to
suppose, that all the business on this occasion being left to the apostles,
they, as inspired persons, must have pronounced an inspired decision.45
Perhaps all inquiries into the ecclesiastical affairs of this extraordinary
period lean too much to tho notion, that every transaction in which an inspired
person appears, must have been the result of immediate inspiration. As far as
the narrative guides us, no such intimation is given in the present instance;
and it may be safely asserted, that the apostles themselves were not throughout
their ministry passive agents of the Holy Spirit.™ The office of that blessed
Comforter was to guide them to the truth, when the truth could not otherwise be
obtained. Judging from the apparent course of his government, we should say,
that had there been error suggested, his presence would have been
55 De Rebus
Christian, ante Const. rl
tj*■ Bible is
the «n]y book in the world
Mat;!), p.
103. whick appeals to God for its
authority,
without
affecting or pretending to the
50 Thus St.
Paul writes to the Oorin- immediate
authorship of God. Manomet
tliian*.
" Unto the married I comnand— publishes,
but All&h indites, the Koran;
lot ?, but
‘lie Lord, Let not the wife and its
very st;le is more than human,
depart
trom her husband,” &e. m But The authors of the Bible, on the other
to the
rest speak /, wot the Lord, If -U|>' hand,
write, as God’s servants act. The
brother
hath a wife,” \c.—Ste 1 Cot. modes of
thought, the manner, the tan-
\ii.
10,12. guage, are different in eaeh,
and in each,
The
greater piirt of what the apostles no le—
than his actions, hit ov, n. Here
wrote was.
doubtless, entirely the sug- and
there are marks of an inspiration
gestion of
their o\n minds, ana, properly which
dictates to the very letter; but
spe&kiM,
uninspired. Its authority is not ordinarily
it is only a Divine superiM
at all
diminished by this circumstance, tendence,
preventing error or omission,
if we
grant (what it would be absurd to and
interposing only for that purpose,
doubt) tha1,
every wrong suggestion must God lias
enabled man to record and to
have been
checked by tne impulse of the teach
his Word, as he has enabled him
Spirit,
every deficiency supplied by to do his
will not by superseding the
actual
revelation, and every failure or use
of his natural faculties, but by aiding
fault of
memory miraculously remedied, them.
With £ view to both, his Spirit
The
rfrelation was rtdractdous, I, it it was was
given, in order to be culled in Mien
recorded
just as any man would record assistance
should be needed, and was
anj
ordinary information which might benee
designated by the expressive name
bt the
rtsult of reasoning, oroi report. ll&fAKAHTOS.
manifested,
or a divine impulse given to some particular members of the council—but not
otherwise. It was Christ only whose inspiration was perpetual, and who needed
no fresh communication as new emergencies presented themselves.57
What was meant by the expression, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us,
” will Actt ->s. perhaps be seen more clearly when we examine the third
question.
III. Under what character was the Church of
Jerusalem appealed Cha-icw to by the Cliureh of Antioch ? Whatever the practice
might be in tottheUUd later times, as yet, no
jurisdiction was exercised by one Christian society over another—not even by
the Church of Jerusalem over her children in Christ. Paul and Barnabas had been
sent to convert the idolatrous Gentiles, (important as this measure was beyond
all others which engaged the attention of the early Christians,) solely by the
appointment of their own Church at Antioch, without the advice or knowledge of
tho sister Chureh at Jerusalem. Iu the present instance, too, they were
commissioned with an embassy, tho circumstances of which, if duly considered,
must satisfy any candid inquirer, that its object was not perhaps even advice
and assistance in deliberation. First, certain members of the Church of
Jerusalem “•come to the Church at Antioch, preaching a nei'J doctrine—a doctrine
of which the Church at Antioch bad received no intimation, even although Paul,
so highly favoured, was with them. They taught the brethren, and said, “Except
ye be circumcised, after Actsxv. 1. the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”
It was natural, therefore, that they of Antioch should send to Jerusalem, to
ascertain whether any credence was to be given to the report of these men who
had comc from them—whether the Cburch there, the apostles or other members, bad
indeed received any new communication from t’ie Holy Spirit, concerning the
universal obligation of the Jewish rites, as nccessary to salvation. For a full
investigation of the matter the Church was assembled, and it being found that
the notion had originated with ceitain unauthorized persons of the Pharisaical
sect, in their perverse zeal for the law, Peter and Janies Acts«. 5. explained
the inexpediency of making any innovation; and Paul arid Barnabas were
dismissed, together with some members of their own society, to assure the
Church of Antioch, that no new revelation had been given on the subject—that
their rule at Jerusalem, tlie only one sanctioned by the Holy Ghost, was to
oblige the con verts to observe that v\hich they were accustomed to observe
before theii conversion, and nothing more.
If the
foregoing remarks are correct, we must seek elsewhere for
57 It was,
perhaps, to indicate this that it
is intimated, that their endowment was
the Bible
records the failure of the dis- different
from Christ’s,—that they must
ciples, in
their attempt to perform cer- first,
by means of stated forms, apply for
tain
miracles. “ This kind, says Jesus, specific
powers from God, and then,
| ‘ goeth
not out but by prayer and fast- indeed,
these, and greater than these,
mg.” It is
not said, that they were in- should they
perform.—See Matt. xvii. *21;
capable of
performing these miracles, but Mark
ix. 29.
On
Ci-n-rai the origin of general councils, and find sonic other foundation for
(..wunc.is. (]ltj avithorlty which lias since been eluimed for them.
Elsewhere, also, we must search for ail example in the apostolical age of one
Church exercising jurisdiction over another. As to general councils, indeed,
they obviously cease to be. practicable as soon as the union of the universal
Church has been dissolved; in truth, they were before that event
impracticable—the history of these councils proves it—as to all purposes of
unanimity. One Church may ask advice of another, or refer a difficult question
to another; but for independent and unassociated Churches to meet all in one
council, is a practical contradiction. It supposes the Church to be one, in the
same sense, in which each separate Christian society alone is, and ever was,
one, from the first establishment of our faith. Christian unity, the
never-failing plea for these measures, has been so often a topic of bitter
controversy, that we need not wonder at its assuming at this day a difficult
and subtile character. More of it by and by. Oautkwijto In concluding those
remarks, one caution suggests rtself which in rcdi'* cannot be too early
inserted in a review of the progress of Chris- JSS'Hutory tianity. It is, not
to look at every portion of the ecclesiastical ’ structure as it appears rising
under the hands of the Divine Builder, as if conveying a correct notion of the
finished work. Objects prominent at first, and resembling in their use the
scatfolding or props of a real building, were afterv. ards removed Others, by
tho application of new pieces, became so altered as not immediately to be
recognised. One part, without undergoing any alteration, was yet gradually
plastered up and removed out of sight. Another, the Divine Architect has left
to the discretion of posterity, to be modified from time to time so as to suit
the changing circumstances of those who were to occupy it. In examining this
edifice, much more in the bold attempt to repair it, the most judicious method
is, not to begin by comparing it with the rude draughts in which it was projected:
but rather to survey the Chureh as it stands, arid removing one by one (where
needful) <hose parts which are detected to be the unauthorized work of men’s
hands, to let the holy Builder's name appear on those parts alone of the
remainder, on which it is visible in his own writing. This only is “ not to
diminish, not to add thereto and this is what our reformers did.
We have
conducted Paul and Barnabas through their embassy to Jerusalem, and must now
prepare to trace their second mission to the idolatrous Gentiles. It is
probable that they remained at Antioch no longer than was necessary for
securing the disputed rights of the Gentile converts at that place, an office
which seems to , have devolved on Paul alone. Peter had indeed been the
especial apostle of the devout Gentiles, of whom alone the Gentile portion of :
the Church at Antioch was at first composed; and on this account, no doubt,
soon followed Paul and Bnrr.abas thither, But his arrival
Second
mission to the Gentiles of Pant and Barnabas.
was,
probably, only a signal for the zealots to press their point more earnestly. So
successful were they, that the Gentile advocate shrank from his office, and was
ready to yield to their demands.
Barnabas
followed his example. Paul alone retained his firmness, Ga.1. ii. u. roused his
noble fellow-labourer to a sense of his duty, and for a time quieted the spirit
of faction.
All was
now ready for a second apostolical journey; the Church Their was at rest, aud
the services of Barnabas and Paul were no longer sei'araUon-
required at home. But the reader will recollect, that henceforth he is to trace
their course of ministerial labour apart. On the grounds -A-etsiv-
of their separation, and on its probable results, it is unnecessary to dwell;
but, leaving Barnabas’s future history for a subsequent consideration, let us
follow the record of the Holy Spirit, and holding the thread which lie has left
us, pass on ilivough the gradual enlargement of the covenant, under the agency
of the great apostle selected for this purpose.
One
previous observation may not, indeed, be unacceptable to him, who feels that it
is inconsistent with the character of these good and holy men, friends from
their youth, thus to have parted in bitterness, under circumstances which might
seem sufficient to have repressed all private differences. Bid they part in
bitterness? Paul afterw ards spoke of Barnabas with respect and affection, and
J Cor. ix. i>;
• • • • • Gal il 9 *
received
even Mark into his service when he thought him worthy of c»i. ir. in; it. But
that zeal which was strong enough to have subdued the 2 Tim iv-1L
mere impulse of anger, had a similar power over feelings of friendship, and
even over the ties of nature. Who shall say, that in voluntarily separating
their course for ever, as appears to have been the case, each was not
submitting to a painful restraint, under the consciousness of doing the best
for the great good cause? Who shell say, that each may not, by virtue of this
very act, have inherited a portion of the reward promised to those who should
forsake father, mother, brethren, or friends, for the 3ake of Christ and of his
Gospel?
Hence we
obtain a further proof, if indeed any such be requisite, that the extraordinary
inspiration of the apostles was not an abiding or continual endowment, but only
occasional. On matters of doubt or difference the Holy Spirit interposed its
aid. But here no inter ference took place; probably, because the result of the
disagreement was most bcneficial to the common welfare; because both were
right. By a division of ministerial labour between the only two who had as yet
been commissioned to the idolatrous Gentiles, the extension of the Gospel was
promoted. It has been remarked, that Paul only was recommended to the grace of
God. St. Luke’s silence, however, does not altogether imply, that Barnabas
received no sut-li formal dismissal. In Paul’s case alone it might be
mentioned, because to him now, and to the details of his mission, the narrative
was to be limited.
Acts xv.
41 ; and xvi to
xv Hi. 22.
Attendants
on St. Paul. Acts xv. 22.
Acts xvi,
11,
Probable
number of Converts.
1 Thess.
i.
A cts
xvii. 11 —33, 34.
St. Paul’s'secusd Ai’ostolical Juosxet.
From a.d.
oS—50.
ROUTE.
Rest of
Syria: Cilicia: Dr-rbe; Ljstra; Iconium: Plyyrin; ({alatia; Trras;
Samo.liracin; Neapoiiv, Philippi; Anipliipolis; Apolloiiia; rhexalonica; Berma;
Athens; Corinth; Cenchrw*; Eph»La; Caesarea; Jeru*aUlni; Antioch in
Syria.
Sil\s and Judas Barsabas wert the messengers appointed by tho
Church of Jerusalem to accompany Paul and Barnabas on their return to Antioch.
Here Silas -was induced to remain, and being a prophet, was fixed on by Paul as
a fit substitute fur the fellowJ labourer of whose assistance he was now to be
deprived. Soon after he commenced his journey, he found at Lystra another meet
companion in the young and faithful Timothy. At Troas, it would seem, from the
narrativ e of the Acts, that Luke was added to their company. This then is the
little band of Christian heroes, whose progress, under the second mission of
the Holy Spirit to the idolatrous Gentiles, we are now to consider.
In v\hat
numbers these were added to the Church cannot be determ'ned from tho sacred record.
Mention is made of the success of the mission at Philippi, at Bcr»‘a, at
Athens, and especially at Corinth; and from St. Paul’s Epistle to the
Thessalonians, it appears that some conversion of idolaters took place amongst
these also. Probably some were converted in most of the places through which
the apostle and his company journeyed, the noticcs in the Acts being evidently
limited to the mure remarkable instances, such as Dionysius the Areopagite, and
“the honourable women” at Bersea.
It is not,
of course, intended to pursue the apostle through the several stages of his
work, but, agreeably with my plan, only to point to those parts of his route at
which for any reason it may be desirable that we should pause.
Thus,
passing over the immediate points of his journey, at Troas we find him
receiving from his Divine Guide an especial communication. As one of the
various modes in which God was wont to visit his servants and the agents of his
will* this, then, deserves to be particularly noticed.
St. Paul at Tuoa.s. Acts
xui. s.
Whilst
Paul was at Troas, a vision appeared to him in the night. His vision.
A wan of
Maccdon seemed to stand before him, and say, Pas3 over and help us.” From this
dream or apparition, the apostle inferred that the Lord had called him thither
to preach the Gospel; and the result proved that he was not mistaken. The Holy
Ghost, which had hitherto cheeked and diverted their coursc, when proceeding
contrary to the line marked out in the Divine counsels, now permitted them to
pass over, and crowned tlicir efforts with success.
From the
words of the sacred narrative, it cannot be certainly determined, whether this
were a waking vision or a dream. Supposing it, however, to have been of the
latter description, it would lie by no means a singular instance of God thus
communicating his will to his servants, and even to others. Abraham, Abimelech,
Gen. xv 12; Jacob, Joseph, Pharaoh, Solomon, Nebuchadnezzar, are. familiar xxvm
12-16; instances. Of these “last days,” too, it had been expressly foretold,
among the ordinary signs, that men should “ see visions and 1 kinjisiii.s;
dream dreams.”53 Dan'iv'
5
It is no
where suggested, that there was any thing peculiar in the manner of dreaming on
these occasions. Sometimes, too, as in the present instance, it looks like the
ordinary result of the circumstances under which it is reported to have
occurred. If this were a dream of St. Paul, (it may be said,) what ground had
he and his company to suppose it a Divine impulse, and to class it with the the
light and the voice sent to him when on the road to Damascus, or with the
vision of “unutterable things,” which he received in his trance in the temple?
Would it not have been more sober and reasonable to conclude, that the approach
to the verge of the Asiatic continent, and the sight of that famous strait
which formed the slight barrier betwe.cn them and Europe, had carried Paul’s
meditations to the opposite shores? Musing upon those especially who, crossing
here with Alexander, ma.de conquest of tho East, even of his own Judaea, and
established in Egypt a rival to Jerusalem, he could not but expect to retain in
his dreams some impression of a train of thought so deeply interesting, tinged,
as every dream of his might well be, with the one subject which was predominant
in his mind. It must be recollected, however, that the Holy Ghost (by some mode
of communication not specified) bad of late been making known his approval or
disapproval of the several steps of their journey as soon as they were
attempted. The absence of this chcck, Gereni therefore, might have formed an
appropriate evidence that the call *
was
Divine. Still, as the same solution will not serve in other communle*. cases,
it will be more satisfactory to take a general view of the n’
66 Joel ii.
28, quoted and applied by St. Peter in Ins harangue on the great day of
Pentecost.—Acts ii. 17.
Visions.
Dan. v. 5; Lvxod xiiL 21. 22.
Voices.
Exod. iii.
2j xx I;
Gen. xvii.
Dreams.
2 Cor.
xli. 2; Acts x. 10: Gtn. xxviii. 12.
Instinctive
luipulSCB.
Acts xvi. fi, 7, 9;
Roin. L
13.
Luke xxir.
32.
AH
operated naturally.
1 Sam.
Iii.
question,
extending it not only to all inspired dreams, but to all other modes of Divine
communication. Let us consider then, first, what those modes were, and then,
what evidence the persons addressed had, that the communication in each
instance was Divine.
I. Visions.—13y which is meant, any
communication conveyed through an object of sight. Of this kind were, the
handwriting on the Wiill of Belshazzar’s banquet room, the pillar of fire f.nd
cloud which guided the Israelites through the wilderness, and the like.
II. Voices, or revelations conveyed through the
sense of hearing. These were the most frequent, and although often accompanied
with extraordinary impressions on the other senses, yet were naturally the
readiest and most distinct mode of communication. Such was the giving of the
Ten Commandments, the call of Moses, and probably all those revelations
designated .n Genesis by the expression, “ The Lord said unto him.”
III. I)reams.—Under which is included
whatever was addressed to the imagination only; whether the abstraction from a
consciousness of surrounding objects was the effect of sleep, or of some supernatural
influence, as in a trance or tr.arait;. As instances of this class may
be mentioned, Peter’s vision of the sheet, St. Paul’s revelation in the temple,
Jacob’s dream, and the like.
IV. Instinctive impulses.—This term is
used to denote some method of making known the Divine will, which does not
appear to have been an address either to the senses or to the imagination, but
to have operated on the desires, affections, and other inclinations, as those
other communications did on the senses or the imagination. Such may we
conceive to have been the method whereby Paul and his company are described in
this journey as hindered by the Holy Ghost from pursuing a wrong course.
Dy this, it may be, they were enabled to interpret Paul’s vision of the man of
JIaeedon to he of Divine origin. This too might have been what the disciples of
our Lord experienced, when walking with him after his resurrection. Por,
although at the time they failed to attend to it, they afterwards expressed
their surprise that they should have been so dull. “Did not ovr hearts hum within
vs as he talked with us?” Perhaps this mode of revelation, being then new
to them, was not at onee recognised.
These will
include all the various revelations of God to man, for there is no other
conceivable form, except where the mediation of some being is interposed ; and
this belongs to a distinct consideration.
To this
general statement, the first remark to be added is, that in all the different
methods, the senses and the imagination were probably affected only as in the
ordinary course of nature—that tho exercise of sight, of searing, and of fancy,
was in every case of the same kind as that produced by natural objects, natural
sounds, and natural sleep. Thus Samuel is described as mistaking tho voice of
God for that of Eli; and another, more experienced, as desiring to
1)0
certified by a sign, that tbe impression was supernatural, anil Judg ,i 17
being gratified in his desire as reasonable.
This being
so, it follows that besides the vehicle of communication, simao* whether voice,
vision, or dream, pome sign of conf rmation must always have been provided, in
order to satisfy the person visited, that he was not imposed on, or else
imposing on himself—imposed ou, as in the case of “lying spirits,” or of human
contrivances, or of accidental phenomena; imposing on himself, as in the case
of enthusiasm. Not that in all, or in most instances, any record will be found
of the sign of confirmation; because the revelation alone concerns those to
whom the records of the event are addressed—the sign, the persons visited.
Still it is in many instances mentioned.
In some
indeed it was unavoidable; whenever, namely, the same display served the double
purpose of confirming sign and vehicle of communication, as in the case of the
handwriting addressed to Bel- L'an. v.s. sliazzar. In some cases, again, the
two are connected together, so as to form what is called in loose phrase one
vision. Of this kind was that which occurred at St. Paul’s conversion. The
voice alone Acts i*. 3-5. was the medium of communication ; while the light
served to certify that it proceeded from no human lips.59 The same
may bo observed of the call of Moses at the bush. Sometimes also the two were
so Ex. m. 2,4. joined, as that the sign should not become proof until
afterwards; it being in this case a sort of prophetic appendage. Of this kind
was Zacharias’s revelation respecting John the Baptist, that of Cor- Lutei. 11;
nelius concerning his own admission into the Church, and the like. Actsx-
Tho last case is where the two were disjoined; and then the confirmation might
be effected in some distinct revelation, or by specific miracle. Thus the
budding of Aaron’s rod was a sign of confirina- Num. xvii 8? tion to Aaron, and
the miracle of the fleece to Gideon. Thus, too, Ju<lg-37‘ the
power of working miracles, granted in all ages to the messengers of God, were
signs not only to those to whom they were sent, but to themselves also, that
they were really so commissioned. It is probable, that with those who were in
the liabit of receiving frequent communications, a miracle in every case might
not have bfeen requisite; or if any, merely what has been described as an
instinctive impulse, such as was supposed to have confirmed St. Paul’s view of
his vision at Troas. Certain it is, that he is said on that occasion to have
acted “immediately'’ 011 the authority of the vision. Actsxvi. a. The word is
introduced, as if for the purpose of marking a case in la which no
further sign of confirmation was waited for. Perhaps, then, the vision alone
was sufficient for one like St. Paul, thoroughly accustomed to the Divine
communications. For although it is true that this mode of operating on the
senses or imagination was apparently the same, as if ordinary and natural
causes were operating;
59 It is often asserted, that St. Paul then
blind, and the manifestation of Christ, of paw the Lord. But this could not
have which lie speaks, took place subsequently been the case. He was
immediately struck in the Temple at Jerusalem.
still, the
eye, the ear, nr the mind, would become familiarized to these; as to any other
sounds, sights, or even dreams. The experience of many may be appealed to, for
the fact, that dreams do recur, and are remembered as repetitions of former
dreams. Now, a dream ascertained to be divine, might contain some peculiarities
which would, doubtless, be remembered so vividly, as by repetition to stamp a
sure character on the class of dreams in which they were recognised. Thus, when
Samuel is represented, (in the instance already noticed,) as ignorant of the
nature of the heavenly call, the
l Sam. ili.7. expression of Scripture is,
that “he did not yet know the Lord;” the natural interpretation of which seems
to be, that he had not yet become acquainted with the voice by experience. In
like manner, Gen.iii.8,10. Adam is said to have “ known” or recognised the
voice of the Lord God walking in the garden. That even in these cases it might
have been the duty of the inspired to wait for a confirming sign,— suppose such
only as the instinctive impulse or prohibition,—and that for neglecting to do
so they might have been sometimes misled, as in the case of Balaam, is not
important.
This topic
has been already more than sufficiently dwelt on for our immediate purpose; and
yet it leads to a consideration so important to Christian faith, that it is
difficult to refrain from pursuing it a little further. Has the reader ever
attempted to state to himself distinctly what he understands by the term
revelation, meaning a revelation of the Phine nature? Neither the voice, tho
vision, the dream, nor the instinct, can be said to be God. All are evidently
vehicles, and modes of communicating lils messages to man. “Him no man hath
seen at any time.” Suppose, then, we wished to convey a description of an
object of sight to one born blind; (for that is our condition in relation to
the Pivine-nature;) he may perhaps be made to receive some indistinct idea of
it through his sense of hearing; and the vehicle of this revelation, as it may
be termed, would be a voice. Some contrivance may be afterwards invented, which
should convey to him the same description, by submitting to his touch figures
representing it, or, as is done in some asylums, by letters and words strongly
impressed on card, so as to be distinctly felt. If it had so happened, that he
was at length favoured with the gift of sight, (as occurred with some in the
miraculous period of the Church,) that same description might be set before
his eyes in a painting Meanwhile, suppose him never yet to have witnessed the
object itself, thus variously represented, lie would then have become
acquainted with it in three distinct wavs, and have been enabled to improve and
to apply his knowledge of it by means of each , still, he would hardly be
absurd enough to make either of these assertions,
1. That the sounds, the figures, the
writing, or the painting, were the very thing described.
2. That the variety in the mode of conveying
the description
Numb. xxi}. iO, et teg.
Modes by
which a Kevelation uf iio<i is Conveyed
John i.
IS.
implied
anv corresponding distinction in that one object, tho idea of which was thus
variously communicated to him.
Is the
reader sufficiently assured of the truth of these remarks, to apply them to the
descriptions man has received of the Divine nature ? God has been omnipresent00
from the beginning, and cannot be supposed at anv time to he more in one place
than in another.
Yet it has
pleased Him from time to time to “lift up an ensign,” to which men might come
to ask for communication of his will, and to be made sensible of his presence.
Such was the Shechinah granted to the Israelites, from between the Cherubim,
where Cod is accordingly said to have dwelt. With this flame the voice or e.i
ixix. ml other vehicle of communication was so connected, that the priest was
obliged to come to the former, in order to avail himself of the latter. The
flame was the sign; and besides this there was the voice or other channel of
revelation. It afterwards pleased the Most High to set up an ensign for all the
world to resort unto, even “for the nations afar.” This ensign was, the
Human-nature Isaiah». 25. of our blessed Lord. To Him, all were now to come who
desired to leceive the Divine communications. His words and symbolical
miracles, and other acts, formed the vehicle of that communication —as much so,
and in like manner, as the voice which gave the Ten Commandments from Mount
Sinai, or which spoke at different times to Adam, to the patriarchs, to the
prophets, and others his servants of old. Hence it is written, that “the Word
was made flesh and John i.H. dwelt among us,” and that “ men beheld his glory,”
in allusion to the analogy between Him and the Shechinah. Hence, too, tho
occasional radiant appearances which could not fail to have suggested to
Jewish -witnesses the symbol of Divine manifestation. At the same time it must
be borne in mind, that the incarnation of the Son of God differed from all
other modes of Divine communication, in that Christ did not only represent,
personate, and manifest God, but man also. Hence he is called the “ only
Mediatorand with g.h. Hi w; reference to this peculiarity it is,
perhaps, that St. Paul speaking 1 Tlm' "• * of him says, “ Now
a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one i. e. Christ as Mediator is
at once the mean of communication from God to man, and from man to God—the
representative of both
60 In truth> omnipresent is a relative
term. God is said to be omnipresent, because all things are present to him, not
because he is present to alt things. The original error consists in assigning
him any place at all,—in attributing locality to a Being who cannot be
affected, as we are, by the distinctions of space. The same may be observed of
eternity, as applied to the Divine nature. We can only judge of time by a
succession of ini- ressions on the mind; and it is usually y supposing an
infinite succession that we arrive at our notion of eternity. But
why should
we presume to say, that any such succession is requisite for the Divine mind ?
A savage would instruct a traveller in his route, by a successive enumeration
of point after point, and line after line in his course; a civilized man would
do the same at once, by placing a map before him. If then human nature exerts
itself so differently, as it is cultivated or neglected, how cautious should
we be in framing analogies between the energies and capacities of the most
perfect mind, a.nd of God who formed it 1
—God in
person, and also llan in person ; nevertheless, as God, lie is one.61
iVrman**nt
But the Almighty has not limited his modes of communication to
oTgwu"" sensible objects, to voices and visions. He has also
addressed him- cfrrutiina: S(;]f i,lymlately to the
mind, to the affections and understandings of men. In this kind of
communication effected by the Spirit, the vehielc is not material, nor an
object of the senses. Its effects, indeed, have been made visible iu the
miraculous gifts of the apostles, and in the prophetic monuments of the Church
in all ages; its effects we still see in the behaviour of individuals and of
nations, and still hear, in those sounds which are going forth into all lands;
but, according to our Lord’s illustration, like the wind, we cannot tell whence
it eometh nor whither it goeth.
For us is
this mode of Divine communication appointed. To us the Spirit speaks, as the
man Christ Jesus did to his followers ; as the voice or vision from between the
cherubim addressed itself to them of older time; as, in short, each different
organ of communication hath spoken at sundry times to the several generations
of God’s people; for He, says the apostle, hath spoken “in divers tub i. i.
manners.” But then, where are we to seek for the appendage to this, as to the
other appointed and regular vehicles of Divine communication? Where, asks the
Christian, is our Sheehinah? Where the ensign to which is attached this unheard
voice, this unseen vision? To be sure it may be said, that God is not to be
found here or there, but is omnipresent. So He was before the flame of the
Sheehinah was lighted, or the Word was made flesh; nor was He less so during
either manifestation. It is not his presence, but the sign of his presence we
ask for. To the Heathen themselves, from v, horn the Jewish ensign was removed,
lie was indeed present,— Acn ivii 27. “ not far from any of them,’’ as their
apostle told them; but it is the privilege of his peculiar people to have this
Sign to resort to. See then, Christian, whether we have it not as distinct and
as accessible, nay, more accessible and more disrnet, than ever before was
given. Remember, that the mode of communication is no longer bv sound or by
sight,—no longer a sensible medium, but spirit. The corresponding ensign,
also, is not addressed to the, eye nor to the ear, but to the mind.
It is not a flame, which, however brilliant, illumines only the holy of
holies. It is not a man, whom only a small portion of the human race can see,
and hear, and follow. But it is, what better suits an unlimited dispensation,
it is a miraculous record. The
Bible and the Sacraments are our Sheehinah, our Sign; not, indeed, to be
recognised as such by gazing at them, lifting them up, and carrying them about;
but by humbly reading, marking, learning, and inwardly digesting. NV e, unlike
God s people of old, waik by faith, and not by sight.
The text
is a difficult one, and no interpretation fivnn of it 13 perhaps free from
objections; die term Jlediutur is generally referred to Closes.
It
appears, then, that besides the occasional communications made by God to his
servants and to others, lie has, in the. course of his ordinary and perpetual
dealings with hie Chureh or people, appointed three distinct modes of
communication, whereby he was to be accessible to those who should seek him;
and that appended to each was the sign of liis presence in such modes of
intercourse. To prevent the error of attributing the Divine agency to three
different Beings, in consequence of this difference, we are instructed in the
Unity of God, and bantized in his name as the Father, in his name as the Son,
and in his name as the Holy Ghost. Again, as under this threefold dispensation,
we observe that the Almighty has in each manifestation assumed to himself
certain characteristics, we presume not to confound God the Father who created
us, with God the Sun who redeemed us, and with God the Holy Ghost who
sanctifies us ; but, agreeably to the sense and language of the Christian
Church from the earliest times, we worship Him as one hi three Persons.62
St. Paul and the Pythoness. Act, xli !G
The
foregoing remarks may serve to guide, us in another question ; oncerniog that,
namely, concerning the knowledge we possess of the evil Being. wiedge
With his origin aud his absolute nature we are wholly unacquainted, of tj* .
Our view
of him, like that of the Author of all good, is chiefly nega- '' Splrlt
tive. Whence he too is called a spirit; that is, his real nature is incapable
of being perceived by our senses; and even the inodes whereby he has been
manifested to us are accommodated, not to the sight, the hearing, or to any
external perception, but only to the immaterial part of man. But, as God
himself has vouchsafed so also to address himself to us, it was necessary, in
contradistinction to Him, to designate the author of evil by the term evil
spirit.
According
to the Scriptures, he has been to us the author of those two original evils,
the effects of which the whole world still daily experiences ; sin and death.
In perpetuating these, his ordinary and continual agency appears to have been
ever exerted; as to counteract the effects of these, has been the objects of
God’s ordinary dealings with mankind. But the evil spirit has also displayed
nisextra- his extraordinary and occasional operations on the objects of his
malice. He has sometimes vexed men’s minds and bodies, as in the instances of
Job, of Saul king of Israel, and of those who laboured under that peculiar
malady which is called in the Gospels demoniacal possession. On the reality of
these possessions some observations were offered, in treating of our Saviour’s
ministry, under the head of miracles, and under that of tho temptation. But
besides the infliction of pain and disease, whicli was there especially
Hispowerot noticed, he seems to have exercised a power of delusion,—inspiring
f°^‘rejllns agents, over flhom he had obtained
control, to foretel future events, events.
02 Scj The Three Temples of the One GoJ.
John vlii.
44. xii 31;
XiV. 30.
The
Pythone**
at Philippi.
Luke x.
17.
The most
obvious, although by no moans the only great mischief produced thereby, was,
that to him ■were
ascribed tiie power and praise which were duo only to God. Foreknowledge was
considered as a peculiar attribute of the Deity; and the Being therefore who
enabled his agents to foretel events, was regarded as the one who ordained and
dispensed them. Hence he is called in Scripture “the prince of this world,” and
“ the father of lies.” This by no means implies, that vri'.h demoniacal
inspiration commenced the various superstitious arts whiaji have obtained in
the world, or that they were altogether kept up hr this influence. It is more
consonant with what is observed of the rest of the evil one’s agency, to suppose,
that finding these corrupt devices to have sprung out of his original
depravation of man’s heart, he ever and anon supported them by extraordinary
interposition. Why this was ever permitted, the source of goodness being
almighty;—why, indeed, such a Being ever existed, are questions which the
inquirer of the present day has learned to consider in their true light, as
^ain, unprofitable, and presumptuous.
During our
Saviour’s ministry, lie often exercised his power over the former class of evil
manifestations, namely, demoniacal posses*^ sions. Of the latter class none are
mentioned, until we find Paul at Philippi exercising a similar authority over
the possession of a Pythoness; a sort of fortune-teller, whose master made a
gain of her gift, or rather of her curse ; and who, regarded simply from the
account of her way of life, might appear in the light of a common impostor. Her
interview with the apostle, however, contains circumstances, which render it
unquestionable, that in her case, as in that of the demoniacs, the agency of
the devil was manifested.
Philippi
was the first place in which Paul, after his departure from Troas, found “a
door opened unto him;” and of the results of his ministry there, this miracle,
and the conversion of Lydia, a devout Gentile, are the main circumstances
recorded. It is worthy of remark, that in this, as in the cases which occurred
during the Saviour’s personal ministry, the evil spirit acknowledged in Christ
the agency of the most high God. It was through his name still that these
miracles were performed. Agreeably to the account which his commissioned
servants gave him, whilst he was yet with them, “ In thy name we cast out
devils,” Paul now addressed the spirit of divination, and found it, as Christ
had foretold, obedient unto him.
The
believer hopes and expects to discover a beautiful propriety in every part of
the Christian scheme; and where he does not perceive it, still he infers its
existence. Thus, observing that of the two kinds of demoniacal possession, our
Saviour frequently exercised his power in person over those afflicted with the
malady so characterized, while the exercise of a similar power over those
visited by a spirit of divination was reserved for bis apostle to the Gentiles;
one
is
naturally prompted to look for some mark of propriety and consistency in the
arrangement. Such may, perhaps, be found by contemplating the difference of
character in the ministry of Christ, and of his apostles guided by his Spirit.
It was the business of the former to do the work of redemption, of the latter
to instruct men in . it. The ministry of Christ, therefore, would be directed
generally against all the evil and hurtful agency of the Devil; the ministry of
the apostles more particularly against the propagation of falsehood.
The furmer
would naturally counteract the works of Satan; the latter his words, as
conveyed through agents, such as was the rescued Pythoness.
It was
during the apostle’s third journey, however, that his success in this branch
of his ministry appears to have been greatest.
At
Ephesus, among the eminent miracles (Avimi rx; which he displayed, some appear
to have been of this character;63 and to have operated so powerfully
on the minds of many who witnessed them, that they came forward and burned
publicly their books of magic. The high valuation of these, marks at once the
extent of the evil, and also the wonderful success of the apostle. This whole
portion of his ministry proves, too, that demoniacal possession was not, as
some have hastily asserted, confined to the Jews.
St. Paul at Atkexs. Acts
*vil.
The
apostle and bis company, when dismissed by the magistrates from Philippi,
passed through Amphipoiis, Apollonia, Tliessalonica, and Bersea; and in each
left traces of their inspired agency. At Thessalonica, as we know from the
Epistle soon after addressed to the converts there, their labours were
remarkably successful, even among the idolaters. Athens is next in the list of
places which received thus early a summons from the Holy Spirit to repent,
beb’eve, and be baptized. Athens was still the principal seat of learning, and
of those arts which furnished the chief attraction of idolatry. It was the
University of the Roman empire and of the world. At Athens therefore it might
be expected, that argument, not force, would be opposed to the efforts of the
Christian orator; and that on his part, as dealing with a people accessible in
a high degree through their reasoning powers, the words more than the works of
the Spirit would be employed. It is not, however, merely to point out the
propiiety of the Holy Spirit's ministry there— rJthougb, like every other
instance, it affords a strong presumption of the truth of the Bible narrative,
and ought not to be overlooked— but it is not merely on this account, nor yet
for the sake of that interest which tho name of Athens inspires, that Paul’s
arrival there
85 The
attempt of the Jewish exorcists t >ok
upon them to call over them that
to imitate
Paul, proves tha* these cures had
evil spirits the name of the Lord
were
wrought, like that of the Pytho- Jesus,
saying, We adjure thee by Jf^us.
ness, ‘’in
the name of the Lord Jesus.1’ whom
Paul i)reacheth.”-—Acts xix. 13.
Then
certain vagabond Jews, exorcists,
IPs speech
f»t the
Areopagus.
is noticed
; but on account of two circumstances which occurred while lie was there, and
which, admitting each of different views, may not be regarded at first by all
in that which seems to bo the correct one.
Paul
attracts Preaching, in the first instance fas his custom was) to the Jews
f'ink)«o-f atl,l devout Gentiles of the place, his discourses were
so much noised ihtrs. abroad, as to attract the. attention, not of the
magistracy, but of the philosophical idlers. Idlers, I say, because at Athens
these specu lators formed a body of literary loungers, and presented in the
porches and other places of public resort a whimsical scene of fashionable
relaxation, of which the amusements and conceits were metaphysical and moral
discussions. Surrounded by company like this, and possibly unable, from tho
variety and number of the questions addressed to him, to make his meaning
understood, Paul was conducted—not as a criminal, for of this there is no
intimation—but as the promulgator of a now system, to Mars' Hill, and was there
desired puuliely to explain his views. Ilis speech, accordingly, bears
110 marks of a defence, nor was it
followed up either by acquittal or condemnation,—by sentence from a court, or
violence from the multitude. At his mention of a resurrection from the dead,
the doctrine seems to have struck his audience as so monstrous and
preposterous, that lie could no longer proceed for the jests and witticisms
which it occasioned. Ilis speech is doubtless, therefore, only a part of what
he intended to say to them, and what might thus have proved more generally
effectual, had his auditors “ had ears to hear ” him out.w As St.
Paul's examination has been most commonly represented in the light of a judicial
proceeding, these remarks will not bo useless, if, by determining more
precisely the circumstances, they shall make his celebrated harangue appear
more natural, and more fully adapted to the occasion. One consideration too
should be borne in mind, that at Athens, the chief, if not the only, persuasive
which he chose to employ was eloquence—the very weapon in the use of which the
Athenians were most skilful. With miracles he had confounded the people whose
boast was “an image that fell from heaven,” and he now ] leads for Christianity
in the city of Demosthenes.
In the
speech itself there, is only one topic which will be noticed; it is the
allusion to an altar erected to “ the unknown God.”
Th„ Some few, who have considered St. Paul’s
behaviour here as an
c,';‘j >wn
eminent illustration of the character which he has given to himself, of being
“ail things to all men.” have so far departed from the common acceptation of
the passage, as to imagine that “the unknown God” was no one particular object
of worship which the
“ Some
mocked, and others said, Tre will hear thee, again of this matter.” This may be
understood to imply a division of sentiment among the auditory; some mocking
him, so as to render it im
possible
for him to proceed; others. a* Dionysius and Daniaris, encouraging him, and
telling him that they at lead would continue to hear him.
Athenians
had adopted; but tho true God, whom, he tells them, the^ ignorantly worshipped
in the various characters of Jupiter,
Apollo,
ic. To Jehovah (they understood him to say) are justly due your worship and
your altars. It is not your Jupiter who is the God, but the Being who made the
heavens or Jupiter.65
The
objections to this interpretation are these: first, the apostle so expresses
himself as clearly to denote that the words, “to God unknown,’ were inscribed
on some altar;48 secondly, respectable testimonies have been found
of the existence of such an altar; lastly, • it is not in accordance with St.
Paul's other addresses on the subject of idolatry,—his custom being to point
out to the heathen, not that thev wrere worshipping God under false
names, but serving the i Onr x. 20 devil. ‘ 1 Tlm- *■1
It
remains, therefore, to determine what particular God was meant by the
inscription on the altar. On this point the remarks already made, ou the
occasion of tlie speech, may nt)t a little help to guide inquiry. Nothing is
more probable, than that the Athenians, the most inquisitive people on earth,
should by this time have heard, and have taken some interest in the report, of
a new God which the Christians were represented as proclaiming to the world.67
In their characteristic vivacity and eagerness for novelty, an altar might have
been erected to him, before they had ascertained his name. Ou Paul’s arrival,
their very conversation with him would lead them to surmise that he was one of
the promulgators of this new religion. Hence the eagerness w’ith which he wras
brought before the public, led purposely perhaps by this very altar, which
would on that account be pointed out to him, and would form a natural topic for
the opening of his speech.
It is
scarcely necessary to add to these remarks, that the expression68
“too superstitious,” which is mistranslated, was meant, 110 doubt, as a
compliment, and not as a reproach, by characterising the people as one who
displayed a high sense of religion. .
^Pope’s
creed, as expressed in his viz. “
the man whom he had ordained,”
Universal
Prayer, was no other than when he was interrupted.
Nor is this
this:— altogether unfounded conjecture. For,
“ Father
of all in every a^e that Christ was
represented as a strange
In everv
clime ador'd"- ’ God, worshipped-
by the Christians, is, I
By
saint,'bv savage, and W sage, S.nk’
plain from the very terms ft which
Jehovah,
Jove, and Lord.” Phny describes the new
sect. ‘They
x , r
, , sing a hymn to Christ as to a Cxod,”
00 iv a inytyeavTo, ’Ayvua-ra ©sw. which is precisely the remark of the
Christo ut
Deo carmen dicunt, Plinii Athenians
respecting Paul, that he was
hpist. May
not the remark, that Paul “a setter forth
of strange gods.”
was a
setter forth of strange gods, because This
then is at least plausible, whether
ne
preached Jesus and the Resurrection, we
admit or reject the notion that the
liave
arisen from his statement of the accomplished
Christian orator was so
doctrine
of the Trinity, in reply to some misunderstood
in the use of the term
question
put to him concerning the new avcctrrx/ris,
(resurrection,) by an Athenian
1 * j? ^ .
°Perjing of his speech obvi- audience,
as to leave the impression that
ously
falls in with this view. Having he was
discoursing of a goddess so named
first
declared him to be the same God —a
notion first suggested by Chrysostom,
who made
the world, he was proceeding and
adopted by many after him.
to speals
of his manifestation in the flesh, 68
AtifiSsciuovtcrrtecvs.
II. ’ K
Foundation
ot the C hurch of Corinth.
Paul’s
observance
of Jewish
rites at Cenehrea.
St. Paul at Corinth and Cex ciirea.
At Corinth
the apostle made a longer sojourn than in any other city during his journey.
Here were written his Epistles to the Thessalonians; perhaps that also to the
Galatians. Here, too, he probably received from Aquila and Priscilla the first
intelligence of Christianity having been preached to the Romans. Here, lastly,
he founded that Church, which, above all others, engaged his personal interest.
In the minute internal regulations of this, more than of any other, he appears
to have busied himself; and, accordingly, his Epistles to the Corinthians
contain more information on the Church discipline of the apostolic age than any
other part of the New Testament. Indeed, in some few instances, the points
alluded to have so much the character of domestic detail, as scarcely to admit
of illustration from the general history of the times.
Corinth
may be considered as the boundary of this apostolical journey, and the last
regular scene of Paul’s labours for the present,. For, although we hear of him
afterwards at Cenehrea, and again at Ephesus, his pause at the former place was
only to perform a ceremony which he went through as a Jewish Christian; at the
latter, to convey to the Asiatic continent Aquila and Priscilla. Cenehrea has,
however, been particularised, together with Corinth, in order to remind the
reader that St. Paul here exhibited a striking illustration of the general
principle which guided the primitive Church, in regard to the observance of
foreign rites and rules by its members. As a member of the Jewish society,
about to visit his own people, and not as a Christian, or as performing any
duty to God as such, St. Paul on this occasion observed a form wholly Jewish.
On the same principle lie anxiously hastened to be present at Jerusalem by the
approaching festival, whilst he was insisting on the sinfulness of the Gentile
convert, who should add to the Christian appointments the obligations of the
Jewish law. Thus, too, he circumcised Timothy, because his father was a Jew;
but, although he was in the very seat and centre of Jewish prejudice, in
Jerusalem, and even while the question was hotlv agitated, he refused to allow
Titue, the Gentile convert, to be circumcised.
St. Paul’s th:ud Apostolical JokHsey.
From A.D.
55—60.
ROUTE.
Galatia::
Phrygia; Ephesus; Asia; Ephesus again; Troa*; Macedonia; Greece• Acts sviii
feSllV,^-aM^TlaaralA;- Dru0a? aKa.',n;
Assoe; Mitylene: Chios; Samos; 23;
C^iirea'^’erusalein’
sia;> ^oos; Rhodes; Patara, (in Lvcia;) tfyre; Ptolemais;
xix.toxxi I:
Or those
places through which the route cf the apostle in his pmi at tSird official
journey is marked, Ephesus was the principal scene of EP,,esus-
his lanours. In his return from Greece to Palestine, he had touched at Ephesus,
and there left Aquila and Priscilla, with a promise that he would himself soon
visit them. This promise he now fulfilled.
Passing
through Galatia and Phrygia, he made Ephesus, for the third time, his chief
station in Asia, as on former occasions he had chosen Corinth in Greece. It was
here, then, that all who dwelt in Asia, both Jews and Greeks, first heard the
word from him.
Among
these may he numbered Epaphras, who not only became his col. >. 7. convert,
but probably his missionary to the neighbouring Colossians.
0 all the incidents, however, which mark
Paul’s residence at Ephesus, the most interesting, perhaps, is his meeting with
certain disciples of John the Baptist.
St. Paul and tee Disciples of John the Baptist.
No mention
is made by any of the Evangelists of the disciples of Iphn tho Baptist,
subsequently to theii master’s imprisonment and death. Probably the greate:
part of them became followers of Jesus; having been indeed called and
instructed by John to this very end. Some notice of this transfer might have
been intended m the formal embassy on which he sent them to our Saviour, when
he found his own removal from them likely to be at hand.® But before it
actually took place, some might have quitted Palestine ; and thus, although
convinced by the preaching of Christ’s forerunner, might have had no
Opportunity of attaching themselves either to ILm or to the disciples of Him
wiose way their master had prepared Such might have been the case with those,
who, about
“Matt. xi.
2. See Appendix [F.]
Acts six.
2.
niffprcnce
between the Baptisms of John and Paul.
Matt. lii.
1] Mark i. 8; Luke iii. 1C John i. 33.
twelve in
number, were found by Paul at Ephesus. Apollos, one similarly circumstanced,
bad, before the apostle’s arrival, received baptism from Aquila and Priscilla;
ami had already, from his eloquence and knowledge of the Scriptures, become
eminently serviceable to tbs Christian cause in Aehaia. As Apollos is said to
have been of Alexandria, these others also might have come from the same place.
Even so, their total ignorance of all that had occurred at Jerusalem during an
interval of more than twenty years, 011 a subject which so nearly concerned
them a? the descent of the Holy Ghost, ami the preaching and baptizing of the
apostles ; and this, too, notwithstanding their manifest expectation of the
events, strongly confirms the remark formerly made, on the extreme tardiness
with which intelligence of the several stages of the new dispensation was
communicated, even between places the most connected by frequent intercourse.
Between Alexandria and Jerusalem there was at this time nearly as much
intercourse, as between the holy city a-.id the remote parts of Judaea itself:
and the Passover, at least, was yearly attended by numbers, with, perhaps, a
more scrupulous punctuality than by the Jews who were resident in their native
country.
The
rebaptism of these disciples of John the Baptist, first by Aquila and
Priscilla, and, in a second instance, bv St. Paul, suggests i>ii inquiry
into the difference between the baptism of John and that of Paul; which again
leads us to ask, what was the difference between this last and that of Jesus
Christ himself.
John
baptized with water only; that is, there was no inward grace bestowed on the
uiseiple through the ceremony. Baptism was only a sign of admission into the
temporary society over which he presided; and as such, a pledge also that the
initiated would conform to the rule of that society, repentance.
But, while
John baptized, he pointed to the coming of Jesus, as of one who should “
baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire meaning, that his baptism should be
performed, with water indeed, but not with water only—that the immersion and
sprinkling should not be merely the sign of admission into a society, or the
pledge of conformity with rules, but the appointed means for imparting the Holy
Spirit. It was really then a baptizing with the Holy Ghost, rather than with
water; for the same reason as we should say, that he who was sent by the
prophet to wash in Jordan was cured, not by the washing, but by the secret
grace attached to it; or again, that it was not the clay on the blind man’s
eyes which restored him to sight, but the virtue which went forth from Jesus
with the act of putting it on.
; “ With
the Holy Ghost,” says St. John, therefore, “lie shall
.baptize,
and with fire;” that is, with the Holy Ghost, whose emblem and attesting sign
shall be fire. He speaks of the flame which descended on the day of Pentecost,
in proof of the true invisible descent of the Holy Ghost.
Such then
was the baptism of Jesus, as distinguished from that of John. Jesus himself
indeed baptized not, but such was the baptism of his followers. At the same
time, an evident distinction obtains between this rite as performed by his
disciples during his abode on earth, and as performed by those who after the
day of Pentecost were enabled to fulfil his commission of baptizing, not only
in the name of the Father and of the Son, hut also of the Holy Ghost. It was,
doubtless, owing to this very ground of ditference, that they were forbidden to
enter upon their duties until the descent of the Holy Ghost had taken place.
For, until that event, they could neither impart that holy gift to the
initiated, nor have properly baptized them into that name. It is plain, for the
same reason, that whatever baptisms took place during onr Saviour’s ministry
must have been similarly defective. And yet it would seem, that to that stage
of Christian baptism more especially John’s words relate, “ He Luke ii shall
baptize you,” ike. And, doubtless, they are to be so under- Juhn1'
stood. The baptism of Jesus, during his abode on earth, was defective; no more
internal grace was conveyed at the time through it than through John’s. But
this was in conformity with the charactar of Christ’s whole ministry. It was
imperfect for the lime, but so framed as to become perfect afterwards. Those
whom he baptized by the hands of his apostles and of the seventy were in one
sense incompletely baptized; because the most important effects of the ceremony
did not in these instances immediately follow the performance of it. Still,
when he sent the Iloly Spirit on them, he may be said to have himself completed
their baptism; wliieh was thus more honourable than any others could boast of
receiving.
With them
the giving of the Holy Ghost was not by the agency of human ministers, but
immediately by their Lord and their God.
Being
baptized, too, by a manifestation of the Holy Ghost, these had no more need to
be rebaptized unto that name, in addition to the form wherewith they had
already been admitted as disciples, than had the apostles to be baptized unto
Christ, when called by him in person. The presence of the Divine Being in each
manifestation, superseded and implied all that could bo intended by specific
baptism unto that name, which, in each case, designated the Person of the
Godhead then present. None of Christ’s disciples, accordingly, were rebaptized
after the descent of the Holy Ghost;70 hut with John’s, the case was
widely ditferent. On the present occasion it is particularly recorded, that
Paul explained to them the ditference, baptized them in the Christian form, and
imparted to them the Holy Ghost, testified by the gift of tongues and of
prophecy.
Tertullian
mentions certain free- was not neeessary to salvation, or else the thinkers of
his day, who argued from apostles were not saved.—De Baptisniot this
fact, liiat either Christian baptism C.
Unity of
the Spirit
John xlii.
34, 3o.
Collections
for tiie Poor of Jcma.?
So
repeated mention is made in the Epistles of St. Paul, of contributions for the
relief of the Christians of Judaea, that it may be useful to notice this
subject also in connexion with the apostle’s stay at Ephesus. Whilst he was
preparing to make excursions alone into other parts of Asia, for the purpose of
confirming converts in the faith, Timothy and Erastus were despatched to
Macedonia, to urge the claims of the necessitous brethren, and to hasten the
contributions, so that he might find them ready on his arrival there. It may be
necessary to remind the reader, who inquires why the Christians of Juda'a
especially should need this assistance, that, according to the prediction of
the prophets at Antioch, they had been distressed by a general scarcity of
provisions, and that this was only a continuance of those charitable efforts,
of which Antioch had set the example. It will be observed, however, that St.
Paul advocates the cause of these his distressed brethren, not on the principle
of mere benevolence, but as a peculiar Christian duty. With a view, then, of
elucidating this principle, and thereby explaining the true character of the
numerous passages which refer to it, the subject has been noticed.
Our Lord
had, with peculiar emphasis, told his disciples, that he gave them one new
commandment, which was to love one another. This was the first precept which
was given to them as a separate socictv. That it had reference only to their
disposition and hdiaviour towards each other as members of such a Body, is
evident. Else, the commandment could not Tie called new; inasmuch as his
frequent injunctions to humility, and forgiveness of injuries, had much better
title to this peculiar and emphatic appellation. So considered, the commandment
was altogether new, because the object was new, the circumstances out of which
the obligation arose w ere new. Of its solemn importance, and of its further
enforcement by the Holy Spirit, under the expressions of “ unity” and “ unity
of the Spirit,” it is at present unnecessary to speak. Enough has been said to
render the principle easily applicable, and, in the present instance
especially, to mark its connexion with St. Paul’s earnestness, in urging the
contribution on the brethren of every place as a peculiar Christian duly.
This,
then, was the first occasion which was afforded to the whole Church of
manifesting their social love,—of evidencing the unity of the Spirit; and as
such we must consider the apostle to be representing it. In order to be
satisfied of this, we need only refer to one or two of the apostle’s
injunctions, and cither place them side by side with our Saviour’s commandment,
or consider them alone. Thus, the Lord had said, “ A new commandment 1 give
unto you, that ye
7' Acts
xviii. 22, compared with 1 Cor. Mi.
love one
another. As I have loved j'ou, that ye also lore one another. 13y this shall
all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” The
apostle in speaking of the contribution calls it “ the experiment,,’’ or “
test,” by means of which they 2 cor. ix. 13. glorify God for their professed
subjection to the Gospel of Christ.
To the
Galatians, before this, he had expressly sent a charge to “do Gal. vi. io. good
unto all men, especially unto them who were of the household of faith.. Those
words of another apostle, too, “Whoso hath this 1 John Mi. n. world’s good, and
seeth his brother (tos dlfk$ov, not n\r,a!cu) have need, and sliutteth up his
bowels of compassion from him, how dwclleth the love of God in him?” seem east,
as it were, in the mould of the original commandment, “ As I have loved you,
that ye John xiii.w. also love one auother;” and renders it almost unnecessary
that the writer should inform us, as he has done, that it is to that commandment
he is alluding.
St. Paul a,nd the Corinttiiia>ts. Acts xvm.
Before we
accompany the apostle to another stage of his journey,
I would
advert once more to his connexion with the Church of Corinth. The occasion is
not unsuitable, because from Ephesus was written his first Epistle to the
Corinthians, the design of which in part has been already noticed. Ilis second
followed after no very long interval.
It would
of course be incompatible with the scale of this inquiry, Authority to discuss
generally the matter and character of these Epistles, iiownori Mention has been
made of them with no further view, than to church remind the reader of the tone
of authority which the apostle assumes 1 cor. v.; in them, over the
offending members of the Church to which they 2 Cor- “• are
addressed; and this, not as vested in him alone, but as exercised by the
governors of that Church. There, indeed, it would seem to have been properly
lodged; for he would willingly, as he writes, have spared himself the task of
interposing his extraordinary right as apostle, in order to enforce a
discipline which of themselves they wrere competent to preserve, and
which, as the event shows, they did maintain without his further interference.
About the
same time also, (as may be inferred from his first Epistle to Timothy,)
Alexander and IIymen*u= -were made examples to the Church, of the right vested
in its governors of punishing its members. Some few remarks on the nature and
origin of this right, therefore, may not be inappropriate bore. As, in each
instance, the sentence is styled “ a delivery of the person unto Satan,” the
true 1 Tim kSP- import of that expression also should be determined.
That no
society can exist without some rules, and without some Its °ng'n.
means of enforcing obedience to those rules, is obvious. When therefore it is
asked, whether Christ or the Holy Spirit left any ecclesiastical laws, or
vested any where power to enforce those laws ■—if
the question is put with a view to ascertain whether Church
IIcclesiaMi-
ivI offences.
cove mm
cut be of Divine origin, it is idle; inasmuch as the very institution of the
ecclesiastical society, the Church, implies the design that rules should be
established, and means provided to enforce them.
Bat another
object may be intended by the question. It may be put with the view of
ascertaining what those rules are, whereby this society, the Church, is
designed to be governed. For, it may be said, and plausibly enough, that
granting the intention of the Church’s founder to have laws established, to be
ever so apparent, how are we to know v'Jtat kind of government he intended?
On one
point the inquirer must satisfy hiruself. If, from the nature of the Church,
and from existing circumstances, the members were already possessed of the
means of acquiring this knowledge, in that case neither Christ nor the Holy
Spirit would be likely to leave any code of ecclesiastical laws; un precisely
the same principle, as no code, of ethics w'as left.
Now, is
there any thing in the nature of the Church to guide us, as to what are
ecclesiastical offences? Undoubtedly there is. In every socicty there must be
such a principle; and by reference to it in each, are formed laws for the
government of each. Every society recognises peculiar offences, arising out of,
and depending solely on, the peculiar nature of the socicty; so that in
proportion as this latter is understood, the. former are defined. JIuch
mischievous confusion in some instances arises from a want of attention to this
(onnexion ; and the attention is frequently diverted from it by the accidental
circumstance, that the same act often becomes an offence against many
societies. Thus, theft is at once an offence against the supreme Ruler of the
universe,—against the political body of which the thief is a member,—against
some certain class of society, perhaps, in which he moves, and so on. The act
being one, it is only by reflection that we are enabled to separate the
different views which render it in each case an offence, and in each of a
different magnitude. Again, what becomes a crime because violating the
111 'nciple of one society, may bt! none in
another; if, namely, it dots not interfere with the object proposed in the
formation and preservation of that other society. Thus, the violation of the
academical rules of our Universities does not render the offending member
amenable to the laws of the land. Thus, too, the very conduct which recommends
a smuggler or a robber to his confederacy, becomes an offence against the political
body with which he is associated.
In order,
therefore, to ascertain what are inherent offences or crimes in any society, it
is necessary that we should know with what object or objects such society is
formed. If information of this kind, then, be found in the sacred record,
respecting the Christian society, ecclesiastical law by revelation was 110
more to be expected, than a code of ethics to tell men what their own consciences
were already constituted by Gou to declare.
It is
certain, however, that if the question need not be answered And pur.ish- in the
affirmative, in order either to establish the Divine origin of mtnts-
ecclesiastical government, or to determine what offences come under its
cognizance, there is yet a third object which may be proposed in urging it.
What punishments are authorized, in order to check those offences? Ought not
these to have been specified? and, not having been specified, docs the nature
of the case here also supersede the necessity of a revelation, and enable us
to know what coercion is, and what is not, agreeable to the Divine will ? The
inquiry, too, seems to be the more reasonable, because in looking to the
methods by which various societies are upheld, we find the punishment even in
similar societies by no means the same. Military discipline, for instance, in
different countries, and at different periods, has been enforced by penalties
unlike in degree and in kind.
In
different countries and ages, the social tis between the master and the slave
has been differently maintained. All this is true, but still, in looking at the
question so, we take only a. partial view, and lose one important feature in
the establishment of coercion,—the right.
Now, this
right is either inherent in the society, or conventional, Exclusion or both, as
is the case in most confederate bodies. When the right a!unher«!t is limited to
what the society exercises as inherent and indispensable, Ei?ht
of —inherent in its nature, and indispensable to its existence,—the
Society, extreme punishment is, exclusion; and the various degrees and
modifications of punishment are only degrees and modifications of exclusion.
When the right is conventional also, (as far as it is so,) the punishment is
determined by arbitrary enactment, proceeding from some authority acknowledged
by all parties, (whether that authority be lodged in the parties themselves, or
in competent representatives, or in other delegated persons,) and therefore
styled conventional. Few societies have ever existed without a large portion of
these latter. Hence the anomaly above alluded to, and hence too the vulgar
impression, that all punishments are arbitrary, and depend solely on the
caprice and judgment of the government. What is popularly and emphatically
termed society, affords a good instance of the first; that is, of a social
union regulated and maintained only by a right inherent. In this, excessive
ill-manners and the gross display of ungentlemanly feelings are punished by
absolute exclusion. According as the offence is less, the party offending is
for a time excluded from some select portion of good society, or from certain
meetings and the like, in which more particularly the spirit and genuine
character of gentility are to be cherished. All its lawful and appropriate
punishments are a system of exclusion, in various shapes and degrees.
Now it is
obvious, that no authority is ever here appealed to in any case; because the
right arises out of, and is inseparable from the society that exercises it,—is
implied in the very existence of tho
The Jewish
Temple h special Type of the < 'hristian Church.
John \tii.
20,
ri
society.
In like manner, when the Christian searches the New Testament for positive
enactments against < ffences to which the Clnirch may be exposed, and finds
none, it cannot nevertheless be said, that the omission leaves the nature of
the punishment arbitrary or conventional. It obviously sanctions those which
are coexistent with the Church, and which must therefore claim the same origin
and foundation as the Church itself. It does more, it sane- tions these
exclusively.
In
applying these principles to the government of the Church, it is not intended
to represent the subject as left wholly to be gathered from the nature of tho
Christian society, or as if no reference were found in the- New Testament to
particular points of ecclesiastical government. Not only does the case selected
for consideration prove that it is otherwise, but many expressions and passages
may be cited from other parts of Scripture, of similar import. All that is here
asserted is, that these are only illustrations of, and allusions to, the
principles of ecclesiastical society; which principle*, thus exemplified and
illustrated, are sufficient to direct us in all cases. So, (to allude once more
to the analogous case of the Christian code of morals,) moral precepts may be
found without number in the sacred volume, but they are employed only in
illvstration of the great Christian principles, which, thus acknow ledged and
sanctioned*] were to be our guide.
Jn determining
the true nature and object of the Church or Christian society, no small
assistance is derived from the emblematical character of its special type, the
Jewish temple. It was formed for the residence of the Holy Spirit, to bo the
medium of its operations. Look through the scriptural marks attached to it,
and this truth every where meets the eye. It may be recognised in the sacrament
of the Lord’s Supper;’2 ami in those many mysterious allusions which
lie scattered throughout the record of our blessed Lord's words, especially in
the Gospel of St. John. His writings are indeed inexplicable, unless we assign
such a meaning, not to a few remarkable passages, but to a tr„in of recurring
allusions to this abode of God amongst his people; allusions in this apostle’s
case perhaps the more frequent, because naturally suggested by the recollection
of those holy moments, when he used to lean on the bosom of hi* Master. \\ bat
other icw will sufficiently explain the mysterious expressions of that prayer,
which the Saviour offered up for his future Chureh, on bis approaching
separation from those who .were to be the founders of it. “Neither for these
alone, (prayed be), but for them also which shall believe on me through tlicir
word. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and 1 in thee, that
they alto may bt one in us.” And. again: “The glory
"2
“ Except ye eat tliu flesh of the Sen of man, and drir.k Lis bleed, ye have no
life in you.”—John vi. 53.
which thou
gayest me, I have given them ;73 that they may he one
even as we
are one; I in them, and thou in me, that they may he
made
perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast
sent me,
and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.” “ It’ a man John xiv 23.
love me,
he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and
we will
come unto him, and make our abode with him.”
Here,
then, is the principle by which all ecclesiastical discipline, Refarmnee of by
whomsoever exercised, must be regulated. To this, accordingly, ticii'*1**’"
St. Paul especially refers, when pointing out to the Corinthians, that what haJ
occurred amongst them came under the head of ecclesiastical offences, and as
such ought to be punished by the rulers of the Church. “ Know ye not that ye
are the temple of 1 Cor. iii. ig, God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in
you ? ” “ If any man destroy (or defile74) the temple of God, him
shall God destroy ; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.”
All
ecclesiastical offences, then, become such on the principle that they are
inconsistent with the residence uf the Holy Spirit in the Church,, or with his
operations. By this the apostles were regulated ; much more, then, their
successors. Ananias’s visitation was the first instance of the infliction of
ecclesiastical punish-
73 Alluding1
to his promise of the Comforter, that gift for which He was to ascend on high
in order that He might
give u uu
man, aim xi,
expedient
that He should go away.
This glory
is attributed to whatever, from time to time, was the appointed residence of
the Godhead. As this residence was chiefly manifested by the symbol of light,
the word glory expressed the light also.
When Moses
desired to have a manifestation of the Lord, his request was, “ I beseech
thee, show me thy glory.” (Ex. xxxiii. IS.) In like manner, it is said that
“the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle,’4 (Exod. xl. 34,) and
“the house of the Lord,” meaning the light from the cherubim. ,
Accordingly,
when Isaiah prophesied of the manifestation of (.rod in Christ, he says, “the
glory of the Lord shall be revealed.” (Tsa. xl. 5.) And St. John, alluding to
the prophet’s vision, “ these things spake Esaias, when he saw his glory” (John
xii. 41;) and again, “ The Word was made flesh, and dwelt (or tabernacled)
amongst us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the
Father.”—John i. 14.
So, too, when Christ speaks of his Church, as
the future residence of the Godhead in the pereon of the Holy Spirit, he
expresses himself in allusions to this symbol; although that symbol was no
longer to be given to a. people destined to “walk by faith, and not by sight.”
His apostles continued to adopt the same language concerning the Church. St.
Peter writes, “The Spirit
of glory
and of God resteth upon you.” <1 Pet. iv. 14.) St. Paul speaks of “ Christ’s
glorious Churchand, in his comparison between the Mosaic and Christian
dispensation, the Divine presence in each is expressed in the same figurative
language. “If the ministration of death, written and engraven on stones, was
glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face
of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? ” And, so
continuing and explaining the image, he at length proceeds to say that we, the
Church of Christ, are not only, as were the Jews, spectators of the glory, but
its abode and resting- place, as it were. “ But we all with open face,
beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image
from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord” —2 Cor. iii. 7-^18.
The latter
part of this sentence, in the original, is u<ro iU xrx.ftot'rzp ol-tq Kvgiov frvtCjbtxTOf, of which
the former words are, as Macknight observes, “ an Hebraism denoting a continued
succession and increase of glory,” see Psalm lxxxiv. 7; the latter an
expression shaped obviously in conformity with this Hebraism, of which it is
an appendage and explanation; it was used to denote that he was not speaking of
any visible glory, but of the Divine Spirit himself, of whose indwelling it had
been the ancient symbol.
74 $i<pit.
ment, and
it is expressly said to have been fur an offence against the TIolv Ghost.
Certainly, to determine what behaviour constitutes an offence of this kind,
supposes a knowledge of what is inconsistent with the abode of tho Ilcdy Spirit
in the Church, and also what his operations are; and these are matters of
revelation,—seen, doubtless, with more or less clearness, (as all other
matters of instruction are,) in proportion as men exert their faculties to
understand, and God sees good to bless that exertion.
Thus much
may be sufficient, on tho nature of offences against the Church, for the reader
to understand the principle which renders them such ; and it now remains to
inquire, what aro the proper penalties?
The same
method will be adopted as in the former case, viz. first, to consider what
practices would naturally result from the principles laid down ; and then, to
see whether the sacred writings contain or allude to such a system of coercion,
as we may have been thus led to infer. It was observed, then, that the inherent
rigid of every society is exclusion in its various gradations; that every
society must possess this, but nothing beyond this, as an inherent right.
Whatever other punishments are adopted by any society, must lie founded on a
right created by the permission of its members, if its formation was a matter
of choice to them, or by the compelling persons, if it was a matter of
compulsion. Now, apply this to the case of the Church. There is a society left
by its founder without any penal code; and the question is, whether any right
of punishment therefore is vested in it, and 01 what punishment ? Exclu-
E*comnm- sion, or excommunication, in all its shades and degrees, presents
nneu«n«d ittelf *s a kind of penalty, the infliction of which is an inherent
and 15 the perpetual right. Referring to the pages of apostolical history, wo
* ' see every reason to conclude from the
incidental allusions to ecclesiastical discipline, that such was the mode of
coercion sanctioned by the infallible guides and founders of the Church. Our
Saviour’s m«u. xviii. direction had been, “ If thy brother shall trespass
against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone; if he shall
hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then
take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses
every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it
unto the Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, Id him be unto thee as
an heathen man and a publican.” To the Corinthian Church the apostle’s rebuke
simply
1 cotv.E, 11. is, "Ye are puffed up,
and have not rather mourned that he that hath done, this deed might he taken
away from among you." And a little after he adds, in explanation of
certain figurative expressions with which he had been illustrating the same
principle, “ I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is
called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or
a drunkard, or an extortioner ; with such an one no not to eat.”
In the
energetic language of the apostlo on this occasion occurs Deliverance the
expression, “ to deliver over the person to Satan for the destruc- to^'“u“
^ tion of the flesh, that the spirit may he saved in the day of the ' ’ Lord
Jesus.” In this, then, there would seem to be something more implied than mere
excommunication. It is spoken of, too, as a sentence proceeding by peculiar
right from himself, and not, as the other, from one vested in the Church as a
body. Whether in the present instance it was executed, or only threatened, is
not explicitly stated: that it was actually inflicted on Hymenaeus and
Alexander, and by St. Paul, is proved by his Epistle to Timothy. l Tim. i. 20.
Here,
then, the inquiry concerning the right of punishment takes apparently a new
turn. The inquirer having satisfied himself that the Church has the right of
exclusion, as well from its nature as from the allasious to the exercise of
such a right in the apostolical writings, perceives, in the course of his
search, instances of punishment which seem to wear a different character, and
looks for some different principle to which he may refer them. He recollects,
that not only those above mentioned were delivered over to Satan by St.
Paul, but,
what is more unequivocally expressed, and more awful in its character, that
Ananias, the first offender against the Church, Death nf was visited with
death. And that there may be no misapprehen- An",llls'
sion as to the nature of his crime, it is called an offcnce against the Holy
Ghost—against him whose temple we are, as a Church. From the cruel and unholy
practices which have defiled that temple of the all-merciful God, in the rash
assumption of some other right than the right of exclusion, and to sanction
which these instances havo teen alleged, the Protestant of the nineteenth
century turns with abhorrence. He searches for any other principle and any
other right in vain. Moreover, these very instances require only an humble
consideration to set them also in the manifest light of cases of exclusion.
To
understand this, it is necessary to state what is meant by excommunication or
exclusion from the Church. Evidently, it is not exclusion from any particular
place; for the Church is not such; but from certain common privileges: i.e.
from the benefits of the | Christian covenant, or of some portion of it. And
wliat wrere these
* benefits ? They were spiritual, derived
through communion and the prayers and rites of the Christian community. Deprive
the offending member of these, and you delivered him over to the world from
which he had been called and elected. Cast him out of the Church and kingdom of
Christ, and he became again a subject of that kingdom over which the god of
this world rules. Thus he was said to be delivered to Sedan for the destruction
of the flesh—i.e. that the fleshly lusts through which he had offended may be
destroyed by the discipline. The principle was the same as that on which tlie
Israelites w'ere delivered to Babylonish captivity, and debarred their temple
service.
The ease
of Ananias and Sapphira is not, perhaps, an exception.
It wm final
exclusion from God’s Church, accompanied by the onhj sign which could prow
that the spiritual, punishment v:as final. Why that o tie nee was so visited is
not now important. Most probably, (as was elsewhere suggested,) it was an
attempt to elude the extraordinary suggestions of the Spirit; and if so, the
more appropriate seems the extraordinary mark of spiritual punishment.
It is by
no means necessary, however, to the correctness of the yiew here taken of
eeclcsiastieal discipline, that the nature of Ananias’s crime and 'punishment
should be shown not to form any exception to it. Like the pardoning of the
thief on the cross, it . / arose out of circumstances which cannot recur in the
ordinary course of the world; circumstances not only extraordinary, but of
those so characterised, the most solemn and important. The one was a remarkable
specimen of mercy and forgiveness, and as such fitly appended to the scene in
which God was exhibiting himself as our Saviour; the other, an awful instance
of severity and punishment, and no less properly attached to the scene in w
hich God W'as exhibiting himself as the Ruler of his people, sceujid A further mention of those offenders in the
Church of Corinth,
n/tho'6
whose case has furnished the ground for these remarks, is made in Corinthians,
the apostle’s second Epistle to that Church. In order that the •\.d. 57. matter
might be settled w ithout his personal interference, lie prolonged his stay at
Ephesus; expecting to hear a favourable account of the impression made by his
first Epistle. Meantime, an occurrence took place which hastened his
departure. In his former journey, the cure of the Pythoness excited the
ill-will of her master, whose gains were at an end, and caused the first
persecution of his party which originated with the idolatrous Gentiles. At
Ephesus, Acts xu. as. the famous seat of the Temple of Diana, and “ of the
image which fell down from Jupiter,” he was exposed even to greater danger,
from the tendency of his doctrine to ruin all those trades which depended for
their support on idolatry and false worship. Demetrius, a silversmith, entered
into a combination with those of his own trade ; and the tumult excited by the
appeal made to the superstitious feelings of the multitude in behalf of their
tutelary goddess, whose shrine they represented as likely to be forsaken, was
with some difficulty appeased. St. Paul, after having been subjected to one
night’s imprisonment, thought it prudent to withdraw for the time, and to
pursue his journey at once to Corintli. The prejudice, however, which now began
to be awakened against Christianity, was not of a character likely to pass
atvay with the occasion. Throughout the woHd, tho livelihood of a portion of
every community arose out of the sale of images, the decoration of temples,
and, more than all, the rearing of victims for the festivals, in proportion as
Christianity spread, this circumstance formed an increasing source of
opposition in the idolatrous world, scarcely less active and
determined
than that v.'liich was caused by Jewish prejudice among the more enlightened
portion of mankind. The complaints and informations which from time to time
were laid before the magistrates, against this “pestilent sect,” as it was
termed, although made under the various pleas of loyalty, patriotism, or piety,
originated, for the most part, as in the case of Demetrius, out of self'
interest. Pliny, whose account deserves credit as an official document, and as
the result of an investigation made by a highly- gifted mind, evidently saw
through all this; and accordingly be mentions, as the best proof and symptom of
returning order and content produced by his measures, that the victims were
once more brought to market, and that the altars blazed. As yet, however, the
Church was too insignificant to attract the notice of the imperial government,
although the tumult at Ephesus proves that it wTas spreading fast.
It was not
until St. Paul’s arrival in Greece, that be received any tidings of the
Corinthians; to whom he immediately addressed his second Epistle, to prepare
them for his coming. To Corinth, accordingly, he proceeded, and made it, as
before, the boundary of his third apostolical journey. It is not, however,
improbable, that, but for his anxiety to be at Jerusalem in time for the
approaching festival, he would now have attempted to pass over into Italy, and
visit Rome. The information which he had received respecting that important
Church, could not but have rendered him anxious to perform his errand as soon
as might be amongst them. His Epistle to it, written from Corinth, amply
testifies this; and explains the cause of his anxiety. Converted as it would
seem by Jewish Christians, whose eyes were not yet open to the true nature of
St.
Paul’s
mission, they had received the same erroneous impression respecting the
obligation of the old law on the converted idolater, which still prevailed in
the great body of the Church at Jerusalem. Accordingly, the whole tenor of his
Epistle bespeaks an anxiety to remove this mistake; and the strong terms in
which he lias, naturally enough, advocated tho independence of the Gentiles, by
speaking of them as, equally wTith the Jewish people, “ elect ” by
the foreknowledge of God, are as remarkable for the perverse interpretation
which is often put on them, as for the striking transcript which they present
of the apostle’s anxious zeal, in endeavouring to effect by letter what
circumstances prevented him from doing in person.
Si. Paul and the Epkesiax Peesbyters. Acts**.
St. Paul’s
company on his return was increased by the addition increased of those deputed
from the several Churches to convey their respee- 2ftli^rVt><
tive contributions to Jerusalem. It was a journey of no small risk.
Independently of the prophetic bodings with which the Holy Spirit addressed him
by sundry individuals as be passed onwards, he could not but feel that his
mission to the Gentiles had rendered his life
unsafe any
whore ama#g his countrymen. And what could he qxpect at Jerusalem ? His very
departure from Corinth was marked with plots against him, which obliged him to
change his intention of going by sea, and to retrace his steps through Aehaia
and Macedonia. Mitylenc, Chios, Samos, Trogylliurn, and Miletus, formed the
next line of his coarse ; and by this time the feast of Pentecost, at which, for
some reason, he earnestly desired to he present, wras so near as to
render it impossible that he should visit Ephesus, which he thought it equally
incumbent on him to do. To obviate this difficulty, ho requested the attendance
of the Ephesian Elders or Presbyters at Miletus; a circumstance which is here
noticed, because in the interview which thereupon took place, he reminds
r.pispopi. them that the Iloly Ghost had made them Bishops, ({xwxoVsu*,) a term
which has not before occurred in the sacred narrative. Having, in the last
section, examined into the nature of offences against the Church, and of the
penalties due to them. I shall tnke this occasion of inquiring, with whom the
power of inflicting and remitting these penalties was lodged; and not only this
power, but all other authority and administration, whether supreme or
subordinate, inquiry into One previous caution may, perhaps, be requisite.
Various objec it.,- mi ion tions have been urged from time to time against our
Church govern utrtc.a. nienti against the three orders of
the Church, pnd the functions which they respectively exercise. To answer these
merely by an attempt to prove their existence in the apostolical age, and their
scriptural sanction, is to allow the objector an unfair advantage, and to
submit our cwn minds to an uufair view of the question. The proof of the
contrary rests wj(h those who object. We find these matters so established, and
tracing them further and further back, we still find evidence of them, without
any coincident marks of human innovation. Tried by the touchstone of Scripture,
they are found to be at least not inconsistent with its records; and therefore
it would be a wanton and dangerous exercise of the Church’s discretionary power
to annul them. This was the spirit of the Keformation in England ; and on this
principle it has taught us, Thus far shalt thou go, and no further.
There are
two questions which, in a discussion of this point, require distinct
consideration. The first is, What were the orders of the primitive Church? The
second, Were they intended altogether, or partly, or not at all, as models for
the formation of ecclesiastical establishments of after-times?
As to the
first question, it may admit of a different answer from different periods of
the apostolical history; inasmuch as the Church economy was certainly not
framed at once, but rose progressively with the exigencies of the Church. At
the very period on which we are now dwelling, it is obvious, that the term
Bishop and Presbyter were not only applied to the same order, but that no order
of ministers (setting aside the apostles) was generally established,
superior
to the presbytery. At a later period in the apostolical history, tlie same
assertion would be altogether uatenable. •
The
assembly, or imkwict, must, from its nature, have been the only order, besides
that of tho apostles, on the first attempt of the Christians to act as a
society. All Christians composed this body, and the term, in short, signified
the Church. But whether this general assembly at any period exercised any
elective, legislative, or other powers, may perhaps be questioned. No doubt the
Church or Assembly is mentioned as taking part with the presbyters in the
elections and enactments; but when we consider the immense concourse, which a
general meeting would suppose in the very earliest times, is it likely that any
one private room would be found capable of containing all? On the other hand,
is it likely that in Jerusalem, especially, so large a multitude would be
permitted to meet in public, openly discuss their affairs, and take measures
for the support and propagation of obnoxious doctrines, when even individuals
were exposed to continual risk in their preaching and other ministry?
The
meetings of Christians for purposes of prayer, and other devotional exercises,
must, for the same reason, have taken place in different houses assigned for
the purpose. And this (as has been before observed) may illustrate the
expression used by the historian in his account of Paul’s search after the
disciples “in every one of Ajtsviii. 3. the houses,” (*«t« tou; ifcoi>;;)
which, no doubt, implies, that he obtained information concerning their several
places of meeting, and by going from one to another at the time of prayer was
sure of apprehending some. The same allusion may be perceived in St.
Paul’s
expression of “the Church in the house of Aquila and iCor.xvi.i9. Priscilla,
’" &c. Such a division of the Christian body into separate
congregations ■would
require the appointment of some one, at least, to preside over and officiate in
each; and also of some one or more subordinate ministers or deacons, such as
have been before noticed.
When,
therefore, we read that a decree was made, &c., by the apostles,
presbyters, and the whole Church, one of two things must be supposed to have
taken place: either the presbyters took each the sense of his own congregation;
or the presbyters and other official persons, it may be, met as the
representatives, each of his own congregation, and all of the Church collectively.
The former
supposition is certainly encumbered with more and greater difficulties than the
latter. The subject proposed at these Christian meetings seems, from the tenor
of the narrative throughout, to have been then first presented to the Church in
any shape ; and the decisions took place before the meeting was dissolved.
There are
no marks of any previous notice of the matter to be discussed, so as to enable
the several presbyters to consult the opinions and wishes of their
constituents; and the decision took place 'without any interval to a^ow of r,n
after consultation.
Against
the remaining supposition, namely, that the presbyters
Acts xv.
*28.
Apostolical
origin of Episcopacy.
,* Tim. v. 22; 2 lilts i. 5; iii. 10.
] Tim. i.
3 ; Titus L 5.
and other
official persons, perhaps, met as the plenipotentiaries each of his own hody,
the strongest obstacle lies in the phrase, “ It seemed good to the presbyters
with the whole Church."’ Now this expression, after all, may imply no more
than that it seemed good to the presbyters, and whatever other members of the
Council, in conjunction with them, may be called the whole Church, because
appointed to represent it. In like manner, when the Council of Jerusalem
declared respecting their famous decree, that “it seemed good to them and to
the Holy Ghost,” our knowledge of the relation in which these stood to one
another, prevents all doubt; but the expression itself, without any such clue,
would make it questionable, whether tho Council and the Holy Spirit were not
recorded as two separate sources of the ecclesiastical authority from which the
decree hud emanated. Now the sentences on which we ground our conjectures
respecting the authority of the whole Christian body, are precisely so
circumstanced.
Tho appointment
of deacons has been elsewhere discussed, and the origin of the presbytery has
been now suggested. The order of bishops therefore only remains to be accounted
for. At the period of St. Paul’s summons to the Church of Ephesus, no such
order could have existed there ; and, if not in so large and important a
Chureh, probably no where. The title cannot imply it, for it is one used for
all the presbyters of Ephesus ; and their number proves that he was not
addressing bishops, for they came from one Chureh. Again, although the word
occurs elsewhere in St. Paul s Epistles, it cannot mean an order of men in whom
the chief authority was vested; because his Epistles are addressed to the
Churches, as to assemblies in whom such authority was vested. The term bishop
became afterwards appropriated to an order, of which we cannot infer the
existence, certainly from any expression of St. Luke. How such an order should
have arisen, it is not difficult to discover. St. Paul’s Epistles to Timothy
and Titus present us with at least its embryo form. Not only are both
commissioned to ordain ministers, to determine matters left undetermined, and
to inflict ecclesiastical punishments, even to excommunication; but their
respective dioceses are distinctly marked out. Ephesus was assigned to Timothy,
Crete to Titus. At the same time it would certainly seem that, iu Timothy’s
case especially, the appointment was rather that of locum tenens for the
apostle, and so far a temporary office. But this, far from being an objection to
the apostolic authority of episcopacy, really supplies us with the clue to
trace its origin and object. What was needed for a time at Ephesus or Crete, in
the temporary absence of the presiding apostle, would be permanently requisite,
when death for ever deprived these Churches of apostolical superintendence. The
same cause, in short, which produced the appointment of presbyters, continued,
as the number of congregations in each Church increased, to render the rise of
a new ordi r
Cii.vr.
TL] ST. PAUL AND THE EPHESIAN PRESBYTERS.
147
equally
necessary. A small presbytery, occasionally visited by an apostle, might not
require a head; but a large one, especially as the apostles were removed by
death or accident, would soon feel this want. That such an order was required
before the close of the apostolic era, the then state of Christianity would
render of itself nearly certain. Although at the time of the appointments of
Titus and Timothy they may not bave been general, yet when St. John wrote his
Revelations, each of the seven Churches of Asia had its own bishop. And if this
were so in that district, which then alone enjoved the- guidance of an apostle,
mueli more was it likely to have been the case elsewhere. St. John, we know,
addressed them as angds; but whether by a figure of speech, or because such was
at that time their only designation, no candid mind can doubt that an episcopal
order is intended; and that to them, as such, commands and revelations were
given by God through his last apostle.7* Thus, episcopacy would seem
to be the finishing of the sacred edifice, which the apostles were commissioned
to build. Until this was completed and firm, they presented themselves as props
to whatever part required such support. One by one they were withdrawn; and at length
the whole building having “ grow'n together into an Eph. a 21. holy temple,”
the Lord’s promise was fulfilled to the one surviving apostle. He only tarried
until God’s last temple was complete, and the Lord’s second “ coining” unto it78
had been announced bv an especial vision.77
75 The genuine remains of the apostolic
Fathers show, that (luring the age immediately following, official letters
were addressed indifferently to and from “ tlie Church,” “ the bishop and
presbyters,” and “ the bishop,” although the more usual form was still “ the
Church,” But that this was then considered in the same light, as if the bishop
of the Church alone had been specified, may be inferred from the first Epistle
of Clement, which although called Clement’s, by the united testimony of all
who mention it, professes to be, and is in substance, an Epistle from “ the
Church of Orod at Rome, to the Church of God at Corinth.” Polycarp’s is
addressed from “ Poly carp and the presbyters with him” to “ tfie Church of God
at Philippi.53 Ignatius addresses two Epistles to the Smyrnseans,
one to “the Church at Smyrna,” the other to ** Poly carp, bishop of the Church
at Smyrna.” And that this latter, no less than the former, was a letter to the
Church,
and not to its bishop personally,
will be
evident from the following passages in it: 44 Hearken unto the
bishop, that God also may hearken unto you.
My soul,
be security for them that submit to their bishop, with their presbyters and
deacons,” Sec. Vi. “ Labour with one another, contend together, run together,”
&c.
78 See Mai.
iii. 1.
77 The
revelation to St. John, in the close of his life, presents several obvious
points of connexion with the prophetic promise, that he should tarry until the
Lord’s coming. Throughout the Scriptures, and especially in our Saviour’s
language, the Christian Church is designated by the emblem of the temple. Its
foundation stones, its corner stone, its holy of holies, its one high priest,
are images familiar to the sacred writers. Nor is the connexion to be
considered as fanciful, and merely founded on an accidental analogy, serving
the purpose of illustrations. The temple, its uses, anti its ordinances, were
designed, like the other portions of the older establishment, as types of the
new. It was, therefore, the image in which ancient prophecy represented the
future Church. Of this last temple it was foretold, that its glory should
surpass Solomon’s; and into this it is that Malachi proclaimed the Lord’s
coming. The final mode of Divine residence , intended by tliis coming, commenced
when the various parts of the Church were completed, and the extraordinary
portions removed. St. John was permitted to see all readj* for this before his
death. He was permitted to do more. The future fate and history of that
figurative temple was revealed fr>
There is
still another point to be settled. Was this form of Cliureh government intended
to be perpetual, and universal,—is it enjoined on all Christian societies in
every age ? of tWaIwnry ^e
one hand it may be maintained, that this arrangement
order.
having been originally made by the Holy Spirit, through which his offiee as
governor of the Church was to he exercised, we have no right to alter it, any
more than wo are authorized to alter the means of grace, unless some positive
permission can be shown; and that it is, moreover, a wicked presumption to
suppose, that any other means, (however humanly probable,) would more truly
obtain the object of Clurch government. As a reason why this form of Church
government was not positively enjoined, it may be suggested, that it was not
like an abstract doctrine or precept, the only safe mode of recording which is
“ the written word,” hut a matter which i? its own record. Like the Mysteries
of the heathen, it was a practical document; the daily and continual practice
of the Church, perpetuated from one age to another, superseded all need of
other record.
On the
other hand, it may be urged, that as the constitution of the Church was only
what was then most convenient for the support and propagation of religion,
whenever that end may he better attained by any alteration or deviation, the
innovators are aeting up to the spirit of the original institution, and thereby
are more trulv followers of the apostles, than those who sacrifice the object
to the observance of the means, which are only valuable as regards that object.
And,
certainly, had it been intended that we should regard Episcopacy as
indispensable to a Church, vve should have had some scriptural record of the
Institution, and some scriptural declarations of its being essential, as in the
case of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. We are not bound, by any Divine
authority, to retain Episcopacy under all circumstances; but neither may we
depart from it, as if the question was simply one of temporary convenience. The
apostles did not leave the Christian world to determine how the churches were
to he modelled and governed; they founded Episcopacy, and handed over the
Christian communities so ordered to succeeding times. Those of other
generations had not to form an ecclesiastical polity for themselves ; they
found one already settled. Now. considering how important the form of governing
a Church may be to its efficiency as the channel of our gospel privileges, how
important, too, uniformity of government to a certain extent—-is, to the free
intercommunion of Christians belonging to different Churches
him, at
the time his Master came to were, of the
import of that revelation to
announce
the tilling of it with his glory. him.
The terms in which it opens are,
The
prophetic history is of course all that “
Behold he comethand the close* “ He
concerned
us, the fulfilment of the pro- which
testifieth these things, saith,SureJy,
nvise only
him. Yet he has not left the I come
quickly: Amen. Even so, come,
former
without a memorandum, as it Lord Jesus.”
—tliose
who have altered existing arrangements have incurred a weightv responsibility.
But, we may neither condemn them, nor acquit them. The judgment belongs to a
higher tribunal than that of man. Still less may we say, that those who by
birth or accident have become members of a church so remodelled, are not
justified .n adhering to it, or that it is not a Church and a genuine portion
of Christ’s kingdom.
Some
departure in the form of government, from the pattern of the primitive Church,
has necessarily taken place in every community, nor does this departure of
itself imply presumption. A very large community, for instance, has every where
required a new order above bishops themselves; and this need being manifest,
the appointment of the archiepiseopal office is as purely consonant to the
apostolical views, as that, of subordinate bishops. It has arisen in the same
way, and in compliance with a similar need to that which gave rise to the episcopal
order, in the apostolical Church; namely, the increased extent ami more
complicated government of each Church. Thus, too, the appointment of
catechists, once a branch of every Church establishment, tv as properly discontinued as soon as they ceased to be
required; and as properly has been revived in our colonies, where their
services are once more applicable. The choroepiscopi served, in like manner,
to meet another occasional emergency.
No Church
has ever more anxiously and conscientiously shaped its course by the spirit,
and by tlie very letter of the apostolic precedents, than has the Church of
England. And yet even that Church has found circumstances powerful enough to
justify a devia tiou scarcely less momentous, in the transfer of supreme ecclesiastical
authority to the civil magistrate. It is not merely a variation from the
original architecture of Christ’s holy building that constitutes disproportion
and deformity. We must look alto to the changing features of the scene around,
and see whether these have not demanded corresponding alterations, and let
these be the measure of our judgment.
St. Paul at Jerusalem. Acts
xx;.
St. Paul’s
interview prith the Ephesian elders was rendered Prophetic peculiarly solemn
and alfecting, from a feeling of which he himself st™luT *° partook, that death
awaited him at Jerusalem.-8 Still lie went on, and the prophetic
warnings which pursued him, and the anxious entreaties of his friends,
continued to confirm his fears, and to sadden his pilgrimage, without inducing
him to discontinue it. On Acts xx. m. his arrival at- Caesarea, especially,
Agabus came from Judiea, and, by virtue of his prophetic gift, told him
expressly by symbol and
Thii ip another proof, that the pro-
suggestions perfectly distinguishable from jihetic spirit v as not at his
command, but ther, even the strongest, impressions on dealt out to lam Dy
measure ; and its the mind
He
declares hi*
Apostleship
to the Idolatrous Gentile*.
l>v
word, tlmt the Jews should hind him, and deliver him over to tho Gentiles. So
that he arrived at Jerusalem fully apprised of the persecution which he was to
encounter, and uncertain whether liis life would ho spared or not. Tho terms of
Agabus’s prediction were more likely to portend death ; for in that he was to
be bound by tho Jews, and delivered up to the Gentiles, the fate of his Lord
and Master could not but recur to him, and seem likely to be now Iris own : nor
was it, perhaps, any slight stimulus and support to him in his perseverance,
that 'he seemed, in thus pressing on to Jerusalem, in spite of his own
forebodings, and of the remonstrance of others, to be imitating him. The
studious imitation of Christ, wherever any similarity of circumstances could be
perceived and felt, forms a marked feature in the lives, not only of the
apostles, hut of the primitive worthies who inherited their tone of Christian
footing.
On other
grounds he had reason to surmise that his work wa3 finished. Ilis third
apostolical journey was now ended, and tho conversion of the Gentiles far enough
advanced, to make it safe and
• xpedient for him to communicate openly
to the whole Church that secret, which had been hitherto confided to a select
few. For this, probably, more even than to keep the feast, he had hastened his
journey to Jerusalem. Whether the result of this open avowal would be the
forfeit of life, might have been concealed from his prophetic view purposely to
try him. At all events, the present might have seemed to him a seasonable
period for the termination of his labours,—in ail human probability it would be
so. Hence the tender farewell, in which he had told the Church of Ephesus “ ho
should see their face no more;”80 henee his anxiety, even in haste,
to pay them that parting lisit: lienee, perhaps, that very haste and urgency, that
with the enlightened views of a Christian, indeed, but still with the patriotic
feelings of one whose early habits had been moulded in the “ straitest sect” of
the Jews, he might once more keep the festival with his countrymen, and die.
His Master’s example might again, in this particular, have influenced the tone
of mind which kept up his resolve to go on to Jerusalem. As he approached, what
train of thought so natural and so cheering as the image of the blessed Jesus
in his last journey to Jerusalem,— bis earnestness to keep the jtassover there,
unabated by the certain foreknowledge that he was to be bound by his
countrymen, and delivered up to the Gentiles ?
Such then
was, probably, the frame of mind with which St. Paul disclosed to the rulers of
the Church of Jerusalem the tnie nature of his extraordinary apostleship to the
Gentiles, and the prosperous
'» Sep the
description of the martyr- asi'l many
more among the primitive
dom of
Steplwn and of Janies in the Acts. Christians.
A similar
remark applies to the account
*:ven ox
the deaihs of rolycarp, Ignatius, 80
Aets xx. 38. See uote "p, p. 149.
result of
three journies amongst thorn. Like the other marvellous disclosures of the
mysteries of the new dispensation, it called forth that peculiar thanksgiving
which is styled in Scripture, “ glorifying Acts xxi is God."’ Their joy
and wonder were however immediately followed51' by a sense of the
danger to which he stood exposed. One expedient suggested itself. It was
proposed that he should join four Jewish rii” Christians in performing the rite
of purification in the temple. This, 2"
it was
thought, would convince the Jews of the real design of his mission; namely,
that it was not, as far as concerned their law, to forbid the Jewish Christians
to observe it, but only the Gentiles, and especially the idolaters. So public
and unequivocal a testimony of conformity to the Mosaic ceremonies, would, it
was thought, remove the worst ground of enmity against him, and at least soften
down the spirit of ill-will. It produced, however, a contrary result.
His
appearance in the holy place was construed into a design to defile it.
Trophimus, a Gentile convert, had accompanied him from Asia. He anil Paul were
often seen together, and the former was recognised by some Jews from Asia. An
outcry was raised that Paul had brought this Gentile into the temple itself.
Lysias, the commander of the Roman garrison, was obliged to interfere, and
rescue him from the fury of the multitude. In vain he obtained permission to
address them from the steps of the castle, whither they were conducting him to
imprisonment. Eloquence, even such as Paul’s, conveying to them the avowal*
that the kingdom of God was thrown open to Gentiles and idolaters, could only
serve to exasperate them; and it was with much difficulty that he was
preserved from outrage and death.
Here his
trial, at least his uncertain apprehensions, ended. That night the Lord stood
by him, and informed him, that he was Acts m'ii. appointed to bear witness to
Him in Rome. In what manner the M‘ treacherous designs of his
enemies were rendered subservient to this purpose, is well known. His appeal
from the tribunal of Festus to that of Caisar was made, not only with the view
of defeating the stratagem devised for sending him back to Jerusalem, but in
fulfrl- ment of the command of the Lord delivered to him that night. In
obedience to this, he embraced the early opportunity, thus providentially
afforded, for his visit to the imperial city.
St. Paul’s fofhtii Apostolical Joi knev.
%
Frun a.d.
o3—Go.
ROUTE:
Act? xxiit
A ntip&tris; C'xsarea; Sidon; Myra; Fair Havens: Melita; Syracuse;
Rhtprinm;
SI. toxxviiL Puteoh; Ajipii Forum; Three
Taverns; Rome; Italy; Spam; Crete; Jerusalem; Antiocn in Syria.
St. Like's narrative, as has been already observed, was very
evidently composed with the design of recording the progress of the Holy
Spirit’s dispensation through its several stages; first, as confined to the
Jews; next, as embracing the devout Gentiles also ; and lastly, a? unlimited in
its application, and open to idolaters of every caste.*1 On this
account it is, that the first part of his little history embraces the ministry
of all the apostles; then is occupied chiefly with St. Peter, as the person
selected by the Spirit for the first extension of the Gospel scheme ; then it
folluws Barnabas and Paul through the next anil last enlargement of the
covenant, for the management of which they had been appointed; and. at length,
is eon- lined to the ministry of St. Paul, in whose hands it was left on the
separation between him und Barnabas. With equal propriety, tho account closes
with the period, when the apostle of the idolatrous Gentiles, having formally
announced the greatest mystery of tho Gospel to the Church of Jerusalem, has
arrived at the capital of the world, and the work has been commenced in the
imperial city itself. His voyage thither is accordingly related with an unusual
minuteness of detail: not only, perhaps, because of the miraculous
circumstances which it embraces, but because it was preparatory to that which
the historian considered the important boundary of his plan, his arrival and
first ministry at Rome.
Some
intimations of this might he passed
through Macedonia and Achaia,
intended
in the words, with which the to go
to Jerusalem, saying, After I have
Gospel
opens, “ Forasmuch as many been there I
must so to Home also.”
have taken
in hand to write in order;*9 Rome
was the mistress and representative
and with
reference to this it is, perhaps, of
the world ; and when therefore the
that we
are told so pointedly in the 19th apostle
had preached the Gospel there,
chapter of
the Acts, ver. 21, “ After our
Saviour’s declaration concerning
these
things were ended,” (he had that sign
which was to prccede the
been
recording the rapid progress which destruction
of Jerusalem, might be the Word was making, and how it fairly understood to
have had its accom-
“ mightily
grew and prevailed,”) “Paul pHshment.
“This Gospel must first be
purposed
in the Spirit, when he had preached in
all the tvorld.”
St. Paul a Prisoner at Roue. Acts xviii.
Among the
faithful friends and assistants who formed his company here, are recorded—I.
Timothy, ivho came with him from a.;, xi i Macedonia, and whose name appears
joined with his in the Epistles coiiT. i1; to the Philippians,
Colossians, and Philemon. Phikm. i.
II. Luke, who had been long his constant
companion, as appears Actsxx 0,6. from the form of his ow n narrative; and who
is mentioned as still Col. iv 14 with him, in the Epistle to the Colossians,
and in that to Philemon. ri'-™-24-
III. Aristarchus, one of his fellow-travellers
from Macedonia, Acts xx. s. and it w'ould seem now his fellow-prisoner also,
(Col. iv. 10.)
IV. Tvchicus, another of his fellow-travellers,
and his messenger Actsxx. 4. to the Colossian Church, (Col. iv. 7.)
V. Lastly, Mark, the nephew of Barnabas.
(Col. iv. 10,) who bad now regained the esteem and trust which he forfeited 011
his first journey with Paul.
The
account given by Eestus of his prisoner could not but have Advantages been
favourable; as he was permitted to lodge in a “hired house,” sftuitkm.'1"
with free access to him from all his friends, and sufficient liberty to be able
to discuss the subject of his imprisonment, and the persecu- Actsxxviu. tion
which had led to it, with the chief Jewish settlers at Rome. 30’3''
Unde'- these circumstances, he was probably better able to effect the object of
his mission in the first instance, than if he had come to Rome free, and more
obviously by choice. Being immediately under the protection of the government,
he was respected by the Jews; whilst the government was seasonably made
acquainted, from the nature of the charge against him, with the innocent object
of his mission; and therefore was unlikely to bo excited against him, as “ a
pestilent fellow, or a ringleader of sedition.” For twro years the
Gospel was thus suffered to take root in the seat of empire, unmolested and
almost unobserved, through a train of providential circumstances, such as the
importance of the case seems to have required. A tumult in Rome, like that
which had occurred at Ephesus and Fhilippi, would, humanly speaking, hav’e been
fatal to the infant state of the religion, and it seems to have been expressly
guarded against by Providence.
The
particular mode in which the apostle made bis first appear- And of his ance at
Rome, was serviceable to the cause in another point of view.
It brought
him into an intercourse w ith the soldiery. Ilis voyage, with the with all its
perils and the miracles to which it gave rise, might have Soldler-v
been intended to impress the minds of the soldiers who guarded him (as was
actually the result) with the conviction that he was an extraordinary man. Its
length might have been protracted with the same view; and the record may have been
left in exact minuteness to direct our attention to the circumstance. His
integrity had been proved by his mode of life with them generally, and
especially by his disinterested care to preserve the whole crew id the ship-
wreck,—
his view of futurity, by foretelling that accident,—bis support and guidance by
a superior power, from the deliverance in which all shared, as well as by the
harmless efforts of the viper, and the healing virtue of his prayer. All this
would naturally be related, and even magnified, in the social meetings between
the soldiers returned from foreign service and their comrades and friends at
home. The pratorian guard itself would find in the marvellous prisoner from tho
east a subject fur passing conversation, and his name and acts would be known
in Ca?sar’s palace, and among Cffisar’s household. Curiosity would induce some
of all these descriptions of persons to visit him ; and of these the conversion
of a portion could not but take place. Such then was the case. To the Phitippmns
rhiiip.iv.22. he sends, in his Epistle, the brotherly remembrance of the
“saints, especially those who were of Cansar’s household;” assures them, that
what had befallen him, instead of being a hindrance, had so PMi.i. it, ia far
proved a furtherance to his Gospel, that his bonds were made manifest in Christ
in the whole Prwtorium, and to all others. Before the first persecution of
Nero, the little mustanl seed 1/ad become a tree too firmly rooted to be shaken
by the storm ; and the Roman historians speak of the converts to Christianity
in the Capital, as an immense multitude of different ages and sexes.
The
apostle was not unmindful of those Churches, where others were now engaged in
following up the ministry which he had commenced, nor was he forgotten bv
them. His first Epistle from Rome was occasioned by the arrival of Epaphroditus
from Philippi, Phil. ii. », whence he had been sent by the brethren to inquire
after him, and and iv. 1,4 t() taj_e gome supp]ics for
him. Epaphras arrived from Colosse soon after on the same errand.R2
This was the occasion of his col. i. 7. s. Epistles to the Churches of Philippi
and Colosse. As Ephesus was so near to the latter city, Tyehieus, who was bis
messenger thither, Eph. Ti. »i. was commissioned with another for the Ephesians.
The preva'’ing tone of all these Epistles is that of warning against the
seductive practiccs of the Judaizing Christians, whose doctrine had now begun
to be tinged with the oriental philosophy.
It is
pleasing to pursue the apostle, from this bis path of public duties, to any of
those scenes of private life which bring us morei as it were, into a personal
acquaintance with him. Such was the occasion of his Epistle to Philemon, in
behalf of his slave Onesimus.
8*
Epapliras’s visit must have caused relating to Aristarchus, he taknn, not some
suspicion, as for some rtason he litwaliy, hut as implying thatthey were
appears certainly to ha\e been detained the companions of Paul the prisoner,
and in confinement with Paul, (Phihm. 23.) by their society ba<. p«t
tlu.msehes m Unless this expression, as veil as that the condition of
prisoners.
St. Paul and Onesimus. Epistle
to
i • i i • i i i /»i • ii i
Philemon.
In the
zeal with wh>ch the advocates of humanity and the natural rights of man,
have endeavoured to abolish slavery from the civilized world, it has been not
unusual to represent it as inconsistent with Christianity. On the other hand,
the absence of all negative precepts respecting it, the frequent allusions and
comparisons adopted by our Lord himself from the state of slavery, to
illustrate the condition of God’s servants, and, lastly, the correspondence
between Paul and the master of Onesimus, without any reproof from the bold and
uncompromising apostle to his convert Philemon, on liis assumed right of
ownership, even over Onesimus, have been urged as tacit sanctions to the
system, whatever abstract objections may lie against it. The subject for its
own sake alone would not perhaps have claimed attention; but it furnishes a
remarkable illustration of a general system observed in the propagation of
Christianity, for the sake of which it is here noticed. The whole controversy
proceeds on the mistaken notion, that slavery is a subject to which the
precepts of Christianity were directly applicable. But surely, whatever be the
magnitude of the evil, and great it doubtless is, it is & political, not a
moral evil; and as such, we may as well expect to find arguments in the New
Testament for or against tlis Christian character of absolute monarchy or republicanism,
as against slavery.
Immoral
and unchristian practices there are, doubtless, which arise out of this
political or social evil as well as out of tyranny; and these are consistently
stigmatized in the New Testament. The d»0(>a- KtMiarai, the men-stealers,
are enumerated by St. Paul himself in a l Tim. i. 10. catalogue which embraces
the vilest of mankind; but with the question of Slavery the apostle bad no more
concern officially, than with the universal usurpation of Rome. As in the ease
of ail other institutions, customs, and forms of society not religious,
Christianity took no cognizance of this; Christ’s was not a kingdom of this
world, and interfered with nothing in the forms of any society. On the one
hand, therefore, it might as well be asserted, that Christianity sanctioned
the abominable tyranny of Nero, because Paul made no attempt to seduce from
their allegiance his praetorian converts. On the other band, with the same show
of reason, it might be contended, that inasmuch as the welfare and happiness of
the several States of Europe are most agreeable to the Christian views, the
balance of power should be maintained, not as a matter of political expediency,
but as a Christian duty.
St. Paul at Liberty.
For the
remainder of St. Paul's fourth apostolical journey, we Het>. ait 23, are
indebted chiefly to the hints scattered throughout his later ^itus i. v
Epistles, those, namely, to the Hebrews, to Titus, and to Timothy, ill-1*; ’
Frcm the former it appears, that on his release he continued hia ’m''
ministry
from Rome to other parts of Italy; hut as to the precise object, or the result
of his labours there, we have no certain account; and it is not desirable to
mix the traditionary records which exist, with his authentic history. It is a
scruple, indeed, which the historian who is passing the line which separates
the one from the other, the inspired from the uninspired records, cannot be too
eau tious not to violate. It is well known what errors have from time to lime
crept into the. popular views of Christian believers from an incautious or an
artful blending of the two; end the reader and the writer alike should be
anxiously w atchful in treading the space of meeting, that the character of
every fact should be preserved, and Divine authority kept for ever distinct
from human. It is partly from the one source, partly from the other, that Spain
may be supposed to have formed the next sta^e of his ministry. From his Kom
\v. at. Epistle to the Romans, it appears to have been his intention to proceed
from them to Spain; and as the early Christian writers83 relate,
that such a visit was paid, there can be little doubt that Spain was now
included within the compass of his mission. Beyond this general statement,
however, it is useless to pursue the thread tff truth which one might hope to
extricate from the legendary fables with which every Church was wont to magnify
its origin, in the same spirit wherein Livy describes great states and cities
as referring their foundation uniformly to the gods.84 From Spain,
again, we Heb1’xii?niore certainly trace his course
homeward through Crete, w. ' Jerusalem, and thence to Antioch in Syria.
** Chrys.
Ora*. ~, in St. Paul, Tom. thiuns, that he pivachtd “both in the XIII. p. 51),
(edit. Saville.) Clement East and in the West.”—Ep. C. c. also states, in his
Epistle to the Corin* 84 ju Proeiatione Hist.
St. Paul’s fitth Apostolical Journey.
ROUTE.
Colosse;
Philippi; Nicopolis in Epirus; Corinth; Troas; Miletum in Crete; Rome. Phil. i.
25;
ii 21;
_ . Titus iii. 12;
As the
history of St. Paul draws to a close, the authentic mate-1 xlm Vv201
rials become more scanty. All that we learn from his own writings 13,20/ is,
that from Jerusalem and Antioch he soon resumed his travels, 1 •
purposing,
no doubt, as was his custom, to visit those places in which during the
preceding journey he had planted the faith. Ilis route, too, may from the same
sources be recognised through the places above noted, without much, however, to
instruct us in the progress made at each of them. The Colossians and
Thilippians he might be induced to visit, if merely to express his sense of
their kindness during his late imprisonment.
From Troas
he sailed to Italy. But the state of public feeling rnfaTOui-
liad undergone a lamentable change since his last visit there. ab,.e.
Perhaps the Jews had been busy in his absence, spreading, as was maintained
their custom, calumnies against Christianity and Paul. Perhaps Christianity the
Gnostic heresy, which by this dme had made considerable pro-in Ital-V-
gress, might have generated or aided the prejudice. From whatever cause, he
found the Christians treated, according to the representations of Suetonius45
and Tacitus,1* as an abominable sect, and deserving the hatred of
all mankind. It would seem, nevertheless, that he was for a while successful in
baifling the accusations of his enemies. But “the time of his departure was at
hand; he had , T!m r fought the good fight, and his course was
finished.” As the per- «-s. secution in which he suffered was not confined to
him, but for the first time became a public measure, so as to comprehend the
whole body of Christians, it deserves a separate consideration.
85 In
Nerone, C. 16.
&
Annal. Lib. XV. C. U.
C luse of
the i^rsicution.
Nkiionian
or First Pei:secution. a.d. 64.
During the
reigns of Tiberius and Claudius, Christianity passed unmolested, and almost
unnoticed by the Roman government. At Romo itself no tumult, such as occurred
iu the provinces, had attracted the attention of the government to it. In the
provinces, too, the interference of the civil magistrate had been generally
exercised to protect the innocent victims of popular prejudice. Whatever may
be, thought of the tradition, that Tiberius proposed to the Senate the
enrolment of Christ amongst the deities of the empire, it is certain that 110
encouragement was given by the emperur further to indulge the Jews in their
malice, in consequence of Pilate’s report of the crucifixion, and of the
subsequent proceedings of his followers. The procurator ended his days in
disgrace and exile; nor is it very improbable, lhat some rebuke might have been
given him for his conduct 011 that particular ocea.-ion ; and that owing to
this it was that the enemies of our crucified Lord quietly submitted to the
mortification of seeing their scheme batfled by the bold assertion of his
resurrection, without obtaining from the Roman authority another blow to
suppress it. Under Claudius we have seen Paul, even in the character of a
criminal, enjoying the favour of Cresar’s household ; and Nero himself would
hardly have been imluccd to commence the work of persecution, either from
political motives, or from personal dislike. Alarmed at the odium which he had
incurred by the burning of Rome, whether truly or falsely attributed to lam, he
appears only to have cast his eye round for an object on which he might
conveniently divert the popular fur}-. The Christians had become a cause of
jealousy to so many, that they naturally presented themselves to his
unprincipled mind as precisely the objects he wanted. On them, therefore, the
guilt was charged; and in allusion to the nature of their crime,63
they were burned as public spectacles of amusement: in the exhibition of which,
the idle ingenuity which was displayed in aiding the scenic effect, seems more
uunatural and inhuman than the most brutal acts of malevolence. Nero escaped:
the great mass of people cared not on whom they were avenged for their losses
and sufferings ; and a large party looked on with silent and malicious
satisfaction, at the apparent ruin and suppression of a class of men who had
become the objects of the deadliest antipathy. Of these secret enemies, a large
portion were Jews.
The
peculiar character of the Jews of this age cannot but strike
w The
Edict of Claudius, r.o doubt, 86 They were
smeared with pitch, as it
included
Christians as asectof Jews, but to
represent torches, and so burnt, in
was not
directed against them specifi- reference
to their pretended crime.—
caily. Taciti Ann. Lib. X\ . C. 41.
tlic
attentive inquirer into the history of the times as singular—as Malicious
marked by an unnatural readiness to seize every occasion of boldly j£- I'u^his
claiming the blood of their enemies. As a nation, they displayed P«rioti-
perpetually an inveterate malice, and a monstrous delight in acts of revenge,
such as ordinarily only exists in certain individuals who are exceptions to
their sect or nation. All this admits of explanation Explained, from their
singular fate. Dwelling in all the great cities of the empire, their malevolent
feelings were doubly excited, by the presence of their political oppressors,
and by the triumph of idolatry.
This for a
time did not produce any sudden burst of mutiny; which, according to the usual
course of things, would have subsided into torpid and slavish insensibility, as
each unsuccessful effort rendered them more hopeless, aud their oppressors more
watchful and more imperious. There was a secret amongst them, which at once
fostered their malice aud restrained its ebullition; which gave a higher tone
to their sense of wrongs, and yet stifled theii complaints; it was the daily
and hourly hope of a temporal Messiah, and the certain presage of retribution,
in obtaining through him dominion over their rulers, and being made the
oppressors instead of the oppressed.
Like the
assassin who had attended on his master for years, and crouched beneath his
blows without a murmur, waiting for the moment of revenge; so waited the Jewish
people, inmates of every city, and even favourites of the court: to all outward
appearance content and peaceable citizens, so much so as to be able to separate
their cause from that of the persecuted Christians, but in secret nourishing
daily the feelings which at length found vent and caused their ruin. To this
may be traced their obstinacy beyond human nature in maintaining the last siege
of their city, as well as the monstrous scenes which were exhibited in Cyprus,
Alexandria, and elsewhere, and which are, perhaps, the bloodiest on the pages
of history, not excepting those of the French Revolution.89
Among the
causes which would produce an increasing party-spirit natrwiofthe opposed to
the Christians among the Gentiles also, no one, perhaps, ^™nlt\iie was more
powerful than that sense of interest, which operated with Christians, the large
class of tradesmen and artisans. As long as the tenets of their religion were
confined to few, its character was as abominable to tho pious Gentile indeed
as when it spread abroad ; but it was then only that it sensibly affected the
gains of the silversmith and the sculptor, the seller of victims, or the
expounder of oracles.
It was
then that it operated on the public feeling in each separate place, as the
introduction either of a body of superior artists, or a
89 See note to Gibbon, Vol. IT. p. his example. The victorious Jews de-
377, tram
Dion Cassius, Lib. LXVIII. voured the
flesh, licked up the blood,
p. 1145.
“In Oyrene they massacred and twisted
the entrails like a girdle
220,000
Greeks; in Cyprus, 240,000. round their
bodies.” Their misappli-
In Egypt a
very great multitude, cation of Scripture
example forcibly re-
Many of
these unhappy victims were minds the
Englishman of some domestic
sawed
asunder, according to a precedent scenes,
never, let us trust, to be repeated, which David had given the sanction of
Extent of
the First Persecution.
sale of
better manufactures, would operate in any commercial city; and the condition of
the Flemish settlements formerly in England and e.lsew here, may, perhaps, not
untidy illustrate the way, in which the harmless, unoffending sect of primitive
Christians became the marks of general hatred. With such a feeling, persecution
would be raised, not professing the source from which it sprang, but sheltering
its selfish origin under various honest pretexts. Demetrius and the craftsmen
would act from a sense of interest, but would appeal to a sense of religion;
and hence, Christians would not only be branded as “ atheists,” but all sorts
of crimes and foul practices would be attributed to them, in order to furnish
motives in which men could sympathize, instead of the interested feelings from
which the instigators themselves either altogether or originally acted. No
wonder that tho heathen historian should be found speaking of them with a
disgust which would be felt for Bacchanalian associations; or that it should
be whispered at Rome, that all kinds of abomination were practised in those
meetings, which having been secret originally from fear, continued to he secret
from custom.
It has
been questioned by modern authorities, whether this first persecution extended
beyond Rome, as was once commonly asserted; and doubtless the strongest
historical testimony in support of this assertion does not appear to be
authentic. The famous Spanish or Portuguese inscription, w 1 kh is given by
Grutcr in his Inscription. Roman. Corpus,80 has been justly
suspected by Scahger and others. Independently of the objections urged against
it by those writers, it may be observed, that no native of Spain and Portugal
reports it on his own authority. It professes to commemorate Nero’s glory, for
freeing the province from robbers; and also “ for cleansing the province of
those who were infecting the human race with a new superstition.” This, if
authentic, would decide the question; but the denial of its authenticity leaves
the fact not contradicted, but only less certain. It seems, indeed, highly
probable that the persecution was general. It was long currently believed to
be so; and nothing is more likely, with the existence of prejudices such as
have been described, and which only lay smothered and dormant in a large
portion of every community, than that the erection of an inquisitorial tribunal
at Rome would be iraitated, by the nearer provinces at least; under the
pretence of a general conspiracy, a harbouring of fugitives, or whatever other
pleas there might be, such as always suggest themselves on similar occasions.
The
continuance of this persecution through a spaee of four years renders it still
more probable that it was general; and although the legends which have been
handed down in the several Churches of Spain and Italy—especially of Lucca,
Pisa, Aquileia, and Rome— concerning tho martyrdom of their respective saints,
are doubtless
90 Tom. I. p. 23S. Mosheim de Rebus Christ,
ante Const. Jlagn. i>. 100.
fabulous ;
yet that circumstance scarcely contradicts the general statement. It appears to
have been in the last of these four years Martyrdom when the persecution
closed, only because of Nero’s death, that the great apostle of the Gentiles
suffered. He is said to have been.»nd’of beheaded. About the same time also,
St. Peter is asserted to have ' been crucified, according to the prediction of
his blessed Master, is, ». xxu There is, however, some difficulty
in reconciling this statement with the established chronology.
H.
M
MINISTRY
OF ST. PETER, ST JAMES, AND THE OTHER APOSTLES, AND TIIEIR COADJUTORS.
Turs tar 1
have attempted to follow the sacred narrative in tracing the course of the Holy
Spirit’s dispensation through its several successive stages—through the period
when the Gospel was preached to the Jews only,—through that during which it was
preached to Jews and devuut Gentiles,—through that, again, when an especial
commission was in force to declare it to the idolaters also. In conformity,
likewise, with that which appears to have been the design of the sacred
narrative, 1 have thus far confined my notice to the main line of its
progress: only touching on the ministry of the agents of the blessed Comforter,
as they were in succession called on to throw open the way wider and w ider ;
and taking no note of the acts and fortunes of the rest. 13ut we are nowr
approaching near to the period when, by the destruction of Jerusalem, the first
blow was given to all distinction between converts from Jews and Gentiles,
proselytes of the gate and idolatrous heathen ; that is, when all distinction
of ministry and of teachers was removed, and the unity of the Church completed.
Before we
quit, then, the last stage of the mystery of godliness, it will he neither
useless nor uninteresting to pause, and inquire into the labours and the fate
of those other holy men, from whom we have gradually parted, in pursuing with
St. Paul the course of Gentile ministry. Not that much authentic information, beyond
what has been given, can be laid before the reader, respecting either him or
any other of the apostles and inspired ministers of the Gospel.
' Not only
are the notices of them in the Acts so scanty as to furnish no materials for a
narrative; but the greater part have left behind them no epistolary or other
monuments; which, as in the case of St. Paul, might have served to confirm or
to refute, to complete or to illustrate, the imperfect anil uncertain accounts
given by uninspired writers. St. John, St. James, St. Peter, and St. Jude,
each have left something; but in each case their writings are insignificant,
if considered as a source whence to glean biographical notices. Eusebius’s
account is brief, and yet it contains nearly all besides that can be relied on.
So silently did the apostles proceed in their mighty task of building up the
Church, and so truly did the LuktxTii.30. kingdom of God come upon men “
without observation.”
St. Peter.
St. Peter,
as ive have seen, was, by a special revelation, no less General than St. Paul,
called from the common ministry of all the apostles Go
to preach
the Gospel to the devout Gentiles also. After the con-Acts x. a. version of
Cornelius little can be gleaned from the Scriptures respecting his progress and
success. The address of his epistle “ to the strangers scattered throughout
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia,
Asia, and
Bithynia,” marks so far the direction of Ills journeys.
The date
also shows that Rome had likewise been the scone of his labours.91
Agreeably to the. view already given of his call and special appointment, there
will be no difficulty in determining who were “ the strangers scattered
throughout Pontus,” <fcc. the special objects of his care. That they could
not be Jews, as some have hastily asserted, is clear, from the term “
strangers.” The specific appellation of “ elect"’ also, which appears in
the opening of the Epistle, tends further to prove, that those addressed were
Gentiles, the Elect that is, devout Gentiles—proselytes of the gate—St. Peter’s
especial charge. That term, it is true, most properly belonged to the Jews,
they being originally the chosen and dect people of God ; but it was to show
the world that such privilege and distinction was now can celled, that the
apostles more frequently apply it to the Gentiles.
In this
mode of applying it to the latter, they generally add, by way of explanation,
that they were “ elect according to the foreknowledge 1 Peter i. 2. of God,”
“predestined,” <fce. which was as much as to say, We. address you as the
elect of God—You are God's elect now as really as the Jews were heretofore, and
this not from any change in God’s unchangeable purposes, which the bigoted
adversary may suggest to refute your claim, but it was so intended from the
beginning of the world. God, of course, must end did foreknow and design what
has now come to pass. “ Whom He did foreknow, He also did pre- b om. vjii.
destinate to be conformed to the image of his Sen, that He might be IJ’
the first-born among many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He
also called: and whom lie called, them He also justified: and whom He
justified, them He also glorified.” Now the addition of tliis expression
relating to God's foreknowledge, which St. Peter makes to the term elect,
determines the Gentiles, or some portion of them, to be the persons intended.
But the body of the Epistle explains the words strangers more expressly. E.G.
“ But ye
are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, 1 pet.
a. s— a peca.li/,.r people, that ye should show forth the praises of Him who
"• hath called you, out of darkness into his marvellous light. Which
91 That is, if we suppose, as there is is one or the instances selected. “Sic
much
reason for doing:, that Rome is de- et
Babylon apud Joannem nostrum,
signated
by the term Babylon. See Ter- Komanae
virbis figura est.” See also
tullian s
remarks on the use of this iigura- Adv.
Marcion, Lib. III. C. 13. From 1
tivei
mode of writing in Scripture. Adv. and
2 Cor. it seems St. Peter had been
Judaeos,
C. 9. The Babylon of St. John at
Corinth also.
His
History doubtful.
Probable
time of hl3 visit to Rome.
in time
past were vot o, people, but are now the people of God; which bad not obtained
mercy, but now have obtained’ mercy. Dearly beloved, as strangers and pilgrims,
abstain,” &e. In this passage, the term “ elect,” which is obviously
characteristic of tho Jewish people considered as the original “ elect,” is
transferred to these converts, in order to denote that they were now equally
so.
In the
performance of bis ministry, St. Peter is represented by the early writers as
the most active and influential of the apostles,92 which well agrees
with tbe ardent character left of him in the Gospels. But as to the details of
that ministry, it would be as unprofitable as it is vain to attempt to separate
what is palpably false from what is probable, or possible. Much is said
concerning his disputes with Simon Magus, his victory over that renowned
magician, and the various occasions in which the apostle’s activity prevented
the growth of those wild theological fancies, which the artful impostor was
disseminating, from his native country Samaria even to Rome.®’ Some of this
must be authentic, else it would hardly be so unhesitatingly sanctioned by
Eusebius. On the other hand, so much ground is there for suspicion in every
point, that many have plausibly doubted whether St. Peter ever visited Rome at
all. The time of his being there, and the period of his martyrdom. are, of
course, by no means easy points to be settled. It would seem on the whole most
probable that he accompanied Paul in his last apostolical journey to Rome. For
this there would be much reason. The. apostle to the idolatrous Gentiles had,
ever since his open declaration at Jerusalem, become peculiarly odious to all
the judaizing party; so much so, that be could hardly hope for success in his
ministry amongst them. It would seem but natural prudence in him to have
abstained from addressing the Jews, and, perhaps, even the proselytes of the
gate; lest he should again expose himself to the accusation of seducing them
from the law of Moses altogether, and thus raise some uproar, which, at Rome
especially, would have solely impeded his work. What more likely than that,
under these circumstances, Peter should become his companion; and should
undertake the ministry of the circumcision, and of those allied to the Jews by
partial proselytism, while Paul confined his labours to the converts from
idolatry ? It is indeed not very improbable that this was the apostle’s second
visit to Rome. It is asserted by Eusebius, that he followed Simon Magus thither
during the reign of Claudius.”4 Now, considering how St. Paul was
at that time circumstanced with respect to tbe Jewish part of the Church, the
presence of another apostle at Rome, for their sake especially, is likely to
have been even
92 Eusebii Hist. Lib. II. C. 14. Te> was his faith in confessing Christ, which
iHxec rur
\oix£v i<rx>r2ii trgefjy6{or. was
so rewarded.
The
historian might here mean however 93 Clementis Recognitions, Lib.
III.
that Peter
was the first employed in the C. 63,
69.
work of
conversion, and then his i-Erq Eusebii
Hist. Lib. IT. C. 13.
then
peculiarly requisite. The occasion then may he allowed to support not a little
the assertion of the historian. Peter might on this account have come to Itome
about the period of Paul £ release ; and if so, in attributing the foundation
of the Church of Rome to St. Peter, the Romanists may not be wholly in the
wrong.
That
Church, like almost all the other primitive Churches, was composed of three
distinct classes of converts; those who had been Jews, those who had been
devout Gentiles, and those who had been idolaters. The foundation of the Church
at Rome among the first two might have been the work of Peter, as its
establishment among the last evidently was the work of Paul. With this too
agrees the assertion of an old ecclesiastical writer,95 quoted by
Eusebius, that they were joint founders.
Peter’s
martyrdom took place at Rome during the Neronian persecution; and is said to
have been embittered by the execution of his wife before his eves.96
Many worts
were circulated among the early Christians under St. Peter’s name, of which the
two Epistles preserved in our Canon alone appear to ha\e been genuine.91
Of these the former was always admitted as canonical: but the latter appears,
from some accidental circumstances, not to have been so early acknowledged by
the whole Church. Of the spurious works, his so called Gospel was the most
celebrated.83
St. James the Less.
James the
Less, as he has been styled, to distinguish him from the Son of Zebedee, was a
kinsman of our Lord. Notwithstanding this connexion, he was of all the apostles
the least odious to the Jews. It was, probably, before his conversion, that he
acquired the popular title of the Just, but he continued to enjoy it even until
his death.
Concerning
his ministry Scripture contains but little. By ecclesi- r ihop of astical
writers he is said to have been the first P>ishop of Jerusalem; Jeru'’alen'
and the narrative of the Acts alone would lead us to suppose that Acts xv 13.
he had some especial jurisdiction in that Church.® While the rest of the
apostles dispersed themselves abroad, none would be so likely to preserve peace
at Jerusalem as lie whom the unbelievers themselves honoured as Janies the
Just. Eventually his popularity may His have occasioned his martyrdom. Festus,
who had succeeded Felix M»rtJri-r,‘n-
in the government of Judaea, died very soon after Paul's appeal and A'Dl
62' departure to Rome. The Jews took the opportunity of satiating their
disappointed vengeance on the Christians who remained. The
Sa^us* 99 In St. Paul’s Epistle to
the Galatians
f 6 Eusebii
Hist. Lib, II. C. 30. there is an
apparent illusion to it. Speak
5)7 Ibid.
Lib. III. O. 3. ing otJ
“certain who came Iron the
93 Ibid. Lib. VI. C. 12; see alsi, the Church a' Jerusalem,” ne deicribes
extracts
from it in Jones's Script (Janon, them
as ** coming from James.”—Gal.
l’art III.
C. 31. ii. 12.
Feast of
the Passover came, anil numbers, as usual, attended The occasion seemed a lit
one for exposing the whole body of Christians to the fury of the mixed
multitude of Jews assembled from all parts. To effect this, it w as proposed
that James should be prevailed on, either by threats or persuasions, to ascend
a conspicuous part of the ten.pie, and there publicly to make a disavow al of
Christ as the Messiah. Deserted by their bishop and their most respected
apostle, the Christiaus would have seemed thus most likely to be ruined. James
consented. On the appointed day he presented himself upon the upper part of the
temple to the crowds below, and in that situation was addressed, by the
conspirators, with the fatal question. “Why askest thou me,” he replied, “
about Jesus the Son of Man, whose abode is on the right hand of the power on
high, and who is coming himself hereafter in the clouds of heaven?” The
infuriated zealots perceiving that their scheme was likely to end in a contrary
impression on the multitude, to that which they had designed, rushed up and
cast him headlong. Ilis fall disabled him, and he was immediately assailed with
stones. Strength enough was yet left him to imitate his dying Lord, and to pray
aloud for the forgiveness of his murderers. A priest who was looking on, was so
affected at hearing him, that he made an attempt to save him: but before he
could effect his purpose, the apostle received a blow from a club, which ended
his sufferings.
Of all the
atrocities which the Jews from time to time committed, or caused to be
committed, against the Christians, this alone seems to have been regarded by
them with remorse and horror. Their historian, who was apparently no friend to
Christianity, remarks, that the siege and destruction of Jerusalem was long afterwards
currently spoken of as a visitation of God for this crime more especially.
ms
Epistle. One Epistle is all which has been preserved of James’s scriptural
A.n. 61.
labours. For no other reason, as far as can be ascertained, than because it had
not been so frequently alluded to as the generality of Scripture, by the
writers immediately succeeding the apostolic age, it, at one period, laboured
under some suspicion. Its authenticity is nevertheless unquestionable. It is
addressed to the Jeus in the dispersion, an expression which, by its obvious
contrast to that of strangers in the dispersion, confirms the interpretation
assigned to this latter phrase in the catholic Epistle of St. Peter.
St. James, the Toother of John.
a.d. 42.
The martyrdom 01 St. James is noticed in the narrative of the
Acts xil.
1,1 Acts. It is there simply stated, that Herod put forth his hands to afflict
the Church, and slew' James, the brother of John, with the sword. Uninspired
history furnishes little in addition to this account. All that Eusebius has
thought worthy of retaining is, that his accuser became his convert and
fellow-sufferer; in the
course of
his trial was convinced of his victim’s innocence, and the truth of his
doctrine; and, liy openly expressing that conviction, was included in the
sentence of death passed on him.
St. Andrew.
Andrew is
said to have selected Scythia for the scene of his labours, but with what
success we have no authentic testimony either of ancient history or of modern
researches.
St. Thomas.
Parthia is
named as the district allotted to Thomas. Tradition has further ascribed to him
the foundation of the Church among those interesting people, known by the name
of the “ Christians of St. Thomas.” Some have, however, disputed the truth of
this account, and suppose the Thomas from whom they derive this name to have
been a bishop, who lived some centuries subsequent to the apostolical era.
St. .Jt'de, also called Lebh^us, and Thadd-ECs.100
Among tho
incidents recorded of St. Thomas is one, that he was inspired to send Thaddaus
the apostle to Edessa for the cure and baptism of Abgarus. The circumstance of
his being sent by Thomas alone, seems strong against the identity of the
Thaddasus who preached at Edessa, and the apostle who was also called Jude.
This tradition,
however, whether true or false, is nearly all (besides his Epistle) which we
know of his history. The authenticity of the His Epistle. Epistle itself, too,
was subject for a time to suspicion; which 70. gradually cleared up, as a freer
intercourse between the several members of the Christian body caused those
Scriptures which had a confined circulation to be better known, and their
original history to be more certa'nly ascertained.
The
mission to Edessa is connected with an event, the impro- Letter of bability of
which has been generally contended for, notwithstanding Abgarus- the
grave testimony by which the main incidents, at least, of tho story are
supported. It is said, that while our Lord was yet alive, the fame of his
miracles spreading beyond Judsea was reported to Abgarus, king of Edessa. This
prince, who was labouring under some grievous malady, sent accordingly to
Jesus, to desire that he would come and heal him. Ilis letter, and one
pretended to be returned by our Lord, excusing his personal attendance, and promising
to send one of his disciples to him, n ere long preserved in the archives of
Edessa. In fulfilment of this promise, it is added, that after Christ’s death
Thaddteus went thither, and that his testimony was commonly appealed to for
the existence of these records.
Some add,
that our Saviour sent also his portrait.
100 It seems probable that the two latter
names were applied to him during our Lord’s lifetime, in order to distinguish
him from Judas the traitor.
It is
evidently somewhat suspicious, that no notice should have been preserved of so
remarkable an incident in any of the Gospel narratives. And yet this is hardly
a conclusive argument, inasmuch as many things we know were omitted ;101
and this, however gratifying to our curiosity, cannot be considered as
peculiarly important for our instruction in Christian truth, the great
principle, we may presume, which guided the Evangelists in their selections.
Some foundation there might be for the story, however fabulous the detail.
Eusebius relates it without scruple, omitting what is the most improbable
circumstance, the sending of the portrait. What more likely, after all. than
that the fame of Jesus, and his healing miracles, should reach the sick prince
of Edessa, and that he should send, according to the custom of the East, to bid
the prophet come and heal him? Vl2 Equally probable is it,
that the substance of the correspondence should be registered in the archives
of Edessa, and afterwards shown to an apostle of the same Jesus; although that
correspondence may not have passed between them in the form of Epistles, but of
messages. There is nothing certainly in the character of our Lord’s reply
which appears derogatory from, or inconsistent with the tone and substance of
his discourses.1"5
At the
same time, it would be somewhat at variance with the strict rule of his
ministry, to suppose that the correspondence was carried on with a view either
of healing or converting one who was a Gentile.101
St. Bartholomew.
That
Nathanael is the person better known as an apostle by the name of Bartholomew,
may be fairly inferred from the Scripture narrative. Otherwise we can hardly
understand why Bartholomew should not be numbered among the apostles by St.
John, nor Nathanael by the other Evangelists; or again, why, in relating the
same event, St. John should speak of Philip and Nathanael coming together to
Christ, the others, of Philip and Bartholomew'. It seems strange, too, that
Nathanael should not have been a qualified Candidate for the apostleship made
vaeant by Judas’s death, unless he were already an apostle.
Nathanael,
then, might have been called .Zfrrtholnmew, or the son of Tholmai, as Peter was
itorjona, and Joses, Ifarnabas. The indiscriminate use of these names, and the
gradual adoption of one
101 An event so important a3 the raising tory, like our knowledge of all religious
of Lazarus
was omitted by the three subjects^ may
be not the less sufficient
earliest
Evangelists. N o doubt a reason because
it is “ in part.” _ _
may be
suggested in the danger to which 102 See the account of the king of
Syria’s
the living
object of the Saviour’s friend- embassy
to Jerusalem* to procure assis-
shipand
power might have been exposed, tanee
of Elisha for Naaman the leper.—
by calling
attention to him. But other 2
Kings v. ^
reasons.
less obvious, may have occasioned 103 See Appendix f G.] the total
suppression of many parts of our 104 See Horsley’s Sermon on Matthew
Lord’s
life. Our knowledge oi his his- vii. 26.
to the
exclusion of the other, is only wliat certainly occurred in the case of
Barnabas.11’5
India is
said to have been the scene of his luborrs, and amongst his converts there a
Hebrew copy of St. Matthew s Gospel is reported to have been found, at the
close of the second century, by Pantssnus.106
St. Philip.
Hierapolis
was the chief abode of Philip. He is said to have heen married, and the father
of a large family, one of 'fihom is mentioned as peculiarly devoted to the
service of the Church, and the rest as prophetesses. If we may believe the
uninspired record further, he was endued with no small portion of the power
from on high, and on one occasion raised the dead. It is usual with us now to
regard this, and all uninspired accounts of miracles, as more than doubtful.
Yet certain it is, that the apostles were all gifted with power to work
miracles ; and must have needed them most to awaken the attention, and to
convince the minds of those who were the least prepared for conviction from
reason and Scripture. It may be wrong to contend for the certainty of any one
miracle contained in the traditionary records of primitive times, but it is
equally wrong to maintain a system of decided dissent from all.
St. Simon Zelotes.
The title
given to Simon, to distinguish him perhans from Simon Peter, implies that he
belonged originally to a sect of the Pharisees, whose intemperate and fanatical
zeal was not the least of the many evils under which the Jews of this age
laboured.107 Egypt, Cvrene, and the African coast, are said to have
heard the Gospel from him. Great Britain, too, has by some been included within
the compass of his ministry, and is reported to have been the scene of his
martyrdom.
ST.
BlRNiBAS.
With the.
account of Barnabas’s separation from Paul ends all Acts xv. 39. authentic
information concerning him. Cyprus was most probably the scene of his after
ministry; or, if it extended beyond his native island, Egypt, rather than Gaul
or Italy, should be the place assigned to him. All certain traces of him,
however, are entirely lost; and it would be unnecessary to make any further
mention of him, were it not for the writings which have been ascribed to him.
Of these,
the catholic Epistle, generally published with the works Hi» of the apostolic
fathers, is all that still pretends to his name. Few Epfstit'1 can
read it without being so sensible of its unscriptural character, as to seek no
further for the external evidence against it. It is
JOS So
also tho names Matthow and Levi were applied indifferently to the Evangelist. Ev.sebii Hist. Lib. V. C. 10. 107
Josepn. de liello Jud. Lib. IV.
therefore,
by universal consent, now pronounced to he a forgery. And yet there is, after
all, some difficulty in understanding how it should have obtained so much
credit with the early Church, if it were so decidedly spurious as we suppose it
to be. It is quoted as Barnabas’s by Clemens Alexandrinus; Origen seems to
recognise its scriptural authority; and Eusebius assigns it a place in the
Canon. On the. other hand, in Jerome’s catalogue it is classed with the
apocryphal books; and his authority is supported by the prevailing voice of
antiquity.
Some
ground there must be for this difference, or apparent difference, of statement.
This very Epistle might have had, perhaps, for its basis a genuine work of
Barnabas; and might be the gradual corruption of impostors, who a\ ailed
themselves of the acknowledged fact, that a writing containing sucli and such
general features was the production of this apostle. Hence, although its true
estimate was soon obtained, its character would he for a while variously
represented. What tends to confirm this, is the motley appearance it presents ;
the marked difference of style and thought between the beginning and the elose,
and the clumsy interpolations which scarcely affect disguise.
The only
reason which can be discovered, for the conjecture of some in the early Church,
that he was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, seems to have been the
coneealmcnt of the true author’s name for a time, and the natural spirit of
surmise to which it gave rise. St. Barnabas was named as likely to have written
it, find so also were St. Luke and Clement.108
St. Matthias.
Of the
calling or election of St. Matthias, mention has been already made, and beyond
this nothing certain is known. Eusebius has preserved a remark on the doctrine
which he preached, viz. that it was the same in substance with what was
afterwards called the doctrine of the Nicolaitans.lfi
A
Christian is properly enough unwilling to admit such a charge on this solitary
testimony. At the same time, it must not be pronounced impossible that
Matthias should become a heretic, anymore than that Judas should become a
traitor. On a subject of belief, we have seen Peter opposed to Paul; and Paul,
again, on a question of ministerial duty, opposed to Barnabas. The very gifts
and endowments of the. Spirit were, no doubt, liable to abuse and perversion ;
and apostles, as well as all Christians, were free agents, and responsible for
their use of their extraordinary talents. “Wo unto me, if I preach not the
(iospel !”
Perhaps,
after all, St. Matthias’s words were misinterpreted; as St. Paul’s and St.
James’s lia'te been since.
IW See
Appendix [II.]
Hist. Lib.
III. C. 29.
St. Matthew.
That St.
Matthew was tlie author of the Gospel which hears his name is nearly all
recorded of him, beyond the scanty notices of Scripture. It was the first that
was written,110 although it is impossible to fix the precise
date.
Whether
originally composed in Hebrew, as some have asserted, or in its present Greek,
is a question not material to us. The Greek, if the translation, so soon
superseded the use of the Hebrew, as to be the one commonly read and quoted;
and, as such, received the sanction of inspired authority.
St. Mark.
St. Mark’s
Gospel is said to have been derived from St. Peter’s instructions, or at least
to have received his revisal and sanction.
It was
compiled at the request of the Christians at Rome ;m who, very
naturally, employed for this work one who had been the follower both of Paul
and Peter, if, as has been suggested, the original Church in that city was made
up of their respective congregations.
It has
been remarked accordingly by many, as a striking characteristic of this
Gospel, that it studiously avoids all allusions and expressions which would not
be equally intelligible to Jew and Gentile, and seems carefully adapted
throughout to all the classes of believers. It contains also many Latin words
for which the Greek equivalents were in common use, and adopted by the other
evangelists.112
It wras
scarcely possible for a portion of Scripture so circumstanced as this must
have been, not to have been always recognised as authentic.
Although
Mark was not an apostle, yet the gifts of the Spirit were so widely diffused,
that supposing him to have recorded from memory the instructions of an apostle,
the prohibitory impressions of the Holy Spirit, (the character of which has
been already pointed out, and which there is no ground for appropriating to the
apostolic order,) would have been sufficient to secure him from error It is
indeed asserted, that his and St. Luke’s h’story were finally revised, at
least, the one by St. Peter, the other by St. Paul. But, after all, our belief
in its inspired character rests on the judgment of the primitive Church ; which
was most competent to decide whether a Gospel written by such an author, and
under such circumstances, was or was not of Divine authority.
If St.
Mark’s Gospel received the revision of St. Peter, it could Circiter, not have
been written later than a.p. 66 or 67, the period of his a.d 65. 'inprisonment
and martyrdom at Rome.
T110 Origenis
Fra^m. Tom. I. Commentar. in Mattha-utn.
HI Euseb.
Hist. Lib. II. C. 15. Ktmv(>tct/v
for txotrovret’zvft
St. Low.
n;«
Gospel, St. Luke’s Gospel, like that of St. Mark, could not Lave been a.b. 63. published on his own
authority, because neither was he an apostle.
Nevertheless,
in his narrative of the Acts he was particularly quali- \ctst. L; fied for the
office of historian; because be was an eye-witness, and xx.’sjet1**
boro part in most of the scenes which he describes, For the vxi. l—is.
remainder too, and for the Gospel history, there could be no surer guide thun
St. Paul, with whose preaching he was so long familiar.11-1
inamr&*!on As was observed of St. Mark s Gospel, a portion of Scripture so
of sl Luke wr;t(UI1 n0( ]ess ela;m
to inspiration than the work of an apostle or prophet delivering an immediate
revelation from God. For the true notion of inspiration, even in the latter
ease, is not that the sacred penman was inspired while in the act of writing;
but that he wrote v'hat he had beforehand received by extraordinary revelation.
It would be impossible else to account for the variety of st_\le and thought,
the occasional introduction of matter foreign to revelation, and whatever else
belongs to such writings in common with all mere human compositions. The
contrast between the true Scripture and the pretended records of revelation, in
this respect, has been already noticed. Between Luke’s writing what he had heard
from Paul, and Paul’s writing what he bad received from God, the only difference
could be, the difference between them as authors; the difference of style, of
manner, and of the other accidents, as it were, of authorship. If in writing,
o* in preaching, St. Paul’s memory had misled him, some check from the Holy
Spirit would have guided him back to the truth. Now Luke, like all who prearhed
the Gospel, must in his preaching have enjoyed the same preservative aid, and
why not in writing also ? Had any necessary portion of Christian instruction
escaped St. Paul’s memory, the Holy Spirit then would have called it to liis
remembrance; for such was our Lord’s promise to ihe apostles. But if this
promise did not extend to others, if Luke’s omissions were not miraculously
supplied, Paul was at hand to supply them. Granting the possible omission, too,
of any necessary point, this would not, like a false statement, be inconsistent
with the inspired character of any one Scripture, inasmuch as the record of
the Gospel is not one but many.11’
Acts of
the St. Luke's Gospel appears to have always passed for his; and Apostles,
although the Acts have not likewise his name attached, yet the a.d. r4.
internal evidence, and the voice of the early Church, certainly declare him to
be the author.114 Enistip to That the Epistle to the Hebrews
should have been ascribcd to one "l10Sf‘
writings had been the vehicle of so much of St. Paul’s asoribed to instruction,
is nothing wonderful. At the time when the author’s ^ ’ ' name was studiously
kept a secret from the public, the tone of
Hii/ronjmi
Prooem. in Matt. 114 See
Appendix [I.]
115 See
Appendix [K.]
Luke’s
eont ersation, and his very expressions, perhaps in some instances being
derived from St. Paul, might naturally have fixed on him the uncertain
authorship. And if St. Paul desired concealment, St. Luke would be the less
likely to be forward in disclaiming the Epistle; lest he should, by so doing,
direct surmise towards the right person.
It has
been very reasonably conjectured, that his Gospel was somewhat prior to that of
Mark.
St. Jonx.
St. John
was the last of the apostles; with him therefore, and St. John with the period
through which his life ami miracles extended, we £heliSpiivi may consider the
second great era of Christianity to close—the era era- when it was
preached by inspired ministers. For although no one can undertake to prove that
miracles were not performed long subsequently, yet the main system of
Christianity was conducted thenceforth by ordinary means and ordinary agents.
After St.
John,
there was no one endowed with that most distinguishing power of an apostle, the
power of communicating the gifts of the Spirit.
A life
which was prolonged, no duubt providentially, to the close almost of the first
century, and which consequently embraces more than sixty years of the most
interesting period of our religion, may be expected to furnish an eventful
record. But such is not the case.
To the
acts of St. John belongs the same character as to those of the rest of the
apostles ; they are only known by their results.
Whether in
this veil of oblivion, which has been allowed to conceal Probab their glorious
exertions from our view, there be any thing like a theobscuriry design of
Providence perceptible, the pious Christian may be allowed ,
to
consider. Perhaps he may find in it a merciful removal of a th< History
temptation to view the work in which they were engaged as the Apostles, result
of human virtue, more than of Divine power extraordinarily exercised.
Contemplating the propagation ol' religion at this distance, with the earthly
and mortal instruments employed by the Spirit removed f rom ihe scene, we are
led more directly to trace it to its source, and to see it in the light in
which St. Paul warns his own converts, and us to view it; as the work not of
himself or of his fellow-labours, but of God who was working in them.
It may not
a little confirm this estimate of the matter, and teach surpoittdhy
us to distrust our untried hearts on this score, to recollect that the produced”
want of an authentic account of all the labours and sufferings of the ^t^nds311
apostles, and early ministers of the Gospel, has been supplied by a series of
legendary tales, which, even without proof or likelihood to recommend them,
have actually produced the evil supposed. If the trust of so large a portion of
Christians for so many ages has been withdrawn from God to his ministers, from
the Lord Jesus to his saints; and the prop of that trust has been the boasted
legends
of
miracles wrought, and other Divine manifestations; how much greater would have
been the hold on men’s minds made by such a superstition, had these legends
been superseded by accounts not less marvellous, but more authentic!
The
history of St. John, like that of the others, abounds with these legends. At
one t.me, we are told, that he escaped unharmed from a cauldron of boiling oil;
at another, he is described as tho hero of a romantic udvepture among a band of
robbers, whose chieftain he reclaimed and led away triumphantly. As was before
observed, it would indeed be presumptuous to say of all these occurrences, or
of any in particular, that they must be false, cither because they are
marvellous, or because they are not equally attested with the miracles of the
Scriptures. Much of the marvellous must doubtless have occurred in the
unsubstantiated ministry of the apostles; and the lesson to be learned from the
removal of inspired testimony to those Divine interpositions, is not certainly
that of universal and dogmatic disbelief. These events may be true. Our duty
only is, not to mix them indiscriminately with those which bear the seal of the
Spirit affixed; for whatever reason that mark of distinction may have been
given. Let the reader of the lives of the apostles and their inspired
contemporaries read such facts as the escape of St. John from the cauldron, not
as in themselves improbable; but to be received or rejected as any other
portion of history would be, according to the character of the historian, and
the Rource of his information. At the same time, whatever degree of probability
attaches to them, let him read their record with the full impression, that
these the Holy Spirit has passed by without setting his seal thereon. Our
Divine Guide meant not to make the same use of them, as of Scripture miracles.
Whatever the facts were to those of old time, to us they are no objects of
faith: none of the appointed evidences of our religion; subjects for curious
and learned inquiry, perhaps, but not for holy meditation—they are not in the
Bible, and must not be added thereto.
st John *
St. John’s life, divested of these, affords his biographer but a 1
'i!‘tles' scanty supply of materials, lie has
left with the Church two >j)d Epistles, and a book of Revelations, relating, as it would seem,
to
Revelations,
the history of the Church, traced through its successive stages. a.d. 95. prom
these and from ecclesiastical history it appears, that the latter portion, at
least, of his ministry, was employed in Asia Minor, especially in the famous
seven cities. As both St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s course embraced this district,
it was after their martyrdom, probably, that he undertook the superintendence
of these celebrated Churches. With the destruction of Jerusalem, and the
dissolution of the Jewish polity, all distinction between the various classes
of Christian converts ceased. There was henceforth no longer any peculiar law,
or any peculiar apostle, for converts from Jews, or
proselytes,
or idolaters. St. John would thenceforth as properly attach himself to the
flock of St. Paul, as to that of St. Peter. Of his former ministry there is no
trace, beyond the slight notices con tained in the early part of the Acts. Prom
this time, however, he appears to have been fixed in Asia Minor, and to have
made Ephesus especially his place of residence. Over the seven Churches of
Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sard's, Philadelphia, and Laod’cea,
bishops appear to have exercised authority; subject to that extraordinary and
peculiar control, assumed by the apostles for the better foundation of the
Church, but obviously designed to cease with the removal of the apostolic
order. Hence the charge from the Lord Jesus, through his aged servant, to these
bishops, is not as to men under authority, but as to those with whom the
supreme government and chief responsibility was left,-—a charge given when the
last temporary prop of the holy edifice was about to be removed, and the
building was now considered complete and stable.
The book
of Revelations, which contains this charge, was written in the island of
Patmos, whither John had been banished from Asia Minor in the persecution of
Domitian. It was during his abode there, probably, that he also wrote his
Epistles; if indeed the first be not more properly a treatise or pastoral
discourse. On Domitian’s death he was restored to his residence at Ephesus, and
died there at the advanced age of ninety-six. Pew historical pictures arc more
pleasing than that of the old man in his latter days joining the Christian
assemblies, in despite of age and feebleness, and always leaving behind him the
same brief and simple precept,
“ Little
children, love one another.”
It was
during the latter part of his life, either whilst he was in nis Gospel, Patmos,
or after his recall from banishment, that he composed his a.d. 97. Gospel. He had at that time
seen and approved the narratives of Matthew, Mark, and Luke;11* and
his testimony to these at that advanced period of the Church’s growth, is
doubtless one cause of thankfulness from all ages, to Him who permitted him to
tarry John xii. 2-z thus lung. His reasons for adding yet another Gospel are
said to have been, first, to supply the omissions of the former Evangelists on
some points of our Lord’s history^; next, to counteract the heretical opinions
that were now springing uji concerning Christ’s nature. What those opinions
were, and whence their origin, will be considered iu the sequel.
As to the
Gospel itself, it has been universally received by the Church in all ages;
although the stubborn testimony it contains to the divine charactcr of Jesus,
has naturally made it an object of eavil and of misrepresentation to many. Of
the authenticity of the Revelations and of the Second and Third Epistles, some
doubts
ne Eusebii Hist. Lib. 141. C. 24.
Philip the
Deacon.
Timothy
and Titus,
Timothy.
The first
were
Bishops.
1 Tim. iv.
U.
Divinely
appointed.
1 Tim. L
18.
Acts XX.
23.
were once
entertained; which, aa in the ease of other Scriptures in oar Canon, labouring
under the same imputation, were removed, when the communication between the
different parts of the Christian world became such as to enable these doubts to
be sifted and duly estimated.'17
Philip the Deacon, Timothy, Titus, and otoer Coadjutors of the
Apostles.
Beside?
the two Evangelists, Mark and Luke, there are others ■whose
names are recorded, as having received gifts through the apostles, or as being
otherwise divinely appointed to be their fellow- labourers. Of these, few can
be traced beyond the scenes in which they are briefly introduced in the sacred
writings. Philip the deacon’s history has been much confounded with that of the
apostle of the same name; and contains nothing which merits the labour of
unravelling the entangled materials. Timothy and Titus deserve more notice; but
only on account of the appointment with which wo find them invested by St.
Paul, and in which they continued to be recognised by all the early authorities
of the Church. Timothy was made by the apostle bishop of Ephesus, and Titus,
bishop of Crete.
In St.
Paul's Epistles to them, some light is accidentally thrown on two important and
interesting questions relating to their otKee, now the highest in the Church:
the first, Iiy what authority were these bishops (the first of their order as
far as we can learn) created i the second, What was the form observed?
Both these
questions may be resolved by that single verse of the Epistle to Timothy, in
which Paul exhorts him, “ Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given
thee by prophecy, with the laving on of the hands of the presbytery.’’
Prom these
words the appointment may certainly be inferred to have taken place in
consequence of some extraordinary Divine command. It was “ by prophecy;” or, as
it is elsewhere expressed, “ according to the prophecies which went before on
thee.” As the Holy Ghost bade the Church of Antioch separate Paul and Barna bas
for their apostolic appointment, so, it is implied, that Timothy was separated
by Divine command for the episcopal appointment.
That even
in the appointment of presbyters such an express revelation of the Divine
choice may have taken place, is not improbable, from St. Paul’s remark on the
Ephesian presbyters, that “ the Holy Ghost had made them overseers.” In the
case of the bishops, at all events, it can scarcely admit of a doubt. The
sacred testimony requires no support; but it gives us some additional assurance
that we are not mistaking its meaning, when we find the
117 Of
those who in modern times have dence,
in reply to the objections of the questioned the authenticity and inspira- latter, should be carefully examined by tion
of the book of Kevelations, Less and all
.who wish to have a satisfactory view Michcelis are the most distinguished, of the question. {See W oodhouse s AnDean
Woodliorise’s Keview of the Kvi- notations
on the Apocalypse.
earliest
Christian documents of the uninspired Church speaking in the same strain.
Clement of Rome, :n hxf> Epistle to the Corn thians, states it as
the custom of the apostles “ to make trial by the Spirit,” that is, by the “power
of discerning,” in order to determine who were to be overseers and deacons in
the several Churches they planted. Clement of Alexandria speaks particularly of
the Churches in the neighbourhood of Ephesus, the overseers of which he
understood to have been marked out for ordination, by a revelation of the Holy
Ghost to St. John.
At the
same time, although the episcopal ordination rested 011 authority similar to
that on vshich the apostles themselves were invested with their office, yet
there is ample evidence that this new class of ministers was distinct from the
apostolical. Throughout the Epistles to Timothy and Titus all their information
and instruction are said to be derived from the apostles. They had themselves,
and by virtue of their office, no revelations.
Their
heavenly gift (xaf,t<wx) was doubtless of the same character and import as
that communicated to all believers at baptism,— communicated in like manner,
and for the same purpose. It was to testify to the ordained, and to all others,
that the appointment was Divine—that the bishop was duly ordained—was an
official minister of the Holy Ghost; and that his official acts would therefore
be valid and effectual.
The next
question relates to the form. The only ceremony Rj laying recorded is that which
was used in many solemn acts, viz. the of ‘lan'la
laying on of hands. It was the form whereby the apostles gave the extraordinary
gifts of the Holy Ghost; and as these extraordinary gifts were not only
ministerial instruments, as, e.g. the gift of interpretation, but also signs of
some invisible agency or sanction, these forms are still observed, although the
sign of confirmation is no longer granted by the Divine Dispenser.
But then,
the ceremony of laying on of hands is here said to have been performed by the
presbyters, while in the Second Epistle to Timothy Paul asserts it to have been
performed by himself.
From which
the conclusion is clear, that although the “ gift ” which testified the
appointment might have depended on the efficacy of the apostles joining in the
ceremony, vet that the ceremony had a further intent; else why should the
*vhole presbytery join ? It was then the act of the Church, with whom was
vested the ordination of bishops ; in like manner as the Church was before made
formally to ordain the two extraordinary apostles to the Gentiles. By the (
hurch, as was before explained, is meant the representatives of the Church;
whether, as in the case of the ordination of Paul and Barnabas at Antioch,
these were presbyters alone, or, as in that of 1 '.mothv, there was one
superior to the presbyters also. Accordingly, in tracing back the annals of
episcopacy, we find the custom scrupulously observed, and the bishop and the
presbyters uniting iii
the laving
011 (if hands. Occasional mention is made of the ceremony being performed by
the bishop alone, probably considered as the president of the presbyterian
body; but never of the presbytery without their head.
It is
quite clear, then, that the ordination of ministers rests with the Church as
one of its rights; we should rather say, one of its duties; for these are not
matters of endowment, but of obedience. But then, with whom was the appointment
left ? The Holy Ghost was here, as it would seem, in ali instances the sule
guide. For, although Timothy was left with power to ordain, yet he had a
special gift attending his appointment; and w hat more appropriate than the
gift of discerning spirits, which in its application would be nearly equivalent
to a Divine revelation of the Iloly Ghost’s choice ? This, then, was probably
the last kind of extraordinary assistance which was withdrawn from the Church ;
and, when withdrawn, the mode in which the other aids had been gradually and
successively supplied by human means, became an obvious rule in this case also.
For revelation, they bad a record; human eloquence and learning continued what
inspired wisdom and knowledge and utterance had commenced; the attested account
of signs and wonders was operating in like manner as had the miracles
themselves. Each extraordinary support had served not only as a substitute,
but also as temporary shelter and protection for some natural power, which was
allowed to grow up under its shade, and to attain proper maturity, before the
occasional fence was removed. To the Church the Holy Ghost was wont to specify
his appointments; and when that voice was no longer given, the Church felt sure
that it was called on to act, just as individuals in office had been, who no
longer found themselves prompted by the gift of wisdom, or knowledge, or
eloquence. It employed all its natural powers in choosing those on whom it
thought the inspired choice would have fallen. Its office— its duty—remained,
although all miraculous aid was withdrawn; just as the duty of those
individuals who tilled any office in the Church, continued, although no
extraordinary help was perpetuated together with the office. The other
substitutes of "nspiration had proved effectual, and the exercise of
natural judgment could not but be expected to prove so in this ease also. A\
hen the preacher or the interpreter used his natural learning or eloquence, his
success assured him that God had sanctioned this new mode of ministry; and, by
analogy, the Church, when left to itself, knew that its appointments, if made according
to the best human judgment, would be sanctioned and approved by Heaven.
Schism and. Heresy, considered merely as ecclesiastical crimes,
may be illustrated by the analogous case of political crimes. The schismatic
renounces his allegiance to the ecclesiastical government under which he has
been living; the heretic adopts practices and opinions contrary to its laws.
The schismatic therefore is, as it were, in rebellion against his Church; the
hcretic, a violater of its laws.118
Here,
however, the analogy ceases. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world.
Accordingly, while the rightful puui^hment of the rebel who is found arrayed
against his country and its government is indicted by the society injured; the
schismatic, who is similarly opposed to his Church, is reserved for a sentence
hereafter,—a sentence either of acquittal or condemnation, as tho motives which
gave rise to the rebellious act shall be found Fuflicient or otherwise.
The
infallibility of the Church’s rulers in the apostolic age might Nature of be
supposed sufficient to Lave preserved unanimity throughout the tWs
Christian World. Put this was by no means the case. Previous, however, to the
notice of those who have been charged with' schism or heresy, it may be
requisite to make some remarks on the subject of Christian Unity. Few points
have been less satisfactorily discussed than the exact import of this word, nor
would it be easy to remove all the difficulty with which the question is
encumbered.
The
following observations however may, it is hoped, tend to clearer views on the
subject.
When
Christian Unity is spoken of in the New Testament, it unity»t generally means
the unity of dispensation for the various classes of Jjo„pens5'
converts. It is expressive of the great principle, that all were to be “one
fold under one Shepherd;’’ that, contrary to the Jewish prejudice, Christianity
was to be one and the same, as to all its benefits and privileges, for Jews,
devout Gentiles, and idolaters, who embraced it. Hence it is called “the unity
of the Spirit,” in Eph.iv.3. opposition to the character of 'the Jewish
dispensation, which was
,118
I do not know whether this distinc- used
in Acts xxiv. 5,14. Put as the two
Jon in th
use of the i:erms schism and meanings
require to he clearly keptapCiVt,
heresy
o’otains generally; and heresy it is at
l«apt c.*n7ement to appropriate
undoubtedly,
in its original acceptation, one to
etch U'rm. meant a schism or sect. So the term is
Eph. iv. 5.
No Church
can be Heretical or Schlsmatl- caL
TheSeeeders
forming such a Church may be both. Though not so their successors.
partially
allotted, and shaded off, as it were, from native Jew to the proselyte of
righteousness, and. in a lower degree still, to the proselyte of the gate.
lienee, also, it is said to be preserved “ in the bond of peace;” because the
mam ground of irritation and enmity on religious matters was the jealousy of
the Jews respecting the oneness (hern;) of God’s Church. That such is the unity
so often recommended, may be proved especially from Paul’s Epistle to the
Ephesians; iri which he enforces it as a duty of Christians, on the, ground
that they partake of “one faith, one baptism,” <tc. which he could not have
done, if difference of faith in general or of forms were the departure from the
unity intended.
Against
this unity, then, neither schism nor heresy is necessarily an offence. Nothing,
undoubtedly, was so likely to prevent schism as un equality of dispensation,
which should leave all classes of converts, in every age or country, without
room for jealousy and discontent; but neither schism nor heresy is properly an
offence against the Church universal, but against some particular church, and
by its own members. It is true, that he who is an heretic or schismatic of one
church, may be an unlit member for many others, or for all others; and so it is
with certain grievous offenders against the laws of any one political society;
and we often say of such an one that he is unfit for society. But because a
murderer is tolerated neither by the French nor by the English, we do not
thtnee infer that the French and English form one political body.
On the
same principle, it must be admitted, that no church can be properly called
either heretic or schismatic. For churches, being independent establishments,
may indeed consult each other; but, having no one common arbitrator, if they
cannot agree, the guilt of that church which is in error is neither schism nor
heresy properly, but corrupt faith,—not an ecclesiastical offence, hut one
between God and the corrupt chureh. Accordingly, our Reformers, whilst they
characterise the Romish Church as one that has erred. have very properly
avoided tho misapplication of the terms “ schismatic, and heretic ” to it.
Nevertheless,
if a church has been formed by the secession of members from another church, on
disagreement of principles, each seceder is both a schismatic and a heretic,
because of his former connexion; but the crime does not attach to the Chureh so
formed : and accordingly is not entailed on succeeding members who naturally
spring up in it. If the schism was founded in error, the guilt of error would
always attach to it and its members; but not that of schism or heresy. On the
same principle, the present king of Great Britain’s claim to the allegiance of
his subjects is not affected by the question of William the Conqueror’s right
to the throne formerly; nor would an American traitor stand excused, who should
plead in defence of his treason, that the disunion was unjustifiable, to which
the United States owe their independence.
Distinct
churches may form alliances, such as existed between the famous seven Churches
of Asia. But then, a secession from this alliance woulil of itself be no crime
whatever Thus, supposing the Church of Rome not to have needed any reform,
still the Church of England would have been justified in renouncing its
association with it, simply on the ground of expediency.
But, then,
what constitutes a Church? Is the boundary line whatis» political or
geographical, or what? It is obvious that a mere urc ' agreement of
faith and practice does not render two bodies of Christians one Church; for
the Church of England and the American Episcopalian Church agree, but still are
two distinct churches.
Much less
can it be supposed to depend on a political or geographical boundary; except,
Indeed, when the church is united with the state, and then the limits of both
are by agreement the same. Even the connexion between the Church founded, and
that from which it has been planted, does not amount to this; for when
Jerusalem sent forth its spiritual colonies, they consulted indeed with the
mother Church, and with one another, but each was, from the very first,
^dependent, and a church in itself.
Shall we
say, then, that the principle is purely conventional?
Every body
of men, and every individual, falls, by birth and other circumstances, into
some one Christian body; just as he does into some one political or other
social body. The Church of England, for instance, if even it were deprived of
the advantages which it enjoys in the protection of the state, would be
naturally perpetuated as it now is, and every secession from it would be as
truly a schism, and every profession opposed to its Articles as truly a heresy.
This,
however, does not imply that no plea can justify the members Cautions of any
church from seceding. He who is convinced that his church before^ is
essentially in error, is bound to secede. But, like tho circum- Secession,
stances which may be supposed to justify the subject of any realm in renouncing
his country and withdrawing his allegiance, the plea should be long, and
seriously, and conscientiously weighed. Indeed, a cautious and painful
self-examination is even more awfully important ; because the temptation to
the act receives no check, corresponding to that human punishment which
menaces the political rebel. Separation or secession may, however, take place,
by mutual agreement, and without auy difference of faith or practice between
the parties. In this case, there would be no question about corrup- v
tion and error in the one, and heresy and schism in the other; neither would
they be joint offenders against Christian unity. As cclonies may grow into a
greatness, which would make it ineon venient for them to remain dependencies of
the parent state, and may separate amicably from it, and to the acknowledged
benefit of both; so it may be with respect to a church and its branches, or
other causes may render the separation desirable and justifiable.
There was
no schism, e.g. when the Episcopal Church of the United
Tbe
sep&ratfoo
from the Church of Iionne not a Schism.
Second
Persecution,
A.P. 95.
States
separated from our own. The separation of our Church from that of Rome would,
on the same principle of convenience, have been justifiable ami right, even had
there been 110 cause for separation in the corruptions and usurpations of the
latter. We were, at once, too numerous, and too much disconnected by distance,
and other circumstances, from those with whom we were nominalh in communion,
to form with them one Society—such as a church seems designed to be—under one
government. It may be difficult to define the proper extent of a church, and
more, no doubt, must depend on national and other differences than on mere
numbers; but it is incompatible with the nature and ends of the institution,
that a church should spread into an empire, such as the llomish once was, and
such as it still asserts 011 principle. In such a state of things one great
safeguard against corruption is removed—the protest of many independent
churches against the offending one—their immediate protest and their permanent
testimony against it. Corruption grows unreproved and unregistered. That
evidence, too, for purity of doctrine and practice, which arises from the
concurrence of many independent but consenting churches is, in like manner,
lost. Other results have followed, no less detrimental to the cause of Christ's
kingdom on earth. The impression left by the establishment for centuries of a
gigantic ecclesiastical empire, has tended to give undue importance to the machinery
of ecclesiastical government, and to all the external appointments of the
Church; these being really more prominent and important matters in an imperial
church. It has taught men to think more of ecclesiastical polity, as that which
is to bind Christians together, and less of the brotherly tie of fellowship, the
power of which can only be fully developed in smaller or less complicated
associations. In an overgrown church it may exist among the members of its
separate congregations as such; or among the members of less regular religious
societies and parties as such; but hardly among the members of the Church at
large as such.
IIlreiics.
It is
generally admitted, that St. John was banished by tho Emperor Dumitian , and
the sentence makes p;’rt of what is called the Second Persecution of the
Christians. Nevertheless, it can hardly be classed among the severe trials of
the Church. Fla\ius Clemens and his wife. Domitilla, members of the imperial
family, are recorded amongst the victims; tho former as suffering death, the
latter, exile. It is, however, after all doubtful, whether these objects of
tyrannical suspicion were charged with their real offences, or whether the
imputation of “Atheism” and “Jewish manners” may not have been the cloak for
gratifying some personal dislike, or allaying some personal dread, which Domitian
did not choose to avow. No more were made partners of their persecution than
were probably sufficient to give colour to its justice; and were it not that
among
these the last apostle is numbered, all mention of it might he well omitted.
Such as it was, it ceased with the death of the emperor.
At this
season, however, the Church began to feel the influence of a more powerful
enemy, perhaps, than the sword of persecution.
After the
destruction of Jerusalem, the attempts of the unconverted Jews to direct the
civil powers of the world against Christians were few and feeble. Tho converted
Jews had less spirit, and less show of reason, to contend for the eternal
obligation of the Mosaic law on Christians. It was no longer deemed necessary
to enforce those restrictions, therefore, on the Jewish and proselyted
converts, which before that signal event prudence bad suggested. Prom the Jews,
and from the disposition to Judaize Christians, the Church was comparatively
secure. In proportion, however, as this relief was obtained, a new evil began
to spring up. The unconverted Gentiles were henceforth the chief movers of
calumny and accusation. It was now palpably the interest of a great body of
them to be so.
From a
portion of the converted Gentiles, too, more than from those
v.ho had
been Jews, the Gospel was threatened with corruption.
It was not
now so much an adulterous union between the Mosaic law anu the Christian, as
between Gentile philosophy and Christian truth, against which the defender of
the faith had to contend. And here it might be expected, that at least the
Judaizing portion of the Church would have been firm resisters of this most
unnatural union,
—but they
were perhaps the weaker party, and were even more readily seduced than their
brethren of Gentile origin. The reason Cnw of was this: with the Jews of
Alexandria, aud, through them, very Heresy081' generally with the
Jews of all parts, the experiment which was now to be tried on the Christians
had been made, and made with eminent success. Long before the establishment of
the Eclectic sect in Egypt, the principles on which it was formed had
influenced the, philosophical speculations at Alexandria; and several tenets of
the Greek Wisdom had been admitted into the Oriental schools, and still more of
Orientalism into those of the Grecian philosophy'.
Plato’s
system, from its fanciful assemblage of ideas, was the most readily identified
or amalgamated with the Eastern theory of emanations. But the Peripatetic and
Stoic were soon found equally pliant and yielding to the ingenuity of men once
practised in the method of harmonizing and reconciling. Both, no less than the
Academic, agreed indeed in the fundamental point of theology with the Eastern
creed, viz. that the Deity was the soul of the world, or the universe itself.
The Epicurean system was the most stubborn, but even this was gradually
tortured, until it was made to furnish some evidence to the shifting views of
these theorists. Meanwhile, in this rage for philosophic liberality, the
ancient and august character of the Mosaic revelation, and the reverence with
which it was observed by so large a portion of the inhabitants of Alexandria
1 Tim.
vi.20; 1. 4;
Tit iii.
9; Col. ii. 8.
Its
Authors.
Simon
Magus.
Acts viii.
9.
especially,—tho
great laboratory in which all these experimentalists were at work,—could not
but tempt them to tamper with this institution also. Many of the Jews were
persuaded into a notion, that part of the Gentile theories must have been
portions of patriarchal revelation, and worthy of being believed and applied to
the elucidation of the Mosaic. The infection had spread far and wide through
the nation at the period of the Messiah’s coming; and many of those Jews who
became converts to Christianity, carried with them into the Church the tenets
and the spirit of Gnosticism. Even during the ministry of St. Paul we recognise
the use of the word gnosis, (ynueif,) applied as it began to be to an esoteric
doctrine,—a rerini d and cabbalistic interpretation of the Gospel,—a system
which in the apostle’s own words was “falsely called gnosis or knowledge.”
liefore the close of the first century, however, the warning voice of Paul
required the support of the last survivor of the ai>ostles. The “foolish
questions” und the “endless genealogies, ’ from which the former had
endeavoured to divert the attention of the Christian inquirer, were becoming
more and more objects of interest. Foolish questions or inquiries into the
absolute nature of God, led (as they must ever lead men) to absurdity and impiety—to
those wild speculations concerning the successive generations of JSons,—the
emanations of the Divine essence,—and all the metaphysical subtilties of
Orientalism, to which St. John briefly, and in the spirit of one dismissing
idle discussion by a few authoritative assertions, adverts in the commencement
of his Gospel.
The
authors of this progressive heresy are stated by historians to have been Simon
Magus, Menander, Dositheus, Cerinthus, and others of inferior note.
Whatever
mischief, however, these maj have caused to the Church, all of them cannot
properly be called heretics. To begin with Simon Magus. The character of this
impostor is decidedly not that of a heretic, but of an infidel and blasphemer.111’
Supposing him to be the same named in the Acts, (whieh supposition rests on
uneontradicted tradition,) he tvas by birth a Samaritan, who, having travelled
to Egypt, eame home imbued with the oriental philosophy, which he taught to his
countrymen, claiming for himself the rank of -iEon or superior emanation from
the Deity. When Christ was preached abroad, he found no difficulty in admitting
the Divine authority of his mission ; and merely contended that he himself was
a superior ..Eon, who with his wife or concubine Helena had become incarnate
since the Messiah. With sueh an object, supported by blasphemy and imposture
like this, Simon was rather the first of the false Christs whom our Lord
foretold, than an heretical follower. It is well known, that in order to make
it seem that his authority
119 So Justin Martyr, as quoted by xiy»fr»« ixvrelt i7V*i
Eusebius,
xati f&t *• t»!* u.ta.Xr^iv rev xvptov 'SijuwetJ4.it n*et x, r. X. JuStiu,
tif
fCpayor, *feij2*?.ovrO ct ba.ifJ.orii ‘rdpvitovff Ap« I Euseb>
Lib. II. (/• 13«
was, like
tliat of Jesus, Divine, he practised magic, and performed false miracles; nor,
with this general view of bin character and maimers, is the story in itself
improbable which historians tell of his death at Ilome ; that it was occasioned
bv a fall, namely, in attempting to fly from the Capitol. No miracle would have
been more worthy of the impostor’s ambition, than that which should make him
seem to the Jews to fulfil the desired sign of the Son of man descending from
the clouds of heaven. Notwithstanding the glaring absurdity of his pretensions,
it is no slight proof of the prevailing bias of men’s minds towards the
Oriental and Gnostic fancies, that he not only was attended during his* life by
a numerous train of adherents, but that as late as the third and even the
fourth century, there continued to exist a sect, who claimed him as their
founder,—still believed in his doctrine, and paid him the honours and worship
due to his assumed nature. The assertion that a statue was erected to him at
Rome has been doubted, and the fact ascribed to the ignorance or credulity of
Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others. The story is improbable, but the
testimony is strong, because derived from so many consenting witnesses.
The next
place in the list of heretics is assigned to Menander; Menani»r. by some
supposed to have been a disciple of Simon.1-'° As far as any clear
and plausible account of him can be collected from the notices of Iremeus,
Tertullian, and Justin Martyr, he has been as improperly ranked among the
disciples of that famous magician, as among the Christian heretics. Like Simon,
he is said to have been by birth a Samaritan, and, like Simon, to have taken
advantage of the reigning taste of the times, to make himself appear to his
countrymen and the world “some great one,” and “ the power of God.” Thus, he
might have introduced himself into notice by admitting the Divine nature of
Jesus, as Simon did; and even of that impostor also, reserving for himself the
character of an Mon still nearer than either to the fountain of Deity. The
doctrine of emanations was obviously suited to the spirit of imposture, and was
naturally the doctrine of each false Christ in succession. Yet was it not the
prevalence of that doctrine alone which caused such numbers to submit to
similar delusions one after another; but rather the universal expectation of a
great deliverer, which those who were dissatisfied with the kind of deliverance
offered by Jesus and his followers, continued fondly to look for. Love of
novelty might account for the formation of one such sect as these; but tho
ready obedience of new disciples to tho call of every similar pre- 'ender,
could only have arisen from the “fulness of the time.” Menander’s talent for
supporting his imposture was probably not equal to that of Simon; for he is
less famous in Ecclesiastical legends, and his sect soon ceased to be noticed
by historians
120 Euseb. Hist. Lib. III. C. 26, on the
authority of Justin.
Dositheus
Cerinthus.
Another of
tliese impostors, whose name has been connected with the history of the early Church,
is Dositheus. Hi* life and tenets are still more obscure than those of the
preceding, but his main object appears to have been the same. By some he has
been made a disciple, "1 by others, the preceptor of
Simon. Neither is likely; as far as we can trace his course, it evinced more
enthusiasm than knavery, such as Simon’s was ; and was quickly terminated.
Having failed to obtain crcdit with the Jews, he proclaimed himself to the
Samaritans as the Messiah, and an attempt having been made by the High Priest
to apprehend him, he took refuge in a cave, wherein he perished.122
Still, the same cause which prolonged the existence of the Magian sect, kept
alive for centuries the faith and the hopes of his party,—if, at least, from
him was derived the sect of Dosi- theans, whose existence in Egypt as late as
the sixth century is well attested.123
Of
heretics, properly so named, Cerinthus was perhaps the tirst. r>y some he is
said to have flourished in the beginning of the second century; but the
assertions of the early writers, that the rise of his sect was one cause of the
publication of St. John’s Gospel, together with the internal evidence contained
in that Gospel to the fact, makes it more than probable, that his proper place
in ecclesiastical record is the close of the first century. In the romantic
and fabling spirit of the times, some have ventured to represent him as the
great antagonist on whom the spiritual prowess of Christ’s champion, St. John,
nas proved; as that of St. I’etcr had been on Simon Magus.12* This
may, perhaps, afford an additional ground for presuming that they were
contemporary, however decidedly we reject the stories themselves.
Cerinthus
was a Jew, and one of those who had deeply imbibed the tenets of Orientalism.
He became a comert to Christianity, with his fancy over-excited, his judgment
perplexed, and his very affections, which the Gospel nas calculated to arrest
and sober, so misguided by his previous habits of religious meditation, that
he looked on his new system of faith with the same ncnous and irritable view,
with which the great ar'thmetician was said to perceive only number in all the
variety of scenes he beheld. The visionary plcroina, tilled with the Divine
essence, emanating from its source with gradually decreasing brightness, and
passing thus through all nature until it was traced imperceptibly to matter,
and as such losing its original character of excellence, and assuming that of
evil—all this haunted his mind like an enchantment; and he thought on the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, only to find their respective places in
this emblazonry of fancy. In the ingenious attempts to harmonize Judaism and
Orientalism, the most revolting part of the
121 Recognition?*Clementis,
Lib. II. <’. 8. 122
KpipliD.n. 1 l:tT-s, XIII. Lib. 1.
138 Mosliemii de Reb. Christ, ante Const.
Sect I. § 65.
* The legend of Cerinthus in the Bath, and
the like.
process
had already settled in his mind. Mucli of the grosser and more offensive tenets
of the Eastern Wisdom had been softened down, to effect an union with the faith
of the Mosaic revelation.
The
Creator of the world, for instance, was no longer, as formerly, repiesented as
an evil and opposite principle to good, but only as a subordinate ^Eon, whose
work was imperfect, and now become so corrupt, that there was need of a
superior J3on to restore it. Such an one he beheld in Christ, the Word
incarnate. How far he pursued his system of adapting the various doctrines of
Christianity to philosophy is uncertain ; but, doubtless, much of the Valent'nian
heresy, which arose immediately after, existed in his theory. Considering the
spiritual and material worlds as both derived from the same origin, he supposes
two classes of principles, (oiWms/?,) the one active, the other passive, the
one consisting of male Jions, the other of female. From the source of Deity, by
a union with thought or silence, were produced successive pairs of these uEons,
the first of which was Mind and Truth; lower in the scale, the Word, Man, and
the Church ; ami far lower still, the Creator, whose imperfect power and wisdom
liad produced the necessity of an incarnation, and of all the Christian scheme.125
To all these idle and impious fancies, engendered, as it would seem, in the
full sunshine of truth, we should pay little regard if recorded of an
individual alone; but the attention is detained, and reason is staggered, at
the record of numbers joining in a view of revelation such as this; combining
through centuries, like the successful builders of a spiritual Babel; and so
established in their creed, as to branch nut into subdivisions and sects, all
maintaining the great principles of Gnosticism.
It is the
feeling of each age, to be amazed and scandalized at the absurdity or impiety
of notions worn out by time; even while it is itself, perhaps, affording matter
for the reprehension and scorn of future generations. Scarce less contempt and
censure do we pass on the Gnostics of old, than did those Gnostics on the
idol-wor- shippers, from whose impurities and vanities they had extricated
themselves. On us, and on every a^e, the moral presses strongly and
beneficially. Other prejudices, than those of a “vain philosophy,” may betray
the Christian of the nineteenth century, and of ages more enlightened still,
into errors which, in him, are equally unworthy of the God whom he worships.
Collectively as a Church, no less than as individuals, we are to the end of
time in a state of trial; and it is well to look back on these monstrous
pictures of the past, if the retrospect suggests to us self-mistrust,
self-watchfulness, and prayer for light and guidance from above.
It was
against the heresy of Cerinthus that St. John is said to The opening have
asserted in the beginning of his Gospel, the eternity of the f/0spei°hr
3
i\
ord—that the Word which was made flesh was no emanation, directs
against
the Ceriuthians.
125
Bruckeri Hist. Philosophies, Tom. III. p. 291.
but was
originally with God, and was God. To other features of this heresy, he in
supposed occasional^' to point in his writings; the whole tone of which, of the
Gospel especially, indicates a design to inculcate the doctrine of Christ's
real and perfect divinity, in opposition to the conclusions which were draw n
from these principles of Cerinthus; as, that he was inferior to God the Father,
that he was a mere man while 011 the cross, and separated from the JEon who
possessed his frame, Are. Even those, accordingly, who do not name Cerinthus
and his sect as the occasion of this additional Gospel history being written by
the apostle 111 his latter days, point to its spiritual character; and relate
that it was composed with a view to represent Christ more in his Divine nature,
and especially in that early part of bis history, which had been hitherto
chiefly occupied with his earthly birth and parentage.
Reason foi
If it be asked, how it happened, that errors like those above of^ rr’“rt5S
described should have passed current with men accustomed to Gnosticism scriptUral
religion founded on miraculous evidence;—with Jews, who had received the Law on
the testimony of Moses and his miracles ;—with Christians, w hose belief was
grounded on a similar foundation,—the reason some have assigned is the
followingThe artful founders of Gnosticism, in recommending the Oriental philosophy
to the Jews originally, were sensible of the difficulty: they perceived that it
was not enough in this case, as in the attempt to reconcile their system with
that nf Plato, or Aristotle, or Zeno, to make its several parts harmonize and
represent those of the other. There was one ingredient wanting, which neither
Orientalism nor any human system of religion claimed or rested on—an ingredient
peculiar to the truth, and that wa3, evidence. In order to supply this want, it
was found expedient to challenge as authority, the very same tource to which
the Jews themselves were accustomed to appeal. These secrets of revelation,
they pretended, had been given from the beginning, together with what was
contained in the Jewish Scripture. Adam, they said, received them,—the patriarchs
received them,—and through them they were communicated to certain ancient
sages, the especial confidant? and guardians of holy wisdom. Whilst divine
faith was presented to mankind :n a homely garb, srited to vulgar
apprehensions, this key to its real nature was thus preserved in the keeping of
a few.1* In short, theirs, according to their representation, was
the Esoteric doctrine of religion, as that contained in Scripture had been the
Exoteric. Recalled for testimony to an early age, to names of whom a blind
reverence made it nearly blasphemy to doubt aught; and probably so bewildered
iu their view of the question, as to confound scepticism, concerning the fact
of these holy men having received the eoinmuriicalions pretended, with doubt as
to the validity of their
I**
Brucketi Hist. Philosophic, Tom IT. p. 984—949.
evidence,
if given to such a fact, what wonder that many should fall into the snare ? The
experience of every age justifies the great historian of Greece, in the
conclusion to which he was led, bv his attempt to ascertain the grounds on
which so much idle fable had been received as truth by h:s
countrymen.127 Men will not take the trouble to search after
truth, if any thing like it is ready provided to their hands; and from this
fate religious truth itself is not exempted.
m Lib. J.
C. 20.
Gradual
change from Inspired to Uninspired Church Government.
Difficulties
attendant on such a change.
AGE
OF THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS.
From x.Tt.
100—167.
With the removal of God’s inspired servants from the scene.
Ecclesiastical History assumes a widely different character from that which
belongs to it during the record of their ministry. As long as their agency is
employed, we look on with pious confidence in the wisdom of the measures
pursued, and presume not to question the reasonableness of the objects
effected. But, from the moment at which a transfer of authority is made to
fallible rulers and teachers, these become amenable for the discharge of their
trust to posterity, as well as to God; and it is our duty to inquire into the
fidelity with which they have discharged it.
In no part
of the Christian scheme is the Divine wisdom more apparent than in this
transfer. It was begun early, long before the removal of the apostles : and was
so gradually accomplished, that even the death of St. John occasioned no such
dismay in the Church, as might have been cxpected at the extinction of the last
star by which its course was to be directed. In the first instance, too, this
transfer of authority was made to those who, for a season, had exercised it
under the instruction of the apostles, and whom the loss of their inspired
guides left, therefore, engaged ki a routine of duty no longer new or doubtful.
The change, immense as it was, came almost imperceptibly both on the Church and
on its rulers.
Xo portion
of the Christiaa scheme awakens a more anxious inquiry, than the interesting
experiment which was thus made 'n first intrusting Christianity to uninspired
guardians. For, although this was done under circumstances which approach the
nearest to extraordinary Divine assistance, and the abruptness of leaving the
Church at once to the ordinary help of the Spirit w as thereby prevented;
although, unl'ke succeeding rulers of the various Christian societies, the
first uninspired authorities had received instruction immediately from the
apostles, had acted for a time under their superintendence, and were,
accordingly, trained in the practices, and taught the doctrines of their
religion, in a way which might seem to have precluded the possibility of
misapprehension,—still, they were liable to error; and error so near the source
of Divine truth, seems the more likely to mingle and to flow on with it, aid to
pollute its remotest streams.
Of the
primitive worthies, on whom this weighty responsibility Apostolical devolved,
the most conspicuous are known by the title of the Fattujrs’ Apostolical Fathers, a term obviously
derived from the peculiarity of character and circumstances to which I have
been adverting.
Others,
indeed, may have been equally serviceable by their liyes, and equally important
to the age in which they flourished; but th^se have become eminently so to us
by their writings, or, rather, the writings which have been transmitted to us
as theirs.
In the
catalogue of the apostolical Fathers we usually find the names of Barnabas, Heemas, Clement, Ignatics, and
Poltcarp. BarmUs. Why the first of
these, himself an apostle of no small note, should be classed among the
Fathers, it is difficult to understand. Among the works of the apostolical
Fathers, is an Epistle claiming to be nis Epistle, the production of Barnabas
the apostle. Now, obviously, the only ground for classing this Epistle with
these works, and not with the Scriptures, is that Barnabas did not write it;
whilst the only reason for calling him an apostolical Father, is that he did
write it.
It is, in
short, to suppose him at once, the author, and not the author.
One view
alone can be at all compatible with this arrangement; which is, that the
Epistle was originally his, but became so corrupted as to forfeit its
scriptural character. This is possible; but this is not the view taken by the
several disputants who from time to time have either advocated or condemned it
m toto. And even then, although this solution might make the catalogue of the
writings of these Fathers a convenient place for the degraded Scripture, it
would not bring down the author to the level of the Fathers. His history,
therefore, can only be placed properly where it has been already noticed, with
that of the other apostles.
Hermas is another apostolical Father, whose title is doubtful.
Hennas.
If his
claim be good, he is the same with him whom St. Paul names at the close of his
Epistle to the Romans; and he is so described by most of the early authorities.
Many learned men of later times, however, offended at the character of his
singular work, The Shepherd, His have anxiously sought for external
evidence against this identity; " ' nor have they been unsuccessful. There
is strong ground for sup posing that The Shepherd was a production of the
second century, and that the Hermas who wrote it was a brother of Pius, bishop
of Rome.1 Nevertheless, as the point is not quite
incontrovertible, and as this extraordinary performance was once so famous as by
some to be accounted Scripture,2 Hennas may still, perhaps,
be allowed to keep his place among the apostolical Fathers, subject to su«h a
protest as the evidence against his claim may seem to require.
Clement is more certainly identified with him whom St. Paul,
ciemont. m his Epistle to the Phllippians, names as one of “ his fellow-
1 Moshemii De Rebus Christ, ante Const, p. 162.
2 Irenreus apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. C. 8. Origen,
too, considered it inspired.
labourers;”3
and from the great number of writings which were made popular by the authority
of his assumed name, lie may be considered as the most distinguished among the
apostolical Fathers. He was bishop of Rome by the appointment of St. Peter; and
011 the death of Anacletus, lie appears to have united in his person the
dignity which was before divided between St. Paul’s successor and St. Peter’s.
Like most of the bishops of that dangerous see, he His Epistle*, suffered
martyrdom. Of his writings, only one Epistle has come down to us, the authenticity
of which can be clearly made out. It is addressed from the Church of Rome to
the Church of Corinth. Ilis Second Epistle, as it is called, if originally his,
is confessedly very much changed from its original character. But, in truth,
there is good reason to believe that no Epistle corresponding to this was ever
written by Clement. Irenseus4 was not acquainted with more
than one, and his quotations prove that one to have been the tirst. Eusebius*
mentions the second, but expressly states, that he could discover no ancient
authority for it, and rejects it. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, Clement of
Alexandria, and Origen, all bear testimony to one only, the first. Two more
have been found of late years, attached to a Syriac version of the New
Testament, and were appended by Wetstein in his folio edition of the sacred
volume. Allowing the full force of the evidence in favour of the genuineness of
these, arising out of their scriptural language, and the absence of terms and
topics which belong to a later period, still, this is counterbalanced by other
internal evidence which is no less strong against it; and no trace of them is
to be found in ancient writers.4 About the spuriousness of
the other pieces to which his name has been attached, there is no controversy,
i jnatius. The remains of Igxatius arc less scanty, and yet these are eon-
HlsEpistles, fined to seven Epistles, v.ritten during a nasty and harassing
journey from Antioch to Rome, for the purpose of being put to death at a public
exhibition. N0 ancient writings have been more the subject of fraud and
corruption than these.8 Eusebius mentions seven genuine
Epistles, which Pearson, in his Vindicia' Ignaiktnw, has very ably identified
with that collection which is now called 77(e genuine Epistles* There is
another collection of Ignatius’s Epistles, of which the former are the basis,
but they are most grossly altered arid interpolated. A tlird set appears with
his
* Phil. iv. 3. “ Clement also, and other 3.
Clementina.
my fellow
-labourers, whose names are in 4.
Apostolical Constitutions, in ei^ht
the book
cl life.” books.
* Adv. Ha res. Lib. 11T. C. 3. 5. Apostolical Canons.
< Hist.
Eccl. IIII. C. 3S. On Of these, theIteeopnitions is the most
ancient
and the most valuable: it was
0 Vor an
the arguments against their written, probably, about the middle of
r,-Jthcnticit>, Lardner s Dissertation on the second century. the Tiro
Epistles may be consulted.
7 1 hose
are.
R
Ijmatius’s Epistles were first pub- Oied in Latin t.y Archbishop U ' id
afterwards in Greek by Vossiu Recognition!, in ten bocks. 9 See Eusebius, Lib. III. C. 36.
I. An
Epistle to James, our Lord’s Hshed in Latin 1 ,y Archbishop .Usher, brother a
afterwards m Greek by Vossius.
name,
which are altogether a forgery. After all, too, although no one can deny the
force of Bishop Pearson’s arguments in disproving the authenticity of the
longer Epistles, and establishing the preferable claims of the shorter, still,
it is by no means clear, that the imposture practised on what we call the
Interpolated, EpiaOes was not an at*e®lPt
t0 can7 to° fdr> what hail been more
sparin&'ly, more skilfully, and more successfully effected in the shorter
Epistles’- and that the genuine Epistles themselves have been tampers d with.’
The temptation to such a proceeding was strong; and there are certainly not a
few internal marks that it was practised. Ignatius was the tapteofSt, John, and
bishop of Antioch, and offered martyrdom under Trajan, a.d. 108. J
PTCAJT
briT,US mUeh kter ilit0 the Of Polycarri*
the
Charch. He suffered beyond the middle of the second century, a.d. 1C7 and. like Ignatius,
self-devoted for the purpose of diverting persecution from his brethren m
Christ, lie was that bishop or “ ano-el ” of the Church of Smyrna,
of whom St. John makes so honourable mention in the book of Revelations; and
the narrative of his Rev. ii. 8-10. death whicli .'as drawn up by that Church,
is peculiarly valuable.
According
to Irenaeus, he left behind him various writings. All that now remains,
however, i3 an Epistle to the Philippics, an,1
| of “1S cl;e original Greek is imperfect,
and the remainder only Known through a Latin translation.
nf 'IrVT
T°rthy °f pi0USu'30nt(,‘mPIat!on
a more detailed biography inqwie, ot these holy men may be, the most
important, and the most ,,us’es.t.ed
interesting object after all, which is to be obtained from the study
!‘Vf
antd ",ntmgs>
is, to ascertain how Christians behaved &££?*
, S * le^.
t0 themsejves; or, to speak more accurately, when or the
first time left without any extraordinary Divine instruction and
superintendence. However famous in their generation might )e the names of
Ciement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, to us they are most interesting as specimens
of that generation; as representing in their lives and writings tne opinions
and the manners, the practice and the faith, which enjoyed the approbation of
the primitive Church. Taking this, then, as the mam object of inquiry I shall
not confine my view to their individual histories, but enlarge it from ail
sources of collateral information which may tend to make the sketch of
primitive Christianity - lore complete 01 more faithful
'*?•
•»u”
^?lat
Parts 'vere 'nten(l'‘d for the preservation of
it?
•,.%! were
these intentions fulfilled in the ministrv of f)«> apostolical fathers
and their contemporaries ? *
'
10 Cited by Eusebius, Hist. Lib. V. C.
20.
O
Difference
between the Divine and and Human economy.
Reason*
for this difference.
Wiiat Paws of tiie Apostolic Mimistrt were Intended fur
the mluk Foundation of Christianity ?
I.v the
formation of any society, nothing is more likely than that the means adopted
for its first establishment should be also the means proposed for its
continuance and security. Thus, the same institutions by which Lycurgus, or
.Solon, each established a community of that description which best pleased
himself, were by them considered as the most conducive to perpetuate it in its
genuine purity. This, ’"ndeed, will be mostly the case in all human
societies. But 1he reverse occurs in the history of the Church. It was
established by miracles exhibiting an infinite variety of superhuman power; it
has been perpetuated without any. Its very rulers and agents (as if to make the
contrast more striking) have not remained the same. The terms apostle, prophet,
interpreter, (fee., denote offices which seem to have been designed only for
the formation of the Church; and, accordingly, to hove been dropped on its
complete establishment. Even some of the customary usages of Christianity
partook of this temporary character; and these, if preserved, have been applied
by the purest Churches to purposes different from those which they originally
served.
The reason
of this peculiarity in the character of the Christian society, or Chureh, is
not simply that its object is spiritual, but consists in its particular mole of
reference to that object. The Church was founded, not that new truths should be
revealed through it, but to preserve a revelation already made. The distinction
i3 very important, and although so obvious as not to require any proof,
deserves to be familiarized to the mind in every possible way. The Church was
founded by miracles; and the Christian is often tempted, rather hastily, to
assert that God might, if it had been requisite, properly and consistently have
perpetuated :t by miracles. But that this cannot be the case, a
moment’s reflection will lead us to determine. Miracles are the appropriate
evidence of one who has himself received a miraculous communication; but what
purpose would miracles serve for attesting a revelation fully given to a
preceding generation ? A Christian who in the nineteenth century should perform
miracles, would naturally be regarded as giving evidence of his possessing, not
merely the Christian truths as hitherto
revealed,
but some new light also. A miracle, and a new revelation, Miracles th« go
together; when the one ceases, the other also is withdrawn. nf£sc *
For what is the import of a miracle ? A miracle is a change in the. ReTeUtinn.
order of the risible and material universe, and therefore an appropriate
indication that some corresponding spiritual or moral change has taken place.
It is the sign of Cod revealing and appointing, and is inconsistent with the
permanent course of an appointment once made. God’s first great miracle was the
creation and the establishment of the order of the universe ; and thk being
done, the system was left to work as by a power created with it. God’s last
great scene of miracles was, the revelation of the Christian scheme; and this
being established, its continuance is, in hke manner, left to the ordinary
oneration of that appointment.
If, on the
other hand, Christ and his apostles had taught Christi- UnnecsMi ? anity
partiaUy, had only revealed part uf the religious knowledge F-fveiatior which
was designed for the world; in this case it is very conceivable, l,e coln>'*e<e
that until such knowledge should be complete, individuals in the Church, from
time to time, or a regular succession of persons, should have been inspired;
and the new light would in each case have required the power of wirking
miracles. The Pope’s infallibility supposes such a need; and if it be well
founded, every successive Pope, as long as the age of infallibility lasts,
ought to have this power; because infallibility is the power of revealing on
any given point, and supposes, therefore, a constant extraordinary :nter
course with God; which has never been found separate from the power of working
miracles. The withdrawing of this Divine power would in this, as in all other
cases, be the negative sign that the infallibility had ceased.
But, it
may be said, that although the connexion between a wbj miracle and a new
revelation be reasonable in theory, do we really a^r mowi. find it in the history of God’s
dealings? The Mosaic revelation was established by miracles; but miracles did
not cease with the death of Moses and Aaron, or even of their immediate
successors.
To this
the reply is very obvious. The Mosaic revelation contained neither all, nor,
perhaps, the most considerable portion of that stock of Divine truth, for the
preservation of which the Israelites were formed into a Church. Miracles were
from time to time performed; but by whom, and for what purpose? By the
prophets; who attested thereby the Divine communication of new light, which
from time to time was added to the former, and which did not complete the sum
of the old revelation, until four hundred years before the coining of Christ.
It was then that they were left with the Old Testament complete, to employ it
to their benefit, or to abuse its light, as they chose. Occasionally, too, the
performance of miracles arose out of a peculiarity of the old dispensation,
which is scarcely ever sufficiently attended to in the parallels drawn between
GndV former and present Churches. They were the temporal enactments
Or the
^atriar^hs.
Arguments
against their future revival.
Unwillingness
of the Church to surrender this power.
tif God,
as the extraordinary temporal Ituler of the Iraelites; and had Christ
established a kingdom of this world, then, and in that ease onty, might we
expect a corresponding interference of miraculous power.
To the
patriarchal dispensation, as it is termed, the same remarks are still more
applicable. New revelations were continually wanted, ar.d appropriate miraculous
interpositions occurred. Every revelation was planted by these,extraordinary
means; and whenever one of God’s servants arose to work fresh miracles, it was
to establish some new truth.
Notwithstanding,
therefore, the pious hope of many good Christians, that miracles may perhaps
be once more permitted for the speedier conversion of the heathen, there is,
even in this pious hope, something perhaps inconsistent with the sufficiency of
the New Testament revelation. A power of working miracles would place the
missionary in a new character. If wrought in testimony of his preaching, his
language would become equivalent to holy Scripture, lie would no longer be a
minister of the New Testament record; and even if he preached no new doctrine,
he must be supposed to prcacli, not as from the Bible, but by revelation,—as
one guarded against error, and inspired with correct views, in the same manner
as the apostles. It should be recollected, too, that Christianity can now be
proved, to any mind capable of understanding it, by the various sources of
testimony which we ordinarily use. Miracles were employed at first, because no
other testimony belonged to it; hut, although Gentiles and Jews were directed
to search tho Old Testament for authority, would it not have been strange to
have found the apostles performing miracles to attest tbe ministry of Moses or
Isaiuh ? Equally so would it be, under any circumstances, for a modern preacher
of the Gospel to be furnished with m.raeulous testimony in support of the
apostolical ministry. The volume of revelation has been closed and sealed.
Christ’s kingdom is come. Miraculous interposition vow would indicate that the
Christian schemc hitherto has not conveyed all the truth requisite for mankind
; and the assumption of a power of revelation, or infallibility, amounts to the
same thing.11
All
miracles, then, may be considered as forming that part of tho apostles’
ministry intended for the establishment, and not for the preservation, of
Christianity, whether these miracles were Signs snd Wonders, or Spiritual
Gifts. At the same time, as nothing could be so mortifying to the pride of the
Church as the loss of this splen-
i1 Of course any miracle, ■which was and which would, no doubt, be repeated*
tbe
fulfilment of a prophecy delivered if
ever a similar emergency required it.
during the
inspired age, would not be That
Julian did encounter miraculous
inconsistent
with this view, e.g. the inter- opposition,
has been placed beyond all
ference of
the Almighty to prevent tbe reasonable
doubt by Warburton. See
building
of tbe temple at Jerusalem ; for his
“Discourse on the attempt of the
which
there is certainly sufficient evi- Emperor
Julian to rebuild tlie Temple dence in tho case of Julian’s attempt, cl
Jerusalem.”
(lid
power, many might be expected to repeat the attempt to perform them again and
again, after this power was withdrawn, with the fond hope that the attempt
might be successful. Any occasional appearance of success would be hailed, from
time to time, by the superstitious, as an omen of returning miraoulous agency,
and would afford a ready instrument for fraudulent practices, as the Church
began to offer temptation to ambition or avarice. No wonder, then, that the
notice of miracles extends through its history; and that, however inconsistent
with the character of God’s final dispensation, they should become the constant
boast of Christians, exactly in proportion as that dispensation has been least
understood.
But not
only miracles ceased, because designed solely for the- Similar establishment of
the Church; but the obligation to perpetuate those customs'1 customs
which were connected with miraculous agency ceased also together with it. As
instances of these, may be noticed the Miracle*, practice of anointing the
sick, and that of laying on of hands by the apostles, subsequent to baptism.
The first
of these customs, evidently, was established as a form Uoctioo of of miraculous
cure. It was, no doubt, the mode in which the ‘ apostles fulfilled the Lord’s
especial injunction to “heal the sick.”
When,
therefore, such cures ceased, the cessation itself was equivalent to a formal
annulment of the practice by God. -Nevertheless, as nothing could have been
more mortifying to the spiritual pride of a Christian, than the loss of so
splendid an appendage to the Church as miraculous power, (agreeably to the
remarks above made,) the designing, the superstitious, and, perhaps, the truly
pious themselves, would naturally be slow to admit the evidence that its virtue
had ceased. To the dying man and to his distressed friends, even the faintest
possibility of success would be a sufficient motive for the experiment. Thus it
would be continued, by some from a hope that its efficacy might be renewed; by
others, from reverence for a custom, which, although ineffectual, had once been
blessed by the Spirit; by others, finelly, it would be persisted in from a
view, created by enthusiasm or fraud, that where no palpable miracle was
wrought, a secret miraculous influence must be communicated in lieu of the specific
benefit attached to it. Hence, in latter ages, its invariable use in a great
part of the Christian world as a means of grace to the departing Christian. Had
the custom, when its miraculous use ceased, been in its nature at all
applicable to edification, the reverence which retained it for such a purpose,
in preference to the introduction of any new ceremony, would have been even
praiseworthy. As it is, its preservation in the Greek and Roman Churches is a
curious monument of liuman weakness.
The origin
and meauing of Confirmation, as performed by the imposition apostles, have been
elsewhere explained. The apostles used to lay after11"5
their hands on those who had been baptized, in order that they Bn*1™*-
might receive some spiritual gift,—that is, some miraculous sign
Confirma
tion.
Reasons
for retaining this usage.
Not a
Sacrament.
that the
unseen descent of the Iloly Ghost on them at baptism was real.'3
None but an apostle could do this, and it was done, sometimes immediately on
baptism, sometimes after a long interval; but all Christians seem to have
claimed it as a privilege, whenever thev had opportunity of receiving it. The
rite was called cmjirmaihm, and the gift, the sign of continuing.
Properly,
then, confirmation wag a temporary usage, connected with a miraculous display,
end, indeed, appended to the apostolical office, together with whi<*h it
ceased. Like the unction of the sick, however, it was still kept up by those
who succeeded the apostles in the government of the Churches, but. apparently
from a more rational respect* for a rite with which such important results had
been so long associated. Between the apostolical Church and that even which
immediately followed it, no difference could have, been more remarkrjde than
that arising fr>m the increased proportion of infants baptized. Hence arose
one of the first demands on the uninspired Chureh for its discretionary power
in matters left indeterminate. Those Christians admitted to a participation of
the Sacrament before they could, “by reason of their tender years,” be taught
the meaning of the rite, seemed to require, some further formal and public
ceremony, in order to enable the Church to discharge its duty of solemnly
informing them of this meaning, whenever they should be capable of receiving
the information. The apostolical rite of continuation had been already made
sacred in the eyes of Christians, and would on that account be. far preferable
to any new form which might have been appointed for the new object required. It
was more—its former object was, to a certain extent, analogous to that for
which it was now adopted. It bad once solemnized the visible sign of assurance
to the baptized, that he was a portion of the Christian temple ; its present
object was to awaken the baptized to an inquiry into the evidence which he then
possessed of the same state of grace. Hence, in the most judicious
ecclesiastical regulations, it is made to take placc when the mind is snpposed
to be just capable of appreciating the evidences of Christianity, and the.
Christian is capable of beneficially partaking of those rites by which he
celebrates and renews his spiritual union with Christ. It is not a sacrament,
nor would that Church be unapostolical which should reject it; but it is the
most venerable institution of the uninspired Church, and the object of it is so
consonant to Christian principles, that if such a form bad never been used by
the apostles, that object would, doubtless, still have been provided for by
their successors.
Another
branch of the Christian institution, which was designed only for the foundation
of Christianity, and not for its perpetuation,
12 See Mark xvi. 17,18, where confir- 11; “ I long to see you, that I may impart
mation is
promised indiscriminately to unto you some
spiritual gift.” *At that
all
believers, and the particular gifts time
the Church at Home had not yet,
specified.
St. Paul must allude to this it wpuld
seem, been visited by an apostle, in his Kpisile to the Romans, chap. i.
consists
in those ministerial offices, tlio essential characteristic of which was the
display of miraculous power. If miracles have been shown to be inconsistent
with a perfect and established dispensation, of course we should be startled to
find any good evidence for the continuance of such offices in the Church. But
no such evidence exists. The writings of the apostolical Fathers are not only
with- Oessai.on of out the mention of the terms apostles, interpreters,
prophets, &c., MUnst^'rii.i as denoting offices in the Church, but they speak
a language ineom- ofl™s patible with the continuance of
these ministerial functions under any name. Indeed, there seems to have been no
slight scruple in the primitive Church on this point. For although the
apostolic order, for instance, was in some respects succeeded and represented
by the race of uninspired rulers on whom devolved the government of the Church,
yet they presumed not to apply to themselves the title of apostles. It might
have led to the error of supposing that the essential and characteristic point,
infallibility, had descended to them. And although, in the case of
confirmation, they scruplcd not to apply to a new rite the name and
circumstances of one antiquated, because in that case no mistake was possible;
yet in this instance error would have been at once more likely to occur, and
more dangerous. The Church would never have borne the ela:m cf a Clement or an
Ignatius to be, m all respects, the successors of St. Peter and St. Paul; and
whatever ambition may have been dormant in the infant society, it was necessary
that some generations should pass away, and the office anil character of an
apostls of Christ be less distinctly present to men’s minds, before the fraud
should be even practicable.
Among the
offices creatcd solely for the foundation of t’19 Church, Deaconess.*, there
was one, indeed, which was not necessarily connected with miraculous
power.—that of deaconesses. Concerning the origin and peculiar need of this,
enough, perhaps, has been said in the preceding pages. Its continuance was
prolonged for some centuries after tne apostolic era; and may, doubtless, be
with propriety revived, whenever a similar emergency shall call for it.
What Paets of tiie Apostolical Mikist-rt tveke Desigxeb for the
Perpetuation of Christianity.
%
The want
of 1 O Miracles and Inspiration,
how
supplied.
Written
ReeorcL
the
apostolical age the Divine origin of Christianity was satisfactorily attested
by miracles and miraculous gifts; the knowledge ami the practice of it, too,
must have been well understood and familiarised to the various societies of
Christians whisk so long enjoyed the instruction and superintendence of the
apostles and their fellow ministers: hut the apostolical ministry not being
designed for the benefit of that age only, some provision was to he made for
perpetuating the doctrines and the praeticcs which had been thus established.
Of these
the first which presents itself to notice is a written record. For the
establishment of Christianity, the apostles were commissioned to preach, and to
confirm their preaching by miracles: for the perpetuation of Christianity, they
were commissioned, first, to register the substance of their preaching;
secondly, to provide means for making this register equivalent to the word
divinely preached; and thirdly, to provide a channel of evidence to attest the
sacred character of that register. These two last objects were effected by
forming Christians into perpetual societies. Had the Christian revelation been
left to a record without a Church, it must ever have been liable to two
mischances: first, it would have been the property of the learned only—a mere
branch of philosophy; secondly, all connected chain of evidence for its
scriptural character would soon have been lost. Had it been left unrecorded to
tlio various Christian societies, it roust soon have been corrupted and
changed.
The very
form of the New Testament Scriptures indicates their dependence on some further
act of apostolical ministry, such as w as the formation of Christian societies.
For, beyond the primary benefit which the Scriptures derive from the Church, in
the provision of an unbroken and perpetual channel for evidence;—beyond this,
the total absence of systematic instruction from them implies, that the sacred
record was accommodated to the existence of & Church ; into whose charge
should be intrusted the mode of teaching the doctrines, and of applying the
principles which that record . preserved.
Among the
various writings of which the Xew Testament is composed, there can be no doubt
that the four Gospel, the Revelation of St. John, and the Acts of the Apostles,
must have been intended as perpetual records. In writing or inditing the
Gospels, the apostles were performing for posterity their primary office of
Witnesses. We should naturally expect from some of them, that in their
character of expounders of the Gospel scheme, of ministers of the Spirit, they
would in like manner have laboured partly for future ages. And yet Epistles,
and these too abounding in matters of r'.ieEpist/e temporary concern, might
leave some room for questioning whether J™raifor the instruction of
future generations was contemplated by the writers, instruction. The question
is not material; for, after all, the ministry of the apostles was really the
ministry of the Holy Ghost; and whether that Divine Ruler chose to employ his
servants in a sphere of ministry even greater than its extent appeared to
them, or not; doubt- * less, the
instruction of posterity was the main purpose for which those Epistles were
inspired. And it was so, because such is the main purpose which they have
served, and for which no other provision has been made. From the Gospels and
the Acts we might have learned all the facts of inspired history; but, like the
apostles at the close of their Lord’s ministry, we should have wanted not
merely an historical remembrancer “to call all things to our mind,” but some
further infallible expositor “ to teach us all these things,”—to teach us the
full meaning of all that had been done and registered. The epistolary form in
which this has been accomplished might create a question, as to whether the
apostles themselves understood that they were doing this for posterity as well
as for their immediate charges; but that this was even the principal design of
the Holy Spirit, is a view scarcely to be controverted More; the careful manner
in which these Epistles w'ere preserved, transcribed, and circulated, from the
earliest times, is a strong presumption that they were from the very first
considered in this light.
It was
this, perhaps, more than personal respect for the memory of the writers, which
caused them to be so carefully kept and transmitted. Nor can the occasional
topics with which they are occupied be regarded as certain proof that even the
apostles’ views wore confined to the instruction of those immediately
addressed; for although the Epistle to the Colossians, for instance, contains
some peculiar allusions to the state of the Church at Colosse;13
yet we know that this was sent with a special charge to transmit it for the
perusal of the Laodiceans; and to obtain from them the perusal of ono which St.
Paul appears to have written to that Church.
"Why
may not St. Paul, and the other writers of the Epistles of the New Testament,
in like manner, have contemplated the perusal of every Epistle which they
wrote, by every Church in every generation?
13 See particularly ch. iv. 8—10; ana again,
-ver. 17.
The New
Testament its own Expositor.
Reasons
for the formation of the Church,
and its
distribution into separate
Societies.
It is to
be observed, too, that among these Epistles are some which really deserve the
name of treatises; although, having been addressed to particular Churches or
bodies of Christians, they may in one sense be called Epistles. Such are. the
Epistles To the Romans, and To the Hebrews.
In
considering, then, the New Testament record as one of the measures for
perpetuating Christianity, its twofold character should be carefully kept in
view. It is a record of facts; aud so far answers to the primary character of
Christ’s apostles, his witnesses.1* It is, beyond this, a record of
the interpretation of the Christian scheme, which v as made up of those facts;
and, so far, corresponds to the secondary office of the apostles,—that of ministers
of the Spirit. It contains not only a revelation, properly so called, hut the
infallible interpretation and unfolding of it. It was purposely so framed as to
preclude the need of that which was not to be perpetuated,—an unerring
expositor.
The sacred
record, then, is most strictly a substitute for all the apostolical
instruction. But the apostolical instruction was preserved pure and entire in
the preaching of the apostles by the Holy Spirit’s extraordinary suggestions
and corrections, and it v.as authenticated by testimonial miracles. An ordinary
and permanent provision w as requisite to compensate for all this when
withdrawn; and, accordingly, these were among the objects contemplated in the
formation of the Church. In furnishing a channel of perpetual evidence, it
served the same purpose to the record, as did the testimonial miracles to the
apostles’ preaching; in preserving the record entire and ancorrupt, it would do
that which the Holy Spirit’s suggestions and corrections had done for the
unrecorded revelation, when only existing in the memories and minds of the
apostles.
The
Church, then, was the second great provision made for the perpetuation of
Christianity. But. its importance W'as not confined to its character as a
safeguard, or as a channel of evidence. The Scriptures were so left as to
depend on its operations, for the most efficacious employment and dispensation
of the holy truths which they contained. With every change of language, of
climate, of prejudice, and of all circumstances whatever arising out of
religion, or accidentally interfering with it, the Gospel would require to ho
taught m a somewhat different form. Truths which for any reason had become
subject to controversy or misapprehension, would need a solemn specification in
the formula of a creed or an article; and the young and the newly initiated
would require to receive instruction in that particular form which might put
them on their guard against those errors to which they were most exposed.
Change of manners,
ITertir
more particnlarlv wp reopg- ve also shall b*«t witneas, because ye nise tiif
tuitiiment of the Lees’* prmitu-cy have been with me frurn the beginning.'1
respecting the fftice of the Holy .Spirit. —John xv. —f>, 27.
* lie shall testify (or witness) oi me; and
of climate,
of government, and especially of the relative situation between the Church anil
State, would present exigencies which could only be properly met by the
enactments of an authorized body. All these are further purposes for which
Christians were formed into societies, and which that portion of the
apostolical ministry appears to have effected.
Still, we
should form a very inadequate view of the benefits of Necessitjfor the social
connexion between Christians, if we only regarded it as a tionw'itk*it. provision,
facilitating and adjusting the other provisions made by the Holy Spirit for
perpetuating religion. More was intended, and more has been accomplished by it.
It is one of the appointed means of salvation ; its character is, in short,
sacramental. Although it is true, that the individual welfare or misery of
every Christian will, according to the Gospel scheme, be separately determined,
and sentence be passed, not on churches, but on individuals; yet it is no less
certain, that the means of obtaining future reward, and of avoiding future
punishment, are not appointed to be communicated to men otherwise than as
members of a social body. Every promise of the Gospel is limited to such as
shall thus associate themselves with a chureh. It is not by an exercise of
faith, or by a confession of it, that we receive our first union with the Holy
Spirit; but by the act of initiation into the Church; it is by baptism. We are
not individually, but collectively, called by i Cor. iiL !5, the apostle, “ the
temple of the Holy Ghost;” and be wlao expects vi.’iS; to share in the benefits
of Christ’s death and resurrection, can only do so as a member of his body—a
portion of his residence, the. 22. Church.
The
Church, then, considered as a provision for perpetuating objects cr
Christianity, has four distinct offices; first, that of preserving the tll(
churLh- Scriptures ; next, (which is closely connected with the former,)
that of bearng witness to them ; thirdly, that of judiciously dispensing the
truths contained In them ; and, lastly, it has the bolv office of conveying
grace. Accordingly, some of the several component parts of such a society, as
well as its several institutions and enactments, are designed to fulfil,
sometimes one, and sometimes another of these offices. In some instances more
than one, or all, are to be recognised. For instance, as the channel for
preserving and dispensing Gospel truih, it has ministers of different orders,
and it establishes schools of religious instruction. Again, in its office of
conveying to :ts members the grace of which it is the appointed
means, it enjoins rites and ceremonies, and prescribes the form and manner of
public prayers.
All these
objects, then, being contemplated in the formation of ts.ognised the Church,
the Church's separate functions were begun and sane- '/posties. tioned by the
apostles before their departure from the scene. To the Church was left, before
their departure, the full exercise of ail these separate offices, whereby its
character as a permanent pro-
vision may
be understood and attested. It ordained ministers ; it celebrated rites; it
appointed schools, and prescribed other modes of religious instruction. Even as
a channel of evidence to the Scriptures, it began to be recognised before the
death of St. John, who, on Eusebius’s positive testimony, lived to see the
lirst scriptural deposit made and put in trust for posterity.15
Liut not
only did the apostles thus fashion the Church, and see its several functions in
exercise before their deaths; provision was also made for its security and
continuance. Itself appointed to preserve religion, it required some special
provision for its own preservation :16 and there was need that this
too should be sanctioned by Divine authority, and illustrated by apostolical
practice. Hence the exer- a ■oiti'ai
cise of Church discipline, as emanating from the Church, was com- church menced
even during the ministry of St. Paul. Ilis Epistle to the Discipline.
Cwi/ithisuis proves that apostolical interference was made, not to supersede,
but to enforce lie pains and penalties of tiie Church. The same view may be
obtained from the manner in which the bishops of the seven Churches of Asia are
addressed in the book of Revelations. It was the more necessary that this point
also should lia\e been understood before the close of the Holy Ghost’s extraordinary
superintendence ; that men may have the less plea to resort to a code of
discipline foreign to the true character of the Church. D^cretion- Before I
proceed to a distinct examination of the manuer in which authority cf the
uninspired Church continued, after the removal of the apostles, tbe church. to jn eacj) 0f
departments, its character as a perpetual
provision,
one point must be settled. In order to judge how far the primitive Christians
have been, or ourselves now are, true to our trust, it is necessary to
determine how far the discretionary authority of the Church goes—what is the
principle by which that authority is shaped and bounded?
And first,
it may be as well to get rid of a source of indistinctness and confusion, which
is for ever encumbering discussions on this subject. We are v, ont to sperk of
the foundation of the Church,— the authority of the Church,—the various
characteristics of the Church,— and the like, as if the Church were, originally
at least, one society in all respects. Erom the period in which the Gospel was
planted beyond the precincts of Judaea, this manifestly ceased to be the case ;
and as Christian societies were formed among people more and more unconnected
and dissimilar in character and circumstances, the difficulty of considering
the Church as one society increases. Still, from the habitual ar.d unreflecting
use of this phrase, “ The Church,” it is no uncommon case to confound the two
notions; and occasionally to speak of the various societies of
15 Hist.
Lib. III. C. 24. government, but common to
it with
™ •* There
is one end of civil govern- many bad
ones—its own preservation.”—
ment
peculiar to a good constitution, Paley-s
** Principles of Moral and Politi-
namely,
the happiness of its subjects* oal
Philosophy,” Vol. II. Book VI.
there is
another end essential to a good Chap.
7.
In what
sense the
Church is One.
Christiana
as one; occasionally as distinct bodies. The mischief which has been grafted on
this inadvertency in the use. of the term, has already been noticed; and it is
no singular instance of the enormous practical results which may be traced to
mere ambiguity of expression. The Church is undoubtedly one, and so is the
human race one; but not as a society. It was from the first composed of
distinct societies, which were called one, because formed on common principles.
It is only one society, considered as to its future existence. The
circumstance of its having one common head, Christ, one Spirit, one Father, are
points of unity, which no more make the Church one society on earth, than the
circumstance of all men having the same Creator, and being derived from the
same Adam, renders the human race one political community. That Scripture often
speaks of Christians generally under the term “The Church,” is true; but if we
wish fully to understand the ^orce of the term so applied, we need only call to
mind the frequent analogous use of ordinary historical language when no such
doubt occurs. Take, for example, Thucydides’s “History of the Peloponnesian
War.” It contains an account of the transactions of two opposed parties, each
made up of many distinct communities ; on the one side were democracies, on
the other oligarchies. Yet precisely the same use is made by the historian of
the terms “the democracy” and “the oligarchy,” as we find Scripture adopting
with regard to the term 1*1 The Church.” No one is misled by these, so as to
suppose tho community of Athens one with that of Corcyra; or the Theban with
that of the Lacedffimonians. When the heathen writer speaks of “the democracy
of” or “in” the various democratical states, we naturally understand him to
mean distinct societies formed on similar principles; and so, doubtless, ought
we to interpret the sacred writers when they, in like manner, make mention of
the Chui-ch of or in Antioch, Rume, Ephesus, Corinth, <fce.
But there
was also an especial reason why the term Church should Reasons for have been
often used by the sacred writers as if it applied to one emphatic society.
God’s dispensation hc.d hitherto been limited to a single ™-ydfi.
society,—the Jewish people. Until the Gospel was preached, the the 'ewiaii
Church of God was one society. It therefore sometimes occurs with the force of
a transfer from the objects of God’s former dispensation, to those of his
present dispensation. In like manner, as Christians arc called “ the elect,”
their bodies “the temple,” and their Mediator “ the High Priestso their
condition, as the objects of God’s new dispensation, is designated by the term
“ the Church of Christ,” and “ the Church.”
The Church
is one, then, not as consisting of one society, but The church because the
various societies or churches were then modelled, and *I’mSei>mJe
ught still to be so, on the same principles ; and because they enjoy »ti
Christian common privileges,—one Lord, one Spirit, one Baptism. Accord- ' 8
ingly, the Holy Ghost, through his agents the apostles, has not left
Its
principles,
In what
respect
differing' from those of the Mosaic institution.
The
Christian
Church
Spiritual.
John
iriii. 36.
John iv- 2
28
Universal.
any
detailed account of the. formation of any Christian society; but he has very
distinctly marked the great principles on which all were to be founded,
whatever distinctions may exist amongst them. In short, the foundation of the
Church by the apostles was not analogous to the work of Romulus or Solon ; it
was not, properly, the foundation of Christian societies which occupied them,
but the establishment of the principles on which Christians in all ages might
form societies for themselves. \\ hat they did form, may bo regarded rather as
specimens and exemplifications of these principles. Agreeably to this view, in
the application of these principles, some variety occurs in the history even of
the earliest Churches. At the same time, the foundation-principle* themselves
recorded in the Scripture, and acted on by the inspired revealers of them,
formed a conspicuous boundary to this discretionary power; and it is by those,
accordingly, that our judgment is to be regulated in the proposed inquiry.
What,
then, were these principles? As far as they coincided with those on which the
old Church of Cod, the Jewish, was founded, it was not to be expected that any
very express directions should be given. That in God’s last social
establishment, his revelation was thereby to be preserved and applied, as was
the design of the Mosaic institution, was manifest ; and the only question was.
Low far the method of doing this was changed? On this point it might be expected
that no room should be left for doubt or misapprehension.
I. In the first place, then, God’s ancient
Church was established on earthly principles. It was a temporal government, in
which his laws were enforced by temporal rewards and punishments. It was
strictly a kingdom of this world, lienee arose the first distinct principle
which it was requisite to specify. By our Saviour’s death and removal from the
world, connected with certain expressions of his,'which at the time of their
being spoken were so hard to be understood, we are instructed in this
principle. A Christian society was to be purely spiritual; its objects,—its
functions,—its connexions,—were all to be strictly separated from those, of
any worldly society; it was his whose “ kingdom was not of this world.” But
most pointedly was this marked in tho final establishment of Christianity. God
became the ruler of his people permanently, in away which precluded the
possibility of attaching his residence and government to arty place or
sensible circumstance, such as characterise societies of this world. There wras
no temple—no visible high priest —no local medium of communication, to
correspond with the resi {fence of earthly rulers, and the circumstances of
their supremacy. The time was then come, as Christ foretold to the Samaritan
woman, when neither in Mount Gerizim, nor yet at Jerusalem, were men to , “
worship the Fatherbut they that worshipped llim, were to do so “ in spirit, and
in truth.”
II. In the second place, God’s ancient Church
was a partial establishment. Moses and the prophets were sent only to one
nation;
anil to
them were limited all God's offers, promises, and threats. Here, then, was
another material point of difference which it pleased God to draw between the
former and the latter dispensation, and another rule to be specified. The new
Church of God, as opposed to the old, was not only to be spiritual, but
universal; and, accordingly, the command expressly was, “ make disciples of a.U
nations.” Until siatt. xxviii. this new ordinance, part of the human race oaly
was called God’s 19, own people ; the rest were ■viewed in
the light of foreigners, and were placcd out of the pale of his peculiar
government. Hence, among the various images by which this innovation of the
Christian scheme is alluded to in our Saviour’s language, Satan is represented
as deprived of that portion of the world which, in a partial dispensation. was
left to him. “ The prince of this world” was now to surrender his claim, and aU
nations were invited by God to become subjects of the universal empire whieh he
had established.
III. A third circumstance about the Jewish
Church, which was Uniform, not to be perpetuated under the new dispensation,
was, that its privileges were dispensed in different degrees. The native Jew
enjoyed precedence, it was presumed, in the sight of the Almighty Ruler; his
was the highest class of God’s people. The proselyte of right eousness claimed
the next rank, and was entitled to higher hopes and privileges than the humble
proselyte of the gate. In the inter nal constitution of the Church itself was
exhibited a continual gradation of religious rights. The temple was
partitioned off by its courts and by its mystic veil, to indicate the remote,
the nearer, and the nearest approach to the Divine presence. To the Levites a
mere intimate communication with God was assigned, than to the other tribes ;
and they again were excluded from the holy of holies, into which the high
priest alone might enter. In God’s new dispensation there were to be no
corresponding distinctions. There were to be no degrees of Christianity. The
veil of the temple had been rent in twain from the top to the bottom. Now there
was to be not only “ one Lord,” but “ one faith,” “ one baptism,” one
participa- Eph. it 5. tion of
every privilege for all nations and for all portions of tho Church. Unity or
oneness was to characterise the new Church, not less than spirituality or
universality. This, although, considered abstractedly, it may seem the least of
the innovations in the new form of God’s kingdom, was, as appears from the
preceding history, the most difficult to accomplish. It was the most obnoxious
to Jewish prejudices, and is, accordingly, more darkly intimated than the
others by our Lord himself;—in parables, for instance, such as that of the
labourers in the vineyard, and in other indistinct allusions, Matt, is, i—
which would he certainly understood, only when the event to which lfi
they pointed had taken place. It is from St. Paal’s writings, and from the
history of his labours, which were peculiarly devoted to the establishment of
this principle, that it derives its clearest elucidation and sanction.
i.in it to
dia The three great principles, then, on which every Church, or Chris-
'uthon':'v society, was
formed by the apostles, were Spirituality,
Uni-
fr0€n VKMAutt,
aad Ukitt. Out of these arose one important limit to Principles, the
discretionary' powers of the uninspired Church, w hen deprived of extraordinary
authority. It is of the last importance that this fact should be borne in mind,
in every appeal to the practice and authority of the primitive Church. There
is often (even among l’rotes- tant divines) a vague method of citing the
uuthority of the early Churches in matters of discipline and practice, without
any distinct view of the exact weight of that authority. In quoting doctrinal
statements we are generally more accurate in our estimate; but it is
undeniable, that the practices and discipline of the primitive Churches, are
subject to the same kind of check from Scripture, as are their opinions and
faith; and are in no instance to be received as if they were matters left
altogether to their discretion. The principles, although not the specific
rules, are given in the New Testament : and this is, perhaps, nearly all that
is done in the case of the doctrines themselves. Only the elements, out of
which these are to be composed, are furnished by Scripture. So far from being
stated in a formal wav, some of the abstract terms for these doctrines are not
found in the Scriptures; such a statement and enunciation of them being left to
the. discretion of the Church. So, too, the principles of the Church-establishment
were given, and were put in practice for illustration; and the application of
these principles was all that was left to the discretion of its uninspired
rulers. In short, every Church, in all ages, holds Scripture in its hand, as
its warrant for its usages as well as for its doctrines; and had the immediate
successors and companions of the apostles, from the very first, corrupted the
government and constitution of the- Church, v:e should be enabled to condemn
them from the Newr Testament; and to this test it i.s the duty of
all ages to bring them. Their management of those matters which ore said to be
left indeterminate, has only the authority of an experiment; it is a practical
illustration of scriptural principles. Whenever they have been successful in
this experiment, it would, indeed, generally be umvise and presumptuous in us
to hazard a different mode of attaining the same result ; though even here, any
deviation is authorized by difference of circumstances; the same principle which
guided them being kept in i iew by us. But, in whatever stage of ecclesiastical
history the principle itself shall appear to have been forgotten,—-it matters
not how far back the practice may be traced,—it has no authority as a
precedent. The Bible is our only attested rule ; and we must appeal to it with
the boldness recommended by the apostle to his converts; and though r,ti. i.
8,9. angel from heaven preach unto us any other rule than that we have
received, let him be accursed.
This
boundary line to the discretionary powers of the Church would be quite clear,
supposing the ecclesiastical principles to have
been left
only as auove considered, in tlie form of abstract instruction, whether
formally enunciated, or certainly deducible from the Scriptures. But far more
than this was done. On these very principles the apostles actually formed and
regulated societies of Christians ; so as to leave them not merely abstractedly
propounded, but practically proved. This proceeding, while it lightened the
difficulty of tl.e uninspired Church, (especially of those who first received
the guidance of it from the apostles, and who most needed it,) proportionably
contracted the discreteinary powers with which they were invested. If only
abstract principles had been left, un;n- spircd authorities would
have been -justified in regarding solely these, and regulating the means of
conformity to them by their own unbiassed judgment. But the apostolicul
precedents created a new restriction. Rulers of infallible judgment not only had
taught the principle, but the precise method by which that principle was best
preserved had been practised by them, and set forth, apparently for the
guidance of their less enlightened successors.
Was the
Church of all ages bound to follow their track without any deviation ? If so,
where was any room for discretionary power ? If not, on what authority was the
deviation to be made, and how far was it authorized ? Here the most accurate
view of the character and object of the Christian’s sacred record is necessary,
in order to remove all obseuritv from the question. That record, as far as the
agency of human ministers is its object, is partly historical, partly
legislative. The two terms are not, perhaps, quite expressive of the
distinction intended; but, by Scripture being partly legislative, is meant,
that it is partly concerned in conveying the rules and principles of
religion—the revealed will, in short, of God. It is also partly historical; and
of the historical portion no inconsiderable share is solely or principally a
practical illustration of these rules and principles. History and legislation
are indeed both blended; and it is because they are thus connected: but the
respective uses of them, as distinct portions of Scripture, are here, as in
other questions of a similar nature, very important. When the historical
incidents, the facts recorded, are recorded as speci mens of the, fulfilment of
God’s will, their onlj authority, as precedents and examples, arises from
their conformity to the principle which they illustrate. Now it is conceivable
and likely, that a change of circumstances may render a practice inconsistent
with such a principle, which originally was most accordant with it, and
vi.ee
versa. The principle is the fixed point, and the course which has first
attained it may become as unsuitable to another who pursues it, as the same
line of direction would be for two voyagers who should be steering for the same
landmark at different seasons, and with different winds. Still, as in this
latter case, the first successftd attempt would be, to a certain extent, a
guide to those which follow; and tnis, exactly in proportion to the skill of
the forerunner. The
Different
standards o Apostolical and
Uninspired
Usage.
Qualification
arising from extreme Antiquity.
apostles
were known to be :nfallible guides; and those who immediately
succeeded them, and all subsequent ages, are quite sure that they must have
pursued that which was, under the existing circumstances, the most direct line
to their object,—that, circumstanced as Christianity was :n tlieir hands, all
their regulations were the best possible for preserving the principles of the
Chnrch-establishnient and government. The uninspired Church was therefore bound
to follow them, until any apostolical practice should be found inadequate to
accomplish its original purpose. Here commence the discretion and
responsibility; the rirst obligation being to maintain the principle according
to the best of their judgment, as the prudent steersman alters his track and
deviates from the course marked out in lii,s chart, when wind or tide compel
him to the deviation.
And thus
we shall be at 110 loss for the precise difference of authority between the
precedents of the apostolical and of the primitive uninspired Church. In
matters which admit of appeal to the usage of the apostolical Church, we are
sure, not only that the measure was wise, but the very wisest; and.
accordingly, the only question is, whether its suitableness has been affected
by any change of circumstances. On the other hand, in a similar reference to
tho uninspired Church of any age, the measure is first of all pronounced wise
or unwise—lawful or unlawful, as it conduces or not to tho maintenance of the
revealed principles of ecclesiastical society. And, supposing the measure under
consideration be proved to have been ho conducive,
btill it is not at once certain, as in the former case, that it was the wisest
and most judicious measure which the existing circumstances required or
admitted. It emanated from fallible wisdom. Accordingly, in canvassing the
authority of such a precedent, we are authorized aud bound to institute two
inquiries ;—Was the measure the most accordant with ecclesiastical principles
then ? Is it so 11010 i Whereas, in the former appeal to apostolic usage, the
only question is, whether it is convenient, now f
There is,
however, some qualification to be admitted in this general statement, correct
as it is in a general view. The qualifying point is this: in usages for which
there is no precise rule or precedent in Scripture, but in which we follow tho
practice of the ancient Chureh, there is a difference to be made in the
authority of our guide, as the Ubage can be clearly and decidedly traced to
uninspired institution or not. If, looking back through the successive
generations of Christians, we find it without date or recorded source, it may
have been of apostolical origin ; and the strength of this claim is in
proportion to the distance of the first I’nk in the chain of its history,— in
short, to its antiquity,—combined with its apparent wisdom and apostolical
character. Such a custom, indeed, may Lave so great a preponderance of
probability in favour of its apostolical origin) as to claim from us nearly the
same cautious diffidence in
departing
from it, which would influence us in canvassing a deviation from the
apostolical precedents themselves.
Our
immediate inquiry, however, and the point to which these r.iaiits from remarks
have heen directed, is not concerning the lawful use of possession uninspired
precedents by us, but tho lawful uss of inspired precedents by those who first
found themselves deprived of the immediate guidance of inspiration. The Church,
it was observed, had several distinct offices to fulfil. It was the trustee of
holy writ for mankind; and in this character it was called on, agreeably to the
will of God, to exert itself for the preservation, and also for the dispensing,
of the deposit. The Church was also the appointed channel of grace; and out of
this arose a new demand on its carefulness, to preserve or to provide such
forms as should be best adapted for this purpose.
From
Scripture and from oral instruction it had been taught the great principles by
which the apostles had beon directed, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to
attain these ends; and it had, moreover, witnessed and practised under the
apostles the measures which inspired wisdom had directed, for a due conformity
to these ordained principles of His society. Still, as the principles were the
end, and the practice which formed the apostolical precedents, the means, and,
as such, only precedents so far as they were conducive to that end; the Church
was left to the exercise of a discretion, which, whether exorcised rightly or
abused, could not, or ought not, to mislead a succeeding age. Every Christian
society, at every period, must, as such, possess the Christian’s sacred record;
and is, by that, enabled to judge how far others, or how far it has hitherto
itself employed that discretionary power, so that the Church should retain its
great scriptural marks—Spirituality, Universality, Unity.
Thus,
considering the Church as fulfilling its ofiice of preserving This the
Scriptures, and of being the channel of evidence to their authen- appSi'iednto
ticity, the limit to its discretionary power, in any given instance, is not
liaid to be discovered; and we shall scarcely be at a loss to cireui»tin#
decide on the praise or blame which the apostolical Fathers and s«-ipt«r^ their
coadjutors deserve on this score from posterity, or on the authority and use
of their example. In order to preserve the Scriptures, for instance, it would
be obviously their duty to promote their general use among Christians,
precisely in the form in which they were first deposited as a trust to be
preserved. They might see reason, and It would be right for them, to recast the
scriptural truths, and to combine and mould them differently in Homilies,
Catechisms, Creeds, and Articles; but it would be unlawful for them to substitute
these uninspired compositions, however perfect, however completely conveying
scriptural truth,: for the sacred writings themselves. The Xew Testament was an
estate in trust; and the trustees had no authority to dispose of the property,
however advantageous the transfer might appear. But, although no doubt could
arise on this point; although it is evident, tiiat in order
to
preserve the Scriptures, and so to preserve them, that each generation may
become a strong evidence to the next of their perpetually admitted
authenticity, a very general use of the original Scripture is indispensable;
still, a doubt may arise, as to the obligation of circulating these writings,
in their original form, among all ranks and descriptions of persons ; among
those, for instance, whose labours or whose history was not likely to descend
from one age to another, and thus to furpish the intended evidence. If such a
doubt arose, how would it be determined? Obviously, by observing how fur the
great foundation principles of the Church would be violated or preserved, as
one side or the other was adopted in the question. Looking back to the
apostolical course, no historical fact, no precedent would, perhaps, present
itself as being precisely a parallel case; but what could not fail to force
itself on the attention, would be, an anxiety expressed in the sacred writings
and in the ministry of the inspired teachers, to preserve that distinction
between the Christian and the Jewish Church which forbade a gradation of
privileges amongst its members; which maintained the bi eaking down of the
partition walls that formerly separated God’s Church into classes, each
claiming a different proportion of communion, instruction, and whatever else
be comprehended under the term Divine dispensation; which taught that there was
one law for all. This reference to the principle of Unity, then, would be
sufficient to guide the Church, for the first time, in its distribution of the
Scriptures, and would equally suffice to enable any other Church, of any other
age, to judge whether it had distributed them rightly or otherwise. No plea,
not even an apostolical precedent, (if such a supposition be possible,) would
form a ground for withholding, from any portion of the Church, the Scriptures
in a language understood by all. This is so, because the principle of unity of
dispensation is the fixed mark, by which the apostolical precedents themselves
were directed ; and any such supposable deviation could only have arisen from
extraordinary variation in the means of attaining that end.
Again,
considering the Church in another capacity, as the dispenser of scriptural
truth, we naturally lind it shaping its measures by an attention to those
circumstances, which would render, in each age and society, the Scriptures more
easily learned, or less liable to be mistaken. These truths being always the
same, there would still be much room for discretionary power, in conveying them
to children, or to mature minds ; to a cultivated, or to a rule people ; to a
philosopher, or to the vulgar. As errors and heresies arose, a further
modification would take place in the mode of teaching truths once perverted;
and these v. ould be, according to the exigency, made moro prominent, more
explicit, and be more definitely and To securely
worded. Catechisms, Creeds, and Articles, would be the
Cro€ds'i8ms’
natural result of the Church’s efforts to do its duty as dispenser of Article*,
scriptural truth. As a body, likewise, it would, with the samt
intent,
appoint preachers of the word, and dispose the oral and treachi.ij?. written
eloquence of its ministers to bear in the same direction. For the right
management of all this, the uninspired Church would often find no parallel or
strict precedent in apostolical history, and would act on its own discretion.
But here, again, its discretion would not he quite uncontrolled. It would be
bound so to act, as to conform to those very fundamental principles of the
Church to which the apostles themselves conformed; nor would its practice, in
any such case, be a precedent for after times, unless it could abide this test,
nor even then, for wo should further calculate on its conformity to the
scriptural principles, under all the difference of circumstances between the
then and the present condition of the Church, before we admitted it as a lawful
precedent.
Nor would
it, at all, affect the Divine character of our religion, if Ea.iy it should
appear that the Church had, in any one instance, departed Itpractice from its
principles, immediately on losing its inspired and extraordi- not
nary
superintendence. Even if it were found to be so, this would ’n_?™?i»tent not
affect its claim to a divine origin, much less oblige us to imitate Jtii*rG
>d s and perpetuate the error. In mere human institutions, it may
imply want of wisdom and foresight in the founder, that his work should soon
have degenerated, and its object be defeated; but this reasoning is not
applicable to the Divine appointments ; at least it does not apply to the
condition of the Church more than to any other of these appointments. The same
difficulty meets us in the history of the progressive corruption of the human
race ; in the backslidings of God’s chosen people, the Jews; and it is what we
have reason to look for even in the last dispensation itself, from the
prophetic warning of its inspired founders. It is a difficulty which resolves
itself into the inexplicable question concerning the existence of evil. The
general an argument corruption of the Christian world, at any past period,
ought to be presence of considered rather as a presumption that the Church is
assisted by e*sa™"a„*nt God;
and this the more, the earlier such corruption occurred. It is «hip. so for
this reason. When the old world first began to corrupt religion, we know that
men plunged deeper and deeper into error.
When the
Jews began to disobey the law and to practise idolatry, we see plainly from
their history that the like faic would have befallen them. And why did it not?
Because God continually interposed.
What,
then, but a corresponding, though insensible, Divine guardianship can account
for that which has taken place in the Church of Christ—reformationri
That it should have occurred otherwise, is contrary to all that has ever
happened, according to the religious history of mankind in every age.
To the
rulers of the Church, viewed in its sacramental character, Discretion- as the
temple of the Holy Ghost, and the medium of Divine grace, the Church4
a discretionary power was likewise left, and likewise subject to a JJ^monles
limitation which could never be fairly misunderstood. For the ' ' attainment of
this object, certain forms and ccremonies were requi
How far
limited.
site; in
which Christians, as such, join, and through which, as members of a community,
grace was to he imparted. To Christians, an a society, the promise, of the
Spirit was made; and, accordingly, to them, as a soeiety, it was to he
conveyed. The apostles had begun and established precedents, which, of course,
would he naturally adopted by their uninspired successors. But still, as these
were only the formal means of grace, and not the blessing itself, it was
equally to be expected that the Church should assume a discretionary power,
whenever the means established became impracticable or clearly unsuitable, and
either substitute others, or abolish sueh as existed, without appointing any in
their stead. At the same time, so great a license would leave the Church liable
to he disturbed by the caprice of mankind; and it was accordingly necessary
that the boundary of its liberty should be strongly marked. The obvious line is
this: the appointments made by the apostles had a twofold object, some were
designed to convey extraordinary gifts, some ordinary Whatever form was
instituted by them for conveying extraordinary gifts, was evidently not to bo
continued by the uninspired Church; at least not with the original purpose in
view. As to tbe other appointments, it might seem at first that the apostolical
precedents were literally binding on all ages: but this cannot have been
intended ; and for this reason, that the greater portion of the apostolical
practices have been transmitted to us, not on apostolical authority, hut on
the authority of the uninspired Church: which has handed them down with an
uncertain mixture of its own appointments. How are we to know the enactments of
the inspired rulers from those of the uninspired? and, if there be no certain
clue, we must either bring down the authority of apostolical usage to that of
the uninspired Church, or raise that of the uninspired Church to that of the
apostolical. Now the former is, doubtless, what was, to a certain extent,
intended by the apostles themselves, as will appear from a line of distinction by
which they have careiully partitioned olf such of their appointments as are
designed to be perpetual, from such as arc left to share the possibility of
change with the institutions of uninspired wisdom. If, then, we look to the
account of the Christian usages contained in Scripture, nothing can be more
unquestionable, than that while some are specified, others are passed over in
silence. It is not even left so as to make us imagine that those mentioned may
be all; but, while some are noted specifically, the establishment of others is
implied, without the particular mode of observance being given. Thus, we are
equally sure from Scripture, that Christian ministers were ordained by a
certain form, and that Christians assembled in prayer; but while the precise
process of laying on of hands is mentioned in the former institution, 110
account is given of the precise method of Church Service, or even of any
regular forms of prayer, beyond the Lord’s Prayer. Even the record of the Ordination
Service itself admits of the same distinction. It is quite
as certain
that some prayer was used, as that some outward form accompanied the prayer:
but the form is specified, the prayer left unrecorded. What, now, is the
obvious interpretation of the holy Dispenser’s meaning in this modo of record?
Clearly it is, that the apostles regulated under his guidance the furms and
practices of the Church, so as was best calculated to convey grace to the
Church at that time. At the same time, part of its institutions were of a
nature, which, although forma!, would never require a change; and these
therefore were left recorded in the Scriptures to mark the distinction of
character. The others were not, indeed, to be capriciously abandoned, not at
all, except when there should be manifest cause for so doing; but as such a
case was suppossable, these were left to mingle with the uninspired precedents,
the claims of which, as precedents, would be increased by this uncertain admixture,
and the authority of the whole rendered so far binding, and so far subject to
the discretion of the Church. They might net be altered, unless sufficient
grounds should appear; but the settling of 'this point was left to the
discretion of the Church; and this discretion, again, was subject to the check
above described, as arising out of the well-defined characteristics of the
Church.
Among the
methods of communicating Divine grace, the Sacraments, of course, are
distinguished as having been the appointment of our blessed Lord himaelf. As
far, however, as their permanent claim extends, in coumon with that of other
institutions, to be celebrated according to all the form found in Scripture,
the foregoing general remarks are sufficient. It will bo time enough to enter
more fully into this particular branch of inquiry, when we arrive at it in the
detail of the practices of the primitive Church; for the better estimate of
which, this previous view has been taken.
Preservation
of the Sacred Record*
How par the "Design ftp the Church's Inspired FOUNDERS WAS Pkeseryed
ani> Followed it by hie First Uninspired Churches or their Rulers.
Of the
three leading questions, whereby it wan proposed to elicit a view of the
primitive Church, two have been briefly, but, perhaps, sufficiently discussed. Wo
have now seen, first, what parts of the apostles’ ministry were intended for
the foundation of Christianity, and next, what parts were intended for its
preservation and application. The third inquiry remains, How far was the
design of the Church’s inspired founders preserved and followed ap by the first
uninspired Churches or their rulers ?
As tills
can only be satisfactorily answered by a detail of the proceedings of the
primitive Church—so far, at least, as those proceedings are known to us—little
more will be requisite in most instances, than to observe such an arrangement
of these historical facts, as shall conneet them with the general view to which
they refer. This arrangement will be formed in reference to the view already
taken of the character of the Church and its several offices; so as that each
point of ecclesiastical history necessary for our purpose may be brought under
one of these four heads.
I. How the first uninspired Church fulfilled
its office of preserving and attesting the sacred record.
II. How the first uninspired Church fulfilled
its office of dispensing the truths contained in this sacred record.
III. IIow the first uninspired Church fulfilled
its office of conveying Divine grace.
IV. How far its discipline, or method of
self-preservation, was conformable to the design of its inspired founders.
I. HOW THE
FIRST UNINSURED CHURCH FULFILLED ITS OFFICE OF PRESERVING AND ATTESTING THE
SACRED RECORD.
One of the
preceding remarks on the uses of the Church was, that it was designed to be to
the sacred record, what an inspired order of ministers had been to tho
unrecorded revelation. Revelation was
withdrawn,
and Scripture left in its room. As revelation hatl been secured against
misrepresentation or curtailment, by Divine suggestion and correction, and
also attested to be Divine by signs, wonders, and spiritual gifts; so, in the
establishment of the Church, we see a corresponding provision made for the
preservation of ths Scriptures, and also fur a perpetual testimony to their
authority. Among the means whereby this was effected, the principal have been:—
1. TEE PUBLIC HEADING OP TUB SCRIPTURES.
It is not
to the utility of this practice as a mode of promulgating By Public the Divine
truths of the Gospel, that I am now alluding; but to its Keadlnn-
effect in preventing the loss or corruption of the sacred record itself, in
any, or in all societies of Christians; and also in keeping up a perpetual
testimony to its Divine authority, of which evidence the Church was the
especial and appointed vehicle. The value of the iis taiu,. practice, in this
point of view, can only bo justly estimated by recollecting, bow much more
difficult it wras to keep up a chain of evidence to the identity of
a record such as this, (in which the smallest doubt was likely to vitiate the
claim of the whole,) before reading was common ; and still more, before tho art
of printing was invented. The language of Scripture continually sounding in the
ears of Christians of all classes, would leave no interval for the introduction
of false records. The Church would thus keep up a familiarity writh
its Divine Guide, which might be compared to that which holy men of old,
probably, acquired with any particular mode of Divine communication from the
frequency of their revelations.
They
learned to know the voice of the Lord God, and could not be imposed on by a
lying spirit. And so, doubtless, it was intended, that the written word of God
should bo made continually to speak to his Church, in order that his Church
never may be subject to delusion from the cunning devices of impostors.
That the
primitive Church contemplated this purpose, in its careful observance of the
usage, may be questioned. It is, indeed, probable, that its main, perhaps its
sole, object was the instruction thereby afforded. liut, granting this to be
so, neither in this nor iri any other of the Christian practices, was it
requisite that the whole or the main design of the Church's Divine Ruler should
have been comprehended by his obedient ministers. The apostles them selves,
perhaps, saw not the full operation and progressive results of their own plans;
and we, at this moment, may be cherishing among the rites and ordinances of
Christianity some, the full effect of which it may be reserved to future times,
to a period beyond this world, to develop.
i As far
back as we can trace any accounts, incidental or direct, of Earij
the
service of the primitive Church, the public reading- of tho Serin- ouston‘s
j.* ^ attendant
tures is
recognised. Lven the minute arrangement of particular »pon it.
portions
for particular seasons was observed. Occasional deviations,
Translation
of the Scriptures.
too, from
the general practice of the Christian world are known to us. As, for instance,
that fur the first four hundred years, the Romish Church confined itself to the
public reading of the New Testament, to the exclusion of the Old.1'
That in the observance of this duty, somethin"; more was felt than a
desire for instruction,— some respect and veneration, in short, for the deposit
intrusted to their earn, and an anxious wish to attach to its preservation
every solemn circumstance, may be inferred from the eustom which long generally
prevailed, of rising when the Gospel was read;18 ami also
from the words vith which ?ts reading was prefaced, “Thus saith the Lord.” It
denoted a feeling that Scripture was the appointed substitute for what had in
times past taken place, “ God speaking in divers manners;” and a scrupulous
respect for it, as for the new Sheehinah.
The object
of this custom would clearly have been defeated, hud the Scriptures been read
in a tongue unknown to the congregation. Without any direct testimony therefore
to this point, we should reasonably take it for granted, that the Word of God
was read in a language “ understanded of the people.” But, it is clearly
ascertained, that for the convenience of those Churches wherein the original of
the Scriptures was unintelligible, translations were early made and used ;la
as early, perhaps, as the close of the first century; and what is, perhaps, no
less conclusive than direct testimony, is the inference to be deduced from the
language of the apostolical Fathers in tlieir Epistles to different Churches.
In these, the writers are addressing themselves to each Church as a body, and
appealing continually to the words of the Gospels and Epistles, as to documents
with which those addressed are supposed to be familiar. Now as the greater
portion of every Church cannot be imagined, at that time certainly, to ha^e bad
copies of the Scriptures in their hands, or even to have learned to read, this
habitual familiarity with its texts could only have been acquired by the public
reading 01 them.2'’ Clement, accordingly, in his first Epistle to
the Corinthians, quotes
w Strabo,
dp Reb. F.col. C. 12, cited by established,
ot’ leaving in each Chart*
Stillingtleet,
in his Orig. Britan, C. IX. one or
more copies of the Bible tor the
18 Constitutions, Lib. II. C. 57. See use of those who could read, and who
alsoChrysostom.!Horn. 1,in Matth. Sozo- might
wish to refer to it. The emperor men (Lib. VII. C. 19) notices it as a pecu- himself is said to have been in the liabit
liarity of the Alexandrian Church, that of
using them, (see Eusebius, Yit. Con- the bishop did not conform to this c us- stant. Lib. I\. C. 17.) There is extant a
tom. St. Jerome records a custom in the distich
of Paulinus, which was written Eastern Churches, of ushering in the by him on the walls of the
Secretariumoi Gospel with lighted candles. Cave, how- the church of .Nola, in allusion to this ever, doubts the
primitive antiquity of custom;—
this
practice; and there is certainly no
reason to
suppose that it was universal. *4 Si quem sancta tenet meditandi in
See
Bingham’s Eccl. Antiq. Book XIV. # Lege voluntas
C. III.
Sec. 11. Ilic poterit residens saeris
intendere
19 See the ancient testimonies cited in
lions.”
Bingham’s
Eccl. Antiq. Book XIII. C.
IV, Justin
Martyr is the earliest.
20 It appears from Eusebius, that in the age
ot Constantine there was a custom VI.
Paulin.
Epist. ad Severam, cited by Bingham, Eedes. Antiq. B. VIII. C.
St. Luke’a
Gospel thus—‘'Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, bow he said, Wo to that man
by whom offences come,” &c. So, too, Polycarp to the Pliilippians,21
“Remembering what the Lord taught us,” which is followed by another exact
citation from St.
Luke’s
Gospel, implying that their readers were familiar with the Scripture itself.
2. QUOTATIONS FROM, AND ALLUSIONS TO, THE
SCRIPTURES OP TEE *SW TESTA1IENT, IN THE WRITINGS OF THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS.
In this
very custom of quoting the words of Scripture in all their 3jritatior,s.
writings, we may perceive another mode in which the Church and its rulers
became the vehicle of evidence to the sacred record, and the means of
preserving it pure. When Clement or Ignatius cites a passage of St. Luke or St.
Paul as inspired, the citation serves at once the purpose of preserving to
posterity their testimony to the inspired character of the writings, and of
enabling us to identify those writings with such as have been transmitted to us
as Scripture.
In no
respect is the testimonial office of the Church more apparent than in this.
During a period of nearly eighteen hundred years, the Church of one age has
been thus passing on the memorial of its own conviction and satisfaction to
another. Like a chain of heralds stationed over a wide extent of country, for
the purpose of transmitting some great and urgent tidings; one generation has
written, what may be called, the telegraph of its own conviction to the next;
and thus it has passed on even unto us. Let no one, therefore, blame the zeal
which incites numbers still to tread the same ground with their predecessors;
to write on the same topics on which they have written, even w-ithout the
design of superseding their labours, or the ambition of rivalling them. He who
has left to the world a statement of his belief in any Gospel truth, and in
the authenticity of the record which preserves it, if his writings but remain
to another generation, will have borne a part in one of the most important
offices of that great society to which he belongs. His writings will have
served to swell the voice that speaks out, according to the appointment of
Providence, from one station of time unto another; and which must continue to
be heard till time shall be no more.
Out of
those writings of the apostolical Fathers which are commonly selected as
genuine, the following quotations from, and alldsions to, the New Testament
Scriptures, may serve to show in what wray those writings attest the
genuineness of our Canon; and a reference to the context, in each instance,
will enablo us farther to judge how far these Fathers applied the Scriptures,
according to what we consider to bo their true import and intent.23
* Ohert. ii. give the full sense of the original, tlip
* -These passages are from Archbishop
deviation is noticed at the bottom of the Hake’s version. Wherever it fails to
page.
Citations
by Oltment.
Clement.
First
Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. xiil. “ Remembering the words of the Lord
Jesus, wluoh he spake concerning equity23 and
long-suffering, saying, Be yc merciful, and ye shall obtain mercy: forgive, and
ye shall be forgiven: as ye do, so shall it be done unto you: as ye give, so
shall it be given unto you: as ye judge, so shall ye be judged: as ye are kind
to others, so shall God be kind to you: with what merrsure ye mete, with the
same shall it be measured to you again.” Compare Matt. vii. 1, 6. and Luke vi.
30—38.
Chap.
xxyvi. “ This is the way, beloved, in which we may find our Saviour, even Jesus
Christ, the High Priest of all our offerings. By him would God have us to taste
the knowledge of immortality, who being the brightness of his glory,24
is by so much greater than the angels, as ho has by inheritance obtained a more
excellent name than they. For so it is written. Who maketh his angels spirits,
and his ministers a flame of fire. But to his Son,” thus saith the Lord: Thou
art my Son, to-day have 1 begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee tho
heathen for thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy
possession. And, again, he saith unto him: Sit thou on my right hand, until I
make thine enemies thy footstool.” Compare Hebrews i. 3—13.
Chap.
xxxvir. “Let us for example take our body; the head without the feet is nothing,
neither the feet without the head. And even the smallest members of our body
are vet both necessary and useful to the whole body. But all conspire together,
and are subject to one common use,w namely, the preservation of the
whole body.” Compare St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. xii.
Chap.
xlvi. “ Why do we rend and tear in pieces the members of Christ; and raise
seditions against our own body'(—Are we come to such a height of madness, as to
forget that we are members one of another? Remember the words of our Lord
Jesus, how he said, Wo to that man by whom offences eome I27
It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should have
offended one of my elect. It were better for him that a millstone should be
tied about his neck, and he should be cast into the sea, than that he should
offend one of my little ones.” Compare Matt, xviii. 6 ; Mark ix. 42 ; Luke
xvii. 1, 2.
28
’EfriE/K'.av, meskness, forbearance, one
quoting, as Clement probably did,
mercy.
Even hxeuorCwi was so applied, as from
memory. See ver. 3, in the passage
in 2 Oor.
ix» 9i rH itxatoev*11 x&tou f&ivti alluded to.
u; ra.
•/»>.x. Ip Matt. i. 19: ’W>? ii i w r-
’i,>; si Tf yn; ctirc:! “ in
reference to
a.vrr,(
htxcctof «», should be rendered, bis Son.”
’ ’
tk Joseph
her husband, being a mild or ~ ~ i
merciful
man.” . , J™™** XI*™. •* «,
**' - - '
- • - - “ all practise submission, that
tney
’
Arra.vya.trfAK rife u-iyxXcatrwrtf ec-i/rtv, ,
- * - - .
“the
brightness ot his majesty;” the may be
preserved as a whole. ^
word
[MyttXaHrvfw occurring in the same _ 27
The latter part of the sentence is not
verse, was
very naturally substituted by in the
original.
Chap.
xlvii. “ Take the Epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle into your hands. What
was it that he wrote to you at his first preaching the Gospel among you ?18
Verily, he did by the Spirit admonish you, concerning himself, and Cephas, and
Apolios, because that even then ye had begun to fall into parties and factions
among yourselves.” Compare St. Paul s First Epistle to the Corinthians,
especially chap. :. 11, 12.
Chap.
xlix. “Charity covers the™ multitude of sins: charity endures all things, is
long-suffering in all things. There is nothing- base and sordid1
iu charity. Charity lifts not itself up above others; admits of no divisions;
is not seditious; but does all things in peace and concord. By charity were all
the elect of God made perfect.”51 Compare St. Paul’s First
Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. xi:i. 7,
&C.
Jgnatius.
Epistle to
the EphesicMs, chap. x:i. “ You are the companions By ignatiuj. of Paul in the
mysteries32 of the Gospel, the
holy, the martyr, the deservedly most happy Paul, who throughout all his
Epistle makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.” Compare St. Paul to the
Ephesians, especially chap. iii. 3—9.
Same
Epistle, chap. xviii. “ The doctrine of the cross is a scandal53 to
unbelievers, but to us is salvation and life eternal.
Where is
the wise men ? Where is the boasting of those who are called wise?” Compare
First Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. i.
IS—2U.
Epistle to
the Magnesians, chap. x. “ Lay aside therefore the old, and sour, and evil
leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ.” Compare
St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. v. 7, 8.
Smyrnceans,
chap. i. “ Our Lord Jesus Christ, who truly was of the race of David according
to the llesh, but the Sun of God according to the will and power of God.”
Compare Epistle to the Romans, chap. i. 3, 4.
Epistle to
Polycarp, chap. v. “ Exhort my brethren, that they love their wives, even as
the Lord the Church.” Compare St Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. v. 25.
2^
"Ev Kjzv rau ihatyyeXUo. Compare w/ ^ix^o7( ZacratytfAccra? frekkx *v*/UV-
Pllil- )V.
15, Otdttrs Kotl QiXiirtTY.ffioi, xot,
X<x.t Xxf^rr^vvtTai ara^a, fAtXog. 0Toy tgccy/o*
oti sy tod
ivctyyiX/ou, ere i|?A0cv ocno rcc$
yctfj.ixS>t strnay. Clement, doubtless,
Maxiloyixiov^tx.
fx,oiixxXr,o-ta,i.xoiva,yriffi», intended
to express St. Paul’s h kyat,**)
x. r. A.
Ecclesiastical writers use the ou *t{re$e6tra.i,
ov $»o-i«vrcci.
Fhrase ia
the same sense. 3'have
b<w ro»de per-
29 The article is wanting,
as is the case fec{ >> F
in the original expression of St. Peter, * , ......
from whom
it was, doubtless, borrowed. zvu-tLvproa,
persons initiated in the
30 oiih b rilh tetri- same mysteries. It is an
allusion to the
“ Display”
would have expressed apostle s
language, concerning the call of
the
meaning of 0avx.vo-e>y more exactly. e
^Tentiles, which he speaks of as the
Aristotle,
in his Ethics, makes mystery which was
kept secret since the
the
ejreess of wxxsee Lib. II. C. ™orld
beSan, but now is made manifest.”
7. and
Lib. IV. C. 2. ro pcLyctvw, r£ See
more especially Eph. uu 3—9
to iioy ayccXirxuv, tv ya.% 33 u A
stumbling-block.”
PoLYCARP.
BjPoijcarf.
Epistle to the Philipplans, chap. iii. “ Paul, who being himself in person with
tho»e who then lived,®4 did with all exactness and soundness
teach the word of truth, and being gone from you, wrote an Epistle33
to you ; ;'ito which, if you look, you will be able to edify
yourselves in the faith, which has been delivered unto you.’’ Compare St.
Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians.
Chap. L “
Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death.” Compare Acts ii.
24.
Chap. ii.
“ Wherefore girding up the loins of your nnnd,36 serve the
Lord with fear." Compare St. Peter, 1 Epistle, i. 13.
Ibid. “
Remembering what the Lord has taught us, saying, ‘ Judge not, and ye shad not
be judged;17 forgive, and ye
shall be forgiven.' Be ye merciful, and ye shall obtain mercy:38
for*" with the same measure that you mete withal, it shall be measured to
you again. And again. ‘ Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of
God.’ ” Compare Luke vL 3G—3- : Matt. v. 3; vii. 1, 2.
Chap iv. “
The love of money is the root of all eril.® Knowing, therefore, that as we
brought nothing into the world, so neither may we carry any thing out,” &e.
Compare St. Paul's l irst Epistle to Timothy, \ i. 7, 10.
Chap. v.
“Every sueli lust41 warreth against the spirit; and neither
fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves ith mankind, shall
inherit the kingdom of God.” Compare First Epistle of St. Peter, ii. 11; and 1
Cor. vi. 9, 10.
Chap. vi.
“ We must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, and shall every one
give an account of himself.” Compare St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, xiv. 10,
12.
Chap. vii.
“ Whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, he is
antiehrist.” Compare 1 St. John iv. 3.
Chap.
viii. “ Jesus Christ, who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the
tree; who did no sin, neither was guile found in
si ipia
omitted; “those of you who then lived ” would have expressed it,
35 Lardner understands him
to speak
of the Epistles to the Thessalo- nians, as well as that to the Philippians,
(see Credibil. B. I. C.6.) Cotelerius, in his note on the word, cites Eusebius
and other authorities, to show that the word is sometimes used in the plural
for a single Epistle. This is partly true. The plural of trto-ToXii may be so
used as not to imply more letters than one, but not, like the Latin litcrce, to
express one letter. The translation therefore is not quite correct. It should
be7 “ Paul, &c. wrote to you. and, if you will refer to ichat he
wrote” The circumstance of its being one or more Epistles, is not intended to
be expressed.
30 “ Of
your mind,” not in the original.
in order
that ye may
not be
judged.
38
lAtuffijT*, in order that ye may obtain mercy.
89 44
For,” not in the original.
4° “ all difficulties.”
Polycarp
must have made the quotation with that expression of our Saviour in his mind, “
How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of (rod.”
“It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich
man to enter into the kingdom of God.” —Luke xviii. 21, 25.
41 'ixiO-jfX,'*, “ every lust.’*
his mouth;
but suffered all for us, that we might live through him.” Compare 1 Peter ii.
22—24.
Chap. ix.
“ Keep yourselves from all evil. For he that in these things cannot govern
himself, how shall he he able to prescribe them42 to another.
If a man does not keep himself from covetousness, he shall be followed with
idolatry, anti be judged as if Le were a Gentile. But who of you are ignorant
of God ? l)o we not know, that ‘the saints shall judge the world,’ as Paul
teaches? But I have neither perceived nor heard any thing of this kind in you,
among whom the blessed Paul laboured, and who are named in the beginning of
that Epistle; for the glories of you, in all the Churches who then only knew
God.” Compare St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Thessalonians, v. 22; Eph. v. 5;
Coloss. ii. 5; I Cor. vi. 2;
Phil. i.
Chap. xii.
“ I trust that ye are well exercised in the holy Scriptures, and that nothing
is hid from you ;43 but at present, it is not granted unto me
to practise that which is written.*4 ‘ Be angry, and sin not
;’ and again, ‘ Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.’ ” Compare Eph. iv.
26.
It has
been observed by some, that although, in most of these These and the like
instances, the citations are sufficiently correct to pro- sometimes elude all
doubt of their being taken from the very parts of Scripture to which they are
assigned; yet, that in a few, the meaning, and wjrdsof
Scripture.
42 Hoc, 4‘ this,” the
rule, namely, other words are only to
be found in the
which
follows, “ If a man does not,” &c. New
Testament; and being there coupled
agreeably
to our Lord’s language, as with the
former, there can be no doubt
recorded
by St. Matthew and St. Luke, that
the whole was intended as a quota-
“ How
canst thou sap to thy brother, tion from
the same passage. Ignatius,
Brother,
let me pull out the mote that is even?
makes more than one apparent
in thine
eye, when thou thyself behoidest allusion
to a collection of the New 1'esta-
not the
beam that is in thine own eye 2 ” ment
Scriptures, e.g. Ep. ad Philad. Sec.
—Luke vi.
42; Matt. vii. 4. 8; “Certain persons
declared in my {Et nihil ms laid.) The translator hearing, * I believe nothing which may seems to have read
latere. # not be found in
the ancients (or the
44 The
sentence, as it stands in the archives.**)
On my saying, ‘ It is original, is obscure. Mihi autemnoncon- written there,’ they answered, 4
The cessmn est, modo, seems rather to refer to point
is proved.* ” Again, in the same the assiduous study of the Scriptures, Epistle, Sec. 5* w’e read, “ Fleeing to
the which he had been recommending in the Gospel
as to the body of Christ, and to words immediately preceding. Ut his the apostles, as to the presbytery of the
Scripturis dictum est, begins another Church.
At the same time, let us reperiod, and the quotations denoted are spect the prophets, for they announced those
which follow, “ Be ye angry and to
mankind, that we were to believe in sin not; let not the sun go down upon the Gospel and in him, and to expect your
wrath.” This passage so arranged, him.”
Now as the writer evidently (and it is the most natural arrangement,) meant by “ the prophets,” the writings proves
two things; first, that the New of the
prophets, (under which denomi- Testament was appealed to as Scrip- nation ne might have comprehended all
lure,—as a icritten record*—bv Polycarp; the
inspired writings of the Old Testa- secondly, that it comprehended already, ment,) the most natural interpretation of
beyond the sacred narratives, at least the
terms “ Gospel,” and “ apostles,” is the Epistle to the Ephesians. For, al- “ the recorded Gospel,” and “ the writ-
though it may be said that the former ings
of the apostles.” part of the quotation, ** Be ye angry, and
sin not,”
may have been cited from the * There are two readings, ijxas/erc and book of
Psalms immediately; yet the
not the
exact words is given: and, again, that quotations are made, which it is
difficult to accommodate, to anv part of the Canon. This is noticed, because it
is sometimes urged as detracting from the authority of the Fathers, in the
present application of their writings. There is, iu truth, however, something
highly natural in this inaccurate mode of quotation used by the apostolical
Fathers. They lieaswn for were, it should be remembered, instructed, not from
Scripture, not difference from a record, but from the oral teaching of the
apostles themselves.
The very
words in which they first heard many of the Gospel truths, which they
afterwards impressed on their congregations, must, beyond a doubt, have been in
many instances different from the expression? of the record. To them,
accordingly, these would be most natural, and would often, in the earnestness
of their exhortation, bo inadvertently adopted in preference to the scriptural
language. This is not only possible, but what, under their circumstances, we
should expect to take place: and there is therefore no occasion for attempting
to solve the difficulty, either by supposing any portion of the holy Testament
to have perished under the Church’s keeping; or by attributing to these writers
the habit of occasionally confounding the uninspired with the inspired works of
that age.
COLLECTION
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SCBIPTURES.
Preservation
There is yet another point of view, in which the Church may bo written regarded
as a vehicle for preserving the record of revelation, and Record fey also for
attesting it, in collecting, namely, the several inspired collection of
writings into one body. It has already been pointed out, that of ■!arMTeral
{he two distinct kinds of writing of which the New Testament is composed,
each has its proper use, and reference to the other. The narrative, separated
from the Epistles, would be like the testimonial character of an apostle
disjoined from the ministry of the Spirit. The history of the facts of the
Gospel-schwne required an exposition of their import; and this exposition,
again, would have been useless without the history. To preserve, therefore, the
record of revelation pure and perfect, it was necessary, that, although
composed of portions, which could only be gradually collected and put together,
Probable it should be so combined and so preserved as one. At what time
oo55*c°tion.ls this collection was completed, cannot be certainly
ascertained, although there is every reason to think that it was not later than
the middle, of the second century; and, consequently, before the deceasc of all
tho apostolical Fathers. That it was begun, even before the death of St. John,
is more certainly inferred; and, probably, from his sanction to the three
Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and the addition of his own to the number,
we may date the commencement of this important work.14 That
the feeling with
« See p.
173.
which it
was undertaken has never ceased to influence all the Church, may, perhaps, be
not unfairly presumed from the scruple which still exists, against publishing
separately the writings of the New Testament. The Revelations of St. John is,
perhaps, the only hook that lias been commonly edited apart; and the peculiar
character of that work may sufficiently account for its being made an
exception. With regard to the rest, it would, doubtless, somewhat offend and
startle Christians, to see the Works of St. Paul, or St. Luke, or St. John,
generally printed and circulated apart from the venerable body of Scriptures,
in connexion with which it is that each is most valuable.
Nor is
this view at all inconsistent with the fact, that so many of Season# for the
manuscript copies of the New Testament contain only the Gos- fecti"nor'
pels, or the Gospels and the Acts. The collection of the whole'““-y Mss-
volume must have been gradual, and the New Testament of every Church at one
period imperfect,—in the earliest times containing generally no more than the supposed
original collection, that of the Gospels. Now, although the ancient catalogues
and the assertions of the Fathers prove, that these alone did not constitute
the holy book of any Church; still, the original imperfect Testaments would be
preserved, and the copiers would continue to transcribe them as they
"were. It msv, too, have arisen from some arrangement respecting the
reading of the Lessons, with a view to which a divided copy would have been
convenient. Such a convenience appears, certainly, to have given rise to those
MSS. which are called Lectionaries, from the circumstance of their containing
the Scriptures in detached Lessons, as they were appointed to be read in the
public services.
But if
this baa been the prevailing tone of feeling in the Church Disputes of all
ages, how is it, it may be asked, that the records of the Church should leave
any grounds for the disputes, which have Scripture, existed among later
Christians, concerning the extent of the Canon ?
Granting
that the labours of the learned have been successful in Trohabinty electing
many spurious writings from their assumed place in the New Testament,48
and in establishing others, the claims of which occur in the wero doubtful;
still, does not this very circumstance denote greater cC-iTchr6
carelessness in the primitive Church, than the foregoing view supposes ?
* .Contradictory statements certainly do
exist: and yet the general tone and manner in whieli all these statements are
delivered, (independently of any explanation from other parts of the same
author’s "itings,) leave a strong impression on the inquirer’s mind, that
the •Teat Christian body was originally unanimous in its decision.
Viewing
the collected evidence, or even the separate portions of it, it is impossible
not to feel, that the authors are, for the most part,
See
Joneses Canon of iUe New Testament,
recording,
not tlieir individual opinions alone, but the sense and voice uf Christians
generally. This leads us at once to suspect, that these contradictions are
apparent and not real; and requiring only a more complete view of the
circumstances attending the formation of the Canon, in order to be explained
and reconciled. In the absence of direct historical information, recourse mus.t
be had, not indeed to mere conjecture, but to the most probable opinion which
can be founded on the nature of the case.
Whatever
test was originally applied, to separate the true from the counterfeit
Scriptures, there ean be no question as to the object of the investigation,
viz., Whether a work, claiming to be Scripture, was, or was not, inspired.
Assuming this, then, as the ultimate aim of all the inquiries which could have
taken place, let us consider what would be the natural and necessary steps by
which men would advance to their conclusion.
A work is
circulated, as the production of St. Paul or St. Barnabas. Obviously, the
tirst question would be, Is he really the author? It is immaterial to the
argument at present, by what process of proof the conclusion might be
gained,—whether by traili tion, the characters of the MSS.,47 or any
combination of external and internal evidence. According as it was found to be
so or not, the work would thus far be pronounced genuine or spurious.
In either
case, the inquiry would not rest here. Supposing the truo author to have been
ascertained, before an infallible authority could be conceded to his work, it
would be requisite further to know that he was inspired to write it. Here,
then, would be a new hue of inquiry, and a new conclusion to be sought.
On the
other hand, the circumstance of the work having been falsely ascribed to St.
Paul or St. Barnabas, would be no conclusive e\idcnoe against its scriptural
character. Its author might accidentally, or even designedly, have remained
unknown; and still, if satisfactory evidence could be obtained, that the
apostles, or other competent48 judges, had pronounced it inspired,
its scriptural character would stand precisely on the same footing, as if the
work had been traced to an author known to be inspired. Yet, in one sense, such
a writing would be spurious. It would be genuine, considered with reference to
the Canon, but spurious considered with reference to its authorship. Thus there
would exist two principles of classification, little likely tn interfere and
create any confusion in the minds of those to whom all the circumstances of the
investigation were fam'Iiar; but for that very reason, the less carefully
distinguished in their statements. The terms “spurious,” and “genuine,”
*7 The
autograph of St. Paul’s Epistle 49
The Epistle to the Hebrews migfit
to the
Galatians, for instance, might have been
so circumstanced for a time;
have been
recognised by the peculiarity the
prejudice of the Jewish converts
alluded to
in chap, vi. 11. generally against
the_ author, being an
48 I.E.
rendered competent by extra- obvious
reason why his name should not
ordinary
endowments of the Spirit. be at first
attached to it.
“acknowledged,
” and “doubted,” would be often applied indiscriminately to both cases, to the
uncanonical, and to the mis appropriated; and this, without any surmise of the
misapprehension and perplexity which might arise in after ages. To him who
wrote it, especially in the case of a casual remark, such a latitude of expression
would seem determinate enough, because it would be so at the time in which it
was written; however obscure aid unsatisfactory it might become in the lapse of
a few centuries, or even in a much shorter period.
Pursuing
the same course of inquiry, we shall find the probability increasing, that this
has sometimes been the case. Let it, then, have been satisfactorily made cut,
that the work in question was the production of an inspired author; and,
further, let that author have been certainly ascertained; a scruple might still
exist as to its pu.ity—its entire freedom, not from corruption merely, but from
the liability to be corrupted. Other writings, so situated, might retain a
value, diminished only in proportion to the injury they have met with from the
hands through which they have been transmitted; but, grant any alteration to
have taken place in an inspired work, since it received the sanction of
inspiration ; grant that the point be even uncertain; and all its value as
Scripture,—as an infallible guide,—is destroyed. Ninety-nine parts out of the
hundred may be assuredly of Divine origin, but if the spurious particle be so
blended with it, as to be inseparable—if it be impossible to point out where
the additions have been made, the whole is in point of authority no more than equivalent
to a counterfeit throughout. For what security would there be, in any given
instance, that it was not the fallible judgment of men, and of designing men,
too, to which the appeal was raaue ? At the same time, such a work would be
respected and used by the Church with the necessary cautions: and might thus be
handed down to posterity, described in unguarded phraseology, as genuine and
yet spurious, acknowledged and yet doubted,—as “genuine” and “undoubted,”
because it assuredly was the production of the reputed author; as “spurious”
and “doubted,” because containing, or likely to contain, an admixture of
spurious ingredients. It would, in short, be spoken of in the language which we
hear applied to the original of a great artist; the value of which, as such,
has been destroyed, and its very title ') originality brought in question, by
the touches of some meaner hand.
ft.it is
well known, that the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second For-ions of Epiptle 01
St. James, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and xitamLt Third of St, John,
that of Jude, and the Revelations, arc not always ound in the old manuscript
copies of the New Testament; nor ar< m ’ [their names invariably
recorded in the catalogues of the old writers.
V arious epithets, also, and expressions
denoting hesitation or rejection, are occasionally applied to them.
Nevertheless, no candid
Proofs of
their
genuineness.
Methods
resorted to for the original settlement of the Canon,
inquirer
doubts that they are all Scripture, aud that they were from the earliest times
so considered. First, because in almost all, if nut in overv authority, which
furnishes the doubtful expression, or makes the suspicious omission, some
statement is found incompatible with the notion, that the author had rejected
the piece on the score of its being uuinspired. Take, e.g. the most ancient
catalogue of the Scripture? now extant, that of Origen.*0 In
thi.<, no mention is made of the Epistles of James and Jude; nltliough in
other parts of his writings their authority is acknowledged. Again, Jerome’s41
catalogue contains expressions of doubt, respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews;
yet there are passages52 from the same author, which prove
indisputably, that he made use of it as Scripture. hi these and the like
instances, it is impossible not to attribute the apparent inconsistency to
some unrecorded circumstancus, attending the settlement of the Canon, such as
have been here suggested.
Secondly,
reasonable and satisfactory as this method of interpretation is, (for it is like
a cross-examination of an author respecting his evidence,) it is not, and never
was, bo it remembered, the only clue for distinguishing the true Scripture from
the false, whenever the two have been confounded in the same doubtful
testimony. By comparing such writings with the great body of the New Testament,
of which no doubt of any kind was ever expressed, we may safely pronouuee them
inspired or not, according to their agreement or disagreement with these. But
it is worthy of notice, that this test is only applicable to a work which has
some strung presumption in its favour derived from other sources. If otherwise
applied, it is, in fact, no test, no medium of proof at all. Any orthodox publication
of the present day, for instance, must, as orthodox, answer to it; nor would it
be supposed from that coincidence to de. ive any fitle to
independent authority. Not that this kind of evidence is the less forcible on
that account, in any instance wherein its use. is admissible. It, in fact, is
one, and perhaps the principal one, of aj class of scriptural proofs, which
change their very nature by being combined with others; and maybe compared to
those substances, which require a chemical union with others of a different
class, in order to elicit their most striking properties.
Although
it does not enter into my plan to investigate the proofs made use of in the
lirst settlement of the Canon ; that this kind of evidence must have been one
of the chief, by which the judgment of the Church was determined, may be naturally
concluded, both
50 Oricren, Comment, in Matt, apr.d sum, wht-re be quotes Keb. vi:. 8; p.nd
Euseb. Hist. Eecl. Lib. VI. C. 25. On- in
iiis Commeniary on the twenty-socoiJ pen* Exposit. in Joann. Lib. V. apud chapter of Isaiah, where he speaks of
the Euseb. ibid. “ heavenly Jerusalem
” as the expression
51 Jerome, Epist. ad Paulin. de Stud, of an apostle; not to mention lus paraa
Script. phrase or commentary on the
Epistle
52 E.G. in Epist. «.d Sabinianum lap- itself.
■ From the
nature of the subject, and from the notices ■which are
left us of such proofs being resorted to, hy Eusehius and others.
V Even in the days cf the apostles and
inspired teachers, such a rule we know was insisted on by St. Paul; “ Though
we,” (writes Gali.b.6. he to the Galatians,) “or an angel from heaven, preach
any other gospel unto you, than that we have preached unto you, let him he
accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preaeli any other
gospel unto you, than that you have received, let. him be accursed.”
The
antecedent claims, which would induce them to bring any writing to this test,
would be the evidence of particular churches, in which the writing had been
deposited; the autography of tho MSS. in some cases furnishing particular
signs, such as may be supposed * to have been the case with the original copy
of St. Paul’s Epistle Gal. vi ii. to the Galatians, and the traditional account
of its contents, or of any circumstances connected with it. The seal and
confirmation of its authenticity would be its agreement with such scriptural
doctrine as was contained in those books which were so widely circulatcd, and
so clearly sanctioned, as to furnish the basis of a standard for Scripture. One
work settled, became a measure for others, and Scripture was made the test of
Scripture. The sacred volume thus formed, becomes the depository of a power
hardly less effectual than that which the inspired Church possessed of trying
spirits; and is our unfailing security against the forgeries of distant ages,
and the pretended revelations of later times.
How the First Uninspired CnrRcn Fulfilled its Office of DISPENSING the TRnns Contained in the
* Sacred Record.
To the
apostles a revelation had been given, which on their removal was supplied by a
sacred record. The apostles hud been commissioned and empowered to preserve
that revelation pure and perfect, by the extraordinary suggestions and
corrections of the Holy Spirit; and also to attest it by miracles and
miraculous endowments. The Church, as has been shown, was qualified to fulfil
the same purposes with regard to the sacred record. Eut, then, the apostles
were not only commissioned ar.d empowered to preserve their revelation entire
and uncorrupted, and to furnish evidence to its Divino character; they had a
further duty to perform ; that, namely, of dispensing the truths it
contained—of “ rightly dividing the word of truth,”51 as it is
expressed by one of them. For this portion of their ministry, likewise, they
received from our Lord himself an assurance of extraordinary assistance ever at
hand;which the narrative of that ministry clearly shows to have been fulfilled.
The sacred record required, of course, a corresponding dispenser; and the
Church was accordingly so shaped and modelled, as to assume that character. In
what manner it discharged this portion of its duty, on the first ceasing of
Divine interposition, is the point o^ inquiry at which we are now arrived. The
measures adopted will be considered briefly and separately; and first, among
these, may be noticed the perpetuation of a clerical order, as distinct from
the laity, in every Church.
I. MINISTERS OF DIFFERENT ORDERS.
Christian
In sacred history, we find the apostles, and others duly appointed,
coMidcnJa*
exclusively officiating in a course of ministerial duties ; and, if it be
Diapf'DM-rsuf
admitted, that these, or many of these offices, were designed to be ihf °
2 Tim. ii.
15. 'o^doTHfx.ovyra. means the before what
ye shall answer; for I will
fashioning
of the word preached, so as to give you
a mouth and wisdom, which all
render it
intelligible, acceptable, eflec- your
adversaries shall not be able to
tual; as
the workman cuts the stone or gainsay nor
resist.” 2 Cor. xii. 9: “My
wood, to
suit the particular object about grace is
sufficient for thee ; for my
which be
is employed. strength is made
perfect in weakness; *
w E.G.
Luke xxi. 14, 15: “ Settle it and the
like, therefore in your hearts, not to meditate
perpetual,
the perpetual obligation on Christians to have a separate officiating order to
succeed the first, seems to he a necessary inference. The character and
pretensions of this order may, indeed, become changed, so far as to be
inconsistent with Christianity itself; but this should only induce us to
ascertain clearly, and to keep steadily in view, the true object and intent of
the institution. Beyond this connexion with the formal observances of religion,
however, the ministers of the Gospel may be viewed in the light of special
dispensers of the truths contained in the New Testament. This is their chief
and most important office; and if it be true, that one of the purposes divinely
intended in the formation of the Church was the dispensing of these truths ;
the appointment of this order, as one of the methods, becomes an obligation,
independent even of apostolical precedent or specific rule.50 The
great caution to be observed in the Church was, strictly to adhere to this view
of its ministers.
There was
a continual temptation presented to the Jewish converts, in the habit of
looking at religion, as it existed in the former Church of God; and equally so
to the Gentile converts, in their long familiarity with the corruptions of the
heathen world. In both, the minister of religion had been regarded as the mean
of communication between the worshipper and the Being worshipped 5 between Man
who sought Divine instruction, and the Deity from whom it was supposed to
proceed. But Christians were left without any such mediator on earth. Their
High Priest was no longer visible; and the sacred record was the only mode of
sensible communication which had been left; Christ was seen 110 more, and the
Holy Ghost was no longer outwardly manifested. The Christian ministers,
therefore, were designed to be the organ of the Church,56 in dispensing
these Divine oracles; not themselves the oracles and sources of information.
That the
primitive bishops claimed for themselves no higher Bishop-t character, is very
plain from the tenor of their lives, and from the language of their genuine
remains. It is evident from the writings of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp,
that the terms “Priest,” (iWyj,)57 “Vicar of Christ,” “Mediator,”
“Order of the altar,”
65
Ignatius’s assertion is strictly cor- other, r,
signifies an elder ; and
rect, “
Without these it cannot be called was
applied to those ministers in the
a Church;”
that is, the Christian society Christian
Chureh, whose age or office
could no
longer fulfil the object of its entitled
them to such distinction. To
institution,
whatever other means might Christ
alone, under the Gospel dispensa-
be
substituted.—Kp. ad Trail. Sec. 3. tion,
was the term applicable, and
56 Ignatius calls them, in his Epistles to
him alone it is applied in the New to the Trallians, “servants of the Church
Testament; but, from the common cus- of God,” see Sec. 2. tom among the early Christian teachers,
57 It may be necessary to state to the of
illustrating the respect and observance mere English reader, that there are two
due to the Gospel ministers, from that Greek words, of very different import, whieh had been paid to the Jewish which we
translate indifferently‘'priest.” priests, the term Imus gradually became
is one,
and is the term applied to transferred
to the Gospel minister. The him whose office it was to sacrifice, or same
occurred with respect to man,,
otherwise
to mediate between the wor- other
Christian institutions. The Lord’s shipper and the Being worshipped; the table,
e.g. acquired the title of “ the
(tmi |3?(mik,)
were not yet the appropriate vocabulary of the Christian’s language.** Although
the order of bishops had succeeded the apostles in the government of the
Church, yet they presumed not to assume the title. “They who are now called
bishops,” writes St. Ambrose.® “were originally called apostles; but the holy
apostles being dead, they who were ordained after them to govern the Church,
could not arrive at the excellency of the first; nor had they the testimony of
miracles, but were in many other respects inferior to them. Therefore they
thought it not decent to assume t*j themselves the- name cf apostles; lut
dividing the names, they left to presbyters the name of tho presbytery, and
they themselves were called bishops.”
Prcs’ijters
The same modest pretensions arc manifested in the titles of tho ljJinons. other
ministers. Ne other official distinction was preserved beyond that of presbyter
and deacon. Prophets, Interpreters. Helps, and the loug list of extraordinary
agents, had found successors and substitutes in men qualified by ordinary
means; but these presumed 110 more than the. bishops, to retain the titles of
the persons whose place tiny occupied only in part. This scruple about assuming
titles of distinct rank, has inclined many to think, that what are afterwards
found in the Church, under the general denomination of Five inferior the live
inferior orders of clergy, did not yet exist. These were the “ ' sub-deacons,
acolvthists, exorcists, readers, and door-keepers. It is certainly true, that
these words do not occur in the genuine remains of the apostolical fathers;
and, in short, no term indicating a lower order than that of deacon.
Nevertheless, as has been before pointed out, this term was very comprehensive,
and originally included even apostles. Its specific application became
gradually more and more narrowed, as the distinct kinds of ministers or deacons
received appropriate names. At the period to whieh we are now arrived, this
general appellation may still have been tho only one, for some or all of these
five offices, which were afterwards distinguished by specific nam^s. The deaconship
of the New Testament evidently comprehended many offices not afterwards
included under it. These very five offices, and others, may possibly then
altar;’’
the bread and wine, that of*4 the sacrifice.” It is surprising, how
much the accidents which befal language affect even the practical views of
those who employ it. At this day, we may trace to these very ambiguities a
proneness to apply to the several parts of the Christian institution, reasoning
drawn from those parts of the Jew ish which do not coincide with them, further
than that both nowT bear the same name. The use made of this fallacy
by the Church of Rome, in its gradual assumption of those powers and privileges
for its bishop, which can only belong to a pontiff or high priest, are now too
well Known to ltyuire tur-
ther
notice. See particularly Kncyclop. Metropolis Art. Logic, and 'Whately’s Sermons, Sermon V.
w Bp.
Beveridge, in answer to Mr. Dai He’s objections to the authenticity of the
apostoneal eanon, has maintained the primitive use of these terms; but his
testimonies really prove no more than that they were sometimes used, always
X^erhaps, figuratively. His remarks on the use of Irta-xo-ros and are
more
correct. See Bevcregii Codex Can. Lib. II. C. 1U.
69 Cited by
Amalarins. de Offie. Kce. Lib. II. C. 13, and by Bingham, Lee. Ant. B. II. C.
II.
have
existed long before they were separately named. Among the deaconesses even,
similar distinctions may have obtained, without any distinguishing title. We
read, at least, of employments assigned to them, which it would be obviously
inconvenient to unite generally in the same person ; for instance, the offices
of doorkeeper, and of attendant on the sick.
The
principal need of these female ministers has been already Deaconesses, pointed
out: and, accordingly, as the character of the Christian preachers became
better known, the suspicions and scruples of strangers were less likely to be
awakened, by the visits of male catechists to all ages and sexes, for the
purpose of instruction; and the order of deaconesses would naturally be
discontinued. This very soon began to be the case: although the remnant of such
an order existed in the Latin Church until the tenth or eleventh century ; and
in the Greek Church a century later. In the age of the apostolic Fathers they
are spoken of under the same title which St. Luke may be supposed to apply to
them in the Acts, that of Acts vi. i. widows.60
Over all
these different orders, the authority of the bishop was superior tetinct and
supreme. “Let nothing,” writes Ignatius to the tha Bwifops. Church of Smyrna,61
“relating to the Church, be done without the bishop;” and, again, to Polycarp,
“Let nothing be done without your sanction.”62 The superintending
authority in all spiritual matters seems to have extended even to the right of
administering the Sacraments. For the same Father writes, to remind the Church
of Smyrna, that “ it is not lawful either to baptize, or celebrate the feast of
love, without the bishop.”63 Nothing, indeed, seems more reasonable
and natural, than that the discretionary exercise of the minister’s office
should be various in different ages. Education, aud other circumstances, might
render the clergy, universally, fit in one age, for that which only some were
qualified to perform in another. We expect, accordingly, to find at different
periods a different authority exercised by the bishop over the subordinate
clergy. It was once deemed inexpedient in our own Church, to allow all the
clergy to preach; and a similar prudence may have dictated a like caution in
the regulation of the duties of the primitive clergy; which would gradually and
of course relax, as the cause ceased.
It is,
however, the office of the Christian ministers, as dispensers of the truths of
the New Testament record, to which our attention is now' directed; and if it be
inquired, in what way these several orders discharged this office, under the
superintendence of their bishop, and what part the bishop himself took in this
common
^ Ta;nat^ Ep. »d floiyrn. C. 13. ’As-- expression; see also Ep, a*l Polye. C.
Ta.Zou-ttt
. diK6'Jg rwy oc.htX^S!v uovo"vv yvv6u%i 4.
Ke&i
TiXnen, t- \
!Tecp8gyavf rott teyo/AtVKf ^ Ch. 8.
$2 QJ), 4,
XijSee
Cotelerius’s note on tlie 68
Kp. ad Sniyrn. C. 9.
Public
Reading of the
Scriptures.
Authorities
for this custom.
Preaching.
duty; we
shall, perhaps, find no farther difference between the method originally
pursued and that now established among the purest reformed Churches, than is
accounted for, and warranted, by the difference of circumstances.
The public
reading of portions of the Scriptures in the service of the Church ; and even
of the prayers, as made up in a great measure of scriptural expressions, may of
itself be reckoned among the ministerial duties of dispmdng Gospel truth.
Indeed, in an age when neither books nor readers were general, this would be
even more important than at present; because, whatever more convenient forms
were devised for the conveying of those truths, it was necessary to convince
all, that to the Bible they were to be traced; and this could only be done by
reading or hearing it read. If, therefore, there be any difference in the
proportion which the lessons have borne to the prayers in the primitive Church
services, and in the service of any modern society of Christians, it might be
expected to have been generally greater formerly than now.
Such was
the case. The remains of the apostolical Fathers do not, indeed, furnish direct
testimony,64 to tho custom of reading the Scriptures, as part of the
Church service; but the writings of those who immediately succeeded them are
sufficiently clear and ample on the point; and speak of it as a custom
originally established, and coeval with the Church service. Justin Martyr,
Chrysostom, and St. Basil, may be appealed to as decisive authorities for the
early existence of the usage; which, indeed, could not have been neglected
without so flagrant a violation of the fundamental principles of the Church’s
establishment, as to have occasioned the neglect, and the origin of it, to be
recorded and handed down to us. The mere silence of history on such a poiut
would have left us warranted in maintaining the observance of the custom.
At the
same time, the public reading of the scriptural record was not the only, nor
the principal office which the ministers of the Church had to perform, as
dispensers of the truths contained ir. it. That record was the test, the source
of all that was to be communicated to the world; but it was left to the
discretionary power of the Church to shape the various forms 111 which it
should be presented to mankind—to the Church collectively, to its ministers
individually. The Gospel ministers wyere to expound, to arrange, and
to accommodate the Dhine truths to the education, habits, and other
circumstances of their hearers; looking in each instance to the mode in which
instruction would be best understood, and most readily listened to. Hence, the
importance of the preacher s character—not as the eloquent master of the
feelings of an audience -—but far more, as the judicious dispenser of Gospel
truth ; in
Cl
I<'or li e indirect testimony to Vie derived frutr. these writings, see the
reirarVs on tlie public reading of the Scriptures, considered as one of the
means o(preserving the sacred record.
applying,
and teaching others to apply, to particular cases, the general principles and
precepts of the Sew Testament; in arranging systematically the doctrines there
incidentally taught; or in giving clearness to what might be there obscure, by
combining separate passages, and by all other legitimate methods of uninspired
exposition. In such an employment, the danger, the chief danger D»ngerfrom at
least, would arise from too great an accommodation to the SJition’of previous
tastes and habits of thought in those addressed. Th> r converted Gentile
philosopher would best understand the Christian particular mysteries, when
illustrated by allusions to the metaphysical theories heifl'rs-
with which his fancy had been previously familiar; the Jew would be made more
ready to listen and to understand, by the continual use of images belonging to
the Old dispensation, to clothe and recommend the topics of the New. In the
great inspired preacher to the Gentiles,his successors and imitators would
observe, perhaps, the splendid effect produced by his grafting Christian
instruction on the manners, and even the prejudices, of men; and might,
therefore, proceed the more fearlessly in the same track, without quite the
same controlling wisdom. What he had gained by colouring his instructions with
the memory of the law, and its venerable adjuncts, when addressing the Jew; or
by alluding to the serious pursuits, or the amusements of the Gentile world,
when the Gentiles were addressed; emboldened, perhaps, the first uninspired
preachers even beyond the bounds of prudence. They taught, we have every reason
to believe, truth and only truth; but, if we may judge from the remains, even
of the apostolical Fathers, it would be uucandid not to admit an over-readiness
to allow those truths (in some cases) to receive their form and impression from
the previous notions, both of Jew and Gentile. It was the easier method, nor
can we wonder to find it adopted. But to this only can we attribute the ready
introduction into the Church’s language of the terms above mentioned,
“priest,” (/efsvf,) “mediator," <fcc., as applied to the ministers of
that religion which acknowledges no priest on earth, and only 1“ one Mediator
between God and Men, the man Christ Jesus.” 1 Tim.ii. 5. IIarmles3 as it might
have been then, it is, perhaps, the first link in that elwin of corruption
which ended in the creation of a Christian pontiff.65 Their
accommodation to the Gentile prejudices, or rather to the philosophy of the
Gentiles, was by no means so great;
* It \vm, doubtless, in conformity with the
custom of tlie synagogue, ti.pt the sermon used in the pi :mit<ve Church to
be almost universally delivered by the preacher sitting whilst the congregation
stood. (See Bingham's Reel. Arjtiq. Book
XIV. C. IV. Sect. 24.) “The .Scribes and Pharisees”
(said our Lord) “ait. in Moses’ seat,” (Matt, xxiii. 2;) and his ou n example
might have been considered as a further warrant for adopting the
Jewish
usage in a matter of -*ndifferenoe. He is described, even in childhood, as
sitting anil disputing among the doctors in. the temple ; (Luke ii. 46.) And
again we read, cliap. iv. 20, that after lie had stood up to read the prophet
Esaias, He sat down to teach the people. See also chap. v. 3, and John viii. 2.
His avowal, a-s recorded in St. Matthew’s Gospel, chap. xxvi. 55, is, " I
sat daily with you, teaching in the temple.”
Custom of
the African Church in Preaching.
Epistles.
Advantages
of this mode of
instruction.
although
occasionally discoverable in some laboured illustrations of the. doctrines of
the Trinity and the Incarnation.01'
It was to
the sacred record, however, and to their own preaching, only as a particular
form of communicating it, that they directed the attentiun of tlieir audience;
and it deserves to be recorded, as a remarkable illustration of this fact, that
in the African Church a custom long prevailed among the preachers, of quoting
only part of any scriptural passage, cited in their sermons, and pausing for
the remainder to be filled Op by the congregation. An instance of it may be found
in Augustin’s Sermons.'" That the character68 of the primitive
preaching was such as is here described, we chieflv infer from the character of
the primitive writings; and these being in the form of Epistles, require some
observations distinct from what is applicable to them, in common with
preaching.
The custom
of writing public letters is a distinct branch of the office of the Christian
ministers, in dispensing the truths of the (iospel; and one far which, no less
than preaching, they had the example of the apostles. Indeed, when we consider
the opportunity afforded by such a mode of address, for the bishop to give an
interest to his instructions, by allusions to matters of local and peculiar
interest, which could not so properly be introduced in a Sermon or a Charge, it
is rattier surprising to lind so early and so total a disuse of this good old
custom. It is probable, that few attempts to exhort or to instruct as a
preacher would be so interesting, as the opening of the successive packets,
for instance, which conveyed to the churches of Asia the farewell injunctions
of Ignatius ; and l’olycarp’s serious instructions to the Philippians were,
doubtless, remembered better in an Epistle, wnich disdained not an allusion to
conversational matters, than if ho had been compelled to address them only with
the solemnity of the Christian preacher.69—Clement, whose First
Epistle to the Corinthians is perhaps, on the whole, the most valuable of the
remains of the apostolical Fathers, seems not to have been sensible of tins
advantage, in the method which he nevertheless employed; and his Epistle is
therefore a treatise, compared with an apostolical Epistle, cold, drily
systematic, and uninteresting. It is scarcely possible to devise a better
method of appreciating St. Paul as a writer, in this particular department, (as
a writer, namely, of public letters to bodies of Christians,) than by comparing
with Clement’s his Epistles to the same Church written
06 Almost
all the early heresies may be 6"
See Bingham’s Eccl. Antiq. Book
traced to
the presumptuous attempt to XIV. Ch.
IV. Sec. 26, where the passage
speculate
metaphysically on the nature of is cited,
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
St. Paul
speaks of such speculations as m That such was the character
of their
“falsely
called knowledge;” and warns epistolary
instruction, will be manifest
Timothy
against them, as endangering from a
cursory glance at the remains of
the faith
of the instructor and tile in- tlie
apostolical Fathers, which abound
structed.
For the results which ensued with
references to scriptural authority, in no long interval, we need only refer
to
Irenieus’s First Book adv. Haercses. to
Seech, xi. andxiii. of the Epistle.
on nearly
tbe same subject. At tbe same time, it must be considered, that Clement was
writing iu the name of tbe Church at Home, and addressing a Church' not
peculiarly his charge. Now, it is out of this latter circumstance that an
Ejoistle derives its most
I interesting topics.
It was
thus, then, that tho primitive Church fulfilled its office of dispensing the
truths of the sacred record, through the agency of its various orders of
ministers. They read publicly the Word of God; they preached it; and they sent
it to the absent by letters.
Of tho
mode of appointing these ministers, some account has been given in a preceding
part of this inquiry ; enough, perhaps, for our purpose. It does not appear,
from the remains of the apostolic Fathers, whether the performance of this rite
required a bishop.
Still, as
this practice is mentioned by Jerome, Chrysostom, and succeeding writers; and
noticed by them, not as an innovation, but as a settled usage, there can be no
reasonable doubt of its primitive adoption.
The
revenue for the support of the clergy in this season of the Revenue. Church’s
poverty, appears to have arisen from the continual contributions of the laity
in each Church ; aided in some instances by the accumulation of a fund,
the'probable origin of which, in the apostolic days, has been alread\r
suggested.
The
catalogue of the bishops, ordained by the apostles, is, Jfcshop, according to
the most probable account, as follows :70— * tbeApostisi
I. At Jerusalem: James, the apostle, and
Simeon, the Sen of JeruKaIi.ni. Cleopas.
Authorities:
Unanimous testimony, especially that of Jerome, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, tbe
author of “ The Apostolical Constitutions,” Ilegesippus, Clemens Alexandrinus,
and Dionysius of Corinth, as quoted by Eusebius.
II. Antioch: Euodlus
and Ignatius. Antioch.
Earonius
conjectures, that they were contemporary; one for the
Gentile,
and the other for the Jewish portion of the Church. But it must bo admitted
that this is not a very likely arrangement, when we consider that one of the
great efforts of the apostolical founders was to amalgamate Jew and Gentile
into one Church, and to preserve the unity of the Spirit. They are represented
as successive bishops by Eusebius, Theodoret, Athanasius, Origen, and Jerome.
At the same time, the expedient might have become [necessary for a time at
Antioch, as appears to ha\e been the case at Rome.
III. Smyrna: Fclycarp. Smyrna.
Authorities:
Jerome, Irenseus, Tertullian, Eusebius.
IV. Ephesus: Timothy. Ephesus.
See Ai’ostolic Age.
,0 See
Bingham's Eccl. Antiq. 8. II. C. I. Sect. 4.
Crete.
A then*.
Philippi.
Home.
II5erapolis.
Authorities:
Eusebius, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Jerome, Hilary the deacon, the author of “
The Passiou of Timothy” in Photius, and Theodoret, who expresses liimself
singularly enough, saying,
that he
was bishop, under the title of an apostle.”71
V. Crete: Titus.
The same
authorities. Eusebius makes both metropolitans. Hooker adopts this view, in his
“ Eccles. Polity.”
VI. Athens: Dionysius the Areopagite, and
Publius Quadratus.
Authorities
: Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, a writer of the second
century,
quoted by Eusebius. It was Quadratus who presented an apology to the emperor
Hadrian.
VII. Philippi: Epaphroditus.
Authority:
Theodoret.
VIII. llome: Linus, Anacletus, and Clement.
The order
of succession between these three is not very easily determined. Iren*;os,
Tertullian, Chrysostom, Eusebius, Ivufiiuus. Jerome, Optatus, Epiphanius, and
Augustin, all contain notices which may help the inquirer. The most probable
mode of solving the difficulty is, that in the distracted otate of the Church at
llome, the same necessity, which required the care both of St. Paul and St.
Peter, namely, the aversion of the Jewish party to the great Gentile apostle,
might have caused a division of that Church into two societies; over that,
composed chiefly of Gentiles, Linus may have been appointed by St. Paul, and
succeeded by Anaeletus ; over that, consisting of Jews chiefly, Clement may
have been appointed by St. Peter. As Clement survived Linus and Anaeletus, and
by that time the spirit of dissension had well nigh ceased, the Church was
probably reunited and again became one, as it originally was, when St. Paul
first wrote and preached to them; and thus Clement became the first sole
bishop. The assertion of Eusebius, that St. Paul and St. Peter were joint founders,
favours this view ; which is, however, subject to the objection above noticed,
respecting a similar case at Antioch.
IX. Hierapolis: Tapias.
lie was a
disciple of St. John, and contemporary with Ignatius and l’olycarp.72
Although, therefore, there is no direct assertion in ancient authors, of his
being ordained by the apostle, he may be numbered among those who were so
ordained.
71 See, too,
the quotation above given specifically to
an unearthly messenger;
from St.
Ambrose. It is likely enough, in- and still
more, when the succession of
deed, that
Timothy was called an apostle, bishops in
established sees began to take
because
se?it by St. Paul to preside over place,
and a new bishop was not neces-
the Church
at Ephesus; ana it was per- sarily sent to
preside over a new see, and
haps
subsequently, to avoid the confusion ceased
therefore to be considered in the
between
apostles of Christ and these light of a
messenger, apostle, or angel,
apostles
of his apostles, that the latter liis
superintending character was now
were
called by a synonymous term the chief,
or only one which claimed
angels, or
messengers. Under this title regard, and
hence the natural transition
St. John
speaks of them in the Revela- to,
and permanent adoption of, the title
tions.
This title also must have been Epi
scopus, superintendent.
liable to
objection, bccause applying so 72
I rente i, Lib. V. C. 33.
Not that
we are to suppose it necessary that every bishop who was consecrated while
there was yet one apostle alive, should have been consecrated by the laying on
of that apostle’s hands. A Church once founded had in itself the principle of
reproductiveness. It was self-sufficient both to perpetuate itself and its
ministry, and also to found other Churches, and to endow them with the same
principle.
But what
if, in the lapse of time, any Christian community, although pure in faith, and
in practice otherwise, should have been irregularly formed or continued? What,
if the chain which should connect its ministers with the original ordination of
the apostles should have been, in any instance, broken ? Is there any sacra ■ mental
virtue transmitted from one qualified hand to another, and only thus
transmissible? And, would the members of any Christian community forfeit the
blessings of the Christian covenant, if the officiating minister should be one
in whose apostolic pedigree there should be this blot, whether known or
unknown? Such a dogma is surely not only unsupported by Scripture, but is at
variance with the spirit of our Gospel institution. The difficulty, not to say
impossibility, of assuring ourselves that the succession is pure in any
individual ease, would make the condition of every Christian one of unavoidable
uncertainty about a matter essential to his salvation. Who could trace this
connexion between any clergyman of the present day and an apostle, and prove
that there has never intervened any flaw of ordination or of persons qualified
to ordain ? Those w'ho maintain *his doctrine seem to be (to adopt the words of
an eminent writer73) “ confounding together the unbroken apostolical
succession of a Christian ministry generally, and the same succession in an
unbroken line, of this or that individual minister. The existence of such an
order of men as Christian ministers, continuously from the time of the apostles
to this day, is perhaps as complete a moral certainty as any historical fact
can be; because (independently of the various incidental notices by historians,
of such a class of persons) it is plain that if, jit the present day, or a
century ago, or ten centuries ago, a number of men had appeared in the world,
professing (as our clergy do) to hold a recognised office in a Christian
Church, to which they had been regularly appointed as successors to others,
whose predecessors, in like manner, had held the same, and so on, from the
times of the apostles—if, I say, such a pretence had been put forth by a set of
men assuming an office which no one had ever | heard of before, it is plain
that they would at once have been refuted md exposed. And as this will apply
equally to each successive generation of Christian ministers till wo come up to
the time when ’lie institution was confessedly new, that is, to the time when
Christian ministers were appointed by the apostles, who professed thern-
73
Arelibisllop AVhatelj ’s Kingdom of Christ, p. 222.
sriva*
eye-witnesses of the resurrection, we have (as Leslie has remarked74)
a standing monument, in the Christian ministry, of the fact of that event as
having heen proclaimed immediately after the time when it was said to have
occurred. This, therefore, is fairly brought forward as an evidence of its
truth.
“ But if
each man’s Christian hope is made to rest on bis recei\ ing the Christian
ordinances at the hands of a minister to whom the sacramental virtue that gives
efficacy to those ordinances, has been transmitted in unbroken succession from
band to hand, every thing must depend on that particular minister; and his
claim is by no means established from our merely establishing the uninterrupted
existence of such a class of men as Christian ministers. ‘ You teach me,’ a
man blight say, ‘ that my salvation depends 011 the possession, by you—the
particular pans Cor under whom I am placed—of a certain qualification ; and
when I ask for the proof that 3'ou possess it, you prove to me that it is
possessed generally by a certain class of persons of whom you are one, and
probably by a large majority of them! ’ How ridiculous it would be thought, if
a man laying claim to the throne of some country should attempt to establish it
without producing ami proving his own pedigree, merely by showing that that
country had. always been under hereditary regal government!”
Propagation of tiie Faith by Missionaries.
Bishops,
priests, and deacons, thru, were the regular and appointed agents of every
Church, for dispensing the contents of the sacred record amongst its members;
each according to his office.' It was one great purpose for which the Church
was founded, to din-j pense the truths so intrusted to it; and the institution
of these* orders was one of the principal means employed for accomplishing this
object. But this duty of the Church and of its nfnisters, would have been very
imperfectly, and (if one may say so) unconstitutionally performed, if their
labours had been limited to their respective societies, or to Christians only.
One of the marks set on the new Church of God. to distinguish it from his
former holy peo- rnivcrsality pie, was, its universality. Directly opposed to
the principle 011 ifosrti which the Jewish polity was instituted—a principle,
namely, of dispensation, separation, guarded by a fence-work so intricate and
elaborate, that it could never have afforded & free admission to the great
mass of mankind—directly opposed to this, was the precept of the Gospel, “Go
forth into all lands, and preach the Gospel to every creature." What
was, perhaps, more effectual, too, than formal precept, was the genius and
character of the institution. The separation of the Divine worship from any one
temple, or local point of association; the substitution of principles, on whiffc
sacred societies may be formed to any extent and number, instead of the
establishment of
7* Short
Method with Deists.
any one
society; tiie removal of all necessary ordinances connected with the customs of
any one people, or the peculiarities of any one climate, or country; all
qualified the new dispensation for a universal one. On those, then, who were
intrusted with the New Testament, the duty of promoting this object by all
legitimate means, was impressed, as "rell by the character of that holy
deposit, as by the special precepts it conveyed to them. Even complete success
was promised at some indefinite period, to animate the efforts of every age;
which, without the assurance of prophecy, might still seem, in the ordinary
course of Providence, never likely to be fully successful.
It is in
the character of propagators of the new faith, that the Kince thj inspired
teachers of the Word are chiefly presented to our view in holy writ; as it was,
indeed, their chief characteristic, But the duty of sustaining the same
character, (as did all ministerial duties,) devolved on their uninspired
successors. The ministers of the primitive Church were not ouly employed in
teaching at home; but were sent abroad to plant the faith, and to give freely
that gift which they had freely received.
Concerning
the personal labours of these early missionaries there Caution is much fable,
and no means of separating from it whatever may be thePul!torv true.
On the whole, it is, no doubt, better for us, that we should ofMissiona
only know their history by its results; lest, in our admiration for the saints
and martyrs of Christ, we should forget to give the glory to God. In no case is
this temptation more strongly felt, than in contemplating the adventurous
course of a missionary. Even although he may perform no “ signs” and “
wonders,” he seems to disturb the established course of the world. Ancient
prejudices, national habits and institutions, fall before him; the very
passions of men seem to be cast out by his word; and his work itself looks, in
every age, the result of miracle.
Much, too,
of what is recorded conccrning the planting of the primitive Churches, has been
vitiated through the ambition of every Church, at some period, to refer its
origin to an apostle ; or, at least, to one especially appointed for its
establishment by an apostle.
Hence,
doubtless, many of the worthy successors of God’s inspired servants have been
robbed of that grateful tribute, which posterity would still gladly pay to
tlieir zeal and fidelity in the cause of the Gospel; and a general statement
only remains to be given, of what may be considered as the undistinguishable
labours of the inspired md uninspired in the primitive Church ; undistinguishable,
I mean, beyond what clue is afforded by Scripture.
A similar
rivalry amoiig the different parts of every Christian ■ountry, of
Europe especially, to be foremost, or among the first,
■vho were
elected and called, renders it no less difficult to ascertain he precise places
wherein the Word was early planted; even in 'ountries concerning which the most
certain testimony is preserved, hat they were visited and partially
enlightened.
Their
pro,jrcsi.
Greece,
Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Great Britain, and many other parts of Europe,
have each some authority to truce their Jirst conversion to apostles, or tlicir
immediate successors. The labours of St. I’aul and St. l’eter at Rome, give
much reason for supposing, that throughout Italy Christianity soon found
converts; and, that tho settlement of a Church in Spain was contemplated at
least by St. Faul, long before his death, bis own words bear testimony. 75
Macedonia and Greece, and the reception which the Gospel bad met with there,
under St. Paul’s ministry, need not be mentioned. In Asia, too, we trace its
progress on inspired authority from Judaea to Syria, and from Syria through
Asia Minor. IIow far the labours of Paul, Barnabas, and their attendants, were
followed up by those who, inspired or uninspired, strove to tread in their
steps, we may judge from the accounts of Irena'us '6 aud Tertullian,77
both writers of the second century, and both asserting that Christ was by that
t’me worshipped throughout the East. Even to India, indeed, his name and
worship must have already penetrated, if Eusebius be correct in stating, that
Pantenus found there a copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel, which was reported to have
been left by St. Bartholomew.78 If we turn our eye to the condition
of Africa in those times, it would be hardly too much to assert, that it must
even at that period have numbered amongst its believers, whether colonists or
aboriginals, more than it can boast after the long interval of 1800 years.7"
Alexandria in Egypt was sure to imbibe and to communicate every new system
which appeared in the world ; and the constant intercourse which it maintained
with Jerusalem, and also with Cyprus, the native island of Barnabas, will
readily aeeount for the early and strong interest felt there in the new
religion ; and could not hut produce zealous efforts to propagate its
doctrines throughout Egypt, and the more enlightened parts of Africa. And,
perhaps, monuments of their labours might at this day have remained, under
God’s blessing, by which, compared with our own, we might have estimated the
effect of time arJ different circumstances on Churches so differently situated,
while those who now sit in darkness might have been themselves tho agents of
enlightening others, bad the Gospel(
*5
See Romans xv. 24, 28.
Iren»i
adversus Hseres. Lib. IV.
C. 67.
77
TertuIlian, adv. Judceos, C. 7.
73 Eusebii Hist. Ecc. Lib. V. C. 10.
Mosheim
supposes, that Eusebius meant this not of the Indians, but of certain Jews, who
were inhabitants of Arabia Felix. (See Ecc. Hist. Vol. I. p. 149.)
This
certainly is not implied. Eusebius only states, that the book was written in
Hebrew; and it might possibly, therefore, have been a copy, not originallv
designed for the Indians, but left with them by their apostolic missionary, be
cause he
had none in their own language. Or, it is very conceivable, that it mijdit have
been even an Indian translation made by Bartholomew for their use, and written
by him in Hebrew characters, (which they would easily learn,) because more
familiar and more readily used by him. T.he Greek is *££{«/
rrj rev
79 By the
end of the second century the proportion of Christians in Carthage was so
great, tha,t Tertu Ilian speaks of them as constituting one-tenth of the whole
number of inhabitants. “ Quid ipsa Carthago passura est 1 decimanda a te.M—
Ad Scapulam.
been
preached in apostolic purity. But Christianity suffered a corruption in Egypt,
more cruel than did the Israelitish taith of olii.
It went forth
from Alexandria adulterated with vain philosophy of every kind; and the worship
of the one true God was again converted into a polytheism, the more dangerous,
because no longer gross, sensible, and palpable in its absurdity, but subtle,
spiritual, philosophical.80
It would
be vain to inquire into the various steps, by which Christianity maintained its
struggle with the powers of this world, and either gained or lost ground in
these several countries, much more to attempt its history in each separate church
or city; but there are some Churches, the fate of which has been so much more
closely connected than the rest with ell Christian societies in all ages, that
any notices which mnv be gleaned of their primitive condition may not be
unnacceptable. Jerusalem is, of course, one of these.
TITE
CHURCH AT JERUSALEM.
The
history of the Church at Jerusalem, until the death of its St. Jame». first
bishop St. James, is no further known, than from the scriptural record. On the
martyrdom of that apostle, Symeon, the son of Sjmeon. Cleopas, and, as has been
asserted, one of the seventy disciples of our Lord, was appointed in his room.
The importance of the see may be conjectured, from the anxiety of the whole
Christian world about the succession. Apostles, and other eminent men, among
their coadjutors, were present at the election, and aiding by their advice.81
In this, and in other instances, wa may recognise the Effect of the operation
of the most unqualified faith in the fulfilment of the relative t? Christian
prophecies.83 The period was at hand, when our Lord’s *j'"*tructjon
mournful prediction, respecting the fate of Jerusalem and its blinded of
people, was known to be approaching to its accomplishment.83 The Jer,is‘lk!n-
risk and distress to which even his followers would be exposed, had been
foretold in no equivocal terms. On the appearance of the fatal ensign of
desolation, tlieir flight was to be instantaneous, whatever sacrifice it might
require. The dissolution of the nearest connexions which existed between the
believer and the friends or kindred who yet held back or wavered, was to be
awfully abrupt.
Even the
positive wo, announced to those who should be “ with :hi)d, or give suck, in
those days,” can scarcely be applied to the lews alone; but accords with the
closing assertion, that unless those Matt.xxh. lays should be shortened, there
should no flesh be saved ; and that |^r)l ^ hey were shortened for
the elect’s sake.
05 Consult
Cave’s “ Life of Justin Mar- lem, as a provision against a predicted TJyr,” whose
remains, as well as those of famine.—See Acts xi. 27—30.
L Jrigen,
abound in Platonism. 83
Besides the prophetic signs given, it
was
expressly declared, This generation shall not pass away, until all these things
A similar instance, is the collection he fulfilled.”—Matt. xxiv. 34; Mark xiii.
Euseb.
Hist. Lib. III. C. 11.
A similar
instance, is the eo.
lade for
the poor Christians of Jerusa- 30; Luke xxi. 32.
The solemn
suspense, with which the whole Christian world looked on, from one prophetic sign
to another, for the consummation of this scene of sorrows, must have, been more
intense than that which is said to seize on the minds of men, when the first
shock of an earthquake awakens an anticipation of a second and that of ii
third. In the mortal and visible agents which were at work, producing the
catastrophe, they saw the slow appearing sign of the Son of man iu heaven. But
the faith that made them tremble, made them proportionality resolute to abide
in Jerusalem, and to wait for the signal of their departure. Under the
superintendence of the mild and conciliating St. James, the most prudent human
measures were likely to co-operate with the promised aid of heaven. But, in the
midst of his exemplary course, they beheld him fall a martyr to the bigotry of
the Jews, and the Church hi Jerusalem obliged sud- j denly to appoint another
bishop. Hence the general interest which was felt in Symeon's election.
Between
the appointment of Symeon, and the war which ended in | the destruction of the
holy city, the affairs of the Church were probably conducted with a prudence
which did not disappoint the Christians ; for, in the interval, we hear of no
further attempts against the peace of the believers, nor of any internal
dissensions.
It was
during the reign of Nero, that hope long deferred embold- DanMix.M. cued the
Jews to revolt. The seventy weeks 01 Daniel had been long fulfilled; and while
they obstinately rejected the claims of a spiritual Messiah, they as
obstinately clung to the hope of a temporal deliverer. Up to the time now
mentioned, they patiently and sullenly endured all oppression, in the daily
expectation, that their avenger would appear descending from the clouds of
heaven. So violent, however, had their sense of wrongs become, and so rancorous
their suppressed hatred to the Romans, that on the tirst signal the whole of
Judfta wa3 in a state of determined rebellion.
As the
accomplishment of our Saviour’s prediction drew nearer, the signs of the end of
the Jewish polity hud been discerned, and have been recorded even by
unbelievers. But the trial of the Matt, .\xiv. believer’s faith, was to wait
for the last sign, which, humanly \ilrkxiii ii- speaking, was to put it out of
his power to escape. Not until the Luktxxiao. Iioman standard, “the abomination
of desolation,” was brought to the siege of Jerusalem, and the holy city was “
encompassed by armies,'’ did the Church quit it. Before the formidable
character of the rebellion was known, Cestius Gallus, the governor of Syria,
marched with the united forces of his province against the capital, not
doubting that the revolt ould thus be at onee suppressed; and being forced to
raise the siege, and retire, a respite was given, Thp whereby the Christians were providentially and signally left au
withdraw*
opportunity for escape. Tlicir city of refuge was Pella, which, from the being
occupied by Gentiles, escaped the fury of the conquerors;
and here,
during ail the horrors of the war, and the subsequent miseries which resulted
from it, they remained in perfect security.
Not a hair
of their heads perished. Luke XXL
In the
third year of the war, (a.d. 70,) Vespasian, who had been appointed by Nero to
conduct it, left his station for Egypt, in order to secure support in his
attempt to wrest the imperial dignity from Vitellius. He had already advanced
into Galilee, burnt Gadara, and razed Jotapata, (whore Josephus, the historian,
was taken prisoner,) and was preparing to march against Jerusalem, when the
prospect of obtaining the empire induced him to leave to his son Titus the
completion of his plans. Under his command, the Roman army its cap sure
invested the holy city; and after a siege of five months, marked by b/ lUb'
scenes of horror which would be incredible did we not connect them with the
peculiar temper of the Jewish nation, Jerusalem was taken, sacked, and levelled
with the earth.
Only
enough was left standing, to form quarters for a garrison, or to be a monument
of the greatness of the city subdued. Its temple, which was then left without,
one stone upon another, has never yet been rebuilt; Julian tried to restore it,
and failed. Will the Jews,—will any future Antichrist, be ever bold enough to
renew the experiment?
As soon as
the terrors of war were past, the Christian Church The of Jerusalem returned to
the desolate city; and took up its abode ?eturn!ans
amidst its ruins. Here :t existed until the final and utter destruction by
Hadrian, who in the early part of his reign had rebuilt it, and called it
JElia.
Long
before this latter event, the good Symeon had suffered mar- Martyrdom tyrdom,
having been permitted to preside over this first Christian ° S)rae011-
Church, in its most trying season, for more than forty years; “God probably
lengthening out his life,” to use the words of a pious and learned man,*'
“that, as a skilful and faithful pilot, he might steer and conduct the affairs
of the Church in those dismal and stormy days.” Eusebius states, that lie was
put to death on information laid against him, that he was of the family of
David. This, if true, btrongly marks the impression made on the minds of the
Komans, that the Jews were so convinced of the truth of the Messiah’s time
being come, as to make it unsafe to leave even the mild and aged Symeon amongst
them, lest they should take him by force, and make him a king.
THE CHURCH
AT HOME.
It
requires some effort of imagination, to represent to ourselves, Causes of truly
anu fully, the feeling wiili which the imperial city was regarded sipreniicyd
throughout the world, in the first ages of Christianity. It was not ^ only the
greatest, the leading city of the universe; for in thi3 point ur°
81 Cave,
in Lis Life of tit. Symeon.
of view,
the influence of every association whjeh flowed from it, might find a
counterpart in the awe and admiration excited by turns for the capital of the
Spanish, the French, or the British empires: but its character was distinct and
supreme;—it stood alone, the ono abode of authority and rule, to which all
other places had contracted ft relation of dependence and subjection. That the
Church established there should, from the ordinary results of association,
acquire a more august and dignified character, than similar societies elsewhere
established, seems almost unavoidable. As it gradually numbered amongst its
members more and more of those vho held rank and influence in this great centre
of worldly veneration, the principle of association would of course operate
more strongly still. But when the Emperor himself, not only became enrolled
among its members, but promoted the cause of Christ throughout the world, by
the actual protection and patronage of the imperial government, any distinction
of respect, unanimously conceded to that Christian body, through which, in the
first instance, all these privileges and favours flowed, need not surprise us.
We may readily understand that this tendency to exalt the Church at Rome would
be likely to run into excess. The temptation would be twofold: in the several
Churches, to honour extravagantly, and give undue precedence, to that one which
had allied itself to a source of prosperity, of whiek
11 partook; in the Church elevated, to be
pulfed up by every suc- jessive token of respect, and to aim at a still higher
elevation ; and, as the origin and history of its original equality became less
familiar tnd less clearly to be ascertained, to claim, as legalized rights,
those, titles and that precedence which accident and custom had created. Such
was the condition of the Church at Rome, in its progress from that primitive
age, when it dwelt in equality and unity with its brethren, to the period at
which it began to search, in Scripture and in legend, for the title-deeds to a
supremacy, which courtesy and custom had unthinkingly established. On the
transfer of the seat of empire from Rome to Constantinople, it was first
awakened to the uncertain tenure of those rights, which it had so long enjoyed,
not indeed without question, but with security'. It had set an example of
temporal ambition, which could not but prove attractive to those who ministered
to that ambition; and the Church of Constantinople, accordingly, claimed for
itself a share of that rank, which, if rightly paid to its sister at Rome,
while Rome was the imperial city, clearly now was due to that Church which
occupied the corresponding station. Constantinople, as her Church represented,
was '‘the new Rome,” the young heir of Italian Rome’s greatness; and, as such,
she desired a participation at least of her rank and influence. Ilence the
diligence which even from the first the Church of Rome has displayed, in
casting a shade over the origin of its greatness, and endeavouring to account
for it on scriptural authority, howev er palpably insuliicient. This has been,
ever since, its method of defence;
and its
purpose is partly answered, whenever the attention is thus decoyed from the
real quarter, in which all its worldly grandeur was nestled and hatched.
It is with
pleasure, therefore, that we look hack on a period, when even at Rome the
Church of Christ was only spiritual, her highast character, that of trustee of
the record of revelation, and the first ambition of her bishops, to he
dispensers of revealed truth, ministers of the word, or martyrs for its sake.
It is not
the least striking evidence of the correctness of this Barrenness view of the
Church of Rome, that peculiar as its condition was, in °eCord|.arIj
the seat of empire, its authentic records are as barren as those of the more
remote and obscure Churches. Even the exact order of succession among the first
three bishops, has furnished matter for elaborate controversy, a fact, which
would of itself be subversive of the claim to any peculiar rights, founded on a
regular succession of bishops from St. Peter. Such a lineal descent would
surely have had a record, as accurately preserved by the care of Providence,
for the satisfaction cf the Christian Chureh, as was the lineage of David, for
that of God’s former people. Iu the early bishops, as successors of St. Peter
too, we should expect a record of authority exercised, to illustrate the right
vested in them.
The
probability that St. Peter and St. Paul were joint founders Pr
t»buitj of this important Church, (or rather, superintendents of the work,
existence of for the Church had its beginning in Rome before either apostle had
churches at visited it,) the former taking the apostleship to the Jews, the
latter, Kuim. that to the Gentile portion, has been already noticed. It has
been further conjectured by some, that this division continued long after the
decease of the two apostles; and that thus we are to account for the otherwise
contradictory statements, on the one hand, that Clement was the third in the
list of bishops, on the other, that he was ordained by St. Peter, to take
charge of the Church, when his own martyrdom was at hand. This is, indeed, to
suppose the existence of two Churches originally at Rome; the one governed by
Linus, whom St. Paul appointed, and by his successor Ana- '-‘cletus, or Cletus;
the other by Clement, who survived, and united both under one bishop. Undoubtedly,
such an arrangement would never have been made but under peculiar and pressing
circumstances, as one main feature in the Christian scheme was union of Jew and
Gentile in the common bond of the Gospel. But as it is little, less than
certain, that during the ministry of the two apostles, such unity was not
effected, the two parties may possibly have thus continued distinct, until an
opportunity was afforded for their union.
This
appears to have occurred during Clement’s bishopric ; and it not a little coincides
with this view, that the only genuine work of bis which remains, is wholly
occupied with the subject of unity and Christian love, as the highest
characteristic of a Church. If this view, which is sanctioned by the learned
Cave, and is, perhaps, the
only one
that reconciles the statements of history, he admitted, tLe list of early
bishops Wljl stand thus: “
For the
Gentile portion: Linus, and Cletus, or Anaeletus.
For the
Jewish portion: Clement.
For the
whole reunited: Clement.
Epistle of
The Epistle to which I allude, must have been written after this > l.ment. un;011
took place; for, although it is called an Epistle of Clement, yet it is really
on Epistle from the Church at Rome to the. Church of Corinth ; and the
strict,intimacy which subsisted between these two Churches, and which amply
accounts for such an Epistle having been written, was probably through the
Gentiles, rather than through the Jewish converts. For it is to be remembered,
that their link of union was St. Paul, who at Corinth lirst met with .Aquila
and Priscilla. To his residence at Corinth, they doubtless traced the first
interest which he took in their conversion; and it is more than probable, that
that interest would be shared by the Corinthians themselves, and be the
foundation of a lasting intimacy. That such an intimacy did subsist between
these two Churches may be proved from an Epistle, written bv Dionysius, bishop
of Corinth, to the Church of Rome, towards the end of the second century; part
of which is preserved by Eusebius, (Lib. IV. C. 23;) and may further account
for what is there noticed, that the above-mentioned Epistle of Clement used to
be read at Corinth as a portion of the Disprove Church service. This Epistle,
then, is an interesting monument of the a^m'ission °r peculiar
connexion between the two Churches. It is not the decree of ny of a superior to
ail inferior body of Christians, but the affectionate su, -t-.iaey. renions(ranee
0f frieil(ls and fellow-ehristians on the renewal
of those schisms at Corinth, which had before called for the interference of
St. Paul. The Church of Rome reminds them (C. 47) of their common apostle’s
authority und advice, as still preserved in those Epistles; and, as if careful
not to offend by appearing to assume anv authority over them, by this act of
friendly interference, accompanies all its advice with expressions like these;
“ Beloved, in this Epistle we are not only suggesting advice to you, but
refreshing our own minds with our duty ; for our station is the same, and the
same our course of duty.” “ Beloved, the custom we adopt of reproving one
another is excellent, and beyond measure useful; for it unites us to the will
of God;” and it concludes with nothing stronger than an anxious wish that the
messengers may bring back ail account of that liarmcny which they so desired
and prayed for. Is it likely that the Church of Rome or its bishop, would have
65 More than
one instance will be found, made bv the
Catholic bishops of Africa
subsequently
recorded in ecclesiastical to the
Donatists, in the conference be-
history,
of schisms being ended by the tween
them at Carthage; and from the
temporary
appointment of two bishops, way in
which it was proposed, it would
ISee in
Theouoret (Lib. V. C. 3,) the pro- seem
to have been, at that time, no un-
nosal of
Melit-us, bishop of Antioch, to usual
expedient. “Nec norum aliquid
Paulinus,
to settle the opposition between fiet,”
&c.—Collat. Carthag. Cognito 1.
them in
this manner. 1 he same offer was Sec.
16. Labbuei Concil. Tom. II. p. 13£2.
neglected
to mingle salutary threats of punishment and hints of a superintending
authority with its exhortations, as St. Paul did in his Epistles; if either
Church or bishop had then possessed apostolical control or superintendence
over other Churches? Indeed, if such an authority had been vested in the Church
of Rome, it is impassible that no more should be left on record of its
intercourse with the other primitive Churches, in a season which, above all
others, seemed to require the active superintendence of a common Head, if any
there were on earth.
Subsequently
to the writing of this Epistle, all, perhaps, that deserves notice concerning
the state of affairs at Rome, is the Epistle which Ignatius addressed to them,
in his journey thither as a con- soaisott.e demned martyr. This Epistle, 110
less than the former, although in a different way, confirms the protestant’s
assertion, that all Churches are independent of Rome and the Romish bishop.
Ignatius writes to them in the same independent tone which appears in his
Epistles to other Churches; and, in one place particularly, speaks of the joint
founders of that Church, in a way which is certainly inconsistent with the
view of their successors being invested with a similar character. lie had been
desiring their prayers for him in his approaching trial; and lie adds, “ I do
not command you as if I were Peter or Paul; they wore apostles.” Would he, who
of all writers, ancient or modern, most 'nsists on the authority of the
Christian ministry, in all its gradations, have neglected here to remind the
Romans of the character of their bishop, if it were different from his own ?
Could he have failed to allude to the infallible authority that still abode
with them, if there were any, since that of Peter and Paul?
The author
of this Epistle soon after suffered martyrdom in the object of Coliseum at
Rome; and the chief object of sending the Epistle thatEplsl&
before him, appears to have been to prevent any rash attempt on the part of the
Christians there to rescue him. Any turbulent or disobedient spirit, which
might have been thus displayed in the capital of the empire, would of course
have been tenfold more dangerous
I to the
furtherance of the Gospel, in awakening the suspicions of the Gentile
government, than any thing which might take place elsewhere. The Epistle was
admirably adapted to accomplish this; and the warm expressions which it
contains, concerning the jcys of
i!
martyrdom, will not seem unnatural and extravagant, if regarded with this view.
A cold appeal to the prudence of his brethren at Rome would, with the strong
excitement of feeling which his case produced amongst them, have been scarcely
listened to. To desert the holy man from prudential motives, might have seemed
to them mean and dastardly. It was requisite to represent the fate that
threatened him, as not only good and glorious, but absolutely pleasurable.
This is the spirit of all Ignatius’s Epistles, but most of all, of that in
which it was most needed.
Its
corruption.
Ills
remonstrance was, perhaps, not misplaced; for the fact, that his remains were
gathered up, as if from a melancholy effort to find some safe wav of testifying
their regard, seem? to indicate., that unless precaution had been used, some
imprudent attempt to rescue him might have been made.
THE
enrRt'H AT ALEXANDRIA.
To these
notices of the primitive Churches of Jerusalem and Rome, it would be desirable
to add some account of the Church of Alexandria: as its influence on the
character of the Christian world was certainly not less than that of either of
the preceding. Rut it would be impossible to introduce such a history of it, as
would be at once useful, and compatible with the seheme of this inquiry. At the
same time, it may not be improper to remind the reader, of the several
allusions which have been already made to the corrupt tendency of this Church
from the earliest times; and to state briefly, that out “ of the false
knowledge” cultivated here, proceeded directly, or indirectly, nearly all the
heresies of the first ages.*18 To this day, indeed, remains may be
traced in the Christian world, of the false and fatal notions which took their
rise in Alexandria; and Christians and divines have not yet ceased to lind
Christianity in riato, and to regard his metaphysical speculations on the
nature of the Deity, as glimpses of revelation; or at least, as anticipations
of Divine truths, which they know not how to attribute to mere human ingenuity.
And it must be confessed, that some of the metaphysical views, which, from time
to time, have been taken of the doctrine of the Trinity, display a coincidence
with Plato’s sv^stem, too minutely exact to have been accidental. To one who
adopts them, the conclusion must be unavoidable, that either Plato’s knowledge
was derived from inspiration, or that Christianity was derived from Plato. But
we “ have not so learned Christ.’’
SCHOOLS,
CATE£inSTS, AND CATECHISMS.
We are
contemplating the primitive Church in the performance of its office of
dispensing the revelation recorded and intrusted to its keeping; and we have
seen it, w itli this object in view, interweaving the holy Scriptures into the
stated service of God; main-
Melancthon’s
assertion, that all the Origen’s
Platonism may be found in
early
Fathers were more or less infected Pagan
in us Gaudentius, “ De Com para-
with
Platonism, is not without some foun- tione
dogmaturn Origeuis cum philoso- 1
dation. “
Statim post Keclesia? auspicia, phia
Platonis.” Mr. Daille, in bis
per
Platonicam Philosophiam Christiana severe
censure, of the Fathers, has avow-
iloctrina
labefactata est. Ita factum est, cdly
spared Origen, from a feeling, it
ut,
praeter cartonicas Scripturas, nullae would
seem, that those who have exposed I
sint in
Ecclesia sinoercc liter*. Kedolet his
errors, were themselves infected with
phitosophiam
quicquid omninoeommen- the like; “ neque
dissimulandum est, eos
tariorum
extat.5’—De libero arbitrio, qui
ad versus Origenemscripserunt, non
inter
Locos Communes. Mosheim arrives tuisse in
his disputationibus tanta felici-
11 early
at the same conclusion in his tate versa
tos, ut, dum hujus errores
“ Dissertatio de turbata per recentiores oppugnant,
in nullos ipsi occurrermt.;,
Platonicos
Ecclesia.” An exposure of —De vero Usu
Pairum, p. £65.
taining a
separate order of men for officiating, and for interpreting, as well as for
reading this record; and also employing them in offering the truths it contains
to strangers and the heathen, as well as to the brethren.
But the
Church’s trusteeship was, to a certain extent, discretionary. Its first duty
was thus to afford to all, access to the Word of God, as God gave it; its next,
to resort to every method of communicating that Word, which should render it
in each case most intelligible or acceptable. The unconverted would require to
be addressed in a different form from the Christian already instructed; and,
among both converted and unconverted, there would exist an endless variety of
intellectual habits and capacities, which would require the truths of the
Gospel to he shaped accordingly.
The great
tody of those, then, to whom Gospel truths were addressed, are commonly divided
into two classes; the catechumens, or those who were nreparing by an appointed
course of instruction for baptism; and the jiddes (xre-roi,) or complete Christians
With
respect to the latter, the Gospel truths were dispensed, not m >de of only
as they were found in Scripture, but systematically arranged |h|truetln<?
in Sermons, in Creeds, and in other formulas of religious instruction.
For the
purpose of conveying scriptural truth by these channels, either more
compendiously, or more in accordance with tho previous knowledge or general
pursuits of those addressed, technical terms were introduced ; which, although
not occurring in Scripture, might represent certain doctrines contained there.
The word Trinity may serve to illustrate what is here meant.
The duties
of catechist, or instructor of these catechumens, The _ appear to have been
discharged occasionally by all the orders of the C'atl‘chl',fl-
ministry, from the bishop to the lowest deacon. To avoid scandal, i the female
catechumens were generally taught by that ancient order, the deaconesses, or
widows; of which mention has been formerly The I made, and of whose original
appointment this was probably the main SS|
s-
treason.*7
The
candidates for baptism went through a course of instruction The first !• suited
to each; but in what their catechism generally consisted, wc probably know no
further than that the sum of it was repentance and faith.
In what it
would naturally consist, as contrasted with the after instruction of the mature
Christian, is a question on which it is not difficult to decide. The original
and primary character of the Gospel scheme is historical; and the first office
of its original preachers, accordingly, that of witnesses to facts. An
historical iiccourt of the events of the sacred record would therefore seem,
87 See
Bingham’s Eccl. Antiq. Book among the
qualifications of a deaconess,
II. Ch.
XXII. Sec. 9. Agreeably to Utpossit
aptoetsano sermone docere
I this
view, the African Churches, in the imperitas
et rustieas mulieres,” &c. lecree of the Council of Carthage, specify
Advantages
of sue’) a method.
Children.
•Schools.
almost
certainly, to bo the appropriate instruction of the catechumen, if we Lad no
clue to guide us beyond the character of the subject to be handled. But this
presumption is greatly increased, by comparing it w ith wliat actually did
take place during the apostolic ministry, in the few instances on record of
what approaches nearest to catechetical instruction—the. preaching of the
apostles and others to an unconverted audience. In St. Paul’s address to the
Jews at Jerusalem, and to the Gentiles at Athens, his teaching is strictly of
this character; and tlmt this did not arise from any peculiar habit of
composition, is evident from bis Epistles, in which quite a different method is
pursued. The point has been thought thus much worthy of notice, because it is
not unreasonable to believe, that if the custom of so teaching Christianity to
the young and the unlearned, were more common, the abstract truths would be
more easily and naturally understood, afterwards. Whereas, to begin with these,
gives the whole an abstruse and unattractive air to most; and ereates a
difficulty, in that study whiah was intended for the humblest capacities.
Separate
establishments existed for the children of Christians and for the adult
catechumens, as might naturally be expected; ar.d the early use of sponsors
marks the anxious care of the Church, that provision should be made for
preventing in all eases a mere conformity to custom.
Vi >th
regard to the places in which the catechumens received their education and
training, although these seem to have been in some instances separate and
appropriate, yet in others, the Chureh, or some part of it, was appointed for
this purpose.83
It is
scarcely possible to pursue, even in imagination, the stages which connect all
these simple seminaries of elementary religion with those splendid and
elaborate institutions, iu which religion and useful learning are now united;
and which are among the most powerful instruments employed, by our own Chureh
especially, for clisDtusinsr the faith which she has in keeping.
81 Bingham, Bi»k III. Ch. X. Sec. 4.
llow the
First Uninspired Church fulfili ed its office of conveying DIVINE GRACE.
Of the sacred character of the Christian society, considered
as the Temple of the Holy Ghost, and the appointed medium of its operations, it
is scarcely possible to speak in language too strong.
No peculiarity
of the New Testament is more striking, than the continual and anxious endeavour
of ths sacred writers to awaken and cherish a sense of it. As portions of this
holy building, as members of this society beloved of God, the Christians
received from their Lord his one new commandment, “ to love one another.”
JnhnxHi.34; All the zeal of the great Apostle of the Gentiles to teach and
preach 12, and enlarge this society, was at the same time directed
towards obtaining from every Church an acknowledgment and testimony of this, in
the specific pledge of alms for the needy brethren of Judaea.
St. John’s
favourite theme is this holy love; and if more of the inspired preachers had
left their teaching on record, this, doubtless, would have been a characteristic
prominent in all their writings.
It was a
high and holy office which the Church had to execute Sacramental m preserving
inviolate ths recorded revelation: it -was a duty no cbvlrchfthe
less honourable and anxious, which it was appointed to discharge, Minsters, in
dispensing this intrusted blessing, so that mankind should receive the greatest
possible benefit from it. But higher and holier, perhaps, was this its
priestly office—its sacramcntal character—its duty of perpetually communicating
to new countries and successive generations, the gift which it immediately
received from Christ, and of which it was the appointed medium for ever. The
acts which constituted these means were, of course, tw be the essential badges
of the society; and without them that society might have preserved the Bible,
and distributed its contents, but would not have been a Christian Church. What
these means arc, all know.
They are
all those outward observances in which Christians meet to eelebrate their whole
spiritual communion with Christ and with each other ; but especially those
which are distinguished bv specific Divine institution—tlio sacraments, of
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Not that
to them alone belongs a sacramental character; for it is evident, that if only
these observances were perpetuated, the
wt,j grace
of God, which is promised to prayer, for instance, would thePLo?d"*nd
"'0Ilt ll]c external sign, and would not therefore
he enjoyed. Baptism and the Eucharist are specifically sacraments, because the
sieramenu. precise form in each is' to a certain extent prescribed; and,
therefore, the communication of grace is attached to one unalterable cere- M»it
iTiti monial. But if, according to our Saviour’s promise, “ Where two or three
are gathered together, there lie is in the midst,” all the religious meetings
nf Christians are means of grace ; the Church itself, in the celebration of its
union as the temple of the Holy Ghost, is sacramental. Xo specific form, beyond
the necessary parts of Baptism aud the Lord’s Supper, claim this character; but
then, there is a grace generally necessary to salvation appointed to be
conveyed through prayer and other observances, although the exact description
of these observances he left to the discretion of the Church.
What is
now to be considered, therefore, is the mode in which the primitive Chureh
celebrated these rites aud ceremonies.
CHRISTIAN
RITES.
Ttiei The rites and observances of the Chureh may be
classed under a
distribution.
tw0f0y c]iv;s;on ;
the one part of which would contain those through which Divine grace is
conveyed to individuals, as such, or as filling individual offices. Of which
kind are the ceremonies of Ordination, Confirmation, <fce. The other
portion, under which the Sacraments would fall, comprises those which relate to
Christian? in their common Christian character. Besides the Sacraments, are
the Public Prayers, the Marriage and Funeral ceremonies, and the like. Both
classes have been stated to be modes of intercourse with Him who has promised
to be in the midst of us, whenever two or three are assembled together as his
people. So far the ceremonies of the Church are all of the same character, and,
as means of promised ah but grace, are so far sacramental But, in a further view,
an important sacrfunpnts distinction occurs. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are
fixed insti- in tutions. and grace is attached to the observance of these
specific means: m the others, the means are of the Church's appointment, and
the grace bestowed, although requiring some means, is yet not specifically
attached to any.
But
another difference obtains, which, although not quite so obvious, is scarcely
less important and characteristic. One common object is sought in all these
acts of Christian celebration—communion with Christ, participation of his
Spirit. But we are not styled in Scripture individually, but collectively, the
temple of the Holy Ghost, the abode of the Spirit; and as members of that well
compacted body we receive it. Now it has been already more than once pointed
out, that Christians are not one society; but many societies founded on the
same principles. Each of these societies celebrates within itself the rites and
ceremonies which are to unite
it with
Christ, and to preserve liis Spirit among all its members Each Church,
accordingly, may lawfully observe distinct forms of prayer, and distinct modes
of appointment. It may do so, at least, to a very great extent. And as each
Christian society thus holds communion with God in its own way, so does each
member partake of that communion, as a member of his particular society or
Church.
With
respect to the Sacraments, however, the case is not exactly the so. Our act of
communion here is performed, not as members of m»»t be”** any one particular
Church, but a3 members of the great Christian body—as belonging to the elect,
the sanctified, the redeemed. The duties imposed on us by our religious
condition in this respect, may admit of illustration from the necessities
imposed on us by our natural condition. It is necessary to the wellbeing, and
to the very existence, of each separate people or association of men, that they
should use some language; although the variety of languages may be infinite,
which will effect the end desired. This is analogous to the means of grace,
not specifically, but generally required, and used by each Church in its own
w*y. Again, it is necessary to the existence of every individual of the human
race, that at certain intervals, he should recruit hi? body by sleep. Here is a
necessity, to which he conforms, not after the fashion of any one nation, not
as attached to any one society, but in obedience to an invariable and universal
law. To this answers the Christian’s duty of celebrating the Sacraments. They
are specifically appointed as means of grace, and therefore are means of grace
for all: all other ceremonies are means of grace for the members of the
particular society which adopts them.
Of course
these remarks, as far as they relate to the Sacraments, Limitation apply only
to sucli portion of those rites as is recorded to be of our thls rule
Lord’s appointment. In Baptism it is the use of water, and of the prescribed
form of words, which denotes the transfer to the baptized of all privileges
claimed by the people of God. In tho Lord’s Supper, it is the symbolical use of
the'bread and wine, and the accompaniment of the words with which our Lord
taught us to accompany it. Our inquiry, then, is into the practice of the primitive
Church with respect to the Sacraments and other Rites.
BAPTISM.
Of the
continual and invariable use of water in Baptism, by the water immediate
successors of the apostles, it may be proof enough to always ’15el1
state, that the remains of the latter end of the second and third centuries are
so unequivocal and full on the exclusive employment of the symbol, that no
doubt can be entertained of the custom never having ceased. There is a passage
in The Shepherd of Hermas, hrwever, which, to those especially who rank him
among the apostolical Fathers, may be cited as contemporary evidence. In his
Similitudes, (XIX. 1G,) he expressly speaks of the “water of bap-
And the
Invocation of the Trinity.
The object
of theae inquiries is Historical.
) Thess. t.21.
tism,' and
in his Vmom ho alludes to it under the image of tho Church flouting in a mystic
water.”9 Whether immersion only was tho mode of using this
sacramental symbol, is a question which need not detain tho inquirer, since ho
will doubtless, in conformity with certain principles already established,
perceive at once, that to such a departure from apostolic custom as may he
supposed to exist in sprinkling, rather than in immersing the candidate, the
discretionary authority of any Church clearly extends.
Not so
with respect fo the form of words, so solemnly prescrihed by Christ himself; in
strict accordance with which are all the earliest notices of the baptismal
service. Its literal adoption by the lirst uninspired Church is inferred on
grounds similar to those on which we assert the invariable use of t .e symbol
of water. It is mentioned by Tertullian and a succession of writers who lived
within too short a distance, of this period to make its intermission at all pro
bable;90 and there is a testimony perhaps still earlier, that of
the author of Clement’s Recognitions, who undoubtedly alludes to it, when he
speaks of persons “ baptized in the name of the threefold Mystery;91
and, again, of the ceremony being performed “by invoking the name of the
blessed Trinity.”82 In the Apostolical Canons an express prohibition
against departure from it is found ; which serves to mark the early attempts of
heretics and innovators to corrupt and change the words prescribed. Menander
is, perhaps, the earliest who is directly charged with this attempt, which has
been also urged against the Montanists, Sabellians, and other heretical sects.
Let it be
clearly understood, that the object of this and of similar inquiries into the
practice of the primitive Church, is not to maintain the correctness of our
Church, or of o.ny Church, the practices of which coincide with these: the
object is strictly historical; the mere statement of facts, without always
inquiring what specific use those facts inav serve. It is enough that they are
truths; and truths seldom remain long unemployed and unprofitable. As to the
practices themselves, we should be equally bound to observe them, whether the
primitive Church observed them or not, if they are enjoined by Scripture ;
equally authorized to retain them on our own Church’s authority, if not inconsistent
with Scripture principles. Tho primitive Church, in the present view of it;
is submitted to a trial on scriptural evidence, such as one generation of
fallible beings is ever Subject to from another, and such as every Christian
generation is required to institute on its predecessors; according to tho
command, “ prove all things ; hold fast that which is good. ’
It is
gratifying, doubtless, to contemplate the genuine spirit ot
85 Vis,
III. C. 3. “ Quare er^o super prian, Ep.73. August, de Baptismo, L. aquas
a;difieatur turris, audi. Quoniam VI. 0. 25, et alios. vita^
vestra per aquam salva facta est et qi
Recoffnjt. Lib. VI. C. 9.
w
Tertullian, de Baptismo, C. 13. Cy- c2 Lib. III. C. G7.
Christianity
preserved in these early times; and it even a<]<ls a natural confidence
to decisions founded on independent authority, to find those also the decisions
of that generation which -was nearest our inspired guides. Still, our inquiry
may be free and fearless.
We have
satisfactory evidence now, that in the mode of adminis- ad-
tcring the
sacrament of baptism, the first uninspired churches ful- to'personsof filled
their trust. Did they equally so in dispensing this necessary ases-
medium of God’s grace to those for whom it was designed, and by the hands of
such as were intended to officiate ? We are quite sure from the Scripture, of
an authority and duty in the Church to limit baptism to no age; did the
primitive societies of Christians act on this principle? Of this there can be
no doubt in any candid mind.
It is true
that infant baptism is not mentioned expressly by an earlier writer than J
ustin Martyr and Irena;us;03 for, although the authority of Clement
and Hermas are alleged by some learned men,
(besides
that the testimony of the latter may be disputed on other grounds,) in either,
it only amounts to the avowal of opinions, which would seem to be inconsistent
with the doctrine of the Anabaptists, and not to an express declaration. But
Justin and Irenseus wrote too early91 to leave it a question,
whether during the period between them and the apostolic age, any different
regulation existed in this respect. Certainly no allusion is made by him to the
novelty of the practice which he records. The primitive Church, like ourselves,
was bound to communicate the holy trust, and its first symbol, to every age and
sex within reach; and this it doubtless did.
Did it
also offer it, as we feel ourselves bound to do, to all degrees And all of
persons, to all ranks and nations? Xo circumstance, except want Per>,ons’
of individual preparation, appears to have formed a bar to the admission of
candidates into any of the primitive Christian societies; and, as far as that
preparation consisted in the acquisition of religious knowledge, every facility
for making it was afforded, in the establishment of schools for adults, and in
the employment of catechists.
There
were, doubtless, moral qualifications beyond this, which were who were insisted
on ; and for wrant of these, many were forbidden the Chris- Jfepwed
tian privilege. Whole classes of persons were thus excluded, on the ground that
their l^ves and occupations were inconsistent with this preparation; and with
such pictures as the heathen historians and satirists give of the imperial city,
we can hardly refuse to justify these interdictions, when we find the list
proscribed to consist of players, gladiatcrs, Arc.85 At the same
time, there is no certain
Lib. II.
C. 39. baptized, wlio at the time of his
writing J Jurtin Martyr is supposed to have wero at the advanced age of sixtj
and written his second “ Apology,” in which seventy, and thereby implies the
exis-
infant
baptism is alluded to, a.d. 148. tence 01 the custom in the apostolic age:
Irenseus^
was born about a.d. 97, and toWoi nv««< troXXa.} xa,}
■V’rote
his book against heresies a.d. 176 t^houvixovTouTxi cl lx Taziet&jy &lu.<x.QviT$vQYlo’civi
>r 177. Dodwelli Dissertat. in Irenseum, x.
r, x. A p. 11. p. 64, i, 4. Justin’s testimony is the more important, because
he speaks of persons so 95
See Tacitus and Juvenal, passim.
H. S
By
Ministers
regularly
ordained.
Bread and
W ine
always
used.
evidence
that even this rule was commenced so early as the age of the apostolical
Fathers.8,1
The
remarks already made on the institution of a ministerial order, and the
evidence that the primitive Church well understood its design, and maintained
its appropriate character, render it unnecessary to enter specifically into
the question of the persons charged with the performance of the baptismal rite.
It was confined, doubtless, as it has been in after times, among all sober
Christians, to the ordained ministry, (under the authority of the bishop,87)
although cases may have occurred in which it was permitted, by the same
authority, that it should be performed by a layman. But though David ate of the
show-bread, yet the rule which forbade its use by any but the priests, was not
thereby abolished; and, such necessary deviations from the fixed course can
never rationally be mistaken for the course itself.
the lord’s supper.
The
essential part of the Eucharist is the symbolical use of bread and wine,
according to the recorded institution. A corruption in tho celebration of this
sacrament might take place in two ways; either by omitting any of that essential
part, or by appending to it circumstances inconsistent with its true
character. Of both species of corruption we are bound to acquit the primitive
uninspired Church.88 The primitive Christians were guiltless, too,
of
w The list
of thp intrrdicted may Lp found in the ‘‘Apostolical Constitutions,” (Lib.
VIII. C. 32,) which, although confessedly written at a period very much later
than that on which we are now engaged, may be considered as conveying an
account of established customs; which, in the absence of contrary evidence,
have some claim to be assigned to the earliest age. The notes in Cotelerius’s
edition of the apostolical Fathers deserve to be consulted, .
As the
authority of the “Apostolical Constitutions” will depend much on the date which
we assign to their composition } it mav be proper to add,
that the earliest author who mentions the work is Eusebius, in his “History,”
Lib. III. C. 25, (unless, indeed, we suppose the “ Apostolical Canons” to have
been written before;) but, as Eusebius mentions them among spurious works in
circulation, the fact seems to imply that they must have been long in
existence. For, had they been a forgery of Eusebius’s day, the author of them
would probably nave been known to him, and therefore have been exposed. Their
continued interpolation,even to a subsequent period, is possible and likely. w
Ignat. Kp. ad Smyrn. C. 8.
The
addition of water to the sacramental elements, of which occasional
mention is
made, might have been in conformity with the general custom of drinking wine
diluted. Still, it seems strange, that the setting on the table separately both
water and wine should be so specifically noticed. Witness Jus> tin Martyr,
(Apol. II. p. 970 t«,
T<£
T^CtiTTMTt TWV tt-iltysS* XOti
VSTT.titJ
CtctTOf
xKt K(«/jMrot: and again, «(ree
xxt
#T>#, xet} Chenif. Accordingly,* the expressions made use of in Irena?us to
denote that the bread and w’ine wert* prepared for distribution are “ quandtj
mixtus ccdix et fradus ponis(Lib. V j C. 4.) The Greek Church retains th*,
custom to this day, and adds warm water Possibly the custom may have been thu;
scrupulously observed by many, from s desire to express more exactly the pre
cions blood-shedding which took plac on the cross, and which was not, it ma;;
be observed, an effusion of blood aloiK but of water and blood. That this cir
cumstance should have been so dwelt or will hardly be wondered at, when w
consider the solemn manner in which S j John delivers his testimony to the
fact. “ One of the soldiers with a spear pierce his side, and forthwith came
thereof blood and water. And he that saw bare record, and his record is true;
ai> he knoweth that he saith true, that v might believe.” (John xix. 34,35.)
1
the
conversion of this peculiar mean of grace into a rite common to the Jewish and
the Pagan religions. Towards this it was that the current of prejudice ran
strongest. In this most solemn act of the new religion there must have been a
perpetual craving, both in Jewish and Gentile converts, to recognise a
substitute for the altar and the repeated sacrifice. It was a diseased appetite
for a forbidden object, -which idolatrous habits had created in the one, and
real piety perhaps in the other, and which could only be corrected gradually.
Looking back upon the scene, with our experience of the actual corruptions
which thence arose, we may be disposed to censure even the concessions
(trilling as they were) which these primitive rulers and preachers made; we may
be disposed to wish, Figurative that they had never ventured to call the Lord’s
table an altar, or Inspecting the bread and wine a sacrifice. But that they did
it- innocently, no it- one can doubt, who merely reads the few remains of those
writers who have employed this language, and finds so little fondness, so plain
an aversion, to dwell on any circumstance of pomp connected with the Christian
ceremonies. They could hardly be expected to foresee the extent of mischief,
which afterwards connected itself with these innocent, inadvertent attempts,
“to be all things to all men ” The original use of those terms was certainly
not as appropriate names, but as figurative expressions, to illustrate their
subject.
The
principles of the Church’s establishment, as recorded in Admiris- Scripture,
and the practical application of those principles, as dis- chrut&ni! played
in the ministry of their inspired predecessors, were all too recent and fresh
on their minds, for any question to arise concerning the persons who were
entitled to this great Christian privilege—the communion of the body and blood
of Christ. Among the essential distinctions between the old and the new
dispensations of God, no ona was more prominent than that the former admitted
of different classes among those whom it embraced, and of different degrees of
urivilege and communion, for the Jew, for the proselyte of righteous^ ness, and
for the devout Gentile: while in the latter, the partition wall had been thrown
down, the veil had been rent. Against this act jf uniformity, then, which had
been so carefully preserved by the apostles, in their preaching and their
practice, they were not likely to offend. To have reserved any participation of
the Eucharist for the ministers alone, or for any one privileged class of
believers, vould have been too manifest a violation of this great principle;
whatever temptation might present itself in the prejudice of Jew
the =arne
circumstance, perhaps, his somewhat
remarkable, that be is also the
worcU 11
his first Epistle may refer: only one
who has recorded “ the begin-
“ This is
he that came by ■water and ninu of miracles,’* the
conversion of
tlood,
even Jesus Christ; not by water water into
wine at Cana. (.John i:. 1, 2.)
lone, but
by water and blood.” (Chap. Had
the miracle anj meaning connected
v. O’.)
St. John is the only evangelist with the
fact which he so j™t;'dly
vvho bis
recorded the flowing of water attests,
and if so, what v as that me^u
And blood
from our Lord’s side; and it is inti?
Bv
ordained Ministers.
Communion
02* tho ®ick.
and
Gentile in favour of an officiating minister, who should remind them of a
priest.18' AH were not only admitted equally, hut *11 were invited,
to partake of this act uf communion; and, indeed, it was long thought to be
inconsistent with a Christian’s profession to be otherwise than a regular
communicant.100
The
administration of this sacrament, as well as of baptism, was limited to the
ordained ministry, who officiated by authority derived from their bishop.101
That any difference of administration, such as now obtains, between the
priests’ and deacons’ office, had its origin so early, cannot be asserted.
Justin JIartyr102 speaks of the distribution of the bread and wine
as belonging to the deacons’ office; and In the Apostolical Constitutions, the
direction given is, that the bread be delivered by the bishop, and the wine by
the- deacon.103
Whether
the custom of sending a portion of the consecrated elements to the absent and
sick, or that which is still preserved in our own Chureh, of performing the
scrvice in the chambers of the sick, was so early established, is likewise
uncertain. With respect to this latter custom, that it is of great antiquity at
least, is undoubted; no: can any objection be urged against its lawfulness.
Still, it deserves to be considered, whether erroneous notions and superstitious
feelings have not been very generally fostered through this practice. The
Eucharist celebrated in private, and amongst a few attendants on a sick bed,
ceases to be looked on in its truu light, as an act of the Christian
congregation, celebrating its union, as such, with Christ, and within itself.
Its celebration under circumstances which thus obscure its most prominent
characteristics, may cause weak minds to attach, almost unconsciously, the
notion of a charm, to the ceremony. It may, accordingly, be often desired and
demanded, as if it possessed a talismanic influence on the dying, aud was
indispensable to the safe exit of tho Christian. It is not so much on habitual
communicants that this feeling can operate mischievously; it is on those who
either never communicating, or not being in habitual communion, reserve this
one act of conformity, for tbe season of siekness or of death. To persons under
such - circumstances, a visiting minister’s exhortation to receive the Eucharist
is surely misplaced. It might be better, perhaps, even to dissuade such an one
from his purpose, if he desired it. It is scarcely a time for the stricken
sinner in tlii.s manner to attempt reparation of his former neglect. For that
neglect, he should be instructed to pray to God for forgiveness, among the sins
which he shall then specifically confess to him; and to resolve, that if it
shall ■ please
God to restore him to the assemblies of his saints on earth,
09 'Uffus. lra Ifrnat. Ep. ad Smyrn. C. S.
lc:> '1 he
Apostolical Canons, Can. 10,
direct
that absentees from cunni.union if-2 Apol, II. p. -7.
shall he
amenable for their neglect. So,
too, the
eouiicii of Antioch, a.u.
310. M9 Constitut. Ap.
Lih. VIII. C. 13.
there,
where alone it is strictly appropriate, to begin and to continue the observance
of the special rite of Christian communion.1'’4
AOAPJ3, OR
LOVE FEASTS.
Among the
acts of communion which Christians celebrated as members, not of particular
Christian societies, but of the whole Christian body, the Agapce, or Feasts of Love,
require some mention. Agreeing so far in their character with the Lord’s
Supper, they seem to have had some further connexion with the celebration of
this sacrament; and, accordingly, to have been held, either immediately before,
or immediately after, the communion service.
As this
primitive custom is less familiar to us now than those which have been
perpetuated to our own age, some fuller consideration ot it may not be
unacceptable.
It was
usual for Christians to add to the celebration of the Lord’s celebrated Supper
a frugal meal, of which all the communicants partook.
This Love
Feast, as it was named, was furnished out of oblations, lied
which it
was customary, as now, for the congregation to make; fomthe part being set
aside for the clergy fund, the remainder was employed oblatlon9"
in providing this common table.
I That
this remarkable custom was not merely a charitable pro- i„ the House vision for
the poor, supplying them with an occasional meal at the otVrv°r
expense of their more affluent brethren, cor any display of ordinary social
feeling, may be inferred from the circumstance, that it was celebrated in the
house of prayer, and connected with the most Isolemn portion of Divine service.
For meetings, the object of which was the relief of hunger, or social
relaxation, some other time and place would more properly have been chosen.
" What ! have 1 Or. a. 22, ye not houses to eat and drink in?” (writes St.
Paul to the Corin- *nd >k tbians,) “ or despise ye the Church
of God, and shame them that
1 have not?” “If any man hunger, let him
eat at home.” The union, indeed, of charity and social feeling with its
religious object,
(whatever
that object was,) may be admitted, and would be by no means inconsistent with
it. It would rather remind us of that similar union of miracle and mercy, which
was conspicuous throughout the Saviour’s dealings with mankind. But the
exercise of charity or social feeling could not have been the only or the pvin
cipul thing designed. The early Fathers speak of it as an aposto-
Bishop
Burnet represents the introduction of the custom into the Church of England,
as an innocent substitute for the superstitious practice of sending portions
of the Eucharist to the chambers of the sick. “ It was also appointed, that the
sacrament should be given to the sick, and not to be sent from the Church, but
consecrated by their bed-sides; since Christ had said, that where two or three
were assembled in his name, he would be
in the
midst of them. But,” adds he, “ it is too gross a relic of the worst part of
popery, if any imagine, that after an
ill life, some sudden sorrow for sin, with a
hasty absolution, and the sacrament, will be a passport to heaven, since the
mercies of God in Christ are offered in the Gospel only to those who truly believe,
sincerely repent, and do change the course of their lives.”—Abridged Histoi'y,
Book II.
Antiquity
of lical rite;1115 ami tho same maybe inferred from some allusions
this
custom. - — .... . . _
Jude 12.
Remarkable
connexion of these Feasts with certain Scriptural Phraseology.
Eph. iv.
24.
> Cor.
v. 17.
St. Paul’s
Epistles,1(6 and still more certainly from a passage in the Epistle
of Jude. It is enough, however, to know that the rite was generally observed by
the immediate successors of the apostles, and on the alleged authority of
apostolical precedent.
Its most
remarkable feature, was its apparent connexion with an important object of
faith. It will readily occur to all, that the terms in which the Holy Ghost and
its operations are described in Scripture, are all figurative—“ Light,” “
Life,” “ the Spirit,” and “the Holy Spirit.” So, too, the change effected
thereby in the Christian’s condition is called “regeneration,” or “a new
birth.” He is termed “ a new man after God, which is created in righteousness,”
“ a new creature,” and the like. The reason of this is obvious. The ideas to be
conveyed were altogether new, and new or borrowed terms were, therefore,
required to express them.
At the
same time, the ideas so conveycd are intelligible enough for our purpose. We
are taught by all these various expressions, (and the variety of expression
seems designed to prevent a literal interpretation of any one,) that the effect
of the Holy Ghost’s descent has been, not merely increased assistance from God,
but, as it were, a constitutional change in man; the addition of some abiding
principle which belonged not to his original nature;—as far as it is connected
with the fruits of righteousness, having a common object with conscience, but
more certain and effectual; even “ God Phil. ii. 13. working within us to will
and to do of his good pleasure.” It is
105 See
Bingham’s Eccl. Antiq. Book
XV. Chap. VII. Sec. 6. Ignatius mentions the
rite, Ep. ad Smyrn. Sec. S; and in Tertullian there is a full account of it.
Apol. C. 39.
In the
passage particularly^ referred to, (1 Cor. xi. 17,) in which he is charging
the Corinthians with profaning the Sacrament, by mingling with it indecent
revelling, his words certainly seem to imply tne existence of some meal, connected
indeed with the celebration of the Eucharist, but more of a meal than is
perhaps consistent with any supposable mode of distributing and partaking of
the consecrated elements. There is another passage in the same Epistle which probably
points to it, chap. v. ver.
11. In directing the Corinthians to pass
sentence of excommunication on an incestuous member, he enumerates several
crimes besides, for which the offender ought to be punished by^ the Church with
complete excommunication,—total exclusion from all, even the slightest act of
communion as Christians; “ with such an one,” he writes to bid them “ not even
to eat.” This is, very probably, an allusion to the Agapce; because excommunication
or exclusion from any society, as a rightful act of the society, can only
extend to exclusion from those privileges
and
exercises which the members share as members of that society. and no further.
And, besides, the social intercourse of the table would hardly be characterised
as the least of all ordinary intercourse: although it may very wellt
be considered as the slightest act of Christian communion.
Another
passage may be quoted from St. Paul’s writings, as apparently containing an
allusion to the existence of this rite in the very earliest stage of the
Christian establishment. It is his account of St. Peter’s behaviour at Antioch,
during the attempt of the Judaizing faction there, to enforce on the Gentile
converts the observance of the Mosaic law. (Epistle to the Galatians, chap.
ii.) “ Before,” says he, “ that certain came from James, he did eat with the
Gentiles ; but when they were come, lie withdrew' and separated himself,
fearing them which were of the circumcision.” It is certainly possible that St.
Paul may be here speaking onlv of the ordinary intercourse of hospitality j
but, as this act is specified, as the main token by which St. Peter was
supposed to have sanctioned the notion, tnat an uncircumcised Christian was no
complete Christian; it in more reasonable to interpret it of some religious
intercourse.
in
called “
Life,” then, because of the analogy between the imparting of this new element
of goodness, and the original creation of Adam, with which it is sometimes
contrasted. So St. Paul, “'The first 1 car.xv.S2, man, Adam, was made a living
soul; the last Adam was made a 4,’‘ quickeniug Spirit.” “ In Adam
all die, in Christ shall all be made alive.1’ It is called “ Light”
too, because of its use in guiding us from error into “ the way of life;” or,
perhaps, in allusion to that holv light in which God’s people of old were wont
to recognise the symbol of the Divine presence. And hence it is written, that “
God is light,” and, that “ if the light that be in us be darkness, 1 John I. 5
how great will be that darkness.” Hence, too, the precept, “ Let i|3.'
ycur light
so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father
which is in heaven.” It is also called Spirit, because it is God unseen,
unfelt; or rather, because it is God worshipped no longer in connexion with any
visible symbol, or holy dwelling-place; neither at Jerusalem (as the Lord told
the Samaritan woman,) nor yet on Mount Gerizim, but in “ spirit and in truth.”
Jnn K si, “ The wind (mitccc) bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the
jojmaj 3. sousd thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it
goeth ; so is every one that is bom of the Spirit.” (vi/ivparor.)
Among the
terms adopted to express this new relation between Christian God and man, is ; which in our Bible translation is
rendered explained,
sometimes
love, and sometimes charity, apparently without any rule for the difference of
translation. It is called love; yet it is not, strictly speaking, lore. The
word wanted, was one to express the benevolent relation of God to man, and the
corresponding disposition of man to God, in this his last mode of
manifestation; as residing no longer in a temple or holy city, but in that
figurative temple, of which we are the constituent parts; which has been “I
buiit upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself
being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building, fitly framed together,
groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. In whom we also are builded together
for an habitation of God through the spirit.”107 Some word was
wanted, in short, to express that particular kind of devotional feeling towards
God, as filling this his final dwelling-place with his glory, which the
Israelite felt when he trod the courts of the house of God, or at the hour of
prayer looked on it from afar, or turned his face to the quarter of the heavens
in which it stood. That associated love,
10'-
Ileuce we find tliis in the second the
Apostles’ Creed, " I believe in the
century
among the elementary truths Holy
Ghost,—the holy Catholic Churci.,
U# the
catechumens at their —the communion
of saints”—of which
baptism.
Tertull. de Bapt. C. VI.: “ Cum clauses
“the communion of saints ” was
sub tribus
et testatio fidei et sjiionsio not added
until the fourth century; pro-
sahitispignorentur,
necessario adjicitur bably, when the
preceding expression
Jiccxesige
mentio; quoniam, ubi tres, id ceased
to be generally understood, and
est, i
ater, r ilius, et opintus Sanctus, ibi the
truth conveyed by it required a new
Jicclesise, quae auum corpus est.” And, mode of enunciation.—See Eph.ii. 20—22.
accordingly, it is among the articles of
i'« s.vH s;
wit’u which the old worshipper of God was wont to exclaim, “ Lord, c.xMvu. j. j
]lave loved the hahitation of thy house, anti the place where thine
honour dwelleth.” “ If I forget thee, 0 Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her
cunning;” that associated love was to be transferred Kph. ii. a?, to a society
made the new “ habitation of God through the Spirit;” | and this was expressed
by the term Ay&xys.
Connexion
In this secondary application of the word, then, it may be inter-
l.'nre'ofpkSprete4
to mean, either the disposition of God to man, as dwelling in ami uf Man. lum
by the lloly Spirit; or, the corresponding feeling of man to God in that
relation. And as this spirit of love, which lie hath given, (1 Tim. i. 11,)
becomes ours only as members of a society, the Christian’s endeavour to
preserve and cherish this holy union is necessarily connected with his social
behaviour as a Christian, and is, in short, the main principle of it. Ilence
the continual blending is the Scripture precepts, of the command to love God
and our brethren, as if it were one and the same thing; e.g. “He that i John
iv.tio, loveth God, loveth his brother also.” “He who loveth not his brother
whom he hath seen, how can he love God vihom he hatli not seen ?” “ We know
that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren.” “Every
one that loveth is bom of God.” “ He who seeth his brother have need, and
shutteth up h's bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in
him In some of them this interpretation is suggested by the peculiar mode of
expression; as in the last, in which the love of God is spoken of, according to
the phrase so often applied to the Holy Spirit, as “ dwelling in us.” The same
maybe observed of that which describes the being born of God as the effect of
loving; the Scripture language elsewhere being, that we are “so bom of water
and of the Spirit."
It was
from our blessed Lord’s discourses that this (as many other terms) of the
inspired writers, appears to have acquired its secondary meaning. Among many
passages may be noticed Johnw 9. especially that in which IIo tells his
disciples, “As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you;” and, again, his
prayer to Johnxvil.ii. the Father for Christians in all ages, “ That they all
may be one; ’ prayed He, “as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that
they!] also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent
me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one,
even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in
one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them,
as thou hast loved me. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me,
bo with me where 1 am; that they may behold my glorv, which thou hast given me:
for thou lovodst me before the foundation of the world. 0 righteous Father, the
world hath not known thee; but
I have known thee, and these have known
that thou hast sent me. And I Lave declared unto them thj name, and will
declare it: that
21;
hi. Hi aUo iv. 7; iii. 17.
John tli.
5.
lTse
of the u*rm Love bv our Saviour,
the love
wherewith thou hast loved ine may be in them, and I in them.” This passage is
given at length, because the particular use of the term is only apparent from
the context; as, for instance, in the last verse, “ That the love wherewith
thou hast loved me may be in them,” is a form of expression cast in the same
mould with one of the preceding sentences, “The glory that thou gavest me I
have given them,” by which, no doubt, the gift of the Holy Spirit was intended,
agreeably to the sacred language, in which the term glorv is made to signify
any man'festation of the Divine nature.
The
apostles, accordingly, continually employ the word in a way And b»the which can
scarcely be explained but by such a reference as this. A J°5tle3-
We read of the “love of the Spirit,” of “love in the Spirit,” of Bom. r.v. 30;
“ faith working by love,” of “ the love of God being shed. abroad in fi
our
hearts,” (another coincidence with the ordinary language which iian describes
the gift of the Spirit,) of “ the edifying in love;” and the ' ' ' apostolical
blessing is, that “ the God of love may be with us.”
Of St.
Paul’s writings, the twelfth and thirteenth chapters of the By St. Paul. First
Epistle to the Corinthians may be selected, as furnishing the most striking
instance of the use of the word by him. The topic (as he expressly tells us) is
spiritual gifts; and in discussing this, he contrasts the extraordinary gifts
of the Spirit, with dyi^r,, or charity; meaning by this latter, as it is plain,
the ordinary influence of the Spirit; and declares, that it was this, and not
the former, out of which arose the moral qualifications of a Christian—that the
gifts of miracle, of prophecy, and of tongues, were useful for the planting of
Christianity, but this for the salvation of the possessor, lienee, too, he
speaks of it as “never failing,” as “abiding;” whereas the extraordinary
operations were to cease or fail. This was Ihe permanent gift, the efficacy of
which was to go further than its accompaniments, faith and hope; greater than
faith, and greater than hope; because't is even from this principle that the
Christian [“believeth all things, hopeth all things.” “And now oMdeth these
three,” (abidpth, as opposed to the extraordinary graces of the early Church,
of which he had been speaking,) “ faith, hope, and charity, but the greatest of
these is charity.”103
In no part
of the New Testament, however is the peculiar use By st. John of this tenn so
striking, as in St. John’s writings, t* That God is 1 Jonniv.
108 Compare 1 Corinthians xiii. with Galatians
v. 19, and the correspondence between, what is called in the one the result of
Stya^vt, and in the other the fruits of the Spirit, will be apparent. The
following scheme will serve to show the main coincidences.
Characteristics
of kyur*?, from Fruits of the Spirit,
from
1
Corinthians xiii. Galatians v.
I. ^lctx^oOvfzi.y zetyra. oko[*sju. I. ^lax^aBvfxJet,
II. X
s^ffTiuiTat, II.
III. Jla-v ot frta'ttOu. III. Tl/trrif.
IV. Ou st/ ry etitxiot,
ruyx,et/*u IV.
Ss Tfi aKqOti'et.
V. Ou V. TlguoTY/Z.
VI. Ou AaytXtTCLi to
xa,xov. VI. ’
Aya.Quo'vyv). x. r. A.
1 John iv.
12, 13, 1C, 17.
Compared
with a passage in hb (iospeL
John i.
18.
The A^apae
founded on this
language.
love,’-
and that “ if we love one another God dwelleth in as,” is the thought, that
entwine* itself into all he writes, whether narrative or precept. To “ the
beloved” is his habitual form of address. When ho describes what St. Paul would
eall “ neglecting the gift within thee,” the language is, “ Thou hast left thy
first love;” faith in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is called by him, “
believing the love that God hath in us,” and the like. And accordingly it is
said of him that, when incapable of preaching and teaching any longer, his only
exhortation used ter be, “ Little children, love one another."
No one
passage in his writings is more remarkable than the fourth chapter of his First
Epistle. “ No man,” writes he, “hath seen God at any time. If we love one another,
God uwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we
dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have
known,” adds he, “ and believed the love that God hath in us;10,J
God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelled] i: God, and God in him.
Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have bold ness in the day of
judgment; beeause as he is, so are we in this roorld." Now if wc compare
the first sentences of this paragraph with a corresponding verse in his Gospel,
what lias been asserted of his meaning will, perhaps, be more evident. In the
Gospel, when he is giving an account of the manifestation of God in Christ, his
language is, “ No man hath seen God at any time ; the only-begotten Son, which
is in the bosom of the Father He hath declared him.” In the Epistle, when he is
dwelling on the manifestation of God by the Spirit, lie writes, “ No man hath
seen God at any time. If we love one another God dwelleth in vs, and his love
is perfected in its;”™ following it up by the several expressions already
quoted, all conveying the same truth, that this manifestation is made by God’s
Spirit in us as a society; and it is this union, and the feelings arising out
of it, which constitute the love of which he writes —that love which God hath
in us; God being love.111
It can
hardly be question*^, that by this use of the term in the language of the
apostles, miut be interpreted its meaning as applied to that aneient Christian
rite, which celebrated the union of Christians as members of Christ—as the
common abode of the Holy Ghost. They were called Agapcr, and wrere
always appended to the administration of the Sacrament; to intimate, no doubt,
the close connexion which, according to Scripture, exists between the
109 'E» Our translation is, “ to us.**
no “ Be ye
perfect, even as yoftr Father which is in heaven is perfect.”
i ii In
the Ions list of errors charged on Peter Lombard, whose works once obtained a
place in the divinity studies of all the universities of Europe, to the neglect
of Scripture, one noted is, that lie identified nyxxij with the Holy Ghost. It
is by no means my intention to defend
his
application of the word; bxit his notion clearly arose from observing that the
word was used by the writers of the New Testament in a peculiar sense,^and one
connected with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. His view is contained in Lib.
I. distinct. 17, of the small volume of his works, printed a.d. 1528, and is noticed by Mosheim in
his “ Elements Dogmatical Theologiae,” p. 68.
Saviour’s
death and that blessing for which it was expedient he should go away.112
As by tbe Eucharist they were reminded more especially of his dying for our
sins, so in this kindred ceremony, they commemorated his return and eternal
abode with them by his Spirit. It continued to be observed until the middle of
the fourth Abolishe d in century, when, owing to seme abuses in tbe celebration
of it, it was abolished by a decree of the Council of Laodicea.lls
PUBLIC
PRATERS.
The
regular observance of public prayer has been already noticed Buce one under
another head, when it was considered as one means of dispensing the contents
of Scripture. But, although this was one pur- Prayer, pose which the public
liturgies have served in all ages of the Church, yet is it not their chief or
most obvious purpose. We assemble in common prayer, as a mode of obtaining that
Divine grace, which is promised to us atf members of a community; that we may
worship in, and bo ourselves tho temple of the IIolv Ghost; which temple is,
not the Corinthian Church alone, but every Church in every age. Ignatius’s
exhortation to the Church of Ephesus proves that the glorious impression of
this great truth, made by the inspired teachers on the Christian world, was
still fresh and strong. “ Make a point,” writes he, “ of frequently assembling
to offer thanksgiving and glory to God; for as oft as you gather together, the
powers of Satan are quelled, and his destruction fails, when this your act of
faith is as tho act of one mind. ”114
There are
still extant ancient Liturgies, bearing the names of no
particular
form
Apostles
and of those who were their contemporaries snd fellow- lebourers; and although
there is internal evidence in these composi- enjoined bj tions that they were
not tho production of the authors to whom they on*,<ure-
are attributed, it would be wrong to assert that thero were no such liturgies
originally, or that these contain nothing of the originals.115 The
question does not, however, affect the character of our Church services. If we
except the Lord’s Prayer, no obligation is imposed o.i any Church to adopt or
to retain forms except as convenient; and
11 was, on this account, we may presume,
that no public prayers are left among the materials of sacred record—that each
Church, in eveiy age, may be at liberty to form a liturgy for itself. The obligation
is to have some, but not any one instituted form. Accordingly, the custom of
bishops assuming the liberty of composing each his own liturgy, may be traced
so far back, as to lead us to a fair presumption that it existed at a period
within the limits of the present inquiry.110
112 “ The
Holy Ghost was not yet 114 Ep.
ad Ephes. C. 13.
[given],
because Jesus was not yet glori-
!ned.,:’
“ If I go not away the Conifer- 115
TVheatly on the Common Prayer
-ker will
not come.” Book. Introduction.
1 113 Can. 28,
Tom. I. p. 1501, of Labbis’
‘Councils.
Its celebration was still, how- 118
See Bingham’s JEccl. Antiq. Book
per,
permitted in private houses, as ap- II.
Chap. VI. Sect. 2. Palmer’s I)isser-
jpears
from Canon 27 of the same Council, tation
on Primitive Liturgies, p. 6.
Occasional
mixture of Keligicms ami Civil objects in the same
Kite.
Marriage.
Oaths.
The Lord's
Prayer is mentioned as an exception; for, even though we should suppose that
our Lord’s purpose in dictating that prayer was not that we should necessarily
use it as one of our prayers; still, its suitableness for being so used by ail
ages and Churches would leave no plea for ever discontinuing its use; and the
framing of it by our Lord himself, would of course make its omission, under
such circumstances, imply a want of duo reverence towards Him. It was
unquestionably used by the early Churches in their public liturgijs, aud its
use was considered by many as an indispensable duty.117
CERTAIN'
RITES WHICH FALL INTO A DISTINCT CLASS.
All
religious ceremonies have one sole legitimate object; they are the outw ard
signs and formal acts of communion with God ; and vitli a view to that
communion they are all instituted and celebrated. It is true, that the original
character of a religious rite may in the course of time be lost, and some
different object may be proposed and effected by it. "Worldly policy, or
any views of present convenience, may so far interfere with the use of it, as
to give it a political or otherwise w'orldly character; but it loses its
spirituality in proportion. Xot that the two objects are incompatible ; but
that sueh is the risk incurred by allowing them to be associated. The ceremony
of marriage is a religious act; but the same rite is in most Christian nations
made likewise to serve as the form of the civil contract; and civil privileges
and penalties are made to depend on it. And out of this union, no very serious
evil, perhaps, has arisen, to detract from the advantages of the arrangement.
Oaths, again, are religious acts; and the more formal and solemn the ootli, the
more, properly is it to he styled a religious ceremony.1'8
The convenience of a pledge, which might pass in courts of justice for a sort
of coined and stamped truth, and subject him who presented it insincere and
adulterated to a penalty, analogous to that attached to forgery,—the
convenience of tins has been always recognised by the magistrate;
and even in heathen countries, a religious ceremony has been adopted as the
most appropriate form. In the same manner as men have fixed on gold and silver
for money by universal consent, because of some intrinsic attraction in those
metals, which attraction aftenvards has become a secondary consideration; so it
has fared with oaths. They were admired for their holy solemnity, and the hold
which they possessed on men’s consciences, and, therefore, were chosen for the
political purposes which they have been made to
gee
particularly Tertullian, de Ora- tione, C. y, and Ap. Constitut. Lib. VII. C.
44.
See
Burnet’s Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, Art. IX. “If we consider the
matter upon the principles
of natural
religion, an oath is an act of worship and homage done to Godand again, in reference
to the pronhecy of Jeremiah iv. 2, “here an oath religiously taken is
represented as a part of that worship, which all nations shall oifer up to God
under the new dispensation.”
serve.
Here, it must be confessed, the experiment has been of a more doubtful result,
than in the preceding instance. The great demand for them as a political
convenience, has proportionably diminished their religious character, and
profaned in some measure that which was holy, and used by the holy.
Whilst
some religious institutions are thus adopted into civil societies, on the other
liand, a custom of mere human origin moy be lawfully converted into an act of
communion with God, and incorporated by the Churcli into the great body of
those common rites, to which, generally, a promise of grace is annexed. To
which class nurai belong the burial service, the religious part of the ceremony
of “irTlce- crowning kings, and the like. Hence, in different ages
and countries, the number of sacred rites will be made to diier, or, remaining
the same, to change their character. How far their multiplication may be
allowed, and to what extent human institutions may borrow spiritual influence,
must, of course, be determined by the principles given by Christ and the Holy
Spirit, for the formation and regulation of every Church. Only, in the inquiry
concerning such rites, it must be borne in mind, that their character is always
twofold; and that they are accidentally made the means of grace.
Such being
the character of these rites, it is unnecessary to pursue an}' further inquiry
respecting them. I shall accordingly proceed at once to notice \vhat properly
follow the Sacraments, the Love Feasts, and the Public Prayers,—those
ceremonies, namely, which are the Church’s appointed means of grace for
individuals, or for creating particular offices.
ORDINATION,
CONFIRMATION, &C.
Of these,
the ordination of ministers is the most prominent. In oruination, the narrative
of the Acts we find no specific direction given for tho celebration of such a
form; and yet the use cf some form is left binding, because it is recorded.
Again, although no complete ceremony is recorded, because, doubtless, it was
not intended that the Church, in all ages, should be tied down, nnder all
circumstances, even to the apostolical form; still, besides the general
appointment of prayers, the laying on of hands was enjoined. This part of the
ceremony then must have been recorded, because intended to be perpetual; and,
accordingly, in looking back on the view we have left us of the first
uninspired Church, we should not expect even to find all Churches necessarily
agreeing in their forms of ordination prayers, but we should expect all to use
the imposition of hands.
If we
perceived that any neglected to do so, we should have possession of a fact
which would enable us to say, that their proceedings were irregular. But there
is no evidence of such a deviation from apostolical practice and scriptural
views; and we are therefore bound to suppose, that ordination was still
continued by imposition of hands and by prayers.
Coi.firma.
Confirmation is another of this flans of rites which deserves a short notice.
It evidently arose out of the formal act of giving to the new Christian the
confirming sign of the real de3ccnt of the Holy Ghost on him. After these
miraculous manifestations r.'ere withdrawn from the Church, this venerable rite
was employed as a useful addition to those outward means of grace, through
which the Church was appointed to communicate and cherish the ordinary gifts of
the Spirit. Although always now blended with forms of common l prayer, yet in
itself it is an act relating to an individual, and as such I has been
considered here. Like ordination, its essential ingredient is the laying on of
hands, which, accordingly, has been the invariable part of the ceremony from
the earliest times. It was long practised in the Church in strict conformity
with the apostolic usage, immediately after baptism, whether of infants or
adults; and it was, pro- bablv, only when the return of sensible manifestations
had generally ceased to be expected, that its more rational use was
established.
What Measures the First Unixspired Church Pursued for
Sbef-Preseryatios.
Besides
those measures, the object of which is to preserve or to dispense the recorded
revelation, the Chureli is obliged to provide some especially for its own
preservation. Stationed as guard over this Divine treasure, it is required to
use all diligence, not only to fulfil its office, but to keep itself strong and
healthy, and well equipped for so trying a service. What course the primitive
uninspired Christians pursued with this view, is the point of inquiry at which
we are arrived.
And, in
order to estimate the wisdom of their plans and precau- Dangers of tions, it
will be necessary to connect them with a view of the dangers pnmitive to which
the Church was exposed, and which these provisions may Church, be supposed
designed to meet and counteract. These were various and unconnected: some
internal, and arising from its own members ; some external, and arising from
strangers and enemies. In providing against both these, the Church enjoyed the
same sort of assistance which guided it in all its other proceedings,—the
recorded principles on which the Church was formed, illustrated by the application
of those principles in the ministry of the apostles. The uninspired Church was
assailed by perils precisely similar to those which it had w itnessed
successfully opposed, by means still in its power.
Within
itself it was liable to heresies and schisms, and so had it ever been. From
without, it saw danger in the wisdom of the unbelieving portion of mankind, as
well as in their power; but the effect of both had been proved. Let us see,
therefore, how far it profited by the examples which had gone before.
The first
measures of self-preservation adopted by pny society Erroneous would naturally
be addressed to its own members; and these, in the Doctrln,JS-
Christian society, would have in view one of two things; either the profession
of orthodox faith, or conformity to instituted practices. Whenever, then, in
the first place, any doctrines of Scripture were likely to be misrepresented,
or any unseriptural doctrine likely to bo intrcdueed, it would be the Church’s
care to enforce the true doctrine, and to guard against the false, by some
specific appointment: arul if any such abuse had actually occurred, its
vigilance would be proportionably increased by the warning. It would not
necessarily Happen that the doctrines thus made prominent, and particularly
Gua^dM
uuainst by
Creeds, &c.
The
Apostles'
Lruud.
guarded,
because most exposed, would be in themselves the most important; but any so
circumstanecd woul.l still have a claim during the season of peril to this
accidental preference; aa the parent watches more tenderly over the weak child,
although intending thereby no mark of preference nr distinction to it above its
brothers and sisters. The principal method devised by the Chureh from the
earliest times, for thus securing its members against the particular errors of
belief, which foresight or experience had taught to bo tbe most dangerous, has
been to draw up formularies of faith, Creeds, Canons, Articles, and the like. A
Creed, taught to the catechumens before baptism, put them on their guard on
those points, whereon they were most likely to bo assailed. Read constantly in
the public assemblies, it reminded the whole Church, that the doctrines specified
were among those, belief in which was implied by their becoming members of that
community. Hence the early and original term for creed was tipiS«Xo«, or “
watch-wordwhich, whether borrowed, as some of the Fathers assert, from military
language, or, as others assert, from the signs of recognition in use among tbe
heathen in their mysteries, denotes a test and a shibboleth, whereby each
Chureh may know its own, and is circulated throughout its members as a warning
against the snares of enemies or false brethren.
That the
Church is authorized to set forth Christian doctrines, moulded into systems or
into any convenient form, has been already shown; and it has bten also
asserted, tbat in the present instance they were probably further sanctioned by
apostolic example. Whether any portion of what is called “ The Apostles’
Creed,” was actually so framed and used by the apostles, or not, allusions to
the use of similar forms may be, perhaps, discovered in several parts of the
New Testament. Even so early as the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip,
we know that the profession of one article of faith, specifically, was
required; arid this, just the one which at that season was most likely to be
made prominent: “ I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God nor is it
unreasonable to interpret St. Paul’s directions to Timothy, in reference to
the. use of such specific articles, when he bids him “keep that which is
committed to thy trust;120 avoiding profane and vain babblings, and
oppositions of science, falsely so called; w hich some professing have erred
from the faith:" and again, “Hold fast the form of sound words which thou
hast heard of me, in faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing
which was committed unto theem keep by the Holy Ghost which
dwelleth in us.”
The
articles which would originally compose this formulary, would, of course, be
few; and this would in some measure render
n* Acts
viii. 1)7. Thp same profession 120
1 Tim. vi. 20. To
was made
by Peter to our Lord, in the ?yA«.£oy.
name of ali the apostles, “ We believe
and are
sure that thou art that Christ, 121
2 Tim. i. 13, 14, xecXijt
the Son of
the living God.”—John vi. 69. x*.rttSnxw.
it
unnecessary that they should be placed on record. But a more powerful reason
suggests itself, why, supposing the inspired Church to have made use of such a
form, it should not be registered by it.
It was
systematic divinity, and framed into that systematic form to serve a special
purpose, and would therefore have been an anomaly >n the sacred record. To
have recorded it with the apostolic sanction, would have given it the
character and authority of Scripture; whereas it was only an illustration of
that use which was to be made of Scripture in all ages.122 It is,
indeed, extremely probable, that a How fsr portion of the Apostles’ Creed was
formed and sanctioned by the apostles, and preserved for a time in the Church
solely by tradition, by on this very account.123 The current
tradition, that its origin was ' apostolical, is certainly entitled to some
credit; although we may reject with certainty the story of each apostle
contributing his quota, and thereby occasioning it to be called a symbolum.
Indeed, tho internal evidence of a certain portion of it corroborates this view
so strongly, that it may be worth while to pause and examine the several
clauses, with a view to determine which may, and which may not, be of so early
a date.
Bearing in
mind, then, the object which such a formula of faith The First must have, let
us take the first article, J believe in God, the Father Artlcle-
Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. “He that cometh unto Heb. xi o. God,”
writes St. Paul, “must believe that he is and the same cause which rendered it
necessary for the apostle to make prominent this article of belief, no doubt
might have occasioned it to be first in an apostolic formula. The whole clause
considered together forcibly T’ e unitj reminds us, too, of the opening of the
book of Genesis, where this of God' supreme and distinct Being is
set forth, in opposition to the false notions of the world, as the Creator of
Heaven and Earth ; of those very things which had furnished the chief objects
of idolatry.
Perhaps,
then, the importance of specifying this great truth may have arisen from the
temptations which old prejudice would foster in heathen converts, once more to
corrupt religion as did their forefathers. The most ancient Creeds, too,
confirm this view, by distinctly marking the unity of God, and thus more
strongly cautioning the Christian against polytheism. In those of Irenaeus,124
and of Origen,125 it is “ one God i and in Tertullian’s “ one or the
only God.”125
Oix, J'S
otvS^&^ra.f riKrifaj tu hips, be met with in the earlier writings
jr.Vrea*?, «•**’ ix TKffvjs ypotfr,? to KAlPlii- of the Church. Petrus
Chrysologus (an TATA ri/kkixBtt<to.
fAietv itvatn\Y,poi ri,v rr.s author of the fifth century) frequently rjrnuf
otictrxx.kiatv. S. Cyril, Catech. makes use of language such as this*; cited by
Bishop Pearson in his Exp. of “Hsee fides, hoc saeramentum, non est the Greed,
Art. I. notes. committendum chartis, non
scribendum
1Ji Jerome
alludes to the fact, (Ep. ad literis,” &c.—Ser. 57. In Symb. Apost. Psammachium adversus Err. Johan. 124 1 ih T r Pan/Ma
Hieros. C. 9.) « In symbolo tidei et spei 1 nostra, quod ab Apostolis traditum,
non 1 raiat.
seribitur
in charta et atramento, sed in **
Unum ” and “ unicum.,> De
tabulis
cordis carnalibus.” Other allu- Veland. Virg. C. I. De Prescript. adv. sioiis
of the same kind may easily, per- H*er. C. XIII. Adv. Praxeam, C. 11.
II.
T
Probai.ij
But a further ground presents itself, for the employment of this »rjai"stth3
article, in the very specific form in which it is now worded, even Gnomics
during the apostolic age. In a former portion of this inquiry, I ' had occasion
to remark, that not only St. John, the latest of the sacred writers, but that
St. Paul, too, alludes to the existence of those wild fancies, with which the
Gnostic theory was beginning to corrupt the Church. Some brief outline was also
given of the general features of this source of extravagant errors. One of the
most attractive principles seems to have been that which solved the knotty
question of the origin of evil. Among the thirty ^Eom, who occupied the
original Pluroma, or sphere of pure Deity, Sophia (wisdom) was fabled to have
produced, through intense desire to comprehend the greatness of the
x{<nr«T«f, or lirst father, a monstrous birth, Achmnotk.1*
This marvellous offspring was east out of the heavenly space, and became the
author of matter, and the mother of him v. hum they described as the Creator of
the world, and whose imperfect uud corrupt work it had been the province of
certain uEons to correct. Their scheme of reformation was easily made a
counterpart to the history of man’s redemption; and, indeed, the foundation
story itself seems to have been framed with a similar design against the
scriptural account of the fall of man, and tho bringing in of sin and death
into the world. Harmlessly absurd as all this may seem to us, yet we know that
St. Paul and St. John feared lest it might deceive the very elect, and that
many Christians A:-rt if =o, cf were bewildered in their faith by it. Weighing,
then, with this «rig?'°ltCAl view, the exact expression of the
first article of the Apostles’ Creed, in what period of the Church would it be
more naturally framed than in tiie first? Contrary to these “endless
genealogies” and “ false oppositions,”lai it asserts that God is one
and indivisible. Ill opposition to the notion, that tho “ lirst father ” took
no part in the government of the world, but left it to lower emanations, God is
called 7iOCVTCX,(>Ct~a(>t “all-mighty,” or
“all-governing;” and the impious fanev of a separate and evil creator, is
condemned by the assertiou, that it is He who is maker of heaven and earth.13
127
Iren®!, Lib. II. C. 10. “Dam
impie
contemnunt non credentes, quo- niain ex his quae non erant, quemadmo- dum
\ohiit, ea quae facta sunt ut essent omnia fecit sua voluntate, quod enim
dicunt ex laehrymis Aehamoth humec- tam prodiisse substantiam,” &c. Acha-
moth is a Hebrew word, signifying Wisdom.
Iremens
elsewhere laments the success of the Valentinians, &c., in seducing robs
(jLVJ UpettX* TlfK •xltTTtV US IIotTtJ*
xwrox£oc.Tc»ct
duxpjAxrtrtvTcifi and recommends the use of the Creed as a safeguard against
these seductions, (see Lib. I. C.
1.) For a
full account of these heresies his work may bo consulted,
123
’avTjOitrui, meaning, doubtless, the
pairing
off of the ./Eons, who were described as coupled, or set ojf in pairs. With
reference to the same notion we may interpret an expression in Origen,i
(Dialog. 2,) when, speaking of the supreme Being, he adds, Is ■xot.vruv
x^ccru,
&
ottrt xtiTon evSsr.
129 Some
of the early heretics asserted, I that the creation was the work of angels:
but, probably, under every variety ot I expression they meant the same thing
substantially, emissions or emanations from the source of all-pervading Deitv.
See Irenaeus, Lib. II. C. 9, and Lpi- phaniua, and Theodoret, as referred to
in| King’s History of the Apostles’ Creed.j p. fea.
Art. II.
And in Jesus Christ Ms only Son our Lord, v)ho was The second conceived by
the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mo.ry, suffered under Artlcle-
, Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, He descended into hell; the
third day He rose again from, the dead, He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at
the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge
the quick and the dead.
That an
Article specifying belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of Beiierin God, was
likely to have been framed by the apostles themselves, may be inferred from the
confession of the eunuch to Philip, before alluded to. Perhaps, indeed, the
whole of the first clause of this second Article may have stood originally as
we now have it; for that Jesus was the Christ,” was, we know, the very terms of
that John is. 22. faith for which the Jews threatened their believing brethren
with vengeance; and Martha’s confession of faith to Jesus himself is
substantial!}’ the same, differently worded, “Yea, Lord, I believe that thou
art the Christ, the Son of God.” So also Peter’s, “Thou Matt. xvi. n;. art the
Christ, the Son of the living God.”
No article
of the Christian religion could, indeed, have more Directed required an early
specification, and peculiar enforcement. The ?£?™e!,riiest prejudice which it
opposed, was the very bed of tares, whkii sprang Elrol's-
around the tender plant of Christianity,—it was the Jewish prejudice; and that,
therefore, against which the earliest converts, who were Jews, and living among
Jews, would require to be most studiously guarded. The particular elauses which
follow, might have been gradually added, as occasion demanded ; but this must
have been as old as Christianity itself. It is worthy of notice, too, that a
change appears in the form of expressing belief in Jesus Christ, not only in
the Nicene Creed, but in some other of the oldest Creeds, (as, for instance, in
one of Irensous,) which cor-; responds with what we should expect in a later
period of the apostolic history. It i-s, “ in one Lord Jesus Christ:” the
addition of the term “one,” being obviously rendered afterwards necessan, by
the fancies of Cerinthus, and the like, that Christ was, first, the Son of the
Demiurgus, and that, secondly, on him one of the thirty <Eons descended at
his baptism, in the shape of a dove.1®
To the
rise of the Gnostic heresy we may, indeed, attribute the hree subsequent
clauses, without being able to determine, whether
11 did or did not belong to the Creed of the
apostles’ days. They 'ould, certainly, not be inappropriate to the latter
portion of that keriod. That Christ, the Son of God, “was conceived by the
Sonof a, a. loly Ghost;” that is, in the words of St. Luke, was “called
the Luke i. as. pon of God,” because the Holy Ghost came upon the Virgin Mary,
nd “the power of the Highest overshadowed her,” was obviously
V50 Irenaei, Lib.I. C.25;and,again, Lib. quidem natus est, alter vero, in euni qni
i- C. 18, nlwe lie argues against the natus
est, descendit, et rursus reliquit
■ >tion thus, “ Si alter quidem passus cst, eum, non vnus sed duo monstrantua'.f ’
I ter auuiru inipassiliilis mansit; et alter
Porn of
the ^ irgin*
II is
death.
Correspondence
with the early Fathers.
Orisren.
Ignatius.
descent
into Hell.
Why added.
levelled
against this heresy just noticed; so, too, that He “w*s horn of the Virgin
Mary,” that is, was really man as well as God, and not the Son of the fabled
Daniurgus; that He “ suffered under 1*011 tin* Pilate, was crucified,
dead, and buried,” all specify those several particulars which were
inconsistent with the union of a superior j&on with Christ during his
ministry, and his separation from Him on the cross ; the favourite speculation
of the Docetas.
It not u
little confirms this view, that we find the earliest Fathers opposing,
principally, these very errors, and in similar language. The Creed asserts,
that Jesus Christ was “ born of the Virgin Mary;” Ignatius, that “ He was of
Mary truly born,”131 “ truly of the race of David, according to the
flesh,” 11 truly born of a Virgin :”132 and Origen, “
that he was born in reality, and not in appearance only.” Again, the Creed
asserts, that “ lie suffered under Pontius Pilate;” Ignatius, that “ He was
really persecuted under Pontius I’ilate.”133 In Ignatius we read,
that “ he really suffered, not as some unbelievers assert, that he suffered
only in appearance :”134 and in Origen, “ he suffered in truth,”
“and not by a phantom.”135 The descent into hell was certs inly not
one of the original articles of the Creed; and when used, was first employed
only as an equivalent expression for the term “buried,” which was omitted.130
It was afterwards, however, adopted to denote something distinct from it, as
both appear in the later creeds; or, what is more probable, the ejected term
“buried” was now replaced; and this nevertheless retained because it contained
the expression of a doctrine frequently set forth in the early Fathers, in
opposition to the Gnostic heretics. These, according to Irenoeus,13'
denied the salvation of the body, and maintained, that “ the souls ascended
into the heavens, unto their detei mined place, from whence they shall no more
return unto their bodies. ” So that it might have reference to the real power
of death over Christ, as over all men; in opposition to this notion of the
reunion of a particle of the Divine essence with its parent source.”138
w Ep. ad
Trail. Sec. 9. turn, dicis, ut
veram rampm Cliristi,
, mortemque lion perfuiu'torium probet
1*2 Ad
8m>m. Sec. 1. cmfessio sefmlturi.”
133 Ad Trail.
See. 9. The specification of the
time, by the
tu to expression “ under
Pontius Pilate,”
Ljnsa.
feec. lu. WJlg^ doubtless, to
destroy the claims ol
135
In Procem. Lib. IIipi «pr«x. So,too, any
false pretenders ot any other period
in the
Creed we read, that “lie was cruci- such
as those alluded to in the speech
fied,
dead, and buried,” as so many sep- of
Gamaliel, recorded in the Acts, ch. v
arate
scriptural assertions inconsistent 36,
'17.
with the
theory of the Doeet®. The 136
In the Creed of the Church o
same view
is enlarged on by other early Aquileia;
see Bishop Pearson on tin
writers.
The mere fact of his burial,” Creed,
Art. V.
writes
Theodoret, “ is sufficient to con- 137
Lib. I. C. 23, and in other passages
fute what
they (the Doceta?) seek to 138
The interpretation put on tne phrast
establish;
for it was neither his soul, nor by
the framers of our articles in the reigi
his Divine
nature, which was deposited of Edward
VI. was, “that the body o,
in the
grave, but his body, for graves are Christ
lay in the jirave until his resurrec,
prepared
for bodies.” Theodoret, quoted tion; but
his Spirit, which he gave up
by king,
p. 179. So too, Petrus Cnryso- was
with the spirits which were detained
Jogus, (in
Symb. Serm. tiO.) “ Sepul- in prison or
in hell, and preached t>
The
l-isiug from the dead, is a point so often specified and made pro- Pesurrec-
minent in the preaching and teaching of the apostles, that we should tlon'
certainly expect to find it in a creed of their composing. Whatever occasioned
them so to distinguish the doctrine in their discourses and writings, might be
equally good reason for appointing it a place in their formulas of faith.
Although witnesses of all Christ’s course of ministry, yet we know, that they
are in Scripture emphatically called “ witnesses of the resurrection and the
sum of their Acts i. w, preaching is described by St Luke, as “Jesus and the
iwurree- Actsxtivi*! tiou.” We plainly gather from Scripture, too, that there
was good reason for a particular enforcement of this great doctrine, because it
was above all others the one most opposed to the preconceived notions of
mankind. The immortality of the soul, as taught by some of the philosophers
among the Gentiles, was even inconsistent with a resurrection of the whole man
; and of the Jews themselves, perhaps even the Pharisees had not quite
comprehended the immortality of man to extend to a bodily resurrection. At al!
events, that strong bias in the Gentile world, to reject the doctrine as
absurd, which caused St. Paul to be mocked at Athens, sufficiently accounts
for the introduction of this clause into the earliest Creed. But, besides this
need for such an article, it will be remembered, that the Scriptures themselves
allude to an error, which was making progress amonaf Christians ; a notion, “
that the resurrec- 2 Tim. ii. is. tion was past already.” These heretics
understood the doctrine, it would seem, in a figurative sense, merely as
denoting “ a new birth unto righteousness,” and might have given rise to the
clause, or furnished an additional reason for its insertion.
The
occasion of the words which follow, and which assert the Ascension, ascension
into heaven, was certainly the heresy of some Marcionites, disciples of
Apelles; who introduced a variety in Marcion’s view, maintaining' that Christ’s
body, while on earth, was not a phantom, but that after he came down from
heaven, he dissolved this earthly body, and created for himself a heavenly one,
with which he ascended.183 Ilence, Irenseus, in repeating1
this article in one of his creeds, expresses it by “ the reception into the
heavens of Jesus Christ, in the flesh.”148 The addition, too, “
sitteth on the right hand Sitting at of God, the Pather Almighty,” might have
been made only in order handofUnd. to express more fully this view of the
ascension, and to declare, that he who tvas born of the "V lrgin Mary,
Arc. ascended in the same
in H:eres.
Apell. Lib. I. T. III. C. 111.
Augustin
alludes to the same view in his De Fide et Symbol, 13. “ Solet autem quosdam
offendere quod eredamus as- sumptum terrenum corpus in coeluni: nesciunt
quomodo dictum sit, seminatur corpus Animale, surget corpus Spiritu- ale.
140 Irensei, Lib. I. C. 11.
a; TOui oi/gcctoiig tou X§«rTOW *1
-nffou
them, as
the place in St. Peter testifiert!.” The passage in St. Peter alluded to is
chap. iii, 10, of his First Epistle. On the final revision of the articles in
Queen Elizabeth’s reign, this explanatory clause I was omitted, in consequence,
probably, of exceptions which had been taken against it.
139 Tertullian, de Pra^script. adv. Kaeres.
(J. 51. Epiphan. ad vers. Hceres.
J 4-{inont.
The Third
.\rticle.
The Holy
ohost.
*2 Cor. v.
7.
Holy <
atho!ic Church.
body, and
lias since required and assumed none other.14' In like manner, with
a view to maintain the personal identity of Christ, as we are taught to expect
him at Lis second coming, and not only while ascending and ascended, the
further assertion might have lieen made, that he, the same, “ shall come to
judge the quick and the dead.” The particular phrase, “ quick and dead,”
applied to the objects of his judicial appearance, may then be understood as 1
denoting a further extension of the orthodox view, and implying that Christ,
although once dead, buried, and ascended into heaven, shall come again m like
manner, and with the same body; and, that not only the 11 quick,”
those who arc alive at his coming, shall in their unperished bodies stand
before his tribunal, but “ the dead ” of all ages, awaking to a real bodily
resurrection.
I believe
in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the
forgiveness of sim; the resurrection of the body ; and the life everlusling.
Of the
articles of faith set forth in this portion of the Creed, the first, relating
to the IIolv Chost, must have been of very earh date. This we may presume,
without any reference to historical testimony. Iu no particular was the early
Christian’s faith so severely tried, as iu embracing the doctrine of his own
intimate connexion with, and influence by, that Holy Person, who, like the
wind, from which he received his name, was viewless and impalpable, and only
known by his effects. Ilence, the necessity at first nf accompanying the
ceremony of baptism, when this insensible endowment takes place, with some
sensible manifestation, to assure the sanctified of its reality. With the same
view, tho catechumen would require to be familiarized with a truth, which of
all demanded the greatest effort of l.is faith ; and the most experienced
Christian, too, would need some perpetual remembrancer, to prevent oblivion or
doubt of the golden rule of Christianity, “ we walk by faith, and not by
sight.” The other two articles of belief are of a later age.
When the
clause concerning the Church was first made use of, the point of faith
expressed, was simply belief in “ the holy Church ;” and it was added, perhaps,
by way of enlargement upon the doctrine to which it is now appended,— the
belief in the Holy Ghost. It is as a Church that we are the temple of the Holy
Ghost;—as a society, that we perform those acts which are the appointed means
iif grace; and that society is therefore emphatically termed “the holy.” The
introduction of the term “ catholic” into the sentence, may be easily accounted
for, by considering the ambiguity of the term Church. It conveyed a caution,
that the Church using such a creed should not confine its belief in the I)i\ine
residence, to >'s
Ii appears
first in tho writing of uf certain heretics, \\ i.o supposed Ohrift'J
Tertuliian,
who mentions, wiiat migtit state of
plory to be one ot inactivity. 1
lend us to
suppose that it denoteil (he “ Affirmant
earnem in ccsiis vaeuam
exercise
of his mediatorial power at the sensn,
nt va^inan., exmnpto Christo,
ri^lit
hand of God, namely, the existence sudert.”—De
Came Christi, C. 24.
own
particular society; but extend it to that large body, of which Christ is the
head, and all churches are portions in particular. The »• communion of saints”
was a still later addition ; and its introduc- Comrmmion tion implies, that the
preceding clause had become obscure, inasmuch uf Samts- as it is
manifestly an explanation of it. The communion of saints, or Christians, is
that which constitutes the essentials of a church; and consists in those acts
which are the means of grace, the outward forms through which the Holy Ghost
vouchsafes his operations.
Tertullian
is the earliest who makes mention of an article 011 the T^iUn's Church, and
this is the view under which he represents it:142 “ After the
declaration of faith has been made, and the pledge of salvation received in tbe
name of the Trinity, there follows,” he observes, l‘ necessarily, a mention of
the Church; forasmuch, as where the three are, that is, Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, there is the Church; which is their body.” Augustin has the same remark,
r The right arrangement of the articles of confession required, that to the
Trinity should be annexed the Church, as the bouse to its tenant, to a God bis
temple, the State to its founder.”143
The clause
on the forgiveness of sins has by some been applied Forgiveness to errors which
arose in the second century, the errors of the Mon- of bms' tanists
and Novatians.141 But there can be no doubt that it was Imade an
article of belief among the earliest Christians.145 Without
{searching far into the probable need for such an article, it may be sufficient
to observe, that remission of sins formed not only one of the most prominent
points of the goorl tidings which the Gospel preachers announced, but one of
the most objectionable. *.! Who is Luke n>. 40. he that forgiveth sins also
?” expresses a, scruple felt in common by Jew and Gentile. It was, in truth, no
accidental bias originating in the heated imagination of a theorist, which
caused the doctrine to be unacceptable, and likely to be got rid of. The converted
Pharisee, who trusted in his righteousness, and the Gentile convert, with his
habitual view of unlimited human merit, capable of raising him to heaven, would
naturally require some provision against the continual revival of feelings
subversive of tho true Christian spirit,
—so
contrary to the humiliating truth, that all, oven the best, require “ the
forgiveness of sins.” The same .may be observed of “the resurrection of the
body,” or “the flesh;” which, although Hesurrcc- useful as a fence against the
Gnostic follies already alluded to, Bod/1**" must, we may
conjecture, have been needed from the ancient prejudice of the anti-Christian
world, end is noticed by the earliest writers. The concluding words, “ the life
everlasting,”- seem everlasting.
li2 De Baptismo.
generally
have been adopted in the pre- ce ” remarks.
145 Enchir. ad Laurentium, C. 15.
; appears
from Cyprian, that it was in the Creed which the Novatians themselves used.
Cyp. Ep. 69, aL 76, ad Magnum. See Bingham’s Keck Antiq. Book
X. Chap.
IV. Sec. 4.
_ 144
This is the view of the learned and ingenious author of “The Critical History
of the Apostles’ Creed,” whose views
John v.
23, 4ii>.
Origin of
separate
Creeds for iitfereut Churches.
First en.
croachment on the independence of separate Churches.
properly
to belong to the foregoing, and to form vi ith it one assertion ; the
foundation of which may bo seen in our Saviour’s declaration, that “the hour
is coming, in the which all that are in tho graves shall hear his voice, and
shall come forth ; they that have I done good, unto the resurrection of life,
and they that have done etiL, unto the resurrection of damnation.”
If this
view of the Apostles’ Creed be correct, it is nothing irnpro- I bable, that
with the exception of the few clauses specified in the i foregoing review' of
it^ Creeds, in substance the same, were used 9 during the apostolic age. At all
events, little doubt can be enter- i tained, that such vu the case in the age
immediately succeeding. We say Creeds, because the ancient Creeds corresponded
to what in modern Churches are called the Articles of Religion. This, being so,
however intimate the union may be among orthodox Churches, the particular
circumstances of each may require a different formula of belief, as well as of
conformity; even as two confederate monar- I ehies, or democracies, would not
require precisely the same, statutes I and forms of administration. And so,
although the x\postles’ Creetl be the substance of the earliest Creeds, and the
precise language to I a certain extent, yet there may have been many Creeds
from the tirst; shaped I)}' each Church with reference to its peculiar dangers
I of faith from without, or the prejudices of its own members within. Thus, as
far back as we can trace the history of the early Creeds, i that of Jerusalem
was always distinct from that of Cassarea or I Antioch, and ail these, again,
from those of Alexandria or of Home ; I and this, during the period of harmony
between these Churches.
The
gradual infringement on the independent character of each separate Church,
until it was extinguished by the papal usurpation, is a subject well worthy of
more detailed discussion than is compa- I tible with the limits of this
inquiry. Among the primitive Churches, i each formed its own Creed, its own
Liturgy, and regulated its own ceremonies and discipline. The first
encroachment took ite rise from an apparent convenience. Whet the ruling powers
of the 1 world were generally Christians, each kingdom was made to
have I the same Liturgy, ifce. for all its Churches. To give an instance: when
Spain and Gallia Narbuticnsis became one distinct kingdom, it was deerecd bv a
Council, that there should be exact uniformity through all the Churches of
these provinces.118 The same principle, which thus produced an exact
conformity among all the Churches of the same nation, became the ground of
enforcing it, at length, on all the Churches of the empire. The first change
was in the boundary line of a Church, which was made political instead of
ecclesiastical. Men’s minds being familiarized to this, and Churches being con-
146 44 When Churches became subject closely in rituals and circumstantials of
to one
political head, and national Divine
worship, as well as faith and
Churches
arose from that distinction; substantials.*’—Bingham’s
Eecl. Antiq. 1
then it
was thought convenient by all the Book
XVI. C. I. Sec. 13.
Lishops of
such a nation, to unite more
sidered as
national bodies, it was no Very revolting step which was
taken by
the Romish Church, when it made itself the metropolitan The Church
of
national Churches; and gradually claimed that conformity to its assumes the
decrees,
and that obedienwS to its laws, which the metropolitan fitle °?
_ .11 -i -iii , p n tropolitan
Church of
every nation had acquired a right to expect irom ail of National
Churches
within the political pale of its jurisdiction. It was this Churcl'BS-
miscalled
Christian unity which the Reformation violated; and it is
against
sucli a Catholic Church, that all Protestants are accused of
being
guilty of heresy and schism.
The custom
of forming a code of rules for ceremonial conformity, was of later date than
Creeds. The oldest are the Apostolical Canons, Apostolical and the
Constitutions of Clement, as they are called, although written constitu-
confessedly long after the death of that bishop. The date of both these must be
assigned, even on the view most favourable to their antiquity, to a period much
later than that over which the present inquiry extends; nevertheless, some use
has been made of them, as records of an order of things, which, if then
recorded, must have been established in part, some time before any such codc of
rules respecting it could have been framed.
The Creeds
were not only taught to the catechumens, but were Ad»>ntaee» publicly read
in the churches ; a custom which has become now almost impracticable. The
Articles of the Church of England form i'-r0GIJn0uflga'
too bulky a symbolum to be read, as might be desirable, at stated Church times,
in the congregation, and as part of the scrvice. We hear Art,cles-
them read in Church only when a clergyman reads himself in, as it is called, to
a benefice. It is to be wished, however, that the members of the Church could
be reminded more frequently and habitually of its peculiar Articles. The
subject is well worthy of the consideration of those in authority. A few
Articles at a time might be read without too much prolonging the service,
although the reading of the whole at onse might prove tedious and useless.
The main
object of such a form is, that it be used “ as a sign upon the hand, aud as
frontlets between the eyes,” that the Lord’s law may “be in our heart;’-
and it should not be kept merely for reference and appeal. This is the purpose
of Scripture, not of the Articles.
One
substitute, doubtless, has been provided, in commanding the three Creeds to be
read publicly; and, accordingly, in order to give these the sanction and
authority of our Church, they are inserted in our Articles, although the
doctrines contained in them are elsewhere expressed in the Articles themselves.147
Still, this only partially effects the purpose which would be gained by
continual promulgatioi' of the Articles. "
To return
to the primitive Church. It was not only careful to Moral
preserve
itself, by thus providing against errors of faith,’ but also by of thep!ine
taking
cognizance of all immorality or indecorum, which would have Primitive
Church,
W In the
first five Articles, namely, which are obviously framed on the basis of the
Creeds
sanctioned afterwards in Art. VIII.
Immorality
an Koclesi- aMical as» 'self as a Civil crime.
endangered
the wellbeing of the community,—endangered it, either by defeating the
practical results uf the faith on Christians, or by exposing the Church to the
scorn and reprehension of those without, whom it was a sacred duty to
conciliate by every honest endeavour. In this spirit, Ignatius writes to the-
Trallians,14** “ Do not let a few unthinking ones among you give
occasion to the Gentiles fur blaspheming the word and the dispensation of it.”
Precedents for the application of St. Paul’s rule, of being “ all tilings to
all men,” are furnished abundantly by the apostolic Church, and especially that
portion of ii which was immediately superintended by the great Gentile apostle.
Even in the partial record which is left us, there is 110 lack of such
precedents. The unobtrusive and cautious demeanour of the Church, iu every
place, may be pointed out as the visible means whereby Providence sheltered it
from the ready spirit of persecution 'n Jew and Gentile; and the testimony of
Pliny, when that spirit was awakened, fully proves how little the Church had
incurred it by any imprudence or indiscreet regulations.14J
lint, it
was not merely the decorous and appropriate demeanour of Christians, which
required the guardian care of their constituted guides ; their morals, even
more than their manners, came under the cognizance uf ecclesiastical
government; and the exercise of eeclesiJ astical control here was peculiarly
difficult and delieate. It was so on this account: moral offences are, for
different reasons, proper objects of punishment to the Christian community considered
as a Church, and to the same community considered as a State. With us,
accordingly, who have lodged all power in the State, the former view is nearly
lost, and punishment is only directed against immorality as a civil crime.
But, at the period which we are now considering, each Christian society,
bearing all the weight of responsibility on its own shoulders, and not
receiving any support from the several civil authorities, felt itself hound to
take cognizance of immorality, which, accordingly, became an ecclesiastical
offence. In many instances the same act would be both a civil and also an
ecclesiastical crime; and this circumstance has had greater influence on the
character of the Church’s authority than Christian* are commonly sensible of.
It has occasioned a natural disposition in the Church, from its first patronage
by the first Christian emperor, to withdraw its exercise of authority in those
matters which come under the cognizance both of Church and State ; until all
moral ecclesiastical discipline, as such, has been gradually superseded.
Theft, for instance, is a crime against the community considered as a civil
body,
Chap wii.
In another Epistle of selves employed by
God; your lives, the
the same
Father, (ad Ephes. C. -V.) there form ot iunsuage
in v hieh lie addresses
is a
similar passage, arid rattier an tlo- them,
lie mild when they are artery,
yuent one,
v hieh may, indeed, be applied humble when
they ore haughty; to their
to the
prudence and expediency of pood blasphemy
oppose prayer unceasing, to
morals as
well as of discreet behaviour, theii
inconsistency, astedfast adherence
“ Gi\e
them (unbelievers) the clianee of to
vour faith,” Ac.
be.ieviup
through jou. Consider your- “9
Ep. ad Traj.
anil also
against the same community considered as a Church. Now, when Church anil State
have become not only composed of the same members, but subject to the same
executive control, it seems absurd, for the same offenders to be brought twice
to the same tribunal, to be punished separately for the same act,—although that
act be really a twofold offence. With the early Christians, however, this was
quite necess&rv; and theft, frauds of every kind, assaults, and all
immorality, in short, which was subject to civil penalties, were brought under
the cognizance of the Church, and tried without reference to the further
punishment which might await the offender from the magistrate. It would be
rather beyond the present purpose, to enter into the question of the
comparative advantages and disadvantages of Church-discipline as it now stands,
and as it must then have opera,ted. One feature of difference, however, cannot
fail to force itself on our observation. Whilst acts of immorality are
generally civil as well as ecclesiastical offences, so that the offender
against the Church seldom escapes punishment, (although it may not be the
appropriate punishment,) and others are thereby deterred ; still, the same act
may be an offcnce of much greater magnitude in one point of view than in
another. The distinction, e.g. which the law makes between this and that
description cf fraud, might not |.be the same as that which we should make
according to ecclesiastical views; although the distinction be elearly just in
the former case. But moreover, some acts of immorality, some of the most
serious, do not fall under the cognizance of the civil magistrate at all; for
instance, adultery, fornication, neglect of filial duty, and the like. When,
therefore, the Church ceases to distinguish ecclesiastical from [civil offences
iu moral conduct, some, of no unimportant character, escape all penalty and
censure; and the ecclesiastical statutes become obsolete. Hence the Church is
forced, in these cases, to depend on the influence of public feeling, to
substitute that punishment, for which, in other cases, it depends on the civil
powers. At the period on which we are treating, all this was impossible; the
Church had no resources from without, and thus, although its power was more
circumscribed, its jurisdiction was more comprehensive.
It had, as
has been formerly pointed out, ona inherent right,— that of exclusion, in all
its shades and gradations; which, skilfully managed, became no inefficient
system of punishment. Were it likely to have been otherwise, indeed, Christ’s
kingdom would not have been limited to the use of it; nor would the apostles,
in illustrating by their example the principles of our spiritual government,
have been so cautious not to venture beyond it. By means of this punishment the
primitive Church enforced obedience to its forms of faith, its measures of
prudent decorum, and its requisites of moral conduct, as far as moral conduct
was necessary to constitute an appropriate evidence of sincerity.
Cf the
character of this punishment, as it appears in the aposto-
Power of
exclusion.
iiowwuided
lieal Church, some remarks were made in an earlier stage of tliis J'Vmftive
inquiry. As far as wo can trace, the first uninspired Churches churches, were
guided strictly by these models. The offender, whether heretic, nonconformist,
or evil I vor, was first cautioned, then excluded from certain acts of
communion, generally beginning with the Eucharist. If these successive
interdictions failed to bring the offender to a sense of his crime, and to tho
appropriate acknowledgment of that sense, the Church proceeded to complete
exclusion; and in some extreme eases this was made perpetual.150 It
was only when the sentence was that of complete exclusion, that it was made
known formally from the Church whose sentence it was, to t others likely to be
concerned, that they might be on their guard against receiving the outcast.
Penaiwe.
The formal testimony of contrition, according to the appointment of the Church,
was called penance, or penitence. In the gradual distortions of primitive
usages, this assumed a place among the penalties of the Church ; but its
original character, as the term imports, w as tliat of a formal act of
submission and sorrow.
This was
always requisite before the offender eouid be received again into communion ;
but it \\ as not al\> ays at once considered sufficient. Excommunication
varied, not only as to the religious privileges from which the offender was
excluded, but as to tbe term of his exclusion ; and it was found requisite to
keep some offenders under this spiritual degradation for a long period,151
while others were immediately readmitted 011 acknowledgment of error.
Absolution.
All was performed, as far back as we can trace any account of it, w itli the
strictest regard to tbe solemnity of Christ’s earthly tribuual. As the act of
penance was formal and solemn, so, too, was the act of absolution, by which the
Chureh restored its member to his former riahts.
150 Such, at least, was the rule retained in
the Apostolical Constitutions, Lib. II. C. 41. It may be doubted, however,
whether it is to be interpreted as enjoining perpetual exclusion under all
circumstances—as allowing no possible read mission. This is not necessarily
implied, and we know that the general principle was, for the parent Church to
receive its prodigal child, whenever it should give sufficient proof of
repentance.
E/r£*5a£ff-£i
aiiro* iff to* vio* to* XZ4X&X0701,
TOV
«0-»TOV, TO* f/,tTKT0{*to* f/,UUlCOt*Ta T r,*
'ra.rtiz^
oitr.ot*. So, too, Ignatius, (ad Phil. C. 3.) “As many as repent and return to
the unity of the Chinch, these shall be of God.”
151 See Bingham, Book XVIII. C. I. Sec. 4. St.
Paul’s intercession tor the offending member of the Corinthian Chureh, that the
term of his interdiction should be shortened, proves the apostolical establishment
of the custom.
VThat
Measures the First UNixsriRED
Church Pursued for Sr.Lr-pHESERVATioN riioii External Dangers.
In the
last Chapter, I considered the mode of self-preservation adopted by the
primitive Church in reference to the dangers it had reason to apprehend from
its own members.
But,
besides this tendency of the constitution to decay,. and External become
vitiated of itself, there was another class of dangers from ofth«r*
without. Heathen philosophy was likely, either to assault Chris- gjJuroJ*6
tianity as a rival, or to claim connexion with it as a kindred system.
In the
apostolic age the Ministry comprised few learned men $ and this, evidently, in
order to demonstrate that the wisdom of the Gospel was from above.112
As the Divine gifts of wisdom, of knowledge, and of utterance decayed, human
learning and human talents became requisite; and these were not lacking. Men
arose with the necessary endowments whose names will be over dear to
Christians.
[Nor was
it long before a sufficient host of these was enlisted in the good cause, to
form a noble defence of the true faith. The most critical season was the period
of transition,—the one to which we have now advanced; a period when the
heavenly and miraculous wisdom was rarely, if ever, vouchsafed, and yet the
propagation of the Gospel had scarcely exceeded the original limits of the
unlearned and unknown. If we consider the peculiar danger to which the faith
was then exposed, we need be thankful, indeed, for the recorded form in which
the whole rule of faith was delivered and left. As the new scet spread,
philosophers no longer disdained an Fmw the inquiry into its character, and
became candidates for admission- tiotwTs! But they came with more than the
prejudices of local custom ana hereditary manners about them. To a certain
extent, their know-
g 152
This is what St. Paul asserts, 1 Cor. weakness
of the instrumentality which
i. ‘26*.
In our Authorized Version it is, the
Lord was employing to convert the
‘‘Ye see
your calling-, brethren, how world. This
he further illustrates by
that not
many wise men alter the flesh, reference
to himself, who although not
not many
mighty, not many noble, are without
worldly wisdom, yet did not em*
called&c.;
it should have been, were ploy it for
the purpose. “And I,” (more
employed
in calling you~were your cal- correctly “
Even I”) “brethren, when I
lers. The
words in Italics have no cor- came to
you, came not with excellency of
responding
words in the original, and speech or of
wisdom,*’&c.—See “Scrip-
supplied
words must be determined by ture and
the Authorized Version of
the drift
of the whole passage. Now Scripture,” p.
40. what the apostle is dwelling on is, the
From the J
ignorant Believers.
Apologies,
Character
of the Primitive .Martyrs.
ledge of
heavenly tilings was supposed to lie begun ; and they only sought for more
light, not such as would make their former view seem darkness and a dream. Many
must have turned away from the Christian preachers discontented and disdainful;
and theirs was not the worst case. Others would renounce their former knowledge
as vain and unfounded, and apply themselves to the minister for instruction.
But the applicant was a philosopher; the teacher, perhaps, a plain, unlettered
man. The former, although he renounced his religious errors, still could not at
once renounce the habits of thought, the mouldings of mind, through which they
bad flowed, lie could only learn religious theology, as he had once learned
metaphysical theology. Unsuspicious of danger, and assuming among his most
useful qualifications, that of being “ all things to all men,” the early
teacher might blamelessly convey his holy lesson to these, by illustrations and
phrases borrowed from their previous stores. In some instances no harm would
ensue. In others, we might expect the doctrine to be corrupted by the impure
vessels which received it, and the. poisonous effect to exhibit itself alike on
catechumen and catechist. Out of all this would arise two distinct scenes of
danger to religion—distinct in their progress, although originally the same.
From the philosophical world which rejected the Christians’ oft’er, all its
wisdom would be openly arrayed to crush it. From that portion which embraced
it, there would be no less danger in the impurities which it introduced. These
would be the authors of heresy and corruption ; the former wotdd be sophists
and satirists—the last defenders of the ruined temple of idolatry which they
could not bring themselves to forsake. In what way heretics were opposed, and
how specific antidotes were provided for their errors and seductions, bus been
already considered. Against the assaults of infidel writers and orators, too,
the Chureh soon found an appropriate weapon of defence. Apologies, or formal
defences of the faith, were circulated abroad, and even presented to the
imperial throne. Of these, the most famous are those of Justin .Martyr,
addressed to the Antonines. But, many years earlier, Quadratus, bishop of
Athens, and Aristides, had made similar appeals to Hadrian. The province of
learning and eloquence was as yet, however, the weakest point of the Church;
and Providence hail graciously ordained, that as yet the Chureh should not so
greatly need this kind of support.
It was
against the jtoiccr of the unbelieving world that its earliest efforts were
required ; and for this it was proportionably armed. Every sen of the Church
was baptized unto a faith, which taught him to aspire to an imitation of
Christ, not only in his holiness and spiritual endowments, but in his earthly
humiliation and his sufferings. “ To me to die is gain,” was echoed down from
the apostle to his meanest convert; and elevation to a bishopric was nearly
equnalent to an appointment to martyrdom. To read the Epistles
of
Ignatius, or the monuments of tlie primitive martyrs generally, without a
preparatory knowledge of the tone of feeling, which was that of the Church and
of the age—leaves the reader with a doubt of the authenticity of the writings,
or of the sincerity of the writers.
Even among
the learned there are some, not exempt from the error of measuring the results
of ancient characters, manners, and feelings, as if those characters, manners,
and feelings, were still the same, and our own. Apologies have been made, and
attempts ingeniously contrived, to soften down the expressions of the ambitious
martyr in his glorious thirst for death. What would Ignatius or Polycarp have
said to such a dilution of their character ? Surely Cranmer and Ridley
understood it, although in the quiet and gentle scenes around us, Christian
heroism may seem romance, and fervid religion, enthusiasm. Martyrdom, the most
eager martyrdom, w'as an act of self-defence in the Church, through its brave
and devoted champion. It was the surest, and often the only means of appeasing
the awakened fury of persecution; which, being thus spent on the eminent
individual, no longer extended itself to the whole body.
Amid the
jarring elements of passions and prejudices, with which Christ’s holy temple
was surrounded, the primitive martyrs were the conductors of the fatal spark
whenever it flashed forth. They defied, and they received its fury, but the
edifice was untouched.
For, it is
to be observed, that these early persecutions were not Persecution altogether
the result of state policy, directed against the growth of a political evil.
Had it been so, the Roman power was competent j|!r''tetlith
(without the intervention of some signal miracle) to have certainly oiiurchas
crushed the new sect. But Christianity was, for reasons often such'
alluded to, unpopular; and persecution was, generally, only a permission to
indulge popular licentiousness. Hence it happened, that the sacrifice of one or
two conspicuous objects, which would have been insufficient and weak as a
political measure for suppressing the sect, was often enough to stay
persecution.
Such,
then, was the character of the primitive martyrs. Nor, in contemplating the
immense service rendered by these worihies to the Church formerly, should we
forget that to them we also are indebted for an important link in the evidence
on which we believe.
The
primitive martyrs told a tale of miracles which they had seen Evidence to
performed in confirmation of that faith, for which they, therefore, chrfct”
nity ; died. Could they have been otherwise than sure, who held life as honied
a trifle, when demanded in testimony of the truth of their assertions?
primftive Surely their blood still cries from the earth. Martyrs.
It is to
be regretted, although we can scarcely wonder at it, that False the reverence
felt by the Church for benefactors such as these were, ttie should have
displayed itself in those various bursts of feeling, which * ra‘>.
* ; cold-hearted craft, or superstition, afterwards systematized and
by superpractised as formal duties. By institutions, not unlike that which
SwSmnccs. should bind us to weep periodically over tho grave of one, whose
Legends
respecting
them.
Ignatius.
First
Persecution
A.D. Cl.
loss drew
involuntary tears from our forefathers; Low many CLurcLes, in succeeding ages,
Lave bound themselves to pay tlie same respect to the relics of tLese Lolv men,
as did their con temporaries and friends in the first transports of gratitude
and affection! It Las Leen worse than this. Instead of that enthusiasm of
puhlic or private regard, which naturally passed away with the generation to
which they belonged, a false and formal piety was substituted. The)’, who like
Paul and Barnabas at Lystra, lived and died to persuade, mankind to turn from
idolatrous vanities, were mistaken, like their inspired predecessors, and
scarcely regarded as “ men of like passions" with their brethren, Martyrs
to the truth of that holy record, in which it is written, that “ there, is one
Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” they were gradually addressed
as intercessors with God; and whilst that same record declared, that we are
saved by faith and not by works, that “ the blood of Christ cleanseth us from
all sin,” and rhat God gives not Lis glory to another; their lives were
regarded as abounding in transferable merit; and out of tLeir very relics
virtue was supposed to go forth.
llence,
too, it has happened, that instead of that simple narrative of their deaths,
which we should expect to find, whatever is true concerning them lies buried in
an uodistLnruishfcble mass of fable and marvels. It would afford little
gratification, therefore, to a searcher after truth, to be presented with a
series of these false pictures; and, accordingly, we sliall confine our notice
of tlie primitive martyrs to two, who are, perliaps, the most illustrious, and
whose history is at the same time best autlienticafed. These are Ignatius,
bishop of Antioch, and Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. With the latter of these
closes the line of apostolical Fathers, and the period within which the present
inquiry has been restricted.
Martybikjm of Ignatius.
To connect
the narrative of the martyrdom of Ignaiius, which occurred in what is called by
ecclesiastical writers the third general persecution, with the mention of tlie
preceding two, it may Le necessary to go back for a while to the period which
embraces these. It was in the tenth or eleventh year of Nel'o’s reign, that the
first of tliese fiery trials of God’s people commenced, which numbered amongst
its victims the apostles Peter and Paul. The | interval between this and the
second general persecution, which has also been noticed as the era of St.
John’s banishment, comprises a period of twenty-four years. During this time,
the general security did not exempt individuals from persecution and death; it
being, as Las been observed, one of the apparent motives which actuated these
heroic champions of the holy Church, to devote themselves, with a nobler
patriotism than that of the Peeii, that on them might be. spent tlie wratli and
spleen, which, otherwise, tLe Churcli at large
must have
felt. Among those who are recorded in this pious Martyrdoms F service, and
whose deaths may be thus supposed to have prolonged th0*0mew,’ this
breathing time of the Church, are the apostles St. Bartholomew and St. Thomas ;
and of the worthy fellow-labourers of the apostles, Linus, and Martialis, at
Ravenna in Italy, Linus at Rome, where he was bishop, Ar' pa*'
and Antipas, at Pergamus.
The
troubled state of the Roman empire during this period, not a little contributed
to the secure progress of Christianity, notwithstanding these occasional
evidences of an evil spirit opposed to it.
From the
death of Nero to the reign of Vespasian, the imperial throne was perpetually
contested, and the whole world thereby kept in continual alarm and suspense.
Galba, Otlio, and Vitel!ius, were scarcely allowed, one after the other, to
take possession of the prize, when they were called on to pay the usual price
of their lives for it. At length Vespasian secured for himself and for his
family a more permanent seat; the tumult of political animosity gradually died
away, and Christianity was destined to be one of the chief objects, on which
the turbulent and bloody spirits of the age vented those savage feelings which,
nursed amid civil wars, no longer found their former opportunity of
indulgence;. It was during the reigns of Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian, the
martyrdoms above mentioned occurred. But even these acts of self-devotion could
not long divert the popular fury from the whole body of Christians. A second
Second persecution commenced in Bomitian’s reign. Under Nerva, his ' ‘ rse™Mon-
successor, a brief respite was obtained; but with the accession of“ ’ ‘ Trajan
a fresh scene of troubles was opened. Early in this reign,
Clement, bishop
of Rome, met the fate of his predecessors in that Clement, perilous station,
and was cast into the sea with an anchor about his neck. The reigning emperor,
according to history, was neither cruel nor supine; but his government becoming
more and more embarrassed with the question concerning the proper management of
the Christians, the established system continued to be acted on, until some
better method should be devised; and, accordingly, cruelty and injustice were
not less conspicuous in this than in the preceding reigns. If we may credit the
Greek Martyrology, besides the distinguished individuals who suffered, on one
occasion one thousand one hundred Christian soldiers were banished into Armenia
by order of tbe emperor; one thousand of whom perished by crucifixion on Mount
Ararat. The account may be false or exaggerated.
Trajan may
have been, as he is represented, neither a bloody tyrant, nor an inert monarch
; but, if his character were really thus unspotted, his lot was at least
unfortunate for his future fame. Christians cannot forget, that it was during
his administration of the affairs of the world, that, separately and
successively, the wanton violence of the people was gratified with the blood of
five blameless bishops, besides numbers, most of whose names are only recorded
in heaven.
The
rebellion of the Jews in Alexandria, Cyrene, and Cyprus; the H. ‘ u
Third
Persecution,
a.p. 107.
Arrival of
Trajan at Antioch.
Interview
between itrnatius and Trsjan.
wrongs
which roused them to vengeance, and their dreadful nets oi retribution—all
this, too, contributes to make the picture of his reign such a scene of
bloodshed and general inhumanity, that it is vain to plead his love of humane
I'terature and of literary men, against the impression which is thus made on
us.
It was
about a.D. 107, when the emperor, in the full confidence of a prosperous reign
of nearly nine years, came to Antioch, to prepare for a war against the
Parthians and Armenians. lie had already in other parts of the empire indulged
the persecuting spirit, which was always ripe to burst forth against the
Christians; and his arrival at Antioch was, accordingly, received by the
bishop, the good Ignatius, as a certain presage of distress and danger to his
flock. He at once adopted the hold remedy, which before had been tried with
success by others, lie presented hiniself to Trajan, and behaved in a manner
whiah attracted to himself chiefly, if not wholly, the attention of the
monarch; and his sentence was, to be conveyed to Rome, and there to be thrown
publicly to wild beasts. The interview between the emperor and the holy man, if
faithfully related, was well adapted to produee the desired result. It presents
a strange contrast between the language of a sovereign of the world, and the
simple avowal of one who felt himself beyond his grasp.
Being come
into the presence of the Emperor, Trajan asked him,lt: saying, What
a wicked wretch art thou, thus to endeavour to transgress our commands, and to
persuade others also to do likewise, to their destruction ?—Ignatius answered,
No one ought to call Tbeo- phorus1,54 after such a
manner; forasmuch as all wicked spirits are departed far from the servants of
God. But if, because I am a trouble to those evil spirits, you call me wicked,
with reference to them I confess the charge; for, baying within me Christ, the
heavenly King, I dissolve all the snares of the devils.
Trajan
replied, And who is Theophorus ?—Ignolivs. He who has Christ in his
breast.—Trojan. And do not we then seem to thee to have the gods
within us, who fight for us against our enemies ?—Ignatius. Yon
err, in that you call the evil spirits of the heathens, gods. For there is but
one God, who made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that are in them; and
one Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son, whose kingdom may 1 enjoy.
Trajan.
His kingdom, you say, who was crucified under Pontius i Pilate?—Ignatius. His,
who crucified my sin with the inventor of it; and has put all the deceit and
malice of the devil under the feet of those who carry him in their heart.—Trajan.
Dost thou then carry Him who was crucified within thee ?—Ignatius.
1 do; for it is -written, “I will dwell in them, and walk in them.”—The«jl
lifi **
Martyrdom of Ignatius,” Arch- allusion to the Christian doctrine*, thatj bishop
Wake’s translation. _ we are “the
temple of the Holy Ghost,!!
iw This
name was doubtless adopted in who dwelleth in us.”
Trajan
pronounced the sentence against him. Forasmuch as Igna- Hi« tius has confessed,
that he carries about ivith'n himself Him that *®ntenc was
crucified, tvc command that he be
carried, bound by soldiers, to the great Rome, there to be thrown to the
beasts, for the entertainment of the people.
When the
holy martyr heard this sentence, he cried out with joy,
“ I thank
thee, 0 Lord, that thou hast vouchsafed to honour me with a perfect love
towards thee; and hast made me to he put into iron bonds with thy apostle
Paul.’
It was in
his journey to Rome, that the six Epistles were written, He write* which
comprise his genuine remains. Of that addressed to the Eplstk!-
Romans, expressing an anxiety to prevent any attempt to rescue, or even to
intercede for him, some mention has been already made.
On the
same topic he dwells in his other Epistles.
It was
more peculiarly, however, for his own charge at Antioch that he had courted
death; and from his Epistle to the Philadelphians, written from Troas, he must
have had the consolation of knowing that he had not devoted himself in vain.
The persecution had, by this time, begun to abate; although its mitigation may,
perhaps, have been owing to the concurrence of another cause, which deserves
notice.157
The
governor of Bithynia at this period was Pliny, the elegant Flinj's author of
the Letters which are in the hands of every scholar.
That he
was no ordinary favourite and friend of the emperor, those Letters testify; and
the use which he appears to have made of this influence, is not the least
brilliant part of his character. Finding himself daily more and more
embarrassed by complaints against the Christians, he investigated their case,
and sent the statement to the emperor, with a request for further instruction
for his conduct. It was no common merit in that age, to have so far opposed the
current of popular fee'ing, as to have given the question a patient and candid,
although an imperfect investigation; and to have represented it so to the
monarch, as to remove from his mind its worst suspicions. Concerning his
Letter it may be sufficient to remark, that it bore evidence to the moral and
orderly behaviour of the persecuted Christians; which was the point then most
important, because it, doubtless, mainly contributed to check the permission to
persecute.
It has
further placed on a heathen record the fact, that in that earlv period of the
Church, one of its prominent practices, was the worship of Christ as God.m
,5? Euseb.
Hist. Lib. III. C. 33. dare,” he
writes, “ that this was the
i-*
hat the full information was which amount
of their guilt, or their emu;—, i
Pliny
obtained respecting the Christian that
on s stated daj they vsed to meet
rites,
especially from the two deacon- betore
daylight, and audress to Christ,
esses whom
he examined by torture, as God, a torm of
words l'"oken into
jwe do not
know. Ilis account is only alternate
portions; that their sacrament
th'i
confession of certain apostates, in was
nothing to bind them to anv deed of
which,
nevertheless, there is an obvious wickedness,
bvt *o preserve them from
agreement
with the truth. “ They de- committing
theft, robbery, falsehood,
Martyrdom of Polycarp.
A.r>.
11'7.
Infidel
attacks.
From the
dentil of Ignatius to that of the last surviving apostolic iu-resies Father,
Polvearp, an interval of about sixty years intervenes, during of which tbe
Church was still perpetually called on to exert all its !'oh™-ii.and
efforts for self-preservation. Its dangers from within were kept up by the
craft or enthusiasm of such men as Basilides, Yalentinius, and Mareion,159
together with other sectarians, if possible, more impious and absurd—►Opliitsp,
CaiuiUe, Sethiani. The wit and learning of the avowed heathens were more
vigorously directed against the encroaching influence of a system, the
establishment of which was the overthrow of what then seemed the most sublime
and important portion of philosophy.1160 The Christians were called
on to write answers to accusations, and to refute arguments. Nor was the sword
of persecution less bloody than heretofore. Trajan’s Letter to Pliny, which,
doubtless, established the principle by which the accusations against Christians
were treated during the remainder of his reign, still gave considerable
latitude to any provincial governor, who was either himself cruel, or disposed
to indulge the malice and caprice of the provincials. Even at Rome, and shortly
after the emperor's rule was laid down. Onesimus, St. Paul’s disciple, is said
to have been stoned.161
Whatever
moderation Trajan, however, may have used during the latter part of fail reign,
it was no longer observed on the accession of Hadrian. Persecution, severe ami
general, was again suffered to go on without control or mercy. At Rome,
especially, it was no longer directed against the most eminent, hut numberi
were wantonly murdered, and still more were, driven to seek shelter in crypts
and caves. Their bishop, Evaristus, tvas among the first martyrs. A letter from
Serenius G rani anus’03 to the emperor, in behalf of the defenceless
Christians, procured at length an order for mitigating the severity of the
proceedings. Still, even the intervals between the avowed and authorized
persecutions abound with occasional acts, which, under existing prejudices,
could not fail to be perpetually committed. Before Hadrian’s reign was closed,
Alex-
Fourth
J’ersecutfon,
A. I).
118.
dishonest
practices; that, when it was all over, they used to disperse, and again meet at
a meal, in which there was nothin" remarkable or blatneworthy.” This meal
was, of course, the Feast of Love. For Pliny’s statement and Tra* jan’s reply,
see Plin. Ep. X. 97, 98.
153 Montanus
and his followers were not yet marked as heretics, although they were, before
the death of Polycarp, sowing the seeds of error.
160 It is quite necessary, in order to
understand Aristotle’s view of in Ethics, to connect it with his religious
theory—that the Deity, namely, pervaded the universe, and was the universe.
161 The martyrologies make him bishop of
Antioch. See Cave.
162 He was proconsul of Asia, and his Letter
represents the Christian persecutions as an unjustifiable indulgence of
popular licentiousness. As the Emperor’s rescript was addressed to Minuciua
Fun* danus, the Christians of that province must soon have lost the protection
of one who deserves to be remembered as the first heathen governor who
recommended the toleration of Christianity, as a right which could not justly
be denied to. C hristian subjects. See Euseb. Hisc.fi Lib. IV. C. 8 and 9.
ander,
another bishop of Rome, suffered; and the deaths of Getulius, 01 Amantius
Cerealis, and others of less note, occurred nearly within Bi™pofr’
the last year of it. The Antonines succeeded, and from that period to tbe fifth
great persecution which preceded the death of Polycarp, two more biohops of
Home, Telesphorus and Ilyginus, besides Justin of Martyr, and many of inferior
note, kept up the succession of martyrs. ny,; m°.
Polycarp had been permitted to arrive at extreme old age, not- ttUa asUl'-
withstanding his known zeal and activity as bishop of Smyrna. He was born
during tbe reign of Nero, and is said to have enjoyed the e.t1j life of
instruction and friendship of several of the apostles, of St. Paul especially,
and St. John. No testimony to his good use of these great advantages can add
weight to that which has been left on record by the last-mentioned apostle in
tbe book of Revelations. f1 Unto the angel of the Church in Smyrna
write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead and is alive;
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich,) and I know
the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews and are not, but are the
synagogue of Satan. Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold
the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye
shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give
thee a crown of life.”163 Tbe veneration felt by the whole Christian
world, for one whose character and prophetic history had been thus made sacred
by an apostle’s pen, and who was the last of those who had conversed with the
apostles themselves, may sufficiently account for his martyrdom, lie was called
for by the acclamations of a mob, and sacrificed to their inhuman wautonness.
Among the relics of ecclesiastical antiquity, few are more worthy of being
generally known than the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, which details,
Epistle of simply and sincerely, all tbe incidents of bis fate. Scaliger has of
smjrni” said of it,164 that he never met with any thing in
ecclesiastical history which so much affected him, and that after reading it be
was no longer himself. A literal translation of the main parts of this Epistle
then will, perhaps, be more generally acceptable than any other narrative of
the martyrdom of the last apostolical Father.
Of his own
writings we have only one Epistle, not unworthy of his fame. It is addressed to
the I’hilippians, and is preserved partly in the original Greek, and partly in
an ancient Latin translation.
Some of it
is entirely lost.
163 Chap. ii.
8—10.
In
Animadvers. Eusebian. Num. 21*$.
Extract i'kom the Epistle of the Chur™ of Smyrna ox the Marsvudom
of Polycarp.105 “ Poly carp, when he first heard that he was
called fur, was not at all concerned at it, but resolved to tarry in the city.
Nevertheless, he was at the last persuaded, at the. desire of many, to go out
of it. He departed, therefore, into a little village not far distant from the
eity, and there tarried with a few about him; doing nothing, night nor day, but
praying for all men, and for the Churches which were in all the world,
according to his usual custom. And as he was praying, he saw a vision 186
three days before he was taken; and, behold, the pillow under his head seemed
to him on fire. Whereupon, turning to those who were w ith him, he said
prophetically, that he should be burnt alive.
“ Now when
those who were to take him drew near, he departed into another village ; and
immediately they who sought him came thither. And when they found him not, they
seized upon two young men that were there; one of which, being tormented,
confessed. For it was impossible he should be concealed, forasmuch as they who betrayed
him were his own domestics. So tho officer, who is also called deronomus,
(Herod by name.) hastened to bring him into the lists; that so Polyearp might
receive his proper portion, being made partaker of Christ, and they that
betrayed him, undergo the punishment of Judas.
“ The
serjeants, therefore, and horsemen, taking the young lad along with them,
departed about supper-tiine, ^being Friday,) with their usual arms, as it were
against a thief or a robber. And being come to the place where he was, about
the close of the evening, they found him lying down in a little upper room,
from whence he could easily have escaped into another place, but he would not,j
saying, ‘ The will of the Lord be done.’
“
Wherefore, when he heard that they had come to the house, he went down and
spake to them. And as they that were present wondered at his age and constancy,
some of them began to say,
‘ Was
there need of all this care to take such an old man V Then presently he
ordered, that the same hour there should be somewhat got ready for them, that
they might eat and drhik their till; desiring them withal, that they would
give him one hour’s liberty the while to pray w ithout disturbance. And when
they had permitted him, he stood praying, being full of the grace, of God, so
that he ceased not for two whole hours, to the admiration of all that heard
him: insomuch that many of the soldiers began to repent that they were come out
against so godly an old man.
,n5 The
Epistle is addressed “ From the holy
Catholic Church, in every place.’’
Church of
(iod which is at Smyrna to The translation
is Ai-chbishop 'Vane’*, the Chureh ot God which is at PhiiadpI- lec
’E. orr«-i* yiy**. Eusebius re; re-
pLia, and
‘o all other assemblies of the aents
it as a dream.
I “ As
soon as lie had done his prayer—In wliicli he remembered all men, whether
little or great, honourable or obscure, that had at any time been acquainted
with him; and, with them, the whole Catholic Church over all the world—the time
being come that he was to depart, the guards set him upon an ass, and so
brought him into the city, being the day of the great Sabbath. And Herod, the
chief officer, with his father Nicetas, met him in a chariot. And having taken
him up to them, and set him in the chariot, they began to persuade him, saying,
‘ What harm is there in it, to say, Lord Csesar, and sacrifice, (with the rest
that is usual on such occasions,) and so be safe ?’ But Polycarp, at first,
answered them not: whereupon they continuing to urge him, he said, ‘ I shall
not do what you persuade me to.’ So being out of all hope of prevailing with
him, they began first to rail at him, and then, with violence, threw him out of
the chariot, insomuch that he hurt his thigh with the fall. But he, not turning
back, went on readily with all diligence, as if he had received no harm at
all; and so was brought to the lists, where there was so great a tumult, that
nobody could be heard.
“ As he
was going into the lists, there came a voice from heaven to him, ‘ Be strong,
Polycarp, and quit thyself like a man.’ Now 110 one saw who it was that spake
to him ; but for the voice, many of our brethren, who were present, heard it.
And as he was brought in, there was a great disturbance when they heard how
that Polycarp was taken. And when he came near, the proconsul asked him, ‘
Whether he was Polycarp;’ who confessing that he was, he persuaded him to deny
the faith, saying, ‘ Reverence thy old age ; with many other things of the like
nature, as their custom is; concluding thus, ‘ Swear by Cajsar’s fortune.
Repent, and say, Take away the wicked.’ Then Polycarp, looking with a stern
countenance upon the whole multitude of wickcd Gentiles, that was gathered
together in the lists; and shaking his hand at them, looked up to heaven, and
groaning, said, ‘ Take away tho wicked*’ But the proconsul insisting and
saying, ‘ Swear; and I set thee at liberty: reproach Christ;’ Polvcarp replied,
‘ Eighty and six years have I now served Christ, and He has never done me the
least wrong; how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour ?’
“ And when
the proconsul nevertheless still insisted, saying, ‘ Swear by the genius of
Caesar,’ he answered, ‘ Seeing thou art so vainly urgent with me that I should
swear, as thou callest it, bv the genius of Ca?sar, seeming as if thou didst
not know what I am ; hear me freely professing to thee, that I am a Christian.
But if thou farther desirest an account of what Christianity is, appoint a day,
and thou shalt hear it.’ The proconsul replied, ‘ Persuade the people.’
Polycarp answered, ‘ To thee have I offered to give a reason of my faith: for
so are we taught to pay all due honour, (such only excepted as would be hurtful
to ourselves,) to the powers and
authority
which are ordained of God. But for the people, I esteem them not worthy, that I
should give any account of mv failh tu them.’
“ The
proconsul continued, and said unto him, ‘ I have wild beasts ready; to those I
will cast thee, except thou repent.’ lie answered, ‘ Call for them then; for we
Christians are fixed in our minds, not to change from good to evil. But for me,
it will be good, to be changed from e> ii to good.’ The proconsul added,
* Seeing thou despisest the wild Leasts, I
will cause thee to lie devoured by tire, unless thou shalt repent.' Poiycarp
answered,
‘ Thou
threatenest me with lire which burns for an hour, and so is extinguished; but
knowest not the fire of the future judgment, and of that eternal punishment
which is reserved for the ungodly. But whv tarriest thou ? Bring forth what
thou wilt.
“ Having
said this, and many other things of the like nature, he was filled with
confidence and joy, insomuch that his very countenance was full of grace; so
that he did not only not let it fall with confusion at what was spoken to him;
but 011 the contrary, tho proconsul was struck with astonishment, and sent his
erier into the middle of the lists, to proclaim three several times, ‘ Poly
carp ha3 confessed himself to he a Christian.' Which being done by tho crier,
the whole multitude, both of tlie Gentiles and of the Jews which dwelt at
Smyrna, being full of fury, cried out with a loud voice, ‘ This is the doctor
of Asia,1*7 the father of Christians, and the overthrower
of our gods; he that has taught so many not to sacrifice, nor pay any worship
to the gods.’ And saying this, they cried out, and desired Philip the Asiarch,188
that he would let loose a lion against Polyearp. But Philip replied, that it
was not lawful for him to do so, because that kind of spectacle was already
over. Then it pleased them to cry out with one consent, that Polycarp should be
burnt alive. For so it was necessary for the vision to be fulfilled, which was
made manifest unto him by his pillow', when, seeing it on fire as he was
praying, he turned about, and said prophetically to the faithful that were
with him, ‘ I must be burnt alive.’
“ This,
therefore, was done with greater speed than It was spoke; the whole multitude
instantly gathering together wood and fagots, out of the shops and baths; the
Jews especially, according to their custom, with all readiness assisting them
in it. When the fuel was ready, Polyearp, laying aside all his upper garments,
and undoing his girdle, tried also to pull off his clothes underneath, which
aforetime he was not wont to do; forasmuch as always every one of the
Christians that wras about him contended who should soonest touch
167
Th?reaJingofthe/jreck manuscript Not
the Roman governor, but one
is. i c'ri
UnitU' Sitirx eXec.but Eusebius, who
was elected annually by the pro' iu-
Rufinus,
and tlie old Latin translator, ciaIs from
themselves, to preside over tho
read,
trmt, which has been accordingly public
spectacles, and other solemnities,
adopted by
Archbishop Wake. See Usher, in loco.
his
flesli. For he was truly adorned by his good conversation with all kind of
piety, even before his martyrdom. This being done, they presently put about him
such things as were necessary to prepare the fire. Bat when they would have
also nailed him to the stake, ho said, 1 Let me alone as I am; for
He who has given me strength to endure the fire, will also enable me, without
your securing me by nails, to stand without moving in the pile.’
“
Wherefore they did not nail him, but only tied him to it. But he, having put
his hands behind him, and being bound as a ram chosen out of a great flock for
an offering, and prepared to be a burnt-sacrifice acceptable unto God, looked
up to heaven, and [said, ‘ 0 Lord God Almighty, the Father of thy well-beloved
and blessed Son, Jesus Christ, bv whom we have received the knowledge of thee;
the God of angels and powers, and of every creature, and especially of the
whole race of just men, who live in thy presence! I give thee hearty thanks
that thou hast vouchsafed to bring me to this day, and to this hour; that I
should have a part in the number of thy martyrs, in the cup of thy Christ, to
the resurrection of eternal life, both of soul and body, in the incorruption of
the Holy Ghost. Among which may I be accepted this day before thee, as a fat
and acceptable sacrifice; as thou the true God, with whom is no falsehood,
hast both before ordained and manifested unto me, and also hast now fulfilled
it. For this, and for all things else, I praise thee, I bless thee, I glorify
thee, by the eternal and heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ, thy beloved Son;
with whom, to thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory, both now and to all
succeeding ages. Amen.’ “ He had no sooner pronounced aloud Amen, and finished
his prayer, but they who were appointed to be his executioners lighted the
fire. And when the flame began to blaze to a very great height, behold, a
wonderful miracle appeared,11® to us who had the happiness to see
it, and who were reserved by heaven to report to others what had happened. For
the flame, making a kind of arch, like the sail of a ship filled with the wind,
encompassed, as in a circle, the body of the holy martyr; who stood in the
midst of it, not as if his flesh were burnt, but as bread that is baked, or as
gold or silver glowing in the furnace. Moreover, so sweet a smell came from it,
as if frankincense, or some rich spices, had been smoking there.
“ At
length, when those wicked men saw that his body could not be consumed by the
fire, they commanded the executioner to go near to him, and stick his dagger in
him ; which being accordingly done, there came forth so great a quantity of
blood,110 as even
J® Prom
the narrative itself, there is 170
Igood
reason to think, that the friends of The
translator has omitted the word
the martyr
mistook for a miracle what which, indeed,
can hardly be
[was the
effect of accident. The same the genuine
reading; for a circumstance
^iay be
observed of the voice which en- so remarkable
must have been noticed
'ouraged
him. For the proper estimate by
Eusebius and Rufinus. Perhaps we
of
accounts of miracles given by unin- should
read c-t!e>« xui ....
■spired
writers, see p. 174. xkttfos, ec’i^ce.To;,
extinguished
the fire, and raised an admiration in all the people, to consider what a
difference there was between the infidels and the elect; one of which this
great martyr, Polvcarp, most certainly was ; bein>'- in our times a- truly
apostolical and pruphetical teacher, and bishop of the Catholic church which is
at Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth, either has been already
fulfilled, or, in its due time, will be accomplished.
“ But when
the emulous, and envious, and wicked adversary of the race of the just, saw the
greatness of his martyrdom; and considered bow irreprehensible his
conversation had been frocn the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the
crown of immortality, having without all controversy received his reward; be
took all possible care, that not the least remainder of his body should be
taken away by us, although many desired to do it, and to be made partakers of
bis holy flesh. And to that end, he suggested it to Nicetas, the father of
Herod, and brother of Alee, to go to the governor and hinder him from giving us
his body to be buried.
‘ Lest
(says lie,) forsaking Ilim that was crucified, they should begin to worship
ibis Polvcarp.’ And tl is he said at the suggestion and instance of the Jews;
who also -watched us, that we should not take him out of the. fire: not
considering, that neither is it possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who
suffered for the salvation of all such as shall be saved throughout the whole
world, the righteous fur the ungodly; nor worship any other besides him.
For him, indeed, as toeing the Son of God, we do adore; but tor the martyrs, we
worthily love them, as the disciples and followers of our Lord: and upon the
account of their exceeding great affection towards their Master, and their
King. Of_ whan may we also be made companions and fellow-disciples.”1,1
CONCLUSION.
o„r Lord's
It is impossible to look back on the scenes which we ha- e been!
reviewing,—the
efforts of the primitive Church to preserve thej sacred record of the Gospel;
to perpetuate its evidence: to dispense its truths; to convey its promised
grace; and, lastly, to preserve itself as the temple of Divine manifestation,
and the holy of holies, where the blessed gift has been deposited--it is
impossible to look back on all this, without acknowledging the continued
fulfilment ol Matt xviii. the Saviour’s promise, that he would be with his
Church always, 20- even
UDto the end of the w orld.
1-1 T1-!
th™ is the indiirndnt avowal tains quterant honores; scd Ilium a nobi; of
hosewhos? authority is coli Wunt, quo tetar*
th^sam^sentiment: a/di propferFteligionem."-**. *
Ijajo
cultus homirum mortuorum; quia lidig. fcec. iuj.
continuance
**6^ with his Church.
81
\ pie
vixerunt, non sic habentur, ut
For,
together with the efforts of man, the silent measures of hc w co-operating Providence have borne
a part too important and too manifest to escape notice. They are recognised in
all those collateral Primitive events, which were beyond the forethought and
control of men,—in Chuich' the seasonable removal of the sceptre from
Judah; in the universal empire, permitted for a time to the Romans; and in the
verv struggles for the imperial dignity, which occurred during the first era of
the Gospel. These, then, have been pointed out in the progress of this
itiquiry, as the main features of that portion of the mighty work, on which the
finger of God is apparent; while others more minute, but not less certainly
discernible, have continually presented themselves.
Still more
will the presence of Christ with his Church be apparent, And | as we trace its
onward course, through the long lapse of time which ali,;rv'ar's'
|
separates the first age from our own. In each successive period, we shall see
the Church, somei'.mes languid and feeble iu its efforts, sometimes awakened
and refreshed like a giant from sleep. We shall see, too, the successive
appointments of Providence, operating to aid the efforts of men in
accomplishing the great scheme of the Gospel. As the distance has increased
between the events recorded in the Now Testament, and the several generations
of those whose best hopes rest on the faithfulness of the record, a new art has
been given to the world, and printing has furnished additional and ample -
security against all danger of corruption. This provision for checking the
injurious effect of time on the authenticity of a record, has indeed been
beautifully commensurate with the need. Science, art, commerce, all the
shifting,s of scene which have occurred in the world, have proved, often
unexpectedly, tlie means of fostering or extendng religion. Other instruments,
more important than this, may be even non in action, in scenes and measures
which we are imperfectly surveying • or may be reserved for a future age.
Meanwhile,
did the primitive Church, has any Church, arrived at Future all that spiritual
eminence on earth, for which the Gospel seems to [h“churc£. have designed us?
There are various scruples, by which men are commonly deterred from candidly
meeting this question. Some look back with blind admiration on the past; others
regard all improvement, not yet made, as chimerical, and not contemplated in
the Gospel scheme. That the provisions made—not indeed for the saltation of l
Kristians—but for the perfection of the Christian body, the i_hurch, have been
hitherto gradual and progressive, there can be no denying; and if so, the
primitive Church itself is not to be regarued as the exact counterpart of that
holy pattern, which God n his last Revelation has given us, for this mysterious
workmanship,
—his
Church. The purest Church will hardly abide the test of such in admeasurement.
It may, perhaps, be called chimerical, to look or a more perfect realization of
those glorious visions, which the El'dy Spirit has left with us; but it' 't be
fanciful, let us at least
pause, and
candidly confess in what the illusion consists. It is, tt dwell on a scenc,
where every man shall be a Christian, and every Christian shall live, as if tbe
Son of God were his daily companion, at home in bis family, abroad in his
intercourse with the world. It is, to hope for a period, when that awful
feeling which deterred tbe Israeli fish worshipper from profaning the holy
vessels of the temple, and from polluting its altar, shall be even more
strongly felt bv tbe Christian in his use of himself, that vessel made unto
honour, in the liv.ng temple of the* Holy Ghost; when every member of Christ’s
Church, conscious that he belongs to a society with which God is mysteriously
united, shall shudder to do auojht that may be sacrilege therein. And, if all
this be indeed fanciful and unfounded, be it excused for the sake of Him, who
set 110 boundary to our hopes of improvement, bidding us purify ourselves even
as lie is pure; be perfect, even as our Father who is in heaven is perfect.
But why
should this state of things be unattainable ? Is it because the Christian is
already under the best and most advantageous circumstances for profiting by
that Divine grace, through which alone, all acknowledge, that such an event, if
practicable, must be accomplished? Or, is it from a view of the corruption of
human nature,— the strength of e\ 11 in man ? One of these suppositions must be
tbe ground of our doubt. The latter may be more fully stated thus. The natural
corruption of human nature, it may be said, has all along prevented a more
effectual and perfect operation of the Holy Spirit; and as this corruption must
exist to tbe end of time, 110 future circumstances, however advantageous to
the use of God’s grace, ought to be supposed capable of advancing us much
nearer to this perfection, inasmuch as they cannot remove that corruption. Now
this view does really involve a denial of the sufficiency of Di\ine grace to
accomplish the very object for which it was given; it implies a distrust in
those promises end assurances which, in one sense, are; extended to all
Christians: “ My grace is sufficient for thee,” ■“
My strength is made perfect in weakness,”
“ With man this is impossible, but not
with God, for %'itli God all things are possible, ”
“ Vv’itli-1
out me ye can do nothing,” but “ I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world,” “ I in you. and you in me.” If therefore we believe the assurances of
God, we cannot, consistently, maintain that the strength of evil in man is so
great, that under no circumstances the promised help of God will completely
counteract and overpower it. We cannot, as Christians, doubt that this is
practicable; although we may differ about tho conditions which may be requisite
for rendering it so.
Taking
then the other view as the ground of our doubts, we must suppose, that our
present condition admits of no such improvement, as would make it much more
easy for us to obey God. On a survey of all the existing institutions of the
Christian world—of the constitution of every Church, and of tbe means it
provides for dispersing
the seed
and bringing to maturity the fmit, of true religion—can it be sairl tliat all
these are, in any instance, so perfect, as to justify this despair ?
If so, we
must bo content to explain away, as best we may, the brilliant pictures of
prophecy. We must be content to do more—to confess that Christ has put into our
hands an instrument unsuited to our powers; that his gift of tho “ shield of
faith” and the “ sword of the Spirit,” is like the weapons of a giant presented
to o warrior of ordinary stature; and that an angel only could sustain the
whole armour of God, or wield with effect the heavenly weapon. Surely this is a
view of the Christian scheme not easily to be adopted.
It is
indeed a peculiarity of the Gospel, that, unlike' a system of philosophy, or
the dream of a theorist, it proffers the means of attaining perfection, instead
of dwelling on Utopian plans for unassisted nature to aim at realizing. The
philosopher and the theorist give a map of Elysium, to those who are separated
from it by an insuperable barrier; the Gospel promises us that help which shall
enable us to surmount the barrier,—to “pass over the great gulf.” Luktxvi.56.
Precise description of She scene is no part of its office. It is the fcvAy; let
us pursue it in faith, not doubting the goodness of the promised land to which
it is said to lead.
Note [A.] Page 4. A.
Ik tho
ancient Egyptian religion the Supreme Being was pro- Egyptian bably represented
by the emblem of a serpent coiled into a circle, 8)'mbols'
with the head of a hawk, denoting eternity and omniscience.1 In time
the symbol became in itself an objcct of reverence, whilst the meaning was
lost. The same process is perpetually going on even in the case of words; to
which we are prone to attach a regard so strong, as in time to divert the
attention from their original application and charactcr. There are some such
in every language, so sanctified by use, that many minds wouid revolt at
substituting any other arbitrary expressions for the ideas which they are
supposed to convey, as much as at renouncing the ideas themselves. Iiow rauch
stronger this feeling must have been when the expression was symbolical or
allegorical! Nothing is more likely, than that the creation of the world by the
Supreme Being and his Word, was originally signified by the fable of Cneph,
sending forth an egg from his mouth, which produced the universe.2 Yet
this allegorical record only ministered afterwards to superstition.
The case
of the Jews, and the brazen serpent which Hezckiah broke, is familiar to all.
See 2 Kings xviii. 4.
The
encroachment of idolatry on the true faith, cannot be supposed to have been
made every where without a struggle. That such actually was the case in Egypt,
may be inferred from a fragment which has been preserved of its earlier
history. The Egyptians of Thebais, at one period, claimed exemption from the
tribute paid for the support of the sacred animals in Lower Egypt, on the
ground of their worshipping Cneph, the name by which the Supreme Being appears
to have been designated, according to the fable before
1 Euspb. deProsp.Evang. Lib. I. C. 10, Lib. II. and Ovidii Metamorph. Lib.
where a
fragment i'f Philo Biblius’s XV. Fab.
50). We recognise it in Baby-
translation
of Sanchoniathon is given. Ion. in
the story of Bei and the Dragon;
The t
mblem i,s described as very like the and
on modem authorities its existence
Greek 0. has been asserted in Jluscovy; (Sigis-
The
prevalence of serpent-worship all mundi:s
History, *eited in Dr. Nichol’s
througn
the idolatrous world is very re- conference
with a Theist, page 200;) in
laarkable.
In this fragrm nt of SanchG- the
East Indies, and among the savage
niathon,
preserved by Eusebius, it is tribes of
Africa. Kee ilillar,si History of
attributed
to the Phoenicians as well as to the
Propagation of Christianity, Vol. In
the
Egyptians. p. 221.
Among the
Greeks and Romans, it was Prcepar. Evan p.
Lib. I. C. 10, ar d Lib.
an
indispensable part of the representa- III.
Cl 2; Cud worth, Syst. Intell. Cap.
tien of
JEsculapius (see Livii Epitome, 1,
Sect. 18, p. 52G, Mosheinrs edition.
Appendix.
A.
Egyptian
Symbols,
alluded
to. (See Plutarch de Iside et Osir. referred to by Bishop Cumberland in bis
Saneboniatho, p. 13.) Cudworth, in bis Intellectual System, has made a similar
application of the passage. (See Mosheim’s edition, vol. i. p. 527, and p.
730.) His learned editor has indeed raised an objection, on the ground that the
Egyptians understood by the term Cneph, and by the symbol to which it was
applied, The Creative Power, arid that this was no characteristic with them of
the Supreme Being. But this fact rather supports Cud^orth’s view. For, does it
not seem unaccountable, that the one part of the Egyptian nation should have
excluded from their religion all the gods of tho other, because their God was
the Creative Power ? Does it not indicate that the Egyptians of Thebais hud not
yet, like the rest of their countrymen, and like all the heathen, distinguished
the Creator from the Supreme Being, and classed him among deified men, and the
symbols of idolatry ?
Aiiegoiizinj? Vide Eusebii Pra?parat. Evangel. Lib. II. C. 2, and again,
C. fi, il/'iioioitj. where he alludes to this method of defence being set up by
the philosophical champions of orthodoxy. Toiuvtx :Jjv ru rij; x* faoKoyiX-;. i)'J
fj.trxiin'hovTts VtOI Tin;, yj*: xct‘ ■’jai)* Xo’/i-
y.a-ziOD'j
Tf av%cvvTi;, rv,y Sjj (pvamuTsjj
«rfjf Qior ioraoiUi
6o%xv f zvntaiohoyia; rot; ftvQcig
Tertullian
makes a similar allusion in bis tract against Marcion, (Lib. I. C. 13.) f‘ Ipsa
quoque vulgaris superstitio communis Idololatrire, cum in simulacrie de
nominibus et fabulis vetcrum mor- tuorum pudet, ad interpretationem naturalem
refugit, et dedccus suuni ingenio obunibrat, figurans Jovem in subst.'intitan
fervidum, et Junonem in nerem,” &c. The subject is discussed at large by
Warburton in the Di\ine Legation, Book III. § 6.
What was
thus done with some reason by the heathen, was afterwards perversely imitated
by the Christian Fathers, who applied to the defence of the Bible the
principles of criticism on which the i Pagan mythology had been upheld. These
were again imitated by the mystics of the twelfth century, who even proceeded
to found their system of interpretation on Scripture itself, and quoted for
this end, “ litera occidit, spiritus vivilicat as if the literal and primary
sense of Scripture was pronounced worse than useless. See Marsh s Divinity
Lectures, Leet. XV1L
c Note
[C.] Page 23.
Twofold In contemplating the Jewish dispensation, it
:s very important to
jewish°f
° 6 distinguish between those parts which seem to have been designed
scriptures, for immediate revelation, or other immediate purposes, and those
which could only have served indirectly io qualify the Jcws for a
future
revelation, and a finished dispensation. The principle may Appendix, be
extended even to their canon of Scripture. For, not to mention C. such obscure
prophecies, as could only be understood by a know- i .cofold ledge of the event
after it had taken place, there is a great portion of the Old Testament
Scriptures which seem to have had no further Scriptures, use and disign, than
to educate the people at large for Gospel instruction. Tho Jews had no
literature but Scripture; and God was not only their Supreme Governor, but
their national Preceptor. By means of those parts of the Proverbs, the Psalms,
and Prophets, which, conveyirg no revelation, often no religious truth, are
merely valuable for the acute judgment, or the poetic imagination displayed,
—by moans
of these, the national taste and mode of thinking received such a moulding as
was best suited for the teaching of the Messiah when be came. From these,
accordingly, he borrows his images and illustrations, and to these perpetually
alludes in order to make himself understood.
Of all the
Jewish Scriptures so circumstanced, no one portion is so remarkable as the Song
of Solomon. It appears to contain no revelation,—no religious instruction. It
suggests to us no character but that of a royal epithalamiura. But if we wish
to discover a reason why the Spirit of God should have sanctioned the work, let
us refer to the narrative of Christ’s discourses and parables; and we shall
find them abounding with the images which it furnishes— the bride—the
bridegroom—the wedding feast—the wedding garment—the fidelity of the
mysterious spouse, and the like. Evidently he had found in this work a train
of images which had taken possession of the popular fancy from their beauty,
and had also become sanctified by their place in the Scriptures. This and the
like portions of Holy Writ had given just such a degree of cultivation to the
meanest class, as enabled them to comprehend readilv his instructions, on
topics which require the learner to have some such previous cultivation of
mind. The fishermen of Galilee, who might have been too dull and unimaginative
to enter into his various lively forms of instruction, and needful
illustrations of the peculiar truths of Christianity, had they been accustomed
to rio Scripture but such as drily detailed God’s laws and judgments, found his
teaching, in consequence of this preparation, intelligible and agreeable. Of
all the popular Scriptures, none probably were more so than the Psalms of
David; and we may observe, accordingly, that out of these come a considerable
part of the quotations which he made to them.
Note [D.] Page 36. D.
Lightfoot
(see Horn? Hebraic;® in Joann. IV. 25,) supposes the Samaritan Samaritans to
have made use of the prophetical books of the Jews, scripture, "nly so far
as they confirmed the predictions of the Pentateuch : and m this way accounts
for the woman of Samaria’s adoption of
H. * x
Appendix,
the Jewish phrase, in calling the Redeemer “ the Messiah.” This I). view
derives support from a passage in Justin Martyr, quoted by
samaritfn Beausobre. (Remarques, T. I. p. 152.) lwluioi n r.cti
Scripts*.
tXc,TtS **> "raj* Stoi >oyot. S;a rut 'TfiXpjjtai'
xa{«So0s»T* aiiroi;, x. r. ?i. And as Justin was himself of Sychom, his
authority on this point is so much the greater. (See Bishop Blomfield’s note on
bis “Dissertation upon the Traditional Knowledge of a Promised Redeemer,” p.
172, where the views of Lightfoot, Beausobre, Bas- r.age, and others, are
noticed.) But after all, why should not the Samaritan woman have accommodated
her language to the stranger whom she was addressing, and have called him, whom
she expected, by the name which that stranger was known to use? As to Justin’s
words, ha ram tjoThtwv. they might have been intended to apply to Moses, only
as one of the prophets, the elas3 being put for the individual belonging to it.
Thus we should still speak of a quota ■ tion from
the prophets, although it were only from one prophet’s writings. And, besides, the term prophet,
it is well known, is applicable to all those to whom “ God at sundry times and in divers manners
spake in time past;” and might, without any forced interpretation, be here
understood to mpun those who received, and passed on, the several intimations
of a Saviour from Adam unto Moses.
The
account of theological tenets of the Samaritans must be received with
considerable caution, since they are known to us almost entirely through their
adversaries the Jews. Attempts have indeed been made to procure a fairer and
more unexceptionable statement front an examination of some of the scanty
specimens of their literature which are still extant. Professor Gesenius, with
this view, published at Leipsic, in 1824, three Samaritan poems from MSS. in
the British Museum and the public library of Saxe- Gotlsa. The sketch of
Samaritan doctrine elicited from these, I shall give in his own words.
“ Priinum
Beum unicum esse docent sine soeio et eonsorte—ab humana imbeeillitate,
humanique corporis simiiitudine, iinmucem— partim rati one et ex operibus suis,
partim e libro divinitus patofacto eognoscendum—qui totum mundum
impleat—cSterura,' nature a mortalibus non indagandfn—eujus virtutes ante
mundum conditum in eo quasi delituerunt, in mundo condendo demum se exserueruut
—Mundum, cujus duas partes esse ponunt, alteram sensibus paten- tom, alteram
spiritualem, angelorumque sedem—Ilomiaem, e pui vere mentis SafrfR ad imaginem
nngelorum, non Dei, creatum esst volunt—semel microcnsmum nnneupant—Angeli qui
ereaturis oppo- nuntur, potestates mundi oeeultse et copias d’vina?
appellantur, qua semel dur.taxat in legislations in hune mundum
prodiernnt—Prorstu repudiatis prophetis sequioribus, qui mendacii disertis
verbis iusimu lantur—Moses umnium teniporum propheta, deeus prophetias, reve
latiutiis terminus, Dei amicus et sen us familiari®. mundi vortex
sol,
corona, salutatur, post ascensum in ccrlum in splendore Dei Appendix,
habitaturua—cui propheiia jam in ipsa creaticne destinata sit— D. Legem vero in
ipso Ilexaemen creatam, omti’um creaturarum prin- 3 !t einr,m,
vsstis divinos scintillam, mur±di ccelestis micam osse volnnt* ( a., in of —ej
usque lat® historiam bibiicam mythis imaginibusque poeticis Sorl?turo-
exornant—assidua ejus lectior.e et accurata obseryatione homines vitae seternsB
participes fieri statuunt. Ut Sabbathi festum pie celebrent, pios Dei cultores
etiam atque etiam admenent, idque religiose colentibus eximia quseque premia
spondent—In fine rerum instare volunt magnum Judicii diem, remissionem
peccatorum, et piorum rcsurrectionem; pios resurrecturos esse, falsos autem
pro* phetas cum cultoribus a resurrectione exelusum iri et ignc combus- tum—De
Messia in uno loco coque dubio agitur.”
Respecting
tbe argument founded on tliese poems, if, as Gesenius supposes, tbev were
written at so lata a period as tbe age of Justinian, or (as is more likely) of
the Arabian conquerors, they are scarcely a less doubtful guide to the tenets
of tbe Samaritans in our Saviour’s day, than the accounts of the Jews, however
prejudiced.
They bear
evident marks of Gnosticism, whieh probably continued more and more to corrupt
tbe Samaritan faitb from the time of Simon Magus. Thus, in the above abstract,
we find the Deity described as a subtle nature, filling or pervading all the
world; aud to the erealurcs of God are opposed certain beings who are called
the -powers of God.4 In their view of a day of judgment—remission of
sins—and resurrection unto life, we may, perhaps, recognise the adoption of the
Christian doctrines, whieh, doubtless, influenced the theological views of many
who were not converts to Christianity.
Note [E.] Page 55. E.
These two
uses of prophecy—information and evidence—should Use of be carefully
distinguished, because a very different character l‘oplle<:y-
attaches to a prophecy, as 't is applied to the one or the other.
When the
use of a prophecy is to convey anticipated views, which are requisite for those
who cannot naturally foresee them, then the prediction requires to be
miraculously supported ; that is, it requires that its particular application
should be pointed out by a messenger divinely and miraculously accredited.
Thus, the previous knowledge of a famine which was to take place in Judsea, was
needful for the early Christian churches there, and accordingly formed the
subject of a prophecy, whose proper use was information; and had this prophecy not
been made by regularly accredited prophets, such as
s Those
images are probably an al’u- " vain
philosophy ” to his countrymen) sion to “ the glory of the Erord,” or the pretended to be, •’ giving ou* that him,
symbol of holy light, which denoted his self
-was some great one: io whom they presence. all
gave heed, from the least to the great-
4 or iF.onfi, such as Simmi est, saying,' This man is the great jjou-er
Magus (who
probably first taught this of
God." — Acts frii. 9,10.
Appendix.
E.
Use of
Prophecy.
Agabus and
his company, no one could have been expected to act on its authority. The
event, when it came to pass, would have proved, then, indeed, that he who
foretold it was inspired; but before the event, no assurance of this sort
belonged to the prophecy itself; it required to bo authorized by an accredited
servant of God.
On the
other hand, when the use and intent of a prophecy is evidence, then its use
begins only with its fulfilment; and that fulfilment is its credential. For
instance, the fulfilment of our Lord’s prophecy concerning the destruction of
Jerusalem, became a miraculous evidence of the truth of his pretension?, as
strong as any miracle could be, which he wrought during his abode on earth ;
but its use in this respect did not at all dspend on its being recorded,
preached, and applied, by persons divinely accredited. All that was requisite
was, that it should be known certainly to have been delivered by Jesus. A
fulfilled prophecy carries with it its own credentials. Nay more; considered as
evidence, it would have its character destroyed, by supposing it to be
otherwise circumstanced.
This will
be very clear if we consider the question, “ In what way is a prophecy
miraculous evidence? In what respect does it correspond to a testimonial miracle?”
Is it not that prophecy is an uppeal to the senses in proof of miraculous
knowledge in the author, just as a sensible miracle is an appeal to tho senses
in proof of an exercise of miraculous power in the agent ? Knowing that no
human being can raise the dead to life, he who should witness a dead man so
raised, would have the evidence of his senses, that miraculous power must have
done it. So, too, one who has witnessed the destruction of the Jewish polity
and the dispersion of the Jews, being quite sure that there were no human means
of foreseeing these events, sees in that destruction and dispersion, a sensible
evidence of the miraculous knowledge of him who foretold the events. But if he
cannot of himself recognise the fulfilment of the words of Jesus in those
events, the events are no more evidence to him, than the raising of the dead
man would have been, if he had not seen that he was raised. He might indeed, in
the ease of the raising of the dead, have been assured by another who did see
it; but the evidence would be no longer the original evidence of a sensible
miracle. And so, too, he might give credence to one desening of it, who should
inform him that the destruction of Jerusalem was the fulfilment of certain
words of our Lord; but if he could not recognise the fulfilment, the event
would not be itself miraculous evidence. Whatever purpose therefore tho
information might serve, it could not make the prophecy evidence. Its whole
character as such—its whole correspondence to a sensible miracle—depends on the
clear recognition by the ordinary human faculties of the complete connexion
between the prophecy and the event.
It is
generally acknowledged, that the main puipose of the Old Testament prophecies
concerning Christ was that of evidence. If
some of
them were made to serve another purpose also, yet to the .ippendii. Christian
this is apparently the sole purpose. As information, they E. were useful to
those to whom they were delivered; but as evidence only, to us for whom they
are fulfilled. But, then, in order to be j'n ,>necy. evidence on which
Christ’s identity with the promised Messiah is proved, their fulfilment in
Christ must be left to be recognised by our natural faculties. Otherwise, the
appeal to the- prophecies as evidence would be idle. For their fulfilment,
instead of being considered as proofs, must be considered as a matter to he
proved.
They thus
become a dead weight in the evidence of Christianity, instead of one of the
supports.
In short,
if the New Testament Scriptures had comprehended amongst its uses the
application of prophecy, we should have believed its? fulfilment on the
evidence of the Now Testament writers, and not, as was designed, believed in
Christianity on the evidence of that fulfilment.
This
principle seems to be what St. Peter intends, in his Second Epistle, (chap. i.
20,) where he remarks, that “no Scripture is of private interpretation.” The
Greek is ilia; inu.urtug, which is not literally rendered by “private
interpretation,” the term iota; naturally implying something peculiar or
proper to that of which the writer is speaking, and that is irgotpMTEi* ){.
The
apostle had been reminding those to whom he was writing, that their faith
rested not on philosophical fables, but on the evidence of eye-witnesses, who
saw Christ and his miracles, and heard the voice that declared him to be the
beloved Son of God. He then adds, Kt*i (it
ic&ioTCorjj rov irgo<P/!Tix.o!i oj
x,KhZ; vaa'fri srjo-
tri^otrsi,
a; (pa.ii/ouTi h ccb%»r,!>u
TaV«J, eng ou if**!* atctuyafn,
xcei duxTtiXq rxi; y-uphiai; vy.tj'j' ttpoitou
ynuJox.oiiTs;,
or; va.ix,
i7^Q$nTt:x yfaZ^c, iittt; £irAmo; ou fimat, ou yuo 6s\iftan qyexbr; TPst k/.a tJxe xytov
(pso^usva
thaKr,<sa»
ci iym ©sow Now by the expression
gtjixtoTimv,
<kc. it is clear, as Wetstein observes on the passage, 5 that the
apostle cannot mean to call prophecy a more certain evidence than the sensible
manifestations wl ich he had been before mentioning*, but that the construction
is tob 'xno+r.r.x.iv Tiiyov
MSaior-^ou.
We (in opposition to former ages) possess the prophecies, rendered more sure
evidence; converted by their fulfilment into grounds of belief corresponding to
the manifestations and miracles before mentioned. This is the old
interpretation put on the passage (see Wetstein as above referred to; who cites
likewise a passage, Josephus, B. Ill C. 5, where the word fitficttotsjo; is
used somewhat similarly). We then possess prophecy, according to St. Peter, converted
into sure evidence; and to this evidence he bids us attend, bearing uppermost
in oar minds that circumstance, on which the
6 Nov. Test, in loco.
310
Appendix,
character of prophecy as evidence depends, viz. it? development by the jj,
event: ovx, iam; means, that it is not Us
own interpreter,
but is
unfolded and established by the event. Anil this is so, he i-ropbecy. adds
lastly, the prophet not being the author, but God, the sole controller of the
event which is to interpret it. “ God gave such predictions, ” observes Sir
Isaac Newton, “ not to gratify men’s cariosity, by enabling them to foreknow
things; but that after they were fulfilled, they might bo interpreted by the
event; and his own providence, not that of' the interpreter, be then
manifested to the world.” (Sir Isaac Newton on Daniel and the Apocalypse, 4to.
p. 225.) _
But, then,
it may be urged, do not the New Testament writers quote the prophecies, and
point to thiyr fulfilment ? Unquestionably they do. All I mean to suggest is,
that the appUeation of tho prophecies makes no part of revdaiion; and that to
suppose that it dons, destroys the character of the prophecies as evidence. But
if the application of the prophecies makes no part of revelation, then the
subject falls under the head of those, on which every writer, inspired and
uninspired alike, must be supposed to exercise his natural judgment : grant
the truth of this, and wo should no more expect a Divine interposition to
correct the scriptural writer, if on any occasion he w'as incorrect in quoting
and applying a prophecy, than if his quotation had been made from an uninspired
author, and merely used as an illustration of his meaning.
It may be
added, that we can on no other principle account for the inspired writers not
being corrected in the equivocal use of an expression, which could not fail to
mislead. It has been asserted by reference to the Rabbinical writers, that the
phrase “ that it might be fulfilled,’’ and tho like, was the customary form of
quotation with the Jews, when no miraculous fulfilment was intended. Now it
seems probable, if this be the case, that many of the quotations which are so
introduced by the New Testament writers, are accordingly mere accoinmodc lions,
and were not considered by the writers themselves as prophecies. The vague
meaning of the word prophet may perhaps have made Christians in after times
less willing to take this view of it; because it might seem, that what was said
to be written by a prophet, must be meant for a prophecy. But the term prophet
included teacher, as well as predicter, and prophecy, teaching, as well as
foretelling. If then we substitute the word teacher for predicter, we shall
perhaps be better reconciled with the suggestion that assigns many of the
quotations of prophecy to tho class of illustrations. The Jews had no
literature but their Bible, and would of course use it for all purposes of
literature. But still granting all this to be true, (which I really think it
may be,) is it not certain that tho sacred writers, if the application of
prophecy were part of their inspired work, would not have left us in doubt,
when they meant to point out a prophecy, and when to quote by
way of
illustration. If the controlling influence of the Holy Spirit Appendix,
extended to this point, could the writers haye been allowed to use E. the sore
expression iu both cases, so as to leave us doubtful in useot every case? _ _ Prophecy.
Cf course,
if this view of the application of prophecy be correct, the same reasoning will
to a certain extent held good w'th respect to the application of the types of the
Old Testament, To a certain extent, because, like verbal prophecics, the types
had other uses besides that of being convertible into evidence by their
fulfilment.
As verbal
prophecy often furnished previous "nformation, so types, or symbolical and
histrionic prophecy, moulded the people who employed them to habits of mind,
which rendered the truths typified more cungenial and more intelligible than
they otherwise would have been. This at least was the proper eflect of them.
But, then, considered as prophecies fulfilled, the principle which applies to
verbal prophecy, will of course apply here also.
Another
scruple wbicli may be felt in admitting this view is this:
Are not
the prophecies and types used by the l.ispired writers as grounds for doctrine
? and of course they must then at least be considered as infallible in their
application. Supposing this granted, it would not aifeet the character of their
quotations in any other case; but even this I should hardly admit. The
assertions, indeed, which the apostles maintain, if involving matter of faith
or morals, must be held infallible ; else there is no rule of faith and conduct
in Scripture: but it is no necessary adjunct, that ail the means which they
adopt to prove the assertion are likewise inspired means.
They were
assisted indeed in the knowledge and interpretation of prophecy; but so they
were in the gift of eloquence and of languages ; and yet it did not follow
that their eloquence was therefore faultless, or their knowledge of a language
always correct. These ware aids given them, not resembling the endowments of
one possessed by a spirit, but like the improvement of the natural faculties
of men who remained still free agents, and still responsible, and therefore
fallible beings.
The
inspired teacher might plead feebly, or he might reason weakly; for what God
provided was the point to be proved, and the materials of proof, not the use of
them. He might use prophecy or miracle amiss; for it was, the prophecy or
miracle that God gave; in the use of these instruments He only assisted them;
ai*d surely no more was needed. As long as the attested record of the miracles
remains, as long as those very prophecies are in our hands, wo are judges of
the application of them, and it is intended that we should be so. See w
Inquiry into the Proofs, Nature, and Extent of Inspiration.” Fellowes, 1831.
Appendix.
F.
John the
Baptist's Embassy to Jesus.
Note [F.] Page 131.
Several
conjectures have been offered by commentators on the real object of John
Baptist’s sending his disciples to Christ with so strange a question as, “ Art
thou lie that should come, or look we for another ?” Some have ventured to
attribute it to a temporary feeling of despondency and discontent in the
Baptist, because that he, the Christ’s forerunner, was left to pine in prison
without any Divine interposition; ■and they interpret
the question, as if it were an expostulation with Jesus. The view most commonly
acquiesced in. is, that the embassy was contrived for the satisfaction of John’s
disciples, and not of John himself; but if so, would he have answered them, “
Go awl tell John what things you have heard and seen,” <fcc. ?—if so, would
John have sent only two of his disciples i Some, again, have had recourse to
critical niceties and refinements, such as, that John had seen the Spirit
descend on Jesus, agreeably to tho Divine communication made to him, but did
not know whether it abode on him, which was likewise in the description
divinely communicated; and that for his satisfaction in this latter particular
it was, the. disciples were sent.0 Mr. Benson, in his llulsean
Lectures, has revived the old interpretation given in the questions ami answers
which are placed among the works of Justin Martyr, and supposes that the
Baptist’s object was to ascertain whether the person of whose miracles he heard
so much, w'ere the same with Him of whose Messiahship he had formerly received
such undoubted proof, and to whom he had borne testimony.1
I w ill
not pretend to decide certainly against any one of their conflicting views;
only, I cannot but observe that they all proceed on one common principle,
itself bv no moans unquestionable—that John Baptist's faith could- not kaoe
foiled him,. He bad, it is true, been intrusted with the office of proclaim:ng
the Christ’s coming ; had received evidence that Jesus was He; and had publicly
avowed his being satisfied with that evidence. But how many misgivings marked
the course of the apostles themselves, after they had confessed Him ? Not to
mention the repeated instances to be found in their earlier intercourse with
Him, on his apprehension they all forsook Him aud fled. On the day of His
promised return to them, they scrupled not to avow to a supposed stranger the
disappointment of their trust, “ that it was He who should have redeemed
Israel;” and one refused to credit the resurrection 011 any evidence, ever so
strong, except the evidence of his own senses; declaring, that he must first “
handle Him with his hands,” as well as see Him and hear his voice. And yet, his
apostles were always with Him, and the impression of miraculous evidence was .1
their case continually renewed. John Baptist had nut this advantage; why should
ho
6 See
Sermons by the Rev. Henry Owen, Serm. VII.
7 llulsean Lectures for 1810, Leet. Ill,
then not
be troubled with the so,me weak scruples and misgivings, Appendix, when he
perceived that the course which the ministry of Jesus was F. taking, was so
greatly at variance with that which the learned acd j0hr.
tho the nation at large, with himself doubtless, had looked for in the to
Messiah,
and regarded as part of the evidence in support of his Jesvs. pretensions ?
John, it is true, had miraculous assurance that Jesus was the Christ, and had
submitted his mind to the influence of this evidence: but what then ? were not
even the apostles so circum stanced; not to mention the many who are recorded
as having “ gone back and walked no more” with Jesus, after having become his
disciples in consequence of what they heard and saw ?
It is an
important truth, that the strongest possible moral evidence requires
perpetually either to be followetl up, or to be renewed and refreshed in some
way, in order to be perpetually influential on human conduct. In abstract
reasoning, we may prove a proposition once for ail, and rest for ever after
content, and on every occasion be ready to employ it with the same liveliness
of conviction that it is true. Time does not necessarily impair the impression.
It is put up in the mind for ever, like an imperishable document, to which we
may refer with the same facility to-day and twenty years hence.
But iu the
case of practical truth, i.e. truth that is designed to influence our
conduct—our impressions of it need perpetual renewal and refreshment; else,
although o'ir conduct may continue the same, it is, after a time, not the
result of the same principle, but of custom. And herein lies the great
difference between those two courses of conduct which are distinguished by a
great heathen moralist as proceeding the one ii eh;, and the other it r.fo;.
Virtuous
and religious habits are customs, but not mere custom ; differing from these
latter by the original principle (which caused the custom) never being lost
sight of. For a Christian to act always from Christian motives, it is quite
requisite that he should again and again renew his assurance of the truth of
that Revelation which furnishes the motives. In the case of our Lord’s
immediate followers, this was effected by the repeated display of miracles;
and if John needed this revival of the influence of evidence as well as others,
(and why should he not?) his absence and imprisonment will readily account for
doubts and misgivings such as would prompt an embassy to Jesus. I do not say
that such doubts and misgivings were unavoidable; for he might have renewed the
evidence once given him, by reflecting on all its bearings; but they were at
least as natural and excusable as the doubts and misgivings of the apostles;
and were accordingly, like theirs, must promptly relieved by the Saviour. In
prison,—his end, apparently, as it was really, approaching,—harassed by the
natural misgivings of human infir mity, increased possibly by the desponding
aud discontented suggestions of his own followers, he might have sent this
message to Christ, before his last farewell charge to tiiem; in order, that,
with
A ppendix.
F.
John the
Baptist’s Embassy to Jesus.
G.
Pretended
Correspondence between our Saviour and the King of Edessa.
the best
possible evidence before him, be might satisfy himself and them. Nothing could
be more appropriate to this object than the Saviour’s display of miracles which
formed a ready exposition of the prophecies of Isaiah; and which thereby placed
in the bands of the last and most honoured of Israel’s prophets, an easy and
satisfactory reply to his own doubts, as well as to the doubts of his
disciples.
*Note [G.] Page i
GS.
The
Prstihdjsd Oormspohdskc* between our Saviour ash the Kims of Edessa.8
TIIE
EPISTLE OF ABGARUS TO ODR BLESSED SAVIOUR.
Abgarus,
Prince of Edessa, to Jesus the good Sa\iour, who has appeared in the country
about Jerusalem. Health. I have received an account of thee, and thy cures;
how, w ithout any medicines, or herbs, they are done by thee. For report says,
that thou makest the blind to see, the lame to walk; thou cleansest the lepers,
and castest out unclean spirits and devils; and healest those who have laboured
under long diseases; and raisest up the dead. And, having heard all this
concerning thee, I have concluded with myself, one of those two things: either
that thou art God, and that, being come down from heaven, thou doest all these
mighty works; or that thou art the Son of God, seeing thou art able to perform
these things. Wherefore, by this present letter, I entreat thee to come unto
me, and to cure me of the intirmity that lies upon me. For 1 have also heard
that the Jews murmur against thee, and seek to do thee mischief. For I have a
small but fair city, which may be sufficient both for thee and me.
THE ANSWER
OF OUR SAVIOUR TO ABGARUS.
Abgarus,
thou art blessed, in that though thou hast not seen me, thou hast yet believed
in me. For it is written concerning mu, that those v>ho have seen me should
not believe in me; that so they who have nut seen me, might believe and live.
As for what thou hast written unto me, that I should come to tbee; it is
necessary that all those things for which I was sent, should be fultilled by me
in this place: and that having fulfilled them, I should be received up to Him
that sent me. When therefore I shall be received into heaven, I will send unto
thee some one of my disciples, who shall both heal thy distemper, and give life
to thee, and to those that are with thee.
* Archbishop Wake’s translation.
Appendix.
Note [II.] Pase 170. H.
Certainly
if there be any remain? of Barnabas’s genu’ne com- \u'.horshi^ position in the
Epistle which bears his name, nothing can be more Epistle to unlike it in style
and in matter thsn the Epistle to the Hebrews. theIitbr>!Ws,
The doctrine of the two Epistles is indeed directly at variance ; for the
Epistle of Barnabas represents the whole ceremonial of the Jewish, law aa
having no meaning but a cabbalistic one; the Epistle to the Hebrews, on the
contrary, acknowledges the original impart of the law, and points to no
secondary meaning in any of its observances, which is not fulfilled in the
Christian scheme. Compare, for instance, the eighth, ninth, and tenth chapters
of the scriptural Epistle, with these extracts from the apocryphal work.
“ Neither
shalt thou cat the eagle, nor the hawk, nor the kite, nor the crow; that is,
thou shalt not keep company with such kind of men as know not how, by their
labour and sweat, to get themselves food; but injuriously ravish away the
things of others, and watch how to lay snares for them; when at the same time they
appear to live in perfect innocence.” ■
“ Neither
shalt thou eat of the hare. To what end ? To signify this to us: Thou shalt not
be an adulterer, nor liken thyself to such persons.”
Tho same
observation applies tc the use made of the historical facts and events of the
Old Testament, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and m that commonly called
Barnabas’s. That many of these facts and events, besides their obvious
character and import, were also designed by Providence to exhibit a coincidence
with facts and events in the Gospel scheme, there is no denying, without
questioning tho authority of Christ himself. He is recorded to have declared
Jonas’s fate, a type of his burial and resurrection,—the brazen serpent in the
wilderness, a type of his atoning death,—the temple of Jerusalem, an emblem of
his body. In St. Paul’s undisputed writings, the same tenor of interpretation
occurs perpetually.1 So also in the Epistle to the Hebrews, a
designed correspondence is asserted between various facts and events in the old
history of God’s Church, and certain facts and events in the history of
the" Christian Church. But then, this coincidence is never mads out. to le
the only or the primary import of the Old Testament record; whereas, what is
the doctrine of the Epistle of Barnabas ? “ And God made in six days the works
of his hands, and finished them on the seventh; and he rested the seventh day,
and sanctified it. Consider, mv
children,
what this signifies. The meaning of it is this__________ that
in
six
thousand years the Lord God will Ix-ing all things to an end.” r “ And he
rested the seventh day. He meaneth’ this, that when his Son shall come and
abolish the ssason of the wicked one, and judge the ungodly, ar.d 3hall change
the sun, and the moon’, and the stars, then he shall gloriously rest in that
seventh dav.” AH
Appendix,
this is not, as iii the Epistle to the Hebrews, a statement of certain
II. designed coincidences between the facts and
events of the old and Authorship new Church histories; but a conversion of the
Old Testament Kpil'tle to llist0’7 a mere allegory.'
tueHebrjws
And this distinction deserves the greater notice, because (independently of
other internal marks) it proves the impossibility of the Epistle of Barnabas
being inspired ; while it leaves that to the Hebrews free from all internal
evidence against it. Indeed, no alleged proofs of inspiration would be
sufficient to authorize an attempt, like that of the author of the Epistle of
Barnabas, to convert the scriptural record of real events into mere allegory. And
for this reason, the scriptural record, as a record of facts, has been itself
miraculously attested: and to suppose an Epistle like Barnabas’s likewise
supported by miraculous proofs of inspiration, would be to suppose a
contradiction in the revelation and evidence of God. Such an author should be
rejected, on the principle recognised in God’s command to the Jews, to stone
the prophet Dcu„. xiii. who should enjoin idolatry, whatever miraclc") lie
might work; and again, in St. Paul’s exhortation to those whose faith he had
once established on the undoubted testimony of Divine sanction, that i.ii i. s.
though himself—though an angel from heaven—were to preach another doctrine, he
was not to be believed.
No such
evidence is indeed now-a-days contended for in the case of Barnabas’s Epistle,
and ths internal evidence against it is probably admitted in its full weight
by all who read it The more needful caution perhaps is, not to confound its
character with that of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and thereby to suppose the
contents of the latter, like that of the former. to be incompatible with
inspired authorship. They are not merely dissimilar, but in many points
directly opposed.
With
respect to the true authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, all the doubt that
hangs over it, may, I think, be removed by a supposition by no means
improbable. St. Paul was very unpopular with a large portion of the Christian
world,—the converts from Judaism—those who had been Jews, and still retained a
prejudice in favour of the eternal obligation of the law. This Epistle bears
internal evidence of being written principally for their use. WLat was more
likely, then, than that St. Paul should employ some other person, say Luke,
furnish him with the materials, and leave him to write in his own name to the
Hebrew Christians. And this is
8 Iu the pccnuinp Scriptures no allegory tiling have an allegorical
signification,”
is to be
found, except where it is avowed, ivr/*
ixxirytfrifAtt*) has perhaps eontri-
as in
parables; there is nothing professing bated
to keep this principle out of sight,
to be
liistory or precept, of which we are When
St. Paul compares Ilagar to the
at all
authorized to doubt the literal Jewish
Church, and to Mount Sinai, he
truth:
although it may have a typical does not
mean to deny the actual ex-
signijication
besides. Tlie expression of istence of
her, and Sarah, and Ishmatl,
our
translators, “ which things are an and
Isaac, allegory,” (it should have been, “ which
precisely
Origen’s account of it, who states that tho matter is Paul’s, Appendix, the
composition and language another’s, II
It' this
be so, it would certainly follow, that although the pre- Authorship tended
author would not, at first, reject his claim to it, yet as the Epistle to cause
of concealment diminished, according to time and place, he theH«t»r«wj. would
lay aside his title to it, and leave Paul to be conjectured or known as the
author. The very Church addressed in the Epistle, would be the last probably to
hear 01 the true authorship ; and the whole question would thus be for ever
involved in obscurity.
Now what
is the fact ? tho style is not altogether St. Paul’s, and yet occasionally you
meet with expressions, which unquestionably remind you of him, and are so
characteristic as scarcely to leave a doubt that they are his. If he supplied
the matter and corrected the Epistle, this is just what would have happened.
It has
been attributed to Clement, to Luke, and to Barnabas; and all these were at
several times companions of Paul; this again is likely.
It is said
to have been addressed to the Hebrew Christians at Rome, and it was at Rome
that its genuineness as an Epistle of Paul was longest doubted. This is
likewise what must have taken place.10
The notion
that it was originally written in Hebrew probably arose from its being written
Hehraice, not as to its language, but as to its mode of arguing, topics, and
the like. For the internal marks of the Greek being ihe original, are very
strong. Sec Wetstein, Prefatory Iietnarks on the Epistle in his Greek
Testament.
Note [I.]11 Page 172. I.
Whilst
Christians of all denominations have ever agreed in admitt- inspiration ing the
inspiration of the New Testament; on no ont point, perhaps. of ScriPtula
has there been a greater diversity of opinion than 011 the character of this
inspiration. On this diversity of view, one general remark ittay be hazarded,
and it will be found, I think, warranted by historical fact. In proportion as
inspiration has been made to approach to a complete inditing of the Scriptures,
the Scriptures have been neglected. The ounsequence of the study and
application of the Bible, from the period of the Reformation, has been,
gradually and progressively, to limit the extent of inspiration ; and by so
doing to vindicate the holy character of what is unquestionably of Divine
origin, and to make the application of the rule of faith more sure.
It was
only, perhaps, in the worst ages of superstition, that an
„ "■ hav® supposed that it was Italy
would speak of the absent friends
written
irom Italy, on account ot the and
fellow-countryman who were with
expression,
they of Italy samte you; ” him.
but the
Greek wcrds at least, (el ito 11
Fur a more complete discussion of cannot signify persons in Italy, this subject
I must refer to my “ Essay on
hut imp •,
that they were out of Itah Inspiration;”
and to two sermons lately
They
indicate more; for it is tne most published,
with the title of “ Scripture
natural
way in which one writing to andtheAuthorizedYersionofScripture.”
Appendix,
entire inspiration of matter, words, and composition generally, like I. that
asserted of the Koran, was universally contended for. At the inspiration perM
of the Reformation, Luther placed the first limit on this o/ scripture, yiew,
and contended that the matter only was of Divine origin, the composition human.
Luther’s view way adopted by Beza, Salma- sius, and most of the eotemporary
divines.
An
accident, however, prevented it from being followed up, and even produced a
re-aetion among the reformed. The Romanist3 caught at tho concession, and
argued for the necessity of an infallible expositor of a record confessedly
composed by human and fallible authorship. Ilence most of the divines of the
latter end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth centuries, abandoned
even the advance of Luther’s view, and maintained a plenary inspiration.
Agreeably to the remaik above made, the theology of the Germans, where this
point was most carefully maintained, was at that period in its worst state of
relapse/2
And it is curious
to observe how long the sophistical retort of the Romanists continued to
operate in checking a revival of the first reformer’s tenet. Mosheiin, in his
lectures on Dogmatic Theology, stirs the subject, with confessed apprehension
about a similar result: —“ 11 fee dissensio inter nos, et inter homines ah
ecclesia evungelica alienos, maximi est ponderis atipie momend; neque facile
coneedi potest honnnibus extra ecelesiam nostraw constitutis, matcriam tantum
Sacra; Scripturaj mspirntam esse. Ex hae enim propu-
sitiono, nude intellecta, consecutiones possunt derivari, perieuloste, et
divinss veriiati noxije. Eadem vero lis et controversia, si agitetur inter
nostrte Ecelesife tlieologos, non magnum habent momentum. Nam ecclesia) nostra?
theologi ita sentcntiam explicant, ut divinaj auc- toritati Sacra' Scriptural
nihil derogetur, Elementa Theologia) Dogmatieas, De Princip. Theolog.
C. II. Sect. 7.
With the
gradual progress of inquiry, however, and the more diligent use of Scripture, a
further limitation came in time to be put on scriptural inspiration. It became
a question whether even all the matter of the Bible was to be. considered as
having the stamp of Divine truth on it. The progress of natural philosophy made
i*. impossible that any thing but blind superstition should assert this
character for all physical facts; and the whole branch of topics which fall
under that ho?,d, have been accordingly excluded by a great part of Christians.
The contrary was, indeed, long maintained by the Romish Church, and is, even
now, nominally, and for consistency sake. As Galileo was imprisoned for
asserting the motion of the earth round the sun, so the Jesuits, in their
admirable edition of Newton "a works, w ere obliged to disavow their
belief m the conclusions to which Newton’s reasoning led. Among ilie
Protestants, too, the inspiration of all the mailer of the Bible has not been
without its advocates.
12 See Pusey on the Theulosy of Germany.
But one
portion of the matter of the Bible—its natural philosophy Apiendi-.
-—having
been once excluded from the sphere of inspiration, in the 1. view of so many
learned and pious Christians, further doubts, on inspiration similar grounds,
have been suggested respecting the statement ofof Scnptur0, those
historical facts which belong not to sacreu but to profane history. It has been
justly contended that similar difficulties are obviated by excluding profane
history, as by excluding natural philosophy; and that there is no more ground
for maintaining the inspiration of the sacred writers in the one than an the
other case.
This view
can scarcely yet be said to be generally established; only, perhaps, because it
less frequently provokes the question, than the case cf physical facts.
It would
lead to much more discussion than is compatible with a mere note, to enter into
the general question of what further limitations may and ought to be put on
the inspired character of Scripture.
I will only briefly state, that the
following may, perhaps, on reflection, bo found not inconsistent with the
purest view of God’s written word.
It may be
fairly questioned, then, first, whether even its sacred history is inspired.
For although wherever a point of faith or practice is involved iu the
historical record, inspiration must be. supposed, (else the application of the
record as an infallible rule must be abandoned,) yet, where this is not the
case, there seems to be no necessity for supposing inspiration; and by not
supposing it, several difficulties in the attempt to harmonise the sacred
historians are removed.
Again,
proceeding still on the principle that the truths to be believed,—the material
of faith, is the point to which the control or suggestions of inspiration must
have been directed, and to which alone it is necessary for constituting the Bible
the rule of faith, that it should be directed, the reasoning of the inspired
writers may be considered safely as their own. I do not mean to impugn the
reasoning of any one passage n the apostolical writings; but were any found
open to it, the circumstance wuuld not, according to this view, affect the
inspired character and authority of the work. The assertions, not the jvroofs,
are the proper objects of unqualified assent; and provided we believe
implicitly all that is proposed by the sacred writers to be believed, it may be
fairly questioned whether it be requisite to assent always to the method
adopted by them to persuade This has been already touchcd on in Note E, page
311, where the application of the prophecies in the Old Testament, by the
writers of the New, was considered; and is the view adopted by Burnet in his
“Exposition of the XXXIX. Articles.” (Art. VI.)
“ When
divine writers argue upon any point, we are always bound to believe the
conclusions that these reasonings end in, ab parts of lliv.nc revelation; but
we are not bonnd to be able to make out, or even assent to, afl the premises
made use of by them : unless it
Appendix
appears plainly that they affirm the premises as expressly as they
I. do the conclusions proved by them.” See
also “Paley’s Evidences,” inspiration Vol. II. l’art III. Chap. 2, where
Burnet’s words are quoted, and
of
Scripture. h;s yJew slirported.
K- Note
[K.]
Page 172.
vanm'm*
Among the internal evidence in favour of this view should be Theology, noticed
the absence of technical phraseology. For technical terms in theology are
evidently the result of deductions from Scripture; and generally mark the view
taken by one party of Christians in opposition to another. Thus the words
"Trinity,” “Person,” and the like, have been introduced into the Church
vocabulary for the purpose of denoting the orthodox conclusion from the various
passages of holy writ out of which the doctrines so expressed are elicited.
These terms are, in short, the natural and spontaneous symbola of every uninspired
age, in which the interpretation of Scripture is a matter of reasoning and a
question. But in the age of inspiration and infallibility, whenever doubts and
difficulties arose, the more direct course was to appeal to the inspired and
infallible authorities; and thus there was no opportunity or time for the rise
of a class of words which are, as it w ere, the gradual deposit wul formation
of contested view's.
The
exceptions too which do occur, in the language of the Apostles’ Creed in this
respect, arc very remarkable. They consist of the latter clauses, '* The holy
Catholic Church,” and “ The communion of Saints; which will appear, from the
course of the inquiry, to have been additions made subsequently to the
apostolic period. The latter 1 call aD exception, because although the
expression is found in the New Testament itself, and therefore not a phrase of
the Church’s after-devising, yet the technical and symbolical application of
it is; and this indeed is the case with a very large portion of our Church
vocabulary. The v ords have been taken from Scripture, (where they were used
originally without reference to any particular heresy or question,) and made a
badge of some particular tenet, to which the heresy or dispute has given a
prominence. It is certainly allowable for any body of Christians so to employ
the Scriptures ; and yet perhaps the wiser and more judicious method is the
adoption of terms and phrase* altogether new. It more clearly marks in the
language of Christians the human deductions, as distinguished from the inspired
declarations; and if it be said that the human deductions carry more authority
when given by scriptural words already sanctified, it is for this reason partly
that they are not so proper. We are assuming almost too much when we make
Scripture serve not only as the source from which we argue, but as the very
dedueer of the conclusion. It savours somewhat of the pious frauds of old,
which induced some good-intentioned Christians,, no doubt, to publish
uninspired tracts under the sanction of an apostle’s name.
Certain it
is, that when the point is discussed, it adds much to the Appendix, perplexity
of the controversy. For the advocate of the doctrine K. expressed by the
scriptural term almost unconsciously defends his ^chniM position,
not merely as if it were a fair conclusion from Scripture, Term's in hut as if
it were the very assertion of inspiration. On the other TheoIo*J-
hand, his opponent is apt to suppose, that he has shown his adver sary’s
assertion to he false, because he has proved it to be not the assertion of
Scripture in that very language. I need scarce mention the many instances which
must readily occur to every one who remembers how much of this has taken place
respecting “ justification,” “regeneration,” “sanctification,” and in short
every established phrase of the Church which has been expressed in scriptural
terms.
On the
other hand, it is impossible to deny that objections lie against the coinage or
adoption of terms and phrases not scriptural.
In neither
case, indeed, can the terms be considered fairly as more than arbitrary marks
of the Church’s view of some scriptural doctrines; but then, as some of these
scriptural doctrines are and must always be expressed in scriptural phrase, the
others may acquire by association an authority and character equal to the
scriptural assertions themselves. Whether this might be remedied, by a change
from time to time of the expressions which mark the orthodox views of the
Church, or by any other means, is a question well worthy of consideration.
BESIDE?
THOSE SPECIALLY KEFEKKLD TO IN TILE TEXT A_VP NOTES
B.vk hkgtc* (Lord).—Miscellanea Sacra.
Bixgieul—Ecclesiastical Antiquities.
Bricker.—Historia Critica Philosophise.
EnrUAMis—Petavius’s
edition, republished at Cologne in 16S2.
Ikkkjcus.—The
folio edition of Grabe, Oxun. 1702.
Jrsns SIaet-sk.—Iho Pari? edition of ltJ36.
Klsq i_Lord).—Critical History of the Apostles’ Creed.
King ^Lokd\—An Enquiry into the Constitution, Discipline,
Unity, and Worship of the Primitive Church. By an Impartial Hand.
IIosheim.—Dt Rebus Christian, rum ante Constantmum
Magnum.
SciATiJt.—
'His Reply to Lord King's Enquiry.] An Original Draught ot the Primitive
Church, in answer to a Discourse, entitled, “ An Pinquiry.” 4c. By a Presbyter
of the Church of England.
WARBnrros (Bishop).—Divine Legation cf Moses.
Vi'hatkt.t (Ap.ntEisnop).—Essays. and ether
publications.
ABGARUS,
king of Edesse, his pretended correspondence with Christ, 167, 314.
Acts of
the Apostles, plan and object of the history, 152.
JEons,
what the Gnostics meant by the terra, 184.
Agapas, or
Love Feasts, 261.
Alexander
and Hymenaeus, the probable character of their punishment,
141.
Allegorizing
of Pagan Mythology, 304.
Ananias
and Sapphira, their case, 83.
Andrew,
(apostle,) his ministry, 167.
Apologies,
one of the Church’s means of self-preservation, 286.
Apollos,
one of John Baptist’s disciples, baptized into the Church, 131.
Apostles,
their appointment and office, 63, 79.
What parts
of their ministry designed for the mere foundation of Christianity, 194.
What parts
designed for the perpetuation of Christianity, 200.
Apostolical
Fathers, who entitled to this character, 191.
Apostolical
Succession.
Assemblies,
(Christian,) where held and how, 80, 89.
Who
composed them, 145.
Astrology,
origin of, 12.
Atonement
why an unacceptable doctrine to the Gentiles, 21.
Why to the
Jews, 34.
Augury,
origin of, 12.
Babel,
what the object of the building, and what the confusion which ensued, 2.
Baptism, its
institution and meaning, 43.
How
administered in the primitive Church, 255.
Barnabas,
probably the same with Joses Barsabas, 74.
Wrhen
appointed an Apostle, 82. Why called, the Son of Consolation, ibid.
His
separation from Paul, 117. His after ministry, 169.
His
pretended Epistle, ibid.. Whether he can be classed among the Apostolical
Fathers, 191. Bartholomew, (the apostle,) his ministry, 168.
His death,
289.
Bishops,
an Apostolical order, 146. Why once called angels, 147.
By what
authority appointed, 176.
Their
office and jurisdiction, 233. Catalogue of those apostolically ordained, 237.
Canon of
the New Testament, 224. Catechisms, Catechists, Catechumens, 250.
Cerinthus,
his heresy, 186.
Church,
character and design of the institution, 200.
Its four
offices, 203.
Not one
society, 204.
Its
spirituality, 206.
Its
universality, ibid.
Its unity,
207.
Its
authority, 208.
Of
Jerusalem, 243.
Of Rome,
245.
Of
Alexandria, 250.
Sacramental
character of the Church, 253.
The term
(ixxXnriec) personified by the Gnostics, 187. Christians, (first application of
the name,) 102.
Christianity,
distinctions in it as taught by Christ and by his apostles, 56. Several Stages
of it, 60.
Christianity,
provisions for establishing and for perpetuating it, 199.
Claudius,
(emperor,) his reign favourable to the progress of Christianity, 158. '
Ciement,
(Apostolical Father,) his history, 191.
His
testimony to the Canon of Scripture, 220.
His
martyrdom, 289.
Collections
for the poor of J mLra, 134.
Colossians,
Epistle to, why written and w hen, 154.
Cuming of
Christ, what meant by it, 47, 147.
Community
of goods among the primitive Christians, 83.
Confirmation,
consisted originally in some spiritual gift, 77.
The sign
of insensible spiritual infl'ienee, 91.
Why the
rite was observed after sensible miracles had ceased, 197.
Converts,
to Christianity of three kinds, and for a season differently treated, 61,
<59, Si.
Corinthians,
First Epistle to, when written, 130.
Second
Epistle, when written, 143.
Council of
Jerusalem, 108.
Creeds,
one of the Church’s means of self-preservation, 272.
Apostles'
Creed, ibid.
Deacons,
their appointment and office, 86.
Deaconesses,
85.
Why needed
in the primitive Church, 233.
How long
the order existed, ibid.
Decree of
the Council of Jerusalem, 108.
Demetrius
and the Craftsmen, 142.
Devout
Gentiles, who they were, C9.
When first
preached to, 95.
Disciples,
the seventy, their appointment and office, 64.
Discipline,
its disuse in our Church, j
142.
Its
maintenance in the primitive Church, 282.
Docetae,
their errors opposed in the Apostles' Creed, 27G.
Doniitkn,
his persecution of the Church, 182.
Dositheus,
his character, 186.
Dreams,
one of the inodes of Divine communication, 120.
How
inspired dreams were distinguished from others, 121.
Eclectics,
(a sect of philosophers,) 15. Egyptian idolatry, 6.
Egyptians
of Thebais worshippers of Cneph, 303.
Elect,
application of the term to the Gentile converts, IG3.
Election,
forms of, 89.
Ephesians,
Epistle to, why written and when, 154.
Epicurean philosophy,
14.
Episcopacy,
origin of, 146.
Epistles,
official, 236.
Esoteric
and Exoteric, what meant by the terms, 10, 14.
Essenes,
29.
Eucharist,
its institution and meaning, 43.
How
administered in the primitive Church, 25S.
Evil
being, why called a «f' it, 125.
IIis
dealings with mankind, 12fi. Excommunication, an inherent right of every
society, 137.
The proper
penalty for ecclesiastical offences, 141, 283.
What
communication it prohibits, ibid.
Extraordinary
offices in the apostolic Church, 19S.
Faith, why
Christianity emphatically called the faith, 18.
Fate,
Gentile view of it, 12.
Future
state, why no part of the early revelation to the Jews, 5.
Disbelieved
by the Gentiles, 9, 1G, 22.
Gradually
revealed, but imperfectly comprehended under the Old Testament dispensation,
34. '
Genealogies,
what the “ endless genealogies" of tSt. Fiul meant, 184. Gentiles, origin
of their religion, 2. Varieties of it, 6.
Effect of
the fine arts on it, 7. The supports of it, 9.
What parts
of Christianity were congenial to their prejudices, aud what opposed to them,
18.
Gentiles,
their alleged expectation of a Messiah, 18.
Gifts,
spiritual, 78.
Glory of
the Lord, what meant by it, 139.
Gnosticism,
character and origin of,
184.
Heresy,
how distinguished from schism, 179,
An offence
against some particular Church by its own member,
180.
Heretics,
182.
Hermas,
(apostolical Father,) his history, 191.
Holy
Ghost, descent of, 74.
Various
manifestations of, 75.
Second
descent, 81.
Sin
against the Holy Ghost, 85.
Homer, his
phantasmagoria, 9.
Why made
to do penance in hell by Pythagoras, and pronounced dangerous by Plato, 9.
Horsley,
(Bishop,) his view of the Gentile expectation of a Messiah, 18.
Houses of
prayer, 145.
Idolatry,
origin of, 4.
Its
influence on the conceptions of the Divine nature, 7.
How the
Jews were cured of it, 25.
Idolaters,
when first preached to, 105.
Second
mission to them, 118.
Ignatius,
(apostolical Father,) his history, 192.
His
testimony to the canon, of Scripture, 221.
His
martyrdom, 288.
Immanuel,
the word a proof of Christ’s Divine nature, 33.
Incarnation,
the doctrine not unacceptable to the Gentiles, 21.
Nor to the
Jews, 36.
Difference
between the Christian doctrine, and the heathen notion of a god assuming the
human character, 21.
Inspiration,
the character and limits of it, 114.
Instinctive
impulses, one of the modes of Divine communication, 120.
James, the
Less, his ministry and. death, 165.
James, the
brother of John, his ministry and death, 166.
Jerusalem,
its destruction the proper sign of the Messiah’s reign, 32.
St. Paul's
last recorded visit, 149.
Jesus
Christ, character of his ministry, 37.
His
example, 38.
His
teaching, 40.
His
miracles, 41.
His
institutions, 42.
Distinction
between his ministry and that of the apostles, 61.
nis
preparations for the ministry of the Holy Spirit. 62.
Jews, in
what their idolatry consisted, 2. °
Character
and intent of their religion, 23.
Twofold
object of their Scriptures, 304. *
Effects of
their settlement in Egypt, 25. ^
Their wide
dispersion, and the benefits accruing from it, both to them and to the
Gentiles, 25.
Influence
of their traditions, 26.
Their
malignant character for a time, and the cause of it, 159.
John,
(Baptist,) the object of his mission, 29*
Why
expected to * ‘ restore all things,” 30.
His
embassy to Jesus, 312.
His
disciples found by St. Paul at Ephesus, 132.
His
baptism, how differing from the baptism of Jesus, ibid.
John,
(apostle,) meaning of our Lord’s promise to him, 47, 147.
His
ministry and writings, 173.
Expressions
in the beginning of his Gospel, allusions to heretical opinions, 184.
Jude,
(apostle,) his ministry, 167.
Knowledge,
(religious,) its true character and limits, 291.
What meant
by “ the knowledge falsely so called,” 184.
Lord’s
Prayer, for whom, and with what intent composed, 66.
Love,
peculiar meaning of the word among the early Christians, 263.
Luke,
Paul’s companion. 153.
Character
of his writings, 172.
Manifestation,
what meant by a Divine manifestation, 75.
Various
inodes of, 120.
Marcionites,
their heresy respecting Christ's body, 277.
Mark.
(Evangelist,) his desertion of I’aul and Barnabas, 107.
Ilis
reconciliation to St. Paul, 117.
Hii
Gospel, 171.
Its
inspired character, Ibid.
Martyrdom,
its true object "and use. 287.
Matthew, (apostle,)
171.
Matthias,
(apostle,) his appointment, 72.
II is ministry, 170.
Mediator,
whether the term was ever misapplied bv the primitive Church, 231.
Menander,
(an impostor,) his history,
185. '
Messiah,
mistaken views of him entertained by the Jews 30.
Ministers,
(Christian,) their character and various titles, 230.
Fund fur
their maintenance, 237.
Miracles
performed by Christ. 41.
Why faith
made a requisite in one ort whom a miracle was wrought, 42.
Distinction
between the miracles of Christ and those of all others, 57.
When
miracles ceased, 91.
Inconsistent
with an established and jinal dispensation, 195.
Miracle on
the attempt to rebuild Jerusalem, 196.
Credit and
character of those omitted in the Scripture record, 169, 174.
Missionaries,
240.
Mural
discipline of the primitive Church, 281.
Philosophy
of the heathen, how tar improved bv the Gospel, 20.
Code of
the Jews, how affected by the Gospel revelation, 113.
Mysteries,
heathen, why they were instituted, 10.
Name,
peculiar use of the term in Scripture, 63.
Nathanael,
(see Bartholomew.)
Neronian
persecution, 158.
New
Testament Scriptures, their character and design, 200.
Omnipresent,
what meant by the term when applied to God, 123.
Onesimus,
St. Paul's Epistle respecting him, 155.
Ilis
martyrdom, 282.
Oracles,
their origin, 173.
Cause of
their extinction, 174.
Order of
the altar, whence the phrase, 231.
Orders in
the Church, 144.
Ordination
of ministers, 269.
Oriental
philosophy, 15, 188.
O^timfcivtrx,
what St. Paul meant by the word in 2 Tim. ii. 15, 230.
Paraclete,
( n*{«*A*T«,) why the Holy Ghost so eaiied. 113, 114.
Paul,
(apostle,) his conversion, 8S.
IIow often
he visited Jerusalem after that event, 102.
Ilis
revelation and appointment, 103. '
His Jirit
apostolical journey, 105.
His embassy
from Antioch to Jerusalem, 108.
His rebuke
of I’eter, 117.
His
separation from Barnabas, ibid.
His second
apostolical journey, 118.
At Troas.
119.
Exorcism
of a pythoness, 126.
At Athens,
127.
At
Corinth, 130.
At
Cenchraa, ibid.
His third
tpostolical journey, 131.
His
meeting with some disciples of John the Baptist, ibid.
Why so
earnest in making collections tor the poor brethren of Judana, 134.
His
connexion with the Corinthians, 135.
His
interview with the Ephesian presbyters, 143.
His after
journey and persecution at Jerusalem, 149.
His fuurth
apostolical journey, 152.
Ilis
imprisonment at Rome, 153.
Benefits
accruing to his ministry from his being so sent to Rome, ibid.
And also,
from the length aud the accidents of his voyage, 154.
His
behaviour respecting Onesimus, 155.
Paul, Lis
release from prisor. and subsequent course, 153.
His,/W/i
apostolical journey, 157. His death, 161.
Ilis claim
to be considered as the authur of the Epistle to the Hebrews, •? 17.
Penance,
what it originally meant, 284.
Persecution,
jnder Nero, 158.
Under
Domitian, 175, 289.
Ucuer
Trajan, 289.
Causes of.
138.
Perscn;
three Persons of the Godhead, 125.
Peter, to
whom his First Epistle was addressed, 163.
Why sent
with John to Samaria. 9L
Why made
so prominent in the early part of the A^ts. 96, 163. What ;.art he probably had
in founding the Church at Rome, 165.
Pharisees,
their character and tenets,
27.
Philemon,
155.
Philip,
(apostle,) hh life and ministry, 169.
Philip,
(aeacon,) his ministry in Samaria, 90.
His conversion
of the Ethiopian, eunuch, 92.
His
history confounded with that of Philip the apostle, 176. Philippians, Epistle
to, when written and why, 154.
Philosophy,
character of it at the Advent, 15.
Subversive
of the Gentile religion, 17.
Ir what
respects fa1, ourable and in m
hat unfavourable, to the establishment of Christianity, 20. “Vain philosophy,”
what meant by it, 184.
Pilate hi?
report of the crucifixion, anil his banishment, 158.
Plato, why
he censured the nse of poetry in education, 9.
Platonists,
25.
Plcroma, how applied by
the
Gnostics, 186.
Pliny’s
correspondence with Trajan respecting the Christians, 2S) 1 Poetry, its
,'.flnenca on the religion of the Gentiles, 8.
Polycarp,
iapostolical Father,) his history, i93, 293.
His
testimony tc the canon of the New Testament, 222.
Polytheism,
originally not implying a disbelief in Jehovah, 3.
Preaching,
the custom in the primitive Church, 234.
Presbyters,
the orig-'n and character oi the order in the Church, i44
Priest,
twofold meaning of the word. 231.
Prophecy,
whence the prophecies relating to a Jfessiah dispersed among the heathen, 18.
Why the
Jews misinterpreted the Scripture propbecies relating to rim, 31.
Christ’s
prophecies designed for instruction as well as for evidence, 4?.
Prophecy,
Christ’s prophecy concerning the Church, 43.
St. Peter,
46.
St. John,
47.
Judas
Iscariot, ibid,
Nathanael,
49.
The thief
on the cross, ibid.
The
destruction of Jerusalem, 82.
Use and
application of prophecy, S07-
What meant
by its not being of “private interpretation,” 310.
Proselytes
of the gate, distinguished from proselytes of righteousness, 70, 180. "
Protestants,
their separation from the Church of Home not a schism. 182.
Pythagoras,
why he imagined Homer and Hesiod in purgatory, 9.
Quadratus,
his apology, 286.
Quotations
from Scripture, one of the means of preserving and attesting the Sacrel Record,
219.
Reading
the Scriptures publicly, one of tbe primitive modes of preserving and attesting
the Sacred Record, 217.
Reformation
of the Church, its true principle, 116.
Character
of the Reformation,
181.
Revelation,
various modes of, 120.
Revelations,
the book of, 175,
Rites,
Christian, 254.
Romans,
whan end why St. Paul wrote his Epistle to them, 143. Rome, St. P&ul's
imprisonment there,
153.
History of
the curly Church there, 245.
Sacraments,
their character and meaning, 43.
Why
instituted hr ChrisMiimself, 65.
Line of
distinction between the sacraments and all other Christian rites, 254.
How
observed in the primitive Cliuroh, 255.
Sadducees,
their character and tenets,
28.
Samaritans,
their history, 35.
In v hat
respects mure enlightened than the Jews, 36.
Their
canon of Scripture, 305.
Their
theology, 30G.
Satan,
what meant by delivery unto Satan. 141.
Schism, in
what it consists, 179.
Schools,
among the primitive institutions for dispensing Christian knowledge, 250.
Scripture,
character of its inspiration, 114, 172, 317.
Publicly
read, 234.
Sculpture,
its effect on the religiun of the Gentiles, 7.
Serenius
Graninnus, his letter to the emperor Iludrian, 292.
Shechineli,
or glory of the Lord, its analogy to Christ, 123; anu to the munitestation of
God by tbe Holy Spirit, 139.
Sibylline
oracles, whether any of them related to the Messiah, 18.
Silas, St
Paul’s companion, 118.
Simon
Magus, 184.
Simon Zelotes,
(apostle,) his ministiY, 169.
Slavery,
why not forbidden in the preaching and writings uf the apostles, 155.
Spain,
visited by St. Pan], 150.
Spirit,
(Holy,) His office and relation to the Church, 56—67.
Descent on
the day of Pentccost, 74.
Modes of
communication, 75.
Gifts of
the Spirit, 77.
Spirit,
gifts of the, peculiar to the apostles, 79.
Second
extraordinary manifestation, 81.
Distinction
between the ordinary and extraordinary agency, 105.
Proof that
the ordinary agency is still continued, 107.
The temple
of the Holy Spirit, 138.
Spirit,
(Evil,) why called a spirit, 125.
Ilis
ordinary and his extraordinary agency, ibid.
Spirituality
one of the characteristics of the Church, 206.
Stephen,
(his martyrdom,) 9U.
Stoics,
their doctrine concerning fate,
12.
The local
existence of the Deity, 17.
Strangers,
{/&«) v, ho meant by the expression :n the. first chapter of St. Peter’s
First Epistle, 163.
Symbolical
interpretation of Scripture, '55.
Character
of Christ’s miracles, 58.
Sjnicon,
his appointment to be bishop of .Jerusalem, 243.
His
martyrdom, 245.
Technical
terms in theology, 320.
Temple of
the Holy Ghost, 147,
Typified
by the temple of Jt ill saletn, ibid.
Temptation
cf Christ, 52.
Thomas,
(apostle,) his life and ministry, 167.
His
martyrdom, 289.
Tiberius,
(emperor,) his government of the Christians, 158.
Timothy,
vhy circumcised by St. Paul, 190. '
His
appointment and ministry, 176.
Titns,
(St. Paul’s companion,) why St. l’aui refused to circumcise him, 130.
His
appointment and ministry, 176.
Tongues,
gift of, 78.
Traditions,
Jewish, their origin and character, 26.
Trajan,
(the emperor,) his behaviour to the Christians, 290.
Trinity,
why not a difficult doctrine to the Gentile converts, 22.
Truth, why
applied peculiarly to the Christian religion, 18
Personification
of the Christian term by the Gnostics, 187.
Unction of
the sick in the primitive Church, 197.
Universality,
one of the characteristics of the Christian Church, 206.
Unitr,
Christian, what meant by it, 179.
One of the
characteristics of the Church, 205.
Unknown
God, what meant by the inscription on the altar at Athens, 128.
Vicar of
Christ, whence the phrase, 231.
Virgil's
sixth book of the iEneid, S.
Pcllio,
20.
Visions, a
mode of Divine Revelation, 120.
Voices, a mode cf Divine Revelation, 120.
Warburton’s
Account of the heathen Mysteries, 10.
Widows,
deaconesses originally so called, 85, 233.
Witnesses,
the primary character of the apostles. 63
Word of
God, how the scriptural term was personified by the gnostics, 187.
B ETWEES
PLINY TIIE
CONSUL MD THE EMPEROR TRAJAN,
RKSPECIIXG
THE EARLY
CHRISTIANS.
FEOM THE
TRANSLATION BY WILLIAM MELMOTH.
BY THE
LATE THOMAS ARNOLD, P.D.
C. Plinths
C.tctliitr Secundus was bom
at or near Comum, about the sixth year of the reign of Nero, or\.D. 61. His
mother was a sister of 0. Plinius, the Natural Historian; and as he lost liis
father at tin early period, he removed with her to the house of his uncle, with
whom he resided for some years, and was adopted by liim, and, consequently,
assumed his name in addition to his parental one, Cecilias. He appears to have
been of a delicate constitution, and even in his youth to have possessed little
personal activity and enterprise; for at the time of the famous eruption of
Vesuvius, when he was between seventeen and eighteen, he continued his studies
at home, and allowed his uncle to set out to the mountain without him. In
Literature, however, he made considerable progress, according to the estimate
of those times: he composed a Greek Tragedy when he was only fourteen, and
wrote Latin verses on several occasions throughout his life; he attended the
Lectures of Quinctilianus, and some other eminent Rhetoricians, and assiduously
cultivated his style as an elegant writer and an Orator. In this latter
capacity he acquired great credit, and to this cause he was probably indebted
for his Political advancement. He went through the whole succession of public
offices from that of Qu&storto the high dignities of Consul and Attgur, and
was so esteemed by Tmjanus as to be selected by him for the Government of
Bithynia, because there were many abuses in that Province, which required a man
of ability and integrity to remove them. The trust so honourably committed to
him he seems to have discharged with great fidelity; and the attention to every
branch of his duties, which his Letters to Traj anus’ display, is peculiarly
praiseworthy in a man of sedentary habits, and accustomed to the enjoyments of
his villas, and the stimulants of Literary glory at Rome. His character as a
husband, a master, and a friend, was affectionate, kind, and generous; he
displayed also a noble liberality towards his native town Comum, by forming a
public library there, and devoting a yearly sum of 300.000 sesterces for ever
to the maintenance of children born of free parents who were Citizens of Comum.
A man like Plinius, of considerable talents and learning, possessed of great
wealth, and of an amiable and generous disposition, was sure to meet ■with many
friends, and with still more who would gratify his vanity by their praises and
apparent admiration of his abilities. But as a writer he has done nothing to
entitle him to a very high place in the judgment of posterity. His Panegyric of
Trajanus belongs to a class of compositions, the whole object of which was to
produce a striking effect, and it must not aspire to any greater reward. It is
ingenious and eloquent, but bv its very nature it gives no room for the
exercise of the highest faculties of the mind, nor will its readers derive from
it any more substantial benefit than the pleasure which a mere elegant
composition can afford. His letters are valuable to us, as all original Letters
of other times must be, because they necessarily throw much light on the period
at which they were written. But many of them are ridiculously studied, and
leave the impression, so fatal to our interest in the perusal of such
compositions, that they were written for the express purpose of publication. In
short, the works of Plinius, compared with the reputation which he enjoyed
among his contemporaries, seem to us greatly to confirm the view which we have
taken of the inferiority of the Literature of this period, and of the unworthy
notions which were entertained of its proper excellence.
BETWEEN
PLINY
AND THE EMPEROR TE A J AM.*
PLINY TO
THE EMPEROR TRAJAN
It is a
rule, Sir, which I inviolably observe, to refer myself to you in all my doubts;
for who is more capable of removing my scruples, or informing my ignorance?
Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess
Christianity, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or
the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an
examination concerning them. Whether therefore any difference is usually made with
respect to the ages of the guilty, or no distinction is to be observed between
the young and the adult; whether repentance entitles them to a pardon; or if a
man has been once a Christian, it avails nuthing to desist from his error;
whether the very profession of Christianity, unattended with any criminal act,
or only the crimes themselves inherent in the profession are punishable; in all
these points I am greatly doubtful. In the mean while, the method I have
observed towards those who have been brought before me as Christians, is this:
I interrogated them whether they were Christians? If they confessed, I
repeated the question twice again, adding threats at the same time ; when, if
they still persevered, I ordered them to be immediately punished: for I was
persuaded, whatever the nature of their opinions might be, a contumacious and
inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction. There were others also
brought before me possessed with the same infatuation, but being citizens of
Rome, I directed them to be carried thither. Lut this crime spreading (as is
usually the case) while it was actually under prosecution, several instances of
the same nature occurred. An information was presented to me without any name
subscribed, containing a charge agaiust several persons, who upon exammatiou
* Pliny’s Letters, Book X., Letters S7, OS.
denied
they were Christians, or had ever been so. They repeated after me an invocation
to the gods, and offered religious rites with wine and frankincense before your
statue; (which for this purpose I had ordered to be brought, together with
those of the gods,) and even reviled the name of Christ: whereas there is no
forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians, into a compliance with
any of these articles: 1 thought proper therefore to discharge them. Some among
those who were accused by a witness in person, at first confessed themselves
Christians, but immediately after denied it; while the rest owned indeed that
they had been of that number formerly, but had now- (some above three, others
more, and a few above twenty years ago) forsaken that error. They all
worshipped your statue and the images of the gods, throwing out imprecations at
the same time against the name of Christ. They affirmed, the whole of their
guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a certain stated day before it was
light, and addressed themselves in a form of prayer to Christ, as to some God,
binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design,
but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word,
nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after whiok,
it was their custom to separate, and then re-assemble, to eat in common a
harmless meal. From this custom, however, they desisted after the publication
of my edict, by which, according to your orders, 1 forbade the meeting of any
assemblies. After receiving th>s account, 1 judged it so much the more
necessary to endeavour to extort the real truth, by putting two female slaves
to the torture, who w'ere said to administer in their religious functions ; but
I could discover nothing more than an absurd and excessive superstition. I
thought proper therefore to adjourn all further proceedings in this affair, in
order to consult with you. For it appears to be a matter highly deserving your
consideration ; more especially as great numbers must be involved in the
danger of these prosecutions, this inquiry having already extended, and will
still extend, to persons of all ranks and ages, and even of both sexes. For
this eontagicus superstition is not contined to the cities only, but has spread
its infection among the country villages: nevertheless, it still seems possible
to remedy this evil and restrain its progress. The temples, at least, which
were once almost deserted, begin now to be frequented ; and the sacred
solemnities, after a long intermission, are again revived; while there is a
general demand for the victims, which for some time past have met with but few
purchasers. From henee it is easy to imagine, what numbers might be reclaimed
from this error, if a pardon were granted to those who shall repent.
THE
EMPEROR TRAJAN TO PLINY.
The method you hare pursued, my dear Fliny, in the
proceedings against those Christians which were brought before you, is
extremely proper: as it is not possible to lay down any fixed plan by which to
act in all cases of this nature. But I would not have you officiously enter
into any inquiries concerning them. If indeed they should bs brought before you,
and the crime is proved, they must be punished; with this restriction, however,
that where the party denies himaelf to be a Christian, and shall make it
evident that he is not, by invoking our gods, let him, (notwithstanding any
former suspicion! be pardoned upon his repentance. Information without the
accuser’s name subscribed, ought not to be received in prosecu tions of any
sort; as it is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and by no means
agreeable to the eouity of my government.
OF
WITH A
COMPARISON
BETWEEN
AXI>
THOSE ELSEWHERE RELATED,
AS REGARDS
THEIR
RESPECTIVE OBJECT, NATURE, AND EVIDENCE-
ORtEL
COLLEGE, OXFORD.
REPRINTED
FROM THE ORIGINAL EDITION.
z
LIFE OF
APOLLONIUS TYANiEUS.
r . . . n PAGE
His Life
written by Philostratus, with the object ot blinking him forward
as a rival
to the Author of the Christian Religion, . , . .341
His Birth
and Education, 342
He adopts
the Pythagorean Philosophy, 342
His
travels in Asia, Greece, Rome, Spain, Fgypt, -Ethiopia, ifcc. . . 342
His Death, . . 347
Miraculous
Pretensions not made by himself . . 349
Enumeration
of his Pretended Miracles 349
Keal
Nature of hi« Pretensions, 351
His Story
an Imitation of Scripture, .... . 354
THE
MIRACLES OF SCEIPTUJRE COMFARED WITH THOSE RELATED ELSEWHERE, AS REGARDS THEIR
RESPECTIVE OBJECT, NATURE, AND EVIDENCE.
I Osr the
Nature and Gikbral Uses of AIip.at7.es. . . . 356
II.—Ox
tiie Antecedent Credibility of a Mibacle, considered
as a Divine Interposition, 350
Tests
derived from our Knowledge of the Divine Attributes, by which
•ill but
Scripture Miracles are excluded, ... 367
1. Those which ere not oven referred by the
workers of them to
Divine
Agency, ..... . . 367
2 Those which are unworthy of £n All-wise Author,
. . 36S
3................. Those which have no
professed object,............... 370
4. Those which are exceptionable as regards their object,
. . 372 Conclusion of the Antecedent
question, 376
HI.—On the Criterion of a Miracle, considered as a
Divine
Interposition,
...... . . 377
Tests
between Real and Apparent Miracles, deduced from the Definition
of the
Term, 3^0
The Term Miracle defined, ........ 350
^ PACB
Tke Farts
which have no title to the name Miracle, fire :—
1. Those which may be referred to Misstatement in
the Narration, 380
2. Those which from suspicious circumstances
attending them
may not
unfairly be referred to an unknown Physical cause, 381
3. Those which may be referred to the
supposed operation of a
Cause
known to exist, 3S3
Obs'-rvations
on the foregoing Tests, 385
IV On the Direct Evidence foe true Curisiiax
Miracles, . 386
The
Scripture Miracles have far stronger evidence in their favour than other
Professed Miracles, though they do not require evidence equally
strong.......... 387
What kind
of Testimony is to be required for a Miracle, . . . 387
1. The Testimony must bp honest,
.... . 389
2. And competent, . .... 390
Tests relative
to these Qualities 391
Observations
on the foregoing Tests, 396
View of
the Complete Evidence, for the Scripture Miracles, . . 396
Union of
Testimony with Antecedent Probability, .... 397
From a.c. 4, to a.d. 96.
Apollonius, the Pythagorean philosopher, was born at
Tyana, ^poiionfmi in Cappatlocia, in tho year of Rome 750, four years before
the " ' common Christian era.1 His reputation has been raised
far above his personal merits, by the attempt made in the early ages of the Church,
aud since revived,2 to bring him forward as a rival to the Author of
our Religion. His life was written with this object, ^
about a
century after his death, by Philostratus of Lemnos, when Philostratus. Ammonius
was systematizing the Eclectic tenets to meet the increasing influence of the
Christian doctrines. Philostratus engaged in this work at the instance of his
patroness Julia Domna, wife of the Emperor Severus, a princess celebrated for
her zeal in the cause of Heathen Philosophy; who put into his hands a journal
of the travels of Apollonius rudely written by one Damis, an Assyrian, his
companion.3 This manuscript, an account of his residence at vEgffl,
prior to his acquaintance with Damis, by Maximus of that city, a collection of
his letters, some private memoranda relative to his opinions and conduct, and
lastly the public records of the cities he frequented, were the principal documents
from which Philostratus compiled his elaborate narrative, which is still
extant.4 It is written with considerable elegance, but with more
ornament and attention to the composition than is consistent with correct
taste. Though it is not a professed imitation of the Scripture history of
Christ, it contains quite enough to show that it was written with a view of rivalling
it; and accordingly, in the following age, it was made use of in a direct
attack upon Christianity by Hierocles,5 Pra>fect of Bithynia, a
disciple of the Eclectic School, to whom a reply was written by Eusebius of
Cassarea. The selection of a Pythagorean Philosopher for the purpose of a comparison
with Christ was judicious. The attachment of the Pythagorean Sect to the
discipline of the established religion, which most
1 dear, ad Philostr. I.12. 5 His work was called A6yoi
2 By Lord Herbert and Mr. Blount. *foe ^urnctfovr on this subject see Mo-
3 Philostr. I. 3. sheim, Dissertat. de turbat lper recentiores
4 Ibid. I. 2,3. Platonicos Ecclesid, See. 25.
Birth and
education.
He adopts
t lie
Pythagorean
Philosophy.
Travels.
other
Philosophies neglected; its austerity, its pretended intercourse with heaven,
its profession of extraordinary power over nature, and the authoritative tone
of teaching which this profession countenanced,6 were all in favour
of the proposed object. But with the plans of the Eclectics in their attack
upon Christianity we have no immediate concern.
Philostratus
begins his work with an account of the prodigies attending the Philosopher’s
birth, which with all eircumstanecs of a like nature, we shall for the present
pass over, intending to make some observations on them in the sequel. At the
age of fourteen he was placed by his father under the care of Puthydemus, a distinguished
rhetorician of Tarsus; but being displeased with the dissipation of that city,
he removed with his master to iEgie, a neighbouring town, frequented as a
retreat for students iri philosophy.' Ilere ho made himself master of the
Platonic, Stoic, Epicurean, and Peripatetic systems; giving, however, an
exclusive preference to the Pythagorean, which he studied with Euxenus of
TIeraclea, a man whose life ill accorded with the ascetic principles of hi'}
Sect. At the early age of sixteen years, according to his Biographer, he
resolved on strictly conforming himself to the precepts of Pythagoras, and, if
possible, rivalling the fame of his master. lie renounced animal food and wine
; restricted himself to the use of linen garments, and sandals made of the bark
of trees; suffered his hair to grow; and betook himself to the temple of
JEsculapius, who is said to have regarded him with peculiar favour
On tho
news of his father’s death, which took place not long afterwards, he left Mgai
for his native place, where he gave up half his inheritance to his "elder
brother, whom he is said to have reclaimed from a dissolute course of life, and
the greater part of the remainder to his poorer relatives.5
Prior to
composing any Philosophical work, he thought it necessary to observe the
silence of five years, which was the appointed initiation into the esoteric
doctrines of his Sect. During this time he exercised his mind in storl.ig up
materials for future reflection. We are told, that on several occasions he
hindered insurrections in the cities in which he resided, by the mute eloquence
of his look and gestures; **—a fact, however, which we are able to trace to the
invention of his Biographer, who, in his zeal to compare him to his master,
forgot that the disciples of the Pythagorean school denied themselves during
their silence the intercourse of mixed society.11
The period
of silence being expired, Apollonius passed through the principal cities of
Asia Minor, disputing in the Temples in imitation of Pythagoras, unfolding the
mysteries of his Sect to such as were observing their probationary silence,
discoursing with tho
«
Pliilustr. 1.17, VI. 11. 7 Ibid. I. 7. s Ibid. I. P. Apollon. Epist. 50.
* Ibid. 1.13. la Ibid. 1.14 15. n Brucker, Vol. I', p. U L
Greek
Priests about divine rites, and reforming the worship of Barbarian cities.12
This must liave been his employment for many years; the next incident in his
life being his Eastern journey, which wag not undertaken till ho was between
forty and fifty years of age.15
" His
object in this expedition was to consult the Magi and Braeh- mans on
philosophical subjects; in whieh he but followed the example of Pythagoras, who
is said to have travelled as far as India for the same purpose. At Nineveh,
where he arrived with two companions, he was joined by Pamis, already mentioned
as his journalist.14 Proceeding thence to Babylon, he had some interviews
with the Magi, who rather disappointed his expectations ; and was well received
by Bardanes the Parthian King, who, after detaining him at his Court for the
greater j art of two years, dismissed him with marks of peculiar honour.15
From Babylon he proceeded Travels in to Taxila, the seat of Phraotes, King of
the Indians, who is repre-Indis" sented as an adept in the
Pythgorean Philosophy;16 and passing on, at length accomplished the
object of his expedition by visiting Iarchas, Chief of the Brachmans, from whom
he is said to have learned many valuable tlieurgic secrets.17
On his
return to Asia Minor, after an absence of about five years, he stationed
himself for a time in Ionia; where the fame of his travels and his austere mode
of life procured considerable attention to his philosophical harangues. The
cities sent embassies to him, decreeing him public honours; while the oracles
pronounced him more than mortal, and referred the sick to him for relief.18
From Ionia
he passed over to Greece, and made his first tour Travels m through its
principal cities;19 visiting the temples and oracles, G;'eece-
reforming the divine rites, and sometimes exercising liis theurgie skill.
Except at Sparta, however, he seems to have attracted little attention. At
Eleusis his application for ailmittance to the Mysteries was unsuccessful; as
was, at a later period of Ilis life, a
12 Pbilf'str. 1.16. 14 Philostr. I. 39.
13 See Olear. pra-/at. ad if am. As he is lbM
j 2g ^
died, u.c.
849, he is usuahy considered . T
' “ „
to have
lived to hundred. Since, ?,I(1bl'1-
1-4,1 Urucker’ 'cl. ii.
however,
here is an interval of almost P-
twenty
years in which nothing impor- 17
Ibid, III. 51.]
tant
happens in a part of his lite too un- w
Ibid. IV. 1. It is observable that
connected
with any public events to fix ^.g
jg t^e first distinct mention which
*!? J ^ his Biographer furnishes of his pretending
the date
of his birth isput too early. to
extl^0rdinary power. The history of
Philostratus
says, that accounts varied Lucian>s
Alexander leads us to suspect
making.him
li\e eighty, nm<3ty, or one a
secret understanding between him and
*nn?Je
years; see v III. 29. See also ^ie
prjests, who might not be unwilling
II. 12, v. here by some inaccuracy, he tQ ^ then!Sl.,vcJ
of his aIIiance £
makes hmi
to .lave been in India tv. ent J opposition
to the exertions and miracles
years Won
he was at Babylon. Olear j>aul ?bout
that time in the same
id loci.m
et prafat ad vit. Thej common That the
Apostlea were opposed
da.e of
uis birth is fixed by his liiopra- ^
counter pretensions to miraculous
pher’s
merelv acc.dcntal mention cd the >
^ leam frQJn Aot, xii;_ g
revolt ot
Archelaus aprainst the Romans, * ls0
A'cts viii. au,j xix. ’
as taking
place before Apollonius ^as . _
twenty
years old; see 1.13. 19 Ibid.
IV. 11, et seq.
similar
attempt at the Cave of Troplionius.“ In both places his reputation for Magie
was the cause of his exclusion.
Hitherto
our memoir has given the unvaried life of a mere Pythagorean, which may be
comprehended three words, mysticism, VisitsRcmp. travel, and disputation. From
the date of his journey to Home, which succeeded his Grecian tour, it is in
some degree connected with the history of the times; and though much may be
owing to the invention of Philostratus, there is neither reason nor necessity
fur supposing the narrative to be in substance untrue.
Nero had
at this time prohibited tho study of philosophy, alleging that it was made the
pretence for Magical practices; -1—anil the report of his excesses
so alarmed the followers of Apollonius as they approached Rome, that out of
thirty-four who had accompanied him thus far, eight only could be prevailed on
to proceed. On his arrival, the strangeness of his proceedings caused him lo be
Brought brought successively before the consul Telesinus and Tigellinu.s the
in-fore Nero. jj;n;ster 0f ^'er0;25
Jjoth of whom however dismissed him after examination ; tho former from a
secret leaning towards Philosophy, tho latter from fear (as we are told) of his
extraordinary powers. Ho was in consequence allowed to go about at his pleasure
from Temple to Temple, haranguing the people, and prosecuting his reforms in
the worship paid to the Gods. But here, as before, we discover marks of
incorrectness in the Biographer. Had the edict against Philosophers been as
severe as he represents, neither Apollonius, nor Demetrius the Cynic, who
joined him after his arrival, would have been permitted to remain; certainly
not Apollonius, after his acknowledgment of his own Magical powers in the
presence of Tigellinus.23
Denied by
Philostratus all insight into the circumstances which influenced the movements
of Apollonius, we must attend whither he thinks fit to conduct him. We find him
next in Spain, taking part in the conspiracy forming against Nero by Yindex and
others.24 The political partisans of that day seem to have made use
of professed jugglers and Magicians to gain over the body of the people to
their interests. To this may be attributed Nero’s banishing such characters
from Ilome ; 25 and Apollonius had probably been already visits
Spain, serviceable in this way at the Capital, as he was now in Spain, and
immediately after to Yespaaianus; and at a later period to Ncrva.
20 When denied at the latter pl»ce, I* use of
them in furthering his polities! forced his way in. Philoetr. YIIB'19. plans.
Tacit. Hist. II. 78. We r“ad of
-’1 Ibid.
IV. 35. ISrueker (Vol. II. p. tlit
ii predicting Nero's accession, the.
US) with
reason thinks this prohibition deaths
of Yitelhus and Domitianus, Are.
extended
only to the profession of ma{,ic. They
were sent into banishment jy
Ibid. IV.
4'\ &e. Tiberius, Claudius,
Vitellius, and Do-
33 llrueksr,
Vol. Ii, p. 180. mitianm.
Philostrat"s describes Nerj
21 Fhilostr. V. 10. t as
issuing his edict op leaving the
Capital
2^
Astrologers were enncernea 'ft for t-rreece, IV. 47. These circumstan-
Libo's
conspiracy against Tiber!us, an i ces seem t-j implj that astrology, magic,
Eunished.
Vespasianus, as wo shall &c., were at taat tin.e of considerable
ave
occasion to notice presently, mjdo service in political intrigues.
His next
expeditions were to Africa, to Sicily, and so to Greece,1® but as
they do not supply any thing of importance to the elucidation of bis character,
it may be sufficient thus to have noticed them. At Athens he obtained the
initiation in the Hysterics, for which he had Athens, on his former visit
unsuccessfully applied.
The
following spring, the seventy-third of his life according tc 'nd the common
calculation, he proceeded to Alexandria:27 where he ‘ e"
’ attracted the notice of Vespasianus, who bad just assumed the purple, and
seemed desirous of countenancing his proceedings by the sanction of lleligion.
Apollonius might be recommended to him for this purpose by the fame of his
travels, his reputation for theurgic knowledge, and his late acts in Spain
against Nero. It is satisfactory to be able to bring two individuals into
contact, each of introduced whom has in his turn been made to rival Christ and
his Apostles in Yespasiaau*. pretensions to miraculous power. Thus, claims
which appeared to be advanced on distinct grounds are found to coalesce, and by
tho union of their separate inconsistencies contribute to expose each other.
The celebrated cures by Yespasianus are connected with the ordinary juggles of
the Pythagorean School; and Apollonius is found here, as in many other
instances, to be the mere tool of political factions. But on the character of
the latter we shall have more to say presently.
His
Biographer’s account of his first meeting with the Emperor, which is perhaps
substantially correct, is amusing from the regard which both parties paid to
effect in their behaviour.28 The latter, on entering Alexandria was
met by the great body of the Magistrates, Przefeets, and Philosophers of the city;
but not discovering Apollonius in the number, he hastily asked, “whether the
Tyansean was in Alexandria,” and when tuld he was philosophizing in the
Serapeum, proceeding thither he suppliantly entreated him to make him Emperor;
and, on the Philosopher’s answering he had already done so in praying for a
just and venerable Sovereign,2" he avowed his determination of
putting himself entirely into his hands, and of declining the supreme power
unless he could obtain his countenance in assuming it.?1 A formal
consultation was in consequence held, at which, besides Apollonius, Bio and
Euphrates, Stoics in the Emperor's train, were allowed to deliver ilieir
sentiments; when
28 Philostr.
V. 11, &c.
27 Ibid. V. 20, &c.
28 Ibid. y. 27.
-29
Tacitus relates, that when yespa- sianus was going to the Serapeum^ ut super
rebus imperii consuleret, Basilides, an Egyptian, who was at the time eighty
miles distant, suddenly appeared to him; from his name the emperor drew an omen
that the trod sanctioned his assumption of the Imperial power. Hist. IV. 82.
This sufficiently agrees in substance with the narrative of Philostratus to
give the latter
some
probability. It was on this occasion that the famous cures are said to have
been wrought.
30 As Egypt supplied Rome with corn, Vespasianus
by taking possession of that country almost secured to himself the Empire.
Tacit. Hist. II. 82, III. 8. Philostratus however insinuates that he was
already in possession of supreme power, and came to Egypt for the sanction of
Apollonius. fMV KEX.TJj- tS
V. 27.
the latter
Philosopher entered an honest protest against the sanction Apollonius was
giving to the ambition of Vespasianus, and advocated the restoration of the
Roman State to its ancient republican funn.81 This difference of
opinion laid the foundation of a lasting quarrel between tho rhal advisers, to
which Philostratus makes frequent allusion in the cuurse of his history.
Euphrates is mentioned by tho ancients in terms of high commendation; by Pliny
especially, who knew him well.52 lie seems to have seen through hi*
opponent’s character, as we gather even from Philostratus and when so plain a
reason exists for the dislike which Apollonius, in his Letters, and
Philostratus, manifest towards him, their censure must not be allowed to weigh against
the testimony of unbiassed writers, visits After
parting from Vespasianus, Apollonius undertook an expedi-
Ethiopia.
tioa into ^Ethiopia, where he held discussions with tho Gymno- sophists, Mid
visited the cataracts of the Nile.114 On his return he received
the news of the destruction of Jerusalem; and being pleased with the modesty of
the conqueror, wrote to him in commendation of it. Titus is said to have
invited him to Argos in Cilicia, for the sake of his advice on various
subjects, and obtained from him a promise that at some future time he would
visit him at Kome.w
On the
succession of Domitianus, he became once more engaged in the political
commotions of the day, exerting himself to excite the countries of Asia Minor
against the Emperor.sa These proceedings at length occasioned an
order from the Government to bring him to Rome; which, however, according to
his Biographer’s account, he anticipated by voluntarily surrendering himself,
under the idea that by his prompt appearance he might remove the Emperor’s
jealousy, and save Nerva and others whose political interests he had been
promoting. On arriving at Rome he was brought before Pomi- iianus ; and when,
very inconsistently with his wish to shield his friends from suspicion, he
launched out into praise of Nerva, he was i ■.[.riaon.'d
forced away into prison to the company of the worst criminals, his Domitianus.
ar.d beard were cut short, and his limbs loaded with chains. His: trial. After
some days he was brought to trial; the charges against h:m being the
singularity of his dress and appearance, his being called a God, his
foretelling a pestilence at Ephesus, and his sacrificing a child with Nerva for
the purpose of augury.57 Philostratus supplies us with an ample
defence, which lie was to have delivered,38 had he
31 Philostr, V. 31. 30 Philostr. VII. 1, &c. see
Brucker,
32 Brucker, Vol. II. p. 566, &c. Vol. II. p. 128.
33 Philostr. V. 37, he makes Euphrates 37 Ibid. VrIII. 5, 6,
&e. On account of say to Vespasianus, 4><AMv?/dE*, 2 /W/Afu, his foretelling the pestilence he was hon-
tv)v (£•» xet** Qvnv tr&int xk.) r£» §1 oured as a God by the Kphesians, VII. iu*Xvru9 ?*<rx*<r*y
rx^rS 21. Hence this prediction
appeared in
utvoi j-a£
rS bitv a-»XX« xsti ttvor,Ta.t %uais
the
indictment.
ftrec/gvn.
See lirucker; and Apollon. at-i Uytn
««)»>.«; j eutrttnt
Kpist. 8. fMtXet yl ffVVTKTTtt 'TKpftoTtfffAlHtof,
Ct?V6WV On
34 Ibid. VI. 1, &C. SijT* if ft&rr,* ttvtSa
^TtfSotirPtjtfTrou %
35 Ibid.
VI. £0, &c. Kuseb. in Ilier. 41.
not in the
course of the proceedings suddenly vanished from the Court, and transported
himself to Puteeli, whither he had before sent on Pamis.
This is
the only miraculous occurrence which forces itself into the His history as a
component part of the narrative ; the rest being of easy
miraculous
omission
without any detriment to its entireness.39 And strictly speaking,
even here it is not the miracle of transportation which interferes with its
continuity, but his mere liberation from confinement : which, though we should
admit the arbitrary assertions of Philostratus, seems very clearly to have
taken place in the regular course of business. He allows that just before the
Philosopher's pretended disappearance, Domitianus had publicly acquitted him,
■jnd that
after the miracle he proceeded to hear tho cause next in order, as if nothing
had happened;40 and tells us, moreover, that Apollonius on his
return from Greece gave out that he had pleaded his own cause and so escaped,
no allusion being made to a miraculous preservation.'11
After spending
two years in the latter country in his usual Philosophical disputations, he
passed into Ionia. According to his Biographer’s chronology, he was now
approaching the completion of his hundredth year. We may easily understand,
therefore, that when invited to Rome by Nerva, who had just succeeded to tho
Empire, he dcclincd the proposed honour with an intimation that their meeting
must be deferred to another state of being.42 Ilis death took place
shortly after; and Ephesus, Rhodes, and Crete His Death, are variously
mentioned as the spot at which it occurred.43 A Temple was dedicated
to him at Tyana,44 which was in consequence accounted one of the
sacred cities, and permitted the privilege of electing its own Magistrates.45
He is said
to have written46 a treatise upon Judicial Astrology, a His worfcs.
work on Sacrifices, another on Oracles, a Life of Pythagoras, and an account of
the answers he received from Trophonius, besides the memoranda noticed in the
opening of our memoir. A collection of Letters ascribed to him is still extant.47
It may be
regretted that so copious a history, as that which we
39 Perhaps
his causing the writing of r$orovt
ax *txBiv o Cfxwof, orsp $f nroXXoi
the
indictment to vanish from the paper, uovto—vjx^oxto u,\v Itzqxs st’ txs/foj Sixta,
when he
was brought before Tigeilinus, 41
Philostr. VIII. 15.
may bean
exception, as being the alleged 42
Ibid. VIII. 27.
cause of
his acquittal. In general, how- 4S
Ibid. VIII, 30.
ever, no
consequence follows from his 44
Ibid. 1.5, VIII. 29.
marvellous
actions: e.g. when imprisoned 45
A coin of Hadrian’s reign is extant
by
Domitianus, in order to show pamis with
the inscription, TCxvx h$x, xtrvXos,
his power,
he is described as drawing his xurevfaos.
Olear. ad Philostr. VIII. 31.
leg out of
the fetters, and then—as putt- 46
See Bayle, Art. Apollonius; and
ing it
back again, 'S.vx^otrxvrx xv to Brueker.
a-sflXa?, tx t2
SsSsjwIj'v, VII. 38. Bishop
Lloyd considers them spu-
A great
exertion of power with appa- rious, but
Olearius and Brueker show
rently a
small object. that there is good reason
from internal
evidence
to suppose them genuine. See
jo
Philostr. VIII. 8, 9. x.rr.xBs Olear.
Addend, ad praafat. EpistoL; and
tb
Zixxtrrr^ta, Z<x,iu,oviovn xx- a pxtiov uxuv Brueker,
Vol. II. p. 147.
His
character
examined.
Admissions
of the Fathers.
Lave
abridged, should not contain more authentic and valuable matter. Both the
secular transactions of the times and the history of Christianity might have
been illustrated by the life of one, who, ■while an
instrument of the partisans of Yiridex, Vcspasianus, and Ncrva, was a
contemporary and in some respects a rival of the Apostles; and who, probably,
was with St. Paul at Ephesus and Rome.46 As far as his personal
character is concerned, there is nothing to be lamented in these omissions.
Both his Biographer’s panegyric and his own Letters coniiet him of pedantry,
self conceit, and affectation incompatible with the feelings of an enlarged,
cultivated, or amiable mind. 11 is virtues, as we have already seen, were
temperance and a disregard of wealth ; and without them it would have been
hardly possible for him to have gained the popularity which he enjoyed. The
great object of his ambition was to emulate the fame of his master; and his
efforts seem to have been fully rewarded by the general admiration he
attracted, tlie honours paid him by the Oracles, and the attentions shown him
by men in power.
We might
have been inclined, indeed, to suspect that his reputation existed principally
in his Biographer’s panegyric, were it not mentioned by other writers. The
celebrity which he has enjoyed since the writings of the Eclectics, by itself
affords but a faint presumption of his notoriety before they appeared. Yet
after all allowances, there remains enough to show that, however fabulous the
details of his history may be, there was something extraordinary in his life
and eharaetcr. Some foundation there must have been for statements which his
eulogists were able to maintain In the face of those who would have spoken out
had they been altogether novel. Pretensions never before advanced must have
excited the surprise and contempt of the advocates of Christianity.*® Yet
Eusebius styles him a wise m;,n, and seems to admit the correctness of
Philostratus, except in the miraculous parts of the narrative.40
Lactantius does not deny that a statue was erected to him at Ephesus;41
and Sidonius Apollinaris, who even wrote his life, speaks of hirn as the admiration
of the countries he traversed, and the favourite of monarch*.“ One of his works
was deposited in the palace at Antiuni by the Emperor Hadrian, who also formed
a. collection of his letters ;s3 statues were erected to him in the
temples, divine honours paid him by Caraealla, Alexander Severus, and Aurelianus,
and magical virtue attributed to his nsme.M
w
Apolloniu* continued at Ephesus, as if
his nam< were familiar to them.
Smyrna,
&e. from A.I*. 3<) to ahout 59, Oi“ar.
pra)f. ad V it.
and was at
Rome from A.D. C3 to $>. St, 50
In 1iierocl. S.
Paul
passed through Ionia into Greece Inst.
V. 3.
a.d. 53,
and was at Epliesiw A.D. 54, and fi2
See Bayle, Art. ApoUovius; and
a pa'II
from \.I>. 55 to 5S; lie was at Rome Cttdwortli,
Intell. Syst. IV. 14.
iD ..I'.
05 and 06, when he was martyred. f
j Philostr. VIII. 19, 20.
44 See
Eusebius,Yopiscus,Li»inpriJi!as,
43 Lucian and Apuleius aj eafe of him &c. as quoted by Bay le.
It lias in
consequence been made a subject of dispute, how far Miraculous liis reputation
wa^ built upon that supposed claim to extraordinary Pretenslonf‘
power which, as was noticed in the opening of our memoir, has led to his
comparison with sacred names. If it could be shown that lie did advance such
pretensions, and upon tlie strength of them was admitted as an object of divine
honour, a case would be made out, not indeed so strong as that on which
Christianity is founded, yet remarkable enough to demand our serious
examination. Assuming, then, or overlooking this necessary condition, sceptical
writers have been forward to urge tbe history and character of Apollonius as
creating a difficulty in the argument for Christianity derived from Miracles;
while their opponents have sometimes attempted to account for a phenomenon of
which they had not yet ascertained the existence, and most gratuitously have
ascribed his supposed power to the influence of the Evil principle.55
On examination, we r .tm-.de by shall find net a shadow of a reason for
supposing that Apollonius himse,f- worked Miracles, in any proper
sense of the word; or that he professed to work them; or that be rested his
authority on extraordinary works of any kind; and it is strange indeed that
Christians, with victory in their hands, should have so mismanaged their cause
as to establish an objection where none existed, and in thoir haste to
extricate themselves from an imaginary difficulty, to overturn one of the main
arguments for revealed Religion.
To state
these pretended prodigies is in most cases a refu- Enumentation of their claim
upon our notice,55 and even those which are Miracles!6'0
not in themselves exceptionable, become so from the circumstances or manner in
which they took place. Apollonius is said to have been an incarnation of the
God Proteus; his birth was Rnnounced by the falling of a thunderbolt and a chorus
of swans ; his death signalized by a wonderful voice calling him ijp to Heaven;
and after death he appeared to a youth to convince him of the immortality of
the soul.57 He is reported to have known the language of birds; to
have evoked the Spirit of Achilles; to have dislodged a djwon from a boy; to
have detected an Exnpusa who was seducing a youth into marriage ; when brought
before Tigellinus, to have caused the writing of the indictment to vanish from
the paper; when imprisoned by Domitianus, to have miraculously released himself
from his fetters; to have discovered the soul of A masis in the body of a lion;
to have cured a youth attacked by hydrophobia, whom he pronounccd to be
Teleplius the Mysian.58 In declaring men’s thoughts and distant
events he indulged most liber-
55 See Brucker on this point, Vol. II. 4^See Philostr. I. 4, 5, VIII.
30, 31.
p. 141,
who refers to various authors. He
insinuates (Cf. VIII. 29 with 31,) that
Eusebius
takes a more sober view of the Apollonius
was taken up alive. See
question,
allowing the substance of the Euseb. 8.
history, but disputing the extraordinary
parts. See
in Hieroei. 5 and 12. 58
Ibid. IV. 3,16,20,25, 44, V. 42, VI.
f6
Most of them are imitations of the 43, VII. 38.......................
miracles
attributed to Pythagoras.
Their
insipidity.
ally;
adopting a brevity, which seemed becoming the dignity of his character, while
it secured his prediction from tho possibility of an entire failure. For
instance: he gave previous intimation of Nero’s narrow escape from lightning;
foretold the short reigns of his successora; informed Vespasianus at Alexandria
of the burning of the Capitol; predicted the violent death of Titus by a
relative; discovered a knowledge of the private history of his Egyptian guide;
foresaw the wreck of a ship he had embarked in. and the execution of a Cilician
Propraetor.We must not omit his first predicting and then removing a pestilence
at Ephesus; the best authenticated of his professed Miracles, being attested by
the erecting of a statue to him ia consequence. He is said to have put an end
to the malady by commanding an aged man to be stoned, whom he pointed out as
its author, and who when the stones were removed was found changed into the
shape of a dog.00
On the
insipidity and inconclusiveness of most of these legends, considered as
evidences of extraordinary power, it is unnecessary to enlarge; yet these are
the prodigies which some writers have put in competition with the Christian
Miracles, and which others have thought uecessary to ascribe to Satanic influence.
Two indeed there are which must be mentioned by themselves, as being more
worthy our attention than the rest: his raising a young maid at Pu>me, who
was being carried to burial, and his proclaiming at Ephesus the assassination
of Domitianus at the very time in which it took place.01 Put, not to
speak at present of the want of all satisfactory evidence for either fact, the
account of the former, we may observe, bears in its language and detail evident
marks of being written in imitation of Scripture Miracles,03 and the
latter has all the appearance of a political artifice employed to excite the
people against the tyrant, and exaggerated by the Biographer.05
® Philostr. 1,12,IV.24,\ . 11 lo,lS, Si, »j •xocrjot'^xutvoc ctuTr,z.
30, VI. 3,
32. Hi- prediction of the ruin „ ' .
ot the
Propraetor is conveyed in the mere Tr’
exclamation,—S
f, hut* i/upc, weaning *”5» ™ lanim K«i (funir.v TS
the day of
his execution; of the short yj TOLi; v, exuvvkQt Tr sc t"?
reigns
o< Zero’s successors, ill his saying, ,
. ■ _ > .
... ihat many Tlubaps would succiedinm; XJ tktjsj »«■«{
>> A;iz>ra' ;-a>
ii adds Philostratus, ™ Cf.
Mark v. 39,
yf,/,?a.i
iif rot 7uy TfAyfmvtt- A &c. Luke_vii. 11- alsu John X!. 41
like
ambiguity attends, more or less, all «>
Acta 111. 4—6. In the sequw, the
liis
predictions. parents < Her I im money,
which he gives
eo ii d
IV'. 10. a° a
portion to the damsel. See 3 Kings
*i Ihid.
IV. 45, and VIII. 26. v-
IS, 18> ‘*n*I other similar passages of
*> This
is manifest from the passage: Scripture.
Kt{»i t»
ip* yiuH •*»*«.. xxi 0 >vu- 63
As Apollonius was before this busily
c/'f
vix»>.ini t., x\iry, 3a .
6Tt*a. tr amXu engaged in promoting
Nerva’s interests
U x > i
Pax i among the Ionians, it seems
probable that
trvyx^fti
am * ■rAar,:< t^H1 worjs
in qU(.stion were uttered with
lLa[CCTv%tjjv
• \.si tv TAtflii, a similar view. Dion ^Lib. 07,^ mentions
tea<#x,
TT.il x.Klvr.11. Ej-i j-ij a person
in Gennany v.’jo predicted the
iri 7%
x6'r TKvtru. Kz. d^ath ot Dornitianus; and says th»* the
iuac a rt
i*(u,z ocvt? s<r i fli
*«iv b*. 'rcxx'i astrologers, t among
whom 1 zetzes num-
aiovto Xoyor otyofivut etvrbv, eTei r&r Xeyaty
*< bers Apolloniii3,) had^ foretold rs
crva S
ixixr.huoi
n x&i rots tyu^ovns. O advancement. There is little doubt all
But the
trifling character of most of these prodigies is easily accounted for, when we
consider the means by which the author professed to work them, and the cause
to which he referred them. Of Miracles, indeed, which are asserted to proceed
from the Author of nature, sobriety, dignity and conclusiveness may fairly be
required; but when an individual ascribes his extraordinary power to his knowledge
of some merely human secret, ‘.•npropriety does but evidence his own want of
taste, and ambiguity his want of skill. We have no longer a right to expect a
great end, worthy means, or a frugal and judicious application of the
Miraculous gift. How, Apollonius Re.-i nature claimed nothing beyond a fuller
insight into nature than others had; pretention* a knowledge of the fated and
immutable laws to which it is conformed, of the hidden springs on which it
moves/4 He brought a secret from the East and used it; and though he
professed to be favoured, and in a manner taught by good Spirits,65
yet ho certainly referred no part of his power to a Supreme intelligence.
Theurgie virtues, or those which consisted in communion with the Powers and
Principles of nature, were high in the scale of Pythagorean excellence, and to
them it was that he ascribed his extraordinary gift.
By
temperate living, it was said, the mind was endued with ampler and more exalted
faculties than it otherwise possessed; partook more fully of the nature of the
One universal Soul, was gifted with Prophetic inspiration, and a kind of
intuitive perception of secret things.60 This power, derived from
the favour of the celestial Peities, who were led to distinguish the virtuous
and high-minded, was quite distinct from Magic, an infamous, uncertain, and
deceitful art, consisting in a compulsory power over infernal Spirits, operating
by means of Astrology, Auguries and Sacrifices, and directed
these
predictions were intended to compass their own accomplishment. Dion confirms
Philostratus’s account of the occurrence in question; but merely says, that
Apollonius vxi nva xlBov v^yiXov
iv Efira
x»i eri^aiQi, xocil GVyX-CLhiGCCZ ro
rrXrjSos,
cried out xotXSs &c. Lib.
67. He
then adds, rSro tt'rwf tysytro, xS,v f/.v£iu.xii rt{ atnrr'/icr^an assurance
truly satisfactory in testimony given 130 years after the event. Allowing, however,
for some exaggeration, his account is perfectly consistent with the supposition
that the exclamation of Apollonius was intended to subserve a political pur-
ose. Let us now see bow Philostratus as embellished^the story. AiaXiyc^voi
irt£t ra, rSy %v<rrm ecXtr*j xxra, fje,«rrifje,C^ta,y, ore Si)
xai roc tv ro?s fSectriXuots tyiyvlro, tr^Srey //,iv i/ifixi iii; ipatvr.Cy
oTov itiiraif' tir* tXXtxio’- rt$or tj xtcroc’rr.v iecurS (Svvaftiv,
r.gpwiutnv, lira, rots fAtrx%v Xoyoty hiogSffi n tregoy. E/V«
ol rSv
X'oym izirttrovrif' fixi'^cts n Stivoy ti rr,y yr,v, xou irgoGaf r^ict x
rirrx^a. rSy fZyuArovv, ?r«/e rov rOpavvov, Tone, t&ooc x% tx xarovr^ rivos
tiituXoy ot,Xv,Qti*{ tXxuy, ocXX’ avra, ogaiv xoci %u\Xetjx.{3ariiv hoxSy
rec d%&>it£vx'
E x&irrXtiy/jcsvvf Bs rr.f Eipso1#,
yccQ
'btotKtyoftkva ‘7rocacei (here he differs
from Dion in an essential point,)
Ix-io-xum, orov ol diogSivriejO'r’ oty yivrirai n ruv
af&ptfioXuy reXoe, ffagpt/rt, uirtyt a avSgSf, o yx£ rOgecvvof
ariCipetxraj r^fAi^o*, &C. "VIII.
w
Philostr. V. 12; in I. 2, he associates Democritus, a natural philosopher, with
Pythagoras and Empedocles. See VIII. 7, Sec. 8, and Brucker, Vol. I. p. 1108,
&c. and p. 1184.
06 In his
apology before Domitianus, he expressly attributes his removal of the Ephesian
pestilence to Hercules, and makes this ascription the test of a divine
Philosopher as distinguished from a Magician, VIII. 7, Sec 9, ubi vid. Olear.
66 A WIHM
Srea $tarci<r9/t ftovov
tfy&Z.tra.t
-ruy ai<rt}%ff luy, ij tr%vv EJn rot f/Ayiffra. re xcti
&a.ufMx,tr.&/TccToi. . . , rSro fcoii ai {2x~ flVAgy, ras eucOvitru;
6>> curia, Tty) ano^ir,ru 0vXaj7U, XUX IX, 04Xi£OV 5T£§/ XVTO.S 61**1,
Bio^ay ri,
utrit%£ £v xarorr^n avyr,, «r«vr«.
yiyyo/xittc
rt xal xtrbtuva, VIII. 7» Sec. 9 See also II. 37, VI. 11, VIII. 5.
to tlio
personal emolument of those who cultivated it.57 To our present
question, however, this distinction is unimportant. To whichever principle the
Miracles of Apollonius be referred, Theurgy or Magie, in either case they are
independent of the First Cause, and not granted with a view to the particular
purpose to which they are to be applied.18
We have
also incidentally shown that they did not profess to be Miracles in the proper
meauing of the word, that is, evident exceptions to tho laws of nature. At tho
utmost they do but exemplify the aphorism “ knowledge is power.”® Such as are
within the range of human knowledge are no Miracles. Those of them, on the
contrary, which are beyond it, will be found on inspection to bo
unintelligible, and to convey no evidence. The prediction of an earthquake (for
instance) is not necessarily superhuman. An interpretation of the discourse of
birds can never be verified. In understanding languages, knowing future
events, discovering the purposes of others, recognising human souls when
enclosed in new bodies, Apollonius merely professes extreme penetration and
extraordinary acquaintance with nature. The spell by which he evokes Spirits
and exorcises Demons, implies the mere possession of a secret ;70
arid so perfectly is his Biographer aware of this, as almost to doubt the resuscitation
of the Roman damsel, the only decisive Miracle of them nil, on the ground of
its heing supernatural, insinuating, that perhaps she was dead only in
appearance.” Ilence, moreover, may be understood the meaning of the charge of
Magic, as brought against the early Christians by their Heathen adversaries ;
the Miracles of the Gospels being strictly interruptions of physical order, and
incompatible with Tlieurgic knowledge.73
When
Christ and his Apostles declare themselves to be sent from God, this claim to a
divine mission illustrates and gives dignitv to their profession of
extraordinary power. Whereas the divinity, 110 less than the gift of miracles
to which Apollonius laid claim, must be understood in its Pythagorean sense, as
referring not to any inti-
Philostr.
I. 2. and Olear. ad loc. note quoted by Olearius, in his Preface, p.
3, IV.44, V. 12, VI1.39, VII 1.7; Apollon, xxxiv.
Epist. S
and 52; Philostr. Prooein. vit. 70
Eusebius calls it 9um ns **) xtftrot
Sophist.; Euseb. in Hier. 2; Mosheim, in
Hierocl. 2.
In III. 41* Philos-
de Simone
Mago, Sec. 13. Yet it must tratus speaks
of the x\r,o-ue tool xa/fvn,
be
confessed that the views both of the the
spells for evoking them, which Apol-
Pythagoreans
and Eclectics wore very lonius brought
from India; Cf. IV. It),
inconsistent
on this subject. Eusebius and in
IV. 20 of the rtxp>s{/ov used for
notices
several instances of >«?«/« in casting
out an Evil Spirit.
Apollonius’s
miracles; in Hierocl. 10, 28, 71 E/ rt
rtrivB^et rr.f <«>*?, w
29 and 31. See Brueker, Vol. II. p. 4-17. iXtKf.Bu rvs BifctvtCovrxe, (xiyireti yet*
i>s
At Eleusis
and the Cave of Triphonius, fxtv e
y Ss a.™ t5 -rpo-
Apollonius
was, as we have seen, account- ru**) t,'r'
umer£r,K v7«* rvy
ed a
Magician, and so also by Euphrates, rE
**' «.%f>r,roe % **r«x&c.
Mocragenes,
Apuleius, <!ve. See Olear. Douglas,
(Criterion, p. 387, note)
Prsef. ad
vit. p. xxxiii; and Brueker, observes
that some heretics affirmed that
Vol. II.
p. 136, note k. our Lord rose from the
dead
68 See Mosheim, Dissertat. de turbata only in appearance, from an idea ofiha
Ecclesia, &c. Sec. 27. impossibility
of a resurrection,
69 See Quaest. ad Orthodox xxiv. as ^3 Apolion. Epist. 17.
mate
connexion with a Supreme agent, but to his partaking, through his Theurgic
skill, more largely than others in the perfections of the animating principle
of nature.
Yet,
whatever is understood by his Miraculous gift and his divine nature, certainly
his works were not adduced as vouchers for his divinity, nor were they, in
fact, the principal cause of his reputation. We meet with no claim to
extraordinary power in his Letters; nor when returning thanks to a city for
public honours bestowed on him, nor when complaining to his brother of the
neglect of his townsmen, nor when writing to his opponent Euphrates.74
To the Milesians, indeed, he speaks of earthquakes which he had predicted ; but
without appealing to the prediction in proof of his authority.75 As,
then, he is so far from insisting on his pretended extraordinary powers, and
himself connects the acquisition of them with his Eastern expedition,76
we may conclude that credit for possessing a Magical secret was a part of the
reputation which that expedition conferred. A foreign appearance, singularity
of manners, a life of travel, and pretences to superior knowledge, excite the
imagination of beholders and, as in the case of a wandering people among
ourselves, appear to invite the individuals thus distinguished to fraudulent
practices. Apollonius is represented as making converts as soon as seen.78
It was not, then, his display of wonders, but his Pythagorean dress and
mysterious deportment which arrested attention, and made him thought superior
to other men, because ho was different from them. Like Lucian’s Alexander,79
(who was all but his disciple,) he was skilled in Medicine, professed to be
favoured by ^Esculapius, pretended to foreknowledge, and was supported by the
Oracles; and being more strict in conduct than the Paphlagonian,“ he
established a more lasting celebrity. His usefulness to political aspirants contributed
to his success; perhaps also the real and contemporary Miracles of the
Christian teachers would dispose many imnds easily to acquiesce in any claims
of a similar character.
See
ftpi't. 1, 2, &c. 11, 41, the laat- 5.
By way of contrast, Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 3, 4;
mentioned
addressed to his brother begins 2
Cor. x. 10.
r'f
Bxvjxattrrov, tl pi kXXm
envQ^urruy itraOscv 78 Philostr, IV. 1,
Exuh*i t7$ov rev
r.yVMvuv,
riijiv St 0e«vf ,uovr, WXi* ►w* *1 tv lav/x, xxgtXdetTtit is rr,v E'qutov, okSe et
tx.yvou, 2/ y,v %ayalu.tr«. Xa,f^ $«,mu<rot
trt rgos recTf iecuruv Ti^vetig %trxv*
f; tout; yk$ vh* vpiv rots etfoXQotf, as r.xaXcvtifew*;
b fAv crefiKf, b Sg tihouf, o &£
oou, yiyon tpotvefev, e/tj» kiXXuv atpi'nm Sue/rr,?, b Ss <rx'/if**r6st 91 $e ?rcivrav ou.au
hoyovg ts Hat qQog; that is, he com- w. See also I. 19,21, IV.
plains
that whereas he so excels in life 39,
VII. 31, &c., and 1.10,12, &c.
and moral
teaching, yet he is not eon- 79
Brucker, Vol. II. p. 144.
Si • , 80 Bru^ker supposes that, as in the
case
thp
Tuan^no i!w,uyn a ^^sageto of Alexander, gain was his object; but
n,pr(l).y
n + Praises him we seem to have no
proof of this, nor is it
76 VT i i J°U i' v • necessary thus to account for his
conduct, w ^useb. We discover, indeed, in
his character, no
AfecGuvxeci marks of that high enthusiasm which
Uccym u»af Quof would
support
him in his whimsical
ccvtc»
Y,ptf a-yccyay, s»Tiv8iv career without any definite worldly ob
ject; yet
the veneration he inspired, and
77 Hence the firstof the charges brought the notice taken of him by great men,
against him by Domitianus was the might
be quite a sufficient recompence strangeness of his dress. Philostr. VIII. to a conceited and narrow mind.
His story
an imitation of script ura,
In the
foregoing remarks we have adn.:tted tho general fidelity of the
history, because ancient authors allow it, and there was no necessity to
dispute it. Tried however on its own merits, it is quite unworthy of serious
attention. Not only in the Miraculous accounts, (as we have already seen,) hut
in the relation of a multitude of ordinary facts, an effort to rival our
Saviour’s history is distinctly visible. The favour in which Apollonius from a
child w as held by Gods and men ; his conversations when a youth in the Temple
of ..Eseulapius ; Lis determination in spite of danger to go up to Rome;ei
the cowardice of his disciples iu deserting him ; the charge brought against
him of disaffection to Csesar; the Minister’s acknowledging, on his private
examination, that he was more than man; the ignominious treatment of him by
Pomitianus on his second appearance at Rome; his imprisonment with criminals;
his vanishing from Court and sudden reappearance to his mourning disciples at
Puteoli;8® these, with other particulars of a similar cast, evidence
a hist-cwy modelled after the narrative of the Evangelists. Expressions,
moreover, and descriptions occur, clearly imitated from the sacred volume. To
this we must add"3 the Rhetorical colouring of the whole
composition, so contrary to the sobriety of truth;*1 the! fabulous
accounts of things and places interspersed through the history;^ lastly we must
bear in mind the principle, recognised by
81 Cf. also
Acts xx. 22, £3; xxi. i, 11— 14.
Philnstr.
I. 8,11, IV. 313, 38,44, VII. 34, VIII. 5, U.
** See the
description of his raising the Roman maid as above given. Take ag- in the
following account of his appearance to ) )ami* and Demetrius at Puteoli. after
vanishing from Court, VIII. 12. Avj>c- <pv{6U.ivov $i tov Axutios, ttoil
ti rctvTO* MrevTOf, £.(' Ton, « rbv xxkoy
ri xxt
ayafliv trxt^o* % xxoirxf o AxoXXuvios . .o^io-Qe, litre, fAxWcv it ttofxxxTt. Zuvtx , !?»j • u 5e ridttwTx ovnot irixx6u.t0x
ft)
xhxbvrts* frfOTtiretf i Aro\> aivtos r£v "Kdc^OV (6QV ify, *** A4** ZixQuym
rt,
siZcoXoif ufAt r« ** Ut^n^x-rrxf rxov.... ti 5i vxoiauvxkai xvritAg»«», trudt
xxi
71 (At xxl
fA^ X*oCi£?<*lXtVXl rtf 6'MfAX. OvxtB’ oUt xirtrrtTv rjs'av, *XA’
xnxfravrt{,
&c And presently Apollonius savs,
T« J’
ivrsr rr,f iixne frturt/rBt »v ftyv
ivrxvtix' rtyxe txxtui ^5*},
u^x ti
xcfTv' xhlavs o’ *\ *x8’ flSflv Xey*/ srt/A^xi (2K,hi&t*’rx(' ’iufAiv 9j» £;aA«Xfl?7TSf, wy
if»T«T£. . « x X* wxct Iffn b/UfAi, iiiigcur
xwa ty,s &c. here is much in
cautious
agreement with Luke xxiv. 14— 17,27,29, 32,36—10. Afco more or less in the
following: VII. 30, init. and 34* fin. with Luke xii. 11, 12; III. 38, with
Matt. xvii. 14, &c. where observe the contrast of the two narratives: VIII.
30, fin. with Acts xii. 7—10: IV. 44, with John xviii. 33. &c.: VII. 34,
init. with Mark xiv. 65: IV. 34, init. with Acts xvi. 8—10: I. 19, fin. with
Mark
vii. 27,
28. ^ Brucker and Douglas notice the following in the detection of the Empusa:
Axx{6svn tuxit" T4 qxtrfAX, xxi
l$tiTO
[A*l fictoctyt^tiv XVTO, (AY.it xvxyxx^ttr
o/Atkoyuv
ort i/u, IV. 25, Cf. Mark y. 7— Olearius compares an expression in VII. 30,
with 1 Cor. ix. 9.
84 E.G. his ambitious descriptions of
countries, &e. In IV. 30,32, ’V. 22, VI. 24, he ascribes to Apollonius
regular Socratic disputations, and in VI. 11, a long and flowery speech in the
presence of tne tlymnosophists,—modes of Philosophical instruction totally at
variance with the genius of the Pythagorean school, tho Philosopher’s Letters
still extant, and the writer’s own description of his manner of teaching, 1.17.
Some of his exaggerations and mis-statements have been noticed in the course
of the narrative. As a specimen of the Rhetorical style in which the work is
written, we notice a form ot expression in his account of the recovery of the
Roman damsel, O ov^iv V} icpotrx'^xfAivet xurv>< xfCtTvttri,—contrast
this with the simplicity of the Scripture narrative. See also the last
sentence of V. 17, and indeed passim.
s5
E.G. his accounts of Indian and ./Ethiopian monsters; of serpents whose eyes
were jewels of magical virtue ; of pygmies; of golden water; of the speaking
tree; of a woman half white and half blaek, &c.: he incorporates in his
narrative the fables of Ctesias, Agatharchidas, and other writers. His
blunders in geo-
the
Pythagorean and Eclectic schools, uf permitting exaggeration and deceit in the
cause of Philosophy.66
After all,
it must be remembered, that were the pretended ] iade ;->»>■ Miracles
as unexceptionable as w? have shown them to be absurd pSjJSJL”.
and useless,—were they plain interruptions of established laws, were they grave
and dignified in their nature, and important in their object, and were there
nothing to excite suspicion in the design, manner, or character of the
narrator,—still the testimony or: which they rest is the bare word of an author
writing one hundred years after the death of the person panegyrized, and far
distant from the places in which most of the Miracles were wrought; and who can
give no better account of his information than that he gained it from an
unpublished work,87 professedly indeed composed by a witness of the
extraordinary transactions, but passing into his hands through two intermediate
possessors. These are circumstances which almost, without positive objections,
are sufficient by their own negative force to justify a summary rejection of
the whole account. Unless indeed the history had been perverted to a mischievous
purpose, we should esteem it impertinent to direct argument against a mere
romance, and to subject a work of imagination to a grave discussion.
graphy and
natural philosophy may be added, as far as they arise from the desire of
describing wonders, &c. See also his pompous description of the wonders of
Babylon, which were not then in existence. Prideaux, Connection, Part I.
Book VIII.
For his inconsistencies, see Eusebius and Brucker. It must be remembered, that
in the age of Philostratus the composition of romantic histories was in
fashion.
86 See
Brucker, Vol. I. p. 992, Vol. II. p. 378. Apollonius was only one out of
several who were set up by the Eclectics
as rivals
to Christ. Brucker, Vol. II. p. 372. Mosheim, de turbata
Eeelesia, &c. Sec. 25, 26.
&
Philostr. I. 2,3. He professes that his account contains much news. As to the
sources, besides the Journal of Damis, from which he pretends to derive his information,
he neither tell3 us how he met with them, nor what they contained; nor does he
refer to them in the course of his history. On the other hand, much (as we have
above noticed) of the detail of Apollonius’s journey is derived from the
writings of Ctesias, &c. &e*
Definition
of a Miracle.
A Miracle
a relative term.
COMPARED
WITH
%
THOSE
RELATED ELSEWHERE*
As RIGAKDS
TIII.IR RESPECTIVE OBJECT, IvATLKE, AND KYIDENCK.
We
arc naturally led to pursue the subject which the life of Apollonius has thus
introduced, by drawing an extended comparison between the Miracles of Scripture
and those elsewhere related, as regards their respective object, nature, and
evidence. We shall divide our observations under the following heads:—
I. On the Nature and general Uses of
Miracles.
II. On the
antecedent Credibility of a Miracle, considered as a Divine Interposition.
III. On the Criterion of a Miracle, considered as
a Divine Interposition.
IV. On the direct Evidence for the Christian
Miracles.
ON THE
NATURE AND GENERAL USES OF MIRACLES.
A Miracle
may be considered as an event inconsistent with the constitution of nature,
i.e. the established course of tilings in which it is found. Or, again, an
event in a given system which cannot be referred to any law, or accounted for
by the operation of any principle in that system. It does not necessarily
imply a violation of nature, as some have supposed,—merely the interposition of
an external cause, which, as we shall hereafter show, can be 110 other than the
agency of the Deity. And the effect produced is that of unusual or increased
action in the parts of the system.
It is then
a relative term, not only as it presupposes an assemblage of laws from which
it is a deviation, but also as it has reference to some one particular syskm;
for the same event which is anomalous in one, may be quite regular when
observed in connexion with another The Miracles of Scripture, for instance, are
irregularities in the economy of nature, but with a moral tud; aud forming 0110
instance
out of many, of the providence of God, i.e. an instance of occurrences in the
natural world with a final cause. Thus, while they are exceptions to the laws
of one system, they may coincide with those of another. They profess to he the
evidence of a Revelation, the criterion of a divine message. To consider them
as mere exceptions to physical order, is to take a very incomplete view of
them. It is to degrade them from the station which they hold in the plans and
provisions of the divine mind, and to strip them of their real use and dignity;
for as naked and isolated facts they do but deform an harmonious system.
From this
account of a Miracle, it is evident that it may often a Mh-acie be difficult
exactly to draw' the line between uncommon and strictly fa frnmJ!s
Miraculous events. The production of ice, e.q. might have seemed !r'erpl7
eiJ
•, . 7
^>r. i i r<* n • ^ traorainary
at fi rst
sight Miraculous to the Siamese} tor it was a phenomenon e-rent, referable to
none of those laws of nature which are in ordinary action in tropical climates.
Such, again, might magnetic attraction appear, in ages familiar only with the
attraction of gravity.1 On the other hand,
the extraordinary works of Moses or Paul appear such, even when referred to
those simple and elementary principles of nature which the widest experience
has confirmed. As far as this affects the discrimination of supernatural facts,
it will be considered in its proper place; meanwhile let it suffice to state,
that those events only are connected with our present subject which have no
assignable second cause or antecedent, ami which, on that account, are from the
nature of the case referred to the immediate agency of the Peity.
A Revelation,
i.e. ct direct message from God to man, itself bears Revelation >n some
degree a Miraculous character; inasmuch as it supposes the Deity actually to
present himself before his creatures, and to more or ins interpose in tho
affairs of life in a way above the reach of those Miracul°u!’-
settled arrangements of nature to the existence of which universal experience
bears witness. And as a Revelation itself, so again the evidences of a
Revelation may all more or less be considered miiaculous. Prophecy is an
evidence only so far as foreseeing future events is above the known powders of
the human mind, or Miraculous. In like manner, if the rapid extension of
Christianity be urged in favour of its divine origin, it is because such
extension, under such circumstances, is supposed to be inconsistent with the
known principles and capacity of human nature. And the pure morality of the
Gospel, as taught by illiterate fishermen of Galilee, is an evidence, in
proportion as the phenomenon disagrees w-ith the conclusions of general
experience, which leads us to believe that a high state of mental cultivation
is ordinarily requisite for the production of such moral teachers. It might
even be said that, strictly speaking, no evidence of a Revelation is
conceivable which does not
1 Campbell,
On Miracles, Part I. Sec. 2.
partake of
the character of a Miracle; since nothing but a display of power over the
existing system of things can attest the immediate presence of Him by whom it
was originally established; or, again, because no event which results entirely
from tho ordinary operation of nature can be the criterion of one that is
extraordinary.2 Mirmcies In the present argument we coniine
ourselves to the consideration aocaTk'd!* of Miracles commonly so called ; such
events, i.e. for the most part as are inconsistent with the constitution of the
physical world. Contrasted Miracles, thus defined1, hold a very
prominent place in the evidence ot£r*ke °f the Jewish and Christian
Revelations. They are the most trines striking and conclusive evidence ;
because tho laws of matter being evidence for better understood than those to
which mind is conformed, the trans- Revciation. gressjon 0f
them is more easily recognised. They are tbe most simple and obvious; because,
whareas the freedom of the human will resists tho imposition of undeviating
laws, the material creation, on the contrary, being strictly subjected to the
regulation of its Maker, looks to him alone for a change in :ts
constitution. Yet Miracles are but a branch of the evidences, and other
branches have their respective advantages. Prophecy, as has been often
observed, is a growing evidence, and appeals more forcibly to those who are
acquainted with the Miracles only through testimony. A Philosophical mind will
perhaps be most strongly aifected by the fact of the very existence of the
Jewish polity, or of tho revolution effected by Christianity. While the
heautifu' moral teaching and evident honesty of the New Testament writers is
the most persuasive argument to the unlearned but single-hearted inquirer. Nor
must it be forgotten that the evidences for Revelation are cumvlafive, that
they gain strength from each other ; and that, in consequence, tho argument
from Miracles is immensely stronger when viewed in conjunction with the rest,
than when considered separately as in an inquiry of the present nature, cogency
of As the relative force of the separate evidences is different under MhTadM,
different circumstances, so again has one class of Miracle more or as Pr>
ofs of less weight than another, according to the accidental change of times,
"”ency?tur l places, and persons addressed. As our knowledge of
the system varies 0f nature, and of the circumstances of the
particular case varies, so of course varies our conviction. Walking on the sea,
for instance, or giving sight to one born blind, would to us perhaps be a
Miracle even more astonishing than it was to the Jews; the laws of nature being
at the present day better understood than formerly, and the fables concerning
Magical power being no longer credited. On the other hand, stilling the wind
and waves with a word may by all but eye-witnesses be set down to accident or
exaggeration without
2 Henro it is tint in the Scripture not a sufficient evidence of it, as being
accounts of
Re velationsi to the prophets, perhaps
resolvable into the ordinary
&c. a
sensible Miracle is so often asked powers
of an excited imagination,
and given;
as if the vision itself, whieh Judg.
vi. 38—40, &c. was the medium of the Revelation, was
the possibility
of a full confutation; yet to eye-witnosses it would carry with it an
overpowering evidence of supernatural agency by the voice and manner that
accompanied the command, the violence of the wind at the moment, the
instantaneous effect produced, and other circumstances, the force of which a
narration cannot fully convey. The same remark applies to the Miracle of
changing water into wine, to the cure of demoniacal possessions, and of
diseases generally. From a variety of causes, then, it happens that Miracles
which produced a rational conviction at the time when they took place, have
ever since proved rather an objection to Revelation than an evidence for it,
and have depended on the rest for support; while others, which once were of a
dubious and perplexing character, have in succeeding Ages come forward in its
defence. It is by a process similar to this that the anomalous nature of the
Mosaic polity, which might once be an obstacle to its reception, is now justly
alleged in proof of the very Miracles by which it was then supported.3
It is important to keep this remark in view, as it is no uncommon practice writh
those who are ill-affected to the cause of revealed Religion, to dwell upon
such Miracles as at t}i-e present day rather require than contribute evidence,
as if they formed a part of the present proof on which it rests its
pretensions.4
In the
foregoing remarks, the being of an intelligent Maker has ML-aoies been
throughout assumed; and, indeed, if the peculiar object of a themee"-^
Miracle be to evidence a message from God, it is plain that it implies the
admission of the fundamental truth, and demands assent to Creator: another
beyond it. His particular interference it directly pyroves, while it only
reminds of his existence. It professes to be the signature of God to a message
delivered by human instruments; and therefore supposes that signature in some
degree already known, from his ordinary works. It appeals to that moral sense
and that experience of human affairs which already bear witness to his ordinary
presence. Considered by itself, it is at most but the token of a superhuman
being. Hence, though an additional instance, it is not a distinct specks of
evidence for a Creator from that contained in the general marks of order and
design in the universe. A proof drawn from an interruption in the course of
nature is in the same line of argument as one deduced from the existence of
that course, and in point of cogency is inferior to it. Were a being who had
experience only of a chaotic world suddenly introduced into this orderly system
of tilings, he would have an infinitely more powerful argument for the
existence of a designing Mind, than a mere interruption of that
8 See Sumner’s “ Records of Creation,”
Vol. I.
* See Hume, On Miracles: ** let us examine
those Miracles related in Scrip
ture, and,
not to lose ourselves in too wide a Jield, let us confine ourselves to such as
we find in
the Pentateuch, &c. It gives an account of the state of the world and of
human nature entirely different from the present; of our fall from that state;
of the age of man extended to near a thousand years,” &e. See Berkeley’s “
Minute Philosopher,” Dial. VI. § 30.
system can
afford. A Miracle ia no argument to one who is deliberately, and on principle,
an atheist. b'oLfTn t'hat ^efc’ thouSl> ri0t
abstractedly the more convincing, it is often so duct™,*,. ‘ in effect, as
being of a more striking and imposing character. The mind, habituated to the
regularity of nature, is blunted to the overwhelming evidence it conveys;
whereas by a Miracle it may be roused to reflection, till mere conviction of a
superhuman being becomes the first step towards 1 e acknowledgment of a Supremo
power. While, moreover, it surveys nature a$ a whole, it is not capacious
enough to embrace its bearings, and to comprehend what it implies. In
Miraculous displays of power the field of view is narrowed ; a detached portion
of the divine operations is taken as an instance, and the Final Cause is
distinctly pointed out. A Miracle, besides, is more striking, inasmuch as it
displays the Deity in action ; evidence of which is not supplied in the system
of nature. It may then accidentally br ng conviction of an intelligent Creator;
for it voluntarily proffers a testimony which we have ourselves to extort from
the ordinary course of tilings, arid forces upon the attention a truth which
otherwise is not discovered, except upon examination.
Jitov t!*/ And as it affords a more striking
evidence of a Creator than that n> .-u, conveyed in the order and
established laws of the Universe, still niol'c so does it
of a Moral Governor. For, while nature attests the being of God more distinctly
than it does his moral government, a Miraculous event, on the contrary, bears
more directly on the fact of his moral government, of which it is an immediate
instance, while it only implies his existence. Hence, besides banishing ideas
of Fate and Necessity, Miracles have a tendency to rouse conscience, to awaken
to a sense of responsibility, to remind of duty, and to direct the attention to
those marks of divine government already contained In the ordinary course of
events."
Hitherto,
however, we have spoken of solitary Miracles; a system of Miraculous
interpositions, conducted with reference to a Final Cause, supplies a still
more beautiful and convincing argument for the moral government of God.
ON THE
ANTECEDENT CREDIBILITY OF A MIRACLE, CONSIDERED AS A DIVINE INTERPOSITION.
'i-raclos, In proof of Miraculous occurrences, we must
have recourse to the
can"*/3013’ same kind of evidence as that by which i\ e
determine the truth of
{tvnwaiwof Historical accounts in general. For though
Miracles, in consequence
Testimony of their extraordinary nature, challenge a
fuller and more accurate
4 .Farmi’r,
On Miracli.s, Ch. T. Sms. 2.
investigation,
still they do not admit an investigation conducted on different
principles,—Testimony being tlie only assignable medium of proof for past
events of any kind. And this being indisputable, it is almost equally so that
the Christian Miracles are attested by evidence even stronger than can be
produced for any of those Historical facts which we most firmly believe. This
has been felt bv unbelievers; who have been, in consequence, led to deny the
admissibility of even the strongest Testimony, if offered in behalf of
Miraculous events, and thus to get rid of the only means by which they can be
proved to have taken place. It has accordingly been asserted, that all events
inconsistent with the course of nature bear in their very front, such strong
and decisive marks of falsehood and absurdity, that it is needless to examine
the evidence adduced for them.6 “ Where men are heated by zeal and
enthusiasm,” says Ilume, with a distant but evident allusion to the Christian Miracles,
“ there is
no degree of human Testimony so strong as may not be procured for the greatest
absurdity; and those who will be so silly as to examine the affair by that
medium, and seek particular flaws in the Testimony, are almost sure to be
confounded.”7 Of these objections antecedent objections, which are
supposed to decide the question, adiTssibiiitj the most popular is founded on
the frequent occurrence of wonderful testimony tales in every Age and country,
generally too connected with Religion; and since the more we are in a situation
to examine these accounts, the more fabulous they are proved to be, there would
certainly be hence a fair presumption against the Scripture narrative, did it
resemble them in its circumstances and proposed object. A more refined argument
is that advanced by Ilume, in the first part of his Essay on Miracles, in which
it is maintained against the credibility of a Miracle, that it is more
improbable that the Miracle should be true than that the Testimony should be
false.
This
latter objection has been so ably met by various writers, Divine that, though
prior in the order of the argument to the other, it need cause'of*1*
not be considered here. It derives its force from the assumption, tirades, that
a Miracle is strictly a causeless phenomenon, a self-originating violation of
nature; and is solved by referring the event to divine agency, a principle
which (it cannot be denied) has originated works indicative of power at least
as great as any Miracle requires. An adequate cause being thus found for the
production of a Miracle, the objection vanishes, as far as the mere question of
power is concerned ; and it remains to be considered whether the anomalous
fact be of such a character as to admit of being referred to the Supreme Being.
For if it cannot with propriety be referred to him, it remains as improbable as
if no such agent were known to exist. At
6 I.E. it
is pretended to try past torie, Ch.
I.Sec.3.) SeeLeland’s “ Sup-
events on
the principles used in conjec- plemerjt to
View of Deistical Writers,”
turing
future; viz. on antecedent proba- Let.
3.
biiity and
examples. (Treatise on Rhe~ 7
Essays* Yol. II. Note L.
A11
Miracles not referable to divine agency.
The
Scripture
Miracles profess to be the result of the Moral system ;
Interfering
fc-itb the Physical;
this
point, then, we propose taking up the argument; and bv examining what Miracles
are in their nature and circumstances referable to divine agency, we shall be
providing a reply to the former of tlie objections just noticed, in which the
alleged similarity of all Miraculous narratives one. to another, was made a
reason for a common rejection of all. And it is to an inquiry of this nature,
that a memoir of Apollonius properly gives rise.
In
examining what Miracles may properly be ascribed to the Deity, Hume supplies
us* with an observation so just, when taken in its full extent, that we shall
make it the groundwork of the inquiry on which we are entering. As the Deity,
he says, discovers himself to us by bis works, we have no rational grounds for
ascribing to him attributes or actions dissimilar from those which his works
convey. It follows then, that in discriminating between those Miracles which
can and those which cannot be ascribed to God, we must bo guided by the
information with which experience furnishes us concerning his wisdom, goodness,
and other attributes. Since a Miracle is an act out of the known track of
divine agency, as regards the physical, system, it is almost indispensable to
show its consist ency with the divine agency, at least, 'n some other point of
view; if {i.e.) it is to be recognised as the work of the same power. Now, we
contend that this reasonable demand it satisfied in the Jewish and Christian
Scriptures, in which we iind a narrative of Miracles altogether answering in
their character and circumstances to those general ideas which the ordinary
course of divine providence enables us to form concerning the attributes and
actions of God.
While
writers expatiate so largely ou the laws of nature, they altogether forget the
existence of a Moral system ; a system, which though but partially understood,
and but general in its appointments as acting upon free agents, is as
intelligible in its laws and provisions as the material world. Connected with
this Moral government, we find certain instincts of mind ; such as conscience,
a sense of responsibility, and an approbation of virtue; an innate desire of
knowledge, and an almost universal feeling of the necessity of Religious
observances: while, in fact, Virtue is on the whole rewarded and Vice punished.
And though we meet with many and striking anomalies, yet it is evident they are
but anomalies, and possibly but in appearance so, and with reference to our
partial information.8
These two
systems, the Physical and the Moral, sometimes act in unison, and sometimes in
opposition to each other; and as the order of nature certainly does in many
cases interfere with the operation of Moral laws, (as e.g. when good men die
prematurely, or the gifts of nature are continued to the bad,) there is nothing
to shock probability in the idea that a great Moral object should be effected
by
8 See liUler's “ Analogy,” Part I. Ch. ILL
an
interruption of Physical order. But, further than this, however Physical laws
may embarrass the operation of the Moral system, still on the whole they are
subservient to it; contributing, as is evident, to the welfare and convenience
of Man, providing for his mental gratification as well as animal enjoyment,
sometimes even supplying correctives to his Moral disorders. If then the
economy of _iature has so constant a reference to an ulterior plan, a Miracle
is a deviation from the subordinate for the sake of the superior system, and is
very far indeed from improbable, when a great Moral end cannot be effected
except at the expense of Physical regularity. Nor can it be fairly said to
argue an imperfection in the divine plans, that this interference should be
necessary. For we must view the system of Providence as a whole; which is not
more imperfect because of the mutual action of its parts, than a machine the
separate wheels of which affect each other’s movements.
Now the
Miracles of the Jewish and Christian Religions must be Thati»to considered as
immediate effects of divine power beyond the action criterion of nature, for nn
important Moral end; and are in consequence *nd»vid*«e« accounted for by
producing not a physical but a final cause.9 We Revelation, are not
left to contemplate the bare anomalies, and from the mere necessity of the case
to refer them to the supposed agency of the l)eity. The power of displaying
them is, according to the Scripture narrative, intrusted to certain
individuals, who stand forward as their interpreters, giving them a voice and
language, and a dignity demanding our regard; who set them forth as evidences
of the greatest of Moral ends, a Revelation from God,—as instruments in his
hand of effecting a direct intercourse between himself and his creatures, which
otherwise could not have been effected,—as vouchers for the truth of a message
which they deliver.10 This is plain and iutelligible; there is an
easy connexion between the Miraculous nature of their works and the truth of
their words; the fact of their superhuman power is a reasonable ground for
belief in their superhuman knowledge. Considering, then, our instinctive sense
of duty and moral obligation, yet the weak sanction which reason gives to the
practice of Virtue, and withal the uncertainty of the mind when advancing
beyond the first elements of right and wrong; considering, moreover, the
feeling which wise men have entertained of the need of some heavenly guide to
instruct and confirm them in goodness, and that unextinguishable desire for a
divine message which
9 Divine Legation, Book IX. C%- Y. 5, 20—24; Mark xvi. 15—29; Luke i. IS—
Yince, On Miracles, Serm. I. 20;
ii. 11, 12; v. 24; vii. 15, 16; ix, 2; x.
10 As, for instance, Exod. iv. 1—9,29— 9; Jjhn .i.22; iii. 2; v.36,37; ix.33; x.
31; vii.
9,17; Numb. xvi. 3, 28, 29; Deut. 24—38;
xi. 15, 41, 42; xiii. 19: xiv. 10,11,
iv. 36—4U;
xviii. 21, 22; Josh. iii. 7—13; 29;
xvi. 4; xx. 31), 31; Arts i. 8; ii. 22,
i Sam. x.
1—7; xii. 1£i—19; 1 Kings xiii. 33;
iii. 15, lfi; iv. 33; v. 32; viii. ti; x
3; xvii.
24; xviii. 3R--39; 2 Kings i. 6, 38;
xiii. 8—12; xiv. 3; . xv. 18, 19;
10; v. 15;
xx. 8—11; Jer. xxviii. 15—17; 1 Cor.
ii. 4, 5; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Heb. ii. 3,
Ezek.
xxx.ii 33: Matt. x. 1—20; xi. 3— 4; Re\.
xix. 10.
has led
men in all ages to acquiesce even in pretended Revelations, rather than forego
the consolation thus afforded them ; and again, the possibility (to say the
least) of our being destined fur a future state of being, the nature and
circumstances of which it rnav concern us much to know, though from nature we
know nothing; considering, lastly, our experience of a watchful and merciful
Providence, and the impracticability already noticed of a Revelation without a
Miracle—it is hardly too much to atHrm, that the Moral system points to au
interference with the course of nature, and that Miracles wrought in evidence
of a divine communication, instead of being antecedently improbable, are, when
directly attested, entitled to a respectful and impartial consideration,
objections When tho various antecedent objections which ingenious men have
8«ri'|*ur« urged against Miracles are brought together, they will be found
Miracles a-.e nearly all to arise from forgetfulness of the existence of Moral
laws.11
forgetful-
in their zeal to perfect the laws ot matter they most unphuosophi- "forai*4*16
cally overlook a more sublime system, which contains disclosures tjstem. I10t
only of the Being but of the Witt of God. Thus Ilume, in a passage above
alluded to, observes, “ Though the Being to whom the Miracle is ascribed be
Almighty, it does not, upon that account, become a whit more probable; since it
is impossible for us to know the attributes or actions of such a Being,
otherwise than from the experience which we have of his productions in the
usual course of nature. This still reduces us to past observation, and
obliges us to compare the instances of tho violation of truth in the testimony
of ^men with those of the violation of the laws of nature by Miracles, n
order to judge which of them is most likely and probable." Here the Moral
government of God, u’ith the course of which the Miracle entirely accords,
is altogether kept out of sight. With a like heedlessness of the Moral
character of a Miracle, another writer, notorious for his irreligion,12
objects that it argues mutability in the Deity, and implies that the Physical
system was not created good, as needing improvement. And a recent author adopts
a similarly partial and inconclusive mode of reasoning, when he confuses the
Christian Miracles with fablee of apparitions and witches, and would examine
them on the strict principle of those legal forms which from their secular
object go far to excludo all Religious discussion of the question.15
Such reasoners seem to suppose, that when the agency of the Deity is introduced
to account for Miracles, it is the illogical introduction of an unknown cause,
a reference to a mere name, the offspring perhaps of popular superstition ; or,
if more than a name, to a cause that can be known only by means of the Physical
creation; and hence they consider Religion as founded in the mere weakness or
eccentricity of the intellect, not in actual intimations of a clhine government
as contained in the moral world.
11 Vince, On Miracle*, Serm. I. ,13 Voltaire.
13 liemliam, Preuves Juiliciaires, Liv. \ IU.
From an
apparent impatience of investigating a system which is hut partially revealed,
they esteem the laws of the material system alone 'worthy the notice of a
scientific mind; anil rid themselves of the annoyance which the importunity of a
claim to Miraculous power occasions them, by discarding all the circumstances
which fix its antecedent probability, ail in which one Miracle differs from
another, the professed author, object, design, character, and human instruments.
When this
partial procedure is resisted, the a priori objections of Enumera- sceptical
writers at once lose their force. Facts are only so far
cum
stances
improbable
as they fall under no general rule ; whereas it is as parts of an existing
svstem that the Miracles of Scripture demand our Miracles fan attention, as
resulting from known attributes of God, and eorres- known ponding to the
ordinary arrangements of his providence. Even as detached events they might
excite a rational awe towards the mysterious Author of nature. But they are
presented to us, not as unconnected and unmeaning occurrences, but as holding a
place in an extensive plan of divine government, completing the Moral system,
connecting Man with his Maker, and introducing him to the means of securing his
happiness in another and eternal state of being. That such is the professed
object of the body of Christian Miracles, can hardly be denied. In the earlier
Religion it was substantially the same, though from the preparatory nature of
the dispensation, a less enlarged view was given of the divine counsels.
The
express purpose of the Jewish Miracles is to confirm the natural evidence of
one God, the Creator of all things, to display his attributes and will with
distinctness and authority, and to enforce ’the obligation of Religious
observances, and show the sin of idolatrous worship.14 Whether we
turn to the earlier or latter Ages of Judaism, in the plagues of Bgypt; in the
parting of Jordan, and the arresting of the Sun’s course by Joshua; in the
harvest thunder at the prayer of Samuel; in the rending of the altar at Bethel;
in Elijah’s sacrifice on Mount Carmel; and in the cure of Naaman by Elisha; we
recognise this one grand object throughout Not even in the earliest ages of the
Scripture history are Miracles wrought at random, or causelessly, or to amuse
the fancy, or for the sake of mere display: nor prodigally, for the mere
conviction of individuals, but for the most part 011 a grand scale, in the face
of the world, to supply whole nations with evidence concerning the Deity. Nor
are they strewn confusedly over the face of the history, being with few
exceptions reducible to three eras; the formation of the Hebrew Church and
Polity, the reformation in the times of the idolatrous Kings of Israel, and the
promulgation of the Gospel. Let it be observed, moreover, that the power of
working them, instead of
being
assumed by any classes of men indiscriminately, is described as a prerogative
of the occasional Prophets to the exclusion of the Priests and Kings; a circumstance
which, not to mention its remarkable contrast to the natural course of an
imposture, is deserv- ’ng attention from its consistency with the leading
design of Miracles already specified. For the respective elaims of the Kings
and Priests were already ascertained, when once the sacred office was limited
to the family of Aaron, and the regal power to David and his descendants;
whercfts extraordinary messengers, as Moses, Samuel, and Elijah, needed some
supernatural display of power to authenticate their pretensions. In
corroboration of this remark we may observe the unembarrassed manner of the
Prophets in the exercise of their professed gift; their disdain of argument or
persuasion, and the confidence with which they appeal to those before whom they
are said to have worked their Miracles.
These and
similar observations do more than invest the separate Miracles with a dignity
worthy of the Supreme Being; they show the coincidence of them all in one
common and consistent object. As parts of a system, the Miracles recommend and
attest each other, evidencing not only general wisdom, but a digested and
extended plan. And while this appearance of design connects them with the
acknowledged works of a Creator, who is in the natural world chiefly known to us
by the presence of final causes, so, again, a plan conducted as this was,
through a series of ages, evinces not the varying will of successive
individuals, but the steady and sustained purpose of one Sovereign Mind. And
this remark especially applies to the coincidence of views observable between
the Old and New Testament; the latter of which, though written after a long
interval of silence, the breaking up of the former system, a revolution in Religious
discipline, and the introduction of Oriental tenets into the popular Theology,
still unhesitatingly takes up and maintains the ancient principles of
Miraculous interposition.
An
additional recommendation of the Scripture Miracles is their appositeness to
the rimes and places in which they W'ere wrought; as, e.g. in the case of the
plagues of Egypt, which, it has been shown,^ w'ere directed against the
prevalent superstitions of that country. Their originality, beauty, and
immediate utility, are further properties falling in with our conceptions of
divine agency. In their general character we discover nothing indecorous,
light, or ridiculous; they are grave, simple, unambiguous, majestic. Many of
them, especially those of the later dispensation, are remarkable for their
benevolent and merciful character; others aro useful for a variety of
subordinate purposes, as a pledge of the eertaintv of particular promises, or
as comforting good men, or as edifying the Church. Nor must we overlook the
moral instruction conveyed in
15 See
13rya»t.
many,
particularly in those ascribed to Christ, the Spiritual interpretation which
they will often bear, and the exemplification which they afford of particular
doctrines.16
Accepting
then what may be called Hume’s canon, that no work can he reasonably ascribed,
to the agency of God, which is altogether different from those ordinary works
from which our knowledge of him is originally obtained, we have shown that the
Miracles of Scripture, far from being exceptionable on that account, are
strongly recommended by their coincidence with what we know from nature of his
Providence and Moral attributes. That there are some few among them in which
this coincidence cannot be traced, it is not necessary to deny. As a whole they
bear a determinate and consistent character, being great and extraordinary
means for attaining a great, momentous, and extraordinary object.
We shall
not however dismiss this criterion of the antecedent Tests, probability of a
Miracle with which Ilume has furnished us, without *£m6our showing
that it is more or less detrimental to the pretensions of all a
professed
Miracles but those of the Jewish and Christian Revela- ttributes, ’ tions:—in
other words, that none else are likely to have occurred, anbuteh
because none else can with auy probability be referred to the agency scrip ;ure
of the Deity, the only known cause of miraculous interposition, excluded. We
exclude then
1. THOSE WIIICH ARE NOT EVEN REFERRED BY THE
WORKERS OF THEM TO BIV1XE AGESCY.
Such are
the extraordinary works attributed by some to Zoroaster; Miracles and, again,
to Pythagoras, Empedocles, Apollonius, and others 0fI-urn,‘
their School; which only claim to be the result of their superior wisdom, and
were quite independent of a Supreme Being.17 Such are the supposed
eifects of witchcraft or of magical charms, which profess to originate with
Spirits and Demons; for, as these agents, supposing them to exist, did not make
the world, there is every reason for thinkiifg they cannot of themselves alter
its arrange- ments.:a And those, as in some accounts of apparitions,
which are silent respecting their origin, and are referred to God from the mere
necessity of the case.
* *
16 J ones,
On the Figurative Language 18 Sometime* charms are represented of
Scripture, Lect. 10. Farmer, On liir- as having an inherent virtue, independent
aeles, Ch. III. Sec. 6, 2. ot
invisible agents, as in the account given
by
Josephus of Eieazar’s drawing out a
W See, in
contrast, Gen. xl. 8; xii. 16; devil through the nostrils of a patient by Dan.
ii. 27—30, 47; Acts iii. 12—16; xiv. means of a ring, vhich contained in it a
11—18; a contrast sustained, as these drrg prescribed by Solomon. Joseph,
passages show, for 1500 years. Antiq.
VIII. 2, See. 5. See Acts viii. IK.
Miracle*
unworthy of God.
2. THOSE WHICH ARE UNWORTHY OF AX ALL-WISE
AUTHOR.
As, for
example, the Miracles of Simon Magus, who pretended ho could assume the
appearance of a serpent, exhibit himself with two faces, and transform himseif
'lito whatever shape he pleased.19 Such are most of the Miracles
recorded in the apocryphal accounts of Christ e.g. tlie sudden ceasing of all
hinds of motion at his birth, birds stopping in the midst of their flighty men
at table with their hands to their mouths yet unable to eat, itc.; his
changing, when a child, his playmates into kids, and animating clay figures of
beasts and birds; the practice attributed to him of appearing to his diseiples
sometimes as a youth, sometimes as an old man, sometimes as a child, sometimes
large, sometimes less, sometimes so tali as to reach the Heavens; and the
obeisance paid him by the military standards when he was brought before Pilate.
Of the same cast is tlie story of his picture presented by Xicodemus to
Gamaliel, which when pierced by the Jews gave forth blood and water. Under this
head of exception fall many of the Miracles related by the fathers:21
e.g. that of the consecrated bread changing into a live coal in the hands of a
woman, who came to the Lord's supper after offering incense to an idol; of the
dove issuing from the body of Pol v carp at his martyrdom ; of the petrifaction
of a fowl dressed by a person under a vow of abstinence; of the exorcism of the
demoniac camel; of the stones shedding tears at the barbarity of the
persecutions; of inundations rising up to the roofs of churches without
entering the open doors; and of picees of gold, as fresh us from the mint,
dropt from heaven into the laps of the Ita'ian Monks. Of the same charactcr are
the -Miracles of the Romish Breviary .; as the prostration of wild beasts
before the martyrs they were about to devour; the Miraculous uniting of two
chains 'with which St. Peter had been at different times bound ; and the burial
of Paul the Hermit by lions. Such again are the Rabbinical Miracles, as that of
the flies killed by lightning for settlmg 011 a Rabbi’s paper. And the Miracles
ascribed by some to Mohammed, us that the trees went out to meet him. the
stones saluted him, and a earnel complained to him.22 The exoreism
in the Book of Tobit must here be mentioned, in which the Evil Spirit who is in
love with Sara is driven away by the smell of certain perfumes.23
Hence the Scripture accounts of Eve’s temptation by the serpent; of the
speaking of Balaam's ass; of Jonah and the whale; and of the Devils sent into
the herd of swine, are by themselves more or less improbable, being unequal in
dignity
19 Lavington, Enthusiasm of Meth. 23 It seems to have been a
common
and
Papists comp. Part III, Sec. 43. notion
that possessed persons were be-
30 Jones, On the Canon, Part III. loved by the Spirit that distressed them.
21
Middleton, Free Inquiry. See Phiiostrv
IV. 25. — Ofospel of the
23 The
oifensjvenessof these, and many Infancy,
XIV,—XVI. XXX111. Justin
others
above instanced, consists in attri- Martyr,
Apol. p. 113, Kd. Thirlb. We
buting
moral feelings to inanimate or find
nothing of this kind in the account
irrational
beings. of the Scripture demoniacs.
to the
rest. They are then supported by the system in which they are found, as being a
few' out of a multitude, and therefore but exceptions (and, as we suppose, but
apparent exceptions) to the general rule. In some of them, too, a further
purpose is discernible, which of itself reconciles us to the strangeness of
their first appearance, and suggests the possibility of similar reasons,
though unknown, being assigned in explanation of the rest. As the Miracle of
the swine, the object of which may have been to prove to us the reality of
demoniacal possessions.21
Jftrades
of mere power, even when connected wiih some ultimate object, are often
improbable for the same general reason, viz. as unworthy of an All-wise Author.
Such as that ascribed to Zoroaster,25 of suffering melted brass to
be poured upon his breast without injury to himself. Unless indeed their
immediate design be to exemplify the greatness of God, as in the descent of
fire from heaven upon Elijah’s sacrifice, and in Christ’s walking on the sea,26
which evidently possess a dignity fitting them to be works of the Supreme
Being. The propriety indeed of the Christian Miracles, contrasted with the want
of decorum observable in those elsewhere related, forms a most striking
evidence of their divinity.
Here, too,
ambiguous Miracles find a place, it being antecedently improbable that the
Almighty should rest the credit of his Revelation upon events which but
obscurely implied his immediate presence.
And, for
the same reason, those are in some measure improbable ichich are professed by
different Religions; because from a divine agent may be expected distinct and
peculiar specimens of divine agency. Hence the claims to supernatural power in
the primitive Church are in general questionable, as resting upon the exorcism
of Evil Spirits, and the cure of diseases; wrorks, not only less
satisfactory than others, as evidence of a Miraculous interposition, but suspicious
from the circumstance, that they were exhibited also by Jews and Gentiles of
the same age.27 In the plagues of Egypt and Elijah’s sacrifice,
which seem to be of this class, there is a direct contest between two parties;
and the object of the divine messenger is to show his own superiority in the
very point in vrhich his adversaries try their powers. Our Saviour’s use of
the clay in restoring
-k
Divine Legation, Bonk IX. Ch. Y. —31;
Mark vi. 52. "We rpad of the
rv v- , 1-1)7 power to “move mountains,” but evi-
- Brucker,
Vol. I. p. 147. gent] as a
proverbiai The
Power over
the elements conveyed transfiguration, if
it need be mentioned,
tlie most
striking proof of Christ’s mission has a
doctrinal sense, and seems besides
from the
God of nature, who in the Old to have
been intended to lead the minds
Testament
is frequently characterised as of the
Apostles to the consideration of the
ruling the
sea, winds, &c. Ps. Ixv. 7; Spiritual
Kingdom.^ One of Satan’s
*xxvii.
19; Job xxxviii. 11, &c. It is temptations
was to induce our Lord to
said, that
a drawing of feet upon the work a Miracle
of mere power. Matt.
\\ater was
the hieroglyphic for impossi- iv. 6,
7. See Acts x. 38, for the general
bility.
Christ moreover designed, it character
of the Miracles,
appears,
to make trial of his disciples’ 27
Middleton. Stiilingfleet, Orig, Sacr.
iaith bv
this Miracle. See Matt. xiv. 2S II.
9, Sec. 1.
' II. 2 b
Miraclcs
without
object.
sight has
been accounted for (in a similar principle, such extern! 1 means being in repute
among the Heathen in their pretended cures.
3. THOSE WHICH HAVE NO PROFESSED OBJECT.
Hence a
suspicion is thrown on all miracles ascribed hr the Apocryphal Gospels to
Christ in his Infancy; fur, being prior to his preaching, they seem to attest
no doctrine, and are but distantly connected with any object.—Those again on
which an object seems to be forced. lienee many harmonizing in one plan arrest
the attention more powerfully than a detached and solitary Miracle, as
converging to one point, and pressing upon our notice the end for which they
are wrought. This remark, as far as it goes, is prejudicial to the Miracle
wrought (as it is said) in llumierie’s persecution, long after the real age of
Miracles was past; vilien the Athanasian confessors arc reported to have
retained the power of speech after the loss of their tongues.
Those,
too, must be viewed with suspicion tukick are disjoined from human instruments,
and are made the vehicle of no message; 28 eince, according to our
foregoing view, Miracles are only then divested cf tiieir b ’priori
improbability when furthering some great Moral end, such as authenticating a
divine communication. It is an objection then to those ascribed to relics
generally, and in particular tu those attributed to the tomb of the Abbe Paris,
that they arc left to tell, their own story, and are but distantly connected
with any object whatever. As it is, again, to many tales of apparitions, that
they do not admit of a meaning, and consequently' demand at most only an otiose
assent, as Paley terms it. Hence there is a ditfieultv in the narrative
contained in the first verses of John v.; beeause we cannot reduce the account
of the descent of the angel into the water to give it a healing power under any
known arrangement of the d'vine economy. We receive it, then, on the general
credit of the Revelation of which it forms part.2*
For the
same reason, viz. the want of a declared object, a prejudice is excited when
the professed worker is silent, or diffident as to his own power; since our
general experience of Providence leads us to suppose that Miraculous powers
will not be committed to an individual who is not also prepared for his office
by sccret inspiration. This speaks strongly against the cures ascribed by
Tacitus to \ espasianus, and would be an objection to our crediting the
prediction uttered by Caiaphas, if separated from its context, or prominently
brought forward to rest an argument upon. It is in general a characteristic of
the Scripture system, that Miracles and inspiration go together.30—With
a view to specify the object distinctly, some have required that the Miracle
should be wrought
20 Farmer, On Miracles, Ch. V. bj (Jriesbaoh. The mineral spring of
Bethesda
is mentioned by Eusebius as 2® Thp verse containing the account ot celebrated
even in his day the Angel is wanting in many MSS. of 3° Douglas’s Criterion.
Warbwton, authority, and ip marked a“ suspicious Serm. on Resurreetioi..
after the
delivery of the message.31 A message .delivered
an indefinite time after the Miracle, while it cannot hut excite attention
from the general reputation of the messenger for as extraordinary gift, is not
so expressly stamped with divine authority, as when it is ushered in by his claiming,
and followed by h:s displaying, supernatural powers. For if a Miracle, once
wrought, ever after sanctions the doctrines taught by the person exhibiting it,
it must be attended by the gift of infallibility; a sustained Miracle is inconsistent
with that frugality in the application of power which is observable in the
general course of Providence.32 On the other hand, when an
unambiguous Miracle, having been tirst distinctly announced, is wrought with
the professed object of sanctioning a message from God, it conveys an
irresistible evidence of its divine origin. Accident is thus excluded, and the
final cause indissolubly connected with the supernatural event. We may remark
that the Miracles of Scripture were generally wrought on this plan.33
In conformity to which, we find moreover that the Apostles, <fce. could not
work Miracles when they pleased;34 a circumstance more consistent
with our ideas of the divine government, and connecting the extraordinary acts
more clearly with specific objects than if the supernatural gifts were
unlimited and irrevocable.
Lastly,
under this head we may notice Miraculous accounts, which, as those concerning
Apollonius, may be separated from, a narrative vnthout detriment to it. The
prodigies of Livy, e.g. form no part in the action of the history, which is
equally intelligible without them.35 The Miraculous events of the
Pentateuch, on the contrary, or of the Gospels and Acts, though of course they
may be rejected together with the rest of the narrative, can bo rejected m no
other way; since they form its substance and groundwork, and, like the figure
of Phidias on Minerva’s shield, cannot be erased without spoding the entire
composition.36
31 Fleetwood, Farmer, and others. asbemgt.liesealofitsdiYinity,andassuch
32 The idea is accordingly diseounten- needed not in every instance to 1 >e marked
anced, Matt. vii. 22, 23; lieb. vi. 4—6; out
as a supernatural gift Miracles in Gal. ii. 11—14. Scripture are not done by wholesale, i.e.
33 St. Mark ends his Gospel by say- indiscriminately and at once, without the ing,
that the Apostles “ went forth and particular
will and act of the gifted inpreached everywhere, the Lord working dividual; the contrary was the case with with
them, and confirming the word by the
cures at the tomb of the Abbe Paris. signs following,”
eh. xvi. 20. See also Acts xix.
11,12, perhaps forms an excep- Exod. iv. 29, 30; 1 Kings xiii. 2, 3; 2 tion; but the Miracles there mentioned Kings
xx. 8—11; Acts xiv. 3, &c. are
expressly said to be special, and were
34 E.G. Acts xx. 22, 23; Phil. ii. 27; 2 intended to put particular honour on the
Tim. iv. 20. In the Book of Acts we Apostle;
Of. Luke vi. 19; viii. 46, whieh have not a few instances of the Apostles seem to illustrate John iii. 34.
acting
under the immediate direction of 35
E.G. he says 44 adj icicnt miracula
the Holy
Spirit. The gift of tongues is huicpugnaII.
7.
an
exception to the general remark, as 36
Whereas otb^r extraordinary ac-
we know it
was abused; but this from its counts are
like the statue of the Goddess
nature
was, when once given, possessed herself,
which could readily be taken to
as an
ordinary talent, and needed no fresh pieces,
and resolved into its constituent
divine
influence for subsequent exercise parts,
the precious metal and the stone,
of It. It
may besides be viewed as a For the
Jewish Miracles, see Graves, On
medium of
conveying thG message, as ^ ell the
Pentateuch, Part I. It has been
Miracles
with
insufficient
object.
i. THOSE VTIIICII ARE EXCEPTIONABLE AS
REGARDS TIIEIR OBJECT.
If the
professed object be trifling and unimportant; as in many related by the
Fathers, e.g. Tertullian’s account of the vision of an Angel to prescribe to a
female the exact length and measure of her veil, or the divine admonition ■which
Cyprian professes to have received to mix water with wine in the Eucharist, in
order to render it efficacious.57 Among these would be reckoned the
directions given to Moses relative to the furnishing of the Tabernacle, and
other regulations of the ceremonial law, were not further and Important objects
thereby affected; such as, separating the Israelites from the surrounding
nations, impressing upon them the doctrine of a particular Providence,
prefiguring future events, Arc.
Miracles
wrought for the gratification of mere curiosity are referable to this head of
objection. Hence the triumphant invitations which some of the Fathers make to
their heathen opponents to attend their exorcisms excite an unpleasant feeling
in the mind, as degrading a solemn spectacle into a mere popular exhibition.
Those,
again, which have a political or party object; as the cures ascribed to
Vespasianus, or as those attributed to the tomb of tho Abbe Paris, and the
Eclectic prodigies— all which, viewed in their best light, tend to the mere
aggrandizement of a particular Sect, and have little or no reference to the
good of Mankind at large. It tells in favour of the Christian Miracles, that
the Apostles, generally speaking, were not enabled to work them for their own
persona! convenience, to avoid danger, escape suffering, or save life. St
Paul’s preservation from the effects of the viper’s bite on the Isle of Melita
is a solitary exception to this remark, no mention being made of his availing
himself of this Miracle to proselyte the natives to the Christian faith.5**
For a
similar reason, those bear a less appearance of probability which are wrought
for the conviction of individuals. We have already noticed the contrary
character of the Scripture Miracles in this respect: e.g. St. Paul’s Miraculous
conversion did not end with itself, but was followed hv momentous and
inestimable consequences.29 Again, Miracles attended the
conversions of the ..Ethiopian Eunuch, Cornelius, and Sergius Paulus; but these
were heads and first fruits of different classes of men who were in time to be
brought into the Church.40
Miracles
with a bad or vicious object are laden with an extreme antecedent
improbability; for they cannot at all be referred to the
observed,
that the discourses of Christ so ^Rev. J.
RlancoWhite, Against Carh-
constantly
grow out of his Miracles^ that olicisra,
Let. 6. The Breviary Mira it's
we can
hardly admit the former without form a
striking contrast to the* Christian
admitting
the_ latter also. But his dis- in
this point. #
courses
form his character, which is by no 39 Acts
xxvi. ]6,
means an
obvious or easy one to imagine, 40
Ibid. viii, 2(J, 30; x. 3, &c.; xiii. 32.
had it
never existed. These three classes ore
mentioned to-
37
Middleton, Free Inquiry, gether
in prophecy. Isa. lvi. 4—8.
ANTECEDENT
CREDIBILITY OF illRACLES. 373
only kncwn
cause of supernatural power, the agency of God. Such are most of the faLles
concerning the heathen Lteities; not a few of the professed Miraclcs of the
primitive Church, which are wrought to sanction doctrines opposed not only to
Scriptural truth but to the light of nature;41 and some related in
the Apocryphal Gospels, especially Christ’s inflicting death upon a
schoolmaster who threatened to strike him, and on a boy who li.ppened to run
violently against him.43 Here must be noticed several passages in
Scripture, in which a Miraculous gift seems at first sight to be exercised to
gratify revengeful feelings, and which are, therefore, received on the credit
of the system.43
Unnecessary
Miraclcs are improbable; as, those wrought for an object attainable without an
exertion, or with less exertion, of extraordinary power.41 Of this
kind, we contend, would be the writing of the Gospel on the bkies, which some
unbelievers have proposed as but an adequate attestation tc a Revelation; for,
supposing the recorded fact of their once occurring be sufficient for a
rational conviction, a perpetual Miracle becomes superfluous.45—
Such, again, would be the preservation of the text of Scripture in its verbal
correctness, which many have supposed necessary for its infallibility as a
standard of Truth.—The same antecedent objection
resses on
Miracles wrought in attestation of truths already known. We do not, e.g.
require a Miracle to convince us that the Sun shines, * or that Vice is
blameable. The Socinian scheme is in a great measure chargeable with bringing
the Miracles of the Gospel under this censure; for it prunes away the Christian
system till little is left for the Miracles to attest. On this ground an
objection has been taken to the Miiacle wrought in favour of the Atlianasians
in Hunneric’s persecution, as above mentioned; inasmuch as it merely professes
to authorize a comment on the sacred text, i.e. to sanction a truth which is
r>ot new, unless Scripture be obscure—Here, too, may be noticed Miracles
wrought in evidence of doctrines already established; such as those of the
rapists, who seem desirous of answering the unbeliever’s demand for a perpetual
Miracle. Popish Miracles, as has often been observed, occur in Popish countries,
where they are least wanted; whereas, if real, they would be invaluable among
Protestants. Hence the primitive Miracles become
41 E.G. to establish Monachism, &e. long as was indispensably necessary to
42 Jones, On the Canon, Part III. introduce and settle the Jewish nation in
43 Gen. ix. 24—27; Judges xvi. 28— the land of their inheritance, and esta-
30; 2
Kings ii. 24; 2 Chron. xxiv. 22. _ blish
this dispensation so as to answer the
44 It does not follow', because all Mir- purposes of the divine economy. After acles are
equally easy to an Almighty this, he
gradually withdrew his super
author
that all are equally probable; for, natural
assistance; he left the nation colas has been often remarked, a frugality (ectively and individually to act accord-
in the application of power is observable ing
to their own choice,” &c. Lectures throughout his works. on the Pentateuch, Part III. Lect, 2.
Dr. Graves
observes, of the Mira- 46 See Maclaine’s Note on the subject, eulous
agency in the Age of Moses and Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. Cent. Y, Part II. Joshua,
that God continued it only so Ch. V.
suspicious,
in proportion as we find Christianity established, not only from the increasing
facility of fraud, hut moreover from the apparent needlessness of the extraordinary
display. And lienee, admitting the Miracles of Christ and his followers, future
Miracle* with the same end are somewhat improbable. For enough have been
wrought to attest the doctrine ; and attention, when once excited by
supernatural means, may bo kept alive by a standing Ministry, just as
inspiration is supplied by human learning.
We proceed
to notfce inconsistency in the objects proposed, as creating a just prejudice
against the validity of Miraculous pretensions. This applies to the claims of
the Romish Church, in which Miracles arc wrought by hostile Sects in support of
discordant tenets.17 It constitutes some objection to the bulk of
the Miracles of the primitive Church, when viewed as a continuation of tho
original gift, that they differ so much in manner, design, and attendant
circumstances, from those recorded iu Scripture. “ We sec,” says Middleton, (in
the ages subsequent to the Christian era) “ a dispensation of things a3eribed
to God, quite different from that which we meet with in the New Testament. For
in those days, tho power of working Miracles was committed to none but the
Apostles, and to a few of tho most eminent of the other disciples, who were
particularly commissioned to propagate the Gospel and preside in the Church of
Christ. But upon the pretended revival of the same powers in the following
Ages, wo find the administration of them committed, not to those who were
intrusted with the government of tho Chureh, not to tho successors of the
Apostles, to the Bishops, the Martyrs, nor to the principal champions of the
Cliristipn cause; but to boys, to women, and, above all, to private and obscure
laymen, not only of an inferior but sometimes also of a bad character.4S
—Hence, to avoid the charge of inconsistency in the respective objects of the
Jewish and Christian Miracles, it is incumbent upon believers in them to show
that the difference between the two systems is a difference in appearance only,
and that Christ came not to destroy but to fulfil the Law. Here, as far as its
antecedent appearance is concernced, the Miracle said to have occurred on
Juiian’s attempt to rebuild the Jewish Temple is seen to great advantage. The
object was great, the time critical, its consequences hi.rmonize very happily
with the economy of the Mosaic dispensa-
47 Douglas,
Criterion, p. 105, Note,
(8vo edit.
1807.) t
46 Scripture
sometimes attributes Miraculous gifts to men of bad character; but we have no
reason for supposing such could work Miracles at pleasure, (soe Numb. xxii. 18;
xxiii. 3, 8,12, 20; xxiv. 10—13,) or attest any doctrine but that which Christ
and his Apostles taught; nor is our faith grounded upon their preaching.
Moreover, their power may have been given them for some further
purpose;
for though to attest a divine message be the primary object of Miracles, it
need not be the oniy object. “ It would be highly ridiculous,” says Mr. Penrose
in his recent work on Miracles, “ to erect a steam engine for the mere
Eurpose of
opening and shutting a valve; ut the engine being erected is very wisely
employed both for this and for many other purposes, which, comparatively
speaking, are of very little significance.
tion, and
the general spirit of the Prophetical writings, and the fact itself has some
correspondence with the prodigies which preceded the final destruction of
Jerusalem.4*1
Again,
Miracles which do not tend to the accomplishment of their proposed end are open
to objection; and those winch have not effected iohat they had in view. Hence
some kind of argument might be derived against the Christian Miracles, were
they not accompanied by a prediction of their temporary failure in effecting
their object ; or, to speak more correctly, were it not their proposed object
gradually to spread the doctrines which they authenticate.50 There
is nothing, however, to break the force of this objection when directed against
the Miracles ascribed to the Abbe Paris; since the Jansenist interest, instead
of being advanced in consequence of them, soon after lost ground, and was
ultimately ruined.51
These
Miracles are also suspicious, os having been stopped by human authority; it
being improbable that a divine agent should permit any such interference with
his plan. The same objection applies to the professed gift of exorcising
demoniacs in the primitive Church; which was gradually lost after the decree of
the Counci! of Laodicea confined the exercise of it to such as were licensed by
the Bishop/2 And lastly, to the supernatural character of Prince
Hohenlohe’s cures, which were stopped at Bamberg by an order from authority,
that none should be wrought except in the presence of Magistrates and Medical
practitioners.53
These are
the most obvious objections which may be fairly made The fore- to the
antecedent probability of miraculous narratives. It will be observed, however,
that none of them go so far as to deprive testi- prove, mony for them of tlie
privilege of being heard. Even where the nature of the facts related forbids us
to refer the Miracle to divine agency, as when it is wrought to establish some
immoral principle, still it is not more than extremely improbable and to be
viewed with strong suspicion. Christians at least must acknowledge that the a
priori view which Reason takes would in some cases lead to an erroneous
conclusion. A Miracle, e.g. ascribed to an Evil Spirit is, prior to the
information of Scripture, improbable ; and if it stood 011 ' its own merits
would require very strong testimony to establish it, as being referred to an
unknown cause. Yet, 011 the authority of Scripture, we admit tho occasional
interference of agents short of divine with the course of nature. This,
however, only shows that these a priori tests are not decisive. Yet if we
cannot always
49 See
Warburton's Julian. clergy, nur indeed of
the laity, were any
£,J See
Parables ;n JIatt. xiii. 3, 24, 31, longer
able to east out devils; so that the
33, 47;
xxiv. 12; Aets xx.29, 30 ; 2Thess. oid
Christian exorcism or prayer for tlie
ii. 3; 2 Tim. iii. 1—5, &c. energumens in the church began soon
51 Palev,
Evidences, Part I. Prop. 2. after to
be omitted a.s useless,” Whiston,
62 It had hitherto been in the hands of in
Middleton,
the meaner
sort of the Christian laity. *•
Bentham, Preuves Judieiaires, Liv.
Alter
th.-‘.t time, “few or none of the VIII.
Cl). X.
Nor prove,
any
professed
Miracle* to have occurred
They are
injurious to some few of the Seripture Mi melt s.
Conclusion
of the antecedent question.
ascertain
what Jliracles arc improbable, at least we can determine what are not so;
moreover, it will still be tiue that the more objections lie against any
professed Miracle, the greater suspicion justly attaches to it, and the less
important is the fact even if proved.
On the
other hand, even when the external appearance is altogether in favour of the
Miracle, it must be recollected, nothing is thereby proved concerning the fact
of its occurrence. We have done no more than recommend to notice the evidence,
whatever it may ly, which is offered in "its behalf. Even, then, could
Miracles bi) found with as strong an antecedent case as those of Scripture,
still direct testimony must be produced to substantiate their claims on our
belief. At the same time, since there are none such, a fair prepossession is
indirectly created in favour of the latter, over and above their intrinsic
claims on our attention.
Some, few
indeed of the Scripture Jliracles are open to exception ; and have accordingly
been noticed in the course of our remarks as by themsdees improbable. These,
however, arc seldom such 1:1 more than one respect; whereas the other Miracles
which, came before us were open to several or oil of tlie, spccijied objections
at the some time. And, further, as they are lmt a few in the midst of an
overpowering majority pointing consistently to one grand object, they must not
be torn from their Moral context, but, 011 the credit of the rest, they must be
considered but apparent exceptions to the rule. It is obvious that a large
system must consist of various parts of unequal utility and excellence; and to
expect each particular occurrence to be complete in itself, is as unreasonable
as to require the parts of some complicated machine, separately taken, to be
all equally finished and fit for display.1'1
Let these
remarks suffice on the question of the antecedent probability or improbability
of a Miraculous narrative. Enough, ’t may be hoped, has been said, to separate
the Miracles of Scripture from those elsewhere related, and to invest them with
an importance exciting in an unprejudiced mind a just interest in their
behalf, and a candid attention to the historical testimony on which they rest;
inasmuch as they are ascribed to an adequate cause, recommended by an
intrinsic dignity, and connected with an important object, while all others are
more or less unaccountable, unmeaning, extravagant, and useless. And thus, viz.
on the ground of this
In thus
refusinn to admit tlie existence of real exceptions to the general rule, in
spite of appearances, we are not exposing ourselves to that charge of excessive
systematizing which may justly be brought against those who, with Hume, reject
the very notion of a Miracle, as implying an interruption of physical
regularity. For the Revelation which we admit, on the authority of the
general
system of Miracles, imparts such accurate and extended information concerning
the attributes of God, over and above the partial and imperfect view of them
which the world affords, as precludes the supposition of any work of his being
evil or useless. Whereas there is no voice in the mere analogy of nature which
expressly denies the possibility ok* real exceptions to its general course.
utter
dissimilarity between the Miracles of Scripture and other prodigies, we are
enabled to account for the incredulity with which believers in llevelation
listen to any extraordinary account at the present day; and which sometimes is
urged against them a* inconsistent with their assent to the former. It is
because they admit the Scripture Miracles. Belief in these has pre-occupied
their minds, and created a fair presumption against those of a different
class;— the prospect of a recurrence of supernatm-al agency being in some
measure discountenanced by the llevelation already given; and, again, the
weakness and insipidity, the want of system and connexion, the deficiency in
the evidence, and the transient repute of marvellous stories ever since,
creating a strong and just prejudice against those similar accounts which from
time to time are noised abroad.
ON THE
CRITERION OF A MIRACLE, CONSIDERED AS A DIVINE INTERPOSITION.
It has
sometimes been asked, whether miracles are a sufficient evidence of the
interposition of the Deity? under the idea that other causes, besides divine
agency, might be assigned for their production. This is obviously the converse
objection to that wo have as yet considered, which was founded on the
assumption that they could be referred to no known cause whatever. After
showing, then, that the Scripture Miracles may be ascribed to the Supreme
Being, we proceed to show that they cannot reasonably he ascribed to those
other causes w'liich have been sometimes assigned, e.g. to unknown laws of
nature, or to the secret agency of Spirits.
1. Now it is evidently unphilosopliicrd to
attribute them to the j*ir»c!e« power of invisible Beings, short of God ; because,
independently of b). Scripture, (the truth of which, of course, must
not be assumed in be nftrr-'i this question,) we have no evidence of the
existence of such beings,
Nature
attests, indeed, the being of a God, but not of a race of intel- sPlr,ts-
ligent creatures between Him and Man. In assigning a Miracle, therefore, to the
influence of Spirits, an hypothetical cause is introduced merely to remove a
difficulty. And even did analogy lead us to admit their possible existence, yet
it would tend rather to disprove than to prove their power over the visible
creation. They may be confined to their own province, and though superior to
Man, still may be unable to do many things which he can effect; just as Man in
turn is superior to Birds and Fishes, without having, in consequence, the
power of flying or of inhabiting the water.'55
Still it
may be necessary to show, that on our own principles we are not open to any
charge of inconsistency. For it has been ques-
a Campbell,
On Miracles, Part II. Sec. 3. Farmer, Ch. II. Sec. 1.
I'venthough
tioned, whether, in admitting the existence and power of Spirits on
inform* us
the
authority of Revelation, we are not in danger of invalidating the
power!!'
evidence upon which that authority rests. For the cogency of the argument from
Miracles depends 011 the assumption, that interruptions in the course of
nature must ultimately proceed from God; which is not true, if they may be
effected by other Beings without his sanction. And it must be conceded, that
explicit as Scripture is in considering Miracles as signs of divine agency, it
still does seem to give created Spirits some power of working them ; and even,
in its most literal sense, intimates the possibility of their working them in
opposition to the true doctrine.66 With a view of meeting this
difficulty, some writers have attempted to make a distinction between great and
small, many and few Miracles; and have thus inadvertently destroyed the
intelligibility of any, as the criterion of a divine interposition.67
Others, by referring to the nature of the doctrine attested, for determining
the author of the Miracle, have exposed themselves to the plausible charge of
adducing, first, the Miracle to attest the divinity of the doctrine, and then,
the doctrine to prove the divinity of the Miracle.58 Others, on the
contrary, have thought themselves obliged to deny the power of Spirits
altogether, and to explain away the Scripture accounts of Demoniacal
possessions, and the narrative of our Lord’s Temptation.69 Without,
however, having recourse to any of these dangerous modes of answering the
objection, it may be sufficient to reply, that, since, agreeably to the
antecedent sentiment of reason, God has adopted Miracles as the seal of a
divine message, we believe he will never sutler
56 Deut. xiii. 1—3; Matt. xxiv. 24; 2
Tliess. ii. 9—11.
5? More or
less, Sherlock, Clarke, Locke, and others.
63 Prideaux,
Clarke, Chandler, &e., seem hardly to have guarded sufficiently against the
charge here noticed. There is an appearance of doing honour to the Christian
doctrines in representing them as intrinsically credible, which leads many into
supporting opinions which, carried to their Full extent, (as they were by
Middleton,) supersede the need of
Miracles
altogether. It must be recollected, too, that they who are allowed to praise
have the privilege of finding fault, and may reject, according to their d
jrriori notions, as well as receive.
Doubtless
the divinity of a clearly im
moral
doctrine could not be evidenced
by
Miracles; for our belief in the Moral attributes of God is much stronger than
our conviction of the negative proposi
tion, that
none but He can interfere with
the system
of nature. But there is always
tbe danger
of extending this admission
beyond its
proper limits, of supposing
ourselves
adequate judges of the tendency
of
doctrines, and, because unassisted
Keason
informs us what is Moral and
immoral in
our own case, of attempting to decide on the abstract Morality of actions :
e.g. many have rejected the Miraculous narrative of the Pentateuch, from an
unfounded and unwarrantable opinion* that the means employed in settling the
Jews in Canaan were in themselves immoral. These remarks are in nowise
inconsistent with using (as was done in a former section) our actual knowledge
of God’s attributes, obtained from a survey of nature and human affairs, in
determining the probability of certain professed Miracles having proceeded
from Him. it is one thing to infer from the experience of life, another to
imagine the character of God from the
fratuitous
conceptions of our own minds, ’rom experience we £ain but general and imperfect
ideas of wisdom, goodness, &c. enough (that is) to bear witness to a
Revelation when given, not enough to supersede it. On tne contrary, our speculations
concerning the divine attributes and designs, professing as they do to decide
on the truth of Revealed doctrines, in fact %o to supersede the necessity 01 a
Revelation altogether.
50
Especially Farmer.
them to be
so counterfeited as to deceive the humble inquirer. Thus the information given
by Scripture in nowise undoes the original conclusions of Reason; for it
anticipates the objection whieli itself famishes, and by revealing the express
intention of God in Miraculous displays, guarantees to us that he will allow
no interference of created power to embarrass the proof thence resulting, of
his special interposition.00 It is unnecessary to say more on this
subject; and questions concerning the existence, nature, and limits of
Spiritual agency will find their place when Christians are engaged in settling
among themselves the doctrines of Scripture. We take it, therefore, for
granted, as an obvious and almost undo- niable principle, that real Miracles,
i.e. interruptions in the course of nature, cannot reasonably be referred to
any power bat divine: because it is natural to refer an alteration in the
system to its original author, and because Reason does not inform us of any
other Being but God exterior to nature; and lastly, because in the particular
case of the Scripture Miracles, the workers of them confirm our previous
judgment by' expressly attributing them to Him.
2. A more subtle question remains, respecting
the possible existence of causes in nature, to us unknown, by the supposed
operation of which the apparent anomalies may be reconciled to the ordinary
laws of the system. It has already been admitted, that some difficulty will at
times attend the discrimination of Miraculous from, merely uncommon events; and
it must be borne in mind, that in this, as in all questions from which
demonstration is excluded, it is impossible, from the nature of the case,
absolutely to disprove any, even the wildest, hypothesis which may be framed.
It may freely be granted, moreover, that some of the Scripture Miracles, if they
stood alone, might reasonably be referred to natural principles of which we
were ignorant, or resolved into some happy combination of accidental
circumstances. For our purpose, it is quite sufficient if there be a
considerable number which no sober judgment would attempt to deprive of their
supernatural character, by any supposi tion of our ignorance of natural laws,
or of exaggeration in the narrative. Raising the dead and giving sight to the
blind by a word, feeding a multitude with the casual provisions which an
individual among them had with him, healing persons at a distance, and walking
on the water, are facts, even separately taken, far beyond the conceivable
effects of artifice or accident; and much more so, when they meet together in
one and the same history. And here Hume’s argument from general experience is
in point, which at least proves that tho ordinary powers of nature are unequal
to the production of works of this kind. It becomes, then, a balance of
opposite probabilities, whether gratuitously to suppose a multitude of
perfectly unknown causes, and these, moreover, meeting in one and the same
Nor to
unknown
laws of nature
eu
Fleetwood, On Miracles, Disc. 2, p. 201* Van Mildert’s Boyle Lectures, Serm.
21.
history,
or to have recourse to one, and that a knmon power, then Miraculously exerted
for an extraordinary and worthy object. We may safely say no sound reasoner
will hesitate on which alternative to decide. While, then, a fair proportion of
the Scripture Miracles are indisputably deserving of their name, but a weak
objection can he derived from the case of the few which, owing to accidental
circumstances, bear, at the present day, less decisive marks of .supernatural
agency. For, be it remembered, (and it is a strong con firmatory proof that the
Jewish and Christian Miracles are really what they profess to be,) that though
the Miraculous character of some of them is more doubtful in one Ago than in
another, yet the progress of Science has made no approximation to a general
explication of them on natural principles. While discoveries in Optics and
Chemistry have accounted for a host of apparent Miracles, they haruly touch
upon those of the Jewish and Christian systems. Here is no phantasmagoria to be
detected, no analysis or synthesis of substances, ignitions, explosions, and
other customary resources of the juggler’s art.'!1—But, as before,
we shall best be able to estimate their character in this respect, by
contrasting them with other occurrences which have soinet’mes been considered
Miraculous. Thus, too, a second line of difference will Le drawn between them
and the mass of rival prodigies, whether Religious or otherwise, to which they
aro often compared.
Tesit A Miracle, then, as far as it is an evidence of
divine interposition,
brvjeenreai
j)e;ng an .ascertained anomaly in un
established system, or an event Mirac™- without assignable physical cause,
those facts of course have no d“'iuce<t title to the name—
from the
definition of
the term. 1. WHICH MAY BE REFERRED TO MISSTATEMENT IX
THE NARRATION.
Naturai Such are many of the prodigies of the
Heathen Mythology and
mu'Itnted.
History, which have been satisfactorily traced to un exaggeration of •natural
events: e.g. the fables of the Cyclops, Centaurs, of the annual transformation of
a Scythian nation into wolves, as related by Ilerodotus, etc. Or natural facts
allegorized, as in the fable of Scyl!a and Charvbdis.—Or where the fact may be
explained by supplying a probable omission; as we should account for a story of
a man sailing in the air, by supposing a balloon described.*12—Or
where the Miracle is but verbal, as the poetical prodigy of thunder w ithout
clouds; which is little better than a play upon words, for, supposing it to
occur, it would not be called thunder.—Or as when Herodotus speaks of wool
growing on trees; for, even were it in substance the same as wool, it could not
be called so without a contradiction in terms.—Or where the Miracle is one
simply of degree, for then exaggeration is more easily conceivable;—thus many supposed
visions may have been but natural dreams.—Or
" -
See Farmer, Ch. I. See. 3.
G2 Benthara, Preuves Judiciaires, Liv. VIII. Ch. X.
where it
depends on the combination of a multitude of distinct circumstances, each of
which is necessary for the proof of its supernatural character, and where, as
in fine experiments, a small mistake is of vast consequence. As those which
depend on a coincidence of time, which it is difficult for any persons to have
ascertained ; e.g. the exclamation which Apollonius is said to have uttered
concerning the assassination of Domitianus at the time of its taking place; and
again, the alleged fact of his appearing at Puteoli on the same morning in
which he was tried at Rome. Such, too, in some degree is the professed revelation
made to St. Basil, who is said to have been Miraculously informed of the death
of the Emperor Julian at the very moment that it took place.63 Here
we may instance many stories of apparitions; as the popular one concerning the
appearance of an individual to the club he used to frequent at the moment after
his death, who was afterwards discovered to have escaped from his nurses in a
tit of delirium shortly before it took place, and actually to have joined his
friends. We may add the case related to M. Bonnet, of a woman who pretended to
know what was passing at a given time at any part of the globe; and who was
detected by the simple expedient of accurately marking the time, and comparing
her account w'ith the fact.114 In the same class must be reckoned
not a few of the answers of the Heathen Oracles, if it be worth while to allude
to them; as that which informed Croesus of his occupation at a certain time
agreed upon. In the Gospel, the nobleman’s son begins to amend at the very time
that Christ speaks the word; but this circumstance does not constitute, it
merely increases the Miracle.—The argument from Prophecy is in this point of
view somewhat deficient in simplicity and clearness; as implying the decision
of many previous questions, e.g. as to the existence of the professed
prediction before the event, the interval between the Prophecy and its
accomplishment, the completeness of its accomplishment, <tc. Hence Prophecy
aifords a more learned and less popular proof of divine interposition than
Physical Miracles, and, except in cases where it contributes a very strong
evidence, is commonly of inferior cogency.
2. THOSE WHICH FR01I SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
ATTENDING THEM MAY NOT UNFAIRLY BE REFERRED TO AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL CAUSE.
As those
which take place in departments of nature little under- Events stood, e.q.
Miracles of Electricitv. — Again, an assemblage of referable to
•» r.
\ /» i v p . t* • * an
unknown
Miracles
confined to one line ot extraordinary exertion in some caus» measure suggests
the idea of a cause short of divine. For while their number evinces a wish to
display, their similarity argues a defect in, power. This remark is prejudicial
to the Miracles of the primitive Church, which consisted almost entirely of
exorcisms and
63 lliddleto.i. Free Inquiry,
04 Bentiuirn, Preuves JuJiciaires, Liv. 1
III. Ch. X.
cures; to
the Pythagorom, which were principally Miracles of sagacity; and again, to the
wonders of the tomb of the Abbe Paris, which were limited to cures, and cures
too of particular diseases. While the Miracles of Scripture are frugally
dispensed as regards their object and seasons, they are endlessly varied in
their natrure; like the work of one who is not wasteful of his riches, yet can
be munificent when occasion calls for it.
Here we
may notice tentative Miracles, as Paley terms them, i.e. where out of many
trial* only some succeed; for inequality of success seems to imply accident, in
other words, the combination of unknown Physical causes. Such are the cures of
scrofula by the King's touch, and those effected in the Heathen Temples ;C5
and agaiu, those of the toiub of the Abbe Paris, there being but eight or nine
well authenticated cures out of the multitude of trials that were made.w
One of the peculiarities of the cures ascribed to Christ is his invariable
success.67
Hers, for
a second reason, dijfulence in the agetii casts suspicion on the reality of
professed Miracles ; for at least we have the sanction of his own opinion for
supposing them to be the effect of accident or unknown causes.
Temporary
Miracles also, as many of the Jansenists and other extraordinary cures,®1 may be
similarly accounted for; for if ordinary causes can undo, it is not improbable
they may be able originally to effect. The restoration of Lazarus and the rest
were restorations to their former condition, which was mortal; their subsequent
dissolution, then, in the course of nature, does not interfere with the
completeness of the previous Miracle.
The
Jansenist cures are also unsatisfactory, as being gradual,, and, for the same
reason, the professed liquefaction of St. Januar- ius’s blood; a,progressive
effect being a characteristic, as it seems, of the operations of nature. Hence,
those Miracles are most perspicuous which are wrought ot the word of command;
as those of Christ and his Apostles. Por this as well as other reasons, inamt-
plete Miracles, as imperfect cures, are no evidence of supernatural agency; and
here, again, we have to instance the cures effected at the tomb of the Abbe
Paris.
Again, the
use of means is suspicious ; for a Miracle may almost, be defined to be an
event icithout means. Hence, however miraculous the production of ice might
appear to the Siamese considered abstractedly, they would hardly so account it
in an actual experiment, when they saw the preparation of nitre, <fce.,
v,hieh in that climate must have been used for the purpose. In the case of the
Steam- vessel or the Balloon, which, it has been sometimes said, would
Stillingfleot,
Orig. Saer. Book II. Cl*. X. Sec. 9.
« Douglas,
Criterion, p. 133. ibid. p. 200, cites the following texts:
il»tt. i\. 23,24; viii. 16; ix. 35; xii. 15; xi\ 12: Luke iv. 40; \i.
19.
Douglas,
Criterion, p. 1110. Mid- ddton. Free Inquiry, I\ . Sec. 3.
appear
Miraculous to persons unacquainted with Science, the Chcmi cal and Mechanical
apparatus employed could not fail to rouse suspicion in intelligent
minds.—Hence professed Miracles are open to suspicion, if confined to one spot;
as were the Jansenist cures.
For they
then become connected with a necessary condition, which is all we understand by
a means: e.g. such may often be imputed to a confederacy, which (as is evident)
can from its nature seldom shift the scene of action. “ The Cock-lane ghost
could only knock and scratch in one place;”65 the Apostles, on the
contrary, are represented as dispersed about, and working Miracles in various
parts of the world.70 These remarks are of course inapplicable in a
case where the apparent means are known to be inadequate, and are not
constantly used; as our Lord’s occasional application of clay to the eyes,
which, while it proves that he did not need its instrumentality, convey also
an intimation, that all the efficacy of means is derived from his appointment.
3. THOSE WHICH MAY BE REFERRED TO THE
SUPPOSED OPERATION OF A CAUSE KNOWN TO EXIST.
Professed
Miracles of knowledge or mental ability are often unsatis- ETt.it: fectory for
this reason; being in many cases referable to the J^the1’' ordinary
powers of the intellect. Of this kind is the boasted elegance of the style of
the Koran, alleged by Mohammed in of s',- >w’n evidence of his divine
mission. Ilence most of the Miracles of <,a,IS<'• Apollonius,
consisting, as they do, in knowing the thoughts of others, and predicting the
common events of life, are no criterion of a supernatural gift; it being only
under certain circumstances that such power can clearly be discriminated from
the natural exercise of acuteness and sagacity. Accordingly, though a knowledge
of the hearts of men is claimed by Christ, it seems to be claimed rather with a
view to prove to Christians the doctrine of his divine nature, than to attest
to the world his authority as a messenger from God. Again, St. Paul’s
prediction of shipwreck on his voyage to Rome was intended to prevent it; and
so was the prediction of Agabus concerning the same Apostle’s approaching
perils at Jerusalem.” For a second reason, then, the argument from Prophecy is
a less simple and striking proof of divine agency than a display of Miracles ;
it being impossible in all cases to show that the things foretold were
certainly beyond the ordinary faculties of the mind to have discovered. Yet
when this is shown, Prophecy is one of the most powerful of conceivable
evidences; strict foreknowledge being a faculty not only above the powers but
even sbove the comprehension of the human mind.
And much
more fairly may apparent Miracles be attributed to the supposed operation of an
existing Physical cause, when they
69 Hey’s Lectures, Book I. Ch. XVI. Sec. 10.
70 Douglas, Criterion, p. 337. 71 Acts xxi. 10—14; xxvii. 10, 21.
are
parallel to its known efforts; as Chemical, Meteorological, <tc„ phenomena.
For though tlie cause may not perhaps appear in the particular case, vet it is
known to have acted in others similar to it. For this reason, 110 stress can be
laid on accounts of luminous crosses ;n the air, human shadows in
the clouds, appearances of men and horses on hills, and spectres when they are
speechless, as is commonly the case, ordinary causes being assignable in all of
these; or, again, on the pretended liquefaction of the blood of St. Jan-
uarius, or on the exorcism of demoniacs, which is the most frequent Miracle in
the primitive Church.—The remark applies moreover to eases of healing, so far
as they are not instantaneous, complete, ite.; conditions which exclude the
supposition of natural means being employed, and which are strictly fulfilled
in the Gospel narrative.—Again, some cures are known as possible effects of an
cxcitcd imagination; particularly when the disease arises from
obstruction and other disorders of the blood and spirits, as the cures which
took place at the tomb of the Abbe Paris.72 We should be required to
add those eases of healing in Scripture, w here the faith of tho
petitioners was a necessary condition of the cure, were not these comparatively
few, and some of them such as no imagination could have effected, [e.g. the
restoration of sight,) and some wrought on persons absent; and were not
faith often required, not of tbe patient, but of the relative or friend who
brought bam to be healed.” The force of imagination may el so bo alleged to
account for the supposed visions anil voices which some enthusiasts have
believed they saw and heard: e.g. the trances of Montanus and his
followers, the visions related by some of the Fathers, and those of the Romish
Saints; lastly, Mahomet’s pretended night-journey to Heaven: all which,
granting the sincerity of the reporters, may not unreasonably be referred to
the effects of disease or of an excited imagination. Such, it is obvious, might
be some of the Scripture Miracle*, e.g. the various appearances of
Angels to individuals, the vision of St. Paul when he was transported to the
third Heaven, <fec., which accordingly were wrought, as Scripture professes,
for purposes distinct from that of evidencing the doctrine, viz. in
order to become the medium of a Revelation, or to confirm faith, <tc. In
other cases, however, the supposition of imagination is excluded by the vision
having been witnessed by more than one person, as the Tiansfiguration; or by
its correspondence with distinct visions seen by others, as in the
circumstances which attended the conversion of Cornelius ; or by its connexion
with a permanent Miracle, as the appearance of Christ
12 Douglas, Criterion. p. 172. qnired, that none mi^ht be encouraged
to try
experiments cut of curiosity, in a
f* .Mark, x. 51, 52. Man. viii. 5--13. manner which wouM hate been
very in-
Ree
Douglas, Criterion, p. 258. “ \\ here decent, and have tended to many bad
persons
petitioned themselves fer a cure, consequences.” Doddridge on Acts ix.
a
declaration of their £aitli was oft?n re- 34.
to St.
Paul on his conversion, with the blindness in consequence, which remained three
days.7*
Much more
inconclusive are those which are actually attended by a Physical cause known or
suspected to be adequate to their production.
Some of
those who were cured at the tomb of the Abbe Paris were at the time making use
of the usual remedies; the person whose milamed eye was relieved was, during
his attendance at the sepulchre, under the care of an eminent oculist; another
was cured of a lameness in the knee by the mere etfort to kneel at the tomb.15
Arnobius challenges the Heathens to produce one of the pretended Miracles of
their Gods performed without the application of some prescription.78
Again, Ililariun’s cures of wounds, as mentioned by Jerome, were accompanied by
the application of consecrated oil.77 The Apostles indeed made use
of oil in some of their cures, but they more frequently healed without a medium
of any kind.78 A similar objection might be urged against the
narrative of Hezekiah’s recovery from sickness, both on account of the
application of the jigs and the slowness of the cure, were it anywhere stated
to have been Miraculous.79 Again, the dividing of the Red Sea, accompanied
as it was by a strong east wind, would not have been clearly Miraculous, had it
not been effected at the word of Moses. Much suspicion, too, is (as some think)
cast upon the miraculous nature of the fire, &c., which put a stop to
Julian’s attempt to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem, by the possibility of
referring it to the operation of Chcmical principles.—Lastly, answers to
prayer, however irrovidential are not Miraculous; for in granting them, God
acts by means of, not out of, his usual system, making the ordinary course of
things subservient to a gracious purpose. Such events, then, instead of
evidencing the divine approbation to a certain cause, must be proved from the
goodness of the cause to be what they are interpreted to be. Yet by supposed
answers to prayer, appeals to Heaven, pretended judgments, &e., enthusiasts
in most ages have wished to sanction their claims to divine inspiration. ISy
similar means the pretensions of the Romioh hierarchy have been supported.
Here we
close our remarks on the criterion of a Miracle; which, oi.serva- it has been
seen, is no one definite peculiarity, applicable to all cases, but the combined
force of a number of varying circumstances tests, determining our judgment iu
each particular instance. It might even he said, that a determinate criterion
is almost inconceivable. For when once settled, it might appear, as was above
remarked, to be merely the Physical antecedent of the extraordinary fact; while
on the other hand, from the direction thus given to the ingenuity of impostors,
it would soon itself need a criterion to distinguish it from
74 Paley’s
Evidences, Part I- Prop. 2. 77
.Middleton, Free Inquiry, IV. Sec. 3.
w 1
)ouglas, Criterion, p.. 143,18-4, A ote. 78
Mark vi. 13.
70 Stillingfleet, Book II. Ch. X. Sec. 9. ™ 2 ivinss xx. 4—7.
its
imitations. Certain it is, that the great variety of circumstances under which
the Christian Miracles were wrought, furnishes an evidence for their diriue
origin, in addition to that derived from their publicity, clearness, number,
instantaneous production, arid completeness. The exorcism of demoniacs,
however, has already been noticed as being, perhaps, in every ease deficient in
the proof of its Miraculous nature. Accordingly, this class of Miracles seems
not to have been intended as a primary evidence of a divine mission, but to be
addressed to those who already admitted the existence of Evil Spirits, in proof
of the power of Christ and his followers over them.*” To us, then, it is rather
a doctrine than an evidence, manifesting our Lord'spoirer, as other doctrines
instance his mcrcy.— With regard to the argument from Prophecy, which some have
been disposed to abandon on account of the number of conditions necessary for
the proof of its supernatural character, it should be remembered, that
inability to lix the exact boundary of natural sagacity is no objection to such
Prophecies as are undeniably beyond it; and that the mere inconclusiveness of
some in Scripture, as proofs of divine prescience, has no positive force against
others contained in it, which furnish a full, lasting, and in many cases,
growing evidence of its divinity.81
IV.
ON THE
DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR TIIE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES.
Important
as are the inquiries whieh we have hitherto prosecuted, it is obvious that they
do not lead to any positive conclusion, whether certain Miraculous accounts are
true or not. However necessary a direct anumaly in the course of nature may be
to rouse attention, and an important final cause to excite interest and
reverence, still the quality of the testimony on which the accounts rest can
alone determine our belie/ in them. The preliminary points, however, have been
principally dwelt upon, because objections founded on
eo See
Dir. Le?. Book IX. Ch. V. proof of divine
prescience, is very true:
Hence the
exercise of this gift seems but, unless
some kind of argument eoula
almost to
have been confined to Palestine, have been
drawn from them at the time
At
Philippi St. Paul casts out a spirit of the
Gospel was written, from traditional
divination
in self-defence. Acts xvi. 16’ interpretations
of their sense, we can
—IS. In
the transaction related Acts scarcely
account for St Matthew’s in-
xix. 11 —
17, Jews are principally con- troducmg
them. The question is, has
cerned. there been a loss of what was evidence
formerly,
(as is often the case,) or did
8i Some unbelievers have urged the St. Matthew bring forward as a Prophet-
irrelevancy
of St. Matthew’s citations ical evidence
what was manifestly not so,
from the
Old Testament Prophecies in as if
to hurt the effect of those other pas-
i(lustration
of the events of Christ’s life, sages, as
Ch. xxvii. 35, which have every
e.g. Ch.
ii. 15» It must be recollected, appearance
of being real predictions ?—
however,
that what is evidence in one It has
been observed, that Prophecy in
age is
often not so in another. That general
must be obscure, in order that the
certain of
the texts adduced by the events spoken
of may not be understood
Evangelist
furnish at the present day no before their
accomplishment.
them form
the strong ground of unbelievers, who seem in some degree to allow the strength
of the direct evidence for the Scripture Miracles. Again, an examination of the
direct evidence is less necessary here, because, though antecedent questions
have not been neglected by Christian writers,82 yet the evidence
itself, as might be expected, has chiefly engaged their attention.83
Without entering, then, into a minute consideration of the facts and arguments
on which the credibility of the Sacred History rests, we proceed to contrast
the evidence generally with that produced for other Miraculous narratives; and
thus to complete a comparison which has been already instituted, as regards the
antecedent probability and the criterion of Miracles.
For the
present, then, we forego the advantage which the Scrip- The ture Miracles have
gained in the preceding sections over all professed facts of a similar nature.
In reality, indeed, the very same evidence hmre far which would suffice to
prove the former, might be inadequate when evidence in offered in behalf of
those of the Eclectic School or the Romish 'jj™' Church. For the Miracles of
Scripture, and no other, are unexcep- Protessi-d tionable and worthy of a
divine agent; and Bishop Butler has thoujtftky clearly shown, that, in a
practical question, as the divinity of a d“"?' professed
Revelation must be considered, even the weakest reasons evidence are decisive
when not counteracted by any opposite arguments.84 strong. Whatever
evidence, then, is offered for them is entirely available to the proof of their
actual occurrence; whereas evidence for the truth of other similar accounts,
supposing it to exist, would be first, employed in overcoming the objections
which attach to them all from their very character, circumstances, or object.
If, however, we show that the Miracles of Scripture as far surpass ail others
in their direct evidence, as they excel them in their a priori probability, a
much stronger case will be made out in their favour, and an additional line of distinction
drawn between them and others.
The
credibility of Testimony arises from the belief we entertain what kind of the
character and competency of the witnesses; and this is true, °sfto
b™*"7 not only in the ease of Miracles, but when facts of any
kind are r°r
examined
into. It is obvious, that we should be induced to distrust '
the most
natural and plausible statement when made bv an individual whom we suspected
of a wish to deceive, or of relating facts which he had no sufficient means of
knowing. Or if we credited his narrative, we should do so, not from dependence
on the reporter, but from its intrinsic likelihood, or from circumstantial
evidence.
82 Especially by Vince, in his valuable
strong evidence that they really occurred.
Treatise
On the Christian Miracles; and This was noticed above, when the ante- Hey, in
his Lectures. cedent probability of
Miracles was dis-
83 As Paley, Lyttleton, Leslie, &c. cussed. That it is unsatisfactory to des*
The only fair objection that can be cide on scanty evidence is no objection,
made to
this statement is, that it is ante- as
in other most important practical
c^dently
improbable that the Almighty questions
we are constantly obliged to should work Miracles with a view to make up our
minds and determine our general conviction, without furnishing course of action
on insufficient evidence.
In tlie
case of ardinary facts, therefore, we tliink it needless, as indeed it would be
endless, to inquire rigidly into the credibility of the Testimony by which they
are conveyed to us, because they in a manner speak for themselves. When,
however, the information is unexpected, or extraordinary, or improbable, our
only means of determining its truth is by considering the credit due to the witnesses
; and then, of course, we exercise that right of scrutiny which we before
indeed possessed, but did not think it worth while, to claim. A Miracle, then,
calls for no distinct species of Testimony from that offered for other events,
but fur a Testimony strong in proportion to tho improbability of the particular
fact attested; and it is as impossible to draw any line, or to determine hvw
much is required, as to detine the quantity and quality of evidence necessary
to prove tho occurrence of an earthquake, or the appearance of any meteoric
phenomenon. Every thing depends on those attendant circumstances, of which we
have already spoken, the object of the Miracle, the occasion, manner, and human
agent employed. If, e.g. a Miracle were said to be wrought for an immoral
object, then of course the fact would rest on the credibility of the Testimony
alone, and would challenge the most rigid examination. Again, if the object be
highly interesting to us, as that professed by the Scripture Miracles, we shall
naturally be careful in our inquiry, from an anxious fear of being deceived.
But in any case the Testimony cannot turn out to he more than that of
competent and honest men; and an inquiry must not be prosecuted under the idea
of finding something beyond this, but to obtain proofs of this. And since the
existence of competency anil honesty may be established in various ways, it
follows that the credibility of a given story may be proved by distinct
considerations, each of which, separately taken, might be sufficient for the
purpose. It is obvious, moreover, as indeed is implied by the very nature of
Moral evidence, that the proof of its credibility may be weaker or stronger,
and yet in both cases be a pruuf; and, hence, that no limit can be put to the
conceivable accumulation of evidence in its behalf. Provided, then, the
existing evidence be sufficient to produce a rational conviction, it is nothing
to the purpose to urge, as has sometimes been alleged against the Scripture
Miracles, that the extraordinary facts might have been proved by different or
more overpowering evidence. It has been said, for instance, that no Testimony
can fairly be trusted which has not passed the ordeal of a legal examination.
Yet, calculated as that mode of examination undoubtedly is to elicit truth,
surely Truth may be elicited by other ways also. Independent and circumstantial
writers may confirm a fact as satisfactorily as witnesses in Court. They may
be questioned and crnss-questioncd, and, moreover, brought up for
re-examination in any succeeding Age; whereas, however great may be the talents
and experience of the individuals who conducted the legal investigation, vet
when they
have once
closed it and given in their verdict, we believe upon their credit, and we have
no means of examining for ourselves. To say, however, that this kind of
evidence might have Leen added to the other, in the case of the Christian
Miracles,85 is merely to assert that the proof of the credibility of
Scripture might have been stronger than it is; which we have already allowed it
might have been, without assignable limit.
The
credibility, then, of a Testimony depending on the evidence of honesty and
competency in those who give it, it is prejudicial to their character for
honesty,—
1. If desire of gain, power, or other
temporal advantage may be Tests imputed to them. This would detract materially
from tho authority thLahones°ty of l’liilostratus, even supposing
him to have been in a situation for ascertaining the truth of his on n
narrative; as he professes to
write his
account of Apollonius at the instance of his patroness, the Empress Julia, who
is known to have favoured the Eclectic cause.
Again, the
account of the Miracle performed on the door-keeper at the cathedral at
Saragossa, on which Ilume insists, rests principally upon the credit of the
Canons, whose interest was concerned in its establishment. This remark, indeed,
obviously applies to the Romish Miracles generally. The Christian Miracles, on
the contrary, were attested by the Apostles, not only without the prospect of
assignable worldly advantage, but with the certainty and after the experience
of actual suffering.
2. When there is room for suspecting party
spirit or rivalry; as Party spirit, in the Miraculous biographies of the
Eclectic philosophers ; in those
of Loyola
and other Saints of the rival orders in the Romish Church; and in the present
Mohammedan accounts of the Miraclcs of Mohammed, which, not to mention other
objections to them, are composed with an evident design of rivalling those of
Christ.M
3. Again, a tale once told maybe persisted in
from shame of shame. retracting, after the motives which first gave rise to it
have ceased
to act,
even at the risk of suffering. This remark cannot apply to the case of the
Apostles, until some reason is assigned for their getting up their Miraculous
story in the first instance. If necessary, however, it could be brought with
force against any argument drawn from the perseverance of the witnesses for the
cures professedly wrought by Vespasiauus, “ postquam nullum mendacio pretium;”
for, as they did not suffer for persisting in their story, had they retracted
they would have gratuitously confessed their own want of principle.
4. A previous character for falsehood is
almost fatal to the credi- character bility of a witness of an extraordinary
narrative, e.g. the notorious fa\r5ehood_
85 Some of our Saviour’s Miracles, however, were
subjected to judicial examination. See John v. and ix. In v. 16 the measures
of the Pharisees are described by the technical word _
86 See Professor Lee’s Persian Tracts, p.
446, 447.
Marks of
unfairness.
Facilities
fur
dishonesty.
Tests of c
imp-tency of
witnesses,—
from the
cir* cumstances
of the
Cu.->t
:
insincerity
and frauds of the. Church of Rome in other things, are in themselves enough to
throw a strong suspicion on its Testimony to its own Miracles. The primitive
Church is in some degree open to a charge of a similar nature.87 Or
an intimacy with suspicious characters, e.g. Prince Hohenlobc’s connexion with
the Romish Church, and that of Philostratus with the Eclectics, since both the
Eclectic and Romish Schools have countenanced the practice of what are called
pious frauds.
5. Inconsistencies or%prei'arimtiom in the
Testimony, marls of unfairness, exaggeration, suppression of particulars,
<('c. Of ail these we convicted Philostratus, whose memoir forms a
remarkable contrast to the artless and candid narratives of the Evangelists.
The Books of the New Testament, containing as they do separate accounts of tho
same transactions, admit of a minute cross-examination, which terminates so
decidedly in favour of their fidelity, as to recommend then) highly on the
score of honesty, even independently of the known sufferings of the writers.
0. Lastly, wirnesses may be objected to who
have the opportunity of being dishonest; as those who write at a distance from
the time and place of the professed Miracle, or without mentioning particulars,
«.tc. But on these points we shall speak immediately in a different connexion.
Secondly,
witnesses must be, not only honest, but competent also, i.e. such as have
asceiiained the facts which they attest, or who report after examination. Here
then we notice,
1. Deficiency of examination implied in the
ci.rcumstances of the case. As when it is first published in an age or country
remote from the professed time and scene of action; for in that case room is
given to suspect failure of memory, imperfect information, itc.; whereas to
write in the presence of those who know the circumstances of the transactions,
is an appeal which increases the force of the Testimony by associating them in
it. Accounts, however, whether Miraculous or otherwise, possess very little
intrinsic authority, when written so far from the time or place of the
transactions recorded, as the Biographies of Pythagoras, Apollonius, Gregory
Thaumaturgus, Mohammed, Loyola, or Xavier.® The opposite circumstances of the
Christian Testimony have often been pointed out. Here we may particularly
notice the providential dispersion of the Jews over the Homan Empire before the
Age of Christ; by which means the Apostle’s Testimony was given in Heathen countries,
as well as in Palestine, in the face of those who had both the will and the
power to contradict it if inct rreet.
While tho
Testimony of contemporaries is necessary to guarantee the truth of ordinary
History, Miracles require the Testimony of eye-witnesses. Tor ordinary events
are believed iii part from their
87 TToy, Lectures, Book I. Ch. XII. Sec. 15.
88 Pafey, Evidences, Part i. Prop. 2.
being
natural, but Testimony being the main support of a Miraculous narrative must in
that case be the best of its kind. Again, we may require the Testimony to be
circumstantial in reference to dates, places, persons, <fcc.' for the
absence of these secni3 to imply an imperfect knowledge, ar.J at least gives
less opportunity of inquiry to those who wish to ascertain its fidelity.89
Miracles
which are not lasting do not admit of adequate examination ; as visions,
extraordinary voices, &c. The cure of diseases, on the other hand, is a
permanent evidence of a divine interposition; particularly such cures of bodily
imperfections as are undeniably Miraculous in their nature, as well as
permanent; to these, then, our Lord especially appeals in evidence of his
divine mission.80 Lastly, statements are unsatisfactory in which the
Miracle is described as wrought before a very few; for room !s allowed for
suspecting mistake, or an understanding between the witnesses. Or, on the other
hand, those wrought in a confused crowd; such are many standing Miracles of the
Romanists, which are exhibited with the accompaniment of imposing pageants, or
on a stage, or at a distance, or in the midst of candles and incense. Our
Saviour, on the contrary, bids the lepers he had cleansed show themselves to
the Priests, and make the customary offering as a memorial of their cures.91
And when he appeared to the Apostles after his Resurrection, he allowed them
to eocamine his hands and feet.92 Those of the Scripture Miracles
which were wrought before few, or in a crowd, were permanent; as cures,ps
and the raiding of Jairus’s daughter; or were of so vast a nature, that a crowd
could not prevent the witnesses from ascertaining the fact, as the standing
still of the Sun at the word of Joshua.
2. Deficiency of examination implied in the
character, etc., of the From the witnesses: e.g. if there be any suspicion of
their derangement, or i! tkewft" ** there be an evident defect in bodily
or mental faculties which are nesses, necessary for examining the Miracle, as
when the intellect or senses are impaired. Number in the witnesses refutes
charges of this Deransa. nature; for it is not conceivable that many should be
deranged or nient' mistaken at once,
and in the same way.
Enthusiasm,
ignorance, or habitual credulity, are defects which no Enthusiasm, number of
witnesses removes. The Janseriist Miracles took place or CIt in the
most ignorant and superstitious district of Paris.94 Alexander
Pseudomantis practised his arts among the Paphlagonians, a barbarous people.
Popish Miracles and the juggles of the Heathen Priests have been most
successful in times of ignorance.
Yet while
we reasonably object to gross ignorance or besotted credulity in witnesses for
a Miraculous story, we must guard against
89 The vagueness of the accounts of P1 Luke v. 14; xvii. 14.
Miraculous
interpositions related by the 92 Luke
xxiv. 39 40 Fathers is pointed out by Middleton. , ... *'* ’ *
inFree
Inquiry, if p. 22.) “ Mark
»-*•
90 Matt. xi. 5. 64 The Fauxbourg St. Marcel. Less.
Whether
the Testimony of educated men is necessary.
the
opposite extreme of requiring the Testimony of men of Science and general
knowledge. Men of Philosophical minds are often too fond uf inquiring into the
causes and mutual dependence of events, of arranging, theorizing, and refining,
to be accurate and straightforward in their account of extraordinary
occurrences. Instead of giving a plain statement of facts, they arc insensibly
led to correct the evidence of their senses with a view to account for the
phenomenon; as Chinese painters, who. instead of drawing iti perspective, give
lights and shadows their supposed meaning, and depict tho prospect as they
think it should be, not as it is.w As Miracles differ from
other events only when considered rdativdy to a general system, it is obvious
that the same persons are competent to attest Miraculous facts who are suitable
witnesses of corresponding natural ones. If a peasant’s Testimony ho admitted
to the phenomenon of meteoric stones, lie may evidence the fact of an unusual
and unaccountable, darl.ness. A Physician’s certificate is not needed to assure
us of the illness of a friend ; nor is it necessary to attest the simple fact
that lie has instantaneously recovered. It is important to hear this in mind,
for some writers argue as if there were something intrinsically defective iu
the Testimony given by ignorant persons to Miraculous occurrences.00
To say, that unlearned persons are not judges of the fact of a Miraculous
event, is only so far true as all Testimony is fallible and liable to be
distorted by prejudice. Every one, not only superstitious persons, is apt to
interpret facts his own way. If the superstitious see too many prodigies, men
of Science may see too few. Tho facility with which the Japanese ascribed the
ascent of a balloon, which they witnessed at St. Petersburgh, to the powers of
Magic, (a circumstance which has been sometimes urged against the admission of
unlearned Testimony,'’7) is only the conduct of theorists accounting
for a novel phenomenon 011 the principles of their own system.
It may be
said, that ignorance prevents a witness from discriminating between natural
and supernatural events, and thus weakens the authority of hi & judgment
loncerning the Miraculous nature of a fact. It. is true; but if the faet he
recorded, v:e may judge for ourselves on that point. Yet it may be safely said,
that not even before persons in the lowest state of ignorance could any great
variety of professed Miracles be displayed without their distinguishing
rightly on the whole between the effects of nature and those of a power
exterior to it; though in particular instances they doubtless mi ;ht he
mistaken. Much more would this be the case with the lower ranks of a civilized
people. Practical intelligence is insensibly diffused from class to class; if
the upper ranks are educated,
05 It is well known, that, those persons Ilunie on Miracles. Part II. Rea-
are
accounted tile best transcribers of son
1.
MSS. who
are ignorant of the language
transcribed;
the habit of torrecHng being t
Bi-nrham, Preuves Ju'lioiaires, Liv.
anau»t
inToi'antwy in men of letters. VIII. Cii.
II.
numbers
besides them, without any formal and systematic knowledge, almost
instinctively discriminate between natural and supernatural events. Here
Science has little advantage over common sense; a peasant is quite as certain
that a resurrection from the dead is Miraculous as the most able physiologist.58
The
original witnesses of our Saviour’s Miracles were very far chsrarfer of from a
dull or ignorant race. The inhabitants of a maritime and witnSs of border
country, as Galilee was, engaged, moreover, in commerce, <?,fri|lti
composed of natives of various countries, and, therefore, from tbe miracles
nature of the case acquainted with more than one language, have necessarily
their intellects sharpened and their minds considerably enlarged, and are of
ail men least disposed to acquiesce in marvellous tales." Such a people
must have examined before they suffered themselves to be excited in the degree
the Evangelists describe.100 But even supposing that those among
them who were in consequence * convinced of the divine mission of Christ, were
of a more superstitious turn of mind than tbs rest, still this is not sufficient
to account for their conviction For superstition, while it might facilitate the
bare admission of Miraculous events, would at the same time weaken their
pmdical influence. Miracles ceasing to be accounted strange, would cease to be
striking also. Whereas the conviction wrought in the minds of these men was no
bare and indolent assent to facts which they might have thought antecedently
probable or not improbable, but a conversion in principles and mode 01 life,
aud a consequent sacrifice of all that nature holds dear, to which none would
submit except after tbe fullest examination of the authority enjoining it. If
additional evidence be required, appeal may be made to the mulfitude
of Gentiles iu Greece and Asia, in whose principles and mode of living, belief
in the Miracles made a change even more striking and complete than was effected
in the case of tlie Jews.
In a word,
then, the conversion which Christ and his Apostles effected invalidates the
charge of blind credulity in the witnesses; the practical nature of tlie belief
produced proving that it was founded on an examination of the Miracles.
Again, it
weakens the authority of the witnesses, if their belief influence or can be
shown to have been promoted by the influence of superiors; suPerior5’
for then they virtually cease to be themselves witnesses, and report
09 It has been observed, that more deavoured to interest in Miraculous
suitable^
witnesses could not be selected stories
of relics, &c., by formal accounts
of tbe
fact of a Miraculous draught of and
certificates of the cures wrought by
fishes
than the fishermen of the lake them. See
Middleton, p. 138, The stir,
wherein it
took place. then, which the
Miracles of Christ made
99 Sop
Oniicput in Galilee
implies, that they were not
teee ^ess’
uPusclU* received
with an indolent belief. It must
If, on the
other hand, we would see be noticed,
moreover, in opposition to
with how
unmoved an unconcern men the
statement of some unbelievers, that
receive
accounts of Miracles, when they great
numbers of the Jews were converted.
believe
them to be events of every-day Acts
ii. 41 \ iv. 4; v. 13,14; vi. 7; ix. 35;
occurrence,
we may turn to the conduct xv. 5; xxi.
20. On this subject, see
of the
African Christians in the Age of Jenkin,
On the Christian Religion, Vol.
Austin,
whom that Father in vain en- II.
Ch. XXXII.
Miracles w
rought in support tif an
r»tn hit
shcrf Ucligion.
No
Miracles but tlioso recorded In Scripture have introduced a Keligion.
the farts
on tiie authority (as it were) of their patrons. It is observable. that the
national conversions of the middle Ages generally began with the Princes and
descended to their subjects; those of the Apostolic Age obviously proceeded in
the reverse order.’01
It is
almost fatal to the validity of the Testimony, if the Miracle attested
coincides with a previous system, or supports a came already embraced by the
witnesses. .Men are always ready to believe what flatters their own opinions,
and of all prepossessions those of Religion are the strongest. Thqre is so much
in the principle of all Iieligion that is true and good, so much conformable to
the best feelings of our nature, which perceives itself to be weak and guilty,
and looks out for an unseen and superior being for guidance and support; ar.d
the particular worship in which each individual is brought up, is so
familiarized to him by habit, so endeared to his affections by the associations
of place and the recollections of past years, so connected too with the
ordinary transactions and most interesting events of life, that even should
that form be irrational and degrading, still it will in most cases preserve a
strong influence over his mind, and dispose him to credit upon slight
examination any arguments adduced :n its defence. Hence nn account
of Miracles in confirmation of their own Religion will always be favourably
received by men whose creed has already led them to expect such interpositions
<if superior beings. This consideration invalidates at once the testimony
commonly offered for Pagan and Popish Miracles, and in no small degree that for
the Miracles of the primitive Church. The professed cures of Vespasianus were
performed in honour of Serapis in the midst of his worshippers; and the people
of Saragossa, who attested the miracle wrought in the case of the door-keeper
of the Cathedral, had previous faith in the virtues of holy oil.1®
Here the
evidence for the Scripture Miracles is unique. In other cases the previous
system has supported the Miracles, but here the Miracles introduced and upheld
the system. The Christian Miracles in particular1"3
were received on their own merits; and the admission of them became the
turning point in the creed and life of the witnesses, which thenceforth took a
new and altogether different direction. But, moreover, as if their own belief
in them were not enough, the Apostles went out of their way to debar any one
from the Christian Church who did not believe them as well as them-
1 —
Mnsfeeim, Eocl. Hist- Cent VI. VIII. IX.
*02 It has
been noticed as a suspicious circumstance in the testimony to the reported
Miracle wrought in the case of the Confessors in the pereeeutionof the Arian
Hnnneric, that Victor Vitcnsis, one of the principal witnesses, though
writing in
Africa when it professedly took place, and where the individuals thus
distinguished were then living, yet refers only to one of them, who was then
living at
the Athanasian Court at Constantinople, and held in particular honour by Zeno
and the Km press.—“If any one doubt the fact, let him go to Constantinople.”
See the whole evidence in Milner’s Church History, Cent. V. Ch. XI.; who,
however, strongly defends the jNIiracle. Gibbon pretends to do the same, with a
view to provide a rival to the Gospel Miracles.
,0* Not to
mention those of Moses and Elijah.
selves.'01
Not content that men should be converted on any ground, they fearlessly
challenged refutation, hv excluding from their fellowship of suffering any who
did not formally assent as a necessary condition of admittance and first
article of faith, to one of the most stupendous of all the Miracles, their
Master’s Resurrection from the dead ;—a procedure this, which at once evinces
their own unqualified conviction of the fact, and associates, too, all their
converts with them as believers in a Miracle contemporary with themselves. Nor
is this all—a Religious creed necessarily prejudices the mind against admitting
tho Miracles of hostile Sects, in the very same proportion in which it leads it
to acquiesce in such as support its own dogmas.105 The Christian
Miracles, then, have the strongest of conceivable attestations, in the
conversion of many who at first were prejudiced against them, and in the
extorted confession of enemies, who, by the embarrassment which the admission
occasioned them, showed at least that they had not made it till after a full
and accurate investigation of the extraordinary facts.
It has
been sometimes objected, that the minds of the first con- whethertiie verts
might be wrought upon by the doctrine of a future state which *
the Apostles
preached, and be thus persuaded to admit the Miracles a»<i not *he
without a rigorous examination.108 But, as Palev well replies, evi-
induced the dence of the truth of the promise would still be necessary;
especially y^uto' as men ratner demand than dispense with proof when some great
embrace and unexpected good is reported to them. Yet it is more than Cbrl!st'anl,J'
doubtful, whether the promise of a future life would excite this interest: for
the desire of immortality, though a natural, is no permanent or powerful
feeling, and furnishes no principle of action Most men, even in a Christian
country, are too well satisfied with this world to look forward to another with
any great and settled anxiety. Supposing immortality to be a good, it is one
too distant to warm or influence. Much less ore they disposed to sacrifice
present comfort, and strip themselves of former opinions and habits, for the
mere contingency of future happiness. The hope of another life, grateful as it
is under affliction, will not induce a man to rush into affliction for the sake
of it. The inconvenience of a severe complaint is not outbalanced by the
pleasure of a remedy. On the other hand, though we know gratuitous declarations
of coming judgments and divine wrath may, for a time, frighten weak minds, they
will neither have effect upon strong ones, nor produce a permanent, and
consistent effect upon any. Persons who are thus wrought upon in the present
day, believe the denunciations because they aro in Scripture, not Christianity because
it contains them. The authority of Revealed Religion is taken for granted both
by the preachcr and his hearers.
On the
whole, then, it seems inconceivable, that the promise or threat of a future
life should have supplied the place of previous
IM Campbell
on Miracles, Pi.rt II. 105 Campbell on Miracles, Fart I. Sec. 4.
See. 1. 106 Gibbon
particularly, Ch. XY.
Love of
the marvellous.
Observations
on the foregoing testa
View of
the
complete
evidence for the Scripture Miracles.
belief in
Christianity, or have led the witnesses to admit the Miracles 011 a slight
examination.
Lastly,
love of the marvellous, of novelty, <('c., may be mentioned as a principle
influencing the mind to acquiesce in professed Miracles without full
examination. Yet such feelings are more adapted to exaggerate and circulate a
story than to invent it.. We c,\u trace their inlluenee very elcarly in the
instances of Apollonius and the Abbe Paris, both of whom had excited attention
by their eccentricities before they gained reputation for extraordinary power.1"7
Such principles, moreover, are not in general practical, and have little power
to sustain the mind under continued opposition and sutFering.1"6
These are
some of the obvious points which will oome into consideration in deciding upon
the authority of Testimony offered for Miracles; and they enable us at once to
discriminate the Christian story from all others which have been set up against
it. With a view of simplifying the argument, the evidence for the Jewish Mir
aeles has been left out of the question;lw because, though strong
and satisfactory, it is not at the present day so directly conclusive as that
on «hich the Christian rest. Nor is it necessary, we eon- eeive, to bring
evidence for more than a fair proportion of the Miracles; supposing, that is,
those which remain unproved are shown to be similar to them, and indissolubly
connected with the same system. It may be even said, that if the single fact of
the Resurrection be established, quite enough will have been proved for
believing all the Miracles of Scripturc.
Of course,
however, the argument becomes far stronger when it is shown that there is
evidence for the great bulk of the Miracles, though not equally strong for some
as for others; and that the Jewish, sanctioned as tiiey are by the New
Testament, may also be established on distinct and peculiar grounds. Nor let it
be forgotten, that the Christian story itself is supported, over and above the
evidence that might fairly be- required for it, by several bodies of Testimony
quite independent of each other.110 By separate pro-
107 See
above, the memoir of Apollonius.—Of the Abbe, Mosheim says, “ Diem vise
obicrat, voluntaries cruciati- bus et pcenis exhaustus, mirabilis iste
homo, quum immensa hominum multitudo ad ejus corpus conjiuerct; quorum alii
pedes ejus osculabantur, alii partem capillorum abscindebajtty quam
sancti ioeo piffnoris ad mala qucevis avcrruncanda servarent, alii libros
et tinted quce attulerant> cada- veri admorebant quod virtute quadam
divina plenum esse putabant. Etstatim vis ilia mirijica, quh omne,
gxod in terrll hdc reliquitijprceditum esse fertur, appa- rebat,” fyc
Inquisit. in vent. Miraculor. F. de Paris, Sec. 1.
ice Paley, Evidences, Part I. Prop. 2. 10& The
truth of the Mosaic narrative is proved from the genuineness of the Pentateuch,
as written to contemporaries and eye-witnesses of the Miracles; from the
predictions contained in the Pentateuch; from the very existence of the Jewish
system, (Sumner’s Records;) and from the declarations of the New Testament
writers. The Miracles of Elijah and Elisha are proved to us by the authority of
the Books in which they are related, ana by means of the New Testament.
i10
The fact of the Christian Miracles may be proved, first, by the sufferings aud
consistent story of the original wit-
cesses of
reasoning it may be shown, that if Christianity was established without
Miracles, it was, to say the least, an altogether singular and unique event in
the history of mankind: and the extreme improbability of so many distinct and
striking peculiarities uniting (as it were) by chance in one and the same case,
raises the proof of its divine origin to a moral certainty. In short, it is
only by being made unnatural that the Christian narrative can be deprived of a
supernatural character; and we may safely affirm, that the strongest evidence
wo possess for the most certain facts of other history, is weak compared to
that on which we believe that the first preachers of the Gospel were gifted
with Miraculous powers.
And thus a
case is established so strong, that even were there Crion of an antecedent
improbability in the facts attested, in most judgments it would be sufficient
to overcome it. On the contrary, we have cedjnt pro- already shewn their
intrinsic character to be exactly such as our bdblllti' previous
knowledge of the divine attributes and government would ’ead us to expect in
works ascribed to him. Their grandeur, beauty, and consistency; the clear and
unequivocal marks they bear of superhuman agency; the importance and
desirableness of the object they propose to effect, arc in correspondence to
the variety and force of the evidence itself.
Such,
then, is the contrast they present to all other' professed Conclusion.
Miracles, from those of Apollonius downwards—which have all been shown, more or
less, to be improbable from the circumstances of the case; inconclusive when
considered as marks of divine interference: and quite destitute of good
evidence for their having really occurred.
Lastly, it
must be observed, that the proof derived from interruptions in the course of
nature, though a principal, is yet but one out of many proofs on which the
cause of Revealed Religion rests; and that even supposing (for the sake of
argument) it were altogether inconclusive at the present day, still the other
evidences,115 as they are called, would be fully equal to prove to
us the divine origin of Christianity.
nesses;
secondly, from the actual con- absolutely presupposes the genuineness of
.version of large bodies of men in the Age the Scripture narrative, though the
force in which they are said to have been of the whole is much increased when
it wrought; thirdly, from the institution, is proved.
at the
time, of a day commemorative of 111 Such as, the system of doctrine,
the Resurrection, which has been ob- marks of design, gradual disclosure of
served ever since; fourthly, by collateral unknown truths, &c., connecting
to- considerations, such as the tacit assent gether the whole Bible as the work
of given to the< Miracles by the adversaries one
mind:—Prophecy;—the character of ot' Christianity, the Kclectic imitations of
Christ:—the Morality of the Gospel:— them, and the pretensions to Miraculous
the wisdom ot' its doctrines, displaying at power in the primitive Church.
These once knowledge of the human neart and are distinct arguments, no one of
them skill in engaging its affections, &c.