St. Matth. xvi. 18.
And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The religion of Jesus hath descended to us, through TWO, the most enlightened ages of the world. It was, first, published in the reign of Tiberius: It was re-published, as we may say, at the Reformation: and is it likely, that an imposture should have made its way in the former of these periods? Or, is it possible, it should still keep its ground against the influence of all that light and knowledge, by which the latter has been distinguished?
To see what force there is in these questions, permit me to lay before you a slight sketch of the trials, to which Christianity has been exposed from the improved reason of ancient and modern times, and of the effect, which those trials appear to have had on the credit and reception of that Religion.
I. Jesus preached the Gospel in the reign of Tiberius: that is, in a time of profound peace, when arts and letters were generally diffused through the Roman empire; and in Judea, at that time a Roman province. So far was this thing from being done in a corner[297]!
This religion, on its first appearance in the world, had therefore to encounter two sorts of men, well qualified, and not less disposed, to give it a severe examination; I mean, the learned JEWS, on the one hand, and the reasoning GENTILES, on the other. Yet it prevailed against all the efforts of both.
It was, first, proposed to the JEWS, and its pretensions were to be tried by the correspondence of its principles and history to the doctrine and predictions of their sacred books. That vastly the greater part of the Jewish nation resisted the evidence of that appeal, is well known: but that great numbers did not, and, of these, that some, at least, were of principal note for their rank, and knowledge in the scriptures, is equally certain and allowed; with this further concession, that the evidence, whatever it was, prevailed over the most inveterate prejudices, that ever possessed any people, and the most alarming difficulties and discouragements, to which human nature can be exposed. Let the fact, then, be considered, with all its circumstances, on both sides. And as to the merit of the argument, we are well able to judge of it. The sacred writings of the Jews, to which the appeal lay, are in all hands: and with what triumphant superiority the followers of Jesus reasoned from them, we see, in their numerous works, still extant, and especially in those of the great Apostle, St. Paul. So that, if all the scriptural learning, and all the bigotry of Judaism, could not stop the progress of Christianity, as we know it did not, it may fairly be presumed, that the way of inquiry was not unfavourable to the new religion, and that truth and reason were on that side. But
2. From the Jews, let us turn to the GENTILES, at that time flourishing in arts and letters. To them was the Gospel preached by the Apostles, and especially by their Apostle, St. Paul, through the whole extent of the Roman empire; and not without success in the head quarters of Gentilism, in the chief towns of Asia, in Greece, at Athens, and even at Rome itself.
The pride of Gentile wisdom, indeed, kept its professors, for some time, from taking more than a superficial notice of the new religion. But its rapid progress among the people, joined to its declared purpose of prescribing to the general faith of mankind, broke through this real or affected indifference, rouzed, at length, the attention of the great and wise, and provoked the zeal of both to shew itself in every mode of opposition. The great persecuted, and the wise reasoned: and this latter species of hostility (the more alarming of the two, if Christianity had been an imposture) was carried on with vigour, and without intermission (whatever intervals there might be of the former) through several successive ages. The four Gospels, and the other authentic documents of our religion, were now in all hands, when this lettered war commenced against Christianity, and continued, till Paganism was utterly overthrown and subdued. Many adversaries of the Christian name engaged in this unequal contest: but the most distinguished are, CELSUS, in the second century; PORPHYRY, in the third; and JULIAN, in the fourth: all of them, eminent philosophers; and the last of this great triumvirate, an imperial one. The two first wrote with all freedom, because against a persecuted, and on the side of the predominant, religion; and the third had the whole power of the state in his own hands.
The works of these great chieftains of infidelity, it must be owned, are not extant in their proper form. But Celsus is almost entire in Origen; a great part of Julian may be seen in Cyril; and considerable fragments of Porphyry’s work have been preserved in Jerom and other old writers.
Ye do not expect me to produce, on this occasion, the substance of what these three philosophers have said against the Christian cause. Any that will, may see it in the original authors, just mentioned, or in many modern collections, that have been made out of them. It may be enough to say, that those, who give themselves this trouble, will find much abuse and misrepresentation, and some argument: but the last so weak, and inconclusive, that one cannot wonder much at what Chrysostom tells us, “That the early books, written against Christianity, soon fell into a general contempt; that they perished almost as fast as they appeared; and that, if they still subsisted any where, it was, because they had been preserved by the Christians themselves[298].”
But, setting aside, for the present, the merits of the question, the fact[299], we know, is, that all the efforts of Greek and Roman philosophy were not successful: that the church was soon filled with its professors, even before the empire became Christian: and that this great event itself happened within little more than three centuries from the birth of Christ. So mightily grew the word of God, and prevailed, notwithstanding the severity, with which its pretensions were tried.
It will be said, however, “that the argument, drawn from the success of Christianity, is not altogether so convincing, as we pretend: that, for a time, the learned heathens paid but little attention to the new sect; that, when it had taken such root among the people as to become the general subject of inquiry, learning was now very much on the decline; that barbarism had prevailed to a great degree before the days of Constantine, and then increased so fast, especially after the irruption of the Northern nations, as to leave no traces, almost, of light and knowledge; and that to this sottish state of ignorance, and, its usual attendant, credulity, which continued through many ages, the widely extended and permanent establishments of Christianity are, therefore, most probably to be ascribed.”
Now, though I cannot assent to what is here alledged, or insinuated, that the adversaries of Christianity wanted either time, or light, or zeal enough to discredit its pretensions, if the way of reason and disputation could have done it, before that long night of ignorance came on which is supposed to be so favourable to religious imposture; yet I will not deny that taste and literature were degenerating in the Roman empire, from the time that learned pagans began to interest themselves in the controversy with the Christians; and that, therefore, had the last only prevailed through this period of declining letters, something would have been wanting to the force and integrity of that argument, which infers the truth of their cause, from its success. But the fact is, that the event has been the same, in opposite circumstances; as I shall now shew,
II. Under the SECOND head of this discourse; in which I proposed to point out to you, very briefly, the influence of REVIVING, AND REVIVED letters on the credit and reception of the Christian faith.
From the middle of the 14th century, and even earlier, there were some efforts made to break through that gloom of ignorance and superstition, which had so long overspread the Christian world; and, before the end of it, it was visible enough that these efforts would, in no long time, be attended with success. Accordingly, a zeal for true and ancient literature made its way through most parts of Europe, and with so rapid a progress, that multitudes of able men arose within the compass of the next century, and were enough instructed to assist in the reformation of religion, which followed in the commencement of the 16th. From that time to the present, arts and letters have been studied with unceasing application; and all the powers of reason put forth in the cultivation of knowledge, in the discovery of error, and the search of truth. It is pretended, that we are now enlightened beyond the example of all former ages: it is credible, that, in some places, where liberty has attended the pursuits of learning, the utmost ability of the human mind, on the most important objects of science, has been exerted and displayed.
Now, amidst this blaze of light, gradually ascending from the dawn of science to its meridian lustre, what has been the fortune of the divine religion, we profess? It has been the first, and last object of attention. It has been examined with the most suspicious and sceptical curiosity. It has stood the attacks of wit, of learning, of philosophy; and, sometimes, of all these acting in concert, without any restraint or reserve whatsoever. Yet it keeps its ground; or rather the belief of it is entertained, not only by the multitude, but, more firmly than ever, by the ablest and wisest men.
For the truth of this assertion, I can only refer you to your own fair and candid observation; the proof of it being much too long to be given, at this time. For it would require me to set before you the several topics of argument, which have been employed against Christianity, and the futility of them. It would, further, oblige me to make appear, that the number of those, who still embrace Christianity, is not only vastly greater, but their names, too, beyond comparison, more respectable, than of those who reject it: all which it would be tedious, indeed, but not difficult to shew.
However, till some such proof be produced, ye will be apt, I know, to remind me of many eminent persons, who have been the declared enemies of our religion: ye will object to me the complaints, which even divines make, of an overflowing infidelity in the present times.
In abatement of this prejudice, I could say with much truth, that the character of those eminent persons has been raised too high; and that these complaints, though not without foundation, have been carried too far. But I have other, and more momentous considerations to suggest to you, on this subject.
At the revival of letters, when the manifold corruptions of Christianity had been discovered, it was too natural for the disabused mind to entertain some suspicions of the revelation itself; and when reason, now emancipated from authority, had tried its strength, and found itself able to detect innumerable errors in religion and science, it too hastily concluded that there was no subject too vast for its comprehension, and that its power and right to decide on all questions whatsoever was evident and beyond dispute. From that suspicious, and this delirious state of the human mind, infidelity sprung up, and on either stock it still grows. “We have been deceived in many things, with regard to this religion; therefore in every thing.” “We know much; therefore we are capable of knowing all things.”—These, as extravagant as they appear, are the two sophisms, into which all modern free-thinking is to be resolved.
But now it is so evident to men of sense, that “a revelation may be true, though much imposture has been grafted upon it, and that its doctrines may challenge our belief, though they be not within the reach of our knowledge.” This, I say, is now so uncontroverted among men of sense, that, if the list of those, who, in the course of two or three centuries, have supported the infidel cause on those grounds, were ever so great or so conspicuous, it could furnish no argument, or even presumption, in favour of that cause itself.
But the truth is, that list is neither formidable for its numbers, nor for the capacity of those, of whom it consists. It shrinks into nothing, when we oppose to it the multitudes of able men, who have been, during this period, and are, the advocates of Christianity; and, among these, when we recollect the names of Grotius, Pascal, Bacon, Locke, Boyle, Newton, and many others (not of the sacred order, though I know not why the authority of these should be left out of the account); when, I say, we look up to these great lights and ornaments of the Christian world.
Nor let it be surmized, that the reasonings of infidel writers have been better, or other, than they are here represented to be, or that they have not been enforced with full liberty, and in all their strength. What the liberty, or rather licence, of these enlightened times has been, we all know: And of their arguments, ye may all judge: though this labour be the less necessary, as most of them have not only been triumphantly confuted by believers, but successively exploded by unbelievers themselves; and the rest of them, have not prevented men of thought and ability from being generally on the side of the Christian religion, even to this day.
Ye see, I am as concise as possible, and omit very much of what might be said on this subject, not to exceed the limits usually prescribed to a discourse in this place. But when ye contemplate the present state of Christianity, in an age of the greatest light and freedom, and the respect that is still paid to it, I must just desire you to call to mind the state of pagan religion under the like circumstances; and to reflect that, when men of sense examined its pretensions in the Augustan age, there was not a single person, in the priesthood or out of it, of ability and learning, who did not see and know that the whole was a manifest imposture, and destitute of all evidence, that could induce a well-grounded and rational assent[300]. Can any thing like this be said, or even suspected, of the Christian faith?
I know, that fraud and falsehood, by being mixed with a great deal of acknowledged evident truth, may obtain respect even with some acute and inquisitive men; as, without doubt, has been the case of Popery, since the Reformation: I know, too, that a false religion, unsupported by any truth, may even keep its ground in a learned age, when restraint or other causes have prevented a free inquiry into that religion; as may have been the case of Mahometanism, in one stage of the Saracen empire: but that a religion, like the Christian, as delivered in the Scriptures, which must either be wholly false, or wholly true, and has been scrutinized with the utmost freedom and severity, should yet, if the arguments for it were weak and fallacious, maintain its credit, and subsist in the belief of the most capable and accomplished reasoners, is, I think, a prodigy, which never has appeared, or can appear among men.
I suppose, enough has been, now, said to shew, that, in fact, the knowledge of past or present times has not discredited the cause of Christianity; and that what there is of infidelity may be well accounted for from certain prevailing prejudices, which unhappily sprung up with returning Letters, at the Reformation. I might go on to shew, that the evidences of the Christian religion, as drawn out, and set before us, by its modern apologists, are now stronger, and more convincing, than they ever were in any former period; and that, on the whole, this religion has not lost, but gained infinitely, by all the inquiries, which improved science has enabled men of leisure and curiosity to make into it. But it is time to return to the TEXT, and to conclude this commentary upon it, with one or two short reflexions.
First, if it be true, that after so many trials of every kind, those especially of reason, and philosophy, to which the religion of the Gospel has been exposed, the belief of it remains unshaken in the minds of men, Then is the prophecy of the text thus far signally verified; and it is indisputable, that the gates of hell have not, hitherto, prevailed against it.
Secondly, if it be scarce imaginable that any future trials, from without, should be more severe, than those which Christianity has already suffered; or that those, from within, I mean the trials of severe rational inquiry, should be more formidable, than what it has undergone in two periods, the most distinguished for the free exertion of the human faculties, of any that have occurred in the history of the world; then may it seem credible, or rather then is the presumption strong and cogent, that neither, hereafter, will the prophecy be confuted, and that the gates of hell shall not, at any time, or at all, prevail against it.
Thirdly, and lastly, We may learn, from both these conclusions, to put our trust in this impregnable fortress of our Religion; to embrace with stedfastness, and to observe with the utmost reverence, a RULE OF FAITH AND LIFE, which bears the signatures of immortality upon it, and appears to be under the special protection, as it proceeded originally from the special favour and authority, of God himself.
A
LARGER DISCOURSE,
BY WAY OF
COMMENTARY,
ON
THAT REMARKABLE PART
OF
THE GOSPEL-HISTORY,
IN WHICH
JESUS IS REPRESENTED,
AS DRIVING THE BUYERS AND SELLERS
OUT OF THE TEMPLE.
A
DISCOURSE[301]
ON
CHRIST’S DRIVING THE BUYERS AND SELLERS OUT OF THE TEMPLE.
I propose, in this discourse, to take into consideration a very remarkable part of the Gospel-history; in which Jesus is supposed to have exercised an act of authority on some persons, whom the Jews permitted to carry on a certain traffic within the walls of the Temple.
I shall, FIRST, recite the several accounts, which the sacred historians have given of this transaction; and shall, THEN, hazard some observations, which will, perhaps, be found to lessen, or to remove, the objections commonly made to it.
I begin with St. John’s account of it, which is delivered in these words:
Ch. ii. 13-17.
“And the Jews passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and found in the temple those that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the changers of money, sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep and the oxen; and poured out the changers money, and overthrew the tables; and said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandize. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.”
Thus far the Evangelist, St. John: And the order of the history shews, that this was done at the first Passover which Jesus attended, after he had taken upon himself his prophetic office.
The other Evangelists relate a similar transaction, which had happened at the Passover, immediately preceding his crucifixion. Some have imagined that, on this last occasion, the same act was repeated by him, on two several days; but I see no sufficient ground for that supposition. St. Mark is easily reconciled with St. Matthew and St. Luke by only admitting, what is very usual in the sacred writers, some little neglect of method in the narration of one or other of those historians.
Mat. xxi. 12, 13.
“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, and said unto them, it is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves.”
Mark xi. 15-17.
“And they come to Jerusalem: And Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves; And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? But ye have made it a den of thieves.”
Luke xix. 45, 46.
“And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought, saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.”
In reading these passages, one is led to conclude, that the ACT itself, here ascribed to our Lord, was of no small importance; for it is related, we see, by every one of the four Evangelists. The substance of what we learn from all of them, compared together, is this: “That Jesus, at two several times, once, before the first Passover which he attended after the entrance on his ministry, and again, before the Passover which preceded his passion, went up to Jerusalem, and entered into the temple; that is (as all interpreters agree, and as the nature of the thing speaks) into the first, or outermost court of the temple, or that which was called the court of the Gentiles; because the Gentiles, who acknowledged the one true God, were permitted to come and worship him there; that in this court (which was separated from the next or second court by a sept or low wall, and deemed by the Jews prophane, in contempt of the Gentiles, to whose use it was dedicated) he found those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money; that is, persons who attended there to furnish what was necessary for the service of the temple, and so made a kind of market, of this first court or division of it: that, upon observing this prophanation, he made a scourge of small cords, or, as the word in the original strictly means, of rushes, such as he may be supposed to have found upon the spot, and with this scourge drove these traffickers from their station; signifying, by this and such like actions, his displeasure at this pollution of a part of the temple; and saying to them, withall, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer of all nations: But ye have made it an house of merchandize, or, as the equivalent expression is, a den of thieves.”
Thus stands the history itself: And the light in which it is commonly understood, is this; “That Jesus, in virtue of his prophetic, or, if you will, regal character, did this act of authority, to testify his zeal for the honour of God’s house, thus polluted and desecrated, contrary to its original purpose and design, by the base and commercial uses, that were now made of it;” and it is probable, that the Disciples themselves, at the time, considered it in this light, only, for they remembered, St. John says, that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up—applying a passage out of the Psalms, to this act of zeal in their master.
It is true, this circumstance is only related by St. John, who records the former transaction, and omits the latter: the reason of this difference will, perhaps, be seen, as we proceed in our inquiry.
But to this solution of the case some objections have been made.
Besides the strangeness and indecency, as many apprehend, of the proceeding itself, and the improbability that the persons concerned in this chastisement, who had public allowance for what they did, should patiently submit to it (for we hear of no resistance, nor of any complaint, made by them)—Besides, I say, these obvious considerations, the act itself was an act of CIVIL POWER, which Jesus always disclaimed, and for which, it will be said, he had no warrant, either from the ruling Jews, themselves, or from his regal, or prophetic character: not, from the ruling Jews, who, we know, were offended at his behaviour; not, from his regal character, which was not of this world; nor yet, lastly, from his prophetic office: for, though that might authorize him to declare his sense of this prophanation, it may be thought not to extend so far as to justify him in disturbing the civil rights of men, and doing a direct violence to their property and persons. Jesus himself, we understand, was so tender of both, that, upon another occasion, when it was proposed to him to divide a contested inheritance between two claimants, he said to the proposer, Man, who made me a judge, or a divider over you[302]? Whence it may seem reasonable to infer, that he would not have interposed, by an overt act of authority or jurisdiction, in this case; notwithstanding the reference it had to the honour of religion, or the right he might have to condemn an abusive practice, from his spiritual character.
These difficulties seem to shew, that there is something more in the case, than a mere expression of zeal against the prophaners of the temple: not but this might be one end, but it could not be the sole or even principal end, of so extraordinary a transaction.
I do not indeed find, that the ancient commentators on the Gospels have said any thing to the difficulties, I have mentioned. They seem to have looked no further than to the obvious sense of this transaction, and to have acquiesced in the opinion of its being intended to evidence our Lord’s zeal for the honour of God’s house, without any further view or purpose whatsoever. They found it related as a matter of fact; and they piously admitted the authority of Jesus to controul the civil usages and rights of the Jews, by virtue of his transcendant power and divine character.
But the moderns have been aware of the objections, which lie against this interpretation. Our learned Selden, in particular, has an entire chapter, in his book De jure naturali et gentium juxta disciplinam Hebræorum, on this subject[303]. His notion is, That Jesus exerted this act of power, in virtue of what the Jews called The right or privilege of zealots[304]; by which they meant, not a general zeal or indignation (such as is before spoken of) against what they conceived to be derogatory to the honour of their religion; but a right, strictly so called, derived to them from the civil institutions and approved usages of their country, of interfering, in some extraordinary cases, to repel a manifest insult on their law, by private force, without waiting for the slow process of a judicial determination.
The principal, or rather sole foundation, on which this notion is erected, is the case of Phinehas, related in the book of Numbers[305]: which the Jews afterwards construed into a law, or embraced at least as a traditionary rule of conduct, derived to them, as they supposed, from the times of Moses. But this case will by no means bear the construction, which has been made of it. For,
1. It was a single and very particular case, without any intimation from the historian, that it was afterwards to be drawn into precedent.
2. It may seem to have been, if not commanded, yet in some measure authorized, or it was at least, by an express revelation, afterwards justified. For the matter is thus related. Upon the defection of the Israelites at Shittim into idolatry, in consequence of their prophane, as well as impure commerce with the daughters of Moab, God sent a plague among them, and besides commanded Moses to put to death all those who had been guilty of such abominations. Moses obeyed, and said unto the judges of Israel, slay ye every one his men, that were joined unto Baal-Peor.
This command was issued very properly to the Judges: but a private man, Phinehas, the son of Eleazer, the son of Aaron the priest, instigated by his zeal, and presuming perhaps on his relationship to the high priest (from whose family, a more than ordinary zeal in such a case might be expected) did, under these circumstances, take upon himself to execute that command on two persons, surprized in the very act, for which the penalty had been denounced, in the presence of all the people. Now, though this proceeding was irregular in itself, yet the notoriety of the fact, the most atrocious that could be, and the most daring insult on the divine authority, seemed almost to supersede the necessity of a legal process. The consequence was, that God himself was pleased to accept and reward the deed, because the author of it, on such a provocation, and at such a time, was zealous for his God, and had made an atonement for the children of Israel.
But to argue from a single instance, so circumstanced, that the same zeal was allowable in other cases, in which no such countenance had been given, and no such necessity or provocation could be pretended, is evidently so unreasonable, that no stress ought to be laid on this argument. The Jews, indeed, in succeeding times, might fancy a general rule to have been implied in this single instance; and we know from their history, to what enormous excesses this their easy belief, concurring with a natural violence of temper, afterwards transported them, during the last calamities of this devoted people[306]: but our Lord was very unlikely to give a countenance to their traditions, or to add the sanction of his authority to a principle, so weakly founded, and so liable to the worst abuse.
3. This traffic of the merchants, in the court of the Gentiles, how unfit soever it might be, depended on the same authority, as this pretended right itself of the zealots; that is, on the allowed usage and constant discipline of their country. No express precept of the law could be alledged for either. So that this right could not be exerted but at the expence of another, equally well founded.
4. Mr. Selden himself appears to have had some distrust of his own hypothesis, by the care he takes to interweave, in his discourse, a charge of fraud on the merchants, together with their prophanation of the temple. But the learned writer forgets, that ZELOTISM (if I may have leave to use a new term) respected religion only, and not private morals. For even the act of zeal, performed by Phinehas (from which, only, the very idea of this Jewish right, if it were one, was derived) had, for its object, not the fornication simply, but the idolatry, of the criminals: it was a sacrifice, not to the honour of virtue, as such, but to the honour of God. And, indeed, nothing but the singular structure of the Jewish polity, in which the honour of God was so extraordinarily considered, could give any the least colour to the fiction of such a right.
5. Lastly, whatever degree of credit this principle of zelotism might have acquired among the Jews, it was very unlikely, perhaps we may say, impossible, that Jesus should act upon it. When the Disciples, James and John, on a certain occasion, were instigated by this zeal to call for fire from Heaven on the heads of some persons, who had offered an insult to their master, Jesus himself rebuked them in these terms—Ye know not what spirit ye are of: For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them [Luke ix. 55.]—To burn with fire, is indeed something more than, to scourge: but, though the vengeance be not equal, in these two instances, the spirit is the same from which it is derived, and by which it is justified: and this spirit, we are expressly told, is not that by which Jesus chose to conduct himself. It was to no purpose to alledge the case of a Phinehas, or even an Elias: these were no precedents for HIM, who came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.
I conclude then, upon the whole, that Jesus did not perform this act of driving the merchants out of the temple, in the Jewish character of ZEALOT; in what other character he might possibly perform it, I shall now inquire.
The ingenious conjecture of Mr. Selden, already considered, was apparently taken up by him to avoid the difficulties which he found in accounting for this act of zeal in our Lord, from his prophetic character only. These difficulties, he saw very distinctly, and has explained with much force.
“Though the Saviour of the world, says he, was undoubtedly both God and King, and, by his absolute dominion, not over the Jews only, but the whole race of mankind, must be supposed to have had a right of doing whatever he saw fit to do; yet since we know, that he constantly submitted himself in all things to the established forms of civil justice, whether of Jewish, or Roman institution; and, as being desirous to exhibit in his own person a most absolute example of obedience to the course of human authority, was careful always to abstain from every thing, that might be thought a violation of it in any private man; since, besides, we know, that, considering the peculiar envy, to which his life was exposed, he could not possibly have gratified his enemies more, than by putting it in their power to bring a criminal charge against him: it must, on all these accounts, be thought reasonable to suppose, that our Lord would not have ventured on so extraordinary an act, as that of driving the merchants out of the temple, unless it had been such, as, even in the opinion of those who were most prejudiced against him, he might lawfully and regularly perform[307].”
All this, the reader sees, is prudently, piously, and ably said, by this very learned writer; and I readily subscribe to every word of it. We only differ in our conclusion from these premises. Mr. Selden holds, that what Jesus did on this occasion, cannot be reconciled to the idea of his PROPHETIC CHARACTER, as sustained by him in the course of his ministry: I, on the contrary, conceive, that it very well may. But then I consider that character, as exercised by our Lord, at this time, in another manner, and to other ends, than the learned writer supposed.
In a word, I see Jesus in the light, not of a ZEALOT, but of a PROPHET only, in this whole transaction. I see him acting, not on precarious principles and rabbinical traditions, but on the sure basis of scripture; and regulating his conduct by the known ideas of his office, such as had at all times been entertained of it, and were even now familiar to the Jews in the times in which he lived.
To make way for what I have further to advance on this subject, it will, then, be necessary to consider, first, the PRACTICES AND USAGES of the Jewish prophets, I mean the manner, in which that high office was sometimes discharged and exercised by them, even to the very times in question: and, secondly, to consider, the true scope and meaning of the PROPHECY itself, to which Jesus appeals, and on which he justifies this obnoxious part of his conduct.
1. It is impossible for those, who have read the scriptures of the Old Testament, not to observe, how much they abound in figures and material images. Nay, the prophets are frequently represented as instructing those, to whom they are sent, not in figurative expression only, but in the way of action and by sensible signs. And this mode of information has been shewn by learned men[308] to arise from the very nature of language, in its rude and imperfect state; being indeed an apt and necessary expedient to supply the defects of speech, under that circumstance. It has further been made appear, from the history of mankind, that this practice universally prevailed in all barbarous nations, as well as in Judæa; nay, that it every where continued to prevail, as an ornamental method of communication, long after the necessity was over, which had given birth to it; especially among the inhabitants of the East, to whose natural vivacity it was so well suited. Hence, the Jewish prophets, it is said, but conformed to the established practice of their own times, when they adopted this use of representative action: as, when one Prophet pushed with horns of iron, to denote the overthrow of the Syrians[309]; and another, broke a potter’s vessel to pieces, to express the shattered fortune of the Jews[310]; with innumerable other instances of the like nature.
This the prophet Hosea calls, using similitudes by the HAND of the prophets[311]; and the effect of it was, to impress the proposed information on the minds of men with more force (being addressed to their eyes and senses) than could have been done by a mere verbal explication.
This mode of teaching by signs, then, let it be remembered, was familiar to the Jewish nation, and prevailed even in the days of Jesus; as is clear from John the Baptist’s wearing a garment of camel’s hair, and eating locusts and wild honey[312]; to signify the mortification and repentance, which he was commissioned to preach—from Christ’s riding into Jerusalem[313]; to signify the assumption of his regal office—and from his directing his disciples to shake of the dust of their feet[314], as a testimony against them, who would not receive his Gospel.
And we find that, sometimes, even a miracle was wrought to furnish a convenient sign—As when Simon’s draught of fishes[315], was made to denote the success he should have in his ministry; according to the interpretation of Christ himself, who said to him, Henceforth thou shalt catch men—As, again, when Jesus curst the barren fig-tree[316], to signify the unfruitfulness and rejection of the Jewish nation—And, as when he permitted the unclean spirits to enter into a herd of swine, which, thereupon, ran violently down a steep place and perished in the waters[317]: an exertion of his miraculous power, which, among other purposes, might be intended to express, in the way of representation, the tyranny of evil spirits, and their attendants, evil habits, over sensual and voluptuous men (of whom swine are the acknowledged emblems), and the consequent perdition in which they drown them. Nay, the very parables of our Lord, are but this mode of information, by material signs, once removed.
It may, further, be observed, that the two Christian Sacraments themselves are founded on this principle: and so prevalent was the use of conveying information in this form, that even the Roman Governor, when he condemned Jesus, took water and washed his hands[318] before the multitude, to signify to them, that he was innocent of that horrid crime.
From all this we may certainly conclude, that it was very customary in our Saviour’s time for men to express themselves by outward and visible signs: that this mode of expression was especially of ancient and approved use among the Prophets, when they would inforce some high and important topic of instruction: and that, not impossibly therefore, the famous transaction in the temple may be only an information of this nature.
If then we would know, what that information was, or, in other words, what was the peculiar object of it, it will be proper, in the next place,
2. To turn to the Prophecy, to which Jesus appeals, and to consider the true scope and purpose of it.
The prophecies of Isaiah, it is well known, are chiefly taken up in predicting the future glories of Christ’s kingdom, of which the call of the Gentiles makes a conspicuous and shining part. This great event is foretold in a vast variety of places; and in different forms of expression, one while, plain and direct, at other times, figurative and obscure. The Messiah is spoken of as bringing forth judgement to the Gentiles; and more clearly still, as being given for a light to the Gentiles[319]. In other places, the expression is ænigmatical; as where the Heathen are mentioned as prisoners, who shall be set at liberty[320]—as strangers, who should build up the walls of Jerusalem[321]—as blind people that have eyes, and deaf that have ears[322]—and under a multitude of other images.
Full of these ideas, the Prophet begins the fifty-sixth chapter with the following triumphant exhortation—Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice, for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed; the very language, almost, in which the Baptist afterwards announced our Saviour to the Jews: whence it may appear, of what salvation the Prophet is here speaking. But to whom is this salvation promised? Why, in general, to those who keep the Sabbath from polluting it, ver. 2; that is, in the prophetic style, to those who should embrace the Christian faith: for the Sabbath being the sign or token of God’s covenant with the Jews, hence the prophets transfer this idea to the Christian Covenant; and, by keeping the Sabbath, they express the observance of that future covenant, to which mankind should be admitted under the ministry of Jesus.
But, perhaps, the Jews only were to be admitted to this new covenant of salvation. The prophet expressly asserts the contrary: for not only the Jews of the captivity (to whom we are to suppose the course of the prophecy to be immediately directed) are concerned in this salvation, but THE SONS OF THE STRANGER, that is, the Gentiles (whom the Jews always considered under the idea of Strangers, just as the Greeks did the rest of the world, under that of Barbarians)—Even them (says the Prophet, speaking in the person of God) will I bring to my holy mountain, ver. 7, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted on my altar. The language is still Jewish, according to the prophetic style, which describes the Christian dispensation under Jewish ideas: but by holy mountain is meant the Church of Christ; and by Sacrifices, the spiritual services of that new œconomy. And, to make this purpose of his prophecy the clearer, he even departs, in one instance, from his legal manner of expression, in saying, I will make them joyful in my HOUSE OF PRAYER; which is a spiritual and Christian idea; the Jewish temple being properly a house of sacrifice, and not of prayer; for which last service there is no express precept in the law. And then follows the prophecy, quoted by Jesus, as explanatory of what he was then doing—for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. The prophet, as solicitous to be understood, repeats and marks out this distinction: I spoke of it, says he, as my house of prayer, For my house shall [in those latter days] be called [that is, shall be] a house of prayer, and that too, for all people; that is, not for the Jews only, but for all the Gentiles. And, as if all this were not still clear enough, he adds—The Lord God, which gathereth the outcasts of Israel, the Jews dispersed in the captivity, saith, Yet I will gather OTHERS to him, besides those that are gathered him, ver. 8. that is, the Gentiles.
This famous text, then, is clearly a prediction of the call of the Gentiles into the Church of Christ, a prediction of that great event which should take place under the new dispensation, when the Jewish enclosure was to be laid open, and all men indifferently, the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, were to be admitted into the Christian covenant.
It is true, our English version of this text, quoted by our Lord, very much obscures, or rather perverts, its sense. It stands thus in the Gospel of St. Mark—My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer, xi. 17. Whence it appears, that our translators considered this text, as describing only the destination of the Jewish temple, and not as predicting the genius of the Christian religion. But the scope of the prophecy, as above explained, and the Greek text itself, clearly shews that it ought to have been rendered thus—My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the Gentiles: ὁ οἶκός μου, οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν.
Thus much being premised, both of the prophetic manner of teaching by signs, and of the true meaning of this prophecy, let us see now what light these considerations afford to our present subject.
Jesus enters into that court of the temple, which was called the court of the Gentiles; who had leave to worship the God of Israel there, but were permitted to advance no further. This court, he finds polluted by the sale of beasts, and the traffic of merchants; the Jews, in their sovereign contempt of these poor heathen, not only excluding them from their own place of worship, but debasing them still farther by the allowance of this sordid society to mix with them. What is the conduct of our Lord, on this occasion! Why, agreeably to his prophetic character, he declares himself sent to break through all these exclusive privileges and distinctions; to accomplish that great mystery, which the old prophets had so much and so triumphantly spoken of, as reserved to be revealed by him; and to admit the Heathen to an equal participation of the blessings, which the Gospel-covenant was to dispense, with the Jewish people.
But, in what manner does he declare this purpose? Why, he makes a scourge of small cords, and, by the representative action of driving this prophane company out of the temple, shews that he is come to break down that partition-wall, which separated the Gentile and the Jewish worshippers, to vindicate the despised Heathen from the insults offered to them, and to lay open the means of salvation to all people. He began to cast out them that sold therein and them that bought, saying to them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the Gentiles. The action, we see, is used as expressive of his design; and his design is clearly ascertained, by applying to himself the express words of Isaiah. The whole is, then, a prophetic information, by way of action, of the genius of Christianity, which was to extend its benefits even to the Gentiles.
I have before acknowledged, that a secondary purpose of this transaction might be, to give the Jews to understand, how culpable they had been in permitting even a lawful traffic to be carried on in any part of their temple. For it was usual with Jesus to accomplish several ends by the same act, and even to lay the greatest apparent stress on that end, which was not first in his intention: of which some examples may hereafter be given. But the primary design of this act (and but for the sake of which it would not have been undertaken) I suppose, was, to point out the diffusive nature and influence of his spiritual kingdom.
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.