Chapter III: A third, and still more alarming danger of the Christian church, (2)

It may be said, perhaps, that, if such was the intention of Jesus, it had been more properly and significantly expressed by a different act, I mean, by that _of bringing the Heathen into the temple_, rather than _of driving the merchants out of it_. But we are to reflect, that, as the Heathen were already permitted to come into this part of the temple (and it would have given, at this time, too great a shock to the prejudices of the Jews, to have carried them into any other), that act would have conveyed no new information; it being on all hands agreed that the devout Heathen might worship there. The business was, to shew that their religious privileges were, hereafter, to be the same with those of the Jews; and that no more contempt was to be countenanced, towards the one, than the other. All distinctions were to cease; and this information was, therefore, most fitly conveyed by an act, which expressed the same regard for the court of the Gentiles, as for the court of the Jews: that is, the honour of each is equally asserted, and no prophanation allowed of either.

In further confirmation of the sense, here given to this transaction, it may be observed, that the relation of it is joined, or rather interwoven with that other of his _cursing the barren fig-tree_: which was plainly an emblem, and so is _confessed_ to be, of _the rejection of the Jews_; just as that we have been considering is _presumed_ to be, of _the call of the Gentiles_: these two things being closely connected in the order of God’s dispensations. Whence St. Paul speaks of the one, as the consequence of the other; of _the fall of the Jews_, as _the riches of the world_; and of _the loss of the Jews_, as _the riches of the Gentiles_[323]. Now, if we turn to St. Mark, we there find[324], that the _fig-tree is cursed_, as Jesus is coming from Bethany to Jerusalem—that, when he came to Jerusalem, he went into the temple, and _drove out the money-changers_, &c.—and that the next morning, when he and his disciples were returning the same way, _as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots_[325].

If then it be allowed, that Christ meant, by the _sign_ of the blasted _fig-tree_ (the story of which is so remarkably incorporated with that other of purging the temple), to express and predict _the rejection of the Jews_, how natural is it to suppose that, in purging the temple, he meant to express and predict, by another sign, _the vocation of the Gentiles_! Or, if there be still any doubt in the case, Christ’s own parable of the _Vineyard_ (which follows close in the history[326]) will effectually remove it. For the application of this parable is made by Christ himself to BOTH these subjects[327]—_What shall the Lord of the Vineyard do?—He shall come and destroy_ THOSE _husbandmen, and shall give the Vineyard to_ OTHERS—That is, He shall REJECT THE JEWS, and ADMIT THE GENTILES: an interpretation, so clear and certain that the Jews themselves could not avoid seeing it; _for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them_.

But I think it appears, from the conduct of the ruling Jews, on occasion of what had passed in the temple, that it was well understood for _what general purpose_, and under _what character_, Jesus had exhibited that extraordinary scene. For they presently come to him, and say, _By what authority doest thou these things, and who gave thee this authority[328]?_ That this question relates to _what things_ he had done in the temple, when he applied the scourge to the merchants, the context clearly shews; and is indeed beyond all doubt, since we find the same question put to him, and almost in the same words, when he had performed this act before, at the first Passover: _Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing thou doest these things[329]?_

Now, if the Jews had seen this transaction in the light of an _act of authority_ or of _violence_ against the persons of the merchants, it neither agreed with their _character_, nor indeed with their _principles_, to put this question. _The chief priests and elders of the people_ are the persons who interrogate Jesus in this manner[330]: and would they, who constantly _laid wait for him, that they might accuse him_[331], let slip so fair an opportunity of citing him before the magistrate, as a disturber of the public peace, and a violater of their civil rights and customs? Instead of taking this obvious advantage against him, they at once drop all the malice of their character, and only ask him, in the way of civil and almost friendly expostulation, _By what authority he did these things_. It is certain, they never had so specious a pretence, as this affair administered to them, of bringing a public accusation against him. Yet it seems never once to have entered into their thoughts. Nor can it be said, that they stood in awe of the _people_ (as they sometimes did, when they were enough disposed to lay hands on him); for the people, in this case, when so free an attack was made on their privileges, as well as prejudices, would naturally be on their side.

But neither would their _Principles_ suffer them to put this question. Jesus had, as they conceived, committed a flagrant act of injustice, in assaulting the persons of men, who were under the protection of the state: and they call upon him only for _a sign, since he did these things_. Is it credible that men, so attached, as they were, to their own laws and customs, should demand, or accept a _sign_, in such a juncture? Could all Paul’s miracles justify him, in their opinion, for _not walking after their customs_[332]? Or, would a _sign_ from heaven, of how transcendant a nature soever, have absolved Jesus in their apprehension, from a crime, so palpably proved upon him? They would certainly have said, as they did say on another occasion, _We have a Law_, which forbids all offences of this sort; and _by that Law_, he ought to be tried and judged.

Thus, I think, the matter stands, if the Jews had regarded Jesus, in the light of a CRIMINAL. On the other hand, if they saw him only in the light of a PROPHET, of one who _assumed_ that character, and had now, in the way of his office, employed this act to convey some important information to them, their conduct was very natural in demanding some proof of his being what he pretended to be: and that proof, could be no other than a _sign_, or miracle; which was the proper evidence of his being a person sent from God. This evidence, indeed, of his prophetic mission had already been given to the Jews, in the _signs_, or miracles, which he had wrought among them. But they wanted more than a general conviction of his being invested with the prophetic character. They were anxious to know by what _authority_ he did THESE THINGS; in other words, what _Commission_ he had, and how it came to be in his commission, to put the Jews and Gentiles on a level. A prophet he might be; but not a prophet, authorized to declare himself so roundly, as by this expressive act he had done, against the peculiar people of God, and in favour of the despised heathen. Of his commission to publish such a doctrine, as this, it was no ordinary _sign_ that would satisfy them. They pressed him, therefore, for some _sign_, purposely and expressly wrought for this end; some _sign_, so extraordinary in itself, and so peculiarly adapted to the nature of the case, as to furnish an immediate and decisive answer to their demand, _Who gave thee_ THIS _authority_?

This question our blessed Lord thought fit to elude (for reasons, which will, in part, appear in the progress of this discourse) at both the times, when it was proposed to him: once, by referring them to the authority of John the Baptist: and, again, by referring them (but in ænigmatic terms) to his own resurrection. Yet even _the Baptist_ would have let them into some part of the secret, which they desired to penetrate; for, knowing the master-prejudice of his countrymen, he addressed them in these remarkable words—_Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our Father: for I say unto you, God is able even of_ THESE STONES[333] _to raise up children unto Abraham_[334]. And then, for the miracle of his own _resurrection_, that would not only be the fullest proof of his prophetic mission, but would, at the same time, be the completion of what he was now signifying to them, by this prophetic act: for the spiritual kingdom of the Messiah, into which all the nations were to be admitted, was to take place from that event. _Destroy_, says he, _this temple_, [meaning, as we are told, _the temple of his body_] _and in three days I will build it up_[335]. So that, although Jesus refused to gratify his questioners by working instantly before them the _sign_, which they demanded: yet he refers them to _such_ a sign, which would be wrought in due time, and to the very purpose of their inquiry; that is, it would be a sign, which should, _both_, demonstrate his prophetic commission to declare, by this _significant act_, the favour which God intended to confer on the Gentiles, and should, _also_, realize his declaration, or set before them _the thing signified_. Such is the force of that divine answer—_Destroy this temple, and in three days I will build it up_.

Where, by the way, we may, further, observe, that the _symbolic language_, in which he here predicts his resurrection, not being at all apprehended by the Jews, was afterwards made the foundation of a charge against him, as if he had entertained the criminal _design_ of destroying the temple of Jerusalem[336]. How much more would his enemies have laid hold on this symbolic _act_, which he performed in the temple, in order to found a charge of sedition against him, if they had not conceived of him as acting in the character of a _prophet_ only, and so had clearly comprehended, at least, the _general_ scope and meaning of that act!

That it was taken in this light, I mean, of a _prophetic action_, by the very persons on whom this seeming outrage was committed, may be reasonably presumed, since they make no resistance to it, nor complain of any injury, done them by it: a conduct, very strange and unlikely, if the parties concerned had received any considerable damage: or if they conceived that any _intended_ violence had been offered to them. It is plain, they considered the whole transaction, as a piece of _scenery_, or representation only; under the cover of which, Christ proposed, in the manner of the Eastern sages, and especially of the Jewish prophets, to convey some momentous information to them, and to impress it with much force and energy on their minds.

Nor can it be concluded from the narration of the Evangelists, that any thing more was intended by their master. They relate this adventure, simply as _a matter of fact_; and it could not well be related otherwise, for the _information_ was given in the _fact_. They intermix, indeed, no explanation; because they probably saw not, any more than the generality of the by-standers, the _specific_ information, it was meant to convey. They only saw, in general, that _some_ information was the end and purpose of the act. The ruling Jews, who interrogated Jesus concerning this act, I have no doubt, saw or suspected, at least, the real drift of it. But, as Jesus could not be brought to explain himself by any direct answer, they were left to their own conclusions about it: and were content, we may suppose, to keep these conclusions to themselves: the rather, as the turn, which our Lord thought fit to give to this act, as if it respected only the honour of God’s house, put it out of their power to charge that other meaning, decisively, upon him.

We may further observe, that the _history_ of this fact is not to be construed with the utmost rigour. Some of the evangelists express themselves in such terms, as, in the strict sense of them, imply, that Jesus actually drove all the beasts and traffickers out of the temple. But we need only suppose that he applied himself to this action, _as if_ his purpose had been actually to drive them all out: and that he continued to employ himself in it in such sort, and for so long a time, as that the persons present might take notice of what he did, and so be able (I do not say immediately, but in due season) to interpret this _sign_, together with Isaiah’s _prophecy_, in the manner he intended. I say, _we need only suppose this_: because if no more was done by Jesus, the Evangelists, in their concise and simple way of narration would naturally express themselves, as they have done, their accounts of this fact; and I believe, if we consider the accounts we have of many other informations _by action_, recorded in the old Scriptures, we shall find it necessary to understand them with some such restrictions and qualifications.

If, after all, it be thought, that some _violence_ was offered to the merchants, and that some _inconvenience_ was suffered by them, in consequence of it; I suppose they deserved this punishment for their pollution of the temple; and I admit that the prophetic character of Jesus authorized him, in the course of his ministry, to inflict it; just as, without doubt, it authorized him to destroy the barren _fig-tree_, when it served his purpose to discharge a part of his office by making use of that _emblem_, though it might be with some loss to the proprietor of it. The case was the same here, when he drove the traffickers from their station. But there is a wide difference between supposing the _violence_, offered to them, to be the _direct and proper purpose_ of the act, and the _incidental effect_ of it. And the silence of the merchants themselves, under this violence, sufficiently shews, as I observed, that they _felt_ this difference.

But the main difficulty, perhaps, is still behind. For, it will be asked, Why was this _mysterious_ method used by our Saviour at all, in conveying the supposed momentous information, when he might have expressed his meaning _directly_, in plain words?

1. One reason, I suppose, might be, the inveterate and insurmountable prejudices of the Jewish converts to this part of the Messiah’s character. For, though the prophets had given frequent, and sometimes the most clear, descriptions of it: yet, so possessed were they with the notion of their _being_, and of their _continuing_ to be, even under the dispensation of their Messiah, a chosen and peculiar people, that they never could hear (no, not the Apostles themselves, till enlightened by the holy Spirit, and by a special revelation for that purpose; they could never hear, I say) without the utmost indignation, _That God had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles_[337]. This indirect information was then in condescension to the weakness of his own disciples and followers.

And of this tenderness to their infirmities we have a remarkable instance in the case of the _fig-tree_, so often mentioned; the drift of which was unquestionably to denote the approaching _rejection of the Jews_, for their unfruitfulness under the means of grace, and their rejection of the Messiah. But, the minds of the disciples being too infirm, at this time, to bear the open communication of so mortifying a truth, Jesus purposely diverts them from the main purpose of that miracle (though it was wrought, and the _sign_ given, for their future information and recollection) and turns their attention on another and very remote circumstance, _the efficacy of faith_ to enable them to work this and greater miracles[338]. But it was a _general_ rule with our Lord to consult the infirmities of his disciples, and to communicate to them only so much of his purposes and councils, as they could bear; leaving the rest to be collected by them, in due time, from casual hints and obscure passages, when they should afterwards call them to mind, and be in a condition, under the influence of the holy Spirit, to profit by them. Thus, in John xvi. 12. _I have yet many things to say to you, but_ YE CANNOT BEAR THEM NOW: and then refers them to the spirit of truth, for further information.

Connected with this tenderness for his disciples,

2. A _further_ reason, without doubt, was a prudential regard to the general _success_ of his ministry, with the rest of the Jews.

For that great event, the call of the Gentiles, was not to take place during the life of Jesus; _who was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel_[339]; that is, he was _personally_ to address himself only to THEM; the conversion of the Heathen being to be effected, after his ascension, by the ministry of his Apostles and followers. Hence, had our Saviour plainly unfolded this secret to the Jews, he would certainly have indisposed them for paying any regard to his mission. And yet, so important a part of his character was not to be wholly concealed. It was therefore signified in this covert way; and (being itself a prophecy of something yet to be deferred) in the mode, and with the usual obscurity, of a prophetic information.

What I have just now observed of the caution with which our Lord revealed his purpose of calling the Gentiles, explains the reason why St. John’s account of the _first_ transaction in the temple, differs so much from that which the other Evangelists give of the _second_. Jesus had just entered on his prophetic office, when he used the _sign_ of purging the temple, of which St. John speaks: he therefore leaves the Jews to their own interpretation of that sign, saying only, _Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandize_; as though a zeal for that house had been his sole inducement to make use of it: and accordingly the disciples, as I before observed, so understood him. But, when he thought fit to employ this _significative action_ a second time, of which the other Evangelists only speak, his ministry was then drawing to a conclusion. So that he is now less scrupulous of giving offence, and does all but directly interpret the sign himself, by referring his hearers to the prophecy of Isaiah, which was the proper key to it—_He taught them, saying, Is it not written, My house shall be called the house of prayer for all the nations_[340]? Still, there was some obscurity, which he did not think fit altogether to remove: but he had said enough to correct their former hasty conclusion. For we are not told by those other Evangelists, as we are by St. John, that the disciples considered what they had seen their Master do, as a pure act of _zeal_ for the honour of the temple: the prophecy, without doubt, suggested something to their minds, which led them to apprehend a farther and higher purpose in that transaction.

3. Lastly, we may suppose, that the information was given in this _symbolic way_, that, when men saw the event, they might be the more strongly convinced of its being Christ’s intention it should come to pass, by calling to mind the sensible and striking manner, in which it had been predicted by him.

For these, or other reasons, the method here employed by Christ to signify his intended favour to the Gentiles, might be most proper. In the mean time, as I said, this intention was not wholly to be concealed: for then the call of the Gentiles might be deemed an afterthought, and not to have been originally in his commission. Accordingly, it is intimated very frequently in our Lord’s discourses to the Jews, and opened more clearly on many occasions to his Apostles; and was, in truth, so much in his view, and so constantly present to him, that, as we now find, it was one of the _first_, and _last_ things he did, to go into the temple, and, by an expressive sign, to declare his gracious purpose towards the Heathen.

We may, further, observe (so intent was The Divine Providence on gradually unveiling _the glory of this mystery_[341], as St. Paul terms it) that the moment our blessed Lord expired on the cross, _the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom_: a _sign_, to some purpose, of that great event which Jesus had foretold, and which God himself held forth to the astonished Jews, as the clearest emblem of his purposed favour to the Gentiles; when the Sanctuary itself, as well as the outermost court of their temple, was thus laid open to the access, and vindicated to the use, of all nations.

_Finally_, in due time, this purpose was clearly and explicitly made known to Peter, in his famous vision: and thus it pleased God to reveal this adorable mystery, “The salvation of the Gentile world,” (which, though not the _immediate_, was the most important end of Christ’s commission) by every mode of communication, which he had ever employed in his intercourse with mankind; by the _word of prophecy_—by _similitudes_, _by the hand of Jesus_—by an _extraordinary sign from heaven_—and by _Vision_.

After so minute a commentary on this famous act of _Christ’s driving the buyers and sellers out of the temple_, may I be permitted to conclude, that it, now, stands clear of those difficulties, which have been usually found it?—It was no indecent start of zeal in our Lord: it was no violent invasion of the rights of any: it was no act of civil authority, usurped by him: but a _prophetic information_, conveyed in a _prophetic form_, of an event, the most important to mankind, and to the accomplishment of his own office and ministry. It was a calm, rational, inoffensive act; not unworthy the person of our blessed Lord; or, rather, full of that wisdom, which adorned his character, and shone out in all his conduct and conversation.

THE END OF THE SEVENTH VOLUME.

Printed by J. Nichols and Son, Red Lion Passage, Fleet Street, London.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The substance of this Discourse was delivered in a Sermon at Lincoln’s-Inn, May 15, 1768.

[2] Annal. xii. c. 54. Hist. v. c. 9.

[3] Antiq. Jud. L. xx. c. 5.

[4] Acts xvi. 30.

[5] Heb. iii. 13.

[6] Gen. ii. 17.

[7] Ephes. iii. 11.

[8] 1 Pet. i. 3.

[9] Matth. xx. 28.

[10] 1 Cor. vi. 20.

[11] Heb. ix. 26.

[12] 1 John ii. 2.

[13] 1 Thess. v. 10.

[14] 1 Pet. ii. 24.

[15] 1 Pet. iii. 18.

[16] Heb. ii. 9.

[17] Eph. v. 2.

[18] Rom. v. 9.

[19] 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. 1 Cor. vi. 20.

[20] 1 Cor. xv. 22.

[21] Rev. xiii. 8.

[22] 1 Tim. iv. 10.

[23] 1 Cor. xv. 41.

[24] Matth. xxv. 46.

[25] Phil. ii. 11.

[26] John xv. 15.

[27] John xv. 13.

[28] Matth. xxiii. 8.

[29] Rev. v. 9. 1 Tim. ii. 5.

[30] Acts x. 42.

[31] John iii. 18.

[32] John xx. 28.

[33] John v. 23.

[34] Rom. vi. 22, 23.

[35] 2 Tim. i. 9.

[36] 1 Cor. xv. 22.

[37] Gal. ii. 21.

[38] Heb. xii. 14.

[39] Heb. v. 9.

[40] Eph. iv. 22.

[41] Tit. iii. 5.

[42] Tit. iii. 7.

[43] Eph. iv. 24.

[44] John xvi. 13.

[45] John xvi. 13.

[46] Thess. ii. 13.

[47] Acts ix. 31.

[48] Matth. x. 20.

[49] Gal. iv. 6.

[50] 2 Cor. iii. 17.

[51] Eph. i. 14.

[52] Ps. lxxxiv. 7.

[53] Gen. vi. 3. Rom. viii. 16.

[54] Phil. ii. 13.

[55] 1 Cor. ii. 14.

[56] Athanasian creed.

[57] So the word πρόγνωσιν means in this place; as it likewise does in Acts ii. 23. where the sense of it is clearly explained and defined by the words, τῇ ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ, which introduce it. The participle προεγνωσμένου has the same sense in 1 Pet. i. 20.

[58] Ch. v. 1. v. 18. And vi. 16, 18.

[59] Heb. v. 9.

[60] See Sermon XXVI. in the preceding volume, p. 378.

[61] 2 Cor. vi. 16. 1 Cor. iii. 16.

[62] ἡ δὲ ἐλπὶς οὐ καταισχύνει. Rom. v. 5.

[63] For which reason it is not necessary for me to enter into the controversy, that divides the critics, concerning the authentic reading of this part of the text.

[64] 2 Pet. i. 21.

[65] Matth. i. 18.

[66] Matth. iii. 16.

[67] Matth. iv. i.

[68] Matth. xii. 28.

[69] Rom. i. 4. 1 Pet. iii. 18.

[70] Acts ii. 4.

[71] 1 Cor. xii. 11.

[72] 1 Cor. vi. 11. John xv. 26.

[73] Heb. xii. 22.

[74] 1 Pet. i. 10, 11, 12.

[75] Heb. i. 6.

[76] Luke ii. 13.

[77] Matth. iv. 11.

[78] Luke xxii. 43.

[79] Matth. xxviii, 3. Luke xxiv. 4. ἐν ἐσθήσεσιν ἀστραπτούσαις.

[80] Acts i. 10.

[81] Heb. i. 3.

[82] Milton.

[83] Rom. xvi. 25.

[84] 1 Tim. iv. 10.

[85] Acts xi. 18. ἡσύχασαν.

[86] Acts v. 14.

[87] Luke xvi. 16.

[88] Matth. xi. 12.

[89] Ps. xix. 4. Matth. xxiv. 14.

[90] Acts xix. 20.

[91] Acts ii. 24.

[92] 1 Cor. xv. 28.

[93] 1 Tim. iv. 6. ἐντρεφόμενος τοῖς λόγοις τῆς πίστεως, καὶ τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας.

[94] “What this or that philosopher delivered, was but a saying of his. Mankind might hearken to it, or reject it, as they pleased; or, as it suited their interest, passions, principles, or humours. They were under no obligation; the opinion of this, or that philosopher, was of no authority.” LOCKE, V. II. p. 578. fol. Lond. 1759.

[95] The Stoics. Ὁ σοφὸς—μόνος εἰδὼς εὔξασθαι. See Casaub. ad Sat. 11. Persii.

[96] Plato. Alcib. 11.

[97] The Epicureans of old and modern times.

[98]

—incoctum generoso pectus honesto.
PERSIUS.

[99] Luke xvii. 4.

[100] See this argument urged by Mr. Locke, V. II. p. 574. fol. Lond. 1759.

[101] John iii. 19.

[102] Ibid. 20, 21.

[103] John iii. 18.

[104] Ferte fortiter: hoc est, _quo Deum antecedatis_: Ille extra patientiam malorum est, vos supra patientiam. _Sen. de Prov._ c. vi.

[105] _Cic. Nat. Deor._ iii. 36.

[106] Lord Shaftesbury, and others.

[107] Acts xvii. 31.

[108] Heb. ii. 3.

[109] Mark xvi. 20.

[110] Job xxii. 2.

[111] Hence the name of Theophrastus, or _the divine speaker_, given to the favourite scholar and successor of Aristotle; And hence the stories told of Plato, whose eloquence Quintilian so much admired, that he thought it more than human—_Ut mihi, non hominis ingenio, sed quodam Delphico videatur oraculo instinctus_. Quintil. l. x. c. 1.—Hence too, the name of _Chrysostom_, given to the famous Greek Father.

[112] Heb. i. 2.

[113] Phil. ii. 7.

[114] John v. 26.

[115] 1 Cor. i. 30.

[116] Mark i. 22.

[117] John iii. 11.

[118] John xii. 50.

[119] John vi. 40.

[120] Rev. ii. 10.

[121] John v. 26.

[122] John viii. 28.

[123] John xvi. 15.

[124] John x. 30.

[125] _Non imitabile fulmen._ Virg.

[126] Luke ii. 47.

[127] Luke xx. 26.

[128] Luke xx. 40.

[129] See LOCKE’S _Works_, vol. II. fol. p. 545-7. Lond. 1759.

[130] LOCKE’S _Works_, vol. II. fol. p. 543. Lond. 1759.

[131] Every one may observe a good many truths, which he receives at first from others, and readily assents to, as consonant to Reason, which he would have found it hard, and perhaps beyond his strength, to have discovered himself. Native and original truth is not so easily wrought out of the mine, as we, who have it delivered, ready dug and fashioned into our hands, are apt to imagine. And how often, &c. LOCKE’S _Works_, Vol. II. fol. p. 577 and 579. _Lond._ 1759.

[132] Luke v. 22. vi. 8. xi. 17.

[133] Luke vi. 11.

[134] Luke ix. 47.

[135] Luke xxii. 61.

[136] Matthew xxvii. xiv. and xxiv.

[137] John xviii. 4-6.

[138] Luke vii. 40. ix. 47.

[139] Prov. xxi. 1.

[140] Luke xi. 27, 28.

[141] See John ix. 39.

[142] Matth. x. 26, 27.

[143] See D. L. Vol. V. p. 339, &c. Lond. 1765.

[144] D. L. Vol. V. p. 341. n.

[145] See more on this subject in Dr. Warburton’s Sermons, Vol. I. p. 325.

[146] Luke xxiv. 45.

[147] Luke xxiv. 27.

[148] John xvi. 12. Mark iv. 33, 34.

[149] John xi. 47.

[150] Luke iv. 43.

[151] Luke iv. 29.

[152] Matt. x. 23.

[153] Mark vi. 5.

[154] Matth. vii. 6.

[155] Matth. xxvi. 56.

[156] St. Paul. 1 Cor. xv. 9.

[157] St. Peter. Mark xiv. 71.

[158] Luke xxii. 51.

[159] Luke ix. 54.

[160] Luke ix. 46.

[161] See the Essais of _Montaigne_.

[162] Pensées de M. Pascal, c. xvi. § 3.

[163] Acts xxii. 15. and xxvi. 22.

[164] Matthew v. 3.

[165] Compare, _Luke_ vii. 21, 22.

[166] Matthew xv. 6.

[167] Matt. xi. 25.

[168] Luke xviii. 9.

[169] ὄχλος, _the mob_. John vii. 49.

[170] Eph. ii. 12.

[171] Matth. xxii. 15.

[172] Matth. xii. 37.

[173] Luke xix. 48.

[174] John vii. 46.

[175] Matth. vii. 28.

[176] Matth. xii. 23.

[177] Matth. ix. 33.

[178] Matth. ix. 8.

[179] St. James ii. 6, 7.

[180] 1 Cor. i. 26.

[181] ἐσκυλμένοι—_vexati_.

[182] ἐῤῥιμένοι—_projecti_.

[183] Matth. ix. 36.

[184] Matth. xi. 28, 29.

[185] 1 Cor. i. 27-9.

[186] Isaiah lix. 8.

[187] ψεύστης—ἀνθρωποκτόνος—John viii. 44.

[188] Matth. v. 11, 12.

[189] John xiii. 1.

[190] Matth. x. 32, 3. and 38, 9. Luke xiv. 26. 1 John iii. 16.

[191] John xvi. 2, 33.

[192] Matth. vii. 12.

[193] Luke xix. 41. John xi. 35.

[194] ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης·—Col. i. 27.

[195] εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀληθείαν.

[196] Rom. i. 21.

[197] Tim. ii. 14 and 16.

[198] Coloss. ii. 18.

[199] 2 Tim. ii. 18.

[200] Rom. xv. 13.

[201] _Divine prescience_, _absolute decrees_, &c.

[202] Bacon, Boyle, Locke, Newton.

[203] Barrow, Clarke, Butler, Warburton, &c.

[204] “It hath been the common disease of Christians from the beginning, not to content themselves with that measure of faith, which God and the Scriptures have expressly afforded us: but out of a vain desire to know more than is revealed, they have attempted to discuss things, of which we can have no light, neither from reason nor revelation.” J. HALES _Works_, Vol. I. p. 125. _Glasg._ 1765.

[205] Matth. xiii. 57.

[206] John i. 46.

[207] John vii. 52.

[208] Acts iv. 13. See Whitby on the place.

[209] John vii. 48.

[210] Matth. ix. 11.

[211] Matth. xv. 2.

[212] Luke xxiv. 21.

[213] Acts XIX.

[214] Acts xvii.

[215] Celsus, Porphyry, Julian.

[216] In his famous book, _De Civitate Dei_.

[217] Acts vi. 8.

[218] John xii. 31.

[219] Ephes. ii. 2.

[220] 2 Cor. iv. 4.

[221] James ii. 19.

[222] Gen. iii. 14, 15.

[223] Matth. xxv. 41.

[224] Eph. ii. 2.

[225] James iv. 7.

[226] Matth. xvii. 21.

[227] 1 Pet. v. 9.

[228] John xii. 31.

[229] Luke x. 18.

[230] Job i. 12.

[231] Matth. viii. 21.

[232] Luke ix. 1. and x. 17.

[233] Luke x. 18.

[234] John xiii. 2.

[235] ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ· Matth. vi. 13.

[236] 1 John iv. 4.

[237] 1 Cor. x. 13.

[238] Heb. ii. 14.

[239] St. John iii. 8.

[240] Rom. viii. 26.

[241] Eph. xiv. 16.

[242] Eph. xi. 2.

[243] 1 Peter v. 8.

[244] τοῦ πονηροῦ· Eph. vi. 16.

[245] Eccles. i. 17. and vii. 25.

[246] SIGNA, TABULAS PICTAS, VASA CÆLATA MIRARI—reckoned, by the philosophical historian, among the prognosticks of falling Rome.

[247] Homo, res sacra. Seneca.

[248] Neque enim ita generati à naturâ sumus, ut ad ludum et jocum facti esse videamur; sed ad severitatem potiùs, et ad quædam studia graviora atque majora. Cic. Off. L. i. 29.

[249] Fastidio illis esse cœpit vita, et ipse mundus; et subit illud rabidarum deliciarum, QUOUSQUE EADEM? Seneca, de tranq. anim. c. xi.

[250] SAPIENS, SIBIQUE IMPERIOSUS—are convertible terms in the moral poet.

[251] Val. Max. IV. 3.

[252] 1 Cor. ix. 25.

[253] Ludo—uti quidem licet; sed, sicut somno et quietibus cæteris, tùm cùm gravibus seriisque rebus satisfecerimus. Cic. Off. L. i. 29.

[254] Exod. xxi. 24.

[255] John xviii. 22, 23.

[256] χιτῶνα.

[257] ἀγγαρεύσει. See Grotius on the place.

[258] Luke xii. 57.

[259] Acts xvi. 37. xxv. 11.

[260] Matth, v. 11. x. 23. xxvi. 52. From the two last passages we learn, that the Jewish persecutors of Christ and his disciples were reserved for a _special_ vengeance of Heaven; to be inflicted upon them in no long time, and here predicted, as it seems, to let the disciples know why, in this case, _resistance_ was forbidden, God having taken the matter into his own hands.

[261] The accomplishment of prophecy is given by Jesus himself as one reason, why he forbad resistance to the Jews—_how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be_, i. e. that the violence of the Jews should prevail? Matth. xxvi. 54.

[262] Prov. xiii. 10.

[263] Ch. viii. 38.

[264] Mark xvi. 16.

[265] St. John xii. 48.

[266] John iv. 17.

[267] John iii. 20.

[268] John xi. 47. Acts iv. 16.

[269] Mark vi. 3.

[270] John vii. 41. i. 46.

[271] John vii. 48.

[272] John xii. 42.

[273] John xii. 43.

[274] 1 Cor. i. 23.

[275] Luke viii. 13.

[276] Mark x. 17, 23.

[277] Jer. xvii. 9.

[278] Public Baptism, disused.

[279] The Lord’s Supper, neglected.

[280] Family Prayer, omitted.

[281] 2 Tim. i. 8.

[282] 1 John ii. 28.

[283] See Bp. Warburton’s DOCTRINE OF GRACE, Ch. ix.

[284] 1 John iv. 2.

[285] 2 Tim. ii. 18.

[286] 1 Peter ii. 23.

[287] Gen. xvii. 5.

[288] Gen. xxxii. 28.

[289] Ἅδης, or _death_ [see Grotius in loc.] is here personized: and, the gates of cities, being anciently the places of counsel and judgment, as well as their chief defence and strength, hence the _gates of death_ are the power and policy, which this person should employ to accomplish his ends: which is, in other words, to say, that those ends, or _destruction_, should by no means be effected.

[290] Acts ii. 14.

[291] Acts x. and xv. 7.

[292] An ancient apologist for Christianity seems to think, that, if a sect of philosophy had been persecuted, as Christianity was, it would presently have vanished out of the world. His words are—τὴν μὲν φιλοσοφίαν τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν ἐὰν ὁ τυχὼν ἄρχων κωλύσῃ, οἴχεται παραχρῆμα· [Clemens Alexandr. Strom. L. vi. p. 827. Oxon. 1715.] Perhaps, the learned father was mistaken. But a religion, founded on facts, not on opinions, and persecuted from the beginning, could not have supported itself, if those facts had been false. This is the case of Christianity. The subsequent persecutions, when the truth of Christianity was admitted on the credit of the first martyrs, might tend to advance this religion, even though it had been originally an imposture. The difference of the two cases is palpable. The Apostles shewed, by their sufferings, that they _knew_ what they attested to be a true fact: Succeeding sufferers shewed, that they _believed_ it to be so.

[293] 1 Peter i. 11.

[294] Of Persecution. John xvi. 2.

Of Heresies. Acts xx. 30. 1 Cor. x. 19.

Of Mahomet’s impiety, ix. 1-12. See Mede.

Of the great Apostasy. 2 Thess. ii. &c.

Of these, and other woes still to come. The Revelation, _passim_.

[295] 1 Peter i. 25.

[296] Matth. vii. 24, 25.

[297] Acts xxvi. 26.

[298] Τοσοῦτός ἐστι τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτῶν γεγραμμένων ὁ γέλως, ὥστε ἀφανισθῆναι καὶ τὰ βιβλία πάλαι, καὶ ἅμα τῷ δειχθῆναι, καὶ ἀπολέσθαι τὰ πολλά. Εἰ δέ που τὶ καὶ εὑρεθείη διασωθὲν, παρὰ Χριστιανοῖς τοῦτο σωζόμενον εὕροι τις ἄν. Tom. II. p. 539. Ed. Bened.

[299] “The Christian religion,” says the finest of our English writers, whom I need not therefore stay to name, “made its way through paganism with an amazing progress and activity. Its victories were the victories of reason, unassisted by the force of human power, and as gentle as the triumphs of light over darkness.”

[300] This effect of inquiry upon the Gentile religions was foreseen by men of sense—_Non sunt ista_ [the traditionary tales of the heathen Gods] _vulgo disputanda, ne susceptas publicè religiones disputatio talis extinguat_. Cic. Frag. Olivet. T. III. p. 586.

[301] The substance of this Discourse was delivered in a Sermon at Lincoln’s-Inn, May 15, 1768.

[302] Luke xii. 14.

[303] L. iv. c. 5.

[304] And to the same purpose, our excellent Archbishop Tillotson—“His [Christ’s] whipping of the buyers and sellers out of the temple, the only action of his life in which there appears any transport of anger, was no other than a BECOMING ZEAL for the honour of God’s house, which he saw so notoriously prophaned; which zeal was WARRANTED, after the example of Phinehas, by the extraordinary occasion of it.” Works, vol. iii. § 136. p. 222.

[305] _Numbers_, ch. xxv.

[306] JOSEPHUS, _De Bello Judaico_, l. iv. c. 12.

[307] Certè, quamquam Servator humani generis et Deus et Rex erat, adeoque ita universi, nedum Judæorum, dominus, ut quicquid ei placeret illud non licitum fuisse nefas sit putare; attamen, cum cæteras res omnes etiam et seipsum receptis atque stabilitis reipublicæ formulis judiciariis, qua Ebraicæ eæ essent, qua Romanæ, permiserit, atque absolutissimum justitiæ exemplar ab omni vi illicitâ, veluti privatus, abstinere voluerit; quin et tanta ei imminuerit invidia, ut nihil magis incidentium in votis esset, quam ut cujuscunque delicti reum eum peragere potuissent; haud rationi sane ita consonum videtur existimare ejectionem illam factam seu vim illatam ab eo fuisse sine agnitâ, etiam ab ipsis qui tam malignè ei invidebant, lege seu more, quo in id genus homines templi sanctitatem ita polluentes incurrere licuerit, atque vi ejicere. L. iv. c. 5. p. 464.

[308] Mr. Smith’s Discourses, _Disc._ vi. ch. vi. Bishop Chandler, _Def. of Christianity_, ch. iii. § 1. and, very lately, the Bishop of Gloucester, _Div. Leg._ b. iv. § 4.

[309] 1 Kings xxii. 11.

[310] Jeremiah xix.

[311] Hosea xii. 10.

[312] Matth. iii. 4.

[313] Mark xi. 7.

[314] Matth. x. 14.

[315] Luke v. 6.

[316] Mark xi. 14

[317] Matthew viii. 32.

[318] Matthew xxvii. 24.

[319] Isaiah xlii. 1, 6.

[320] Ibid. ver. 7.

[321] Isaiah lx. 10.

[322] Chap. xliii. 8.

[323] Rom. xi. 12.

[324] Mark xi. 14.

[325] Mark xi. 15-20.

[326] Mark xii. Luke xx. Matth. xxi.

[327] Luke xx. 16-19.

[328] Matthew xxi. 23.

[329] John ii. 18.

[330] Matthew xxi. 23.

[331] Luke xi. 54.

[332] Acts xxi. 21.

[333] By _these stones_, the ancient interpreters universally understood _the Gentiles_. See Whitby _in loc._

[334] Matt. iii. 9.

[335] St. John, ch. ii. 19.

[336] Matthew xxvi. 61.

[337] Acts xiv. 27.

[338] Mark xi. 21, 24.

[339] Matthew xv. 24.

[340] Mark xi. 17.

[341] 1 Coloss. i. 27.

[Transcriber’s Note:

Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.

Greek words beginning with ϖ have had the character replaced with π.]