Part XIV.

THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.

SECTION LXXXIV.—_The Ritual Law was not Repealed._

In the entrance of the church upon her new commission, her constitution was unchanged. But the ordinances of testimony with which she was entrusted received an essential modification. The nature and the manner of this were alike remarkable; and as the subject has not received the attention due to its importance, it requires here the more careful consideration. In the course thereof, it will appear that the Hebrew Christian church remained with its institutions all unaltered, as they were received from Moses, and the ceremonial law in full authority and operation, down to the close of the New Testament canon. But the Gentile element, which was by the preaching of the gospel gathered in and incorporated with the church, was, by express statute, exempted from the obligation of that law.

1. The Lord Jesus was “a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers; and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy.”—Rom. xv, 8, 9. He lived and died in the full communion of the church of Israel, in so far as his own action or will was concerned; although he was in the end excommunicated and betrayed by the rulers of that church. He assured his disciples that he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill. (Matt. v, 17.) Neither by example nor by precept did he set aside or abrogate it; but, on the contrary, having himself obeyed every precept and observed every ordinance, he left it, at his ascension, in full and unimpaired authority.

2. The apostles and the church over which they presided in Jerusalem were not only zealous in their observance of the law; but were not altogether exempt from the influence of some of the most obnoxious of the traditions of the elders. Of this, the case of Peter’s visit to the house of Cornelius presents a signal illustration. To prepare him to listen to the message from the Roman centurion, a miraculous vision was shown him. And, when the disciples in Jerusalem heard of the matter, they accused him, for having gone in to men uncircumcised and eaten with them. And yet there was not a syllable in the laws of Moses to justify such extreme reserve. It was wholly based upon the traditions of the elders. So powerful and prevalent was the sentiment among Jewish Christians, on this subject, that it subsequently became the occasion of a very singular dereliction on the part of Peter. Says Paul,—“When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.”—Gal. ii, 11-13. Respecting this it is not enough to say that Peter and the Judaizers were all wrong. True. But such a state of things could not have existed, had the church or the apostles understood the law of Moses to be, in any manner, abrogated or set aside.

3. The calling and decree of the council of Jerusalem are very important facts, as bearing on this subject. The occasion of the council was the attempt of Judaizing teachers to impose circumcision and the ritual law upon the Gentile converts. (Acts xv, 1-5.) Hereupon, “the apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter.”—v. 6. Here, at once, it is impossible that such a question could have arisen, had the abrogation of the Mosaic law been a fact known to the church in Jerusalem; and assuredly in that case, there would have been no room for the apostles and elders to “consider” such a question, the very raising of which would have been the erection of a standard of open rebellion against Christ. The discussions and decree of the council were equally conclusive. No doubt was suggested, in any quarter as to the continued authority of the law. No one hinted at the idea of its repeal. The discussion turned entirely on the privilege of the Gentiles to be specially exempt from its requirements. The evidence of such exemption was found in the fact that God had, in a special manner, shown his acceptance of them, outside the law. Upon this point, the whole issue turned; and the proof respecting it was formally given by Peter, in a rehearsal of the facts concerning the house of Cornelius (vs. 7, 8); and by Paul and Barnabas, in an account of “the miracles and wonders which God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.”—vs. 12. Moreover, the conclusion reached (vs. 14-19), and the decree issued, had express relation, to the Gentiles, only, and not to the whole body of the church. In a word, it was a decree recognizing and proclaiming the exemption of the Gentiles from the obligation of the existing law.—“The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are _of the Gentiles_, in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia. Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us, have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment.... It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which, if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”—vs. 23-29. Such is the only rule or decree found in the New Testament, respecting the ritual law. It exempts the Gentiles from its obligations; but otherwise leaves it in unimpaired authority.

4. With this view, the whole subsequent history of the apostolic church agrees. Paul was the great apostle of the Gentiles. He was prompt and decided in asserting and vindicating their liberty from the obligations of the law; but was himself conscientious in the observance of all its requirements, and fully recognized their obligation upon himself and his brethren of Israel. These facts were brought into question, and publicly established in the most signal manner. When he came to Jerusalem after his third missionary tour, in an interview with James and the elders of the church, they said to him “Thou seest, brother, how many thousands (_muriades_, how many tens of thousands,) of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law. And they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? The multitude must needs come together; for they will hear that thou art come. Do, therefore, this that we say to thee. We have four men which have a vow on them. Them take and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things whereof they have been informed concerning thee are nothing, but that thou thyself also walkest orderly and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.”—Acts xxi, 20-25. To this suggestion Paul agreed, and was in the temple in fulfillment of it, awaiting the time when “an offering should be offered for every one of them,” when a tumult was raised by the unbelieving Jews, and his imprisonment took place, which resulted in his being sent, in chains, to Cesarea, and to Rome. (Acts xxi, 26, 27.)

Respecting this matter, the first point to be noticed is the fact that the myriads of Jewish Christians were unanimous.—They “were all zealous of the law.” The imagination of Conybeare and Howson and others that the proceeding was the work of a Judaizing faction and was consented to for the sake of peace, is not only without warrant in the record, but is in contradiction to its whole tenor, and spirit. In fact the entire conception of the first named writers on the subject is characterized by a strained and perverse ingenuity, rather than by the simplicity of a sound criticism. And yet they have to admit that the law continued in unimpaired authority over all Jewish believers. Why then labor to stigmatize the church in Jerusalem or an imaginary faction therein for being zealous in its maintenance?

The purpose and intent of this transaction as expressly avowed by James and the elders was to draw a broad line of distinction between Jews and Gentiles in relation to the law. In their very suggestion to Paul, they refer to the former council and decree.—“As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing.” Thus, avowedly, the course proposed was designed to interpret that decree, and to limit its purview to the Gentiles. It was, moreover, a transaction taking place in circumstances which imparted to it the very highest moment. It was in Jerusalem, the center whence Jesus had commanded his apostles that the gospel should go forth. They were to preach in all the world, “beginning at Jerusalem.” There, consequently the first labors of the twelve were expended; there, some of them were almost always found; and to that church the Gentile churches looked as the fountain of their faith and authoritative exponent to them of the will of Christ. Such had been the prophetic anticipation long before respecting this very time.—“Out of Zion shall go forth the law; and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”—Isa. ii, 3. Already had that church sent forth the law concerning the relation of the Gentiles to the Mosaic institutions. And now the question to be decided was equally important, and the action proposed, although different in form, was equally responsible and decisive. A decree of confirmation of the law, which had stood unimpeached for fifteen centuries would have been inappropriate and calculated rather to awaken doubts than to strengthen conviction. The course proposed and adopted was more appropriate and effective. Paul was the great apostle of the Gentiles, the recognized and world-renowned champion, not only of the freedom of the Gentiles, but of the liberty of the gospel, the liberty of all Christ’s people. The spectacle, therefore, of this great apostle, performing Levitical rites of purifying and publicly appearing at the temple, in order to the offering of sacrifices, in completion of a Nazarite vow, would constitute a most decisive demonstration and announcement of the continued obligation of the law, over all Israel. It was not a case, therefore, in which a privilege might be waived for the sake of peace. Submission to these proposals, if they were unwarranted, would have been treason, at once to Christ and to the liberties of the apostle’s own people. How likely it was that Paul, having already vindicated with firmness and success the freedom of the Gentiles from the bondage of the law, should have conspired to betray the liberties of his own beloved Israel, on the very same point, in the interest of a time-serving policy, may be judged from his whole history and writings. The alternative presented by the facts is of itself conclusive. Either the law remained in unimpaired authority, over Israel,—or, Paul and James, the elders, and all the myriads of believing Jews, were united, without dissent or exception, in a conspiracy to repudiate the authority of the Lord Jesus, and re-establish a law repealed by him.

5. The action of Paul upon this occasion was not an instance of mere occasional conformity, but was expressly designed by the apostle as a testimony to the Jews that he did not repudiate the law, but “walked orderly and kept it.” And an examination of his manner of life and ministry will show that this testimony was true,—that he was constant and conscientious in his own observance of the law, and recognition of its authority. Wherever he went, his first recourse was to the worshiping assemblies of the Jews, to which he joined himself as one of them, withdrawing only when rejected from their company. (Acts xvii, 2; xix, 8, 9, etc.) One incident in the story of his ministry affords us a glimpse into the inner chamber of his sentiments and the spirit of his personal life, as toward the law. On his second missionary tour, leaving Corinth, he sailed into Syria, “and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.”—Acts xviii, 18. Some expositors have explained this vow as taken by Aquila and not by Paul. Olshausen, who, however, rejects this theory, says that “those learned men who deny the reference of the words to Paul, suppose that the statement can not be applied to him, because it would have been inconsistent with his principles regarding the abrogation of the ceremonial law of Moses, to have taken upon him a vow.” Conybeare and Howson, who hesitate between the two views, say that “the difficulty lies not so much in supposing that Paul took a Jewish vow (see Acts xxi, 26) as in supposing that he made himself conspicuous for Jewish peculiarities while he was forming a mixed church at Corinth.” But all admit that the Greek in this place points as distinctly to Paul as does the common English version. We already know enough, certainly, to caution us against forcing an interpretation, on the ground that the ceremonial law was abrogated. We have seen the apostle take upon him such a vow, in the most public and demonstrative manner. And, as to the difficulty made by Conybeare and Howson, it is founded in a palpable mistake of the facts. The vow may have been made in Corinth. Of that we know nothing. But the shaving of his head, to which alone the suggestion as to “making himself conspicuous” could apply, took place in Cenchrea, after leaving Corinth and when in the act of sailing for Syria. So that the facts as recorded look rather to the avoidance of notoriety than seeking it. So far as the record indicates, the vow being connected with Paul’s own private religious life, was only known to his personal attendants, in connection with the fact of his shaving his head, and the diligence with which he sought to reach Jerusalem in time for the feast. (Vs. 21, 22.) This was no doubt connected with the fulfillment of his vow, which of necessity required offerings at the temple. It thus appears that not only did the apostle maintain an outward and formal observance of the law; but that his private devotional life and experience took its form from the ordinances of that law, and found expression in them; a fact utterly irreconcilable, as was his whole life and teachings, with the assumption that he looked upon them as being abrogated or obsolete.

On this and other occasions, there are intimations that as often as was consistent with the duties of his ministry, he was accustomed to resort to Jerusalem, in observance of the annual feasts, and for the purpose of making offerings at the temple. “I came,” says he to Felix, “to bring alms to my nation, _and offerings_. Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me _purified_ in the temple.”—Acts xxiv, 17, 18; comp. xx, 16.

Another important fact appears in the record. With a significant discrimination, Paul circumcised Timothy the son of a Jewess; although, his father being a Greek, he might have claimed exemption as a Gentile (Acts xvi, 1-3); “But, neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek was compelled to be circumcised; and that because of false brethren, unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place, by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.”—Gal. ii, 3-5. Thus, in Timothy and Titus, Paul’s favorite disciples and constant attendants and helpers in his later ministry, he carried with him exemplars and representatives of the opposite relations to the law, which he recognized in the Jews and the Gentiles.

Moreover during his imprisonment, in reply to the charge of being a contemner of the law, the apostle repeatedly and unqualifiedly asserted that he had been constant and faithful in observance of it. In the presence of the council of Israel, he announced himself a Pharisee. Of the same thing he writes to the Philippians, that he had “no confidence in the flesh, Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law blameless.”—Phil. iii, 3-6. It is true that the description here given by the apostle has especial reference to the past time of his unconverted zeal. But it is also true, that his introductory comparison with others, as to grounds of self-righteous confidence, is in the present tense, and indicates a conscious fidelity to the law down to the time of his writing. When accused before Festus, “he answered for himself,—Neither against _the law of the Jews_, neither against the temple, nor yet against Cæsar, have I offended any thing at all.”—Acts xxv, 8. And when at last he was taken to Rome, he there called the chief of the Jews together, and said to them, “Men and brethren, though I have committed _nothing_ against the people or _customs of our fathers_, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.”—Acts xxviii, 17.

Is it asked, how all this is to be reconciled with the doctrine of the epistle to the Galatians, and other testimonies of Paul respecting circumcision and the law? I answer,—Paul nowhere utters a syllable in disapproval of the observance of the law by the Jews, as a rule of life. What he assails is, a trusting in it, for themselves, or imposing it on others, as a rule of righteousness unto salvation. While he proclaimed salvation by grace, through faith alone, without the works of the law, moral or ritual, he with perfect consistency not only himself kept the law, but enjoined it on his brethren after the flesh. His principle of action in this respect, he states explicitly, “Is any man called, being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, _but the keeping of the commandments of God_. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free use it rather.”—1 Cor. vii, 18-21. Thus distinctly does Paul recognize circumcision as still being, to the Jews, a commandment of God; as exemption from it was to the Gentiles. And it need scarcely be said, that circumcision here stands for the whole law. It is to be considered, moreover, that this language of Paul is not a mere recognition of circumcision as still existing by the providence of God; but it is an express and unreserved re-enforcement of the law, by his whole authority, as an apostle of Jesus Christ,—a re-enforcement broad and unlimited as to time or circumstances as was the law itself. This unlimited character of the apostle’s decree, is emphasized and strengthened by the exception which he appends to the general form of his enunciation;—“Let every man abide in the calling wherein he was called.” Lest any should interpret this rule as designed to apply to cases outside the theme in hand, he adds,—“Art thou called being a servant? Care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.” So far from moderating or weakening the force of the apostle’s previous language, this adds greatly to it; showing as it does, that the question of exceptions and limitations was present to his mind. Then was the time, if ever, for him to have intimated the doing away of the ritual law; or, at least, to so guard his language as to harmonize it with its ultimate abrogation, had such been the purpose of God. The fact, therefore, that neither here nor elsewhere does he allude to such a purpose, but on the contrary gives the above unreserved injunction as a permanent part of the written word of God, leaves us but one alternative,—to reject the authority of Paul, as an inspired apostle, or to recognize circumcision and the law as being, to the Jew, the commandment of God, unrepealed.

If, we further examine the epistles, we shall find that while they all are unanimous in repudiating the _righteousness_ of the law; they do not, anywhere assert or imply its repeal, as toward Israel. It will moreover be found that any inference as to the abrogation of the law, which may be deduced from the doctrine of grace, as taught by all the apostles, applies as directly to the moral as to the ritual code; both of which are by them commonly comprehended together under the designation of, “the law.” Upon their principles, reliance on a righteousness of works is just as much to be reprobated in the one form as in the other; and the doctrine of salvation by grace is as consistent with the continued obligation and observance of the ritual, as, of the moral law.

6. It is no slight argument in proof of the view here presented, that it alone exhibits the apostolic history as consistent and harmonious, based upon definite and inflexible principles, unanimously recognized and obeyed by the apostles and elders. That such must have been the case, is involved in the manner in which the apostles were appointed to preside over the transition period in the history of the church, and the Spirit given for their guidance therein. Many writers have assumed without the trouble of proof, that the ritual law could not any longer possess legitimate authority—that the coming of Christ, and his one offering of himself, of necessity, superseded and set it aside. They are, at once, involved in the necessity of treating the whole history of the apostolic church as one of compromising policies and timeserving expedients. We are told of the extreme Judaism of James, the more moderate conservatism of Peter, and the free evangelical spirit of Paul. Their principles and parties are represented as maintaining a continual struggle, and the various facts of the history are explained as the prevalence of one or the other set of opinions, or the result of compromise. On the contrary, there is not a trace of the least diversity of sentiment on these questions between the parties named, or any of the apostles or leaders of the church. Some “false brethren, unawares brought in” (Gal. ii, 4), attempted to create division; but only developed harmony. The decree of the council of Jerusalem was no compromise, but the expression of unanimous sentiments (_‘omothumadon_, “with one heart,”—Acts xv, 25), and was, moreover, dictated by the Holy Spirit. “It seemed good _to the Holy Ghost_ and to us.” The so-called partisans of James, the Judaizing zealots, who troubled Paul’s ministry, were expressly repudiated in that decree, which was moved in the council by Peter and James, and apparently drafted by the hand of the latter.[112] The reason why the labors of James and Peter were mainly confined to the circumcision in Judea, while Paul preached among the far off Gentiles, was precisely the same in both cases,—the will of Christ. Says Paul,—“When they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (for He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles;) and when James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.”—Gal. ii, 7-9. No. The blood-bought church of Christ, was not left, at this critical time, to the mercies of the passions and prejudices, the narrowness and factions of fallible men. It was under the direction of the Lord Jesus, and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The prayer “that they all may be one,” was not unheard, nor unanswered of the Father; and the promise that the Spirit should guide them into all truth was fulfilled.

Footnote 112:

The “_Greeting_” (_Chairein_) Acts xv, 23; is found nowhere else in the New Testament, save in James i, 1.

From this careful survey, it appears, that the New Testament contains no evidence of the abrogation or passing away of the ceremonial law,—that its unimpaired authority over Israel was fully and universally acknowledged and asserted by the apostles and the churches over which they presided; while the exemption of the Gentiles from its requirements was recognized as exceptional, and secured by formal consultation and decree;—that this condition of things continued unchanged to the close of the New Testament canon;—and that as a necessary consequence, that law never has been repealed, to this day. As once before, during the seventy years of the Babylonian captivity, Israel was providentially precluded from its observance, so at present, it is one of the most afflictive features of the divine dealings with them, that the law, which they idolized and so grievously perverted, still binds them; while the destruction of the temple, the disorganization of the nation and the obliterating of the priesthood renders its fulfillment by them impossible.

SECTION LXXXV.—_Why the Gentiles were Exempt from the Law._

The exemption of the Gentile Christian church from the authority of the ceremonial law must be accounted for upon some principle which will harmonize with all the facts. The common theory assumes it to be of the very nature of a type to perish and be abrogated by its realization in the antitype. Thus, it is supposed, that the sacrificial system of necessity expired with its fulfillment by Christ’s one offering of himself. But, as we have seen, the law was not in fact abrogated, but continues in unimpaired authority over Israel. Why, then, are the Gentiles exempt from its obligations?

The reason was briefly intimated by Peter. “Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear;”—literally, “neither (_ischusamen_) _were strong_ to bear.”—Acts xv, 10. This verb means, _to be strong_, and is sometimes used with a negative particle, as here, to indicate a labor of great difficulty, not amounting to an impracticability. Thus, in John xxi, 6, it is said of the net of fishes,—“They _were not able_” (were not _strong_) “to draw it, for the multitude of fishes.” And yet, immediately after, when their force had been reduced by Peter casting himself into the sea and swimming to land, they came “dragging the net with fishes,” and Peter himself drew it to land. (vs. 8, 11.) The ritual law was a burdensome, although not impossible institution, for Israel, when dwelling in their own land. But, as a system of worship for a world-religion, it was unsuitable. Essential to it was the one temple, altar and priest, at Jerusalem, typical of the one sanctuary and service in heaven. Hither must all males repair statedly, three times a year, and both men and women upon many special occasions beside, of a personal nature. To a population of four or five millions, dwelling in the narrow limits of Palestine,—a territory the extreme dimensions of which were about 100 miles by 150,—this was possible, although burdensome. But, to the distant millions of the world’s inhabitants, manifestly it would have been utterly impracticable.

Moreover, to the race at large, the ceremonial law had already fulfilled its most important and essential offices. Undoubtedly, it could still have been used by the grace of God, as it had been for ages before, as a mode for the effectual transmission and dissemination of the gospel testimony, kept in unimpaired purity by the agency of unchanging forms. Nor is the fact to be everlooked, or lightly regarded, that representations to the eye and the physical senses have a peculiar power over the affections and the heart, a power often greater and more influential than any appeal to the intellect through the organs of hearing. Had such been the will of God, the ritual system was certainly susceptible of being made a powerful auxiliary to the dissemination of the gospel, by its relation to these principles of man’s nature.

But, when the gospel was given to the Gentiles, the system of elementary ideas which were embodied and exhibited in the Mosaic ceremonial possessed a world-wide diffusion. The art of writing had been developed and disseminated. The Old Testament Scriptures were already written and widely distributed, and the gospels and epistles were soon to follow. Thus the cardinal importance of the ritual ordinances as a mode for the recording and perpetuation of the gospel was obsolete,—replaced by means more appropriate to a religion now destined for the world. And the “demonstration of the Spirit and of power,” which now accompanies the preaching of the gospel among the Gentiles, is abundant compensation for the ritual system, as an appeal to the affections, through the senses.

It is thus apparent that the discrimination, in the beginning made between Jew and Gentile respecting the ceremonial law,—its obligation on the one, and the exemption of the other,—was neither arbitrary nor unmeaning, but alike reasonable and susceptible of full and beautiful realization in practice. It implied the continuance of Israel as a priest-kingdom among the nations, maintaining at Jerusalem, as a standard of faith to the world, that system of rites which so beautifully, so clearly and impressively set forth the gospel to the eyes and senses of men; whilst, the world over, the same gospel should have been published, by the written and printed word, by the living voice, and by the simple ritual of Gentile Christianity, practicable everywhere. But such was not the purpose of God. At the beginning, our first parents by sin forfeited the Eden which might have been theirs. So, Israel forfeited her offered privilege. Jerusalem was destroyed, and the gospel and the church were given to the Gentiles,—“until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved.”—Rom. xi, 25, 26.

SECTION LXXXVI.—_The Christian Passover._

To the church among the Gentiles, two simple ordinances remain, an inheritance from the ancient church,—a memorial and link of connection and identity between the two; and a continuous sealing of the same covenant, transmitted from the one to the other. That the Supper is thus derived from the paschal feast, can not be denied. As early as Jacob’s prophecy of Shiloh, “the blood of the grape” was appropriated as a type of Christ’s sufferings. (Gen. xlix, 9-12.) Afterward, in the Levitical system, a meat or bread offering made of fine flour mixed with oil, and a drink offering of wine, were made essential parts of all sacrificial offerings. (See Num. xv, and xviii.) Of the festival offerings, to which the passover belonged, a part only was offered upon the altar; the rest being appropriated to the worshippers. They thus enjoyed communion with God, at his table; and hence the proverbial description of “wine which cheereth God and man.”—Judg. ix, 13. Thus, in the passover and all the Levitical sacrifices, two distinct elements were typical of Christ’s sufferings; but in wholly different aspects. The blood signified the satisfaction demanded by justice; and it was, therefore, utterly prohibited that men should eat of it. (Lev. xvii, 10-14.) It was poured upon the altar. But the wine expressed the virtue of that satisfaction, imparted to believers and received by them, to their spiritual nourishment. Thus, the wine of the supper is not a substitute for the blood of sacrifice, but is a distinct and co-ordinate type, transmitted from the passover, and other sacrificial rites, and unchanged in its meaning. The unleavened bread always symbolized the Bread of life that came down from heaven; and the cup always represented the blood of the new covenant.

That the passover was from the beginning a type of the atonement of the Lord Jesus, is certain. (1.) The ordinance was a feast upon a sacrifice. From the foundation of the world, sacrifice signified one thing,—the satisfaction to be made to justice by the Lord Jesus. Such being the case, the feast of Israel upon the pascal lamb could have but one meaning. That meaning was set forth by Jesus, who having been announced by John as the Lamb of God, himself says, “If any man eat of this bread (_artou_, “of this food”), he shall live forever, and the food that I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”—John vi, 51. (2.) The deliverance of Israel from the bondage of Egypt, was an exercise of the same redeeming function, which is displayed in the salvation of men; and was a type of that salvation. Hence the preface to the ten commandments.—“I am the Lord _thy God_ which have brought thee _out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage_” (Ex. xx, 2); which the Westminster catechism explains that “because God is the Lord and our God and Redeemer, therefore, we are bound to keep all his commandments.” (3.) Jesus himself at the very time when he eliminated the Lord’s supper out of the passover, declared the latter to be a type of his sufferings and death. “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer. For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until _it be fulfilled_ in the kingdom of God.”—Luke xxii, 15, 16.

How plainly the Lord’s supper was an epitome and perpetuation of the passover, will be understood, by reference to the manner of observance of the latter in the time of Christ. It was required of those who partook of the feast, that they should not sit, but recline at the table, as expressing liberty and rest. When they were thus disposed, wine was distributed, and after thanks given by the presiding person, each one drank a cup. The master then explained the nature and occasion of the feast, and distributed a second cup. He then brake the unleavened bread, gave thanks, and gave it to the company, with the bitter herbs and other provisions that were on the table, and afterward the flesh of the lamb. When all had eaten and the supper was ended, he that presided took another cup of wine, and, after blessing God, all drank of it. This was called “the cup of blessing,” because of the blessing on it, which ended the feast. Thus the order of the feast was, (1) Thanksgiving; (2) A cup of wine; (3) The commemorative discourse; (4) A second cup; (5) A second thanksgiving; (6) The broken bread; (7) The flesh of the lamb; (8) The closing blessing; (9) The cup of blessing. So, at the beginning of the supper, Jesus took the cup, and gave thanks and said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves.” After discourse, and washing the disciples’ feet, “he took bread, and gave thanks and brake it and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me. Likewise, also, the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”—Luke xxii, 17-20.

The Lord’s supper was not, therefore, a distinct ordinance, instituted after the passover was ended, by the use of remaining elements. But it was a perpetuation of the passover, itself, by appropriating and interpreting portions of the elements, from time to time, during the progress of the feast; the bread being that which was broken and eaten before the paschal flesh, and the wine that which closed the feast; which was known to the Jews and described in the Talmud, as the cup of blessing, and which is designated by that name by the apostle Paul, in speaking of the Lord’s supper. (1 Cor. x, 16.) The particular number and order of the cups of wine and of the thanksgivings were regulations of the scribes, promotive of order and propriety in the observance; but not included in the divine requirements of the institution, and therefore not essential to it. This fact being taken into account, it will appear that the paschal feast remains to us entire, except only the sacrificial flesh of the lamb. Of it Paul says, “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us; therefore, let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”—1 Cor. v, 7, 8.

SECTION LXXXVII.—_The Hebrew Christian Church._

We proceed to trace the order and process of the development of the Christian church, as it took place under the Sinai constitution, with the ordinances modified as we have seen. The synagogue system had grown up long before the time of Christ. In it provision was made for fulfilling those injunctions of the law which insisted so much on instruction and study in the word of God, and which set apart the Sabbaths as days of holy convocation. (Lev. xxiii, 3, etc.) In the organization of these societies, respect was undoubtedly had, at first, to the ties of consanguinity; so that the members of a given cluster of families, living in the same vicinity and originally descended from one head, were constituted a synagogue, under the direction and government of those who by the right of primogeniture were the family elders. But, in the time of Christ, the whole system of the distribution and inheritance of the land, and of the family organization, as appointed by the law of Moses, had been broken up by the repeated captivities, the dispersion of the ten tribes, and the vicissitudes of war and peace. The synagogue system was therefore more artificial in its structure, and more characterized by the voluntary principle. Indications of voluntary association and elective affinity are plainly seen in the names of the synagogues members of which were active in the persecution of Stephen.—“The synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians.”—Acts vi, 9. It is indeed evident that in the general circumstances of the Jews at that time, in Judea and elsewhere, the worshiping assemblies must usually have been the products of voluntary association, more or less influenced by congeniality of sentiments among the members. Pharisees and Sadducees severally would seek the worshiping assemblies in which their respective views were favored. Those of the same foreign nationality would naturally gravitate toward each other. And, in general, congeniality, from whatever cause, would be potential in these associations.

The existence, at this time, in the bosom of the Jewish church of the two sects, or parties, of the Sadducees and the Pharisees, was a very important fact in preparing the way for the gospel. These parties are, in the original Greek, designated by the generic word, _hairesis_, which is commonly translated, “sect,” as “the _sect_ of the Sadducees” (Acts v, 17), “the _sect_ of the Pharisees” (Ib. xv, 5), “the _sect_ of the Nazarenes,” (Ib. xxiv, 5). In one place, it is, “the way which they call _heresy_.”—Ib. xxiv, 14. Neither of these words, however, is a happy rendering of the original; which has nothing of the idea of doctrinal error, now attached to the word, heresy; and nothing of the odium involved in the designation of “sects;” nor, of the denominational separations which are expressed by it. The word, as used in Luke’s history signifies, a party, or rather, a society having a distinctive organization more or less complete, for certain special purposes; but continuing in the enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the Jewish church and the temple worship. Such was the position at once assumed, by the apostles and the converts of their ministry. They were organized in separate synagogues. They observed the first day of the week, as a day of assembling for worship and the breaking of bread. They received their converts by the familiar rite of baptism. But they were all zealous of the law, and faithful, therefore, even above others in the observance of its requirements. Thus, despite all the odium which Pharisees and Sadducees might seek to cast upon them, it was impossible to impeach them of apostasy from Judaism, or unfaithfulness to Moses. Hence, the result recorded by Luke. “They, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart; praising God, and having favor with all the people.”—Acts ii, 46, 47.

Such was the aspect of things in Jerusalem and Judea for a quarter of a century; from the first dissemination of the gospel to the times of anarchy which preceded the desolation of the land. In the bosom of the Jewish church, beside the great body of the people, were the three societies just mentioned. The Sadducees were comparatively few in number, but influential, by reason of their social position and wealth, the party being composed almost exclusively of the priests and aristocracy. The Pharisees were more numerous, and in greater favor with the people; for, while the Sadducees were chargeable with lax opinions, the Pharisees were “the straitest sect of the Jews’ religion,” including all those who hoped to secure the favor of God through the righteousness of the law. Beside these was “the sect of the Nazarenes,” far greater in numbers than either of the others; and, at first, more in favor with the mass of the people,—a favor which they seem to have retained till the growing corruption and disorder which heralded the catastrophe of the nation, rendered them odious, alike by the contrast of their lives with the prevailing licentiousness, and by the rebukes and warnings which they could not fail to utter.

Whilst the number of the Christians, as compared with the whole nation was, no doubt, small, the mistake is to be avoided of regarding it as insignificant. A comparison of the various statements on the subject will lead to the conclusion that the company of the believers must have been so large as to constitute one of the most conspicuous features in the aspect of the nation. On the day of Pentecost “there were added unto them about three thousand souls.”—Acts ii, 41. A few days afterward, “many of them which heard the word believed, and the number of the men was about five thousand.”—Ib. iv, 4. Soon after, it is again recorded that “the people magnified them. And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.”—Ib. v, 13, 14. Again, it is stated that the high-priest demanded of the apostles,—“Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? And behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your _teaching_ (_didachēs_), and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”—Ib. v, 28. Such was the progress of the gospel that these rulers were alarmed lest they should be called by the people to account for the death of Jesus. Soon, again, we read that “the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.”—Ib. vi, 7. Immediately after this Stephen was martyred, and “there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.”—Ib. viii, 1. By the dispersed believers, the gospel was carried through the land and to the Gentiles. (Ib. xi, 19.) And in Jerusalem itself the word of the Lord was not bound. The persecution, in its active form, soon ceased, and when the converted Saul retired from Jerusalem to Tarsus, we read that “then had the churches rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost were multiplied.”—Ib. ix, 31. Such was the new growth of the church in Jerusalem that when Paul made his last visit to that city, James could say to him,—“Thou seest, brother, how many (_muriades_) ten thousands of Jews there are which believe.”—Ib. xxi, 20. To the inference which naturally follows from these representations, the objection has been raised, that there is no accounting for such numbers, in the after history. Alexander suggests, that many were false professors, who “afterward apostatized or separated from the church, as Ebionites, or Judaizing heretics.”[113] So dark a view, however, is not required by the facts. Doubtless there were some defections. But there is no reason to suppose them to have been of the extent here implied. The circumstances in which they united with the persecuted followers of the man of Nazareth, were not such as to present attractions to false professors. The patristic tradition that none of the Christians perished in the siege of Jerusalem, they having all retired to Pella, whilst it may possibly be true, concerning those who lived in Jerusalem, is by no means probable. And so far from Jesus having taught the disciples to expect such a result, the reverse is the case. That the churches of believers which had been flourishing for a quarter of a century in Judea, Galilee and Samaria must have suffered greatly, from the disorders and anarchy which preceded the final catastrophe, is certain, and of it Jesus expressly forewarned them.—“Ye shall be betrayed both by parents and brethren and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be _put to death_. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake. But there shall not an hair of your head perish” (even though ye be put to death). “In your patience possess ye your souls. And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.”—Luke xxi, 16-20. See, also, Matt. xxiv, 9-13; Mark xiii, 9-13. As to what afterward became of the Christians of Judea,—in view of the scanty remaining records of the time, and of the manner in which they were identified with their brethren of Israel as being none the less Jews because they were Christians,—it is not surprising that we can not distinctly trace their subsequent history. One fact, however, is patent on the face of the scanty record, and is sufficient to satisfy all the demands of the occasion. It is, that as the Christian churches, at a later period, emerge into the light of history they everywhere bear the broad and indelible impress of Hebrew Christian influences.

Footnote 113:

Alexander on Acts, xxi, 20.

The subsequent history of the Hebrew church in Jerusalem itself very signally confirms the view here presented. As soon as the city began to be repeopled, a church was re-established, under the presidency, as Eusebius reports, of Simeon the son of Cleopas. Of his successors, that historian says,—“We have not ascertained, in any way, that the times of the bishops of Jerusalem have been regularly preserved on record. For tradition says that they all lived but a very short time. So much, however, have I learned from writers, that down to the invasion of the Jews under Adrian there were fifteen successions of bishops in that church, all which, they declare to have been Hebrews from the first, and received the knowledge of Christ pure and unadulterated, so that in the estimation of those who were able to judge, they were well approved and worthy of the episcopal office. For, at that time, the whole church under them consisted of believing Hebrews who continued from the time of the apostles until the siege that then took place.” The historian gives a list of the succession of fifteen bishops. “These are all the bishops of Jerusalem that filled up the time from the apostles until the above mentioned date,—all being of the circumcision.”[114] The list ends with the name of Judah, who perished by the sword of the impostor, Simon, surnamed Bar Kokeba, “the Son of the Star.” This adventurer, originally a robber chieftain, had announced himself as the expected Messiah of Israel. The Jews, groaning under the oppressions of the Romans, rushed to arms and rallied to his standard, to the number of more than 200,000 men. He would brook no neutrality. The Gentiles of Palestine had to choose between his service and the sword. His demands, repelled by the Hebrew Christians, brought on them his exterminating vengeance, and Judah, the last of the Hebrew succession of the bishops of Jerusalem, perished, with a multitude of his church, under the swords of the Jews.[115] Thus closed in blood the history of the Hebrew church in Jerusalem, in the year 132. As for Simon,—after successfully defying for two years, the whole power of Rome, he and his forces were finally cooped up in the town of Bethar, which was taken by storm. The impostor perished, with a multitude of his followers, and the remnant glutted the slave markets of the world. “The numbers of persons who perished by sword, flame, and hunger, have been stated as high as 700,000, by others, 580,000. As to Judaism and the Jewish people, the land might be said, for some time, to be a solitude. The native inhabitants who had escaped the butchery of the war were expatriated either by banishment or flight, or sold into bondage. No Jew was now permitted to come within sight of Jerusalem, and Gentile colonists were sent to take possession of the soil. Jerusalem in fact became a Gentile city.”[116]

Footnote 114:

Eusebius iii, 11; iv, 5, 6.

Footnote 115:

Etheridge’s Jerusalem and Tiberias, p. 71.

Footnote 116:

Etheridge, Ibid. p. 72.

Says Mosheim,—“When the emperor (Adrian) had wholly destroyed Jerusalem, a second time, and had enacted severe laws against the Jews, the greater part of the Christians living in Palestine, that they might not be confounded with Jews as they had been, laid aside the Mosaic ceremonies, and chose one Mark who was a foreigner and not a Jew, for their bishop. This procedure was very offensive to those among them whose attachment to the Mosaic rites was too strong to be eradicated. They therefore separated from their brethren, and formed a distinct society, in Perea, a part of Palestine, and in the neighboring regions; and among them the Mosaic law retained all its dignity unimpaired.”[117] These Jewish Christians, known as Nazarenes, are traceable for several centuries, orthodox in their faith and embraced in the fellowship of the Catholic church, but strict in the observance of circumcision and the law of Moses, as far as practicable in the circumstances of the Jews.

Footnote 117:

Mosheim, Eccl. Hist., Cent. II., Part II., Ch. v, 1, 2.

Section LXXXVIII.—_The Gentiles Graffed in._

While such as we have described was the constitution of the church in Jerusalem and Judea, in the days of the apostles, it elsewhere presented a different aspect. At Antioch, Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, Rome and other places, Jews and Gentiles were associated together in the churches. Where such was the case, the Jewish members, like their brethren in Judea, maintained the ordinances of both the Levitical and Christian liturgies. They kept sacred alike the Jewish Sabbath and the Lord’s day. They were circumcised, and observed all the requirements of the law of Moses, and maintained all the services of the synagogue system. At the same time, they on the Lord’s day, united with their believing Gentile brethren, in observing the ordinances of the gospel church, and the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper.

On the other hand, the Gentile members of these churches were uncircumcised and free from the bondage of the ritual law. They kept holy the Lord’s day only; on which they united with their Jewish brethren in the ordinances of Christian worship and religion. At the same time these Gentile converts were more or less in the habit of frequenting the synagogue services, to hear the reading of the Scriptures and join in the worship of the God of Israel. In these services their position was similar to that held by the class of persons who were known as “devout persons,” or “proselytes of the gate.” In fact, it was usually from these that the first Gentile converts to Christ were gathered. The strong tendency, which the circumstances were calculated to induce in them, to embrace the entire system of Judaism as it was maintained by their Jewish Christian brethren, elicited from Paul those expostulations which have been misunderstood as implying the absolute abrogation of the law. His earnestness therein was induced by the fact, that the voluntary assumption of the yoke of the ritual law, by those upon whom God had not laid it, was a manifest apostasy from the doctrine of grace,—an attempt to fulfill a righteousness of works.

Of the mixed state of these churches, the first epistle to the Corinthians presents constant illustrations. In it, Paul indulges in a frequency of allusion to Old Testament facts which presupposes his readers to be familiar with the sacred books of the Jews. In one place, he addresses them as being of the stock of Israel, “Brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.”—Ch. x, 1-11. On the other hand, the apostle alludes to disorders and offenses, in the church, which were evidently committed by the Gentile members (vi, 9-11; xi, 20-22), and moreover, says expressly,—“Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.”—xii, 2. He also, as we have already seen, gives express instructions for continuing the distinction between Jew and Gentile, in the church. “Is any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised.”—vii, 18.

But there was yet another class of churches, which may be exemplified in Lystra, Derbe, and Galatia,—churches where there were no Jews, or in which their number was so small as to constitute an unappreciable element. In them, the Christian Sabbath and ordinances were alone observed, the assemblies and services on the Lord’s day being precisely the same in their nature and manner as those maintained where Jews and Gentiles were united.

Of all these churches, whether of Jewish, mixed, or Gentile elements, the local constitution and form of government was the same; being that of the synagogue. This the circumstances rendered inevitable; and to it all the statements and intimations of the Scriptures testify. In fact, in the epistle of James they are expressly designated by that name.—“If there come unto your _synagogue_, (_sunagogēn_) a man with a gold ring.”—Ja. ii, 2. It is true the epistle is inscribed, “to _the twelve tribes_ which are scattered abroad.”—Ib. i, 1. But it is to the Christians of those scattered tribes, that he addresses himself. With them Gentile believers were always to be found united; and no one will pretend that there were two forms of organization; one for the Jews, and another for the Gentiles. These churches were self-governed, so far as internal order and discipline were concerned. But with relation to the fundamental laws of their existence and rule of their faith they were in a state of recognized and entire dependence on the church in Jerusalem. This relation was indicated and expressed in a very peculiar and conclusive manner. The vital question concerning the relation of the Gentiles to the law of Moses arose in the church in Antioch, in which there were not only certain prophets (Acts xiii, 1, 2), but Paul the great apostle of the Gentiles. Naturally, we should have expected such a question to be brought to an immediate decision, by prophetic revelation, or by the authority of the apostle, confirmed by signs following. And, in fact, there _was_ an immediate divine interposition. But it was an interposition by which the question was remanded to Jerusalem to be decided there. Paul says to the Galatians,—“I went up to Jerusalem, with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up (_kata apokalupsin_) in accordance with a revelation.”—Gal. ii, 1, 2. Again, when he came to Jerusalem, there were present John, the beloved of Jesus, and Peter, the chief of the apostles; beside James, the brother of the Lord and head of the church in Jerusalem. (Ib. ii, 9.) But not by either or all of them was the question decided, but referred to the council of the church, and, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, was there determined by deliberative consultation and vote; and the decree was drawn up and sent forth in the name of “the apostles, and elders and brethren.”—Acts xv, 22, 23, 25. The relation of that council to the Jerusalem eldership and church is indicated by the manner in which at a later date those elders referred to it, in conference with Paul. “As touching the Gentiles which believe, _we_ have written and concluded.”—Acts xxi, 25, 18. Upon Paul’s return to Antioch, and resumption of his missionary labors, after the council, he and his attendants, “as they went through the cities, delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles _and elders_ which were at Jerusalem.”—Ib. xvi, 4. It would thus appear beyond question, that this business was so ordered by the Head of the church, as to demonstrate the fact of the organic dependence of the Gentile churches everywhere,—not upon the authority of the apostles, as such, but upon the ancient church of Israel, in the councils of which the apostles sat as elders, with the elders. (1 Peter v, 1.) It was an indication to the Gentile churches that their privilege was that of _partakers_ with Israel in _her_ spiritual things. (Rom. xv, 27.) Believing Israel was thus presented, as not only the source whence the gospel flowed to the Gentiles, but as ordained to be to them the authorized exponent of that gospel. The principle here involved, is appealed to by Paul, when in repressing the arrogant assumptions of some in the Corinthian church, he demands of them,—“What! came the word of God out from you? or, came it unto you, only?”—1 Cor. xiv, 36. In this relation of the Jewish church to those of the Gentiles, there was a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah (ii, 3) reechoed by Micah:—“In the last days ... many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”—Micah iv, 1, 2.

Thus, while the great body of Israel after the flesh rejected the Angel of the covenant, who was promised at Sinai to their fathers (Ex. xxiii, 20), and in so doing forfeited and were cut off from its fold, their believing brethren remained in full possession of its rights, and privileges; and the Gentiles, receiving Christ, became with them partakers therein, according to the proviso which from the beginning reserved room for them;—“For all the earth is mine.”—Ex. xix, 5.

It was at a time when the condition of things here described, in Judea and among the Gentiles had attained to its completest realization, that Paul addressed the Romans in a figure which is in beautiful accord with the literal facts; as they had been already realized. “If some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree,—boast not against the branches. But, if thou boast, thou bearest not the root; but the root, thee. Thou wilt say, then,... The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well: because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded but fear. For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.... And they also if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree, which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree.”—Rom. xi, 17-24.

The Christian church is not a new institution, nor its constitution a new organic law. But it is, in the strictest and most absolute sense, lineally and organically one with that of Israel, founded and perpetuated upon the covenant of Sinai.