Chapter III: A third, and still more alarming danger of the Christian church, (1)

in the sudden rise and propagation of the Mahometan religion.

For it was the corruption of Christianity, that gave occasion, or success, at least, to this daring imposture. And now it might seem, that _the gates of hell_ were set wide open, and destruction ready to rush upon, and seize, its defenceless prey, the Christian church, disheartened and disabled by its own vices. The uncontroulable spirit of this ruthless sect was, indeed, alarming to the last degree; when a secret providence, first, softened its ferocity, and, then, put a stop to its successes.

I ascribe these effects to the _good providence of God_, watching over the preservation of our holy faith; for what else could make the disciples of Mahomet tolerant in spite of their ignorance and bigotry; and pacific, when their law breathed nothing but war and universal dominion?

Still the church had other trials to undergo; and _hell_ had yet in reserve some further engines of its wrath to employ against her. For

IV. While the African and Asiatic Christians were in danger of a total suppression by the rage of their Ottoman masters, the European had almost as much to apprehend from exhaustless swarms of Northern barbarians. And, what darkened the prospect still more, all knowledge and learning had disappeared, during these turbulent ages. Hence, to the destructive fanaticism of the East, was added the grossest _superstition_ of the West; which, growing up in a long night of ignorance, and yet directed by policy towards the establishment of a vast and gloomy empire, involved all Christendom in its pestilential shade, and threatened the very extinction of all true religion.

Yet it pleased God, in this distressful state of his church, to provide for its continuance, and even integrity, in due time, by making the cloystered ignorance of the Monks serve to the preservation of the sacred canon; and the enslaving projects of a tyrannical hierarchy, to the restoration of religious and civil liberty.

And thus, though the powers of _hell_ had been successively let loose against the church of Christ in the terrible shapes, first, of Jewish and Gentile persecution; then, of heresy, in the church itself; next, of Mahometan enthusiasm; and, lastly, of Antichristian superstition; yet have they not prevailed against this sacred structure, founded on a _rock_, guarded, as we believe, by heaven itself, and therefore destined to be eternal.

I have touched these several particulars slightly and rapidly, just to put you in mind of what the Christian religion has endured, since its appearance in the world; and to let you see how unlikely it is that this religion should have kept its ground against these various and multiplied attacks, if it had not been divinely protected.

But of all the trials, to which it has been exposed, the greatest by far, if this religion had been an imposture, is ONE, which I have not yet mentioned; and that is, _the examination of severe, enlightened Reason_.

And this trial, to complete its honour, our divine faith hath TWICE undergone: _once_, in the very season of its birth; and now, _again_, for two or three centuries, since the revival of letters, in our Western world: periods, both of them, distinguished, in the annals of mankind, by a more than common degree of light and knowledge; which must, in the nature of things, have been fatal to any scheme of religion, pretending only to a divine original, and not really so descended.

But this part of the argument is too large, as well as too important, for me to enter upon at present. Let me therefore conclude with a short and interesting reflexion on so much of it, as we have been considering.

It was natural, no doubt, for the author of a new religion, full of his scheme, and impressed with the importance of it, to promise to himself the perpetuity of his work. But a wise man might easily conjecture that a religion, like the Christian, would meet with the fiercest opposition: and, though this be not a proper time to shew it, it might be shewn, that _the spirit of Christ_[293] distinctly foresaw the several species of opposition, which his religion had to encounter[294].

Yet, in the face of all these perils, our Lord predicts, in the most direct and positive terms, that his church should brave them all, and subsist for ever. It has subsisted to this day, after encountering such storms of persecution and distress, as must, in all likelihood, have overturned any human fabrick. Is not the true solution of the fact, this, that it was founded on _the word of God, which endureth for ever_[295]? The rest, then, follows of course. The wise master-builder (to use his own words on another occasion, near akin to this) _had built his house upon a_ ROCK: _and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house: and it_ FELL NOT, _for it was founded upon a_ ROCK[296].

SERMON LIII.

PREACHED FEBRUARY 5, 1775.

St. MATTH. xvi. 18.

_And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it._

The religion of Jesus hath descended to us, through TWO, the most enlightened ages of the world. It was, first, published in the reign of Tiberius: It was re-published, as we may say, at the Reformation: and is it likely, that an imposture should have made its way in the _former_ of these periods? Or, is it possible, it should still keep its ground against the influence of all that light and knowledge, by which the _latter_ has been distinguished?

To see what force there is in these questions, permit me to lay before you a slight sketch of the trials, to which Christianity has been exposed from the improved reason of ancient and modern times, and of the effect, which those trials appear to have had on the credit and reception of that Religion.

I. Jesus preached the Gospel in the reign of Tiberius: that is, in a time of profound peace, when arts and letters were generally diffused through the Roman empire; and in Judea, at that time a Roman province. So far was this thing from being _done in a corner_[297]!

This religion, on its first appearance in the world, had therefore to encounter two sorts of men, well qualified, and not less disposed, to give it a severe examination; I mean, the learned JEWS, on the one hand, and the reasoning GENTILES, on the other. Yet it prevailed against all the efforts of both.

It was, first, proposed to the JEWS, and its pretensions were to be tried by the correspondence of its principles and history to the doctrine and predictions of their sacred books. That vastly the greater part of the Jewish nation resisted the evidence of that appeal, is well known: but that great numbers did not, and, of these, that some, at least, were of principal note for their rank, and knowledge in the scriptures, is equally certain and allowed; with this further concession, that the evidence, whatever it was, prevailed over the most inveterate prejudices, that ever possessed any people, and the most alarming difficulties and discouragements, to which human nature can be exposed. Let the fact, then, be considered, with all its circumstances, on both sides. And as to the merit of the argument, we are well able to judge of it. The sacred writings of the Jews, to which the appeal lay, are in all hands: and with what triumphant superiority the followers of Jesus reasoned from them, we see, in their numerous works, still extant, and especially in those of the great Apostle, St. Paul. So that, if all the scriptural learning, and all the bigotry of Judaism, could not stop the progress of Christianity, as we know it did not, it may fairly be presumed, that the way of inquiry was not unfavourable to the new religion, and that truth and reason were on that side. But

2. From the Jews, let us turn to the GENTILES, at that time flourishing in arts and letters. To them was the Gospel preached by the Apostles, and especially by their Apostle, St. Paul, through the whole extent of the Roman empire; and not without success in the head quarters of Gentilism, in the chief towns of Asia, in Greece, at Athens, and even at Rome itself.

The pride of Gentile wisdom, indeed, kept its professors, for some time, from taking more than a superficial notice of the new religion. But its rapid progress among the people, joined to its declared purpose of prescribing to the general faith of mankind, broke through this real or affected indifference, rouzed, at length, the attention of the great and wise, and provoked the zeal of both to shew itself in every mode of opposition. The great persecuted, and the wise reasoned: and this latter species of hostility (the more alarming of the two, if Christianity had been an imposture) was carried on with vigour, and without intermission (whatever intervals there might be of the _former_) through several successive ages. The four Gospels, and the other authentic documents of our religion, were now in all hands, when this lettered war commenced against Christianity, and continued, till Paganism was utterly overthrown and subdued. Many adversaries of the Christian name engaged in this unequal contest: but the most distinguished are, CELSUS, in the second century; PORPHYRY, in the third; and JULIAN, in the fourth: all of them, eminent philosophers; and the last of this great triumvirate, an imperial one. The two first wrote with all freedom, because against a persecuted, and on the side of the predominant, religion; and the third had the whole power of the state in his own hands.

The works of these great chieftains of infidelity, it must be owned, are not extant in their proper form. But Celsus is almost entire in Origen; a great part of Julian may be seen in Cyril; and considerable fragments of Porphyry’s work have been preserved in Jerom and other old writers.

Ye do not expect me to produce, on this occasion, the substance of what these three philosophers have said against the Christian cause. Any that will, may see it in the original authors, just mentioned, or in many modern collections, that have been made out of them. It may be enough to say, that those, who give themselves this trouble, will find much abuse and misrepresentation, and some argument: but the last so weak, and inconclusive, that one cannot wonder much at what Chrysostom tells us, “That the early books, written against Christianity, soon fell into a general contempt; that they perished almost as fast as they appeared; and that, if they still subsisted any where, it was, because they had been preserved by the Christians themselves[298].”

But, setting aside, for the present, the merits of the question, the fact[299], we know, is, that all the efforts of Greek and Roman philosophy were not successful: that the church was soon filled with its professors, even before the empire became Christian: and that this great event itself happened within little more than three centuries from the birth of Christ. _So mightily grew the word of God, and prevailed_, notwithstanding the severity, with which its pretensions were tried.

It will be said, however, “that the argument, drawn from the success of Christianity, is not altogether so convincing, as we pretend: that, for a time, the learned heathens paid but little attention to the new sect; that, when it had taken such root among the people as to become the general subject of inquiry, learning was now very much on the decline; that barbarism had prevailed to a great degree before the days of Constantine, and then increased so fast, especially after the irruption of the Northern nations, as to leave no traces, almost, of light and knowledge; and that to this sottish state of ignorance, and, its usual attendant, credulity, which continued through many ages, the widely extended and permanent establishments of Christianity are, therefore, most probably to be ascribed.”

Now, though I cannot assent to what is here alledged, or insinuated, that the adversaries of Christianity wanted either time, or light, or zeal enough to discredit its pretensions, if the way of reason and disputation could have done it, before that long night of ignorance came on which is supposed to be so favourable to religious imposture; yet I will not deny that taste and literature were degenerating in the Roman empire, from the time that learned pagans began to interest themselves in the controversy with the Christians; and that, therefore, had the last only prevailed through this period of declining letters, something would have been wanting to the force and integrity of that argument, which infers the truth of their cause, from its success. But the fact is, that the event has been the same, in opposite circumstances; as I shall now shew,

II. Under the SECOND head of this discourse; in which I proposed to point out to you, very briefly, the influence of REVIVING, AND REVIVED letters on the credit and reception of the Christian faith.

From the middle of the 14th century, and even earlier, there were some efforts made to break through that gloom of ignorance and superstition, which had so long overspread the Christian world; and, before the end of it, it was visible enough that these efforts would, in no long time, be attended with success. Accordingly, a zeal for true and ancient literature made its way through most parts of Europe, and with so rapid a progress, that multitudes of able men arose within the compass of the next century, and were enough instructed to assist in the reformation of religion, which followed in the commencement of the 16th. From that time to the present, arts and letters have been studied with unceasing application; and all the powers of reason put forth in the cultivation of knowledge, in the discovery of error, and the search of truth. It is pretended, that we are now enlightened beyond the example of all former ages: it is credible, that, in some places, where liberty has attended the pursuits of learning, the utmost ability of the human mind, on the most important objects of science, has been exerted and displayed.

Now, amidst this blaze of light, gradually ascending from the dawn of science to its meridian lustre, what has been the fortune of the divine religion, we profess? It has been the first, and last object of attention. It has been examined with the most suspicious and sceptical curiosity. It has stood the attacks of wit, of learning, of philosophy; and, sometimes, of all these acting in concert, without any restraint or reserve whatsoever. Yet it keeps its ground; or rather the belief of it is entertained, not only by the multitude, but, more firmly than ever, by the ablest and wisest men.

For the truth of this assertion, I can only refer you to your own fair and candid observation; the proof of it being much too long to be given, at this time. For it would require me to set before you the several topics of argument, which have been employed against Christianity, and the futility of them. It would, further, oblige me to make appear, that the number of those, who still embrace Christianity, is not only vastly greater, but their names, too, beyond comparison, more respectable, than of those who reject it: all which it would be tedious, indeed, but not difficult to shew.

However, till some such proof be produced, ye will be apt, I know, to remind me of many eminent persons, who have been the declared enemies of our religion: ye will object to me the complaints, which even divines make, of an overflowing infidelity in the present times.

In abatement of this prejudice, I could say with much truth, that the character of those eminent persons has been raised too high; and that these complaints, though not without foundation, have been carried too far. But I have other, and more momentous considerations to suggest to you, on this subject.

At the revival of letters, when the manifold corruptions of Christianity had been discovered, it was too natural for the disabused mind to entertain some suspicions of the revelation itself; and when reason, now emancipated from authority, had tried its strength, and found itself able to detect innumerable errors in religion and science, it too hastily concluded that there was no subject too vast for its comprehension, and that its power and right to decide on all questions whatsoever was evident and beyond dispute. From that suspicious, and this delirious state of the human mind, infidelity sprung up, and on either stock it still grows. “We have been deceived in many things, with regard to this religion; therefore in every thing.” “We know much; therefore we are capable of knowing all things.”—These, as extravagant as they appear, are the two sophisms, into which all modern free-thinking is to be resolved.

But now it is so evident to men of sense, that “a revelation may be true, though much imposture has been grafted upon it, and that its doctrines may challenge our belief, though they be not within the reach of our knowledge.” This, I say, is now so uncontroverted among men of sense, that, if the list of those, who, in the course of two or three centuries, have supported the infidel cause on those grounds, were ever so great or so conspicuous, it could furnish no argument, or even presumption, in favour of that cause itself.

But the truth is, that list is neither formidable for its numbers, nor for the capacity of those, of whom it consists. It shrinks into nothing, when we oppose to it the multitudes of able men, who have been, during this period, and are, the advocates of Christianity; and, among these, when we recollect the names of Grotius, Pascal, Bacon, Locke, Boyle, Newton, and many others (not of the sacred order, though I know not why the authority of these should be left out of the account); when, I say, we look up to these great lights and ornaments of the Christian world.

Nor let it be surmized, that the reasonings of infidel writers have been better, or other, than they are here represented to be, or that they have not been enforced with full liberty, and in all their strength. What the liberty, or rather licence, of these enlightened times has been, we all know: And of their arguments, ye may all judge: though this labour be the less necessary, as most of them have not only been triumphantly confuted by believers, but successively exploded by unbelievers themselves; and the rest of them, have not prevented men of thought and ability from being generally on the side of the Christian religion, even to this day.

Ye see, I am as concise as possible, and omit very much of what might be said on this subject, not to exceed the limits usually prescribed to a discourse in this place. But when ye contemplate the present state of Christianity, in an age of the greatest light and freedom, and the respect that is still paid to it, I must just desire you to call to mind the state of pagan religion under the like circumstances; and to reflect that, when men of sense examined its pretensions in the Augustan age, there was not a single person, in the priesthood or out of it, of ability and learning, who did not see and know that the whole was a manifest imposture, and destitute of all evidence, that could induce a well-grounded and rational assent[300]. Can any thing like this be said, or even suspected, of the Christian faith?

I know, that fraud and falsehood, by being mixed with a great deal of acknowledged evident truth, may obtain respect even with some acute and inquisitive men; as, without doubt, has been the case of Popery, since the Reformation: I know, too, that a false religion, unsupported by any truth, may even keep its ground in a learned age, when restraint or other causes have prevented a free inquiry into that religion; as may have been the case of Mahometanism, in one stage of the Saracen empire: but that a religion, like the Christian, as delivered in the Scriptures, which must either be wholly false, or wholly true, and has been scrutinized with the utmost freedom and severity, should yet, if the arguments for it were weak and fallacious, maintain its credit, and subsist in the belief of the most capable and accomplished reasoners, is, I think, a prodigy, which never has appeared, or can appear among men.

I suppose, enough has been, now, said to shew, that, in fact, the knowledge of past or present times has not discredited the cause of Christianity; and that what there is of infidelity may be well accounted for from certain prevailing prejudices, which unhappily sprung up with returning Letters, at the Reformation. I might go on to shew, that the evidences of the Christian religion, as drawn out, and set before us, by its modern apologists, are now stronger, and more convincing, than they ever were in any former period; and that, on the whole, this religion has not lost, but gained infinitely, by all the inquiries, which improved science has enabled men of leisure and curiosity to make into it. But it is time to return to the TEXT, and to conclude this commentary upon it, with one or two short reflexions.

FIRST, if it be true, that after so many trials of every kind, those especially of reason, and philosophy, to which the religion of the Gospel has been exposed, the belief of it remains unshaken in the minds of men, Then is the prophecy of the text thus far signally verified; and it is indisputable, that _the gates of hell have not_, hitherto, _prevailed against it_.

SECONDLY, if it be scarce imaginable that any future trials, from without, should be more severe, than those which Christianity has already suffered; or that those, from within, I mean the trials of severe rational inquiry, should be more formidable, than what it has undergone in two periods, the most distinguished for the free exertion of the human faculties, of any that have occurred in the history of the world; then may it seem credible, or rather then is the presumption strong and cogent, that neither, hereafter, will the prophecy be confuted, and that the _gates of hell shall not_, at any time, or at all, _prevail against it_.

THIRDLY, and lastly, We may learn, from both these conclusions, to put our trust in this impregnable fortress of our Religion; to embrace with stedfastness, and to observe with the utmost reverence, a RULE OF FAITH AND LIFE, which bears the signatures of immortality upon it, and appears to be under the special protection, as it proceeded originally from the special favour and authority, of God himself.

A

LARGER DISCOURSE,

BY WAY OF

COMMENTARY,

ON

THAT REMARKABLE PART

OF

THE GOSPEL-HISTORY,

IN WHICH

JESUS IS REPRESENTED,

AS DRIVING THE BUYERS AND SELLERS
OUT OF THE TEMPLE.

A

DISCOURSE[301]

ON

CHRIST’S DRIVING THE BUYERS AND SELLERS OUT OF THE TEMPLE.

I propose, in this discourse, to take into consideration a very remarkable part of the Gospel-history; in which Jesus is supposed to have exercised an act of authority on some persons, whom the Jews permitted to carry on a certain traffic within the walls of the Temple.

I shall, FIRST, recite the several accounts, which the sacred historians have given of this transaction; and shall, THEN, hazard some observations, which will, perhaps, be found to lessen, or to remove, the objections commonly made to it.

I begin with St. John’s account of it, which is delivered in these words:

Ch. ii. 13-17.

“And the Jews passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to
Jerusalem, and found in the temple those that sold oxen, and
sheep, and doves, and the changers of money, sitting: And when
he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out
of the temple, and the sheep and the oxen; and poured out the
changers money, and overthrew the tables; and said unto them
that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s
house an house of merchandize. And his disciples remembered
that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.”

Thus far the Evangelist, St. John: And the order of the history shews, that this was done at the _first_ Passover which Jesus attended, after he had taken upon himself his prophetic office.

The other Evangelists relate a similar transaction, which had happened at the Passover, immediately preceding his crucifixion. Some have imagined that, on this last occasion, the same act was repeated by him, on two several days; but I see no sufficient ground for that supposition. St. Mark is easily reconciled with St. Matthew and St. Luke by only admitting, what is very usual in the sacred writers, some little neglect of method in the narration of one or other of those historians.

Mat. xxi. 12, 13.

“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them
that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables
of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
and said unto them, it is written, My house shall be called the
house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves.”

Mark xi. 15-17.

“And they come to Jerusalem: And Jesus went into the temple,
and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple,
and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats
of them that sold doves; And would not suffer that any man
should carry any vessel through the temple. And he taught,
saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called
of all nations the house of prayer? But ye have made it a den
of thieves.”

Luke xix. 45, 46.

“And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that
sold therein, and them that bought, saying unto them, It is
written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a
den of thieves.”

In reading these passages, one is led to conclude, that the ACT itself, here ascribed to our Lord, was of no small importance; for it is related, we see, by every one of the four Evangelists. The substance of what we learn from all of them, compared together, is this: “That Jesus, at two several times, _once_, before the first Passover which he attended after the entrance on his ministry, and _again_, before the Passover which preceded his passion, went up to Jerusalem, and entered into the _temple_; that is (as all interpreters agree, and as the nature of the thing speaks) into the _first_, or outermost court of the temple, or that which was called _the court of the Gentiles_; because the Gentiles, who acknowledged the one true God, were permitted to come and worship him there; that in this court (which was separated from the next or second court by a sept or low wall, and deemed by the Jews _prophane_, in contempt of the Gentiles, to whose use it was dedicated) _he found those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money_; that is, persons who attended there to furnish what was necessary for the service of the temple, and so made a kind of market, of this first court or division of it: that, upon observing this prophanation, _he made a scourge of small cords_, or, as the word in the original strictly means, of _rushes_, such as he may be supposed to have found upon the spot, and with this scourge drove these traffickers from their station; signifying, by this and such like actions, his displeasure at this pollution of a part of the temple; and saying to them, withall, _It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer of all nations: But ye have made it an house of merchandize_, or, as the equivalent expression is, _a den of thieves_.”

Thus stands the history itself: And the light in which it is commonly understood, is this; “That Jesus, in virtue of his prophetic, or, if you will, _regal_ character, did this act of authority, to testify his zeal for the honour of God’s house, thus polluted and desecrated, contrary to its original purpose and design, by the base and commercial uses, that were now made of it;” and it is probable, that the Disciples themselves, _at the time_, considered it in this light, only, _for they remembered_, St. John says, _that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up_—applying a passage out of the Psalms, to this act of zeal in their master.

It is true, this circumstance is only related by St. John, who records the _former_ transaction, and omits the _latter_: the reason of this difference will, perhaps, be seen, as we proceed in our inquiry.

But to this solution of the case some objections have been made.

Besides the strangeness and indecency, as many apprehend, of the proceeding itself, and the improbability that the persons concerned in this chastisement, who had public allowance for what they did, should patiently submit to it (for we hear of no resistance, nor of any complaint, made by them)—Besides, I say, these obvious considerations, the act itself was an act of CIVIL POWER, which Jesus always disclaimed, and for which, it will be said, he had no warrant, either from the ruling Jews, themselves, or from his regal, or prophetic character: not, from _the ruling Jews_, who, we know, were offended at his behaviour; not, from his _regal_ character, which was not of this world; nor yet, lastly, from his _prophetic_ office: for, though that might authorize him to declare his sense of this prophanation, it may be thought not to extend so far as to justify him in disturbing the civil rights of men, and doing a direct violence to their property and persons. Jesus himself, we understand, was so tender of _both_, that, upon another occasion, when it was proposed to him to divide a contested inheritance between two claimants, he said to the proposer, _Man, who made me a judge, or a divider over you_[302]? Whence it may seem reasonable to infer, that he would not have interposed, by an overt act of authority or jurisdiction, in _this_ case; notwithstanding the reference it had to the honour of religion, or the right he might have to condemn an abusive practice, from his spiritual character.

These difficulties seem to shew, that there is something more in the case, than a mere expression of zeal against the prophaners of the temple: not but this might be one end, but it could not be the sole or even principal end, of so extraordinary a transaction.

I do not indeed find, that the ancient commentators on the Gospels have said any thing to the difficulties, I have mentioned. They seem to have looked no further than to the obvious sense of this transaction, and to have acquiesced in the opinion of its being intended to evidence our Lord’s zeal for the honour of God’s house, without any further view or purpose whatsoever. They found it related as a matter of fact; and they piously admitted the authority of Jesus to controul the civil usages and rights of the Jews, by virtue of his transcendant power and divine character.

But the moderns have been aware of the objections, which lie against this interpretation. Our learned Selden, in particular, has an entire chapter, in his book _De jure naturali et gentium juxta disciplinam Hebræorum_, on this subject[303]. His notion is, That Jesus exerted this act of power, in virtue of what the Jews called THE RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE OF ZEALOTS[304]; by which they meant, not a general zeal or indignation (such as is before spoken of) against what they conceived to be derogatory to the honour of their religion; but a _right_, strictly so called, derived to them from the civil institutions and approved usages of their country, of interfering, in some extraordinary cases, to repel a manifest insult on their law, by private force, without waiting for the slow process of a judicial determination.

The principal, or rather sole foundation, on which this notion is erected, is the case of _Phinehas_, related in the book of NUMBERS[305]: which the Jews afterwards construed into a _law_, or embraced at least as a _traditionary_ rule of conduct, derived to them, as they supposed, from the times of Moses. But this case will by no means bear the construction, which has been made of it. For,

1. It was a single and very _particular_ case, without any intimation from the historian, that it was afterwards to be drawn into precedent.

2. It may seem to have been, if not commanded, yet in some measure authorized, or it was at least, by an express revelation, afterwards justified. For the matter is thus related. Upon the defection of the Israelites at Shittim into idolatry, in consequence of their prophane, as well as impure commerce with _the daughters of Moab_, God sent a plague among them, and besides commanded Moses to put to death all those who had been guilty of such abominations. Moses obeyed, and _said unto the judges of Israel, slay ye every one his men, that were joined unto Baal-Peor_.

This command was issued very properly to the _Judges_: but a _private_ man, _Phinehas, the son of Eleazer, the son of Aaron the priest_, instigated by his zeal, and presuming perhaps on his relationship to the high priest (from whose family, a more than ordinary zeal in such a case might be expected) did, under these circumstances, take upon himself to execute that command on two persons, surprized in the very act, for which the penalty had been denounced, in the presence of all the people. Now, though this proceeding was irregular in itself, yet the notoriety of the fact, the most atrocious that could be, and the most daring insult on the divine authority, seemed almost to supersede the necessity of a legal process. The consequence was, that God himself was pleased to accept and reward the deed, because the author of it, on such a provocation, and at such a time, _was zealous for his God, and had made an atonement for the children of Israel_.

But to argue from a single instance, so circumstanced, that the same zeal was allowable in other cases, in which no such countenance had been given, and no such necessity or provocation could be pretended, is evidently so unreasonable, that no stress ought to be laid on this argument. The Jews, indeed, in succeeding times, might fancy a general rule to have been implied in this single instance; and we know from their history, to what enormous excesses this their easy belief, concurring with a natural violence of temper, afterwards transported them, during the last calamities of this devoted people[306]: but our Lord was very unlikely to give a countenance to their traditions, or to add the sanction of his authority to a principle, so weakly founded, and so liable to the worst abuse.

3. This _traffic of the merchants_, in the court of the Gentiles, how unfit soever it might be, depended on the same authority, as this pretended _right itself of the zealots_; that is, on the allowed usage and constant discipline of their country. No express precept of the law could be alledged for either. So that this _right_ could not be exerted but at the expence of _another_, equally well founded.

4. Mr. Selden himself appears to have had some distrust of his own hypothesis, by the care he takes to interweave, in his discourse, a charge of _fraud_ on the merchants, together with their _prophanation_ of the temple. But the learned writer forgets, that ZELOTISM (if I may have leave to use a new term) respected _religion_ only, and not private morals. For even _the act of zeal_, performed by Phinehas (from which, only, the very idea of this _Jewish right_, if it were one, was derived) had, for its object, not the _fornication_ simply, but the _idolatry_, of the criminals: it was a sacrifice, not to the honour of _virtue_, as such, but to the _honour of God_. And, indeed, nothing but the singular structure of the Jewish polity, in which the honour of God was so extraordinarily considered, could give any the least colour to the _fiction_ of such a right.

5. _Lastly_, whatever degree of credit this principle of _zelotism_ might have acquired among the Jews, it was very unlikely, perhaps we may say, impossible, that Jesus should act upon it. When the Disciples, _James_ and _John_, on a certain occasion, were instigated by this _zeal_ to call for fire from Heaven on the heads of some persons, who had offered an insult to their master, Jesus himself rebuked them in these terms—_Ye know not what spirit ye are of: For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them_ [Luke ix. 55.]—To _burn with fire_, is indeed something more than, _to scourge_: but, though the vengeance be not equal, in these two instances, the _spirit_ is the same from which it is derived, and by which it is justified: and this _spirit_, we are expressly told, is not that by which Jesus chose to conduct himself. It was to no purpose to alledge the case of a Phinehas, or even an Elias: these were no precedents for HIM, who _came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them_.

I conclude then, upon the whole, that Jesus did not perform this act of driving the merchants out of the temple, in the Jewish character of ZEALOT; in what _other_ character he might possibly perform it, I shall now inquire.

The ingenious conjecture of Mr. Selden, already considered, was apparently taken up by him to avoid the difficulties which he found in accounting for this act of zeal in our Lord, from his _prophetic_ character only. These difficulties, he saw very distinctly, and has explained with much force.

“Though the Saviour of the world, says he, was undoubtedly both God and King, and, by his absolute dominion, not over the Jews only, but the whole race of mankind, must be supposed to have had a right of doing whatever he saw fit to do; yet since we know, that he constantly submitted himself in all things to the established forms of civil justice, whether of Jewish, or Roman institution; and, as being desirous to exhibit in his own person a most absolute example of obedience to the course of human authority, was careful always to abstain from every thing, that might be thought a violation of it in any private man; since, besides, we know, that, considering the peculiar envy, to which his life was exposed, he could not possibly have gratified his enemies more, than by putting it in their power to bring a criminal charge against him: it must, on all these accounts, be thought reasonable to suppose, that our Lord would not have ventured on so extraordinary an act, as that of driving the merchants out of the temple, unless it had been such, as, even in the opinion of those who were most prejudiced against him, he might lawfully and regularly perform[307].”

All this, the reader sees, is prudently, piously, and ably said, by this very learned writer; and I readily subscribe to every word of it. We only differ in our conclusion from these premises. Mr. Selden holds, that what Jesus did on this occasion, _cannot_ be reconciled to the idea of his PROPHETIC CHARACTER, as sustained by him in the course of his ministry: I, on the contrary, conceive, that it very well _may_. But then I consider that _character_, as exercised by our Lord, at this time, in _another manner_, and to _other ends_, than the learned writer supposed.

In a word, I see Jesus in the light, not of a ZEALOT, but of a PROPHET only, in this whole transaction. I see him acting, not on precarious principles and rabbinical traditions, but on the sure basis of scripture; and regulating his conduct by the known ideas of his office, such as had at all times been entertained of it, and were even now familiar to the Jews in the times in which he lived.

To make way for what I have further to advance on this subject, it will, then, be necessary to consider, _first_, the PRACTICES AND USAGES of the Jewish prophets, I mean the _manner_, in which that high office was sometimes discharged and exercised by them, even to the very times in question: and, _secondly_, to consider, the true scope and meaning of the PROPHECY itself, to which Jesus appeals, and on which he justifies this obnoxious part of his conduct.

1. It is impossible for those, who have read the scriptures of the Old Testament, not to observe, how much they abound in figures and material images. Nay, the prophets are frequently represented as instructing those, to whom they are sent, not in figurative expression only, but in the way of action and by sensible signs. And this mode of information has been shewn by learned men[308] to arise from the very nature of language, in its rude and imperfect state; being indeed an apt and necessary expedient to supply the defects of speech, under that circumstance. It has further been made appear, from the history of mankind, that this practice universally prevailed in all barbarous nations, as well as in Judæa; nay, that it every where _continued_ to prevail, as an ornamental method of communication, long after the necessity was over, which had given birth to it; especially among the inhabitants of the East, to whose natural vivacity it was so well suited. Hence, the Jewish prophets, it is said, but conformed to the established practice of their own times, when they adopted this use of representative action: as, when one Prophet _pushed with horns of iron_, to denote the overthrow of the Syrians[309]; and another, _broke a potter’s vessel to pieces_, to express the shattered fortune of the Jews[310]; with innumerable other instances of the like nature.

This the prophet Hosea calls, using _similitudes by the_ HAND _of the prophets_[311]; and the effect of it was, to impress the proposed information on the minds of men with more force (being addressed to their eyes and senses) than could have been done by a mere verbal explication.

This mode of teaching by signs, then, let it be remembered, was familiar to the Jewish nation, and prevailed even in the days of Jesus; as is clear from John the Baptist’s _wearing a garment of camel’s hair, and eating locusts and wild honey_[312]; to signify the mortification and repentance, which he was commissioned to preach—from Christ’s _riding into Jerusalem_[313]; to signify the assumption of his regal office—and from his directing his disciples to _shake of the dust of their feet[314], as a testimony against them_, who would not receive his Gospel.

And we find that, sometimes, even a miracle was wrought to furnish a convenient _sign_—As when Simon’s _draught of fishes_[315], was made to denote the success he should have in his ministry; according to the interpretation of Christ himself, who said to him, _Henceforth thou shalt catch men_—As, again, when Jesus _curst the barren fig-tree_[316], to signify the unfruitfulness and rejection of the Jewish nation—And, as when he permitted _the unclean spirits to enter into a herd of swine_, which, thereupon, _ran violently down a steep place and perished in the waters_[317]: an exertion of his miraculous power, which, among other purposes, might be intended to express, in the way of _representation_, the tyranny of evil spirits, and their attendants, evil habits, over sensual and voluptuous men (of whom _swine_ are the acknowledged emblems), and the consequent _perdition in which they drown them_. Nay, the very parables of our Lord, are but this mode of information, by material signs, once removed.

It may, further, be observed, that the two Christian Sacraments themselves are founded on this principle: and so prevalent was the use of conveying information in this form, that even the Roman Governor, when he condemned Jesus, _took water and washed his hands[318] before the multitude_, to signify to them, that he was innocent of that horrid crime.

From all this we may certainly conclude, that it was very customary in our Saviour’s time for men to express themselves by outward and visible signs: that this mode of expression was especially of ancient and approved use among the Prophets, when they would inforce some high and important topic of instruction: and that, not impossibly therefore, the famous transaction in the temple may be only an information of this nature.

If then we would know, what that _information_ was, or, in other words, what was the peculiar _object_ of it, it will be proper, in the next place,

2. To turn to the PROPHECY, to which Jesus appeals, and to consider the true scope and purpose of it.

The prophecies of Isaiah, it is well known, are chiefly taken up in predicting the future glories of Christ’s kingdom, of which _the call of the Gentiles_ makes a conspicuous and shining part. This great event is foretold in a vast variety of places; and in different forms of expression, one while, plain and direct, at other times, figurative and obscure. The Messiah is spoken of as _bringing forth judgement to the Gentiles_; and more clearly still, as _being given for a light to the Gentiles_[319]. In other places, the expression is ænigmatical; as where the Heathen are mentioned as _prisoners_, who shall be set at liberty[320]—as _strangers_, who should build up the walls of Jerusalem[321]—_as blind people that have eyes, and deaf that have ears_[322]—and under a multitude of other images.

Full of these ideas, the Prophet begins the fifty-sixth chapter with the following triumphant exhortation—_Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice, for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed_; the very language, almost, in which the Baptist afterwards announced our Saviour to the Jews: whence it may appear, of _what_ salvation the Prophet is here speaking. But to _whom_ is this salvation promised? Why, in general, to those _who keep the Sabbath from polluting it_, ver. 2; that is, in the prophetic style, to those who should embrace the Christian faith: for the _Sabbath_ being the sign or token of God’s covenant with the Jews, hence the prophets transfer this idea to the Christian Covenant; and, by _keeping the Sabbath_, they express the observance of that future covenant, to which mankind should be admitted under the ministry of Jesus.

But, perhaps, the Jews _only_ were to be admitted to this new covenant of salvation. The prophet expressly asserts the contrary: for not only the Jews of the captivity (to whom we are to suppose the course of the prophecy to be immediately directed) are concerned in this salvation, but THE SONS OF THE STRANGER, that is, the Gentiles (whom the Jews always considered under the idea of _Strangers_, just as the Greeks did the rest of the world, under that of _Barbarians_)—_Even them_ (says the Prophet, speaking in the person of God) _will I bring to my holy mountain_, ver. 7, and make them joyful _in my house of prayer: their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted on my altar_. The language is still _Jewish_, according to the prophetic style, which describes the Christian dispensation under Jewish ideas: but by _holy mountain_ is meant the Church of Christ; and by _Sacrifices_, the spiritual services of that new œconomy. And, to make this purpose of his prophecy the clearer, he even departs, in one instance, from his _legal_ manner of expression, in saying, _I will make them joyful in my_ HOUSE OF PRAYER; which is a spiritual and Christian idea; the Jewish temple being properly a _house of sacrifice_, and not of _prayer_; for which last service there is no express precept in the law. And then follows the prophecy, quoted by Jesus, as explanatory of what he was then doing—_for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people_. The prophet, as solicitous to be understood, repeats and marks out this distinction: I spoke of it, says he, as my house of prayer, _For my house shall_ [in those latter days] _be called_ [that is, shall _be_] a _house of prayer_, and that too, _for all people_; that is, not for the Jews only, but for _all the Gentiles_. And, as if all this were not still clear enough, he adds—_The Lord God, which gathereth the outcasts of Israel_, the Jews dispersed in the captivity, _saith, Yet I will gather_ OTHERS _to him, besides those that are gathered him_, ver. 8. that is, the Gentiles.

This famous text, then, is clearly a prediction of the call of the Gentiles into the Church of Christ, a prediction of that great event which should take place under the new dispensation, when the Jewish enclosure was to be laid open, and all men indifferently, the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, were to be admitted into the Christian covenant.

It is true, our English version of this text, quoted by our Lord, very much obscures, or rather perverts, its sense. It stands thus in the Gospel of St. Mark—_My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer_, xi. 17. Whence it appears, that our translators considered this text, as describing only the _destination_ of the Jewish temple, and not as predicting the _genius_ of the Christian religion. But the scope of the prophecy, as above explained, and the Greek text itself, clearly shews that it ought to have been rendered thus—_My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the Gentiles_: ὁ οἶκός μου, οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν.

Thus much being premised, both _of the prophetic manner of teaching by signs_, and _of the true meaning of this prophecy_, let us see now what light these considerations afford to our present subject.

Jesus enters into that court of the temple, which was called _the court of the Gentiles_; who had leave to worship the God of Israel there, but were permitted to advance no further. This _court_, he finds polluted by the sale of beasts, and the traffic of merchants; the Jews, in their sovereign contempt of these poor heathen, not only excluding them from their own place of worship, but debasing them still farther by the allowance of this sordid society to mix with them. What is the conduct of our Lord, on this occasion! Why, agreeably to his prophetic character, he declares himself sent to break through all these exclusive privileges and distinctions; to accomplish that great mystery, which the old prophets had so much and so triumphantly spoken of, as reserved to be revealed by him; and to admit the Heathen to an equal participation of the blessings, which the Gospel-covenant was to dispense, with the Jewish people.

But, in what manner does he declare this purpose? Why, he _makes a scourge of small cords_, and, by the representative action of driving this prophane company out of the temple, shews that he is come to break down that partition-wall, which separated the Gentile and the Jewish worshippers, to vindicate the despised Heathen from the insults offered to them, and to lay open the means of salvation to all people. _He began to cast out them that sold therein and them that bought, saying to them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the Gentiles._ The action, we see, is used as _expressive_ of his design; and his _design_ is clearly ascertained, by applying to himself the express words of Isaiah. The whole is, then, _a prophetic information, by way of action_, of the genius of Christianity, which was to extend its benefits even to the Gentiles.

I have before acknowledged, that a _secondary_ purpose of this transaction might be, to give the Jews to understand, how culpable they had been in permitting even a lawful traffic to be carried on in any part of their temple. For it was usual with Jesus to accomplish several ends by the same act, and even to lay the greatest apparent stress on that end, which was not first in his intention: of which some examples may hereafter be given. But the primary design of _this_ act (and but for the sake of which it would not have been undertaken) I suppose, was, to point out the diffusive nature and influence of his spiritual kingdom.