THE CITY OF GOD
AND
THE CHURCH-MAKERS:
AN EXAMINATION INTO STRUCTURAL CHRISTIANITY, AND CRITICISM OF
CHRISTIAN SCRIBES AND DOCTORS OF THE LAW.
BY
R. ABBEY.
NEW. YORK:
PUBLISHED BY HURD AND HOUGHTON.
ambrtiftit1ber8fItr7li    VrFl
1872.




Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1872, by
HURD AND HOUGHTON,
in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
RIVERSIDE, OAMBRIDGE:
STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED M?
H. 0. HOUGHTON AND COMPANY.




NOTE.
EVERYBODY knows that some of the greatest hindrances
to the spread of Christianity are found in the Church.
Among the foremost of these may be named the dissensions and animosities among the several denominations.
And this is consequent on the diversity of view and opinion as to the legal character of the " Primitive Church," so
called. The great question is held to be, How did Jesus
Christ organize the first Church? Did He do it this way,
or that way?  Did He place it under the rule of a Pope,
or Bishops, or Elders, or the suffrages of all the members?
If a Pope, what powers did He give him, either absolute
or contingent?  If Bishops, what limitations, if any, were
prescribed to them? If ministerial parity was the primary
law, then how was the body of Elders governed? And if
the first Church was "republican," then what?  How was
power reached, wielded, etc.?
Beginning with the unnatural and mythical error that
Jesus Christ formed a new Church at all, the strife begins;
and nine tenths of all our Church troubles is the natural
result.  The trouble is not the existence of different denominations.  That is natural and harmless. The damage
is in the lessening, or the unchurching of each other, because of the supposed non-conformity of Christians to this
fabulous model.  The strife is about a myth, a fact that
never happened.
Ecce Ecclesia, as also Church and Ministry, and -Ecclesiastical Constitution, which preceded it a number of years,
were more feeble attempts to set forth The City of God,
the natural and spontaneous association of Christian peo



iv                      Note.
pie, as the Church is frequently called in Scripture, in
contrast with the multitudinous Church of the Church-makers.
If this book is not wofully wrong, then the work of the
Church-makers is the most astonishing feature in the history of the Church, or in any other history. That such
errors have not been before pointed out and cured is astounding.  But I have no more wonder for others than for
myself, for I have long drifted in the same channel, and
labored in Church-making as honestly and industriously as
others.  " I verily thought with myself," that the Church
was a corporation, working under a charter prescribed " at
the first," by Jesus Christ. This was the teaching of my
youth, and the sum of the unbroken lessons of my riper
years.  With no other reading, no other teaching, it
formed in me, as in others, the staple of a religious education.  In some form or other I read it in almost every
book I read, and heard it in almost every sermon I heard.
It was the unquestioned predicate of all arguments, the
basis of all exhortations, and the axiom of all doctrines.
"Jesus Christ made a totally new  religion  and new
Church," was the sum of the Christianity we have been
taught. Nothing but the very power of God could sustain the Church under such a load of error. I thank God
I have lived long enough to correct- some of my own participations in them!
More than twenty years ago, I thought leak-holes were
discoverable in this popular Church notion.  From  that
day to this present, it is neither presumption nor egotism to
say that, to get rid of these shackles, " I labored more
abundantly than they all."
I am not unmindful of the responsibility of such a publication as this, but, of course, without ability to measure
it. Books, and prayers, and midnight hours, and foolscap
written and burned, and public lectures, and pulpit labors,
and private consultations, have at least borne witness to
an honest industry in the premises. This book was written and carefully examined by the best and soberest counsel known to me, several years ago.  But nerve faltered,




Note.                       v
and responsibility hesitated and drew back.  The fancied
iron in a will, not yet well tested, proved insufficient. The
thoughtful reader may perceive the cause of this shrinking.
He who deems it an easy thing, or pleasant, or agreeable
to human feelings, or can calculate about the novelty of
appearing original, in such a publication  as this, has
sounded the depths of social life and pious feeling to little
purpose.  A little less than threescore and fen years of
varied and active life have, it is hoped, been sufficient to
cure any risings of green ambition, that may have lurked
around the fond anticipations of younger manhood.  I
dreaded the publication. With as clear a view in it of the
City of God, as ever of the sun seen in the heavens, my
heart and flesh recoiled before the gaze of mistaken judges,
and the accredited scribes.  Meanwhile friends urged and
wrote, -" Publish it! publish it! Why do you not publish
it?  Write on! The Church needs it; God calls for it;
duty, not feelings, must govern. Publish; feed the lambs,
and challenge the doctors to read! "
I am somewhat aware of, though I cannot account for
the principle, that declares war to the knife against the
man who dares to disturb opinions or teachings regarded
by such belligerents as settled. Secretly he is declared an
outlaw. Innovation is the unpardonable sin.  Galileo is
not the only man who has been imprisoned.   Men will die
at the stake rather than give up a stereotyped lesson, or
even a long-accustomed mode of teaching it. The law has
long since gone forth from the high halls of power and
folly, that the man who dares to question " standard authority " is the enemy of his race; and if he cannot be reached
by the siege guns of reason and argument, he must at least
be pestered, teazed, and annoyed to death by the scribbling
million.
The man who holds this pen has sometimes almost nerve
enough to question whether there is any "authority" in
theology or ecclesiastical science outside the Bible, that is
absolutely standard.  But while he does so he yields to
no man in deference to the opinions, the learning, or the
teachings of the talented, the wise, and the good. With a




vi                        Note.
proper respect, as he thinks, for the authors he criticises,
but with a far higher regard for the Church and the subjects treated, he has, after some trial, and under the urgings of duty, keyed up a nerve sufficiently to enable him
to hand this little manuscript to the printer.  God and
the Church will take care of it!




CONTENTS.
PAGE
I. ERRORS OF AUTHORS.....                 1
II. THE APOSTOLATE.......                       208
III. MATTHEW XVI. 18........ 219
IV. THE ANCIENT PROMISE OF A SAVIOUR...   224
V. THE FIRST CHURCH COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM.. 227
VI. THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.......  235
VII. THE REFORMATION OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.   243
VIII. THE ROMISH CHURCH SYSTEM.....   251
IX. ROMANISM AMONG PRQTESTANTS..... 259
X. THE JEWS.:.......267
XI. THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION..             276
XII. WHO ARE CONVERTED JEWS?...    281
XIII. MODERN OR POST-MESSIANIC JEWS. 283
XIV. MODES OF TEACHING IN DIFFERENT AGES..  291
XV. THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST..          296
XVI. THE HUNDRED AND TWENTY DISCIPLES...  299
XVII. THE TRIAL AND EXECUTION OF JESUS.. 304








INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS.
APPEAL is earnestly and affectionately made to Christian people, of all names and tenets, in behalf of the things
herein presented.  That they are important in a high degree to the simple understanding and practice of Christianity by the common people, as well as by scholars, none
will probably question. They certainly underlie nearly all
the great questions of Christianity.  The author is not
raising questions for debate, nor has he any party, school,
sect, or denomination to oppose or to support. The reader
will find nothing herein that he will consider debatable, or
from which he will dissent, when fairly understood.
It is claimed, nevertheless, that many of our best authors,
with most surprising inconsistency, and blind following of
each other, frequently contradict some of the most important and well settled principles of both theology and ecclesiastical science. These erroneous teachings are radical,
fundamental, and belong as well to the primary lessons of
the nursery and the Sunday-school, as to the higher classics. They misguide us every day in our nurseries, our
pulpits, and our studies.  By them  Church exclusiveness,
intolerance, and bigotry are fostered; denominational strife
is enkindled, and worse still, Romish and High Church
superstition and error are furnished with all the apparent
plausibilities they claim to possess.
Appeal is made to the urgency and stress of the case.
It does not admit of mere questions of finesse, and party
successes and advantages.  Religious truth is suffering.
It is a wonder the Church lives and thrives, under such a
load of error and misteaching.




x              Introductory Address.
A large number of our books are seriously defective. We
take religious writers too much on trust. Denominational
support is greatly injuring us. The greatest compliment
paid to Ecce Ecclesia is, that it could not be discovered to
what Church the author belonged.
Some will complain that I make an indiscriminate onslaught upon the authors. A more important inquiry would
be, whether their truths or their errors are objected to.
Do blunders and misstatements become true by prescription? Or is their value added to by the mere force of
names?
Others may object that the author is arrogant, dogmatic,
and peremptory in his criticism. That may be very likely;
but who cares anything about the author?  The book is
the only thing presented to the public. It is a wonder such
objections, so utterly unimportant, should be thought of.
Perhaps the printer was unamiable.  Another may object,
that the authors are made to teach what they did not intend.  That is also quite likely.  But who careg anything
about the intentions of authors?  We are concerned only
in their teachings. The only question with us is, What do
they write?  What is actually understood from their lessons?  And even if a more or less strained explanation
would relieve them, what care the people for that?  The
responsibility of authors attaches not to a defensive criticism, or perhaps hypercriticism, but to their plain, simple
lessons, unexplained and undefended. It is a miserable
author who needs explanation, and defense.  Theological
teachings, especially such as are intended for popular use,
must carry an obvious meaning on their face.  Children,
and some grown people, do not always carry critics with
them.
In the following pages, two hundred authors shall speak
for themselves.  Care has been takeh to give their language its plainest, simplest, and most obvious meaning.
Let any man read, and then say if I controvert doctrines
not taught.  We then proceed to inquire, What do these
authors teach? The following is a brief summary of some
of the things they inculcate. They are generally under



Introductory Address.                xi
stood as I state them.  Strange as it may seem, on reflection, the following glaring and dangerous errors do form a
large amount of the common creed of the Church, especially the more unintelligent portions of it. Let the reader
read slowly and note carefully.
First. There are two separate and distinct systems of
religion in Scripture, one in the Old Testament, and one
in the New.  The former is called the Law, and the latter
the Gospel.
Second. This first system, generally called Judaism, was
a mere temporary system, not designed for mankind at
large, but for a special people, the Jews only.
Third. The condition of salvation under the law, Judaism, or the Old Testament, was the performance of certain
religious rites and ceremonies, particularly the killing of
certain animals by way of atonement for sin.
Fourth. The ceremonial slaying and offering of animals
in sacrifice under the law was a real, proper, and true sacrifice.
Fifth. When Christ appeared, He, by his supreme authority, abrogated this system of Old Testament religion,
or Judaism, and forever discontinued all ceremonial worship.
Sixth. The Saviour at the same time ordained and
established for all mankind forever, a wholly new religious
system, called Christianity, or the gospel. This new system was so thoroughly novel, that not a principle or doctrine of it ever existed before.
Seventh. This new religion, and the salvation it intro
duced, rests upon the atonement of Christ, was not restricted to Jews, as the old religion was, but was for all
men.  It rested not on external observances, as did the
old, but on the new principle of faith in Christ.
Eighth. Christ invited, entreated, and commanded the
Jews to abandon their old religion, and embrace the gospel; but they all refused except a very few, perhaps twelve
or twenty or so.
Ninth. All the Jews, except those very few, being very
wicked, and accustomed to their formal religion of the Old




xii           Introductory Address.
Testament, refused the" gospel, and their descendants still
adhere strongly to the old religion of the Old Testament.
Tenth. The whole Jewish people, therefore, became very
much incensed against the Saviour for attempting to destroy their religion, and they unanimously sought and procured his death.
Eleventh. When Pilate sought to release Jesus, the whole
body of the Jews cried out, " Crucify Him! His blood be
on us and our children! " and this imprecation was answered
by the destruction of the Jewish temple, and the dismemberment of the Jewish state.
Twelfth. At and prior to this time, all worship in the old
Church was confined to the temple at Jerusalem; but now,
in the new Christian Church, permission was given to worship anywhere.
Thirteenth. The Saviour not only abrogated the religion
of the Old Testament, but the Church also. He opposed,
cursed, and abandoned the old Church, and set up a new
and different one in its stead.
Fourteenth. This new Church was set up in Jerusalem
with entirely new laws, new conditions of membership, new
officers, new government, new ritual, and new principles of
every kind. It began with a few members, perhaps twelve
or twenty.
Fifteenth. The Saviour also instituted a new ministry,
on an entirely new basis, the old being dissolved and the
ministers all being deposed.
Sixteenth. This new ministry of the new Church was at
the first composed of the eleven or twelve apostles, others
being added after.
Seventeenth. This new ministry was violently opposed
by all the old ministers and members of the old Church.
So when they began to preach the gospel in Jerusalem,
the entire world was against them.
Eighteenth. At the first meeting of note of the new
Church, three thousand people were converted, and joined
the Church, renouncing wholly the religion of the Old Testament; the Holy Ghost being now for the first time introduced among men.




Introductory Address.              xiii
Nineteenth. The Lord also established new sacraments
in the new Church, they being a kind of mystery, and sign
of existing grace.
Twentieth. This new  Church and religion were not a
reform of the old.  Both the religion and Church of the
Old Testament were so utterly defective and unsuited to
mankind, that they were both wholly destroyed.
Twenty-first. Some of the first Christians apostatized
from the new faith, and lapsed back into the religion of the
Old Testament.  This gave the apostles great concern, and
Paul wrote several epistles, cautioning the Church against
the religion of the Old Testament.
Twenty-second. The Jews at the birth of Jesus were all
the lineal descendants of Abraham; and the Jews of the
present day are their descendants, constituting their entire
posterity, and holding their religion, that is, the religion of
the Old Testament.
Twenty-third. The two systems of salvation called respectively the Law, and the Gospel, sustaining a chronological relation to each other, cannot coexist.
Twenty-fourth. So Jesus Christ being divine, and the
head of the Church, its founder and the framer of its charter and laws, the test of a Church's identity must be the
original model.  This model we gather from various descriptions of it in the New Testament.  A  true Church
now must be the same, in succession, as the original, with
the same prescribed laws and same government.
Now I will not say that every one of these twenty-four
articles, just as written, is taught by every one of the authors here quoted; but it is said that they are held and
taught in terms by a large number of them, and that they
all teach all these errors in some form, by fair implication.
And further, that great masses of Christians in all the
churches understand the Scriptures that way, through the
misteachings herein complained of.
Instead of these errors the following theses are not only
true, but will probably be held incontrovertible.
First. Scripture knows but one system  of religion.
The Old and New Testaments teach the same.




xiv             Introductory Address.
Second. There was never any temporary system  for
Jews or for anybody else. The only religion known to
any part of Scripture was for all mankind.
Third. The law knows no salvation.  The supposition
is absurd.  Ceremonies are modes of worshipping and of
inculcating truth.  They have the same place in religion
now that they always had.
Fourth. Sacrifice for sin was always exactly the same in
all ages of the world.  There was never any other than
Christ, our Saviour. In the early age the slaying of animals was a mere instrumental mode of teaching the doctrine, as books are now.
Fifth. The Saviour never abrogated or changed any
system of religion or doctrines, but always maintained
and enforced the doctrines of the Old Testament.  He
never abrogated ceremonies. There are probably as many
in use in the Church now as there ever were. Nevertheless, a number of religious ceremonies ceased forever at
that time. But those that ceased did so, not by any means
because of any authoritative command, but because of
the absolute and natural necessity of the thing. These
particular ceremonies shadowed forth the incarnation; then
how could they continue afterward?  No other ceremonies
ceased but those of that class, and for that reason. When a
thing is seen it is no longer adumbrant.
Sixth. The Saviour never ordained, established, or taught
any Christianity different from the religious doctrines of
the Old Testament.  The gospel of the New Testament is
the gospel of the Old. They differ not in doctrines or
principles, but merely in modes of teaching.
~ Seventh. All religion of all Scripture was always plenary
as to all mankind. It was never restricted as to Jews or
anybody else.  It always rested on faith in Christ, and
never on external observances.
Eighth. The Saviour entreated and commanded all the
Jews to adhere strictly to their old religion, and not depart
from it; and great multitudes, probably one half or more,
did so; and their successors, afterward called Christians,
have continued to do so, at least nominally, to this day.




Introductory Address.               xv
Ninth. About a full half or more of the Jews in the
time of the apostles were among the most noble, pious,
and self-sacrificing Christians known to the history of the
Church.  For about ten years after the death of Jesus they
constituted the entire Apostolic Church, apostles and all.
It is not known that they or any of them ever opposed
the Saviour in the least, or in any way.  The people
known as Jews now are descendants, not by any means of
the Jews in general of that age, but of those only who in
that age apostatized from their religion by denying Jesus
as the Christ, and who thereby constituted themselves a
new and false Church, with a new and false faith unknown
to Scripture.
Tenth. Very few of the Jews, probably not more than
one or two hundred, if so many, out of all their millions,
had, or could have had, anything to do with the crucifixion.
They could not even know of it until afterwards. So far
as their sentiments are known, they were, with very few
exceptions, the friends of the Saviour and in favor of the
Messiahship of Jesus, at the time of his death, or at least
were not opposed to it.
Eleventh. The cry " Crucify Him! " was the reckless exclamation of a little handful of rabble at the governor's
door, where there could have been only a few persons,
perhaps twenty or fifty. Its connection with the siege of
Jerusalem, forty years after, is mere fancy.
Twelfth. At, and for hundreds of years prior to, the time
of Christ, congregational worship, as now, was common
among the Jews everywhere.  So far as we know, it never
was confined to the three great temples, much less to that
at Jerusalem.
Thirteenth. Jesus Christ never, so far as there is the
least intimation, entertained a sentiment unfriendly to the
Church of his fathers. On the contrary He loved and supported it to the hour of his death.  A new Church was
not dreamed of in that age. It is the invention of a far
later period. Besides being historically untrue, it is philosophically impossible.  The supposition destroys the very
idea of the Church.




xvi            Introductory Address.
Fourteenth. Neither did the Saviour prescribe any government for the Church, either in whole or in part. Nor
did He institute a new ministry, or depose old ministers.
Fifteenth. There was no time within a hundred years of
the apostolic age, in which we* are allowed to infer that
there existed in the true Church, less than thousands of
true, divinely accredited ministers of the gospel.
Sixteenth. The gospel, all the gospel known to Scripture- that is, the tidings of salvation by Christ  was
preached in the days of Abel and the prophets.
Seventeenth. On the day of Pentecost, as it is called, the
three thousand spoken of were all in the Church, and we
are obliged to infer that at least many of them were pious.
So we are not at liberty to suppose that they were all then
converted, though some may have been.  They did not
join the Church, for they were already in it.
Eighteenth. The establishment of new sacraments in the
Church, at any time, would be an impossibility, because it'would imply a new religion, which implies a changed duty,
or a new human nature, or both. Sacrament is religious
obligation. This grows out of the natural relation of man
to his Maker. So Jesus did not appoint sacraments, but the
modes of administering the sacraments.  The two things
are widely different.
Nineteenth. The divine abrogation or disannulment of a
divinely recognized Church is not simply impossible, it is
more; it is an absurdity.  The repeal of any divine law is
impossible.
Twentieth. For Christians, at any time, to lapse, or backslide, into the religion of the Old Testament, is an absurdity, because the Old Testament enjoins the highest style
of Christian piety. You might as well suppose one to lapse
into the religion of the New Testament.
Twenty-frst. The Jews, in the days of Jesus, as the
Church in that period is generally called, were not probably, one in a thousand, descended from Abraham lineally,
Both the law and the practice was, that they mix by intermarriage with all people everywhere, who could be induced
to join them.  They were probably more nationally mixed




Introductory Address.              xvii
than other peoples of that age.  The people known as
Jews, since that age, are. by no means the descendants,
either nationally, religiously, or ecclesiastically, of the mass
of Jews living in the time of Jesus; but only and exclusively of those who apostatized by denying the Christship
in Jesus. This apostate offshoot from the Church was probably less than half the number.
Twenty-second. Christians, at and since the  apostolic
age, are lineally the regular, straightforward descendants
and successors of the Jews as seen at the birth of Jesus,
religiously and ecclesiastically, though much mixed by intermarriage with others.  This must be so on supposition
that Christianity is the true religion as contrasted with
modern Judaism.
Twenty-third. The Law, as that term is used in juxtaposition to Gospel, is not a system of salvation, but of
absolute obedience, before salvation was either known or
necessary. The law still exists in all its force; but Christ,
with salvation, assists us in meeting its demands. So the
two systems form themselves into one, and coexist, since
Christ was furnished to the world in the days of Adam.
The term law is also used in Scripture to mean various
things. Frequently it means the ritualistic rules prescribed
through Moses.  These are mere instrumental modes of
teaching and enforcing the principles of salvation.
Twenty-fourth. The supposition that the Christian Church
must have been organized with a prescribed law of government, at some particular time, because it now exists, is a
great error. No such event ever happened, or could have
happened.  Such a religious corporation would not be a
Church.  Religious people from the very first associated
together as such, naturally and necessarily, because they
were religious.  Association necessitates rules, and all
churches make their own rules.  Christ is the Head of
the Church, therefore, in its spiritual and religious aspects,
but not as referring to external government.
If the Saviour organized the twelve apostles into a corporate society for the propagation of Christianity, then, -
because that means that He prescribed a law of governb




xviii          Introductory Address.
ment for it to be in perpetual force-then the very
form  of the government was divine.  It is a revelation,
and then, nothing can be a Church that varies from that
form.  The society has omnipotent power of perpetuity.
The outward identity must be maintained.  Then I see
not how the doctrine of Infallibility is so easily avoided
- not personal, but official infallibility; not human, but divine infallibility, conferred upon the corporation, not on the
individual members.  Whether that infallibility is to be
found in the decisions of the president -call him Pope, if
you will - or on some board or council, is a very different
and very incidental question.
This doctrine of the Church's corporate formation is the
only fundamental principle, that underlies all Romanism,
and* all High Churchism, of every grade and kind.  Let
that be conceded, and Romanism  is at least plausible, if
not necessary.  Then ministerial, if not prelatical apostolic
succession follows; and then Church exclusiveness, Campbellism, exclusion of children from the Church, and a train
of pestiferous evils and disadvantages follow, which, to say
the least, hang heavily as clogs upon the Church.
The doctrine of the corporate formation of the Church
also furnishes logical infidelity the greater portion of its
support; indeed it is the most formidable enemy the
Church has, or ever had.  It is, one way or another, in
many more ways than a casual observer would suppose, the
fountain, the father, of almost all our religious troubles,
theological and ecclesiastical.
In the above twenty-four theses, the reader is shown at
a glance the blunders in brief outline, which are exposed
more fully in the following pages. Blunders, I say, for the
statements cannot be believed.  Opinions and blunders are
different things.
The erroneous teachings herein controverted, besides the
support they give to Romanism, to prelatical and Campbellitish High Churchism  of a more direct kind, have
largely taught the people almost, and sometimes wholly, to
repudiate the Old Testament Scriptures as a rule of life;
and by many they are held only as a sort of historic pre



Introductory Address.               xix
lude to the real Scriptures. And so, how often has it been
gravely inquired whether this or that has been " reenacted,"
in the New Testament!  There are many and grave authors among them, who hold that Old Testament Scripture,
to be binding, must be reenacted.
The scholarly reader will be likely to find too much
repetition herein. He will be pleased to bear in mind that
the essay is intended for the masses.  Many extracts similar to those published are passed over, while some pains
has been taken to give them a range pretty wide, over most
of the field of the science of the Church, as well as some
glances into theology.
The reader is again requested to bear in mind, because
it is important, that it is no part of the author's business to
criticise the authors, merely to point out their errors.
What good would it do to show that a certain man, who
wrote a book, was right, or was wrong, in this or in that?
That might be a legitimate business for critics, or reviewers; but these criticisms are of a very different sort.  They
are about books, not men.  The inquiry is, What do the
books teach, as they are actually understood? What do the
people - the masses, the children, not scholars — believe
on these subjects, after reading the passages herein quoted?
And what boots it, though more extensive readers find out
that the author believed the reverse of what is stated?
The poison has gone forth, and is lodged in ten thousand
places, where the antidote does not reach.
Care has been had to quote in convenient form for clear
inspection.  Brief passages are selected for brevity.  The
same things are often found in more voluminous passages.
Infringement on the context is carefully avoided. Hypercriticism is neither indulged in, nor allowed in others.
Perhaps it may not be amiss again to caution the reader
against supposing these criticisms set up opinions, or matter
of belief, different from the authors criticised. Strange as
it may seem, there is and can be but little, if any difference of opinion here.  With a few exceptions, if indeed
there be any, the errors pointed out are mere blunders, not
statements of belief.  With a few exceptions of Roman




xx             Introductory Address.
Catholic and other High Church, and a very few semi-infidel writers, it is well and abundantly known, that the authors themselves believed no such things as they themselves
have so plainly written. They are for the most part pure
blunders, not opinions.  It is my business to point them
out for the Church, but not mine, more than others, to account for them. This, it must be confessed, would be difficult.
But there are a few things of which we might be reminded.  In the first place, authors, and especially religious
authors, are more likely, unconsciously, to follow file-leaders,
than almost any other class of men. Again, it is seen at a
glance that the fundamental ideas of a new Church and
new religion are absolutely necessary to the existence of
Romanism  and all other forms of High Churchism.  And
hence the necessity in that quarter, that the belief be kept
up.  Thirdly, since the Lutheran reformation, the question
whether Jesus and the apostles did or did not organize a
new Church, and teach a new religion, has not been brought
prominently forward and debated at all, that I am aware
of.  Strange as it may seem, it has been suffered to pass
without inquiry.
The reader is now  introduced to about two hundred
authors.




THE CITY OF GOD
AND THE
CI-JURCIH-MA`KERS.
I.
ERRORS OF AUTHORS.
1. RuTER's Gregory, p. 23, tells us that "The
greater number of the first converts to Christianity
were of the Jewish nation."
This gives a wrong impression.  All the first converts, if he chooses so to call it, to Christianitythat is, to Jesus as Christ, before the preaching to
Cornelius, about ten years after the crucifixion —
were Jews, without exception.  At this time the
belief in Jesus, that He was Christ, had spread into
almost all countries, and the Christians must have
amounted to many thousands, if not to millions.  But
these persons were in  no proper sense converts.
They were merely persons who continued steadfastly
to adhere to their former faith.
2. NTevtis's Bibliccl Antiquities, p. 414, says:' It may be remembered also, that the Lord's Supper, which was regularly celebrated in the Christian
churches every week, was an institution altogether
peculiar to their worship, to which there was loth



2               The City of God.
ing that corresponded in any way whatever in the
services of the synagogue."
So far from this being true, the Lord's Supper was
the identical passover itself, and so expressly declared
and denominated by the Saviour himself.  Only the
mode of administering it was new.
3. Dr. George Smith (Elements of Divinity, p.
167) says the Old Testament was "specially made
to the elect people;" and that the New was "intended for the world."  Then what right have we
to use it as Scripture, and farther to thwart the
divixne intention by continually publishing it to the
world?
4. On page 193, he says the Gospel of John "describes the rise and progress of the Christian Church
in Judea."
This is likely to make a wrong impression, because
it is unquestionably true, that there was then, and
had been for many centuries in Judea, a regular
Church, divinely recognized, and which was essentially Christian.
5. Schaff, in his Church History, p. 39, says:
"Christianity, at the first, had to sustain a mighty
conflict with Judaism and heathenism."
In other words, Christ and the apostles, in teaching true religion, set up and waged a mighty conflict against the revealed religion of Scripture, and
also against heathenism!
6. On page 172, Schaff says: " The Jews were
split at the time of Christ, into three sects - the
Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes."
This statement is directly against all the reliable
history there, is on the subject. First, the Pharisees,
Sadducees, and Essenes were not sects at all, as we




Errors of Authors.              3
use that term.  They were sects in philosophy, not
religious sects. Secondly, it cannot be said that the
Jewish Church was split into these three societies,
when the former numbered many millions, and the
latter, at the highest estimates, never numbered over
about ten or eleven thousand.  You might as well
say that the Christian Church, in the nineteenth century, was split into three classes of lecturers in the
Smithsonian Institute.
7. Dr. Schaff (Church History, p. 214) tells us
that the Old Testament " ordains circumcision for all
time."
But Paul certainly understood the Old Testament
differently. He understood circumcision to be the
mode of administering the initiating ordinance for the
period of the Church anterior to the death of Christ
exclusively, and as anticipating that event. And a
greater than Paul so understood the Old Testament.
Did our Saviour, in administering that ordinance as
we do now, violate the law of the Old Testament?
Did He ever, in one jot or tittle, to use his own words,
infringe upon any rule of Scripture?  Such ceremonies as were ordained for that period alone, were
so recognized and so disposed of. Did the Saviour,
or any inspired New Testament writer, ever depart
from the rule, " Thus it is written"?
8. Dean Milman, in his History of Christianity,
first paragraph of Preface, says that Christianity is
"' the new relation established between man and the
Supreme Being."
This cannot be, because that would necessitate a
change in the character of God, or the nature of
man, or both; either of which is out of the question.
The relation between God and man is not a subject




4               The City of God.
of prescription or legislation at all. It results spontaneously and necessarily from the character of God
and the nature of man.
9. Dean Milman says: " About this point of time
Christianity appeared."  That is, at the time of the
preaching of the Saviour.
No, sir! Christianity is as clearly written by
Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, as by Matthew, John,
and Paul.  And Dean Milman himself so teaches us
in more than a hundred places.
10. At page 28, Dean Milman says that " God is
power in the old religion; He is love under the new."
And the book says that God is without variableness, or even the shadow of turning.
11. At page 90, Milman says, speaking of the
morality of Jesus, that, " It was morality, grounded
on broad and simple principles, which had hitherto
never been laid down as the basis of human action."
And yet, with all other theologians, he teaches
that all conceivable human morals, in their simple
principles, are laid down as the basis of human action
in the twentieth chapter of Exodus, beginning at the
third verse.
12. Again, he says: "' Christian morality was not
that of a sect, a race, or a nation, but of universal
man."
And yet he teaches that the precepts of the decalogue are, and always were, binding on all men.
13. At page 145 we are told: " The resurrection
of. Jesus is the basis of Christianity; it is the groundwork of the Christian doctrine of the immortality of
the soul."
That is all very true, except the italicizing of the
word " Christian."  This makes the whole sentence




Errors of Authors.               5
teach erroneously.  It is true that the resurrection
of Jesus is the basis of Christianity, and the groundwork of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul.
But it is also true that this was always the Christian
doctrine, as well in the days of Abel and Isaiah as
of Peter and Paul.  Has the doctrine of the immortality of the soul been changed?
14. Macknight (Epistles, p. 20) says: " It is the
Apostle Paul, chiefly, who, by proving the principal
doctrines of the gospel from the writings of Moses
and the prophets, hath shown that the same God
who spake to the fathers by the prophets, did in the
last days speak by the Son."
That sentence is rendered very defective by the
insertion of the word " principal."  Paul did not
thus prove the principal doctrines of the gospel, but
every one- every one, without exception, and so
repeatedly it was declared, by himself.  Which one
did he not prove from the writings of Moses and the
prophets?
15. Dr. Clarke tells us, in his Preface to the Gospel of Matthew, that, " The term New Covenant, as
used here, seems to mean that grand plan of arrangement or reconciliation which God made between
Himself and mankind, by the death of Jesus Christ,
in consequence of which all those who truly repent
and unfeignedly believe in the great atoning sacrifice, are justified from their sins and united to God."
I think this fails as a particular definition, for the
reason that, most undoubtedly, thousands of years
before this, there existed a great plan of arrangement
or reconciliation which God made between Himself
and mankind, by the death of Jesus Christ, in consequence of which all those who truly repent and un



6               The City of God.
feignedly believe in the great atoning sacrifice, are
justified from their sins and united to God. This,
and nothing more nor'less, is the precise condition of
salvation, written in a hundred places, in-various
forms of expression, all through the Old Testament.
And it is unquestionable, also, that many in Old
Testament times were actually saved under these
conditions.
16. Dr. Clarke says: "The Jews were the first
and most inveterate enemies the Christians had."
No; not the Jews, but Jews; for it is also certain that Jews were the first and most pious and
heroic friends the Christians had.  For about ten
years after the death of Christ, until the preaching
to Cornelius, the entire Apostolic Church-as we
call the Church at that time, apostles and all - were
all Jews.  By this time, those who acknowledged
Jesus as Christ must have amounted to many thousands, and were spread almost over the known world.
17. Buck's Dictionary says: " Christ was despised
and hated by the Jews without a cause."
This expression conveys a very incorrect idea;
and it has been so very frequently repeated, by so
many, and in so many forms of expression, that it
has become a commonplace and a settled matter
with many, to the great injury of Biblical truth. The
simple truth is that many, and for a very short time
perhaps most of the haters of Christ, were Jews;
but it is also true, that at the same time all the
friends and followers of Christ were also Jews. And
it is also certain that these Jews, so faithfully and
heroically devoted to the cause of Christ, were numbered by their three thousands, and five thousands,
and multitudes, great multitudes, often repeated,




Errors of Authors.               7
and by countless myriads all over the land. So that
the Jews were never haters of Christ.
Let any one look carefully into the New Testament, and he will find that in every place where the
Jews are spoken of, as opposed to the person or
teachings of Christ, it never refers to the Jewish
people at large. In a few places it refers to the
nation or government, that is, to the Sanhedrim, or
officials; but mostly it refers locally to certain or
a very few Jews who chanced to be there present,
where some local occurrence is narrated. Now examine every place carefully.
18. In Jahn's Biblical Archceology, p. 390, we
read of " the conversion of the Jews to the Christian
system."  And in very many other places in this
and many other books it is clearly supposed that
the Jews, as such, needed to be converted to some
other system, or religion, called Christianity.
The reply is, that there is no such other religion
as is supposed known to divine revelation.  1st.
There is no doctrine of religion - no, nor not even a
rule of morals  in the New Testament that is not
in the Old.  They are only more fully explained
and elaborated in the New.  2d. The Jews, before
the apostasy of such as did apostatize after the death
of Jesus, and indeed those who remained in the
Church - and to the present day, all of us -needed
instruction in their religion, and a more close conformity to it, but certainly not conversion from it.
How can anybody be converted from divine revelation? The apostate Jews, like any other apostates,
need to be converted from their apostasy to their
former faith.  But do pious men need conversion?
They need more enlightenment, but they are already




8                The City of G-od.
converted.  Many millions of the most pious as well
as the most wicked menl that ever lived were Jews.
A misuse of the word remnant, as seen in Rom.
ix. 27, xi. 5, has had a strong tendency to mislead
or confirm  the misleadings of hiany.' A remnant
shall be saved," is understood to mean a very small
portion, a very few,., as compared with the whole.
The Jews, therefore, who were not cut off through
unbelief, were but the smallest fraction of the whole.
And so Burkitt says, " The greatest number of these
would be passed by for their unbelief, and a remnant
only be saved."  But this reading very widely misapprehends the meaning of the word remncant. Relmnant means the portion which remains after a part
has been removed.  But it has no more signification
of a small than of a large portion.  The remnant of
anything may be one fourth, or one half, or nine
tenths of the former whole. This is the proper meaning  of the word. It is used about seventy times in
the Old Testament. I readily acknowledge, however,
that remnant is frequently used in the 0ld Testament to mean a small portion; and even if that were
the meaning in the texts quoted from the prophets
as above, it would not relieve the difficulty.  The
reference is to the destruction of Jerusalem, and it is
certain that the number who fled and escaped that
destruction was quite small as compared lwith the
number of unbelieving Jews who perished. Most of
the Christian Jews are not taken into this account
at all, because they had already, some time before,
left the city.
19. Lord King, formerly High Chancellor of Enmg.land, and author of a most excellent ecclesiastical
classic, calls his work " An Inquiry into the Consti



Errors of Authors.                9
tution, Discipline, Unity, and Worship of the Primitive Church, that flourished within the first three
hundred years after Christ."
This most valuable work, which is made up entirely of laborious historical research, is an argument
going to prove that its title, "Primitive Church,"
is a misnomer.  Primitive means first, original, beginning.  And if the history of the Church in that
period be correctly stated, then, beyond all question,
it was not first, original, nor beginning, but was, as
Mr. Richard Watson, in making the same kind of
an argument, says it was, "the very same that was
before the coming of Christ." The extensive republication of Lord King's book, and polemical use of it
by Methodist and other presbyterial writers, is to
show that the Christian Church, after Christ, was by
no means primitive; that, as Mr. Watson says, " the
Christian Church is not another, but the very same,"
which was previously called Jewish.
20. Dr. Bangs writes a most valuable treatise,
proving, by many forms of argument, that no form
of Church government was prescribed to the Church
at the time of the Christian era; that is, that a
Church was not then made, but that the one Church
continued uninterruptedly.  And then he makes a
most fatal admission against his whole argument,
which otherwise would be an unanswerable one, by
calling his book " An Original Church of Christ."
Both things cannot possibly be true.
21. Dr. Clarke frequently speaks of the Jews, at
and before the coming of Christ, as though they
were not Christians, but the religious opponents of
Christians.
If any one doubts that this is a mistake, I ask




10              The City of God.
him, first, Did they hold the Old Testament as
Scripture, and confess its faith? Second, Does the
Old Testament contain or tolerate any religious doctrine, precept, or sentiment, which is not wholly
based on, and inherent in, our Saviour Jesus Christ,
as He is presented in all the Scriptures? Then what
is a Christian?
22. " For the law was given by Moses, but grace
and truth came by Jesus Christ." (John i. 17.)
This is oftentimes misunderstood.  These two
states of things have no relation to the order of time,
but to the natural order of sequence, the beginning
and development of religious principles in the soul.
To suppose the two things chronologically related,
would imply that during four thousand years salvation was offered upon conditions utterly impracticable, i. e., was not offered at all; and that afterward
God became merciful and offered salvation by free
grace. Salvation was always offered on the same
conditions.
23. "For the  original faith  of the  Christian
Church, the Scriptures of the New Testament, are
certainly the only competent authority." (Ruter's
Gregory, p. 24.)
By the original faith, I suppose, is meant the faith
actually entertained by Christians in the early ministry of the apostles.  And it will be remembered
that the faith of these persons was taught them, explained to them, and inculcated exclusively by arguments and considerations drawn from the writings of
the Old Testament.  Then, while that faith is more
fully and elaborately explained in the New than in
the Old Testament, it cannot be said that the latter
is absolutely incompetent to describe it, since, as




Errors of Authors.              I1
above intimated, it was once taught and described
exclusively from these writings.
24. "From  the very first, therefore, we find in
the Church of Christ a regular chain of authority
and subordination."  (Ruter's Gregory.)
First of what? I inquire. He alludes to the ministry of the apostles and of the seventy. But surely
no one will say that Isaiah did not minister in the
regular Church of Christ. Then, I repeat, how was
it first, at a period several hundred years later?
25. " For if the several books differ, the difference
is in precise agreement with the known circumstances of the authors; whilst in every respect the
peculiarities prove that the writers of them were
what they professed to  be —Jews converted  to
Christianity."  (Smith's Elements, p. 31.)
The objection I make here is, that there was never
any such confession as is here stated, nor, indeed, was
there any such conversion.  Of the most of these
writers there is, in the historic Scriptures, not the
least intimation about their conversion. The inference is, therefore, that they were converted before
they became acquainted with the Saviour.  And I
know of no conversion which a pious man needs.
Paul was converted afterward, but he was converted
to the written religion of his own Scriptures, which
he had for several years so misunderstood.
26. "In most of the early Christian communities
a portion of the Church had been Jews by birth."
(Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul.)
So far from this being a correct description of the
times, it is true that for about eight or ten years
after the crucifixion —until the preaching to Cornelius - not only a portion, but all the members of




12               The City of God.
the Church, without a single exception, who acknowledged the Christship of Jesus, not only had been Jews,
but continued to be Jews so long as they lived.
Certainly, in that period at least, all the Christians
were Jews; and so far from their ceasing to be Jews,
the only way they could possibly continue to be Jews
was to confess Christ according to the Scriptures.
Those who denied Christ ceased to be Jews — true
Jews.  They called themselves Jews, but did lie.
(Rev. iii. 9, ii. 9, and other places.)
27. " The Jewish believers had renounced the
righteousness of the law."  (Conybeare and  lowson.)
Then they were apostates from  the divine faith.
How can revealed religion require a renunciation of
some righteousness, revealed in Scripture, or of anything revealed?  I know of no apostasy that does
not consist in a renunciation of something revealed;
nor can I conceive of a renunciation of anything revealed that is not apostasy.
28.;" The festival of the Passover was instituted
for the purpose of preserving among the Hebrews
the memory of their liberation from  Egyptian servitude, and the safety of their first-born on that night
when the first-born of the Egyptians  perished."
(Jahn's Biblical Arclceology.)
There is no doubt that the first and most primary
and immediate object of the Passover was as is here
stated.  But it is equally clear that its great object
was to teach typically and symbolically the doctrine
of our great Passover, the Shiloh to come. And in
the third place, the Passover was, and still is, one of
the two sacraments of religion.  But to denominate
the Passover a festival merely, is to overlook the




Errors of Authors.                13
thing itself, and have regard only to the mere form
of exhibiting it. It was celebrated in a festive manner, it is true, but the thing itself is a sacrament.
The same sacrament, performed in a different mode,
is in the Church now.
29. " His blood be upon us and our children."
(Matt. xxvii. 25.)  Dr. Kitto, speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, says: " Thus was inflicted
the doom  which was impiously invoked when the
inhabitants of Jerusalem  cried out,  His blood be
upon us and our children.' 
And when did the inhabitants of Jerusalem cry in
that manner?  Some attribute the expression to the
whole Jewish people.  The simple facts are in a nutshell.  A  few  priests and officials, members of the
Sanhedrim, not the people, were urging the conviction of Jesus before Pilate, in or around the door
of his court-room, where it was physically impossible
there could have  been more than few-perhaps
twenty, or fifty, or so —present, in the hearing of
the governor, and participating in the trial.  They,
these priests, officers, and the little rabble around
them, cried, "G His blood,' etc.  But there is no pretense that they spoke on the behalf of any but themselves. Indeed, the whole history shows plainly that
the great mass of the Jewish people of the city were
very much in favor of Christ, and strongly inclined
to favor his Messiahship.  And the trial and execution were hurried forward very precipitately for fear
of the people.
30. Dr. Kitto says of the people he calls Jews,
forty years after the death of Christ, that "they
were ready in crowds to rally round the standard of
their ancient faith."




14             The City of God.
He is under a great mistake. The people who at
this period were ready to rally round the standard of
their ancient faith were now called Christians. They
began to be called Christians at Antioch, several
years before this time; and the people who at that
time were called Jews were a part of the former
Jewish Church, who apostatized from  its religion,
and who then and now hold a very different religion
from their ancient faith.
31. Dr. Taylor- quoted by Dr. Clarke-paraphrases Rom. ix. 27, thus: "But a small remnant
of the Jews shall be taken into the Church."
In this short sentence there are two manifest and
very important errors. The first is, in considering
the remnant small- small as compared with the
other portion. The word remnant does not always
imply that the remaining portion is either smaller or
larger than the other portion. which was taken away.
Remnant means that which remains, be it much or
little, after a portion, much or little, has been removed. And in very many places in the first ten or
twelve chapters of Acts, and elsewhere, it is stated
and unmistakably explained, that the Jews who remained true to Christ were " thousands," and " multitudes," oft repeated, and "many ten thousands,"
meaning myriads; but what proportion of the whole,
is not particularly stated.
The second error is in supposing that this remaining portion had to be taken into the Church.
Taken into what Church? Were they not already
in the Church? Are we not told almost everywhere,
in and out of the pulpit, that there was never but
one Church and one religion? Are we not a thousand times taught that the one Church which was




Errors of Authors.            15
instituted at an early period, continued uninterruptedly to the present day? And likewise, that the one
true religion was uninterruptedly continued?
Now, it is the one way or the other. It cannot be
both ways. If the men of true religion and true
faith who held firmly to their principles and the true
Church had to be taken into the Church again, or
into some other Church, then be it so. And if they
were already in the Church, and did not leave it,
but remained in it, holding firmly to its faith, then
be it that way.
If Drs. Clarke and Taylor are right, then Paul
and his coadjutors are wrong. The case is a plain
one, and leaves no room for argument except as between these parties.
32. Dr. Abel Stevens says that one of the reasons
why the Saviour and the apostles frequented the
synagogues in their ministry was, "because it allowed them considerable freedom of speech, by which
they could address their new doctrines to the people."
I ask, What new doctrines? The point is important. There is a sense in which the above statement
is true, but I do not know whether that was or was
not the Doctor's meaning. The doctrines preached
by the apostles were new to many who heard, just as
the same doctrines we preach now are new to many
who hear, and who are ignorant of the doctrines they
nominally profess. But they were certainly not new
to the Church —new to religion. There is not a
doctrine in the New Testament, nor was there one
taught by the apostles, which they did not find in,
and teach out of, the Old Testament.
And the Doctor himself says, that they always
found in the synagogues " the Old Testament Scrip



16              The City of God.
tures, by the reading and exposition of which they
could prove their doctrines."  That is exactly right.
They proved every doctrine they preached by the
reading and exposition of the Old Testament.
33. Stillingfleet verges so closely upon the truth
as almost to touch it:  " We have the same orders
for prayers, reading the Scriptures according to occasion, and sermons made out of them for increase of
faith, raising hope, and strengthening confidence.
We have the discipline of the Church answering the
admonitions and excommunications of the synagogue.
And last of all, we have the bench of elders sitting in
the assemblies, and ordering the things belonging to
them."
Or, in fewer words, we have the same identical,
continuous, unchanged Church.  The Church relates
to the two periods, before and after the coining of
Christ, just as it relates to any other two periods.
34. Schaff, in his History of the Apostolic Church,
tells us that "Christianity at the first had to sustain
a mighty conflict with Judaism  and heathenism."
(Page 39.)
Now, it is matter of moment to inquire what this
false and wicked thing is which held such a mighty
conflict with true religion. Schaff gives us this information on page 139, when treating on a differing
point: 
" Judaism is the religion of positive, direct revelation, in word and action; a communication not only
of divine doctrine, but also of divine life."
Then how could Christianity have a conflict with
revelation? Surely there can be no conflict between
divine doctrine and divine life on the one hand, and
Christianity on the other.




Errors of Authors.                 17
35. Coleman's Biblical Atlas, speaking of Paul,
says: " Toward the Christians, as a new religious
sect, apostates from the faith, regardless of the law
and the sacred institutions of Moses, he entertains
the most implacable hatred.  As the new religion
spreads, and gathers daily fresh accessions, his zeal
for his religion rises to the most ungovernable fury
against the new sect."
Now it is matter of very considerable importance
in Biblical theology, which was the new sect - which
set up the new religion - the followers of Christ, or
the Jews who denied Him? That one or the other
did, is very certain.  A  short time previously they
were all together, in one Church, in one common
fellowship, and all professing  the same  religion.
And now they are separate, widely separate, in different and opposing churches, with different and opposing religions, and are indeed very hostile to each
other.
So it is certain that either one or both abandoned
their old religion and the old Church.  Now, which
were the apostates? Mr. Coleman says the Christians are the apostates, that they set up the new religion.  And it is certain the rejecting Jews charged
this boldly upon them.  It is, however, a question
stoutly held, on this side and on that, to this day.
Now, how are you going to determine? I answer,
with the simplest and most infallible certainty.  If
Jesus was the Christ, then the rejecting Jews apostatized; and if He was not, then Mr. Coleman, and
I would not like to say how many more with him,
are correct, and Christianity is a falsehood and an
apostasy.
Mr. Coleman tells us plainly that the Christians
2




18               The City of God.
did repudiate utterly and wholly the Old Testament,
its teachings, its morals, and its religion.  Listen
again: " The Christians, as a new religious sect,
apostates from the faith, regardless of the law and
the sacred institutions of Moses-"
No apostate Jew, in denying Christ, ever said or
need say more than that against Christianity. No
one ever held, or attempted to hold, more than that
in order to prove modern Judaism  the true, and
Christianity a false, religion. Indeed, I can conceive of no facts which would.more conclusively prove
Christianity to be heresy, and modern Judaism to be
the true faith of God.  Brethren! Christian brethren! these errors must be arrested.
Now, if that argument can be jostled, then we
have no farther use for human logic nor human
reason.
36. Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, is frequently spoken of as the Founder of our religion.
This is most certainly true; but in what sense is it
to be understood? Certainly not in the sense that
eighteen hundred years ago He set up, established,
ordained, originated, or founded a system or some
doctrines of religion.  This He did not do.  He is
the founder of Christianity in the sense that, as the
Jehovah, the Omnipotent, He is the maker and
founder of all things. He is the founder of religion in the sense that, in the days of Adam, He
revealed to mankind the Christian religion, which
system of recovering grace and salvation from sin
was taught from  time to time to man, by farther
and still farther revelations, the whole closing with
the teachings of the apostles; but in no other sense.
37. "The belief in a future state may be said to




Errors of Authors.             19
have been an open question among the Jews when
our Lord appeared."  (Conybeare and Howson's St.
Paul.)
Yes, it might perhaps be called an open question,
but just precisely as it is an open question now with
us. Then, as now, it was a closed question so far
as the religion of the Church was concerned. But,
as is the case now, there were then persons who did
not understand the Scriptures in this as well as other
respects.
38. " Such were the Pharisees. And now, before
proceeding to other features of Judaism, and their
relation to the Church, we can hardly help glancing
at St. Paul." (Ibid.)
Here it is strangely assumed that the religious
errors of some or all of the Pharisees were a feature
of Judaism. Just exactly in the same sense it might
now be said that the religious errors of some Universalists, for instance, are a feature of Christianity.
39. "The odium incurred by adopting the new
doctrine might undermine the livelihood of some who
depended on their trade for support " (referring to
Paul). (Ibid.)
There was no new doctrine adopted in those days
by anybody, so far as we read, except by the unbelieving Jews. Paul was thus often accused by
his enemies of adopting a new doctrine; but he
stoutly denied it everywhere, on all occasions. And
it is remarkably strange indeed, that his panegyrists
now  should suggest, or rather indeed affirm, the
same thing of him which he himself so loudly complained of then, as a false and injurious accusation.
40. " First the Samaritans, and then the Gentiles,




20              The City of God.
received that gospel which the Jews attempted to
destroy." (Ibid. p. 79.)
The propriety of that statement may be judged
of from the unquestionable fact, that at the time it
is located (Acts viii. 1), and for several years thereafter, the entire  Church in association with the
apostles   call it by what name you will, amounting most certainly to many thousands — was composed exclusively of Jews, without a single exception.
Nevertheless, it is true that Jews, some Jews, were
attempting to destroy it.  At that time the contest
was among Jews exclusively, Jews on the one side,
and Jews on the other.
41. "The festivals observed by the Apostolic
Church were at the first the same as those with the
Jews."  (Ibid. p. 440.)
And when, and by what authority, "were they
changed?  Excepting  those which obviously  and
naturally belonged to the period  before  Christ's
appearance, they were never changed, but remain to
this day, saving incidental modifications, such as
always occur from time to time.
42. " It appears that they remained some considerable time at Antioch, gradually insinuating, or
openly inculcating, their opinion that the observance
of the' Jewish law was necessary to salvation.", (Ibid.
p. 210.)
I understand the very reverse.  The reference is
to the false brethren mentioned in Gal. ii. 4.  They
sought to inculcate, not the observance of the Jewish
law, but a departure from it.  The Jewish law, or
the Old Testament, as is here meant, restricts circnmcision to the period before Christ, as fully ex



Errors of Authors.              21
plained heretofore. And these false brethren wanted
to continue it afterward, as though Christ had not
conte.
Surely that was violating the Old Testament provision. And Paul wanted to conform to it by discontinuing that -ceremony.
43. "They" (the Christians) "were a new and
singular party in the nation, holding peculiar opinions, and interpreting the Scriptures in a peculiar
way." (ibid. p. 67.)
They were the regular Church party, interpreting
the Scriptures correctly, for they had the Saviour
and the apostles to assist them in doing so, if that
can be called peculiar. They interpreted them just
as everybody did who did it properly.  As to the
nation, most of the officials,'who in those days were
generally spoken of as the nation, interpreted the
Scriptures so peculiarly as to carry themselves, and
many others with them, out of the Church.
44. " All parties in the nation united to oppose,
and if possible to crush, the monstrous heresy " (i. e.,
the Christians).  (Ibid. p. 67.)
No, sir! there was one party who did not oppose
them. And what party was that?  The true Jews,
who held firmly to theii religion, and who alone for
several years constituted the entire Church under the
ministry of the apostles.
45. " We can imagine Saul, then the foremost in
the Cilician synagogue, disputing against the new
doctrines of the Hellenistic Deacon." (Ibid.)
What would the reader generally understand by
the word new, in the above sentence?  Not probably
what is really true.  The doctrines preached by
Stephen were certainly not new to the Church, to




22               The City of God.
religion, to those who understood the doctrines of the
Church, to those who looked for no other Christ than
Jesus, for it seems He was the Christ of their old religion; though they were regarded as new by such
novices and mistaken men in religion as Saul.' Men
who looked for some other Christ, and repudiated
Jesus, would certainly regard Stephen's preaching as
new.  Such preaching would be regarded as new by
such persons now.  But if Stephen's preaching was
really new, new to the settled religion of the Church,
then it was necessarily false for that very reason, and
ought to have been disputed against. All new religion is necessarily false. -
And then Stephen himself declares, and argues at
length, that his doctrines were not new. He proves,
or certainly attempts to prove, every doctrine and
every sentiment he advances, by reference to the then
existing. Scriptures, the Old Testament. (Read the
seventh chapter of Acts.)
46. " The modern Jews still adhere as closely to
the Mosaic dispensation as their dispersed and despised
condition will permit them."  (Religious Ency., p.
692.)
Then it is logically and infallibly certain that
theirs is the true religion, and Christianity is a heresy.
It is hard to hold our patience under such monstrous
teaching.
If Jesus is the true and identical Christ of the
"Mosaic dispensation," using that expression as the
writer does, then no condition in life, dispersed or
despised, will authorize, much less necessitate, his rejection.  To reject Christ, Jesus Christ, He being
the Christ of the Mosaic dispensation, is, most certainly and palpably, to reject all the religion of that




Errors of Authors.              23
dispensation.  Will any man say that the Old Testament contains any religion with its Christ wholly
excluded?
47. "The Jews had such an  opinion  of this
prophet's sanctity, that they ascribed the overthrow
of Herod's army, which he had sent against his fatherin-law, Aretas, to the just judgment of God for putting John the Baptist to death."  (Relig. Ency.)
This is most certainly true and well stated. But
then, how comes it that at this very time these same
Jews were so violently opposed to these very principles of religion, as is so repeatedly and unqualifiedly
stated by this same writer and others? Both things
cannot be true.
48. " Judaizing Christians - those who attempted
to mingle Judaism and Christianity together." (Hend.
Buck's Diet.)
That is, those who held that the Old Testament
was Scripture, and mingled the common Scripture of
revelation in the teachings of religion!
49. Macknight (Preface to Gal., p. 280) says that
Christians are not bound at all by the precepts of
the Old Testament.  " But their obligation to abstain from their vices doth not arise from their having
been forbidden to the Israelites and proselytes by
Moses, but from their being expressly forbidden by
Christ and his apostles.' At the death of Christ the
law of Moses was abolished in all its parts, to all
mankind, as a religious institution."
And again, on Col. ii. 14, he explains, in the most
unqualified language, that we are not bound by anything written in the Old Testament; but to whatever
laws or precepts we are bound, it is exclusively because we find them written in the New.




24              The City of God.
Well, as this issue lies fairly between Dr. Macknight and the apostles, I shall certainly not interfere
with any feeble views of my own. It is very certain
that the apostles, as well as the Saviour himself before them, urged every duty they enjoined, and enforced every precept they advanced, on the sole and
exclusive ground that that was the written law of
religion in the Old Testament.
50. Mr. Coleman says: "In the Old Testament
everything relating to the kingdom of God was estimated by outward forms, and promoted by specific
external rites. In the New everything is made to
depend upon what is internal and spiritual."
I cannot account for such language.  As a simple
matter of fact, it is notoriously true, and questioned
neither by Mr. Coleman nor anybody else, that the
Old Testament estimates no religious principle nor
duty by outward forms, but that internal and spiritual graces, emotions, and feelings, are enjoined everywhere therein, and that it never offers salvation on
any other conditions. In these respects there is no
difference whatever between the Old Testament and
the New.
51. Dr. Abel Stevens (list. Meth., vol. i. p. 17)
says: " For generations the primitive Christians had
no temples, but worshipped with familiar simplicity
in private houses or in the synagogues of converted
Jews, which were scattered over the Roman Empire."
In the synagogues of converted Jews?  Why, my
dear sir, they were the very Jews themselves, who,
like anybody else, worshipped in their own synagogues,
as churches were then generally called, where they
and their fathers had always worshipped.  They all
continued to worship where and as they had always




Errors of Authors.             25
done, except the rejecting Jews, who went out of the
Church.  They had to go somewhere else and worship, unless they could convert the whole synagogue,
or the majority of it, to their heresy, which they
frequently did.
52. I am not able to see either the force or the
propriety of Keith's reply to Celsus, where the Epicurean philosopher undertakes to ridicule the doctrine
of morals as put forth by our Saviour, when He said,
"Whoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn
to him the other also." Keith refers it to his " ignorance of the difference between the dispensations of
the law and the gospel."
After claiming to know at least as much about
the law and the gospel as a heathen philosopher
could be reasonably. expected to know, I confess myself, with Celsus, quite ignorant of any such difference as Keith supposes. So far as I am able to
read, the Saviour had no reference to any difference
between dispensations. He merely explained and
repeated the law as it was and is, but not as the mistaken men around him understood it.
53. Olshausen (Preface, p. 37) says: " They remarked rightly that in the Old Testament the
divine justice was most prominently exhibited in the
revelation of a rigorous law; while the New most
fully displayed the divine mercy in the revelation of
a forgiving love."
All that is mere fashionable theological rhetoric,
which some learned men think they have a right to
indulge in, and possibly some of them do not know
any better; but surely men who will reflect a moment, can but see that there is not a word of truth in
it. There is no divine justice nor rigorous law re



26              The City of God.
vealed in the Old Testament, and not explained and
commented on in the revelations of the New Testament; nor is there any divine mercy, nor forgiving
love, in the New Testament not revealed in the
Old. If there are, they can be specified.
54. Olshausen opens his Introdcietion to his Commentary on the New Testament with this remarkable declaration:
" As the revelations of God to mah assume two
principal forms, namely, the law and the gospel; so
the Scriptures are divided into two parts, of which
the first relates to God's covenant with man in the
law, the second to the covenant in grace."
I confess I do not know what to make of such
a declaration. Its meaning is seemingly plain and
unmistakable; and as to the principal fact stated,
everybody half informed must know it to be wholly
untrue. It is impossible the author can mean what
he so plainly states.
There is no mistaking what is meant by God's
covenant with man in the law. There need be no
debate where there is nothing debatable. There are
some things about the Scriptures which everybody
knows. The Scriptures set forth two entirely different systems of divine administration with man. The
first regards him  merely as an intelligent moral
being, a subject of moral control, and it supposes
him to obey promptly and precisely all God's rules
of conduct. This is the law — preeminently THE
LAW. Nor is there anything else in Scripture which
without express or implied qualification can be so
called. It says, " Do these things, and you shall
live by them."  This would give the highest possible happiness to man, regarding him as a mere mora)




Errors of Authors.             27
and intelligent agent. And it is all the rule there
ever ought to have been, because there ought not to
have been a necessity for any other.
But alas! there was. Man became a sinner as
well as a free, intelligent moral agent. And now,
what? Why, one of two things is inevitable: either
a gospel, a system of grace, or total and inevitable
ruin. God in his mercy ordained the former, and so
provided a Saviour and a system of salvation, not
mere happiness, by faith. This system is called the
gospel, and most appropriately is it named.
And now we are told that the Old Testament reveals the former, and the New Testament the latter,
and that this is their Scriptural relation.
No, it is not so; they have no such relation.  A
more palpable error could not be stated.  Everybody knows that the Saviour, the system of grace,
the being saved from  sin by and through Christ,
salvation, was introduced into the world thousands
of years before the New Testament had an existence.
And I present the open Old Testament in proof
that the system of grace is offered in it to all mankind in perhaps a thousand places. And it is well
known that by and in this covenant of grace, a
good many persons, or at least some, were actually
saved.
The simple truth is, that the two systems, Law
and Grace, are contained in both Testaments, and
all over both everywhere; at least, both relate to
both.
Moreover, it is known to all theologians that not
only is this the case with the written Scriptures, but
that the very person of the Saviour appeared in different kinds of manifestation, occasionally, to the




28              The City of God.
Old Testament saints.  That our Saviour began to
exist about eighteen hundred years ago, and that
then, and not till then, the covenant of grace began
to operate, is a mythical, mystical, fashionable fable,
which, though perhaps taught in, is disbelieved by,
every Sunday-school in the land. And why such
doctrine is tolerated in the books, is a strange thing
to me.
55. The objection raised against the apostles and
their followers, and the only objection I know of in
these times or ever, was, that their religion was new,
and therefore false. This was the question. And
on all hands it was, as it must have been, acknowledged, that the party who had the old religion had
the true religion; and those who had introduced
new tenets, had, in the very necessities of the case,
introduced false ones. That is to say, in other words,
one party held that Jesus was Christ, according to
the Old Testament Scriptures, and the other that He
was not. And so each party charged the other with
introducing a new religion, the one for receiving, and
the other for rejecting, Jesus as Christ.
And so we see Celsus, who was one of the first to
put infidelity into logical form, take this same
ground.  "It is but a few years," he says, "since
He who is now reckoned by the Christians to be the
Son of God, delivered this doctrine."
And a little later we hear Porphyry say: " If
Jesus Christ be the way of,salvation, the truth and
the life, and they only who believe in Him can be
saved, what became of those men who lived before
his coming?"  And you will see the same objections, and indeed no others, raised by Tacitus, Trajan,
Julian, etc.




Errors of Authors.             29
This is precisely what might be expected. But
then it is strange indeed that Keith, in endeavoring
to refute these very charges, should acknowledge
that Jesus was "the author of the new religion of
the Christians."
Then the other party is right, and Christianity is
false.
56. Macknight (Gal.' iii. 22) says the law of faith
was "m ade known obscurely in the first promise,
Gen. iii. 15; and afterward in the covenant with
Abraham.'
How- does Macknight know that religion was communicated to the world obscurely at the first?  This
is drawing pretty heavily upon the imagination.
There is not, I believe, the slightest intimation of
such a thing in Scripture. And it would seem to
require very strong proof to induce one to believe
that God would teach the conditions of salvation in
an obscure way.  Obscure means, as used here, not
easily understood or made out; not clear or legible;
abstruse or blind; or dim and of uncertain meaning.
Macknight mistakes the words of the historian for
those of divine teaching.  Gen. iii. 15, is what
Moses tells us about the teaching.  What the teaching itself was, in its actual details, is another thing.
We are in the same condition here as in any other
instance of exceeding brief, synoptic history. What
occurred, is one thing; how much the historian tells
future generations about it, is quite another. Perhaps, in this instance, it was not necessary that very
much should be explained to us about the religious
teaching of those very distant ages.  The religious
teachings in the days of Adam  might have been
explained in eleven volumes, as well as in eleven




30              The City of God.
words; or those of the present age might be alluded
to in eleven words.
57. Olshausen says of the Ebionites: " They denied the real divinity of our Lord, and regarded him
as the son of Joseph; thus seceding wholly from the
true Church." (Vol. i. p. 37.)
That is exactly right. Denying Christ is seceding from the Church.  But'then, why does not the
writer apply this rule to the hundreds of thousands
of Jews who a few years before did that very same
thing? By failing to assert their secession from the
Church, Olshausen runs into the dilemma of supposing and admitting that the apostles and their followers left the Church. The apostles affirmed that Jesus
is the Christ, and the other party of Jews denied
Him. Then, which party left the Church?
58. Mr. Henry (Gal. ii. 4) speaks of the two
different modes of salvation as "by the works of
the law, or by the faith of Christ."
The evident drift and meaning of his teaching is,
that back yonder a few years, the former was the
mode of salvation; and now, the latter is the rule
which was recently adopted by Christ. And if this
be the way commentators teach, what may be expected of us learners?
59. On Gal. v. 1, Mr. Henry says: " Since, then,
we can be justified only by faith in Christ, and not
by the righteousness of the law; and that the law of
Moses was no longer in force, nor Christians under
any obligations to submit to it; therefore he would
have them to stand fast in the liberty wherewith
Christ hath made us free," etc.
I ask Mr. Henry if any persons were ever justified in any other way, or on any other conditions,




Errors of Authors.              31
than by faith in Christ?  And again I ask, if any
law of Moses, or any otlier divine law, was ever
in force, and not now in force?  And again: Was
ever anybody under any obligations to submit to
any divine law which is not now binding on all mankind? -Paul says the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us.
Mr. Henry's mistake is the common one of supposing that the law, the inexorable law which says
obey and live, stands related to the milder terms of
the gospel, which says, believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ, in the order of time; that the one preceded
the other chronologically. That is not the way of it:
the two systems have no chronologicalrelations. They
relate to each other in the order of sequence. Our
Saviour was just as much of a Saviour, and saved
men in the same way, a thousand years before Mary
had a son, as in the days of his flesh, or at this day.
He never was anything short of the great Jehovah.
His incarnation was a mere manifestation of the Godhead to human senses.
60. Mr. Henry, on Gal. iii. 24, says: "In the foregoing verse the Apostle acquaints us with the state
of the Jews under the Mosaic economy; that before faith came, or before Christ appeared,..
they were kept under the law."
Here this great error about when faith came, or
when the law ceased and the gospel began, is apparent.  "In the foregoing verse the Apostle acquaints
us with the state of the Jews under the Mosaic economy."
No! Right there is the error.  He makes no
allusion to any chronological period whatever.  In
the twenty-third verse Paul acquaints us with the




32              The City of God.
state of man, as man, without a gospel, that is,
without a Saviour. He says:  " But before faith
came we were kept under the law." And now Mr.
Henry tells us that before faith came means before
Christ appeared. No, sir! I understand it to mean
precisely as it says -"before faith came."  And
when did faith come to man's rescue? Ask Abel;
or ask Paul to ask him; or ask Abraham  or the
prophets.
Before faith came we were under the inexorable
law. But I beg pardon of Paul's interpreters, when
they make him  acquaint us that this thing happened to mankind about three years before he was
converted. No! that event happened four thousand
years before Paul was born.
61. Dr. Lardner (Credibility of the Gospel History, vol. i. p. 179) in speaking of Acts v. 26, where
it is said of the officers who were sent to apprehend
Peter and John, that they feared the people lest they
should have been stoned, says: " This may seem a
surprising change in the people, considering the
eagerness with which they demanded that Christ
should be crucified."
I see no evidence whatever of any such change in
the people as is here supposed, because I do not see
that they, the people, demanded that Christ should
be crucified. I see that the Jews - the government,
the Sanhedrim, the officers, priests, Pharisees, and
a few followers- demanded that Christ should be
crucified.  But the people were opposed to it.
Moreover, there was no time for any such change to
take place. The two things spoken of were in thei
same year, and likely within a few weeks or months
of each other.




Errors of Authors.               33
62. Dr. Eadie, in his most excellent Analysis,
makes one section as follows: "Prophecies having
special reference to the Gentiles as successors to the
Jews in spiritual privilege."
But in the Scriptures ranged under this caption,
we do not see any allusion to any successors to
Jews.  We see scriptures which merely predict the
universal spread of religion everywhere; and of
course the Church is always the successor of those
who have just passed away.  Matt. xxi. 43 refers
not to the Jewish people as a people, but to the persons to whom  the Saviour was speaking, namely,
the chief priest and elders.
63. Bloomfield says the word " trouble," in Gal. i.
7, means " harass your minds with vain  doubts
whether the Mosaic law is to be retained in the
gospel of Christ."
I do not see how this can be possible. What can
the learned Doctor mean by the Mosaic law, else
than some or all of the doctrines of religion or rules
of ethics written in the Old Testament?  And all
these are in the gospel of Christ. So he certainly
does not mean the Mosaic law.
His statement would be true if he had said the
false teachings of the Mosaic law; not what the
Mosaic law was and is, but false teachings of what
it was not. The question was, whether false teachers of the Scriptures should prevail, or how far they
might prevail in inculcating, instead of the written
law, that which it was not. Paul was not afraid the
law of Moses would be received by Christians, for it
was to do that he so incessantly labored.  It was
misrepresentations of the law he feared.
64. The Rev. E. P. Murphy, D. D., of Kentucky,
3




34               The City of God.
in a sermon in Sermons for the College, says: "Two
methods of salvation have, at different times, been
proposed to mankind.....  The gospel proposes
to save them  in another method, and on peculiar
terms; it introduces a new idea —the principle of
faith."
Into such terrible extravagances unthinking Christians are led by the notion of two religions, the
Jewish and the Christian.  And it passes, in Christian lands and among Bible readers, for theology.
65. Even Dr. Chalmers, who is so very seldom in
error, speaks of " the purer morality of Christ," as
compared with that of the Old Testament.
But this cannot be so. No morality can be purer
than revelation.  The mind of God cannot be purer
at one time than at another.  The same Mind of immaculate purity is the author of all the morality
revealed in all Scripture.  In the New Testament
morality is more widely elaborated than in the Old,
that is the difference.
66. "Are we not told in profane records that
Christianity was first propagated in  Judea? "meaning in the days of Pontius Pilate.  (Keith's
Evidences, p. 174.)
Yes, we are told so in profane records, i. e., by
Tacitus, Pliny, Trajan, Julian, and others.  This is
precisely the charge brought against the Christians
in those days, by all their enemies, that their religion
was then first propagated; that it was new, and,
therefore, false. And if the fact charged had been
true, then their complaints would have been just, for
a new religion must necessarily be false.
But there are no other records than those of the
enemies of Christianity and of mistaken theologians,




Errors of Authors.               35
which acknowledge the charge to be true, that the
Christian faith was first propagated in those days.
The divine records everywhere maintain that this
faith is precisely that of the prophets of old.
67. "Having given you a short account of the
sacraments of the Jewish Church, I proceed to observe that they have been superseded by the Christian sacraments.  This is plain with respect to the
passover, for we have already seen that immediately
after the celebration of it the Lord's Supper was instituted."  (Dick's Theology, p. 466.)
I think the author misses the point clearly. There
cannot be two sets of sacraments in human religion,
because sacrament is the obligation which religion
imposes, and not a matter of changeable legislation.
passover and the Lord's Supper were not two different sacraments, but two different modes of administering the same obligation.  I see no sort of warrant
in the language to justify the belief that " the Lord's
Supper was instituted immediately after the celebra-.tion of the passover."  The book says the Lord's
Supper was the passover.  The thing then instituted
was the Lord's Supper, not the sacrament. The nature of things required this change. The author fails
to notice the very wide distinction between the sacrament and the mode of administering it.
68. "It appears to have been less from an intolerant disposition, than from a wish to please the Jews
at all hazards, that Herod Agrippa persecuted the
Christians."  (Kitto's History of Palestine, p. 397.)
This persecution was that which arose on the death
of Stephen.  These two opposing parties, the persecutors and the persecuted, were, therefore, at the
first, all, and throughout nearly all, Jews. When




36               The City of God.
this persecution began, and for several years after,
every Christian was a Jew.  Some others came into
the Church, but not many, before the death of Herod;
but from  the language here used by Dr. Kitto, the
uninformed reader would suppose that the persecuted
Christians were some different kind of people, and
not Jews.
69. In the beginning of the Preface to Owen's
Questions, we read: " In the ancient temple service,
under the Mosaic dispensation, there were various
orders of priests, to each of which an allotment of
duty was made; and all of these, in their several
spheres, bore an honorable part, because subservient
to the great end for which that service was instituted.
So, under the'Christian dispensation,'the glory of
which is greater than of the former,' there are divers
ministrations, all of which are honorable, because promotive of the glory of God and of human weal. And,
though all of those who perform  these ministrations
do not wear sacerdotal garments, or burn incense, or
enter the holy of holies with' the Urim and Thummim,' and the breastplate of judgment, nevertheless, they are recognized by the great Head of the
Church," etc.
From  this language the  Sunday-school scholar
would infer that under the  Mosaic dispensation,
that is, before the time of Christ, the worship, as
prescribed and practiced, was the temple service,
as here described.  And then, what will he do with
this information when he comes to be informed that
then, and for many hundred years previously, the
worship of the people was indeed but very little of it
in or near the temple, but was performed in congregations, as it is now, all over the city of Jerusalem,
all over Palestine, and all over the known world?




Errors of Authors.             37
The worship of those times, almost all of it, was
in small congregations, as it is now; and instead
of its being performed in sacerdotal garments, burning incense, entering the holy of holies, etc., it was
performed almost precisely as our Sabbath service is
now.  Our Sunday-school books ought to teach more
correctly.
70. Macknight says: "It is the Apostle to the
Gentiles who hath set the Sinai covenant, or law of
Moses, in a proper light, by showing that it was no
method of justification."
Secondly, therefore, "And beginning at Moses
and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all
the Scriptures," or law of Moses, how that there was
no justification by its provisions!
71. Macknight (Preface to Hebrews) says  "And
on all these considerations the unbelieving Jews
were exhorted to forsake the law of Moses, and embrace the gospel."
And now we will see what Paul says about it.
Paul said, "For the hope of Israel I am bound with
this chain."  And again: " I stand and am  judged
for the hope of the promise made of God unto our
fathers. Unto which promise our twelve tribes
instantly serving God," etc. And again it is said,
Search the Scriptures, the Old Testament, if you
wish to know what Christianity is.
72. Macknight (Preface to Hebrews) says: " Most
of the Jews adhered to the law of Moses with the
greatest obstinacy, because God had spoken it at
Sinai by the ministry of angels, in the hearing of
their fathers, accompanied with great thunders and
lightnings, and tempest, and darkness."
Most devoutly might it be wished that this were




38              The City of God.
true; and not only that most, but that all had
done so. Certainly the reason assigned is the very
best that could be.  Show that God has spoken it,
and very few Christians will wish to inquire any
farther.
73. Dr. Belcher says the'twelfth Article of the
faith of modern Jews is, "that the Messiah is to
come, though He tarry long."  And again, that "the
modern Jews adhere as closely to the Mosaic dispensation as their present dispersed condition will
allow."
Both these things cannot be true, because the
Mosaic dispensation, i. e., its religion, declares Jesus
Christ to be the Messiah.  Then, supposing this
to be true, it follows that, to hold that Messiah is
to come, is to depart as widely from  the Mosaic
dispensation as it is possible for any one in any
condition, dispersed or otherwise. The modern Jew
departs wholly and fundamentally from all the religious faith of the Old Testament, because the Old
Testament teaches no religious faith save in Jesus
Christ.
74. Dr. Stuart, in his essay on the Peculiarities
of Christianity, among other statements somewhat
similar, says our Saviour was to "entirely change
the whole face of the Jewish religion;" and that
" He' proposed to teach a new religion."
By the Jewish religion I presume he intends to
be understood the official, written, established religion of the Church at that time.  Or perhaps he
would include in the word religion the actual external
worship practiced at that time. In either view,.was
it entirely changed?  Was it changed generally?
Was it changed at all, beyond such modifications as




Errors of Autho rs.                39
are occasionally seen in the history of the Church?
It was not!  The history is plain.
"He proposed  to teach a new  religion."  This
new religion is several times spoken of by Dr. Stuart.  Beyond all question there was no new religion in those times that the Saviour had anything to
do witho  The only new religion known in those days,
that I know of, was the new  faith set up by the
rejecting Jews, in opposition to the Saviour.
To " entirely clbnge the whole face of the Jewish
religion" is a mere fancy, utterly unsupported by
truth or reason.
75. Dr. Stuart says:  It was a bold undertaking
to come out against the whole Jewish people, and
especially the priesthood, on the subject of their
religion."
But this the Saviour did not do.  I ask Dro Stuart
for the evidence that the whole Jewish people, or
even a majority of them, ever offered the Saviour
any opposition in any matter of their religion. I
umdertake to say there is no such testimony.
76. " Who among them  all ever knew or taught
what a holy life is, and the necessity and importance
of it? "  (Dr. Stuart, of Andover.)
I will mlention the names of a few: Moses, Joshua,
Samuel, Ezra,  Nehemiah, Job, David, Solomon,
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos,
Obadiah, Jonah, Miicah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and many others
incidentally mentioned in Scripture.
77. It is apparent that Dr. Stuart does not hold
the Jewish religion, the religion of the Church before Christ, responsible for the errors of its mistaken advocates.  He understands that point pre



40              The City of God.
cisely, because he says: "If tyrants, claiming the
name of Christians, have persecuted and oppressed
in order to extend the domain of Christianity, or
religion, which absolutely forbids this, then  the
Christian religion is not answerable for it." And of
course, just so of the religion of the Church at any
time.
78. Dr. Stuart, in his Commentary on Romans,
commences his Introduction thus: " History affords
no certain evidence respecting the individual who
first preached the gospel at Rome. The Romish
Church, indeed, maintain that Peter was the founder
of the first Christian community in that city."
Allow me to suggest that both he and the Romish
Church, in this dispute, are requiring history to perform impossibilities. History cannot point out a
thing which never happened.  In the nature of the
thing there could have been no such event, nor
any such individual.  What does he mean by first
preached the gospel?  Revealed religion was certainly preached, more or less perfectly or correctly
preached, in the city of Rome, long before the
death of Jesus.  There was a church there before
that time.  We learn thus much, at least, from Acts
ii. 10.  Now, who first preached in that church,
among those persons professing faith in Christ, and
in accordance with their general belief, that the man
Jesus was the Messiah of their faith, is a very different question from  that debated by Dr. Stuart and
the Romish Church.  That question is: Who first
preached the (new) gospel at Rome? and, What
individual was the founder of the first Christian
community in that city?  In the sense here meant,
no such things ever happened.




Errors of Authors.                41
I respectfully suggest that Dr. Stuart would have
been a hundred-fold more successful in this argument,
if, instead of joining issue with the Romanists on
the mythical question they raise about a fact which
never had an existence, he had asked his opponents to
show that a Christian church, some church different
from  that which had existed of old, was founded
at all at Rome, either by Peter, or by any one else.
The admission by Dr. Stuart, that some person, after
the death, or after the birth, of Jesus Christ, first
preached the gospel at Rome, meaning by the word
gospel some doctrines of religion, is, first, the admission of that' which is historically untrue; and
secondly, if not absolutely fatal, is greatly embarrassing to his argument with  the  Romish  Church.
Strange that he makes it; and stranger still that a
thousand others do the same thing.
79. " It is certain that great numbers of Jews and
devout proselytes were converted at first to Christianity."  (Horne's Introduction, vol. i. p. 134.)
No; that is a transparent blunder; and in the
mouth of a Christian it is a contradiction of his faith.
It is certain that great numbers of persons then in
the Church, known as Jews, were, at first -the
first day, week, year, or several years, of the preaching of the apostles after the resurrection - found in
church association with the apostles. Indeed, they,
and they alone, composed the entire Church, in association with the apostles, for ten years or so after the
death of Jesus.  Of this there can be no doubt.  And
it is equally certain that they must have amounted
to hundreds of thousands, and most probably to several millions, including all the countries where the
apostles and their friends preached. But to say these




42               The City of God.
persons were converted to Christianity, is to say
that they were converted from their present faith,
the written faith of Scripture, and to a different faith.
This was the very thing, and the only thing, charged
against the Christians by their unbelieving brethren.
To say they were converted to Christianity, is a
very different thing from  saying they were taught
a better understanding of their own religion, and a
closer comformity to it.  I suppose nobody would
call that conversion. To be better instructed in our
own religion, is a different thing from being converted
to another.
Jews at the present time, or since the apostasy,
may be converted to Christianity, because they never
professed it; but the Jews here spoken of could not
be so converted until they should first apostatize,
and then be converted from the apostasy. This was
the case with some, I should presume, but it could
not be at first, because with these multiplied thousands there is not the slightest pretense of evidence
that they had ever apostatized at all.  Indeed, in
the nature of the circumstances, it'was impracticable.
Horne's Introduction, saving these blunders, one of
the best and most useful books in any language,
teaches in hundreds of places, plainly and square
out, that Christianity is a totally foreign religion,
new and unknown prior to its introduction by Jesus
Christ and his apostles. Strange that the learned
author did not see, not only that this proves Christianity a false religion, but that it is the only point
relied upon by the unbelieving Jews, from the apostles' days to this day, to sustain their position. That
conceded, of course, proves that they are right. The
Introduction must be written over again.




Errors of Authors.              43
80. In the XNew Biblical Atlas, a Western publication, generally received as a text-book, at page 31,
we read: i" The gospel was preached to the Samaritans by Philip, and the first Christian church out of
Jerusalem was formed in the city of Samaria, within
one year of our Lord's death."  And  Coleman's
Biblical Atlas, p. 211, makes the same remark.
For proof they refer to Acts viii. 5-8, where there
is not —nor is there anywhere else in the New
Testament- the slightest allusion to such an occurrence as they relate.  Let us look at the unquestionable facts.
Long before this time there had been in Samaria
large numbers of  Samaritan  Jews, with  their
churches, or synagogues, if any one prefers the term.
They could not believe in Jesus until Jesus lived,
nor have faith in Him as the Messiah until He died
and rose.  Immediately on the occurrence of these
things we see Philip, in Samaria, preaching in the
synagogues.  Preaching what? What did Philip
preach that had not always been preached there?
I answer, Nothing additional, but that Jesus was
Christ.  "And the people, with one accord, gave
heed unto those thiigs which Philip spake," etc.
" And there was great joy in that city."
Now, that is all that took place, all that anybody
pretends took place.  The people received Jesus
with one accord at the very first opportunity. The
churches were already there, and suffered no change
in anything, so far as we are informed. No doubt,
however, they were greatly instructed and informed
in their faith. They acknowledged Jesus, and fully
received Him  as the Christ they had always received, so soon as the nature of things rendered




44              The City of God.
it possible.  Was that the formation of another
Church? As well might you call it the formation of
another city, another language, another civil state,
or another religion, as another Church.  It was
palpably and notoriously neither.
81. Reason and Revelation is a recent publication
by Milligan, Carrol & Co., Cincinnati. Throughout
this whole philosophical treatise, as its title indicates
it to be, the religion we call Christianity is held to
be one wholly new to mankind in every essential
respect. At page 358, he follows the blunders of
others, in making Paul persuade his Hebrew brethren
to repudiate every religious lesson they had received.
" There was nothing in the old covenant that could
take away sins."
By old covenant, he is understood to mean Old
Testament.  Who believes that? Did anybody ever
believe it, except the millions of children and unreflecting persons thus imposed upon?
" But under the new covenant the sins of Christians are remembered no more."
As if there was any other covenant, that is,
arrangement for salvation, ever made by the Almighty with his creatures, since the first sin of
Adam.
82. Eece Deus Homo, p. 28, says of John the
Baptist, " Suddenly, and without any warning, he
appears before the people of Judea with the startling
message,'Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is
at hand.'"
Startling? Surely not. The Christian doctrine of
repentance had been in their Scriptures abundantly,
and read  and preached in their churches every.
Sabbath day for at least over a thousand years.




Errors of Authors.             45
Neither is.this kingdom  any new doctrine.' It is
expressly stated that John told them it was not.
(Matt. iii. 3.)
83. Again, he tells us, page 33, about what John
did "before the dispensation of ceremonies passed
away."
Have  ceremonies, religious  ceremonies, passed
away? What do men mean by such expressions?
There were some ceremonies before the incarnation,
which cannot apply since; they discontinue. But
that was not certainly a dispensation of ceremonies.
Ceremonies continue as before.
84. Again, " He gave it " (the Church) " a written constitution, under which it exists."
No; the only thing I know of in Scripture, at all
savoring of the character of an ecclesiastical constitution, is written in Genesis and Exodus. There is
not a hint of such a thing in the New Testament.
85. Again, " Jesus hath revealed a doctrine, and
inspired holy men to commit the same to writing,"
etc.
No; I do not think that Jesus revealed a doctrine.
86. " God segregated them" (the Jews) " from
the other nations of the earth, and by the most
rigid enactments prevented them from mixing with
other people."  (Page 144.)
On the contrary, everybody knows He did the very
reverse. He commanded all men to be religious,
and required the Church to receive everybody that
would come in, forbidding that there should be a
difference between those already in and those coming
in. Nevertheless, religious people of course segregate.
This must always be so without any enactments, so
long as a part of the people remain irreligious.




46              The City of God.
87. MeClintock and Strong's Cyclopcedia, vol. i.
p. 3, teaches that Aaron, as high priest, offered
sacrifice for sin. This clear, simple proposition, is
plainly stated and elaborated. The reader understands the teaching in its simple and natural sense,
namely, that in those days, sacrifice for sin, by way
of atonement to an offended God, was really offered
by Aaron and his successors, and accepted by Jehovah.  Whereas the truth is, that Aaron never
offered any sacrifice, really, any more than those
gentlemen did.  He only acted the visible forms of
offering, as a mere mode of teaching the doctrine of
atonement, just as we do now  by other instrumentality.
88. On page 10 we are told about " the vicarious
offering of animal sacrifice " by Abel.
Surely there was no such offering. Abel's animals
were no more vicarious than McClintock and Strong's
" Cyclopaedia " is vicarious. The two are but different modes, in different ages of the world, of teaching
the doctrine of one only vicarious Sacrifice.
89. " In the New Testament adoption appears not
so much a distinct act of God, as involved in and necessarily from justification."  (Ibid. p. 78.)
In the New Testament?  Why exclude the Old?
And why write a chapter about a New Testament
doctrine which is common to all revelation?
90. In art. "Apostasy," same book, p. 307, we
read, "The primitive Church distinguished several
kinds of apostasy; first, those who went entirely from
Christianity to Judaism," etc.
What! That is most surprising.  What you call
the primitive Church was Judaism; that is, it was
composed of those persons exclusively who stood firm




Errors of Authors.            47
by the Old Testament, as Jesus and his apostles
taught and exhorted; who maintained the doctrine
and principles enunciated by the prophets, as men do
now. And the first and only apostasy we know of
in that age, was those who went away from Judaism, the Old Testament, by denying Jesus as the
Christ. It is most remarkable that McClintock and
Strong, in their treatise on apostasy, do not even
mention what is by far the greatest and most important one known to the history of religion, namely,
that of those Jews who repudiated their Christ, and
then and there left the Church.
91. On page 310 we are told that the apostles
" created themselves into a community at Jerusalem,"
which was " the mother Church."
On the contrary, is it not palpable they did nothing of the sort? The question of Church was never
raised or discussed by or between anybody in those
tiimes. The apostles and those acting with them
never changed their ecclesiastical relations, or thought
of doing so; but lived, preached, and died in the
Church of their fathers. As to the mother Church,
the pope might be inquired of about that. He may
know; I do not. Did any but the apostates leave
the Church?
92. Neander's Planting  and Training of the
Christian Church, the history of something that never
happened, opens thus: "The Christian Church, as
a community proceeding from the new principle that
was to transform the world, and destined to introduce
this new principle into humanity, presupposes, as the
basis of its existence, the person who was Himself, in
his whole being and manifestation, that world-transforming principle without whom the existence of the
Church itself would be a monstrous lie."




48               The City of God.
Neander is not only a theologian, but a teacher of
theologians, and this is one of his books of instruction.  And I ask, what new  principle, in either
religion or morals, was then introduced? There is
manifestly no historic truth in the statement.  It
might as well be said that a new world-transforming principle of mathematics, or of architecture, was
then introduced into humanity. Neither was done.
And so, Neander's Planting and  Training of the
Christian Church is a romance.  There is no such
Church.
93. "It was the boundary line between the Old
and the New."  (ibid.)
Old and new what? Can any man answer? Modes
of teaching were old and new.  Nothing else was.
94. " It is true that Christ, during his ministry on
earth, laid the foundation of the outward structure of
the Church."  (Ibid. p. 6.)
I open the broad face of the New Testament, where
any man may see the utter erroneousness of this
whole statement as a mere matter of fact. I see not
in it the slightest appearance of such a historic thing,
but the reverse.
95. "The vital principle of this community, which
once in existence, should become the imperishable seed
for the propagation of the Church in all ages, had not
yet germinated." (Ibid.)
That is, in other words, religion did not yet exist
in the world!
96. Dr. Whedon, of New York, in his Commentary,
in most respects a most excellent one, quotes in the
Introduction, from Tacitus, Pliny, and other heathen
writers, to show the existence of a " new religious
sect " at the time of the apostles; and so he regards




Errors of Authors.               49
their testimony as proof that Christianity was then
a " new religion," and thus he shows " the origin of
Christianity."
Of course.  This was the very ground of their
opposition to it, and that of the rejecting Jews. It is
a new religion, they say, and therefore false. If new,
it certainly was false, and that is the proof of it.
But it is strange Dr. Whedon should say so, because
he is a Christian, and therefore supposed to be on the
other side of this question. His assent that Christianity is new, is unaccountable.
97. On the 5th  page of the Introduction, Dr.
Whedon tells us that the Church in that age bears
testimony that they were "primitive Christians,"
"a holy Church," etc.
It seems to me this testimony is the very reverse,
that they were primitive only as to their general
name; but that their religion was as old as the
prophets.
98. On page 7 the Doctor speaks of the Saviour's
"bringing his religion into existence."
What!  Bringing  his religion  into  existence?
Then it was necessarily false. The best possible proof
of the falsity of any religion is that it was brought
into existence.  This is the case,with Mohammedanism, Mormonism, etc.
99. I hoped that Dr. Whedon's Introduction was
not a very good index to his book; but on page 46
we are told that the mission of John the Baptist was
to " bring the people to the moral standard of the
Mosaic law, in order to fit them for the gospel."
That is strange.  Bring the Church up to the divinely prescribed standard of morals, in order to prepare them for some other morals.  Are there any
4




50             The City of God.
better morals taught in the New Testament than in
the Old?
100. On Matt. iv. 23, we read that " Our Saviour
and the apostles found the synagogues most eligible
places for the first preaching of the gospel."
And this suggests the inquiry, What was it they
first preached?  Any new doctrines, new morals, or
new principles of life, or salvation, or religion? The
answer is, No. Then why write in a way to induce
the belief that all these things were new?  The
synagogues were churches, and of course, as is the
case now, were very eligible and appropriate places
for preaching, as well in that day as any other.
Churches used to be called synagogues.
101. Dr. Whedon says, " The synagogues resembled the Christian churches."
Yes,- if a thing can be said to resemble itself.
They were Christian churches.
102. " Christianity therefore is not the destruction,
but the completion of Mosaicism." ( Whedon, Matt.
v. 17.)
How can a religious system be the completion of
some other system of religion? I do not know what
the expression means. What is meant by religion
being completed?' If wrong, it could be righted; but
what is completed?  Can truth be completed?
Much is said to this effect by many authors, and
no one that I have met with has attempted to explain what was completed or finished. Surely there
could be no finishing or completing of the incarnation
of Christ. That occurred wholly at the time it did,
though it was anticipated from the beginning. And
as doctrines of religion or rules of moral conduct, h'ow'an they have a beginning and a completion? Modes




Errors of Authors.            51
of teaching are always improving. They are merely
instrumental. They are not by any means completed
yet. I think this whole thing of the Mosaic religion
being completed in Christianity, is a sort of convenient
myth, and grows out of the great, monstrous untruth
of a new religion. And these quotations only show
how our very best theologians are. led astray by the
introduction of a radical but undiscovered error.
103. On Matt. xxvi. 20, Dr. Whedon makes this
remark: "Then occurs that part which our Lord
transfers to the new dispensation."
It has been a very nice point to decide, with those
theologi ns who find it necessary to do so, when was
the exact time of the close of the old dispensation,
and the beginning of the new. In many respects
the exactness of this time, to a day or an hour, is
vastly important. Dr. Whedon draws this important
line in the history and chronology of the world,
through the middle of the ceremony of the'last passover. Others fix other periods. One difficulty in
finding it is, that the Scriptures make not the most
remote allusion to it in any way whatever.
104. McClintock and Strong (Ency., vol. i. p. 517)
say, " The effect of the atonement thus wrought is,
that man is placed in a new position, freed from the
dominion of sin, and able to follow holiness," etc.
And so, previously to this new law of saving men,
there was no freedom from sin, and no holiness in
the world! This is taught as a lesson in theology!
Then the atonement applies to man personally in
this chronological way. Only those who lived subsequently to the time of the crucifixion have any interest in it!
105. Again. "The victory of the death of Christ




52              The City of God.
over the power of the devil begins now to play a
prominent part in the idea of atonement."
No, not begins now. It began ages previously.
106. "Baptism is one of the sacraments of the
Christian Church."  (Mf Clintock and Strong's Cyc.,
vol. i. p. 639.)
Rather, it is the mode of administering one of the
sacraments. A wide difference.
107. Whedon (Corn., Matt. xxvi. 29) says, "We
may first remark, that the passover was a true sacrifice: for the victim was a true substitute for the sinner, dving in his stead, and showing by his death
that ihe sinner ought to die."
Then the writers of the New Testament but very
poorly understood  the Old, for they everywhere
teach that Jesus Christ was the only sacrifice for sin
ever known to true religion. What! a dumb animal a true sacrifice, making a real atonement?  A
true substitute for the sinner?  Then indeed we
have had a dispensation in which an animal was as
good as a Saviour! A  book, or a sermon, might
show that a sinner ought to die; but a book is not
therefore a true sacrifice; it is only an instrument
used to teach the doctrine of sacrifice. I suppose
it was to prevent such blunders as this that Paul
said, " It is not possible that the blood of bulls and
goats should take away sins;" though before the true
and only Sacrifice was slain, it might be used to teach
the doctrine of vicarious sacrifice.
108. " The vocation of the Gentiles therefore is
an eminent illustration of the superior excellence of
the New Testament above the Old."
Then God is much more kind and mild to his
people than formerly! But who is this that judges




.Errors of Authors.             53
and decides of the superior and inferior excellence
among the works and teachings of Jehovah?  And
so the lessons of Matthew are greatly superior to
those of John, and Paul, and inferior to Mark, Isaiah,
and Peter! Who constituted these judges?  Is not
all revelation absolutely perfect?
109. " Paul compares the Jews to children, and
the Christians to youths." (Ibid. p. 367.)
Where?  Certainly not in the New Testament.  I
find Paul (Rom. ii. 28) teaching that Jews, true
Jews, are Christians.
110. In hundreds of places Calvin teaches in his
Institutes, in the clearest and most unqualified manner, that both the Church and religion of Christianity began —not merely the name, but the thingbegan absolutely in the time of the apostles.
And yet the ministers of that school, on direct inquiry, will hold that they both began thousands of
years before. Are they both true?  The theory supports Romanism, but the practice repudiates it.
111. " I grant indeed that whatever promises we
find in the law concerning the remission of sins, are
accounted part of it." (Ibid. vol. i. p. 335.)
And yet I suppose nothing is better understood in
theology than this, that the law is a simple requisition of absolute and unconditional obedience, knowing nothing whatever of remission of sins, of pardon,
of gospel, or anything of the sort.
112. " Here we have to inquire in what respect the
legal covenant is compared with the evangelical, the
ministry of Christ with that of Moses." (Ibid. vol.
vi. p. 359.)
And so, the faith of thousands has been led astray
by this supposed difference between Moses' religion
and Christ's, as if the Bible contained two kinds.




54              The City of qod.
113. " The Old Testament contains nothing perfect." (Ibid. vol. vi. p. 360.)
Was plainer infidelity ever written?  And yet
Calvin was a Christian.  This is probably a misconstruction, and if so, certainly a very great one,
of Heb. vii. 19. The word " law " here means the
primitive constitution, not the law of salvation as
taught in the Old Testament.  The law of absolute
obedience was not perfect, complete, or sufficient, in
its adaptation to man in his fallen condition.
114. "The Old Testament is the revelation of
death.' (Ibid. p. 362.)
The Old Testament offers full and free salvation
to all mankind, and on the simple condition of faith
and obedience in and to its teachings.
115. On page 362, in contrasting the Old and New
Testament, we read, " The former is the ministration
of condemnation, because it convicts all the children
of Adam of unrighteousness; the latter is the ministration of righteouness, because it reveals the mercy
of God."
This is so plainly erroneous that it is strange any
one can fail to see it. And yet, because Calvin
wrote it, it passes, century after century, for halfway theology.
116. " The Scripture calls the Old Testament a
covenant of bondage, because it produces fear in the
mind." (ibid. p. 363.)
No; the remark alluded to is not about the Old
Testament, but a very different thing, namely, the
law, the primary law, requiring absolute and unconditional obedience. This knows no pardon, no salvation, no Saviour; and is the same in the New Testament as in the Old. But the Old Testament offers




Errors of Authors.            55
salvation and a Saviour the same as the New. It is
strange that a theologian should make such a blunder.
117. "Now the whole may be summed up thus:
that the Old Testament filled men's consciences with
fear and trembling;, but that by the benefit of the
New Testament they were delivered and enabled to
rejoice."  (ibid.)
And yet every man ought to know that there is
not a doctrine of religion, nor offer of salvation in the
New Testament which is not first written in and
taught out of the Old.
118. "The new covenant is placed in opposition
to the oM." (Neander.)
The Word of God opposing the Word of God!
Who can believe it?
119. History of Doctrines by Hagenbach, Am.
ed., Sheldon & Co., 1866, p. 44: "With the incarnation of the Redeemer, and the introduction of
Christianity into the world, the materials for the
History of Doctrines are already fully given."
And yet it is well known that both the religion of
Christianity and the Redeemer, with all the doctrines
of religion known to Scripture, were in the world, to
the salvation of millions, many hundred years before
the incarnation.
120. " Jesus is not the founder of a school, but in
the most exalted sense, the founder of a religion, and
a Church." (Ibid.)
But neither Jesus nor the apostles ever said a
word, or did a thing, so far as we read, about a new
Church or a new religion. And we do read that
they all belonged to the old Church, and practiced
the old religion to the end of their lives.
121. "Our Saviour indeed adopted many of the




56              The City of God.
current opinions, especially the Mosaic doctrine of
one God, and also the prevailing opinion of and expectations of the age concerning the doctrine of angels, the kingdom of God, etc.; but to consider Him
merely the reformer of Judaism, would be to take a
very narrow view of his work."  (Page 45.)
This error has spread itself very wide over our
literature, and it is not too much to say that immense
harm has grown out of it. It makes the system of
salvation that we call religion, as taught. in the Old
and New Testaments, to be two separate and distinct systems, not only radically and fundamentally
different, but radically opposed to each other. The
Old Testament and its teachings being wholly wrong,
the Saviour did not attempt to improve it, but set it
aside entirely by a wholesale abrogation and repudiation of it!
On the contrary, the plain truth is, that He did not
attempt to either reform or change the religion, the
written and well known religion of the Church, one
iota; He only taught and enforced a better understanding of it, and a closer conformity to it. What
else did, or could, the-nature of things require? Was
not the Old Testament, every word in it, taught by
the very same Christ who inspired and thus dictated
every word of the New?
122. "There are two errors which the new-born
Christianity had to guard against." (Page 54.)
One of these errors was that committed by the
Almighty in the revelation of the Old Testament,
namely, Judaism; and the other was idol worship!
And if that is profanity, it is Hagenbach's, not mine.
123. Character of Jesus, by Schenkel, 1866, p.
72, says: "In the light of the gospel, the last shad



Errors of Authors.             57
ows of the old covenant still cast by John, soon
melted away."
There are perhaps no words of Scripture so generally misunderstood as old covenant and new covenant, as used in our version. There never were any
such covenants as are frequently explained and understood by these expressions.  These covenants
were not different modes, or conditions of salvation,
as is here supposed. Salvation was always offered
on the same conditions.
What was new in the new covenant was not its
religion, but superior facilities for teaching it. The
scenes presented by Christ now in the person of
Jesus, being visible, historic, sensible, and no longer
adumbrant, are more easily taught and understood
than before.
124. "Was not Moses then appointed by God as
the mediator of his covenant people? " (ibid.)
He was no more a mediator than Isaiah or Paul.
125. " Was not a chosen priesthood divinely instituted for Israel?"  (Ibid.)
That depends upon what is meant by priesthood.
If a real, atoning priesthood is meant, then No! But
if a moot, symbolic priesthood, in mere appearance,
used instrumentally to teach the doctrine, to inculcate
and enforce it, is meant, then there was.
126. " Change of heart and faith, He represented
as the two indispensable conditions of participation
in the kingdom of God." (ibid. p. 92.)
Certainly; the very same conditions always prescribed. " Create in me a clean heart, O God, and
renew a right spirit within me."
127. Liddon, in his Bampton Lectures, says: " The
early assaults upon Christianity were uniformly di



58              The City of God.
rected against the person of our Lord. The earliest
were for the most part, from outside the Church."
(London Christian Remembrancer, Jan. 1868, p. 142.)
The first statement is certainly true, because the
person of Jesus was the only question in dispute.
But the other is not true, because, for a number of
years the only opponents of Jesus and the apostles,
save a very few Roman soldiers, who merely assisted
about the crucifixion, were all in the Church. But
their opposition to Jesus necessarily carried them out
of it.
128. " Theologians are not yet agreed how far the
period of the ancient Church ought to be extended."
(McClintock and Strong's Cyc., vi. p. 367.)
That is strange! Why, most assuredly you must
extend it as far back as religion reaches. What is
the Church but the external association of religious
people, as such?
129. Again, same page, " The New Testament of
course gives the beginnings of the most important
Christian usages, such as Baptism, the Lord's Supper, Ordination, Prayer, etc."
I think that prayer, at least, to say nothing of
ordination, etc., was previously known. I think that
is taught in more than a thousand places in the Old
Testament.
130. " Though Peter had been so long a convert
to Christianity, he keeps clear of the customs of the
Jews."  (Patrick, Lowth, and Whitby's Com., Acts
x. 2.)
And so there is a belief abroad that Peter was a
convert to Christianity, and so he undoubtedly was,
but not in the sense here meant.  He was a convert just as all other religious men are, before or




Errors of Authors.              59
since the age in which he lived. So far as we know,
he may have been a convert to Christianity ten or
twenty years before he saw the Saviour. But that
he ever changed his religion as is here intimated,
there is not the slightest suggestion in or out of
Scripture, but everything proves he did not.
131. Paul is made to say, " I should not have left
Judaism to embrace Christianity," but for so and so.
(ibid. Gal. i. 11.)
There is a sense in which it may be said of Paul,
though it cannot be said of any of the other apostles,
that he left Judaism. But unfortunately that is not
the meaning here. Before his conversion he left Judaism, and went off with the apostate Jews after the
new and false Judaism.  And this Judaism he left,
and returned to his old faith, which he now embraced,
not only theoretically, but spiritually.
132. In F. W. Farrar's Critical History of Free
Thought, the second lecture is, much of it, built upon
the idea that " the doctrine of an atoning Messiah"
was absolutely new in the world in the time of Jesus.
And yet the Old Testament is full of the doctrine.
It is strange that so many embrace the notion.
133. Calmet's Dictionary, art. " Sacrifice: " "Adam
and his sons, Noah and his descendants, Abraham
and his posterity, Job and Melchizedek, before the
Mosaic law, offered to God real sacrifices."
Then it may no longer be said that Christ is the
only sacrifice. These patriarchs offered not a real,
but only an apparent sacrifice; not to atone, but to
teach the doctrine of atonement.
134. Barnes's Evidences of Christianity in the
Nineteenth Century, Harpers, 1868, p. 111: "There
are two forms of religion in the world which owe their




60             The City of God.
present existence and influence to the fact that they
were at first propagated by direct effort. They are
Christianity and Mohammedanism. In this respect
they stand by themselves. The religion of the Jews
had its origin with their own nation, and grew up with
themselves, and identified itself with their legislation, municipal and military regulations,- a growth
among themselves, and not an accretion from  surrounding nations. They indeed sought to make
proselytes, but they never sought or expected to
make their religion a universal religion. Moses
labored to make the Jewish people a religious people, but not to correct the surrounding nations; and
at no period of their history did the Hebrews ever
conceive the idea of converting the whole world to
their faith. It was the religion of the Jewish nation,
not the religion of the world."
I do not see how a greater amount of plain error
and misteaching could be crowded into so small a
space. Can Mr. Barnes point out the constituents
of this new faith? Can he specify one item? One
single doctrine, or phase of a doctrine? Mr. Barnes
could not say directly that revelation has two religions. Then why mislead and bewilder? If any
religious people who ever lived, never sought or expected to make their religion a universal religion,
which is a possible thing with regard to any individual persons, in any age of the world, it is because
they misunderstood their religion. Many, -we know
not how many, -three thousand or two thousand
years ago, may have as much misunderstood their
religion as Mr. Barnes does now. But that the law
of their religion, written then and written now, contemplated all mankind, is so palpable as not to




Errors of Authors.              61
admit of question.  What did the, prophets teach?
There is not a hint in Scripture that its religion is
restricted in any wise, to any nation; but on the
contrary, its universality is apparent and notorious.
If there was a question involved here, Isaiah lv., or
lii. 10, or hundreds of passages in Psalms, and all the
prophets, might be cited; but it is not in good taste
to cite proof of that which is notorious. The blunder is apparent.
135. Van  Doren's  Suggestive  Commentary  on
Luke, Introduction: " It is uncertain whether he
(Luke) became a Jewish proselyte before his conversion."
Or, in plainer words, whether he was converted
before he was converted!
136. " They looked for Jesus to restore the ancient
religion." (Ibid. Luke iv. 43.)
And He did so.
137. "Jewish prayers were chiefly praise and
benedictions."  (Ibid. vol. i. p. 10.)
I do not know that human language has uttered
prayers more rational, devout, or evangelical, than
those read of in the Old Testament.
138. Luke i. 19: The glad tidings were, " First,
a gospel.  Second, blessings promised in the Old
Testament.  Third, new  doctrines."  And the reference is to Gal. i. 6-8.
The Epistle to the Galatians would be a strange
place to look for new doctrines.
139. Part II. of Butler's Analogy, which treats of
revealed religion, assumes, in the entire argument,
in every part of it, as an unquestioned and unquestionable fact, that Jesus Christ, by his divine power,
revealed to mankind an  entirely new  system  of




62               The City of God.
religion, previously unknown, especially in its great
leading  and fundamental doctrines.  This "new
religion," as he frequently calls it, to distinguish it
from that revealed in the Old Testament, is what he
always means by " Christianity."  He distinguishes
it as "the Christian in particular," in contrasting it
with " a revelation in general."
The revealed religion, therefore, the analogy of
which to nature he so ably and so logically traces,
is essentially and constitutionally dualistic. This
will not be questioned by any one who will look at
the argument.
And yet one dispensation of religion for one age
of the world, and another for another, is certainly not
known to Scripture.  And although Bishop Butler
says, "It is an acknowledged historical fact that
Christianity  offered  itself to the world" at the
period alluded to, and demanded to be received upon
the testimony of the miracles of that age, he will not
pretend, on cross-examination, that it was Christianity, any doctrines, or any system of religion that
was thus offered to the world, or that indeed it was
anything more than an incident pertaining to religion, namely, the advent of the Saviour, and such of
his mediatorial and sacrificial acts as were intended
for human eyes, that was thus offered.  And even
this, he will further acknowledge, always pertained
to, inhered in, and was part and parcel of the religious system revealed to mankind four thousand years
previously.
And although he says that Christianity, so introduced, was proven to be a true system  by those
miracles, yet, under cross-examination, no man will
pretend that they tested, or were calculated or in



Errors of Authors.              63
tended to test anything but a simple, single fact. in
regard to the personality of Jesus, namely, that He
was Christ.
And although he says that Jesus Christ " founded
a Church," he would be absolutely compelled, on a
moment's suggestion, to say He did not, because it is
palpable He did not.
140. In Analogy, Part II. chap. i., we read as
follows: -
"As Christianity served these ends and purposes,
when it was first published, by the miraculous publication itself, so it was intended to serve the same
purposes in future ages, by means of the settlement of a visible Church; of a society, distinguished
from common ones, and from the rest of the world,
by peculiar religious institutions; by an instituted
method of instruction, and an instituted form of external religion.  Miraculous powers were given to
the first preachers of Christianity, in order to their
introducing it into the world; a visible Church was
established, in order to continue it, and carry it on
successively throughout all ages."
I will not suffer any one to mistake me so far as
to suppose I am  debating questions with any one.
I am  trying only to point out blunders and oversights which do not admit of serious difference of
opinion. And so I ask, What was first published
and attested by the miracles referred to?  Certainly it was not Christianity. Christianity is the
name of the system of religion revealed in all Scripture.  The theory then first published, and so attested, was the fact of the Christhood of religion in
the man Jesus.
The " settlement of a visible  Church" is the




64               The City of God.
necessary result of individual religion. The two
things are naturally coinherent, or necessary parts or
aspects of the true religion. It has no instituted
form of external religion. By this must be meant
ceremonial or ritualistic modes of worship. Miraculous powers were given to the first preachers of
Christianity, in order to  their introducing what
into the world?  That God would save sinners on
condition of faith and repentance?  Certainly not.
Abel and all the prophets knew and taught that.
These miracles attested the identity of Christ and
Jesus; that is, that Christ had now appeared in the
person of Jesus.
141. " Miraculous powers were given to the first
preachers of Christianity in order to their introducing it into the world." (Ibid.)
And if the Bishop were asked to specify what it
was that these first preachers thus preached and
introduced into the world, that he calls Christianity,
the question could not be answered. It is palpable
they introduced nothing.
142. On page  222, Bishop  Butler speaks of
" other obligations of duty unknown before."
What were they?  Will any man answer? Religious duty then, as now, was unknown to those who
did not know their duty, but to none others.
143. Page 256: " There is then no sort of objection from  the light of nature, against the general
notion of a mediator between God and men, considered as a doctrine of Christianity, or as an appointment of this dispensation."
Then a mediator between God and men, that is,
Christ as mediator, is to be considered, exclusively,
as an appointment of this dispensation.  StrangeI




Errors of Authors.             65
144. Page 266: "He founded a Church."
Most certainly He did not.
145. Page  291: "In  them" (Paul's Epistles)
"the author declares that he received the gospel in
general, and the institution of the communion in
particular, not from  the rest of the apostles, or
jointly together with them, but alone from.Christ
Himself."
Paul was undoubtedly acquainted with the gospel
in general, before he saw the Saviour.,  46. Page 292: "But before anything of this
kind, for a few persons, and those of the lowest rank,
all at once to bring over such great numbers to a
new religion, and get it to be received upon the
particular evidence of miracles; this is quite another
thing."
But there was no new religion, nor any bringing
over.
147. Page 328: "Let us then suppose, that the
evidence of religion in general, and of Christianity,
has been seriously inquired into by all reasonable
men among us. Yet we find many professedly to
reject both, upon speculative principles of infidelity."
Then revelation contains a religion in general, and
a Christianity in particular!
148. Bishop Tomlin remarks, " It is certain the
apostles, immediately after the descent of the Holy
Ghost, preached the gospel to the Jews with great
success."
This, though literally true, makes a wrong impression, because it is explained and understood to mean
that the gospel so preached, embraced new  religious doctrines and principles not previously known
to revelation.
5




66              The City of God.
149. Jimeson's Notes on the XXV. Articles, p.
153, heads Section 4 thus: "Laws of Moses not
binding on Christians."
He can hardly mean the laws and principles of
religion as taught by Moses, for these are the purest
and best Christianity known to mankind to-day.
He probably means those peculiar modes of teaching
and inculcating religion before Christ's appearance,
and which always pointed forward to his incarnation,
commonly called Jewish ceremonies.  Then his mistake is, that no binding obligation has been removed by legislation; but from innate necessity they
cease to be used now because they adumbrated, or
pointed forward to that which had occurred. Adumbration, or forward pointing, ceases, of course, by its
own nature, when the thing so pointed to transpires.
Adumbration points forward, history points back to
the same event. All other laws of Moses are as
binding now as they ever were.
150. The doctrine of dualistic revelation is very
clearly stated by Dr. Ebrard, who continued Olshausen's Commentary after the death of the author.  He
says, "The death of Christ was a perfect sacrifice
once offered in opposition to the Old Testament animal sacrifices."
The context shows that the opposition means antagonism, because the latter was bad, defective, and
imperfect. But there is not known to revelation
any two sacrifices, or two systems or doctrines of sacrifice. Only the modes of teaching were different.
151. Robbins' World Displayed is a book of history, for families and schools. In his section on' Antediluvian Religion " he says: "In regard to the
religious rites of the primeval race of men, it can




Errors of Authors.              67
only be affirmed that they offered sacrifices both of
animals and the fruits of the earth."
That tells us about religious rites -modes of inculcating religious belief; but of the religion itself
it does not inform  us. The children who receive
these teachings of Robbins' understand that the
Jews who rejected Christ, and of course who still
reject Him, do so in pursuance of, and according to,
the written religion of the Old Testament. Then,
when they become old enough to reason on the subject, they find it difficult to understand why the
Jews were cursed for following the Scriptures; and
why we, who do receive Christ, incorporate these
same Scriptures into our Bible.  This is hard to
understand.
152. Dr. Dwight (Theology, vol. ii. pp. 93-95)
speaks of " the things which the Saviour taught,"
and then specifies, seriatim, the leading doctrines of
religion.
The clear understanding here is, that this was the
very first teaching of these things to mankind. But
the truth is, that each and every one of these doctrines was previously taught in many places in the
Old Testament.
153. "Fifthly," the Doctor goes on, " Christ established his Church in a new form."  Everything
in it was new; "new ministers,"   new discipline,"
"new peculiar duties," etc.
Now, how is it possible for religion and theology
to prosper greatly under the influence of such teachings?  And then if the Saviour so established his
Church, was it not a perfect Church?  Why, then,
do we complain of the -Papist for holding that it
continued infallible?




68              The City of God.
154. "We have seen the foundation of our holy
religion laid in the history of our blessed Lord and
Saviour, its great Author, as related and left on record by the four several inspired witnesses." (Henry's
Corn., Pref. to Acts.)
We need not inquire what construction might be
possibly forced upon this language; it is sufficient
to know it is generally understood to mean that the
entire system of religion in the New Testament has
its absolute origin in the writings of the evangelists.
Could a greater untruth be stated?  Could anything
better support the fundamental principles of Romanism?
155. " And in this book we find the rise and original of the Church vastly different from the Jewish
Church, and erected on its ruins." (Ibid.)
Are not such teachings absolutely marvelous?
156. Dr. Clarke says (Acts iii. 22), " Peter evidently gives them to understand that Christ was a
legislator, giving a new law, the gospel, to supersede
the old."
Then Peter's teaching was evidently untrue. That
is certainly untrue. The gospel superseded the law,
or came to its relief, four thousand years before
Peter was born.
157. Nelson on Infidelity, p. 80, says of "the
early Christians," they "were almost uniformly
either Jews or pagans before their conversion, and
even hated the name of Christ."
How much pagans knew or cared about the name
of Christ is another question, but we are not informed
of any Jews who ever hated that name except those
who repudiated Christ by denying Jesus. And of
these we are informed of the conversion of but one,
namely, Paul, though there very likely were others.




Errors of Authors.             69
158. Mr. Owen (Comp. Corn., Heb. iv. 14) says,
"The writer now proceeds to the consideration of a
subject introduced chap. iii. 1, where he calls Christ
the High Priest of the Christian religion."
This is a clear error. Turn to the text and see.
159. " The fault of the first covenant was, that
it made nothing perfect." (Williams in Comp. Con.,
Heb. viii. 17.)
When infidel writers tell us about the imperfections of inspiration, we resent it as sacrilegious; but
I am utterly unable to comprehend the meaning of
such teachings in the hands of a Christian.
160. On the above remark  of Mr. Williams,
Prof. Stewart says, by way of salvo, " The meaning
is not that the Mosaic economy had positive faults,
namely, such things as were palpably wrong, or erroneous; but that it did not contain in itself all the
provisions necessary for pardon of sin, and the rendering the conscience peaceful and pure, which the
gospel does effect."
Better let it stay as it was. The mending only
makes it worse. The faults of the Old Testament
are, that it is merely worthless! What a sentiment!
My pen trembles while I copy it. No provision for
the pardon of sin! Nothing to pacify the conscience
in the Old Testament! Reader, I exhort you, do not
believe it! Let such sentiments be scouted from the
Church. Every word that has proceeded out of the
mouth of God is a word of mercy, of truth, a perfect
word, offering salvation, intended to pacify the conscience, and is pure gospel, and only gospel, from
beginning to end. And those men who would set
themselves up as judges in matters of the merciful
administration of Jehovah, are but poor, miserable,




70               The City of God.
short-sighted creatures like you and me.  Who are
they, to set down this work of God as faulty, this
as a little better, and that as not palpably wrong!
What blindness! It was but an incidental remark
of an inspired Apostle, that it was all profitable, very
profitable.  Heb. vii. 19, and other texts, are misunderstood.
The difference between the Old Testament and
the New, is not in the moral quality of their teachings, nor in the things taught. On these points I
suppose it is enough to say, they are both divine
revelation.  The difference is in their modes and
facilities of teaching. In the one case you stood before the advent of Christ -before his visible work
became historic; and so you had to teach it by adumbration.  In the other case, you stand and teach
after these facts are seen and understood. So here
were far superior facilities for teaching, but not
superior things taught.
161. Jacobus (Notes on the Gospels, Matt. ii. 4)
says, " The Jews looked for Christ, at this time, but
as a temporal king."
It is common enough to say so, but I know of no
evidence of it. There are a few glances of history
that would seem to indicate that some few persons,
at that time, entertained such notions of the Messiah,
but they are very few, and the glances very indirect.
But as to this being the settled opinion of the
Church, that is out of the question.
162. Again, Matt. iii. 6: " Baptism was known as
an initiatory rite.  Proselytes to the Jewish religion
were received in this way.  Hence they understood
the ordinance as signifying an espousal of a new
religion; and so, it was a mode of public profession."




Errors of Authors.             71
And so our children and people are mistaught.
Scores, and even hundreds, of such errors could be
quoted from the same author.
163. On Matt. iii. 9: "The Jews boasted in Abraham.  They were his descendants according to the
flesh."
Not one in a hundred of them. Perhaps not one
in ten thousand. See the arguments on this subject.
Pure blood descent, which is understood, is out of
the question.
164. " It is, I believe, an unquestionable fact, that
before the end of the second century, Christianity
had been more widely disseminated over the face of
the earth than any other religion, true or false."
( Greyson Letters, p. 188.)
This is a common sentiment, but made upon data
very illusive and untrue. It supposes that the whole
number of Christians, at the end of the two hundred
years, was increased in that period. But most of
those called first Christians were Christians before.
They did not now profess a new faith, but only
a fact pertaining thereto, and now for the first time
existing, namely, that Jesus was the Christ. The
dissemination of religion is another thing. There
was no period within a hundred years of the Saviour's life, that the true Church did not number
hundreds of thousands, if not millions. The probability is, the Church, by the end of the second century, had not gained as much as it lost by the defection of those who repudiated Christ. But history
does not inform us.
165. Doddridge closes Section 15 thus: " Let us
learn to reflect how necessary it was that the law
should thus introduce the gospel."




72              The City of God.
I presume, on a moment's reflection, any one
would regard it a simple absurdity to suppose that
the law introduces the gospel. The term law, when
used in contrast or in juxtaposition to gospel, means
the primary rule of. absolute obedience. How can
that introduce a gospel?  It can have nothing to
do with a gospel. If we have a gospel, it was
introduced by divine mercy, over and above, and
irrespective of the law, meeting its requirements
vicariously on our part, the law standing firm. I
suppose it would hardly be understood that the
law of religious ceremonies introduced the gospel.
The gospel existed long before the ceremonies did.
And if not, how could ceremonies'introduce a gospel?
166. Doddridge, on Galatians i. 6, speaks of " this
method of salvation," explaining himself to mean a
method different from  "the works of the Mosaic
law."
By this the learner understands that the works of
the Mosaic law, whatever that may mean, was once
a method of salvation; and that on the appearance of Christ, He instituted a different and better
method. Now, I ask any man if that is theology?
And I ask a question a thousand fold more important:
How can sound practical religion prosper in a land
where such theology interpenetrates the early teachings of the people?  There are hundreds of such
blunders all through Doddridge's exposition.
167. I have not, in the course of my reading,
chanced to see Tappan's Lectures; but from  an
extract, pages 116, 118, in Horne's Introduction, vol.
ii. p. 120, Carter's ed., 1860, I incline to regard it an
excellent book. The extract referred to treats of the




_Errors of Authors.              73
Jewish Sacrifices, so called metonymically, and his
account of the character of these symbols is so
rational, and so radically dissimilar from the untrue
teachings of scores of authors I could easily name,
that I recommend the extract to the reader. He will
soon discard the strange notion of these animals being real sacrifices, as so many teach, mistaking a
symbol for a reality.
168. Dr. Mosheim speaks of " the Church founded
by the ministry and death of Christ," discourses
largely upon it, and in many places explains and repeats the idea that the existing Christian Church and
religion had both their absolute origin in the world
in the time of the Saviour's advent, entirely distinct
from the Jewish religion and Church. I hold it possible that some things maybe clearly stated in the
English language, critics or no critics. Then if there
never was but one Church, Dr. Mosheim was in error
on this point.
169. Suppose it to be true, as stated by Mr. R. I.
Wilberforce, that there was a " time when the Church
existed in its embryo form in the college of the apostles," a Romish supposition often assented to by
Protestants, then what must necessarily follow?
If that is true, then that was the beginning of a new
corporation, or religious society, with a new government in the form of a charter, of course providing for
legislation, judicature, and execution, for this is what
government means, and is.  And as it was invested
with the powers of perpetual succession, how can the
succession deviate even a hair's breadth from the original constitution?  Then if this same Church exists
at all, now, there can be but one true, divine Church.
The descending or perpetuating authority, as origi



74               The City of God.
nally created, must inhere strictly in the succession.
Then Protestant or non-prelatical writers need not
insist that a " succession of doctrine " is sufficient to
identify the Church. The predicate is not about doctrine, but about legal, external authority to govern a
corporation under a prescribed charter. The inquiry
then relates to successive, personal investiture, and
incumbency. The question is not about the Church's
doctrines of religion, but is personal as to appointment to office, like a contested election. The case
-as stated by Mr. Wilberforce, and strangely assented
to by Protestant writers, necessarily supposes one
distinct, exclusive line of succession of legal investitures.  And thus, of course, the question now arises,
Which, among the several existing Church governments, is the true one? This may be good policy for
Papists; but it is strange Protestants assent to it.
170. "The doctrine of salvation taught by Jesus
Christ is called gospel, or good tidings, in several
passages of the New Testament."  (Bishop Percy.)
That is literally very true, but the implication that
it was then first taught, is not true, for the prophets
taught it also.
171. D'Aubign6  says, " Christianity  and  the
Reformation are two of the greatest revolutions known
in history."
That depends upon what he calls a revolution.
They were great events, but reformation would describe them far better.
172. " The new religion had two features, among
many others, which especially distinguished it from
all human systems which fell before it.  One had
reference to the ministers of its worship, and the other
to its doctrines."  (D'Aubigne.)




Errors of Authors.               75
He who sets out with the idea that Christianity is
a new religion, will of course drift into the next errors
of new ministers and new doctrines, and kindred illusions.
173. " His disciples, beginning at Jerusalem, travelled over the Roman empire and the world, everywhere proclaiming their Master the author of everlasting salvation."  ()'Aubigne.)
And the prophets, and all other true ministers of
religion, hundreds and even thousands of years before,
travelled less extensively perhaps, everywhere proclaiming the same thing of the same Master.
174. " The Church was in the beginning a community of brethren."  ((D'Aubign(.)
Yes, we are told so in the last verse of the 4th
chapter of Genesis, which is the first historic mention
of the Church in Scripture.
175. " Paul of Tarsus, one of the chiefest apostles
of the new religion, had arrived at Rome." (D'Au6igne'.)
No, not when he arrived at Rome, on the occasion
referred to. Now he had left the new, false religion,
then set up by the repudiators of Christ, and had
returned to the old religion of Scripture.
176. " Now that none of these motives could influence Paul to profess the faith of Christ crucified, is
manifest from the state of Judaism and Christianity,
at the period when he renounced the former and embraced the latter."  (Horne's Int., vol. ii. p. 322.)
Did Paul renounce the former faith, as is here
stated?  He everywhere insists, most rigidly and
peremptorily, that in embracing the crucified Jesus
as Christ, he did so because he was now convinced
that that was the only way to hold fast to Judaism;




76             The City of God.
thus holding them to be one and the same thing from
the beginning. The thing he renounced was not Judaism, in any proper sense, but the new, false Judaism
which denied that Jesus was Christ. If Paul renounced the Old Testament teachings, how could he
be a Christian?
177. On the next page Home says, "Shortly after
his baptism and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon
him, Saul went to Arabia, and during his residence in
that country he was fully inducted, as we may reasonably think, by special revelation, and by the diligent
study of the Old Testament, in the doctrines and
duties of the gospel."
Just so. He learned the doctrines and duties of the
Gospel by the "diligent study of the Old Testament."  How else could he learn them?
178. Dr. Lovick Pierce, speaking of baptism, says,
" It being at best only an outward rite, valuable as a
testimonial of an inward grace, but perfectly worthless in itself."
What, I beg to inquire, is it which is thus spoken
of as at best only an outward rite?  Surely not
the sacrament commonly called baptism. The obligation of fidelity to the Church, acknowledged and
made potent in baptism, can hardly be called a rite.
The rite is the manner in which we acknowledge and
promise the fulfillment of the obligation, the sacrament.
But the sacrament itself is nothing less than our duty
to be religious.
179. Dr. Means, in a sermon on the birth and divinity of Christ, says, " The mystery is now solved. I
understand its lofty import.  The infant Messiah
breathes. The merciful God incarnate enters upon
hns mission of mercy to the world." Again, " The
promised redemption has come."




Errors of Authors.            77
The things here stated can hardly be meant. It is
very true that at this time the divine personality became incarnate; but it is certainly not true that in
the person of Jesus, He, at this time, enters upon his
mission of mercy to the world. They are two very
different things, chronologically separate four thousand years. And that the promised redemption has
just now come, would mean that in all the four thousand years before, the redemption was merely promised, and is now provided in pursuance of the promise;
whereas the redemption was furnished as well as
promised at the first. The thing previously promised
was not the redemption, but only a concomitant of it,
a thing subsidiary to the redemption, namely, the
fleshly presence and visible work of the Saviour.
180. M. Renan, in his Life of Jesus, proceeds upon
the doctrine of a wide and total distinction between
the religion of the Bible, before the coming of the
Saviour, and the Christianity by which it was superseded. So you hear him speak of " the new worship,"
" the infant sect " - that " it breaks its last connection with Judaism," and many such expressions.
This view is very comfortable for such writers as
Renan. It serves well to distort Christianity, but is
embarrassing if you want to elucidate it.
181. On page 196 we are told by Renan, that the
last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem was that He might
"attack Judaism in its strong hold, Jerusalem."
The very principles the blessed Saviour spent his
life in teaching, in inculcating, and enforcing with
far more than human power, He went to Jerusalem
to attack! It was a religion " with which He had
not yet broken! " Historic falsehoods more palpable
or more dangerous could scarcely be uttered. A




78               The City of God.
caricature of Christianity is the very thing forsuch
writers as M. Renan.  If sound Christian writers had
never presented Christianity in these distorted and
unnatural features, there would have been far less
license for such semi-plausible infidelity as is given us
by such writers as M. Renan, the author of " Ecce
Iomo," and the German infidels of the present day.
182. Dr. Henderson says, "Nine tenths of the
mistakes which have beclouded and injured Christianity have arisen from the introduction into it of Jewish
principles, practices, and errors."  (Relig. Ency., p.
465.)
Errors, Jewish, Romish, or Christian, introduced
into Christianity, make up the injury it receives.
But I know of no principle it possesses other than
such as were formerly called Jewish.
183. Dr. Campbell, in Comp. Com., Acts viii. 26,
etc., says the Ethiopian eunuch " became first a proselyte to Judaism and then a convert to Christianity."
This is a strange way to become a Christian, to
pass through some other and false religion to reach it.
The history, in effect, says he was a Christian. The
Scriptures were his Bible, and he went to Jerusalem to
worship according thereto. Nevertheless, the Christship of Jesus was not generally promulgated at that
time, and that fact could not be believed by him until
he had good evidence of it.  And so, like all other
Christians of that age, he was baptized into that belief.
184. Mr. Henry says (Acts viii. 26): "Here is the
story of the conversion of an Ethiopian eunuch to
the faith of Christ."
I see no evidence of this.  Then what was his
faith before?  Certainly it was Christ.  But there




Errors of Authors.              79
were in that day thousands and millions who had the
faith of Christ, but who, in the nature of things, could
not have faith in Jesus until they received the necessary informatioh.  Nobody could  have faith  in
Jesus until He rose from the dead; and then those
who did not see Him must be informed of it.
185. On Acts xiv. 1, Mr. Henry says: " In the close
of the foregoing chapter, the gospel was preached,
first to the Jews, and some of them believed, and then
to the Gentiles, and some of them believed."
That is a cloudy expression with a truth in it, but
told in a way calculated to mislead. Surely they did
not preach first to the Jews exclusively, and then to
Gentiles exclusively. The preaching was, as it is
now, to promiscuous assemblies - all who would hear.
Nevertheless, this offering of the gospel first to the
Jew and then to the Greek was natural, necessary, and
unavoidable, easily seen if you look at the then existing state of things. The Jew was already a Christian - never professed any other religion; but in the
necessities of the case, without a knowledge of Jesus
up to this period. But now, at this precise juncture,
it becomes necessary for him to do what could not be
done before, namely, receive and believe in Jesus as
Christ. So that the preaching of Jesus, in connection with the general preaching of Christ, presented
to the Jew nothing but a fact which could not be
known before; while as to the Greek, a heathen, one
not a Christian at all, he must needs receive not only
Jesus, but the whole system of religion. The Jew
has only to continue to be a Christian by receiving
Jesus, while the heathen must be converted to the
religion itself. So that if every congregation had
been part Jew and part Gentile, as we might readily




80               The City of God.
suppose, there is apparent propriety in saying the
gospel was preached first to the Jew and then to the
Greek.
186. Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, Int. p. 10,
says: " Then we must study Christianity, rising in the
midst of Judaism, we must realize the position of its
early churches, with their mixed societies, to which
Jews, proselytes, and heathens had each contributed
a characteristic element."
What these authors call Christianity, is this:  Between eighteen and nineteen hundred years ago the
religions of the world were Judaism, proselytism, and
heathenism.  The first of these had, or once had, a
divine oversight or authorship, in some unexplained
way, connected with it, but was now wholly false
and worthless. The second was a kind of mongrel,
superstitious faith, ranging between it and heathenism, and the last was that general mass of idolatry and corruption known as heathen.  And Christianity was a new religion, in the formation of which
each of these three had contributed a characteristic
element.  But each of these three systems of faith
must needs be repudiated in order to become a
Christian. The Jews, as well as the others, were by
virtue of their ancient faith the natural enemies of
Christianity. This is clearly their outline; but it is
clear to me that no such system  of religion is known
to revelation.
187. Christian Theism is an English prize essay by
Robt. A. Thompson, M. A., published a few years ago,
and republished in this country; page 329: " When
or where did man, from the study of himself or nature, assure himself of the truth that the Creator is
Infinite Love, till it was enunciated by the Living




Errors of Authors.            81
Word; till He, by whom the worlds were made, came
forth from the bosom of the Father, in the fields and
tents of Palestine, proclaiming the sublime truth of
Eternal Love from God to man?"
In this extract, and many similar ones that might
be made from this same book, the entire religious
teaching of the Old Testament is not only ignored,
but expressly repudiated. The simple answer to the
above is, that centuries before the time here spoken of,
the same truth here described was not only annunciated, but reiterated and preached in every conceivable
form of expression by the prophets, and was also
written in the holy oracles, and read every Sabbath
day to the people.
188. Among the most formidable infidel objections
to Christianity I know of, is one summed up and
quoted in Chris. Theism from Mr. Theodore Parker,
p. 385, as follows: " The leading nations of the Caucasian race have thus far outgrown, first, the savage's
rude fetichistic worship; then classic heathenism;
then patriarchal deism; then the Mosaic worship of
Jehovah; and now the most enlightened portion
thereof come to what is called Christianity."
I do not say that this argument, as it is stated, is
beyond the reach of logical argumentation; though
I would not like to encounter it as Mr. Thompson
does. The argument, to say the least, is grounded
wholly upon a great untruth in Christian Theism.
And if it had not been assented to by theologians,
the argument never could have been raised by infidels
at all. Christian writers have put this falsehood
into the mouths of infidels. Were I to reply to
Mr. Parker, I would not, as Mr. Thompson does, be
cajoled into the admission of the Hebrew and Chris6




82              The City of God.
tian religions; but would contend at the threshold,
that the Theism of revelation knew but one religion.
I would require him to prove his progressive development, and decline furnishing him -any material
with which to do it, especially false ones. The progressive development theory rests wholly upon the
doctrine of dispensations, following along and improving upon each other as they proceed.  If " the present dispensation stands in a peculiar relation to the
covenant made with Israel at Sinai, which it has
entirely superseded," and if "God appeared chiefly
in the character of a lawgiver " in a former dispensation, and if " the present dispensation supposes that
there may have been one or more past dispensations,
and that there may be a dispensation yet to come,"'
then, if these things be so, as we are told, I inquire
what is the objection to the theory of progressive development? Infidels may not state it exactly right,
but the thing is admitted. Mr. Thompson  in his
argument with Mr. Parker, admits it; and many
other authors admit it. The doctrine of different,
rising, improving, better and better dispensations is
the doctrine of development, for the doctrine applies
as well to God's moral as to his natural providences,
though I suppose Mr. Parker would carry it farther
than some others do.
189. The learned Dr. Cave must, I think, bear
some portion of the responsibility of the errors of
later teachers on these points. In his discourse on
the evangelical dispensation (Lives of the Apostles,
p. 101), he says, " The last instance I shall notice of
the exalting of this above the Mosaic dispensation, is
the universal extent and latitude of it, and that both
in regard to place and time."




Errors of Authors.             83
Was religion ever confined to Palestine? Was it
ever geographically circumscribed at all? Certainly
it never was.  Then why build an argument upon
the assumption that it was? And how was it circumscribed in regard to time?
190. Dr. Cave tells us that Jesus Christ " planted
the Church and its religion in the days of his humanity."
This is as bad as Neander's "Planting and Training of the Christian Church."  What was planted?
191. Dr. Cave says (Lives Apos., p. 194), that
" The apostles had been lately converted from their
Judaism."
I am at a loss to know what the learned Doctor
means by Judaism, so as to make his statement
agree with known and well settled history.  If he
means the religious errors which so plentifully existed in the Church in these times, the answer is,
that there is no intimation in the New Testament,
that any of the apostles excepting Paul, ever entertained these errors, or any of them. So they could
not be presumed to be converted in that sense. And
if he means the religious faith and doctrines of the
Old Testament properly understood, then the reply
is, that that is the true religion which they professed
and taught to the end of their lives, which we call
Christianity. He could hardly say the apostles were
converted from true, revealed religion. I think the
Doctor makes a clear mistake.
192. "' Even so hath the Lord ordained that they
which preach the gospel should live of the gospel,'
is the law of the New Testament."  (Bp. Morris'
Church Pol., p. 47.)
No; most assuredly this is not the law of the New




84             The City of God.
Testament, particularly as is here understood. It
was ordained in the Old Testament, and elaborately
taught there, and in the usual way further taught
and explained in the New.
193. Longking, in Notes, John iii. 3, says, " The
words'kingdom of God' denote, first, the spiritual
kingdom  which Christ was about to erect in the
world by the preaching of his gospel."
This is either very erroneous or very ambiguous.
Ordinarily, it would be understood that at that time
Christ was about to preach some new doctrines, or
system of religion, which would bring men into some
relation to God hitherto unknown, and essentially
different from the ordinary religion of the Old Testament. But when we see the.Saviour's preaching,
we see no doctrine advanced, or precept enjoined,
beyond what is already written in the Old Testament. The preaching of his gospel, therefore, was
only the enforcement and elaboration of the then
written religion of the Church. This error is frequently repeated in various ways in Longking's
Notes, and the damage thereby to Sunday-schools
must be immense.
194. Longking (Notes, John iii. 4) says, " Nicodemus appears to have rightly understood our Lord
as intimating that he, and any other Jew who would
enter that' kingdom of God,' of which Christ spake,
must be born again, as well as any proselyte from
heathenism."
Here the great error we are looking at, is very
apparent. It is certain the Saviour neither stated
nor meant anything of the kind. While it is certain
that all men enter the kingdom of Christ, or true
religion, in other words, by being born again, it is




Errors of Authors.             85
equally certain that a Jew, as such, needed no conversion. Being a Jew, that is, being in the Church,
would imply, prima facie, that he was converted in
the kingdom, though many of them as it is now,
were not. Being born again implies conversion from
irreligion to religion; and so applies to all apostate
Jews; but it is nowhere intimated that Nicodemus
ever departed from the true religion of the Bible,
though it is clearly intimated that he was not as
well versed in its doctrines as he should have been.
The Saviour did not tell Nicodemus that he, because
he was a Jew, must be born again.
195. Dr. Hook says, "We will commence with an
indisputable fact. In this country there is at this
time a religious society known by the name of the
Church. The question is, Where, and by whom,
was this society instituted? "
The best and most direct answer the history of the
world affords to this question is this: " Then began
men to call on the name of the Lord."  (Gen. iv.
26.)  Or, as it would perhaps be more properly
read, "Then (about this time) men began to call
themselves by the name of the Lord."  That is,
men began to separate from the wicked, and claim
openly to be the Lord's people; to associate as religious people, congregate, segregate for avowedly religious ends and purposes. The Church was not instituted like a mere human society, but is the natural
and necessary confluent result of individual religion.
But this is a vital point with Dr. Hook. There is
no other possible way by which his prelatical doctrines can be supported than by regarding  the
present Church as having been instituted de novo
at the period of the advent.




86              The City of God.
196. Bishop Hobart says, " The Christian Church
was founded by bishops, because the apostles, who
were bishops, were the first preachers of the gospel,
and planters of the churches."
The objection to this is, that the Christian Church
was not founded at all, in the sense here meant.
The expression supposes that before the apostles
began to preach, there was no Church, and that it
was by their labors that it was brought into existence. All this is clearly untrue. It is useless to
debate how the Church was then founded, since it
was most certainly not done at all. The Church
continued. Let this error be corrected, and a vast
amount of controversy about the Church will abate.
Logical popery will cease, and all forms of High
Churchism will find themselves utterly without foundation.
197. The controversy about Episcopacy, three orders
in the ministry, and what is sometimes called the
apostolic succession, rests entirely on the supposition
that Jesus Christ formed his Church; that in the
formation of the Church, in the Church as organized by Christ, such and such principles of government were adopted. Take away this supposition,
and there can be no such questions as those which
enter into these debates. But let it be admitted
that Jesus Christ formed his Church, and then the
question arises, how He formed it.
In a tract before me of the Protestant Episcopal
Society, written by William Hey, Esq., F. R. S., etc.,
of England, it is said:- " We may therefore fairly
conclude that the directions which are given in Holy
Writ, for the formation of the Church in the time of
the apostles, are to be applied to the same society in
all ages."




Errors of Authors.               87
Now, the objection is, that no directions are given
at all, in the time of the apostles, or at any other
time, for the formation of the Church.  Where are
any such directions? There are indeed many directions about the morals and religion of the Church,
etc., but as to its formation, or government, no such
thing is hinted at.  There could be no such directions, because there was no formation.
198. Dr. Clarke says (Gal. v. 1.), "Hold fast
your Christian profession; it brings spiritual liberty.
On the contrary, Judaism brings spiritual death."
Well, I know of no fairer way to dispose of such a
statement, than to give it an unqualified denial.
His context makes us understand by Judaism, the
precepts and the religious doctrines of the Old Testament.  On the contrary, I believe that there is not,
and never was, anything in this world, beneath the
heavens, moral, mental, or physical, which brings
spiritual bondage, but disobedience of these very
precepts and doctrines. I will defend the Old Testament so far as to say, it is the word of God. And
I complain of Clarke's Commentary for saying that
it brings spiritual bondage. And I exhort people
everywhere, as they value religious truth, to repudiate and disbelieve Clarke's Commentary, and all
other books, so far as they teach such doctrines.  He
says, " Messiah's reign was to be a reign of liberty."
Not so by any means.  It was not to be, but then
was, and always had been, as it always will be, a
reign of liberty.
199. Matthew  Henry (Cor., Gal. v. 1) says,
" Christ has satisfied the demands of the broken law,
and by his authority as a king, He has discharged us
fronithe obligation of those carnal ordinances which
were imposed on the Jews."




88              The City of God.
The error here is palpable when once pointed out.
By his authority as a king, the Saviour did nothing on that subject. The cessation of the ritual
observances here alluded to, was by no means the
subject of legislative authority. They ceased on the
coming of Christ, by their own inherent nature and
constitution. They were always and naturally restricted to the state of Christianity prior to the
incarnation of Christ. Being instruments to teach
the principles brought more palpably to view in the
incarnation, they of course ceased when the events
occurred.  When  and where, I inquire, did the
Saviour, by his authority as a king, discharge us?
There is not a hint of such a thing in Scripture. On
the contrary, He always explained that He taught
nothing but what was read in the Old Testament.
Will any man say otherwise?
200. Dr. Scott (Com., Gal. v. 1) speaks of "the
method of justification revealed in the gospel,"
meaning the New  Testament; and by necessary
implication contrasts it with a previous method.
Does the New Testament reveal a method of justification? Does divine revelation recognize two
different ways of justifying men?  How strangely
men write!
201. " For then the Jewish Church was abolished,
and the Christian entered in its stead; then the
law  of Moses ceased, and that of Christ and his
gospel commenced."
So wrote Prideaux in his Preface to vol. ii. of
Connection, one hundred and fifty years ago; and so
many have believed, to their great injury, ever since.
Lord save the Church from such error!
202. " Judaism was to be superseded by Chris



Errors of Authors.            89
tianity -the religion of Moses by the religion of
Jesus. The substitution of the gospel for the law
was the establishment of'the kingdom of heaven,'
the coming of the Son of man," (Palfrey's Relation,
p. 90.)
To refute such clerical jargon it is necessary only
to cite it.
203. "The introduction of the gospel was gradual.
It began when Jesus began to preach." (Palfrey's
Relation, p. 90.)
When everybody knows it began four thousand
years before.
204. The eloquent Cookman was more eloquent
than accurate, in remarking in a speech at New
Brunswick, before the Bible Society, November 17,
1828, concerning the apostles, that "They were
linguists without a lexicon, and preachers without a
book."
His meaning is, as the context shows, that the
apostles, beginning a new religion in opposition to
that of the Old Testament, and the New not yet in
existence, they had no text-book to use in preparing
their sermons. This error is, I suppose, too palpable
to need even a remark in its refutation.  Then
how comes the Old Testament to be a book for us
now?
205. "The platform  of Jewish ceremonies sank
beneath the simple doctrines of Jesus." (Cookman.)
What doctrines? Mr. Cookman would have discovered his error if it had occurred to him to try to
point out one.
206. President Edwards, referring to Mark iii. 5,
says, "It was hardness of heart that excited grief
and displeasure in Christ toward the Jews."




90              The City of God.
It is remarkable that so many persons make the
Saviour speak of the Jews, the whole Church, when
He refers only to some few persons then present.
Toward the Jews generally, there never was any
such grief and displeasure.
207. Referring to the fickleness and instability of
the Jews, President Edwards says, "But when Jesus
stood bound, it was not' Hosanna!' but'Crucify
Him!'"
This is a common error, but a clear and palpable
one. The cry of "Hosanna!" on the entrance of
Christ into Jerusalem, is said of the great and teeming multitudes; nor is there the least intimation
that they, or any of them, ever cried anything
different. The cry of "Crucify Him!" was the
demand of a little handful of rabble and soldiery,
different persons altogether, who crowded around the
governor's door on the morning of the crucifixion.
Mr. Edwards' remark is built upon fashion, and
fashion alone, without a historic word to support it.
208. A  tract published in 1860, by the Rev.
Messrs. Boyce and Quintard- now  Bishop Quintard- begins thus: "The Church which Christ
formed, and which the apostles more completely
established, was, from its first beginning, an organized body of believers."
So long as it is admitted an assured fact, certainly
written, that Christ formed or founded the Church
as an organized body of believers, I do not see how
the claim of a succession of apostolic ordinations can
be ignored. At all events, it is this admission that
gives rise to the long arguments on that subject.
The Bishop, and all other High Churchmen are
obliged to make historic facts for their doctrine to
rest upon.




Errors of Authors.               91
209. Dr. Cave (Lives Apos., p. 382) says of
Philip: " No sooner had religion taken possession
of his mind, than like an active principle it began to
ferment and diffuse itself."
The context assumes that Philip's first religious
impressions were produced by the interview with the
Saviour when he was called to be an apostle.  It
would be hard to believe, especially without a word
of testimony, that the Saviour would choose irreligious men, rather than religious men, for his immediate
disciples, and the particular purpose intended. This
is stated and explained, it is true, in the peculiar
case of Paul; but why infer it gratuitously in the
other cases? Paul's case was' very different.  He
had renounced the religion of the Church; but nothing of the sort is intimated of the others.  The
inference rests upon the strange notion that all the
religion of mankind, as well as the Church, had
become extinct just then. In the entire absence of
all testimony, the most natural inference would be
that the apostles were pious from early life.
210. Bishop Latimer, who preached three hundred years ago, frequently speaks of the Jews, wholesale, as the enemies and opposers of Christ, without
an intimation that any of them were his friends and
supporters.  This oversight, perhaps already sufficiently exposed, was far more excusable then than
now.
211. Macknight (Pref. to Heb.) says: " Most of
the Jews adhered to the law of Moses with the
greatest obstinacy." And on the next page he says,
" The arguments iii it (the Epistle) for supporting
the doctrines of the gospel, as we have said, are all
taken from the Jewish Scriptures."




92             The City of God.
That is strange. How can both things be true?
The Jews adhered strongly to the Old Testament,
the law of Moses; and to draw them away from it,
and make them believe something else, Paul urges
the Old Testament! Macknight proves the very
opposite of what he affirms. He shows that the
Jewish Scriptures prove the New Testament; that
the doctrines of the one are those of the other. And
so, Paul needed nothing better than the former to
prove the latter.
212. Macknight says, " The revelation which He
(Christ) made to mankind is more perfect than the
revelation made to the Jews."
I cannot admit that, because I cannot admit that
anything is more perfect than any divine revelation.
213. " After this we read of many thousands of
Jews that believed in Jerusalem." (Edwards' Hist.
Redemp., p. 349.)
Believed what?  Anything different from  what
they had always believed? I know of nothing believed in the Church then by these Jews, that was
not always believed, save one thing, which in its
nature could not be believed before, namely, that
Jesus was Christ.
214. " For it was the manner of the apostles to go
first into the synagogues of the Jews, and preach the
Gospel to them." (Hist. Redemp., p. 349.)
That is not quite accurate. This would be better.
For it was the manner of the apostles to continue
to worship in the synagogues, where they.always
worshipped, and preach to their brethren the joyful
news that Christ had certainly come.
215. Dr. Robt. Hall, in Brit. Pulpit, on " The
Blessedness of Giving," says, "The world never




Errors of Authors.             93
knew  anything of benevolence till Jesus Christ
came."
Into what strange fancies will one blunder lead
us! No benevolence in the world until Jesus Christ
came, eighteen hundred years ago? Let us read:
" And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in
decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve him; yea,
though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may
live with thee." (Lev. xxv. 35.) "Is it not to deal
thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the
poor that are cast out to thy house? When thou
seest the naked that thou cover him; and that thou
hide not thyself from thine own flesh? " (Isa. Iviii.
7.)  "If I have withheld from the poor their desire,
or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail; or
have eaten my morsel myself alone; and the fatherless hath not eaten thereof; if I have seen any perish
for want of clothing; or any poor without covering," etc. (Job xxxi. 16, etc.)  We could read in
this way, I know not how long. And yet no benevolence in the world until eighteen hundred years ago!
216. The Rev. Robt. Philip of England (Brit.
Pulpit, Ser. 44), on Gal. iv. 45, remarks as follows:
"And when you consider that four thousand years
elapsed between the giving of the promise and its fulfillment, the question can scarce escape being asked,
Why was the promise so long being fulfilled? Why
was Christ born at so late a period of the world?
Why was Christianity not introduced sooner? "
And then we have a long, lame, labored argument, trying to explain why the world was left so
long destitute of true religion. All of which might
well have been spared, if it had occurred to the
learned author that the only  religion known to




94              The City of God.
Scripture, was furnished at once without any delay.
217. Again, Mr. Philip says, "Infidels have often
said with a sneer,'If Christianity is so valuable,
why was the world without it so long? Why were
four thousand years allowed to pass without its
introduction?'"
In the affairs of life generally, it is far easier to
keep out of difficulty than to get out of one. And
this will be found to apply with peculiar force to
logical difficulties. Let it be once conceded that the
world was left four thousand years without religion,
and I think it will be hard to answer this question.
It has been attempted by men as able, perhaps, as
Mr. Philip, but has uniformly ended in entanglement
and laborious argument, the infidel generally having
the advantage.  And why make such a concession?
It is neither proper, politic, nor truthful.  And
notice, too, it is right here, at this starting-point,
that infidels have, in various ways, secured far more
logical vantage ground than at any other.  And it
is right here that all popery and all High Churchism
find a resting-place.
218. Dr. Young of Edinburgh, in his Mystery, or
Evil and God, p. 288, says of " the Jewish institute
as a whole," " But it was essentially a temporary
expedient."
Jewish institute is understood to mean the Old
Testament religion.  Besides the strangeness of a
temporary religion, nobody holds it such, nobody
treats it such, neither Dr. Young nor anybody else.
It is quoted and preached from by everybody.
219. Again, same page, he says, "Judaism  was
therefore, at its best, an infantile system."




Errors of Authors.             95
No. Some of the very highest, sublimest, most
exalted and perfect, as well as the most classical and
erudite Christianity, both in theory and practice,
known to mankind, is read in the Old Testament,
and seen in the lives and piety of the men of those
times. Infantile, indeed! If these are the rudiments
of religion, where are the classics?
220. Again, Dr. Young says of religion before the
Incarnation: "It was, throughout, an appeal to the
senses, and to the mind, chiefly through the senses."
It embarrasses me to meet such a statement in the
hands of a Christian writer. Among the ribaldry
and coarse slang of infidels I could dispose of it more
easily. As it is, I can do no less, and perhaps need
do no more, than to aver, in the face of it, that the
Old Testament abounds with the highest strains of
pious feeling and deep pathos, the holiest and most
touching emotion, the sublimest fervor and most
impassioned rapture, ecstacy, and enjoyment known
to the religion of the world, either written or felt.
Spirit of David, of Samuel, of Isaiah, and the prophets, how shall I defend thee? Throughout, an appeal
to the senses? No, no, no! The Book is the law
and counsel of Jehovah, throughout an appeal to the
heart and the intellect, inciting to deep and holy
communion with God; and the response of multiplied thousands of Old Testament saints, was the
deep sanctification of soul, and high heavenly communion, which the best Christians of this generation
would do well to imitate. Who wrote the eleventh
chapter of Hebrews, and for what was it written?
221. Again, on p. 289, the Doctor contrasts the
religion of the Old Testament with the New, on this
wise: "Shall we expect that the twilight shall re



96              The City of God.
veal a single thing which the day has left in darkness? Shall we import the principles of a temporary
expedient into the enduring and universal economy? "
The rule is, to put the best construction on everything. The only alternative I see, is to suppose the
Doctor misses entirely the whole scope of Hebrew
Scripture, by regarding its mere instrumental modes
of teaching as the religion itself. This might relieve
the Doctor personally, however little relief it might
afford him as a theologian. But we are dealing with
his book.
222. Again, Dr. Young says, "Shall we explain
by Judaism the higher doctrines and laws of Christianity?"
I answer, I think we should.  And my reason for
so thinking is, that I see the Saviour and the apostles do so explicitly, expressly, and exclusively,
through the whole course of their ministry.  And
secondly, I see Christian ministers do so now, directly, in one half the sermons I hear, and indirectly
in the other half. Thirdly, I know of no other way
to explain these higher doctrines and laws of Christianity.
223. The Introduction to the New Testament of
Pratt, Woodford &  Co.'s Bible says, "'The Old
Testament was partial and severe. It was confined
to the children of- circumcision, yea, with some exceptions, to a single nation."
Then what business have we with it?  No. All
revelation was always addressed to all mankind.
Revelation, however, as a mere truism, is necessarily
confined, in its practical uses, to the circumcision —
the baptism-the  Church.  That is, religion is
confined to religious people.




Errors of Authors.             97
224. The Testament and Psalms, with Notes, of
the Am. Tract Society, on Matt. iv. 23, tells us that
" synagogues " means " the Jewish places of worship."
I think not. It means places of worship, but not
in any exclusive sense Jewish. What are now called
churches were formerly called synagogues. Everybody worshipped in them. But after the receiving
and repudiating portions of the Church became well
separate, they must needs be distinguished by different names. This distinction became established in
after years in common parlance. Before that time,
the true Church was called Jews; afterward, to distinguish the true and false Jews, they were called by
different names.
225. Again, we are told in the same book, Matt.
xxviii. 13, " The Jews did not deny the resurrection
of Christ for want of evidence to prove it."
The Jews did not deny the resurrection of Christ
at all. They, and none else, affirmed it. To this day
there is no testimony of that great historic fact but
Jewish testimony. Nevertheless, some of the Jews
did deny the resurrection, as stated in the verse alluded to.
226. And in the heading of the 12th of Mark, we
are told that " In the parable of the vineyard let out
to unfaithful husbandmen, Christ foretelleth the
reprobation of the Jews, and the calling of the Gentiles."
The text makes no mention of these things whatever. If it had so foretold, it could not be true, so
some different explication must be found. The Jews
were never reprobated, nor were the Gentiles called,
in the technical sense here meant and commonly understood. See our former elucidations of these points.
7




98              The City of God.
227. Again, in the heading of the 22d chapter of
Luke: " The Jews conspire against Christ."
This is one of the most remarkable things I have
seen in Biblical criticism.  It is stated, just that way,
in more than one hundred editions of the New Testament that I have seen.  First, the thing stated is
in itself an absurdity and a contradiction. A nation
or whole body of people, a million, nor scarcely a
thousand, could make a secret agreement to do any
thing. A conspiracy, in the nature of the thing, is
confined to two or three, or a handful of people.
Secondly, the text states the very reverse. The Jews,
the people, were the party conspired against, not the
conspirators.  The conspirators were a handful of
priests and scribes.
228. The same book tells us that 2 Corinthians
iii. 6-11, sets forth " a comparison between the ministers of the law and of the gospel."
Not only is there nothing of the kind in the place
cited, nor in any other, but the thing stated is meaningless and out of the question.  The law has no
ministers.  It was never ministered.  It is the mere
arbitrary command of a monarch.  As the law was
designed to secure the highest happiness without sin,
so the gospel is fitted to accomplish this design, after
the introduction of sin. It is well known that the
word law is used in Scripture in many different senses,
to mean many different things: but when used in
juxtaposition with gospel, as when the law and the
gospel are spoken of as above, the meaning cannot be
mistaken. It means the system of divine government and responsibility under which the world was
placed before it needed either a Saviour or a gospel.
Of course it had no ministers. We must not tolerate




Errors of Authors.               99
the clumsy idea inculcated above, that the gospel
came first to the relief of man only eighteen hundred
years ago.  It came before any one ever suffered the
penalty of the law. Is any man ever damned without
an offer of salvation? The law is the rule now, and
applies promptly to all who will not seek the shelter
of the gospel.  But to speak of its ministers, is to mistake its nature altogether.
229. In the heading of chapter iv. of Galatians, we
are told that " We were under the law till Christ
camne."
Whether that is so or not, depends entirely upon
what is meant by Christ's coming. If it means till
Christ came to be our Saviour, which, however, very
few would be likely to understand by the expression, then it is all right; but if it meant till Christ
came in the flesh, in the time of John the Baptist,
as most people would understand, then it is all
wrong.  This Testament and Psalms, with Notes,
by the American Tract Society, is full of errors of
this sort.
230. Mr. Thomas Olivers, quoted approvingly by
Dr. Clarke, says, " The Christian religion was then a
new thing in the world," meaning in the time of the
apostles.
If that were true, then it follows necessarily, that
it is a false religion, and that that of the modern Jews
is the true faith. Conceding that the Old Testament
is revelation, and that it contains a system of religion,
it follows that a system new as to that, must be false.
Moreover, the historic fact stated by Mr. Olivers is
unquestionably untrue.  Both these books are now
here, side by side, and everybody knows and sees that
the religious faith of the one is exactly the religious




100             The City of God.
faith of the other.  Matthew and John are not more
akin.
231. The American Tract Society, in its Notes on
the New Testament, Heb. viii. 4, says that Jesus
Christ "' could not on earth officiate as a priest, according to the Jewish law, because He did not belong
to the tribe from which alone priests could be taken."
A  most strange reason, certainly.  He himself
could not, beforehand, by symbolical pre-representation, teach his own future appearance, sacrifice, and
death, because He did not belong to the tribe of Levi!
This is one of the theological instructions of the
American Tract Society.
232. Leigh, quoted by Dr. Clarke, Heb. iii. 2,
says that " Christ's faithfulness consists in this, that
He has as fully revealed unto us the doctrine of the
gospel, as Moses did that of the law."
Besides the offense of putting Christ and Moses in
that category, and of eulogizing the faithfulness of
the divinity upon the ground that the Saviour was as
good a revealer as Moses, I suppose no one would
construe the remark to mean less than this, that
Moses and Christ revealed, respectively, two different
systems of doctrine, the one in the Old Testament,
and the other in the New.  And yet I presume that
if our infidel writers were to insist plainly upon that
fact, none would be more readily offended than Leigh
and Clarke.
233. Michaelis, referring to 1 John ii. 7, says,
"Now Christ himself had given his disciples a commandment which He called a new commandment,
and this was'That they should love one another."'
However true this may be literally, this unexplained
manner of stating it, both here by the learned Ger



Errors of Authors.             101
man, and in many other places by others, is calculated
to give, and does give, a very erroneous impression.
It implies that to love one another is a principle in
religious morals previously unknown.  Whereas it is
at least as old in the Church as the controversy on
that subject between God and Cain, and had been
elaborately taught, and practiced too, since that.
Nevertheless, it was then new to those whom  the
Saviour thus taught, or some of them, just as it would
be now new to thousands who had not known, or had
not heeded it.
234. Hannah More says that " Previous to the establishment of Christianity, philosophy had attained
its utmost perfection."
From this, one would infer that the religious faith,
or principles of salvation, did not exist before eighteen
hundred years ago. The other error, that philosophy,
before the apostolic age, had attained any considerable
degree of elevation, much less its utmost degree of
perfection, does not properly fall within the range of
these criticisms.
235. Again, speaking of Paul, " At all times he
showed as much respect for their religion as was consistent with that which he now professed."
The respect he showed for their religion was to
advocate it wholly, thoroughly, and constantly. The
respect he showed for their religious errors, for their
ignorance and mistakes in their religion, was to oppose them firmly, but mildly and carefully.
236. Again, " St. Paul powerfully inculcates that
new and spiritual worship which was so condescendingly and beautifully taught by the Divine Teacher
at the well of Sychar."
This would be better, because true: Paul power



102             The City of God.
fully inculcates that old and spiritual worship which
was so condescendingly and beautifully taught by
the Divine Teacher at the well of Sychar.
237. The Rev. Dr. Thomas Raffles, of England,
says: " The first heralds of salvation were fishermen,
tax gatherers, and tent makers."
We have no information that Abel, Moses, or any
of their contemporary heralds of salvation were either
fishermen, tax gatherers, or tent makers.
238. The Rev. H. Melville, M. A., of St. Peter's
College, Cambridge, in a sermon, speaks of "the
introduction of Christianity, when another state of
being is brought into the world; " and explains that
it was in the time of the apostles.
But it is remarkable that he should go to the
119th Psalm to find a text that would best elucidate
the Christianity so introduced into the world a thousand years afterward.
239. The Rev. Bradford K. Pierce (Notes, on
Acts iii. 22) says of Moses and Christ, that they
"were both lawgivers, Moses of the law of rigid
justice, Jesus of the law of love."
This is the way our "Sunday-schools, Bible classes,
and private readers" are instructed in Scripture
theology! A grosser violation of Scripture could not
be written.  Everybody knows, and nobody better
than Mr. Pierce, that this same law of love, and no
other law of religion, is written all over the law of
Moses, if he chooses so to call the Old Testament,
in a thousand places. Mr. Pierce's book is full of such
errors.
240. Dr. A. Clarke, in his Ancient Israelites, p.
257, gives a chapter on " True Israelites," in which
he notices some "splendid examples of holiness'




Errors of Authors.             103
among the Jewish people at the time of the advent,
and concludes the chapter in these words: "Thus
the grace of the gospel being superadded to such
holy dispositions, it was easy to make perfect Christians of these true Israelites."  I am always careful
to italicize as the author does.
In my judgment, this is the germ, whether in the
hands of Dr. Clarke, or others, whence springs most
of the distorted and crippled theology of the day.
These splendid examples of holiness, with such holy
dispositions, needed some other essential thing, it is
held, in order to make them  Christians.  What do
they need? We are a thousand times led to suppose
they needed  conversion.  Conversion from  what?
and to what? I would inquire. Dr. Clarke, above,
says they needed "the grace of the gospel."  What
grace, of what gospel? If they were holy, and had
the revealed word of God for their religious theory,
then that is the grace of the gospel, and all the
grace of all the gospel known to revelation. The
Christianity supposed to be made up of something
superadded to the Bible creed of splendid holiness,
is a myth.  There is no such gospel, no such Christianity- cannot be.
241. Dr. Clarke  says (Ancient Israelites, p.
294), " Sacrificing is the offering up to God a living
animal, whose blood is shed in adoration of his
majesty, and in order to appease his wrath."
It is impossible Dr. Clarke could think so. That
is a good description of the idolatrous sacrificing of
heathen people; but it is as wide as the poles of
describing any sacrificing known to the Bible.  Any
sacrifice other than that of Jesus, the Son of Mary,
is abhorrent to Scripture anywhere, in any age.




104              The City of God.
The sacrifices of these ancient Israelites were not, in
themselves, "acceptable to God," as the Doctor says
on the next page, at all; they were only representatively acceptable. As the Doctor wholly fails to
explain, or seemingly to suppose, they were acceptable only when, and in that they represented, typified, the true Sacrifice. Nobody explains fuller or
better than Dr. Clarke does in hundreds of places,
that Christ is, and always was the only sacrifice for
sin. Nobody insists more, or better than he, that the
animals had no  virtue —that they only typified
the real and the true. There is no doctrine nor faith
in the bits of type metal in a printer's case; and
yet these pieces of metal are essentially valuable
sometimes in typing, in figuring, in representing
valuable religious truth. " To what purpose is the
multitude of your sacrifices to me? " (Isa. i. 11.)
242. On page 360, on " Modern Jews," Dr. Clarke
tells us, " There is some reason to fear that many
Jews in the present day have drunk deeply into the
infidel spirit of the times, and no longer receive the
writings of the Old Testament as divin.ely inspired."
Do any modern Jews, or did they ever, receive
the Old Testament as divinely inspired? I answer,
Most assuredly not. Right here is a great blunder.
They say they receive it, but only and exclusively
upon the distinct hypothesis that its Christ is a person other than Jesus. They scout it upon supposition that Jesus is its Emmanuel. Is that receiving
it? To receive the writings of the Old Testament
as divinely inspired, means to receive its religious
faith; that is, to worship its Christ. But if you
repudiate the Saviour of the Old Testament, how
can it be said you receive it as divinely inspired? Is




Errors of Authors.             105
its inspiration separate and distinct from the Saviour
it offer and enjoins? Remove its inspiration, and is
it then inspired?  Surely nothing can be called
receiving it, but accepting its Christ —its religion.
Is there such a doctrinal difference and incompatibility between the Old Testament and the New, as
that the one may be received, and the other rejected?
Can you embrace the religion of Matthew, and
repudiate that of Mark?  If modern Jews receive
the Old Testament, then Dr. Clarke repudiates it,
because he receives it only and exclusively in so far
as it is brought into oneness with the New, and is
rightly explained and expounded therein. Is there
any inspired religion in the Old Testament not in
the New? Surely we must correct such plain and
important blunders as this.
243. Dr. Cudworth, Bishop Pearce, Mr. Toinard,
and other eminent English scholars, have, with great
ability and labor, discussed the question " whether
our Lord ate the passover with his disciples before
He suffered."  In this debate there are four different
hypotheses.  "First, that our Lord did not eat the
passover on the last year of his ministry. Second,
that He did, and at the same time with the Jews.
Third, that He did eat it that year, but not with the
Jews nor at the same time. Fourth, that He ate a
passover of his own instituting, but differing widely
from that eaten by the Jews."
In these lengthy and critical inquiries, it seems to
me that much talent and learning are employed to
very little purpose. What results are hoped for?
What is passover? what is Jewish passover? and
what is a passover of his own instituting? Passover,
or rather pass-over, is the name of a mode in which




106             The City of God.
professors of religion renewed the profession of their
obligation to God for his great mercies and deliverance in Christ, and promised unfaltering fealty
to Him in the future.  By way of convenient distinction, we call this obligation sacrament. Other
obligations and the acknowledging of them we call
by other names. Now, the eating of anything religiously and in commemoration, that was ever called
passover, was the public and solemn acknowledgment of the obligation we are under to God for his
great deliverance in Christ, or the renewal of such
acknowledgment. What are we to understand then,
when told that the last passover celebrated by the
Saviour was not the passover of the Jews, but a
passover of his own instituting, differing widely from
that of the Jews? Differing in what? There is no
place for difference but in the mere external mode
of eating. In any possible case, it was a form of
acknowledging the obligation. Vary the outward
action as you will, and call it Lord's Supper, or by
any other name, and it is still the same passover of
the Jews.  There is nothing instituted, or to which
that idea will apply, but the outward mode of attesting the obligation. I do not understand the gentlemen. Determined rightly or wrongly, it amounts
to nothing.  The discussions are called theological,
but I cannot discern the theology.
244. Binney's Theological Compend, a small manual of divinity, much used in Sunday-schools, says
of the Moral Law, that it is "that declaration of
the divine will which relates to the duties we owe
to our Maker and to one another;" and then observes, " This law is greatly amplified throughout
the Old Testament, and though not formally re



Errors of Authors.            107
enacted by Jesus Christ, it is nevertheless as clearly
revealed in the New."
No laws, precepts, commands, or anything else in
the Old Testament, are ever reenacted in the New,
because they never ceased or became void.  How
could any declaration of the divine will ever be reenacted? All that class of theology is erroneous.
245. M. Renan, in his Origins of Christianity;
says, " Nicodemus did not become a Christian."
Very likely. The probability is he remained a
Christian, and became a much wiser and better one
in consequence of his interview with the Saviour.
246. On page 206, Renan tells us that at this
point of time Jesus became perfectly satisfied " that
there is no compromise possible with the ancient
Jewish religion."  Again, " From this moment He
takes the position no longer of the Jewish reformer,
but of a destroyer of Judaism." Page 207: " When
He was pushed to an issue, He put aside all veils,
and declared that the law was no longer in force."
Again, " Jesus, in other words, is no longer a Jew.
He is a revolutionist of the highest grade; He calls
all men to a religion founded in the childhood of
God."
It must be that every sober-minded man, half-way
acquainted with Scripture, must see, that in any of
these statements, and many, even hundreds more
such, that might be quoted from the same author,
there is not the slightest approach to historic truth.
These things might just as well - or any of thembe stated of Moses, Judas, or Pope Joan, if there
ever was such a pope. But this is not the wonder
to which I wish to call attention.  The wonder is,
that such senseless stuff should, among even quasi




108             The City of God.
Christians, pass for a single day, for half-way ecclesiastical science and history.
247. Bishop Seabury says (Ser. on Chris. Unity),
"Jesus appointed the Church's government, introduced its priesthood, and ordained its sacraments."
It is not easy to refer such statements to their
proper source. They are in the hands of a highly
respectable divine, and yet entirely devoid of historic
truth. He no more appointed the Church's government than He did the Roman government. There
is nothing in the New Testament referring to such a
subject. As to its priesthood, He always constituted
it, as He does now, ever since the world needed one.
He ordained the forms of administering the sacraments; but the sacraments themselves are not subjects of legislative ordination.
248. Olshausen (Rom. x. 3, 4) says: "The law
had not wrought in them (the Jews) any consciousness of sin, and therefore they did not lay hold on
the new way of salvation, which offered them that
which the law could not bring."
And yet when infidels tell us that they object to
our religion, on the ground that it is inconsistent
with itself, in that it teaches a system of salvation
here, and a new way of salvation there, we complain
of them, and say that revelation teaches but one
way of salvation.
249. Olshausen paraphrases Rom. x. 5-8 thus:
"No man can live by the law but he who keeps it;
but no one can keep it: consequently another way
of salvation is provided."
Not another way of salvation surely, but a way of
salvation. The law is not a way of salvation, but a
way of living in strict obedience before salvation was




Errors of Authors.            109
known or necessary.  Such scholastic romance is
alarming.
250. The American Bible Society teaches some
erroneous theology in its Family Testament, 1856,
from which I quote. In chapter heading of Matt.
xxii. 9-12, it says it tells of "the -vocation of the
Gentiles."
This has been  previously demonstrated to be
clearly an error. All mankind were always called
to be religious. When calmly looked at, the supposition that religion was for these, but not for those,
is preposterous.  Moreover, the text says nothing
about Gentiles, nor their being called. How many
families are injured by such erroneous comments!
251. The heading of Mark xii. is still worse.
Here we are told that in the text, " Christ foretelleth the reprobation of the Jews and the calling of
the Gentiles."
This is most remarkable, seeing the care that has
been bestowed on these chapter headings. And the
people have become so accustomed to such startling
statements, that they are read without alarm- or inquiry. This remark is made of the first twelve
verses, which relate what is commonly called the
parable of the vineyard, in which there is not one
word said about Jews, nor about Gentiles. Stripped
of fancy and mythblogy, it foretelleth the reprobation of obdurate sinners, and the calling, or recognition, of dutiful persons. What is the obvious and
simple meaning of a reprobation of the Jews?  It
means that God rejected from all hope of mercyabandoned and consigned to fearful and final perdition - a whole nation of people, or rather the whole
Church, then consisting of six or seven millions!




110            The City of God.
As to the fate of the posterity of these people, near
or remote, or their young children then living, in
this awful, wholesale slaughter, the theological teachings of the American Bible Society do not particularly inform us. It tells us only that God reprobated the people then constituting the Church, pious
people, children, and all, we would suppose; and
this would naturally work a reprobation of their posterity, at least for many generations. To reprobate,
would not only condemn them, individually, to perdition, but would withdraw from them all the gospel
means of instruction and salvation known to divine
mercy! In reply, I repeat that in the text there is
not a word said about Jews, or Gentiles; nor, as I
think, an allusion to either, as such. Secondly, the
thing could not be true, because it is well known,
and unquestionable, that for the space of about ten
years after the crucifixion, the entire Church, with
its various membership, apostles and all, when it
must have amounted to some millions, was made up
of these very Jews. And the Scriptures inform us
of multitudes, multitudes oft repeated-whole cities
and countries - myriads of them, who were the most
staunch, heroic, and self-sacrificing Christians known
to the history of human religion. Reprobated, indeed! And their posterity, with everybody else that
would join them, have constituted the Church to
this day. Thirdly, the reprobation, wholesale, of a
numerous people, is so unnatural, unreasonable, and
abhorrent to the whole tenor of Scripture, that it
fails to furnish grounds for an argument. Who can
suppose that Christ excommunicated every man and
woman in the Church without notice, and without
cause?




Errors of Authors.             1ll
252. In the heading of Acts vii., we are told by
the Bible Society that the meaning of Stephen, in
verses 44-50, is, that " all outward ceremonies were
according to the heavenly pattern, to last but for a
time."
In the first place it is obvious, and does not admit
of argument, that nothing of this sort is stated in
the text. And secondly, if Stephen had so taught,
it would have been clearly untrue. What! All outward ceremonies to last but for a time?  Congregational worship, singing, praying, preaching, reading
the Scriptures, observance of the Sabbath, all outward ceremonies previously in vogue in the Church,
to cease then?  So we are told by the American
Bible Society; so our families are taught, and so our
pulpits are misled.
253. In the heading of Rom. xiii., we are told that
"Gluttony and drunkenness, and the works of darkness, are out of season in the time of the gospel."
And the converse of the proposition is, that previously to the time of the gospel —the period of the
Jews -these things were in season.  So the Bible
Society teaches our families and our pulpits, though
it makes no comment.
254. Mr. Richard Watson is unfortunate in some
of his teachings.  On the one hand he insists, in
many places, both in his Institutes, and Theological Dictionary, on the specific oneness and identity
of the Church in all ages. He will not allow us
to speak of the Jewish Church, nor the Christian
Church, as though there was a difference between
them.  They are " not two," he says, but " one and
the same." Neither are there two religions, he says;
salvation is always the same — the conditions of




112             The City of God.
pardon are always the same in all ages. This, I
suppose, is wholesome teaching.  Here Watson is
himself. But then on the other hand:We are told the apostles and their followers " embraced a new and despised religion." (Inst., p. 73.)
" The Christian religion had its rise and began to be
propagated in the times of the Roman emperors,
Tiberias and Claudius."  (Page 74.)  "Moses and
Christ, the Jewish and Christian religions." (Page
82.) We are " given information on which the divinity of both systems, the Jewish and the Christian,
are built." (Page 83.) " The actual effect produced
by this new religion on society." (Page 134.) What
new religion? " The work of God in the hearts of
sincere Jews, which took place in their transit from
one dispensation to another, from Moses to Christ."
(Page 563.) What transit was that? " The ancient
visible Church, as constituted upon the ground of
natural descent from Abraham, was abolished by the
establishment of a spiritual body of believers to take
its place."  (Inst., p. 622.)
Here I must remark, that this last expression is
exactly and precisely the very sentiment Mr. Watson deprecates and insists must not be allowed.
(See Diet., art " Church.")  And on the point of
" natural descent " being the ground of membership
formerly, and spiritual experience and consideration
being the ground afterward, I insist there is not, and
never was any such difference in the elements or
formation of Church membership. It is now as it
always was. Most assuredly it was the law, that
all the " descendants of Abraham " should remain in
the Church. And it was also the law that everybody out should come in. Both parts of this law




Errors of Authors.           113
were partially, but neither fully complied with.
"Many of the people of the land became Jews."
(Esth. viii. 17.) But not all. And on the other
hand, many went out - thousands and millions went
out, and so ceased to be Jews. Precisely is it thus
now. The law is, that all born in the Church shall
stay in, and that those out shall come in. Some
people comply with the law, but many do not.
Many born in, go out; but surely they go out in violation of the law. And those out who stay out, do so
in violation of the law. The law of Church membership has never been changed.
255. " The moral laws of the Mosaic dispensation
passed into the Christian code." (Inst., p. 624.)
But according to Mr. Watson, and the Scriptures,
there is, and always was, but one code. So, there
could be no such passing.
256. " Much light is thrown upon the constitution
of the primitive churches, by recollecting that they
were formed very much after the model of the synagogues." (Inst., p. 683.)
No; according to Mr. Watson, and according to
the Scriptures, there was no forming at all of a
Church, or churches. " The Church continued the
same," Watson says. Its model was simply itself.
257. "Ordination of elders or presbyters is also
from the Jews." (Inst., p. 684.)
No; not from the Jews, but in the same Church
-not another. "Such was the model which the
apostles followed in providing for the future regulation of the churches they had raised up."  But if
the Church merely continued the same, then they
raised up none.
258. "This change was no other than the abro8




114             The City of God.
gation of the Church state of the Jews which had
continued for so many ages." (Diet., p. 351.)
Then the Church did not merely continue the
same, but one came to an end, and a new and different one began.
259. "Since the gospel, the true religion is not
confined to any one nation or country, as heretofore."
(Diet., p. 425.)
And yet nothing is better known than that it never
was so confined in any way, or in any sense.
260. The Epistle to the Hebrews " was written to
those Christians of Judea who had been converted to
the gospel from Judaism." (Diet., p. 468.)
How could a man be converted to the same religion he had always held?  How could a Jew, who
steadfastly maintained his ancient faith, and in so
doing received Christ in the person of Jesus, at the
earliest period practicable, be said to be converted to
some other religion?
261. "The Jewish religion is, perhaps, more a
religion of minute and trifling rites and ceremonies
than even the Roman Catholic religion."  (Diet., p.
570.)
That is strictly true exactly as stated. The Jewish religion that now is. But this modern Jewish
religion is a wholly different thing from the religion
formerly called Jewish, from  which these modern
Jews apostatized. But this is not the sense in which
the Dictionary is understood.
262. "The conversion of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert." (Diet., p. 794.)
Esther viii. 17, and many other historic passages,
state very differently.
263. " The first Gentile church was now  established at Antioch." (Ibid.)




Errors of Authors.             115
Not if the Church continued the very same.
" In this manner Paul prepared the overthrow of
two religions, that of his ancestors, and that of the
heathen."  (Diet., p. 789.)
This is precisely the charge brought against Paul,
in his day, after his celebrated journey to Damascus,
by all his enemies, in and out of the Church; but
which he himself stoutly denied everywhere, affirming on all occasions that he was strictly maintaining
the religion of his ancestors. And it is unquestionable that this he did to the day of his death.
264. " We have already quoted the testimonies of
Tacitus and Suetonius to the existence of Jesus Christ,
the founder of the Christian religion."  (Methodist
Catechism, No. 3, p. 45.)
It is very true that Tacitus and Suetonius regarded
Jesus Christ as the founder of the Christian religion.
And also the Sanhedrim, and all the apostatizing
Jews, charged the same thing against him. But it is
strange a Christian catechism  should do so, since all
the apostles, of whom  we know anything, stoutly
repelled the charge on all occasions.  If Jesus Christ
was the founder of the Christian religion, then modern Judaism must be true.
265. "The design of the Christian dispensation
was clearly to develop a perfectly different truth;
namely, that God had established an immutable
economy of grace; that salvation should be a free
gift, and all its privileges and blessings conferred as
a gratuity; and besides, that faith alone should be
the condition."  (Dixon's Meth., p. 41.)
And so we have in the New Testament a perfectly
different truth from that taught in the Old!  What
stuff!




116              The City of God.
266. Bishop Seabury's sermon on Christian Unity,
(Prot. Epis. Tract, No. 44), assumes in many places
that the Christian Church had no existence, in any
sense, prior to the time of the apostles. It was then
" first organized; " and just so it must continue. It
is not " confined to one nation, as the Jewish Church
was, but admits for its members, people of all countries and nations."
How errors so glaring could be written and insisted on so plainly by a scholar, and remain year
after year among the standards of a Church, is difficult to conceive. And how long the Church is to be
hampered and damaged by such teachings is a far
more important question.
267. Under the word "Church," the New Am.
Cyclopcedia says: " In the Scriptures the name is
also given to the body of Jewish believers; the Jewish Church being composed of all those who followed
the law of Moses. The Christian Church is the society of those who profess the religion of Jesus
Christ."
But there is no religion of Jesus Christ different
from that written in the Old Testament.  What is
it? Where is it? What is one or more of its tenets?
It is a myth.  Those who truly follow the law of
Moses, the Old Testament, are Christians.
268. Covel's Bible Dictionary, art. " Jews," says,
speaking of the distresses resulting from the destruction of Jerusalem: " It is hardly possible to consider
the nature of their sufferings, and not conclude their
own imprecation to be signally fulfilled upon them:'His blood be upon us and our children.' Matt.
xxvii. 25."
The historic difficulties with the above are, first,




Errors of Authors.            117
that the Jews, as a whole, had no concern in this
war, with Rome. The revolt consisted only in the
anti-Christian portion of the Judean Jews, about
forty years after the separation. Secondly, they
made no such imprecation.  That was made by an
irresponsible handful of officials and rabble at the
governor's door, perhaps not twenty or fifty in number; certainly very few. The account shows it to
have been impossible there could have been but a few.
The people knew nothing of it. None but the repudiating party ever even sanctioned the crucifixion.
269. "When Jerusalem  was entirely destroyed,
and the descendants of Abraham were rooted out of
the land," etc.  (Millvaine's Evid., p. 114.)
Such a thing never happened. Nothing like it.
The persons here called the descendants of Abraham
were not rooted out of the land. On the contrary,
" three thousand," "five thousand," "multitudes,"
"great multitudes," often repeated, — whole cities,
countries, " myriads" of them, afterwards called
Christians, were not in the revolt of Jerusalem, were
never rooted out of the land, only as in common
with other Christians they suffered occasional persecutions. How wildly men write!
270. On page 155, Bishop McIlvaine says that all
the Jews and heathen were enemies of the Gospel.
No; some of these very Jews, exclusively and
alone, composed the entire Church in connection with
the apostles, for about ten years after the crucifixion, and remained firm.
271. Page 75, the Bishop says: "It is worthy of
distinct remark, that when the books of the New
Testament are quoted or alluded to by those whose
testimony has been adduced, they are treated with




118             The City of God.
supreme regard as possessing an authority belonging
to no other books, and as conclusive in questions of
religion."
Then such persons were not intelligent Christians.
If they had been they would'attach the same importance to the books of the Old Testament.
272. Bishop McIlvaine's Christianity is throughout a system of faith and practice, wholly new to
mankind. Frequently it is called a new religion, a
perfect novelty to mankind, with many such expressions. I do not remember an intimation in his book,
that there is a principle of religion or ethics that is
common to both the Old and New Testaments. Such
Christianity is spurious and ought not to be received. But it is the only theory that can possibly
accord with the Bishop's Highr Church notions of
ministerial authority. Let the Old and New Testaments be put together, and form one system of salvation, regarding the Church as a religious brotherhood
common to both, and the Bishop's Church system
could not possibly survive it.
273. Dr. Isaac Watts' Rational Foundation of a
Christian Church was published in London, in 1747.
And though, in my judgment, one of the very best
expositions of ecclesiastical science in our language, it
is long since out of print.  It is, however, not entirely free from the hamperings of older and contemporary divines. On page 6, he says we are to look
in the New Testament for " what new doctrines God
has there proposed to our faith, and what new duties
to our practice."
And yet it contains neither new faith nor duties.
This truth is inculcated all through the book, with
this and a few other unfortunate exceptions.




Errors of Authors.             119
274. " The Jews have lost their peculiar position
in the favor of God, and are now wanderers from the
land which is specially their own."  (Melville's Sermons, vol. ii. p. 298.)
By the Jews is understood the people so known
and denomihated at and before the coming of Christ..Surely they have not lost the favor of God; only that
portion of them, perhaps less than half, who apostatized. The other half have since, - they and their
posterity, — been called Christians. As to the land
of Palestine being specially their own, I inquire,
Whose own?  Which half is meant?
275. " Life and immortality had not been brought
to light by the gospel."  That is, at the period of
Ezekiel's vision of dry bones. (Same page.)
Yes it had. I suppose this expression means the
bringing of salvation to the world by Christ. And
was not that preached by Ezekiel?
276. Gieseler's Church History, one of the most
eminent extant, has the comprehensive title of A
Text Book of Church History. He-teaches as plainly
and clearly as words can teach, that our Saviour, in
the days of his manhood, announced and taught a
system of religion, the character, principles, and doctrines of which were wholly new to mankind.  Its
rudiments, its laws, its faith, its conditions of salvation and means of salvation, were wholly an invention of his own, and now for the first time were
announced to mankind. At page 27, volume i., he
enumerates the sources of Church History. These
are, "1st, the Scriptures of the New  Testament.
2d, Ecclesiastical Histories. 3d, All the Christian
writers of this period. 4th, The acts of the martyrs.
5th, Certain passages of writers not Christian, namely,
Josephus, etc."




120             The City of Gdod.
The Scriptures of the Old Testament not only do
not contain any Church History, but are not at all
useful as a source of information on the subject!
This is the plain and unequivocal teaching of Dr.
Gieseler. Surely its escape from universal denunciation is attributable to the character of the author,
and not to the things taught, especially these things.
277. Gieseler's Hist., vol. i. p. 57, under the head
of " Christianity in its infancy," makes it attack
the  "Jewish  national religion," and attempt its
overthrow.  It was far more difficult to " establish
Christianity among the Jews" than it could have
been with any other people, they being so hampered
and prejudiced with so bad a religion.
Now, the difficulty with these historic facts is,
that there never were any such two religions. The
Jewish national religion, meaning the written religion, and the Christianity, that fought each other so
hard, were one and the same identical thing. The
fighting was between other parties; between the
adherents to this common religion on the one hand,
and certain false and mistaken teachers of it on the
other; just as it is now.
278. Vol. i. p. 77, Gieseler says, " After they had
again abode for a long time in Antioch, Hebrew
Christians came hither, who excited divisions in the
Church, by the assertion that the recently converted
Gentile Christians must also necessarily become Jewish proselytes of righteousness."
The very reverse of what took place. To become
proselytes of righteousness, that is, to embrace the
true religion of the Church, as it then stood in the
Bible of the Church, was the very thing then, and
now, necessary in all Christians.  These mistaken




Errors of Authors.           121
Hebrew Christians sought to do the very reverse of
this, namely, to get the converts to depart from true,
proper proselytism, and embrace some erroneous notions of righteousness, then somewhat prevalent with
some persons.
279. Mr. John Wesley (Sermon No. 40, on Christian Perfection) teaches that the religion he now
recommends was impracticable and unattainable by
"all the holy men of old, who were under the Jewish dispensation."
It is a strange notion, which will not bear the test
of examination a moment, based solely upon the
supposition that our Saviour taught new truths and
new principles. Did ever more holy men live than
some of the Old Testament saints?  Mr. Wesley
says not. And again, the same great theologian, far
the greatest of his age, very properly teaches, that
holy men need no other perfection of a religious
kind, than to grow in grace, as is done always, everywhere, by all truly pious or holy people. The pen
that never slips is inspired.
280. Dr. George Peck, in his Introduction to Lord
King's Prim. Church, says, " The truth is, that the
details of Church government are not specifically
defined in the word of God, but are left to be sup.
plied by the wisdom of the Church. Certain general
principles are laid down, under which there is room
for some variety."
This has been a thousand times stated; but a
thousand repetitions would not make it true. I never
knew any one attempt to define what general principles were thus laid down. If there are any, they
must fix its legislation, its judicature, and its execution, for these are the general principles of any




122            The City of God.
government. Now which one of these, or which portion of either, is laid down in Scripture? Obviously
and palpably, neither. The New Testament no more
lays down any general principles for churches - legal
principles of Church government is of course meant
- than for the State, the family, or a school. All
churches make their own laws of government.
281. "But we must not forget that the New Testament, including the Acts of the Apostles and their
Epistles, does not profess to give us any minute and
regular account of the formation of the Church. Unquestionably such an account may in a great degree
be gathered from it - but only by a careful comparison of one part with another, and by the aid of
other witnesses, whose writings throw light upon expressions which would otherwise remain obscure."
(Sewel's Hist. Early Ch., p. 2.)
This small book, we are told, was written " for the
use of young persons."  And thus it is that. such
teaching, page after page, is inflicted upon the tender minds of young persons, fixing upon them the
baldest and most wholesale untruths in the cardinal
principles of ecclesiastical science. Brethren of the
Church, why not let this great fundamental error be
arrested? It would dry up a thousand streams of
poison which are now injuring the Church, and do
much towards removing the bracings from Romanism and other false religion.
282. " The earliest opposition to the Christians
arose from the Jews." (Sewel's Hist., p. 6.)
Yes, and the Christians thus opposed were every
one of them Jews.
283. Prof. Moses Stuart, of Andover, has given
us a treatise on Traits of History and Doctrine,




_Errors of Authors.          123
peculiar to Christianity, previously alluded to. In
this he represents that Jesus arose in the midst of
his nation, an humble, modest, unpretending, but
bold and intrepid religious revolutionist; that He
declared for the extirpation of the religious faith and
principles of mankind, and particularly for the overthrow of " the established religion of his nation."
Hear him: " It was a bold undertaking to come out
against the whole Jewish people, and specially the
priesthood, on the subject of their religion.... But
what did this young adventurer propose to do?
Nothing less than to abolish the Mosaic ritual in
the end, and entirely change the whole face of the
Jewish religion.  A  formidable undertaking, most
truly. Yet even this was not all. He proposed to
teach a new religion, which should pervade not only
Palestine, but the whole world."  (So. Meth. Quarterly, July 1851, p. 329, etc.) Several other such
statements could be quoted.
When balderdash and romance is labeled "Balderdash and romance," it is not likely to do much
harm. But when printed in religious books, from a
Christian'minister, and published in a Christianlike
way, the case is different. Now if any should deem
these remarks erroneous, let the following plain,
Biblical, historic facts determine.
1st. When Jesus became a man, He was a member of the Church, the only divinely recognized
Church on earth, call it by what name you will.
2d. His Church had a written religion, which we
have now, word for word. 3d. There was also in
the Church a thing which has always been in it,
namely, persons, teachers and others, who more or
less misunderstood their written Scriptures; and so




124             The City of God.
taught and believed many things which the Bible
did not warrant. 4th. This written religion was
divine, and therefore not only true, but immaculate.
5th. Jesus, from the time He was twelve years old,
till He was led away to Calvary, approved, believed,
recommended, taught, and enforced every doctrine,
precept, and rule, of both morals and faith, written in
the Scriptures. 6th. He did not announce, propagate, or teach any religious doctrine, principle, or
rule of ethics not then and now read in the Old
Testament. Nor did He change, or hint at changing, either entirely or partially, any one of them.
7th. As to the religious errors above alluded to, we
are not informed as to the comparative extent of
them. But, as is the case now, and has always
been, they prevailed considerably. 8th. The Saviour always treated these errors as errors, not as
religion. He always spoke of them as he must needs
do, to speak the truth - not as the religion of the
Church, nor any part thereof, but as religious errors,
foisted upon the credulity of those who believed
them, by ignorant or wicked men. And He exhorted men everywhere to discard, disbelieve, and
abandon these errors, and cleave to the true, written
religion of the Church, as it had been handed down
of old. 9th. He never came out against the whole
Jewish people, nor against any portion thereof, unless you would call persuading men to abandon error
and do right, coming out against them. He opposed
the errors as a teacher and philanthropist, because
He loved the people and the Church. 10th. He
never sought entirely to change the whole face of
the Jewish Church and religion, nor any part thereof. Nor did He propose to teach a new religion,




Errors of Authors.             125
either in whole or in part. He was no more a new
teacher than all true teachers are such. His lessons
were new to those unacquainted with them.  11th.
Nevertheless, the Saviour discontinued the use of
such symbolical modes of teaching religious doctrine, as in their nature pertained to that period of
the Church before the incarnation.  These particular parts of the Mosaic ritual necessarily and unavoidably abated, not however because the Saviour
abolished anything, but merely because He was the
Saviour incarnate.  But no other portions of the
then existing ritual of the Church went out of use,
in that age, so far as we know, save such unimportant modifications as convenience suggested, and as
have been seen at other times. 12th. I have vindicated the epithet " Balderdash and romance," which
I applied to Professor Stuart's "Peculiarities of
Christianity," seldom as such an accusation ought
to be made. His peculiarities, so far as here noticed,
are imaginary, fanciful, and not real.  The Saviour
was precisely what, with his own assent, He was
recognized and announced to be, a teacher sent from
God; and no more of a revolutionist or innovator
than any minister now  might be so regarded.  I
appeal to the Scriptures, and the common intelligence of all men.
284. "A  little band indeed it was, which stood
opposed to the mass of their own nation."  (Prof.
Stuart, p. 332.)
Not at all; all the history is widely different. It
is plain and unmistakable, that on the death of Jesus,
at the first reasonable opportunities to do so, and
having never expressed themselves differently, so far
as we know, thousands upon thousands, multitudes




126             The City of God.
upon multitudes, whole cities here and whole regions
of people there, gave in their adhesion to and recognition of Jesus, the crucified, as the Christ they had
always worshipped in the most open, public, and solemn manner. And more too: These very same Jews,
of their own nation, who thus declared for Jesus,
so soon as reasonable information and opportunity
warranted them in doing so, and who never did oppose Him in any way, so far as we learn, constituted
the entire apostolic Church -that is, the whole
Church - apostles and all, up to a period about ten
years or more after the ascension, when the Church
most probably counted millions. It was not a little
band. Moreover there was no time within hundreds
of years of that period when the true, divinely-recognized Church, most of them solidly pious so far as
we know, did not amount to hundreds of thousands,
if not to millions, with a regular ministry, almost all
over the then known world. Nevertheless there was
a little band, in that day, and a very important
one, but not such a one as Professor Stuart imagines.
In the nature of things, not many persons could, at
the very first, have any reliable assurance that Jesus
was Christ. Demonstration of this fact must, at the
first, rest on ocular and other sensible testimony, and
so must be confined to a few. All other" men, then
and now, must depend upon their testimony and
other subsidiary evidence for the truth of this fact.
But among the millions who received this testimony
from the apostles there were none, or none of note,
who stood opposed to them; much less were they
opposed by the whole people.  Of the millions so
receiving this testimony, we are warranted in believing that they received it gladly. At the same time,




Errors of Authors.            127
those who rejected the testimony   perhaps one half
the Church nearly, rejected it -they and they only
were opposers of Jesus.
285. " A universal religion! The very idea would
have been deemed an absurdity by them." (lbid. p.
334.)
So far from there being truth in this remark, it is
well known that their openly confessed, written, and
well understood religion was universal- open to
everybody- in the broadest and most. unlimited
sense. Every prophet had so declared it; and so far
as we know, every teacher had so taught it. And
every minister now so preaches it out of the Old
Testament declarations of it. Spirits of David, of
Isaiah, of Ezekiel, and your noble and inspired associates, be vindicated from such miserable blots upon
your bright escutcheon! Let any man open the Bible
now and see what it teaches on this point! Does not
everybody know that the Old Testament now contains a universal religion?
286. "' As a scheme of general benevolence toward
universal man, what is there on earth, or ever was,
which bears any comparison with the gospel?  Certainly nothing. All the rest is but chaff when compared with this wheat."  (Ibid. p. 335.)
By gospel he explains himself to mean the New
Testament. Well, Professor Stuart may deny inspiration to the Old Testament, and so raise that
question; but he cannot deny its fact, nor its chronological antiquity to the New. And that its pages
do, everywhere, contain a scheme of general benevolence toward universal man, is as palpable as the
existence of the book.
287. "The deluded  Jews, having crucified the




128             The City of God.
Lord of glory, and imprecated' his blood on their
own heads and those of their children,' have met with
a terrible retribution." (Ibid. p. 336.)
The history is that the Lord was crucified, not by
the Jews, but by a few, perhaps not fifty or a hundred. Its millions could not have known of it till
afterwards. And as to the imprecation, the account
is plain that it was the reckless, unauthorized, and
hasty exclamation of the leaders of a little rabble and
perhaps a few officials. Scarcely a hundred persons
or so could have even heard it.
288. Chateaubriand, in his Genius of Christianity,
proceeds throughout upon the ground that Christianity, in every aspect in which it may be viewed, began
to exist in the lifetime of Jesus. Like many other
writers, he assumes everywhere, as a matter well understood, that the religion known as Christianity, and
introduced by Jesus Christ, is totally new to mankind in every principle and feature it has. This work
was first published in 1802, and is regarded as the
masterpiece of the great literary friend of Napoleon.
To me it seems strange it did not die still-born under
the disregard of Christendom. Hear him a moment:
" That Jesus Christ should have chosen for the head
of his Church the very man among his disciples who
had denied Him, appears to us a most sublime and
affecting mystery. The whole spirit of Christianity
is unfolded in this circumstance." Now, upon supposition that Jesus Christ made a new Church, a
supposition upon which Romanism rests solely, and is
thoughtlessly and unfortunately conceded by many
Protestants, then it is a little strange that He should
have chosen this particular man for its head, if IHe
did so. But suppose no Church at all was formed




.Errors of Authors.           129
by Christ or anybody else, then what about the
mysterious peculiarities of Peter's headship?  The
mysteries of Romanism are the very mysteries of this
new Church, and the vitals of Romanism are this very
untruth.  Strange that Protestants continue to supply those vitals with the breath of life!
289. The controversy about baptismal regeneration
is stated in a nutshell by Bishop Philpotts, Bishop of
Exeter, in a charge to his diocese in 1842, in which
he condemns the Oxford Tract theology, but gives it
credit for some things. "They have given the sacraments their due place in the scheme of our holy
religion, as contrasted with those who would make
them little else than bare signs and symbols, instead
of channels of regeneration and sanctifying grace."
Those who regard the sacraments themselves, considered apart from the mere modes of administering
them, as new laws of religion, introduced now for the
first time, by way of divine. legislation, find hard
work in attempting to steer clear of at least thus
much of baptismal regeneration. New ceremonies,
new modes of teaching, are one thing, but new principles of worship imply a new relation between the
divine and the human. It is remarkable men do not
see that it is not the sacrament itself, the obligation
or duty, that is new, but the mode of performing it.
290. I have before me a tract written by the Rev.
Leroy M. Lee, D. D., of Virginia, on the Rite of Confirmation. I look to see what the argument is, and
find it to be, whether confirmation is or is not " a
positive institution of the gospel;" that is, whether
it belongs to " the organization of the Church as
established by Christ."
We have near fifty pages of argument on that
9




130             The City of God.
question.  Would it not have been well, first, to
inquire whether there was ever such a first organization of the Church at all, as is here supposed? And
seeing there was not, and so this argument is but an
inquiry into something that never happened, it is
therefore a very harmless one.
291. Bellarmine's argument about The True Church
is merely an inquiry whether Jesus Christ, in " forming the Church originally," did or did not establish
in it this or that particular law, either of religion or
government.
But suppose the Saviour did not form the Church
originally, by positive legislation, at all; what then?
292. Soame Jenyns was in his day, the last century, a writer of no ordinary merit. He was a barrister at law, a man of letters, of high cultivation,
logical training, and of course very exact in the use of
language.  One of his best works, by reputation, was
on the Internal iEvidences of the Christian Religion.
This essay, first published in England and then in
this country, is by some rated among the religious
classics of the day. It is one of the official publications of the American Tract Society, and is complimented  as a work of great argumentation  and
strength by Dr. Paley and others. His argument is
thrown into three logical propositions, as follows:
"First. There is a book entitled the New Testament.
" Second. That from this book may be extracted a
system of religion entirely new, both with regard to
the object and  the doctrines, not only infinitely
superior to, but totally unlike everything which had
ever before entered into the mind of man."
In his argument on this second proposition he de



Errors of Authors.            131
dares it to be incontrovertibly true. I believe it to
be incontrovertibly, and also palpably, false. I hold
it.to be as well known as any historic fact ever was
known, that at and before the making of the New
Testament there was in existence another book, which
we now call the Old Testament; that this book did
then and does now contain a system of religion, the
object and the doctrines of which are, at least somewhat, like those of the New; and that there are some
things common to both. Nay, I affirm further, that
at least some of the doctrines of religion found in the
one are found in the other. I believe, for instance,
that in the Old Testament are found the doctrines of
one God, of human sin, of a divine government, of
salvation, and several other things, which are also
found in the New. I remember that in a portion of
the Old Testament called Exodus, and at the 20th
chapter thereof, there are seen no less than ten distinct
religious precepts, which go, at least somewhat, to
make up the system of religion which Mr. Jenyns
extracts from  the New  Testament.  Now if the
decalogue, or any portion thereof, has regard to either
the object or the doctrines, or any of them, which
enter into the system of religion found in the New
Testament, then the latter is not entirely new, nor
infinitely superior to, nor totally unlike everything
which had ever before entered into the mind of man.
The simple truth is, that this whole proposition of
Mr. Jenyns' is wildly and recklessly erroneous. It
is utterly defenseless at every point, with no pretense
to truth about it! A higher or more untrue impeachment of the Old Testament was never written. And
yet there it remains, in our Church books, reprinted
over and over again, for more than a hundred years.




132             The City of God.
Its lesson of wholesale untruth has poisoned the mind
of families and Sunday-schools by the thousand!
293. Dr. Bushnell, in his most excellent treatise on
Christian Nurture, says the congregation to which
Peter preached on the day of Pentecost were sinners.
Of this there is not the slightest historic proof, and
it is in the highest degree improbable, while its injury
to the Church is, that it inculcates the doctrine that.
the Church and religion previously existing had become extinct, and that this was a beginning de novo
to build up a new Church and new religion.
I know of no milder expressions that the language
admits of than to say that Mr. Bushnell's argument, or
his assertions rather, are absurd and ridiculous. I
use the mildest language I can find, that is true. The
conclusion that thousands of professing Christians,
met for public worship, holding a true faith, about
whose piety not an unfavorable word is uttered, are
sinners, wholesale, because religious ignorance and
irregularity are stated of others, is absurd; and it is
more, it is ridiculous. The argument, however, might
be made a little more ridiculous by charging those
people that they did not know that Christ and Jesus
were identical. Neither did Noah, Abraham, Samuel,
or Daniel. Dr. Bushnell himself did not know it
until somebody told him.
294. It is quite too much for Mr. Watson to call
Cornelius "the first Gentile convert."
Both he and everybody else teaches, and the Old
Testament everywhere proves, that he was not. Converts from without were common always. Countless thousands preceded Cornelius. The peculiarity
in his case was, not that he was converted from without, but that Peter went out after him. Previously,




Errors of Authors.            133
preaching was generally confined to the Church, and
outsiders were expected to come in of their own
accord. In this instance Peter, on purpose, went out
from among the Church to preach to outsiders. It
was the first missionary or aggressive act of the
Church, of a notable and prominent character.
295. Bishop H. U. Onderdonk, in official Tract
No. 47, proves, as he claims, that what he calls
Episcopacy must form the substance of the government of the Christian Church, because the Saviour
so organized the Church at first.
Without stopping to inquire whether the Saviour
ever organized, set up, or established anew a Church
at all, or not, it is taken for granted, and the argument of the tract is built upon it. And those who
concede that ground to him would, in my judgment,
find it difficult to meet all his arguments.
296. "Christianity is that system of religion of
which Christ is the founder."  (New Am. Cyclopcedia.)
An essay of fifteen pages in this work opens with
this language. Throughout it is plainly taught that
the system of religion, as a whole and in detail,
which we call Christianity, in its doctrines, faith,
worship, all, is a new thing, for the first time introduced to mankind by our Saviour eighteen hundred
years ago. It was a "new-born heavenly life."
Human religion was brought to light " through the
apostles."  It was "the new religion."  Many other
expressions and the entire drift of teaching show that
no feature of this new system was ever known before.
The difficulty with the essay is that it is fundamentally erroneous. The New Testament is an utter
stranger to any new religion, or new doctrines. The




134             The City of God.
Christianity which it teaches is made up wholly of
the faith and precepts of Moses and the prophets, and
is but an elaboration of them.
297. Milman's History  of Christianity is arf
English work of much classical renown. It is here
assumed, without a word of explanation, that Christianity, its faith, doctrines, morals, and precepts, its
very being, in every aspect in which it can be viewed,
began absolutely to exist in the world, as a totally
new thing, in the time of the apostles. Its specific
teachings to this effect are numerous. Nor does the
book contain a distinct remark, that I remember, to
relieve it from such wholesale violation of the history
of Christianity as seems apparent.  The surprising
blunder here, and with many others at this point is,
that that which was new in the Church did not relate to either doctrines, principles, or moral teachings,
but to modes of teaching, with of course better teachers and better teachings. And this improvement in
both teachers and teachings was consequent on the
sensible appearance and visibility of such of the
atoning acts of the Saviour as were visible. Now
they are visible and historic; before they were only
adumbrant; though Christ was virthally slain from
the foundation of the world.
298. "As Rome had united the whole Western
world into one,.... so Christianity was the first
religion which aimed at a universal and permanent
moral conquest."  (Milman, p. 22.)
Yes, but this was not the new, mythical Christianity of the recent formation you speak of, but the
old Christianity of Abel and Moses.
299. Tacitus says, "The worship of the Jews is
purely mental."




Errors of Authors.              135
This is not strange, so far as I know, for I believe
he is not regarded a very safe Christian teacher.
But it is strange that Mr. Milman should endorse the
statement, and then pass on as smoothly as if nothing
had happened.  It is strange that such wholesale onslaughts upon the Old Testament should pass for a single day without the promptest denunciation from the
religious press. As to truth, everybody must know, on
a moment's reflection, that it possesses not a shadow
of it.  I would gladly say less, but how can I?
800. Fairbairn, in his Typology, argues at length,
why it is no longer proper to keep the symbolical
institutes connected with  the law," and remarks,
" It is true that no express authoritative injunction
was given at first, for the discontinuance of these
services."
At first? No, nor at last, nor ever. They discontinued from the necessity of the thing, just as the
date of a year discontinues.
301. Two separate and distinct churches, the Jewish and Christian, with their separate and distinct
religions, are in numerous - places, in Fairbairn's
Typology, as plainly set forth as language can state
facts. The entire drift of teaching is, that the relation between the two religions is merely typical and
historic; but as to religious doctrines, they are as
wide as the poles, and irreconcilably hostile. I know
of nothing ever written, better calculated to degrade
the Old Testament Scriptures. And yet there it lies,
in two goodly sized octavo volumes, and counted good
Christian reading.
302. Mr. John Wesley (Notes, on Acts xxviii. 15)
says, " It is remarkable that there is no certain account by whom  Christianity was planted in Rome.




136            The City of God.
Probably some inhabitants of that city were at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, and being converted
themselves, carried the gospel thither at their return."
I see nothing more remarkable about Rome, in this
respect, than a hundred other places where the early
Christian history has faded away. It is certain that
Christianity, not indeed called by that name, but the
same religion afterwards called Christianity, existed
in Rome long before the death or birth of Jesus
Christ. The Church in Rome began to be called by
the name of Christian, not immediately after the day
of Pentecost, but some time, we do not know how long,
after it began to be so called at Antioch. As to the
assumed necessity of these persons from Rome, at
Pentecost, being converted then, it is as gratuitous
as to suppose the same thing in regard to any other
Church members, then or now, of whose personal
piety we have no information. No doubt the return
of their brethren from Pentecost gave those at home
the first certain definitive proof of the incarnation
and crucifixion of Christ. Nor have we any reason
to doubt but the religious people in that city gladly
and fully received this information, and acted upon it
at the first practicable moment. But that is a very
different thing from planting a Church.
303. There are few  authors for whom  I have
higher respect than Archbishop Whately. And yet
I think some of his views are fundamentally defective.
Some of these errors, pointed out, cannot be mistaken.
His debates with the Oxford Tract men, running
through much of his later writings, relate entirely to
the question how this new Church, new kingdom, was
framed, and precisely what religious and ecclesiasti



.Errors of Authors.           137
cal doctrines and laws were put into it. They seem
not to have stopped to inquire whether those things
were done at all or not. On " The Constitution of
the Church," it is very plainly and carefully taught,
that Jesus Christ formed a society, a personal community, consisting of separate individual men and
women, beginning with twelve men, and increasing
it by taking in others from among Jews and Gentiles, whoever would consent to become religious.
For this social brotherhood He prescribed a government, with, of course, particular laws, and which was
to be of perpetual continuance.  (See Kingdom  of
Christ, p. 22, etc.)
Now, in the face of all this, I think it is so plain
as not to admit of a doubt, when one reflects a moment, that neither the Saviour nor others acting under Him, established, organized, or set up any society,
or personal community, or Church, at that or any
other time.  Jesus was Himself a member of the
Church, and recognized all other members, all Jews,
making no difference among them, as his brethren.
He corrected their errors, instructing, admonishing,
and reproving those He met with who needed such
teachings and admonitions; but as to any special society beginning in a nucleus of a few persons, such an
idea is not hinted at in Scripture. He had twelve
special disciples for a special purpose, but quite a different one from that supposed by the Archbishop.
The special office of the apostles, and reason for their
separation or distinction from other Church members,
was not to organize a Church, for this they did not
do; but that they should form in themselves an intensified focal centre of faith in the personal Christship of the man Jesus; that this fact, not having




138             The City of God.
anything to do with doctrines or Church rules, might
be rationally and authoritatively spread and diffused
throughout the Church. This was the peculiar business of the apostles. They neither made a new
Church nor preached a new religion.
304. " The Jews expected a Christ who should be
a heaven-sent king of the Jews."  (Kingdom  of
Christ, p. 17.)
It is indeed remarkable that such a writer should
make so prominent an allusion to this oft-repeated assertion that the Jews looked for a temporal Saviour.
It is quite a possible thing that there may have been
some persons then, as now, who may have had very
erroneous notions about the Saviour. If there were
any such persons, we know that such belief was contrary to their religion, for we can refer to that verbatim any moment. But what is the evidence of any
such belief among the Jews? Next to none. There
is a very incidental remark in John vi. 15, that some
few persons just then, in the excitement of the
moment, would have made Him a king. But that
such a belief existed to any considerable extent,
or amounted to anything, there is not the slightest
evidence.
305. "It appears highly probable, I might say
morally certain, that wherever a Jewish synagogue
existed, that was brought, the whole or the chief part
of it, to embrace the gospel, the apostles did not there
so much form a Church (or congregation: ecclesia)
as make an existing congregation Christian, by introducing the Christian sacraments and worship, and
establishing whatever regulations were requisite for
the newly adopted faith; leaving the machinery
(if I may so speak) of government unchanged; the




Errors of Authors.            139
rulers of synagogues, elders, and  other officers,
(whether spiritual, or ecclesiastical, or both) being
already provided in the existing institutions. And
it is likely that several of the earliest Christian
churches did originate in this way; that is, that they
were converted synagogues, which became Christian
churches as soon as the members, or the main part
of the members, acknowledged Jesus as Messiah."
(Whately's Kingdom of Christ, p. 29.)
Coming from such a man, this is most remarkable.
I inquire, when a synagogue was thus brought to embrace the gospel, what did any of them  embrace?
what doctrine, tenet, rule of Church or of life, that
they had not always embraced?  They embraced
nothing.  And worship.  What new  worship was
introduced? None. And establishing whatever regulations were requisite for the newly adopted faith.
What were those regulations? and what the newly
adopted faith? As to the likelihood that several of
the earliest Christian churches originated in this
way, it is certain that no Christian churches originated at all in that way, in any other sense than they
do now. It is equally certain, however, that there
was a peculiarity in one vitally important thing in
the Church, just at that period, that never could occur at any other. It became necessary for the Church
to recognize Jesus as Christ. And this, as any one
may see in a moment, necessitated a change in the
outward mode of taking the sacrament.  That is all
there was of it. The synagogues, i. e., the churches,
that recognized that fact were true churches. Those
that refused were not.
306. George Benson's First Planting of the Christian Religion says, " It was almost fifteen hundred




140            The City of God.
years before this, and on this very day of the year,
that the law was given by God from Mount Sinai,
in the sight and hearing of all Israel,.... and
now the new law of grace is given to the apostles."
This lesson, with others quite as bad, is published
by the Methodist Sunday-school Union, in a Sundayschool book called "Lives of the Apostles."  The
title of the book is enough to condemn it. And thus
it is that our children suffer.
307. Whately's Errors of Romanism, p. 13, says,
" In treating of all these points, I shall adhere to the
plan hitherto pursued, namely, of contemplating the
errors of the Romanists, not with a view to our own
justification in withdrawing from their communion."
What does he mean by withdrawing from their
communion? These are important words, involving a vital principle. It is to be feared that Protestantism is not well understood by Protestants. In
what sense did Protestants withdraw from anybody's
communion? Did Protestants withdraw from the
Church and set up another Church? Most assuredly
I do not so understand it. I understand that Protestants merely protested and turned away from certain practices and doctrines in the Church which they
claimed had been surreptitiously foisted upon the
Church by certain officers thereof, contrary to the
Scriptures, they themselves remaining all the while
in the Church, but following Scriptural doctrines and
practices. Protestants, most assuredly, did not protest against the Church, but against certain unlawful things in it. This they did, most certainly, not
for the purpose of going out, but in order that they
might rightfully remain in. The Reformation was
a reformation of the Church; and if Papists would




Errors of Authors.             141
not reform and discontinue their unlawful practices,
the Protestants could not help it, and were not responsible.
308. The American Bible Society, heading of 1
Cor. x., says, " The sacraments of the Jews are types
of ours." 
It is in the first place not only a comment, but
a very doubtful one, to say the least, I think, to
suppose that the first seven verses of this chapter
treat of sacraments at all. And secondly, it is impossible there can be any sacraments of the Jews
different from ours. The sacraments of religion pertain to religion wholly, solidly, and not to different
states and conditions of the Church.
309. Elliott on Romanism, two octavo volumes,
concedes wholesale, by necessary implication, that
the errors he refutes might be true; i. e., he argues
the main question of history as to whether the Saviour, in making the Church, incorporated into it this,
that, or the other feature. Thus the issue he accepts
does not admit of demonstration, because questions
of old historic detail never can be settled. His admission that Jesus Christ formed the Church at all
is fatal to his whole argument.
310.  And so we read, "There could be no other
design in writing the books of the New Testament
than to preserve the memory of Christ's history and
doctrines." (Vol. i. p. 45.)
This would be a legitimate conclusion upon the
hypothesis that it is a divine announcement of a new
system of doctrines, establishing a new Church. But
suppose it does neither of these things; then where is
this design?
311. "It is also said, that' the books of the New




142             The City of God.
Testament were not written till long after the establishment of Scripture, and therefore Christians had
not the Bible for their directory and rule.' But the
binding obligation of the Old Testament remained
till the crucifixion; and in the interval the Church
was favored with the personal presence of the apostles, whose living voice supplied a rule of faith of
equal authority with that of Christ." (Page 57.)
Will the reader pause here a little. Right here, not
only Dr. Elliott, but I know not how many others,
by admitting the Romish excision of Old Testament
authority, and the necessary supplying of that of
the new Church in its stead, concede all the ground
asked for, and all the ground Romanists could need
or have, on which to build the doctrine of Church
supremacy and infallibility. And all this is done at
the expense of the plainest historic truth! If the
binding obligation of the Old Testament remained
till the crucifixion, and then for near two hundred
years, or for any time, the Church had no written
guide, then it is for Protestants to show how and
when this necessary Church power was removed.
But there never was any such interregnum at all. If
the Old Testament authority remained till the crucifixion, in what has it since rested? This interval,
conceded by such writers as Dr. Elliott, furnishes
Romanists the entire ground they stand upon in
regard to Church power. Protestant writers must
learn better than this.
The Old Testament remained in force till the resurrection; and of course, the meaning is, no longer.
Who repealed the Old Testament? and how came
the repeal to take effect just at that time? If this
was so, it was physically impossible the whole Church,.




.Errors of Authors.           148
spread as it was over the known world, with no facilities of travel could be informed of it under several
years. And for the same reason it was impossible
the apostles could supply the Church by their living
voice with Scripture direction. Twelve men could
see but a small portion of the Church.
Dr. Elliott, in conceding the new Church, gives up
to the Romanist everything he could desire. We
must maintain the truth at this important point, and
let Romanism go down. We have upheld it long
enough.
312. " To this we reply, that we find Christ and
his apostles cohtinually referring to the written word
of God; and though they declared many truths not
contained in the Old Testament, in general they
only enlarged upon, and more fully, what had been
formerly written." (Page 83.)
And yet it is plain there is not such a new truth
in the New Testament.
313. Lives of the Apostles, a Methodist Sundayschool book (New York: Lane and Scott), teaches
children and youths on this wise, page 11: "And
how strange, in the view of human wisdom, that such
instruments should be employed in establishing a
new faith."
This is most remarkable - it is surprising. If the
author of this book were asked what new faith or
doctrines were there announced, on a moment's reflection he would be obliged to reply, There were
none. And yet there the statement stands, year
after year, to the great injury of multiplied thousands.
314. " Matthew, before his conversion, was a publican or tax gatherer under the Romans."  (Page
94.)




144            The City of Ood.
This is a naked assumption, without a particle of
testimony or even probability to support it. When
was he converted?  The supposition of some that
the Saviour selected irreligious men exclusively for
the peculiar work of the apostleship, since there is
not a hint to that effect in Scripture, is in the highest degree unreasonable. Most assuredly such a
thing could not be believed, but on the plainest
Scripture testimony.
"Among those who were converted were Timothy's parents, who received and entertained the apostles in their own house." (Page 206.)
The Scripture account is widely different. It says
they were already pious; that they, as well as Timothy himself, had become converted long before the
time here alluded to, through the instrumentality of
the Old Testament. We a're here told that the Old
Testament, without a personal knowledge of Jesus or
the apostles, was sufficient to make one wise unto
salvation.
315. Bishop Marvin, on Romanism, a most superior treatise on ecclesiastical science, p. 79, says,
"Eleven men, without prestige, without resources,
ignorant and despised, on a mountain of Galilee, received orders to make conquest of the world! "
Just exactly in the same sense that Bishop Marvin
received orders, in Missouri, to do the very same
thing, and in no other sense. The instructions given
to the apostles, as mentioned in the last of Matthew,
were in no proper sense a commission. The same
authority was abundantly possessed and considerably
exercised before, hundreds and even thousands of
years before. It was not a commission personal to
the apostles themselves; for they had the same au



Errors of Authors.              145
thority before. It was such instructions to ministers
as might be properly given at any time, but were
peculiarly useful and appropriate just then, a brief
notice or outline of which is recorded by the Apostle.
The eleven men were commissioned to inform  and
certify and prove to the Church then existing, and
to the world, by their personal knowledge, that Jesus
was Christ, the well-known Christ of the Church.
That was their commission; and, vitally important
and signally necessary as it was, it was all that was
peculiar in their ministry.  As to doctrines, they
were to preach those of the Bible, then, before, and
now preached by all true ministers. The certain information is, that thousands upon thousands, and
myriads of the Church received their testimony about
Jesus gladly, and it is likely that these embraced a
full half or more of the Church in that age.  The
other half, refusing to acknowledge Christ in Jesus,
apostatized.
316. Rabbi Raphall, in his Post-Biblical History
of the Jews (Appleton, 1866, vol. ii. p. 373), says,
" It was during the administration of Pontius Pilate
that the events related in the historic books of the
Christian Scriptures are said to have occurred; and it
was from before his tribunal that.the founder of the
Christian faith was led forth to execution.  We do
not feel called upon to enter into this subject, for at
its origin and during its infancy, Christianity has no
claim on the attention of the Jewish historian."
This brings out the gist and vital point of our
controversy with modern Jews.  If Jesus was the
founder of the Christian faith, a religious faith new
to the Jewish Scriptures, which had then and there
its origin and its infancy, then it seems to me the
10




146             The City of God.
modern Jew cannot be jostled from his position. He
claims validity for his faith only on the ground of its
identity with the acknowledged Scriptures, and that
Christianity is new; and if this is so, then, I ask, on
what ground can Christianity be defended?
317. "And thenceforward (after the Babylonian
captivity) until the present day, the descendants of
Jacob are called Jews."  (Union Bib. Dictionary,
art. " Jew.")
No, the many multitudes, thousands, and myriads
of them  who acknowledged Jesus as Christ, were
called Christians first at Antioch, and their descendants have been so called ever since.
318. Dr. Hales says, " All the legal dispensation
was originally designed to be superseded by the new
and better covenant of the Christian dispensation."
If the Doctor had undertaken to explain precisely
what he meant by legal dispensation, he would have
discerned his error.
319. Schittgen says the proposition of the Epistle
to the Hebrews is this: " Jesus of Nazareth is the true
Gaod. And in order to convince the Jews of this
proposition, the Apostle urges but three arguments:
1st, Christ is superior to angels; 2d, He is superior
to Moses; 3d, He is superior to Aaron."
Then the Apostle was a poor logician. Proof of
these things could not prove the proposition. To
prove that Christ was superior to angels, to Moses,
and to Aaron, would not prove that Jesus was Christ.
It would not prove anything about Jesus. No Jew
before the great apostacy that occurred at this time,
and out of the apostacy, ever denied or doubted the
unlimited superiority of Christ. That was not the
question now. The only question now was, whether




Errors of Authors.             147
Jesus was Christ.  This was stoutly affirmed and
stoutly denied. It was what Paul, or whoever wrote
the Epistle to the Hebrews, proves so well.
320. Dr. Lightfoot repeatedly speaks of the Church
in Judea in the apostles' days as consisting mainly of
"converted Jews."
How could they be converted as Jews, when they
had not apostatized!
321. " As touching the law, he was blameless, but
was an inveterate enemy to Christianity."  (Henry's
Com.)
Blameless, tried by divine revelation, and yet an
inveterate enemy to Christianity. So God's law approves of inveterate enmity to Christianity!
322. Bishop Hobart says, " The Christian Church
was founded by bishops, because the apostles, who
were bishops, were the first preachers of the gospel
and planters of the churches."
No; the prophets were preachers of the gospel
and planters of, or at least ministers in, the same
Church, long before.
323. Fleetwood, in his Life of Christ, says Paul
was " converted to the Christian faith," and " from
the Jewish religion."
But it would be plainer and better to say he was
restored to the true faith from which he had apostatized.  He was certainly converted back to the faith
he nominally professed before.
324. Dr. Sherlock says, " The first promise of God
made to Adam was the promise of a Saviour."
Gen. iii. 15 does not promise a Saviour; it proclaims a present Saviour then furnished. The promise referred only to the human appearance and physical or visible work.




148             The City of God.
325. " Now it was the very essence of the gospel,
in the apostolic sense of that expression, - Christ
died for our sins according to the Scriptures." (N.
Newton, in Brit. Pulpit.)
Certainly; but before these historic events, it was
just as much the essence of gospel truth that He
would die for our sins according to the Scriptures.
326. Dr. Samuel Clarke says, "till the kingdom
of Christ shall be gloriously manifested in the final
destruction of the nation."
It would be hard to believe, without at least some
proof, that the merciful kingdom of Christ could be
gloriously manifested in the destruction of a nation.
327. On Matt. iii. 1, Mr. Jacobus says, " Baptism
formerly admitted proselytes to the Jewish religion;
now it admitted Jews to the gospel religion."
And yet you say there is but one religion. How
are we to understand you?
328. Mr. Alex. Campbell, in commenting on Luke
xix. 11-15, says, " It was impossible that the reign
of Heaven could literally commence' till Jesus was
glorified,' received the promise of the Holy Spirit,
was made Lord and Christ, and sat down with his
Father on his throne."
Mr. Campbell was a logical debater of high order;
but logic, the highest and completest, furnishes not
the least assistance to a man with false facts. How
does Mr. Campbell know that God could not reign on
earth, through the Christship, before Jesus was glorified?  Now, I undertake to say, that it is well
known to all Christians, and denied by none, not
even Mr. Campbell himself, that Jehovah did so
reign on earth for the space of four thousand years.
The entire doctrine taught by Mr. Campbell is based




Errors of Authors.              149
upon  this  naked  assumption.  The  visibility of
Christ's work and humiliation is intended to produce effects upon us, not to enable God to do so and
so. Suppose Jesus had suffered as He did, and the
thing, like many other historic facts, had not been
known - it was lost to history; what purpose would
it have served? None.
329. Bishop Warburton, in his Divine Legation of
Moses, says, "When Christianity arose, though on
the foundation of Judaism, it was at first received by
pagan writers with complacency."
The pagan writers of that age saw, because it was
apparent, that the separation of Jews and Christians,
as the two parties came to be called along in the age
succeeding the crucifixion, was in consequence of difference of belief about the true character of Jesus who
was crucified by Pontius Pilate, the former holding
Him  an impostor, the latter a divine personality.
They saw it as it was, a separation of former friends,
now very hostile to each other as to this matter of
separation. They, not believing in a divine Christhood at all, would be about as likely to extend complacency to the one as the other. But it is evidently
irregular to say that Christianity arose on the foundation of Judaism.  Judaism, as it existed before
the days of Jesus, stood firm, and stands firm to-day.
It was the new, false Judaism that arose out of, that
is, branching off from, Christianity.
330. Olshausen, Acts x. 37, says, "It is not improbable that Cornelius had already heard of Christianity, and that the object of his prayers was to obtain light from above respecting this new religion."
What new religion?  Can a thousand repetitions
make a falsehood true?




150             The City of God.
331. Wesleyan Catechism, No. 3, p. 5, says, " The
Christian religion is also called' the gospel,' which
signifies' good news.' The Jewish religion is called'the law.'"
So our children suffer.
332. Again: " The covenant under the law was
made specially with the Jews; but under the gospel
with both Jews and Gentiles."
So our children suffer.
333. History of the Christian  Church, by Dr.
Hare, says, " The Church was originally founded by
the Spirit, which proceeded from Jesus."
Then it is indeed a new Church, with a new, and
consequently a false religion.
334. The " first section " of " Ancient Church History" according to Dr. Hare, extends "from Christ
to Constantine." (Page 7.)
So, before that time there being no Church, of
course it had no history!
335. Lord Lyttleton on the Conversion of Paul,
p. 142, says, " The sect he embraced was under the
greatest and most universal contempt of any in the
world."
Everybody knows that the sect he embraced was
the regular Church of the Old Testament, the Church
of Moses, of the prophets, and of this present day.
336. Mr. John Fletcher (Checks, vol. iii. p. 140)
says, " God having then prepared to take the Gentiles into the covenant of peculiarity," etc.
That implies, and is understood to mean, whether
Mr. Fletcher so meant it or not, that up to this
period people out of the Church were not called, or
required to be religious. Gentiles, those out of the
Church, were not till now called to be religious!




Errors of Authors.            151
And yet everybody knows that the Old Testament
Scriptures in many places call upon all men everywhere, in the most unlimited manner, to come and
be religious. Does not everybody know that salvation was always offered to all men?
337. Dr. Jenks, editor of Comprehensive Commentary, in a note to Preface to Acts, says, " The
claim of the Gentiles to admission into the Church
was disputed by the Jews."
It is remarkable a man should so write, when
everybody knows it was always the law of the Church,
and well understood, to take in everybody from without. Still we are bewildered with such wild remarks.
338. Trench on Miracles, p. 53, speaks of "a
rigid monotheistic religion like the Jewish."
Monotheism is the simple religion of one deity,
and is generally used to describe some of the various
forms of idolatry. The term is never applied to true
religion. I know of nothing ever written, better calculated to degrade the Old Testament revelation.
339. Paley (Evidences, p. 489) says, "A  religion which now  possesses the greatest part of the
civilized world unquestionably sprung up at Jerusalem at this time."
On a moment's reflection no Christian can believe
it. If admitted, it proves the truth of the modern
Jewish religion conclusively. The simple and indisputable truth is, that the only religion that sprung
up at this time was that of the denying, apostatizing
Jews.
340. Again he says, " The apostles were the original preachers of the religion."
Then what religion did the prophets preach?
341. Again (page 488): "A  Jewish  peasant
changed the religion of the world."




152             The City of God.
So far from it He always appealed to Scripture,
always declaring He changed nothing; as did the
apostles also. And the fact, as palpable as the existence of the New Testament, is that it contains not
one new doctrine. Paley's declaration is exactly the
ground of the modern Jewish religion, and the only
polemical ground they claim to occupy.
342. Knapp's Christian Theology, p. 469, says,
"Christians took the word (Church) from the Jews."
How could that be when the identical persons you
call Christians are the very self-same persons formerly called Jews?
343. Dr. Reinhard (Knapp's Theol., p. 339) says,
" Jesus Christ taught the people especially the love
of God and our neighbor in opposition to Jewish
exclusiveness."
Yes, in opposition to any errors He met with, but
in accordance with the Jewish religion; i. e., the religion of the Church.
344. " That Jesus might be shown to be the true
Messiah or Christ in opposition to the unbelief of the
Jews," etc. (Benson's Corn., Matt. i. 1.)
But there was no such wholesale unbelief of the
Jews. They divided on that question; and while
the New Testament says very little about the numerical strength of the unbelieving party, it says very
much about the great multitudes of the believing
party.  The probability is, that the believing party
was the larger one. No unbelief was ever attributed
to them.
345. On Luke xiv. 24, Benson says, " Many of
the Jews became members of the Church of Christ."
As if there were two different churches. Becoming members of the Church of Christ was simply




Errors of Authors.             153
remaining steadfast in the Church where they were
born.  They  continued  in  the  Church  of their
fathers.
346. Benson says the book of Acts " contains a
history of Christ's infant Church."
When it is palpable there never was any such
infant Church.
347. Dr. Hunter, of London (Sacred Biography,
p. 476), says, "John saw the divine origin of Christianity demonstrated by its success."
No, this demonstration was had several thousand
years before John lived.
348. Dr. Stier's Words of the Lord Jesus tells us
about "the infancy of the Church," "the gospel
foundation,"  the  " beginning,"  " new   Church,"
" primitive Church," etc. On Matt. v. 17, he speaks
of " the Church  or congregation hereafter to be
built."
Very strange! I hope such errors may be corrected. Let the religion of the Old Testament, call
it by what name you will, be identical with the
Christianity of the New, as it afterwards came to be
called; let religious errors be distinguished from the
religion itself; and then let the Church continue
smoothly and uninterruptedly on, without making a
new one, in violation of the plain history in the case;
and the great sectarian warfare. as to how it was
made will cease, bigotry and exclusiveness will have
but little ground to stand upon, the whole Church
will breathe more freely, and religion have a much
fairer chance of success.
349. " Such was the constitution of the Church in
its infancy, when its assemblies were neither numerous
nor splendid."  (Mlosheim.)




154             The City of God.
Most of the popular error on this subject has
sprung  from  expressions like  this from  leading
historic writers.  That the  Church had no  such
beginning is so apparent as to need no more than a
suggestion.
350. Powell on Apostolical Succession is an English work, written about forty or fifty years ago, and
has been several times republished in this country.
It is used largely as a text-book by the Methodist
Episcopal churches.  This last named fact is remarkable, seeing its teachings are so widely at variance with the laws and usages of these churches.
This entire essay of 350 pages assumes, as a matter not questioned, that Jesus Christ organized the
Church de novo in every respect, and prescribed its
law of government, fixing the official functions of its
different classes of ministers, etc. It does not question the doctrine of apostolic succession, but only that
of Episcopal succession, as claimed by High Church
prelatists. This distinction is important. The former claims, in order to a valid ministry, a succession
of ordinations from the apostles down; the latter,
that it be confined exclusively to bishops.
Page 59: " Now, it must clearly appear to an unbiased mind, from Acts xx. 17-20, that the Church
of Ephesus was governed by a NUMBER OF PRESBYTERS, identical with bishops."
Suppose it was, what does that prove  about
churches now?  The inference intended is, that
therefore Jesus Christ, in framing the Church law,
gave presbyters the same powers as bishops, and so
all churches must be so governed. But suppose we
have no divine law on the subject, then what does it
prove? It proves a historic fact of no more impor



Errors of Authors.            155
tance now, than the geography of Ephesus, nor so
much.
Page 70: "It is remarkable that, in the constitution of the Christian ministry, and in the government
of the Christian Church, our Lord seems studiously
to have avoided introducing anything like the priesthood of Aaron and the Mosaic dispensation and
ritual."
This old song'of new ministry and new Church is
on nearly every page of this book, in some form, and
is the basis of every argument in it. Then, if it is
wholly based upon a myth, might it not be well to
ask, of what use is it?
351. Page 86: " Bishops and presbyters have the
SAME  QUALIFICATIONS. Bishops and presbyters
have the SAME DITTIES. Bishops and presbyters
have the same power and authority."
Whether these rules are the law in Mr. Powell's
church, or were when he wrote, I may not be presumed to know; but everybody knows that none of
these rules have, or ever had, any sort of application
to any of the Methodist churches in America. In
these churches, bishop and presbyter, or elder, as they
are generally called, are as distinct, both by law
and usage, in qualifications, in ordinations, in duties,
and in power and authority, as are class-leaders and
bishops.
352. Page 88: " However, all the difference certainly appears in favor of the divine right of the
superiority of presbyters over bishops."
Any sort of divine right, in these premises, of
course means that Jesus Christ prescribed these
things for the government of all Christian churches
in all time. Then I know not where you would find




156            The City of God.
a true Church. Certainly not among the Methodist
churches of America. He proves vastly too much.
353. Page 299: " The New Testament lays down
GENERAL principles, but gives No PARTICULAR
FORM of Church government in detail."
Will any man state any one of these general principles of Church government laid down in the New
Testament for the entire Church?  The thing is
ridiculous, because it supposes and means a new
Church.
354. "The people RULING the minister, is the
SHEEP RULING the shepherd!"  (ibid.)
And yet nothing is more common in most, if not
all the Christian churches around us. Several of
them have an equal number of laymen with ministers in their general legislature.
355. On pages 300, 301, and many other places,
we are told much about "Scriptural Episcopacy,"
"Scriptural Church polity," " divine right of all
true ministers," etc., always meaning that these
things are enacted in the Church government then
framed by the Saviour for the entire Church! The
book abounds, by scores and by hundreds, in such
errors as these.
356. It will be noted that all Roman Catholic and
High Church writers of all classes plant themselves
fundamentally on the assumed formation of a new
Church by the Saviour. This is of course their only
pedestal. Later writers copy from older ones. So
we hear Bishop Taylor, High Churchman in 1642,
in Episcopacy Asserted, say, " Christ did institute
apostles and presbyters." He then goes on to explain the precise power conferred on each, in governing the churches. How much power He thus con



_Errors of Authors.            157
ferred upon laymen, I do not see stated. Might it
not be well for those who have laymen in their
Church legislatures to inquire?
357. So, Dr. Hicks (Dignity of Epis. Order, p.
191, London, 1707): " Bishops are appointed to succeed the apostles, and like them to stand in Christ's
place and exercise his power," etc.
358. So, Dr. Hook, late vicar of Leeds, in Two
Sermons on the Church, etc.: "Some persons seem
to think that the government of the Church was essentially different in the days of the apostles from
what it is now," etc.
Then we have long explanations, showing that
as the Saviour first planted the Church and fixed its
government, so it must ever remain!
359. All Baptistic, prelatical, and Romish High
Church writers stand right here. This is obviously
the only place where they can stand. But for lack
of time, they could be quoted by hundreds.  All
High Church arguments are of course drawn from
this point.  A  Church in the nature of a corporation, established by outside authority, under a prescribed law of government, is, and nothing else is, the
essential High Church idea.  This is apparent by a
glance at the Romish or other High Church arguments anywhere.
360. Scott's Bible, Pref. to Acts, says of the apostles: " They had all the wisdom and folly, the learning and the ignorance, the religion and the irreligion
of the whole world to encounter."
Such extravagance in a sober, theological book is
beyond the pale of excuse. So far from being true,
everybody knows on a moment's reflection, that up
to the time of the death of Jesus, there was nothing




158            The City of God.
like general or popular opposition to either the Saviour or the apostles in any way, or about anything.
The only opposition they met with was local, slight,
transitory, and numerically feeble. They all professed exactly the same religion. After that event,
when the Church divided by the apostacy of those
who denied Christship in Jesus, there is no pretense
of opposition to the apostles, except by the apostates.
Among all those millions, formerly called Jews, now
called Christians, there is no pretense of opposition
at any time before or after the separation. Outside,
among heathen people, there was always opposition.
The whole world to encounter, indeed!  There
was not a day in that age, that the whole Church,
numbering millions, were not the fast friends of the
apostles, so far as they were known to the Church.
361. Again, " The Old Testament is all types and
shadows, Ind prophecies to be fulfilled."
And Baron Munchausen was the greatest traveller
of his time.
362. Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  art.
"Church," says: " From the gospel, then, we learn
that Christ was about to establish his heavenly kingdom on earth, which was to be the substitute for the
Jewish Church and kingdom, now doomed to destruction."
It is impossible such a statement can bear the least
touch of sober examination. The kingdom of Christ
on earth, which I suppose means the divine system of
government and salvation, has, naturally and necessarily, some features since the divine incarnation different from what it could have before; but that this
kingdom or system began, or was about to be established, in the days of Jesus, is preposterous. No




Errors of Authors.           159
Christian ever believed it. It is the regular built
hobgoblin of infidelity. And as to the Jewish Church,
that is, the Church of God on earth, being doomed to
destruction, the thought looks as impious as mythical.
Let the reader be reminded that there is not an expression in Scripture that gives the least license to
the supposition that the Saviour, the apostles, or anybody else, had anything against the Church, call it
Jewish, then and theretofore existing. Did Jesus
excommunicate Church members by the million and
depose ministers by the thousand, against whose piety
nothing is intimated; persons whom He never saw,
who had never, or but barely, seen or heard of Him?
Did He turn out of the Church pious men and women
wholesale, without their knowledge, without a reason
or pretense of reason? Most of the Church, or at
least much of it, lived a long way from the little
province of Palestine where Jesus travelled and
preached; and we are asked to believe that hundreds
of thousands, nay millions of people, many of whom
we are obliged to believe were pious, came to learn
that years ago they were all turned out of the Church!
And for what? No man can assign a reason, good
or bad. The supposition is recklessly extravagant
and wildly fabulous, to say nothing of its high and
intemperate injustice.
363. And so we have, in hundreds of places through
this recently published Dictionary of Dr. Smith, the
natural offshoots of this fabled new Church in such
expressions as "Mother Church of  Jerusalem,"
" Future Church," " The birthday of the Christian
Church," " Infant Church," " Infant Society," " One
hundred and twenty members at first," with many
expressions of the sort, all calculated to mislead, and




160             The City of God.
giving direct support to the Romish High Church
ideas of the Church.
364. Mr. Alex. Camlpbell, in setting up his exclusive system of High Church immersion, lays his cornerstone in this dual idea of the Church or kingdom of
Christ.  On almost every page of his Christian System he makes this doctrine prominent.  The system
under Moses was a distinct and exclusive system. It
terminated, and the new kingdom was ushered in, on
the day of the ascension, and at the precise period
that Jesus got " out of sight."  " They lived under a
constitution of law, we under a constitution of favor..... Under the government of the Lord Jesus there is
an institution for the forgiveness of sins." (Page 180.)
This is naked mythology, without the pretense of
even historic appearance.
365. Page 171, we are told, " So soon as He received the kingdom from God his Father, He poured
out the blessings of his favor upon his friends; He
fulfilled all his promises to tke apostles, and forgave
three thousand of his fiercest enemies."
When there is not the slightest historic pretense
that any of them ever had the thought of opposition
to Him or his Messiahship in any way.
366. " The temple was the house of God to the
very close of the life of Jesus. For it was not till
the Jewish ministry conspired to kill Him that He
deserted it." (Page 165.)
Mr. Campbell is not the only one who has committed this blunder about the temple. He means
the old Solomon's temple at Jerusalem.  But in that
age of the world this temple and this Jewish ministry
had no connection with the Jewish Church as a whole,
though no doubt it claimed to have. It was the place




Errors of Authors.                 161
of festive worship of the Judean portion of the Church
only.  The Samaritans, ignoring it, had their temple
on Mount Gerizim.  And the  Hellenists, supposed
to be larger than both the others, ignoring it, had
theirs in Heliopolis in Greece. These three portions
or denominations of the Church in that age were
related much as the Romanists, Methodists, and Baptists are now.
367. " Judas Iscariot was dead before the apostolic
commission was given. Judas in all probability never
heard of a gospel ministry. He did not live in the
gospel dispensation."  (Abbey's Eccl. Constitution,
p. 299.)
This is most remarkable, since it is quoted from a
book the main object of which is to repudiate this very
idea of a new system of religion introduced by Jesus
Christ.  This very book claims to find the true ecclesiastical law in the several churches themselves, and
not in any general prescribed law; and that the religion of the Church, its doctrines and morals, were
always the very same since a Saviour was furnished
in the days of Adam. It is strange then that a man
holding such sound doctrines should be guilty of the
above expression. It shows, at least, what most of
us have not learned, that it is hard to get out from
under the influence of early teachings. Educated to
a dogma, though a fallacy as palpable as the sun, it
is hard to get clear from it. This, then, no doubt is
really the  case with  most of the  authors herein
quoted.'
1 When this was written a few years ago, it was expected to be published anonymously; and on changing its form in this respect, I have
thought it best, as well as most fair, to let it stand. On looking back
twenty or twenty-five years, I find my own emancipation from the early
teachings of the errors here complained of has been slow and grad11




162              The City of God.
368. Dr. Chapman, of Lexington, Ky., 1844, in
Sermons on the Church, says: " I cannot but flatter
myself that the last discourse delivered upon these
words presented the most clear and invincible testimony from the primitive fathers of the divine origin
of our Episcopal ministry; a ministry comprehending
the three distinct orders of bishops, presbyters, and
deacons."
Now, it is not pretended that any testimony is
brought forward here to prove this point other than
historic testimony that such was the case in the
churches in and near the time of the apostles.  All the
High Church arguments on this question are of this
character. I say all. Then upon the hypothesis that
Jesus set up the Church anew and prescribed the
functions of its ministry, i. e., the government of the
Church, historic proof of this fact would go very far,
if it would not be conclusive as to the government a
Church must have.  But it is easily seen that this
assumption is necessary to give any force at all to the
testimony, however much of it there might be. The
proof proves nothing without this assumption.  This
point is sweeping as well as vital. Take away the
assumption that Jesus made a new Church and new
ministry, and in  all the  scores and hundreds of
volumes written to prove what High Churchmen call
Episcopacy, there is not one word of argument or
testimony, or pretense of either, on the subject.
369. The closing chapter of nine pages of Powell
on Apostolic Succession is an attempted refutation of
Dr. Hook's remark that the Church, as in the hands
of Protestants, remained the same after as before the
Reformation.
ual. No large stride seems to have been made at any one time. I sincerely hope and pray that others may learn more rapidly.




Errors of Authors.           163
Some debaters think they have only to deny and
denounce everything stated by an opponent. How
could Protestants claim to be a Church of God on
any other hypothesis?  Did Luther and his associates set up a new Church?  If this is Mr. Powell's
notion of Church organism, then indeed not only was
the Church in the hands of those Jews called Christians first in Antioch, and their successors, a new
Church, but every modification of Church government makes a new Church. And then the Presbyterian Church under Calvin, the Methodist Church
outwardly improved by Wesley, were new churches;
the Methodists of America make a new  Church
every four years; and so of all other churches; and
so we have a thousand new churches everywhere.
And the Church of God is anything or nothing, with
no identity or test of validity!
370. Evidences of Christianity, by Mark Hopkins,
D. D., is a school book somewhat used as a textbook. The " Christianity" of which it gives evidence " was an aggressive uncompromising religion.
It attacked every other form of religion whether Jewish or pagan and sought to destroy it." (Page 44.)
We are not concerned to know what some hypercritic might construe Dr. Hopkins to mean by the
Jewish religion. We know what everybody else understands by that expression. The religion of the
Jews at the period alluded to is not equivocal. We
have it verbatim. What anybody then or now mistook it to be is another matter. So we teach in our
schools, that Jesus and the apostles were uncompromising in their aggressive attacks upon the religion of the Old Testament! They sought to destroy
it!




164             The City of God.
371. At page 66 we are told that "the religion of
Christ " was " heralded by prophecy."
No; it was taught by all the prophets.
372. " We defy him  to point out a single duty,
even whispered by nature, which is not also inculcated in the New Testament."  (Page 102.)
Why this slur upon the Old Testament?
373. "Several of the fundamental principles of
Christian morality, such as if adopted would change
the face of society, were original with Christ," —
meaning Jesus. (Page 104.)
No man can point out one. Had Christ better
morality than that which is divine?  What principle
of Christianity is original?
374. He says Jesus Christ had "no education."
(Page 105.)
Where does he get his information?
375. At page 169 we are told this new Christianity "imposes upon man some new duties."
What ones?  He cannot answer.
376. "The Jews were divided into three great
sects, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and Essenes.
(Page 190.)
Such historic ignorance in a man pretending to
teach is disgraceful.
377. "The New Testament contains a fair and
plausible account of the origin of the Church."
(Page 244.)
It is wonderful how men come to believe a thing
from mere repetition. There is not the slightest allusion to such a thing.  The New Testament contains an account of the human appearance of Christ
in the person of Jesus. And this fact, in its very
nature, necessitates some important modes of teach



Errors of Authors.            165
ing the same things previously taught; a very different thing from  a new  Church. You might as
well say the introduction of globes and telescopes
originates new geography and astronomy.
378. "Eleven men, without learning, wealth, rank,
or power, subverted the divinely appointed institutions of Judaism, and overturned the superstitions of
ages." (Page 344.)
We are at no loss here to understand what he
means by Judaism. It is the divinely appointed institutions of religion as seen in the Old Testament.
Those divine appointments were subverted and demolished by Christian people! We also learn that
the superstitions of ages were divinely appointed.
And our youth are taught to believe it!
379. This school book, by a Protestant college
president, inculcates, all through it, the clumsy idea,
pernicious and hurtful as it is clumsy, that the religion of post-messianic Jews is the same, intact, as
that of the Old Testament. No modern Jew could
or need say more. It repudiates Christianity wholesale, and declares the modern Jew to have the true
religion. The only fundamental question between
Christians and modern Jews is, which party maintained and still adheres to the Old Testament.
The very first and most rudimental thing that
Christianity does is to affirm that the Jews, who re.
fuse Jesus as Christ, do by that very act repudiate
every vestige of religion known to the Old Testament. I repeat, every vestige. If any one imagines
that modern Jews retain any of the religion of the
Old Testament, let me ask him, Suppose you wholly
exclude Christ from the Old Testament; have you
any true religion left in it? Every Christian, yea,




166            The City of God.
and every Jew, will answer - Not a particle. Modern Judaism affirms that Christians abandon the religion of the Old Testament by foisting an impostor
into its Christhood; while Christianity says that
Jews abandon the Old Testament by repudiating its
true Christhood. Then the whole question is settled
in a moment by ascertaining whether Jesus is Christ
or not.
380. In the Comprehensive Commentary, Supplement, p. 87, we read of Luke: " That he was a
convert to Christianity from Judaism, however, is
upon the whole sufficiently evident both from his
style, and the intimate knowledge which he displays
of Jewish doctrines and customs."
Of Luke's youth and early history we know but
little. That he was of Jewish parentage is quite
probable if not certain; but that he was a convert
to Christianity from Judaism is next to impossible;
at least there is no probability of it. A convert to
Christianity from Judaism could only mean one who,
like Paul, denied Jesus, and then was converted
from the apostacy. Of this there is not the slightest intimation in the case of Luke. The faith called
Judaism before the apostacy was and is Christianity.
The faith of the Old Testament is the faith of the
New. It might be asked when John the Baptist,
or James, or Peter, was converted to Christianity.
They were converted before the true faith or Judaism, of the Old Testament, began to be called Christianity.
381. Again, the Comp. Cor., on Galatians, says,
"What these false teachers chiefly aimed at was to
draw them (the Galatians) off from the truth, particularly in the great doctrines of justification, which




BErrors of Authors.            167
they greatly perverted by asserting the necessity of
joining the observance of the law of Moses with
faith in Christ in order to it."
That is to say, in other words, To follow the religion of the Old Testament in respect to the great
doctrine of justification is to greatly pervert the
doctrine as Paul taught it.  Then we need to be
told which is right, the Old Testament or Paul, that
we may discard the wrong one.  No, it is a mistake.
Plainly stated, it cannot be believed. Paul and the
law of Moses, as the Old Testament is here called,
are both right, and both teach the same thing. The
doctrine of justification, as taught by Paul, is written
in many places in the Old Testament, and it is because it is there written, and for no other reason
that we know of, that Paul taught it. Paul taught
the doctrine of justification out of the law of Moses,
just as everybody does now.  He did not therefore
complain of those teachers for teaching the Old Testament doctrine, but for not teaching it. Paul ought
to be vindicated against this charge of teaching in
opposition to the Old Testament; and revelation
ought to stand consistent with itself.
382. Mr. Watson (Conv., p. 194), speaking of the
apostles and others who were early convinced of the
truth of revelation, says, " The most honest and sincere would, in proportion to their honesty and sincerity, require powerful proofs to induce them to venture their eternal interests upon a new religion, and
to renounce that of their fathers."
What! Does Mr. Watson undertake to teach
that the apostles renounced the religion of their
ancestors? If the apostles renounced the religion
of the prophets, why do not we? Do we not receive




168              The City of God.
their teachings as infallible? If they renounced the
Old Testament, what right have we to continue it in
our Bible?
This was not intended as a thrust at religion, for
we have no truer Christian in the books than Richard Watson; and yet a more deadly blow against
revelation could scarcely be made.  And that it has
injured religion, as far as it has been noticed and
believed, cannot be doubted.  The context to this
remark affords it not the slightest relief. The faith
they renounced was the Old Testament wholesale!
And this has passed, for lo, these many years, for
theology! And the Church to-day is suffering from
the effects of such blunders.
383. Dr. Schaff says (Hist. Apostolic Ch., p. 137),
" Our religion indeed, like its founder, is of strictly
divine origin. It is a new supernatural creation; a
miracle in history. Yet its entrance into the world
is historically connected with the whole preceding
course of events. It took four thousand years to prepare humanity to receive it."
The Almighty is the founder of religion, if that
term  can be properly applied to it; but'in what
sense God can be said to be of divine origin is difficult to understand. Nor is it easy to see how religion can be called a creation, either new or old. It
is simply a revelation.  As to its having required
four thousand years, or any other number, to prepare
man to receive it, this is a transparent error. It is
some of Dr. Schaff's Christologic mythology. Abel,
Moses, Abraham, and millions of others, would tell
us otherwise. Revelation tells us that our religion
was revealed to, and received by Abel.
384. Dr. Schaff (page 139) says, that " Judaism




Errors of Authors.              169
and heathenism  were the great religions of antiquity which served to prepare the world for Christianity."  And in the next paragraph he says that
" Judaism is the religion of positive, direct revelation."
Now I think it is clear that heathenism never did
anything to prepare the world for Christianity, or
did anything in any way promotive of true religion,
but was always, as it is now, its deadly enemy.
Indeed, it is impossible, in any view, that heathenism could prepare anything for Christianity, since
Christianity is older in the world than heathenism.
And as to Judaism —or call revelation by what
name you may-that is Christianity.  True, ancient, ante-messianic Judaism is certainly Christianity, though false, modern Judaism is not.  What a
blind doctor! creating and  aggravating  religious
disease with one hand, while he tries to cure it with
the other.
385. Mr. Sawyer, in his Organic Christianity,
says, "All men agree that Jesus Christ organized
the Christian Church; but the precise constitution
He gave it, the offices He established in it, and the
powers attached to those offices, etc. - all these and
other points are matters in regard to which there is
great diversity and contrariety of opinion."
Mr. Sawyer, in his Preface, tells us he writes for
the "defense of Church democracy."  Conceding,
then, that the above proposition is true, he has certainly an easy task to perform. Concede that, and
it is almost infinitely easy to prove either Church
democracy, Church aristocracy, or Church monarchy.
One form  of government is as easily proven as
another, and nothing can be more easy than to prove
either.




170.           The City of God.
But Mr. Sawyer did not reflect that the above
proposition could not possibly be true, because it is
a contradiction.  Either member of the sentence
might be true, but both cannot, because one denies
what the other affirms. He says we know that
Jesus Christ organized the Church, but do not know
what offices He created, nor what powers He gave
to them. To organize a Church means to organize
its government. There is nothing else to organize.
And to organize a government means to fix its
offices, or at least the principal ones, and prescribe
their powers. Government consists in Legislation,
Judicature, and Execution; and so, to organize a
government, is to establish the offices, and prescribe
the functions thereof in these departments.  To
know that a government was established is to know
the very things Mr. Sawyer says are not known.
He says we agree upon a certain thing, but disagree
as to all the component parts of it. That is a contradiction.
It is granted that a government once formed
might be modified indefinitely; that is, its legislature might be added to indefinitely, or reduced to
one person; and the mode of keeping up the succession might be changed. And so of the other elements. But to say we do not know of any legislative functions established in the Church by the Saviour, nor any judicial functions, nor any executive
functions at all, is merely saying, in other words,
that we have no knowledge of his having organized
the Church. To know He did the thing is simply
a knowledge of having done the several things which
constitute it.
Now, as Mr. Sawyer's entire argument of near




Errors of Authors.            171
five hundred pages, setting up the theory of Church
democracy, is built upon a fiction, a thing he says we
do not know; the exposition of the fiction, the removal of the single pedestal on which the entire theory is built, will be the destruction of the argument.
There, I hold, is a complete answer to his book.
It is precisely as if one should say that Marc Antony founded the government and city of London,
and go on with a book full of particulars thereof to
the present time. Now, if I were to show that Marc
Antony was never in Britain, that he established no
government there, then in a single paragraph I have
answered the entire book. Moreover, in this supposed government, there was no legislation, no judicial or executive departments established. Then how
do we know there was a government?
386. Harbaugh says, " In the New Testament, we
see on almost every. page, that Christ came into the
world to establish a Church or kingdom."  (Union
with the Church, p. 76.)
Yes, if you mean that Christ came into the world
in the days of Adam. It was to establish his kingly
rule; and a Church, i. e., the association of Christians,
was the natural consequence.
387. Bishop Stillingfleet; in the Irenicum, suffers
himself to be drawn into the inconsistency of supposing that the Saviour instituted a new Church. He
speaks of its "first institution," of the Saviour's " instituting his Church," of " setting his Church," etc.
And on page 201, he concludes the Church was under no obligation to form its government according
to that of the Jewish Church.  On page 281, he
says, " There was nothing in the model of the synagogue at all repugnant to the doctrine of the gospel,




172             The City of God.
or the nature of the constitution of the Christian
churches."  He then copies Tertullian's description
of the Christian Church and worship, in detail, and
says he could not have chosen words which would
better describe the synagogue.
Then what are we to understand when told that
the Saviour, or the apostles, formed a new Church?
I respectfully submit that if a full and exact description of the one is a full and exact description of
the other, then they are not descriptions of different
things, but of one and the same thing, under different
names merely. If from some local cause, either a
good one or a poor one, the adherents to Jesus in
this great Church trouble choose to disuse the word
synagogue as the name of the Church, that does not
in the least iota necessarily change the Church's
character.  The Bishop shows that the thing- the
Church - continued the same. Very well, then the
change was only in the name of it. Nothing could
be more natural than the continuance of the name
synagogue by the repudiating party, since, denying
the incarnation, they continued the ante-incarnate
modes of teaching. And so the other party must
needs disuse it to avoid confusion and uncertainty.
They must needs call their assemblies by some other
name. The word Church was, however, not used for
many centuries after. But the thing continued uninterruptedly, with no other change than the discontinuance of a few modes of teaching, or forms of ceremonial worship, which, in their nature, were anteincarnate.
388. Mr. Henry ( Con., Acts iv. 32) says, " Multitudes believed even in Jerusalem; three thousand in
one day, five thousand on another, besides those added
daily," etc.




Errors of Authors.             173
To this it might first be replied, - Believed what?
Is it meant that they believed anything contrary to,
or different from any former belief? Surely not.
They now believed that the incarnate appearance of
the Saviour, formerly anticipated, had been realized.
This was the belief, and the sole belief, of those eight
thousand, and other multitudes then spoken of.
But if Christianity began with eight thousand and
more, probably ten times that number, how is it said
that the twelve apostles, almost or quite alone, began
the Christian warfare with the entire world against
them?  Hundreds of thousands, or a million or so, is
a pretty good number to begin with, for almost any
popular movement.  Is it said that these thousands
and oft-repeated multitudes, great multitudes, and
myriads, were the early converts from the opposition?
The reply then is that there is not the least information, or intimation, in Scripture, that they, or any of
them, ever entertained or put forth sentiments in opposition in any way to the teachings of the apostles,
or the Church now, about the questions then agitating the religious world. Indeed, the thing was impracticable in any view. Whatever doubts, fears,
hopes, or expectations may have been entertained by
any before, it is certain no one could or did believe
truly in Jesus, as Christ, before the resurrection.
No one could believe in a crucified and risen Saviour,
until Jesus was crucified and rose.  Nor was it practicable then, at the very first, for many to believe,
because not many could know of it. Like other matters of fact, there must be time for the information
to disseminate. The resurrection was seen by but
few; probably less than  a thousand  altogether.
Those at a distance could not know it, until they




174             The City of God.
had reasonable opportunity.  They must not only
hear of it, but it must be well verified. This could
not be done in an hour, a day, or a year, nor in less
than ten or perhaps thirty years or more, to all the
Church.
Now the evidence is clear that those Jews, who in
that age accepted the Christship of Jesus at all, did
so at the earliest period reasonably practicable. And
there is no intimation that they ever evinced or entertained any opposition to the teachings of the Church
then, or now. To this general rule, Paul was an exception.  Quite likely there were others in the same
category, though none others are mentioned.  These
eight thousand gave in their adhesion immediately,
almost as soon as the apostles themselves did.
389. Macknight (Pref. to Romans) says: " The
Judaizing Christians contended that there was no gospel Church different from the Jewish,.... and on
the other side of this great controversy stood the
apostles and others, and all well-informed brethren,
who, knowing that the Jewish Church was at an end,
and that the law of Moses was abrogated, strenuously
maintained that a new Church of God was erected."
It is unfortunate that such ecclesiastical romance
was ever written, and still more so, that it is put
forth by men of talent, learning, and piety. We are
admonished of the facility with which the truth may
be perverted by a mere thoughtless copying from
others. A moment's reflection will convince any one,
even moderately acquainted with the New Testament,
that there is not the slightest semblance of, or pretense to truth, in anything stated in the above extract. If any one doubts this, let him read the New
Testament from beginning to end, keeping the above




Errors of Authors.           175
statement prominently in view. There was not
only no such controversy, great or small, in those
days, but there is not in Romans or elsewhere an
allusion to any sort of controversy, debate, or difference of opinion between anybody about the Church at
all, or relating to it. There is not a word of history to show that anybody in those days saw anything in the then existing Church, call it Jewish or
what you may, that needed modification or change.
And as to a new Church of God, such a thing was
not dreamed of. I appeal to the book.
Now this is not a matter of opinion but of fact.
Then, if I am correct, as any one may ascertain with
certainty, I ask, who has perverted or misrepresented
the Scriptures more than Dr. Macknight? He has
not done it in this place only, but in hundreds of
places in his work on the Epistles. I say hundreds,
and mean hundreds.
390. " A new commandment I give unto you, That
ye love one another." (John xiii. 34.)
This passage has been subject to a singular fortune.
Mr. R. Watson (Conversations, p. 213) explains it
without any explanation, merely calling it the new
commandment. Dr. Clarke says the former commandment on the subject required only that we love
our neighbors as ourselves, and this new one requires
that we love our neighbors more than ourselves.
Doddridge says that "mutual love is peculiar to the
Christian dispensation," when everybody knows it is
part of the decalogue.
Those who look for a new Church, new religion,
new terms of salvation, new creation, etc., will naturally find support in this simple remark of the Saviour in his teachings. But we are also told there is no




176             The City of God
new commandment.  This is all easily understood, it
seems to me. The divine constitution is stable, consistent, and harmonious. What is called the giving
of the Law at Sinai was only the publication of a
grand constitution of immutable principles making
up the relation between man and his Maker. It is a
brief outline of the moral nature of things. It belongs not to times, places, or circumstances, but to
God and the race of man. But this law is imperfectly understood.  To many it is new, at least
portions of it. At this present day the great law of
neighborly love is new to many.
391. Scott's Corn., Pref. to Acts, says, "Eleven
men, obscure and unarmed, with the whole world to
encounter, produced the most extraordinary revolution that ever took place in the moral and religious
state of the world."
That would be marvelous if it were true.  But it
is marvelous in this, that there is no truth, nor pretense to truth, in or about it. In the first place, instead of eleven men to produce this great impression,
there were at the first thousands upon thousands,
great multitudes, even myriads, acting with the apostles, of whom there is not the slightest intimation
anywhere that they ever encountered the apostles, or
opposed them or the Saviour in any way whatever.
And in the second place, instead of producing a revolution, or essaying to do so, that is the very thing
and the only thing charged against them at the time
by their enemies.  This was the thing  charged
against them by the mistaken Saul of Tarsus, and by
the infidel writers of that age, Porphyry, Julian, and
such men. And this same complaint, and substantially none other, was continued against Paul after




Errors of Authors.            177
his conversion. And how did they meet it?  Always by a prompt and unqualified denial. They declared they were sustaining the old religion of their
fathers without change. 1Strange, that modern writers should make the same charges!
392. Dr. Paley (Evid. Chris., p. 488) says, "A
Jewish peasant changed the religion of the world."
The very reverse of what is notoriously known to
be true. The Jewish peasant, meaning our Saviour,
held firmly and finally, and the apostles after Him, to
the religion of their fathers, the regular written religion of the Church. The only thing He sought to
change was the religious errors into which many had
fallen. Who but his enemies ever charged that He
taught contrary to the teachings of the prophets?
I aver that a statement more untrue, or more notoriously untrue than the above, could not be written!
The voice of Christendom proclaims it untrue in that
it recognizes that very identical Old Testament as
a'part of the Christian Bible. It is venerated and
preached everywhere.
393. Dr. Stephen Olin (Works, vol. i. p. 259)
says of Christ, that " He has fulfilled and abolished
the law of ceremonies."
That is strange. Why fulfill a law He intended
to abolish? and why abolish a law after He had fulfilled it? In the former case He must have set us
an example He did not intend us to follow! And
in the latter He prohibited us from following the example He intended!
394. Alexander's Evidences of Christianity is a
school book, and goes out under the broad endorsement of the Presbyterian Board of Publication. In
it our children are taught that the Jews were rejected,
12




178              The City of God.
and the Gentiles were called in their room.  The
teaching is not that individual Jews were rejected for
personal wickedness, but that Jews as such, because
they were Jews, were wholesale, and for that reason,
cast off utterly from all hope of salvation.
This doctrine is abhorrent to Christian theology.
The well known truth is, that hundreds of thousands
and most probably millions of Jews, all the best portion of the Church at the time alluded to, were always, so far as we know, in good and pious communion
with God and his Church. Indeed, they solely, for a
number of years after the resurrection, constituted
the Church. They were peculiarly heroic, pious, and
self-sacrificing Christians. Rejected, indeed! Nevertheless many were rejected, but surely not as Jews,
- not because they were Jews, - but for personal
wickedness, just as men are always rejected, because
they reject Christ.
As to the Gentiles being called, the children would
be likely to learn from this teaching, in the unqualified manner in which it is stated, that all Gentiles are
now brought into the Church. The misteaching on
this subject is great, and ought to be corrected.
395. "All the various forms of religion existing
now, or that have existed in the world, are comprised
under four denominations, namely, Paganism, Mohammedanism, Deism, and  Christianity.  I do not
reckon Judaism among them, because, in its original
form, it was a part of the true religion, and identified
with Christianity."  (Newcomb's Chris. Dem., p. 8.)
If Dr. Newcomb had undertaken to point out what
part of Christianity is found in Judaism, he would
have discovered his mistake. It is difficult to see
what the Doctor means by Judaism in its original




Errors of Authors.              179
form. It has never changed its form.  The Penta
teuch is now as it was first written; and it was first
written as the oral teachings of the Church first were
396. Dr. John Dick (Theology, p. 78) says, "In
the Christian dispensation there are four particulars
by which it is characterized; a greater degree of
light, a new  system  of worship, a more abundant
affusion of the spirit, and universality."
Two of those particulars are true, and two are not.
Since the advent of Christ, and because of his advent
and teaching, the Church has a greater degree of
light, and likewise, for the same reasons, it has a more
abundant affusion of the spirit. But it has no new
system of worship, nor any universality it did not
always possess. The Church has never had any fixed
system of worship. It has always varied in different
ages and different countries. There were incidental
modifications in the times of the apostles, but not
greater than at other times, and as to universality, it
was always unlimitedly universal. It is a mere Irish
bull to suppose that the Church, prior to the incarnation, was confined to Jews. Of course it was; how
could it be otherwise? When outsiders went in they
were now  Jews, and their posterity after them, if
they stayed in. It was always just as it is now, religion is confined to religious people - to the Church.
397. Dr. John Dick (Theology, p. 19) says, " The
ceremonial law was connected with the ministry of
Aaron and his sons, and prescribed the mode in which
they were to conduct the services of the sanctuary;
but as soon as they were superseded by the new
Priest it became obsolete, and circumstances demanded a different ritual."
It has been already explained that there never was




180             The City of God.
any special, legal ceremonial law in the sense here
meant.  There always were, and are now, Church
rules about ceremonies, that is, external modes of
worship.  And also that before the incarnation, some
of these ceremonies, pointing forward to the incarnation, must necessarily cease on the occurrence of that
event.  But how  any one could suppose that the
Aaronic priests were superseded by the new Priest
is strange indeed. Although Dr. Dick says so in
this place, in so many words, and in many other
places substantially, yet no Christian ever did or
could believe it. No man would repudiate the idea
more peremptorily or more scornfully then Dr. Dick
himself.  Everybody teaches everywhere, that revelation knows but one Priest.
398. " Under this dispensation true religion consists in repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord
Jesus Christ."  (Fleetwood.)
Under this dispensation? And did true religion
under any other dispensation ever consist in anything
else?  May we not hope to see Christianity rescued
from the entanglements of such teachings?
399. "Of what sect the Apostle Peter was, sacred
history hath not informed us."  (Fleetwood's Life of
Christ.)
By sect is here meant the little schools of Pharisees,
Sadducees, and Essenes; as if it were a matter of
course that he belonged to either. Perhaps not one
in five hundred of the Jews then had any connection
with any of them.
400. Fleetwood's Life of Christ is not the only
book that teaches that the Sanhedrim, in sending
Saul to Damascus, and other such like acts, did so in
accordance with the religion of the Church.




Errors of Authors.           181
401. But the simple truth is, that in those things
they acted in gross and ignorant violation of the
Church. These acts were the unauthorized and mistaken doings of fanatics and irreligious men, a majority of whom chanced to rule the great council at this
time. But neither the Church nor its religion ought
to be held responsible for these acts. Pope Leo X.
sold indulgences; but the Scriptures did not authorize it. Moreover, at the time Saul was sent to
Damascus on the occasion referred to, the Sanhedrim
was not the ruling Church power, though it claimed
to be. It was now the ruling power of the apostate
Church, recently split off. The Church repudiated
the Sanhedrim, and acted independently of it.
402. Paley says: " St. Paul, before his conversion,
had been a fierce persecutor of the new sect."
This, if it be true, settles a very important question
between Jews and Christians, which has been, to
some extent, boldly contested for the last eighteen
hundred years. The great question in the days of
Paul, between - the apostles and their opponents, the
Jews who rejected our Saviour, was - which party
was the new sect?  That is, which had departed
from the revealed religion? Whichever party this
was, must necessarily have a new, human, and therefore a false religion. Each charged this home upon
the other. Each party claimed that it was adhering
firmly to the divinely revealed religion, and that the
other party was a mere new sect, with a new, and
therefore a false religion. Then, if Paley be the
admitted spokesman on the part of Christians, it is
acknowledged that the rejecting Jews were right, and
that Christianity is a heresy.
403. Dr. Schaff (Hist. Apos. Ch., p. 9) says that




182             The City of God.
"Christ, as Redeemer, is to be found neither in
Heathenism, nor Judaism, nor in Islamism."
Very well. Then if Jesus Christ, as Redeemer, is
not the Christ so frequently mentioned in the Old
Testament, and  so often  specifically named as
Redeemer in Job, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.,
be it so; and then we ought to hear no more about
Christianity. But for my own part, I can but believe that the apostles were right in claiming that
Jesus Christ was and is the Redeemer; that the
identical Jesus, and none other, was the Christ of the
Jewish prophets. The question is between Schaff
and Christianity.
404. And again (page 18):   For us, then, Church
history embraces a period of eighteen centuries."
I am unable to conceive of any principle of philosophy, religion, or ethics, upon which we have nothing to do with, or concern in, the history of the
Church before that time. A very large portion of
the sacred Scriptures is mere history of the Church
prior to eighteen centuries ago. And the inspired
Word tells us that it is all profitable to us for several
valuable purposes.
405. Again, he says: " The beginning of Church
history is properly the incarnation of the Son of
God."
And then, what of the Church, about which we
are told so much in Scripture, before the incarnation?
Had it no history?
406. On page 140, Dr. Schaff says that " Judaism,
along with the pure development of divine revelation,
embodied also more or less of human error and corruption."
I hardly know what to say of that remark. In




Errors of Authors.            183
my mind, it borders closely upon blasphemy, to say
the least of it. It cannot, therefore, receive less than
an unqualified denunciation. There are some things
about which we may not speak mildly. Human
error and corruption, in any degree, must not be
predicated of divine revelation.
407. On page 143, we are told that " Judaism and
heathenism, notwithstanding their essential difference, have some common features and connecting
links."
As different systems of religion, the aspects in
which they are understood by the author, they have
and can have no common features nor connecting
links, it seems plain to me. The one is revelation,
pure, infinite wisdom; and the other is a wholesale,
unmitigated falsehood in its inception and throughout. I cannot conceive of two things in more universal and deadly hostility to each other. In many
places the author speaks of them as the great twin
preparers for Christianity! This must not be permitted.
408. Conybeare and Howson (St. Paul, vol. i. p.
31) say that Christianity "is the grain of which
mere Judaism is now the worthless husk."
I do not know what is intended to be meant by
mere Judaism, unless the word is used in its proper
signification, which is to mean pure, unmixed, entire,
or absolute. And so mere Judaism is the written
Old Testament. And then the question arises, Is
the Old Testament a worthless husk?  I put the
question directly, and have a right to suggest a categorical answer.
No! It is the precious Word of God. It comprises a large portion of the volume of the Chris



184             The City of God.
tian Bible. Christianity requires that it be loved,
adored, honored, cherished, read, and obeyed. In
inseparable connection with the New, the Old Testament is the man of our counsel, a light to our feet,
and a lamp to our pathway. To repudiate either is
to mar the blessed Scriptures, mutilate revelation,
and dishonor God.
409. Mr. Thos. Olivers, quoted by Dr. Clark, says,
"The consequence of this opposition, both from
within and without, was, that great numbers of the
Hebrews apostatized from Christ and his gospel, and
went back to the law of Moses."
That is to say, they forsook the religion as taught
by the apostles, and apostatized to that taught by the
prophets. Mr. Olivers did not hear of the millions
who apostatized from all revelation, and se.t up a
falsely called Jewish Church; but he strangely hears
of numbers who apostatized from the New Testament
to the Old!
410. Again, Mr. Olivers says, "Here Christ is
particularly compared with Moses, and shown to be
superior to him in many respects."
I do not think so. St. Paul never compared Christ
to any human being. Such a comparison would be
strange. I suppose Paul compared Jesus, the man,
with Moses, showing his superiority, and thereby
proving that He was Christ.
411. Dr. Clarke says that Philip " preached the
gospel to the Ethiopian eunuch."
And I think so too. But then he only explained
the 53d chapter of Isaiah in doing so. And then if
the author is right here, as he most assuredly is, he
is wrong in more than a hundred other places where
he inculcates the belief that the gospel was first introduced and preached in the time of the apostles.




Errors of Authors.            185
412. I am  surprised to see a remark of Bishop
Watson's defense of the Bible against Thos. Paine,
page 36: " The doctrine and prophecy of Moses is
true.  The law that we have was given by Moses.
This is the faith of the Jews at present,.... and
no period can be shown from the age of Moses to the
present hour, in which it was not their faith."
What! Is the Pentateuch the faith of the present
Jews?  Then what is the faith we call Christianity?
I can conceive of no statement that could be made
that would more effectually sweep Christianity by the
board. Either Christians or modern Jews, one or the
other, have sadly departed from the Old Testament
faith; and if the present Jews have not done it, then
the Christians certainly have, and Christianity is a
heresy. The statement above is precisely what, and
precisely all, that modern Jews claim. The Bishop
says they have a true faith. Not so; they have a
false faith, false because they have departed from the
doctrine and prophecy of Moses. The Pentateuch
teaches not a Christ, some Christ, but Jesus Christ.
If Jesus was not seen when Moses wrote, He has been
seen since; and it is now known that He existed then.
The Christian faith is true because, and only because,
it adheres to the doctrine and prophecy of Moses.
Is Bishop Watson a Jew?
413. Again, on page 63, Bishop Watson says:
"The books of the Old Testament were composed
from records of the Jewish nation, and they have
been received as true by that nation from the time
in which they were written to the present day."
Now suppose Thomas Paine had rejoined on this
wise: "You say the books of the Old Testament'
contain and teach a true revealed religious system of




186             The City of God.
faith. Secondly, you say, the Jews of the present
day receive, hold and possess this true faith so revealed. Then, thirdly, what of this new Christianity
of yours which you say is so opposite to the faith of
these Jews?  If any body believes the Old Testament, he believes it as it is, and not as it is not.
Modern Jews believe it as teaching a future Christ;
and you say, that is believing it. Then the Christian
faith cannot be true, because that believes the Old
Testament as holding Jesus to be its Christ. Two
opposite and hostile things cannot both be true.
Your faith holds Jesus to be the Christ of the Old
Testament; and the faith of the modern Jew holds
some other and future coming person to be its Christ.
And you say this latter faith is true. That is saying
that Jesus is not Christ. And then you complain of
me for saying the same thing.  I am  a bad man for
saying it in terms, and you a good one for saying it
by necessary implication! " What would the Bishop
reply to this?
414. " In the law of Moses retaliation for deliberate
injury has been ordained."  (Watson's Apology, p.
208.)
It is painful to see one of the finest and best religious tracts so terribly blotted and disfigured. Where
in the Old Testament is such an ordinance to be
found?  I need not inquire. A  far greater than
Bishop Watson has examined this specific matter, and
we have his exposition. " Ye have heard that it has
been said, by ignorant pretenders who understood it
not, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, that
private revenge and retaliation was the law; but, understanding and expounding the Scriptures rightly,
I say unto you that ye resist not evil." That is the




Errors of Authors.            187
teaching.  The Old Testament indeed enjoins a just
return of equivalents, as does the New, and as the
civil law does; but where parties cannot agree privately, this must be done by the civil magistrate, and
not by private revenge and retaliation.  See the
chapter in Ecce Ecclesia on this subject.
415. Bishop Burnet, quoted by R. Watson (Inst.,
p. 699) says of the ancient Jews, " And when their
sins had provoked God's wrath they were reconciled
to Him by their sacrifices with which atonement was
made, and so their sins were forgiven them."
And so we are taught that that was the mode and
manner of atonement for sin formerly; and now,
under a different system, we are reconciled by the
atonement of Christ. And so, we are told, this latter
is a better mode than the former. I doubt it. I am
not able to see the improvement. I would greatly
prefer the former mode. And if it were reinstated, I
think I could make ten converts to Bishop Burnet's
one. What miserable theology! God reconciled by
the blood of bulls and goats!
416. It is indeed wonderful how far men of parts
suffer themselves to be carried away by the notion
of two religions and two churches. I have before me
The Relation between Judaism and Christianity, by
the Rev. John G. Palfrey, D. D., LL. D., late Professor of Biblical Literature in the University at Cambridge, Mass., published in 1854, 8vo. 400 pages. It
is really a somewhat scholarly production; but proceeds from the title-page throughout, as a matter
never questioned, that the Old and New Testaments
present respectively two entirely different religious
systems. Moses is the founder of the one, and
Christ of the other; and they fraternize, and antago



188              The City of God.
nize here and there, so and so, in hundreds of points
of relation, just as Christianity and Mohammedanism
relate to each other.  But that all the books of both
the Old and New Testaments conjointly are a reve
lation of one identical religious system, is a thing
never hinted at by this University Professor of Bibli
cal Literature.  The two systems are fundamentally
and constitutionally hostile to each other, and only
agree in minor matters as Christianity and Buddhism
might agree.  This may seem strange, but there is
the book. And the ten thousand times greater evil
is, that such is the teaching of others too, that we are
not at all shocked at such a book.
417. On page 90, Dr. Palfrey says, " Judaism was
to be superseded by Christianity, the religion of
Moses for the religion of Jesus.  The substitution of
the gospel for the law was the establishment of the
kingdom of heaven, the coming of the Son of man."
The wonder is not so much that a professed theologian should write such absurdities and contradictions, but that they should be received and read, and
be suffered to pass for half-way theology in a Christian country for a single day.  To believe it, you
must first repudiate the entire drift of apostolic teaching and New Testament history.
418. Bryant, on " The Truth of the Christian Religion," quoted by Paley (Evid., p. 112) says, " The
Jews still remain; but how seldom is it that we can
make a single proselyte! There is reason to think
that there were more converted by the apostle in
one day than have since been won over in the last
thousand years."
If that statement were true it would be strange.
But so far from being true, it first, falsifies all his



Errors of Authors.             189
tory, and secondly, overturns the Christian system
completely.  The Jews still remain; that is, in the
religious faith and status of the prophets; and require to be won over to a different religion. Then
the Old Testament is just as far from Christianity as
the modern Jews are.  They remain together and
equally oppose true religion. Any person believing
the  Old Testament must be won over from  it.
And then on attempting to believe the New Testament, he finds, as unquestioned matter of fact, the
very same system of truths he has just repudiated;
and worse still, if possible, the new system everywhere openly professes to draw every doctrine it has
directly from the Old Testament!
The fallacy of supposing the three thousand alluded
to on the day of Pentecost, and others in that period
who never opposed Christ or the apostles, being won
over, is abundantly exposed and refuted elsewhere
herein. Those who oppose Christ, either in the person of Jesus or otherwise, and they only, require to
be won over.
419. Dr. Stier (Words of the Lord Jesus, on
Matt. v. 17) speaks of "the Church or congregation
hereafter to be built."
Yes, certainly, hereafter to be built.' That is precisely right if you properly understand the word
built.  Hereafter to be edified, to be strengthened,
to be more and more cemented together, enlarged
and blessed.  So all Christians are building the
Church now.  See the Essay on Matt. xvi. 18.
420. Brown's Epistle  of  Peter, p. 73, says:
"Final salvation was the subject of Old Testament prophecy."  And again, " Final salvation is the
subject of Old Testament prediction."




190             The City of God.
I do not see how the Old Testament, more than
the New, can be spoken of as a prophecy or prediction. There are in both many things in the nature
of prediction of future events. But that the Old
Testament is a prophecy, fulfilled in the New, is a
strange fancy.  The Old Testament is teaching,
didactic teaching. "Thou shalt have no other gods
before me."  Is that prophecy? "Ho, every one
that thirsteth, come ye to the waters! "  Is that a
prediction of some future Christianity?
421. Ecce Homo is a recent publication that has
attracted some attention in some places. Its rhetoric
and classical style are elegant. Its matter is semiinfidel; its historic basis is utterly and notoriously
fabulous. It undertakes to deprive the Christship of
Jesus of all and every divine attribute, by showing
up our Saviour as a great man. This the Scripture
never does. Greatness in Jesus is never predicated
of his manhood, but always of his divinity. Jesus
Christ was not a man rendered wise and good and
great by divine afflatus or extraordinary inspiration.
How, as man, He would measure with other men, we
have no knowledge. Here Scripture is totally silent.
And when we know  nothing, we had better say
nothing.
Ecce Homo is an elegant romance. The name of
its hero is Jesus Christ.  He is a new character, now
for the first time known to literature. The scene of
the romance is the New Testament history, and the
plan is to put this wonderful and mysterious man
Jesus into the shoes of the true Jesus, and then
make him perform wonders which, while in external
form they somewhat resemble many things acted by
our Saviour, are really things which neither He nor
the men of his time and faith ever heard of.




Errors of Authors.           191
On page 49, we are told as follows: " To deny
that Christ did undertake to found and to legislate
for a new theocratic society, and that He did claim
the office of Judge of mankind, is indeed possible,
but only to those who altogether deny the credibility
of the extant biographies of Christ." On page 59,
we read that " Christ announced Himself as the
founder and legislator of a new society." On page
61, the author begins to " deal with the actual establishment of the new Theocracy."
I suppose it is of no use to attempt to meet romance with either truth or argument. No man can
read the sacred biographies of our Saviour, with an
eye directed to the point, and not be compelled to
know that there is neither semblance, nor pretense to
historic truth in any of these statements.
The book is a novel, founded on fact, as they say.
The name of the hero, the chronological period, the
geographical location, New  Testament names and
circumstances, are mostly familiar, and will be readily recognized as belonging to apostolic history.
Christ was a most remarkable man; in many respects one of the most remarkable, and in some the
most remarkable, known to human history. Traits of
greatness began to sparkle in his boyhood. Springing from the lower walks of life, and unendowed
with either literature or philosophy, He was slow in
recognizing his own powers. As manhood began to
dawn he felt the slumbering powers of popular control coursing within Him. He had quick and keen
perception of men and character. The spirit of the
times was propitious. The Mosaic government was
feeble with age, and slowness to keep pace with expansion and progress did not escape his keen pene



192              The City of God.
tration. Christ saw the opportunity for revolution,
and grasped it.  Keeping his own counsels, as the
horizon of thought enlarged, He planned the total
destruction of Judaism, its religion and its civil polity! He began on a small scale the nucleus of an
opposing republic.  He gathered around Him  the
right sort of men.  He outgeneraled the greatest
captains, outplanned the best statesmen, outpeered
the wisest philosophers, and in controlling popular
sentiment and feeling He outwitted the shrewdest
men, and overturned the solidest combinations of his
country and times. So Christ demolished and utterly
destroyed the  Jewish religion and  Jewish state,
erecting on the ruins thereof a totally new and much
purer system of morals, into the belief and practice
of which He has drawn some millions of followers.
Like other conquerors He lost his life in the struggle,
and.died in the arms of victory. Such is one of the
latest, and, bating its bald Unitarianism and semiblasphemy, perhaps one of the best late novels.
422. Fleetwood (Life of Christ, p. 486) says of
Paul: " Having refreshed himself after his voyage,
the Apostle sent for the heads of the Jewish consistory
at Rome, and related to them the cause of his coming
in the following manner:' Though I have been
guilty of no violence of the laws of our religion, yet
I was delivered by the Jews at Jerusalem  to the
Roman governors, who, more than once, would have
acquitted me as innocent of any capital offense,'" etc.
We have a most instructing lesson in the last
chapter of Acts, from the 17th verse onward. We
learn here a very important lesson about Paul's ministry. He called together the chief Church officers of
the Jews, the rejecting Jews, and held a conference




Errors of Authors.           193
with them, of which we have a very brief notice.
He calls them brethren, and explains that in advocating the Christship of Jesus, he did "nothing
against the people or customs of our fathers." He
had preached no new religion, changed no customs,
either of the Church or of society.  He had kept
straight forward in the  track  of his fathers.
They then asked him to preach to the people about
Jesus; and they appointed a day for this purpose;
and he " persuaded them concerning Jesus, both out
of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from
morning till evening;" how many days we are not
informed. Some believed, and some did not. As
they had " great reasoning " about the matter, Paul
must have explained that the Lord's Supper and
Baptism  were changes of mere form, and not of
substance, and that this was from absolute necessity.
He declares he had done nothing but hold firmly to
Moses and the prophets.
Now the remarkable point here with Bishop Fleetwood is, that after calling particular attention to
Paul's declarations on" this occasion, he still speaks,
and on the same page, of Paul as having forsaken
Moses and the prophets, and entered a new Church,
and preached a new religion. The contradiction is
so glaring, that it is remarkable.
423. Fairbairn accounts for the mistakes of other
writers on typology, by saying that " The gospel is
read not only through a Jewish medium, but also in
a Jewish sense."
I cannot tell what he means by Jewish sense.
The Jewish mind, drift of thinking, religious impression, belief and sentiment before the incarnation, and
the same thing called Jewish since, are as opposite
13




194              The City of God.
and antagonistic as any two things can be, and in
every respect, too; to which of these does the author
refer?  He does not seem to discriminate.
424. MacEwen on the Types, quoted in the Religious Encyclopcedia, says of the types of Scripture:
" Some of them  afford intrinsic evidence that the
Scriptures which record them are given by inspiration of God; the others can be proved to exist only
by assuming the fact.  But all of them, when once
established, display the astonishing power and wisdom of God; and the importance of that scheme of
redemption which was ushered into the world with
such magnificent preparations."
Revelation was not all made at once, but at many
times through a period of two thousand years and
more.  Neither was it all verbal, though we have it
in a verbal and historic form. Very much of revelation, when first seen, consisted in actions, such as the
contest between Moses and the Egyptian magicians,
the passing of the Red Sea, the performances of
priestly actions, the protection of Daniel from the
lions, the death and resurrection of Jesus, and many
others. Now, that all this revelation had a historic
connection, so as to form one solid whole, is very certain; and hence previous ones may be said to be
types, or pre-intimations, or pre-representations, or
as they often were, fore-symbolizings of later ones.
Indeed, they were all, not only historically related,
but historically connected.
But it is not true, as Dr. MacEwen supposes, that'
the revelations prior to the incarnation formed a complete integral whole, and those afterwards a complete
whole, and that the former were merely preparations
for the latter. This idea grows out of the popular




Errors of Authors.             195
blunder of two different dispensations of different
laws and principles of atonement.
The doctrine of a dualistic revelation is not true.
And so when he writes about that scheme of redemption which was ushered into the world at the
time of Jesus, and that all before was mere magnificent preparations, he writes what I am unable to receive.
This idea of a specific dualistic revelation has
given rise to systems of typology, which have been
carried to very fanciful and unwarrantable lengths.
Everything in the Old Testament, they would teach
us, was a mere type or prefigurement of some real
principle or doctrine of the real and proper revelation of the New Testament, when Christianity was
ushered into the world.  There is no such relation
between the different parts of revelation. The whole
form one complete Christian Bible.
425. Coleridge (Aids to Reflection, vol. i. p. 296)
says, "Circumcision was no sacrament at all, but the
means and mark of national distinction."
That depends upon what he means by sacrament.
Circumcision itself is not a sacrament, in the same
sense as the same thing might be said of baptism.
Both the circumcision and the baptism are modes of
administering the obligation to serve God in the
Church-state of religion.  Circumcision undoubtedly
was used as a religious rite. This is elsewhere fully
explained. There is scarcely room for difference of
opinion.
426. Dr. Barth's History of the Church upon
Scripture Principles is a brief synopsis of religious
history; in many respects an excellent manual of
reference for juvenile instruction. It is a German




196             The City of God.
work, republished in this country by the New York
Methodist Book Concern, in 1847, "for the Sundayschool Union of the Methodist Episcopal Church."
He entirely fails to notice the two greatest of almost all the religious facts known to history, namely,
the uninterrupted passing of the Church through the
scenes and period of the Incarnation of Christ, and
the defection and apostacy at that time of the rejecting or repudiating Jews, amounting to probably one
half of the Church.
427. Bridges' Christian Ministry, first published
in England in 1829, and afterwards in this country,
is a respectable octavo volume, and treats the subject
with fair appearances of learning and piety. But in the
first chapter we read, " A separate order of men were
consecrated to the great work of laying the foundation and raising the superstructure of his Church.
Twelve only were included in the original institution,
with a commission, bounded at first within the scanty
extent of' Immanuel's land,' but afterwards enlarged
with a tender of the promised blessing to'every
creature.' "
Now I think it is unquestionable, that every minister in the land, as readily including Mr. Bridges
himself, as any one else, on a moment's reflection,
will say that every part of the above statement is
untrue.  Everybody knows that his Church, the
Church of God, call it by what name you will, was
then already in existence, and had been for many
hundred years, as Mr. R. Watson and many others
say, "the very same Church."  Secondly, the
twelve only had no directions about any original
institution, but were commissioned to tell the Church
and the world, that the ancient and then existing




Errors of Authors.             197
Christ had appeared in the person of Jesus. Thirdly,
if by Immanuel's land the authoi means the land of
Palestine, he is mistaken in supposing their commission was so narrowly bounded. If he means the
Church, as it was then spread over the known world
almost, he is correct.  They were first to inform
the Church, and the world through the Church.
Fourthly, these promised blessings were certainly
no new thing in the world. Thousands and millions
of Old Testament saints could testify to the same
blessings through the same faith.
428. Dr. N. L. Rice, in his Romanism not Christianity, at page 17, says: " My first argument against
the infallibility of the Church of Rome is, that there
is no evidence by which it can be proved."
Waiving the logical point whether that is an argument, it concedes the important point that it might
be proved; that is, that it is a thing naturally capable of being proved.  Whereas, if the Church did
not begin to exist in the way claimed by Romanists
at all, namely, by being originally formed by Jesus
Christ, then the thing denied by the Doctor is not a
subject of proof at all —there could be no such
question - there is nothing to prove. Pity the Doctor did not see this point.
429. Again, page 297, he says, " Let us first inquire into the organization of the Church of Christ."
He now proceeds to inquire how, under what constitutional laws, the Saviour organized the supposed
new Church; to see whether these laws of organization did or did not establish the infallibility in question. But how much easier it would be to say, He
did not establish a new Church at all, with or without infallibility.  Then where is the question of




198            The City of God.
infallibility? Thus it is seen the Doctor puts into the
hands of his opponents a weapon that historic truth
does by no means furnish them, and with which they
at least keep him in an interminable and uncomfortable warfare. Why give them  the advantage of
such a question at all? Truth forbids it, and policy
revolts at it.
430. The Rev. John S. Stone, D. D., Dean of the
Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, publishes
the Mysteries Opened, 1844, a work generally well
written, in refutation of the High Church doctrines;
but the author greatly hampers himself by essaying
to prove that the Low Church doctrine is most consonant with the original Church, as it was said to be
first set up by Jesus Christ. Thus he makes the fatal
acknowledgment that the present Church originated
in that way. That is the very thing, and the impossible thing, he ought to require his opponents to prove.
431. Page 235, we read, " Christ did not cut off
the Jews from the hope of salvation, but only from
exclusive possession and enjoyment of the means of
that salvation."
That is much nearer the truth than many write
on that point. If the remark had been predicated
of some mistaken Jews who greatly misunderstood
their own religion, instead of the Jews, it would do
much better. The Saviour did not cut off anybody
from such exclusive possession, because nobody possessed any such franchise. But He taught such as
needed the teaching, then or now, that religion was
not exclusive.  It taught the good old doctrine of
the prophets- whosoever will, let him take the water
of life freely. He taught then what He had always
taught through the prophets.




Errors of Authors.            199
432. Dr. Collyer's Lectures on Scripture Facts
is an English book of respectable appearance. At
page 272, we read about the reasons why we should
regard Josephus' testimony about Jesus Christ as
genuine. One was, " A new sect having sprung up,
from this very event attracted the notice of both
Jews and Gentiles, and boldly, perseveringly and
successfully disseminating their tenets," which would
be likely to call forth such notice.
Here we are told that the apostles and their followers - half the whole Church - were a new sect
that had sprung up, who very zealously disseminated
their doctrines. Is this so?  Can any man name
one new doctrine that they taught? Will Dr. Collyer, or anybody for him, attempt to name one?
Surely we might suppose that among their doctrines, the doctrines of a whole new sect, one or two
could be named. And if not, then is it not a shame
to Christendom that our pulpits, our families, and
our little ones, are thus constantly cursed, wronged,
and misled by such grave and mischievous fables!
Now a moment's reflection will convince any one
that this question of a new sect was the only dispute
of those times. The only thing charged against the
apostles and those siding with them was, that they
were a new sect, perseveringly disseminating their
doctrines.  Dr. Collyer can take which side he
chooses, but it can but be seen that the affirmative
necessarily places a man with the repudiating Jews.
433. In his chapter on " The Prophecies of Moses,
respecting the Former and Present State of the
Jews," Dr. Collyer copies from former writers, as
innocently as hundreds of later writers copy from
him, the doctrine of the genealogical oneness of the




200              The City of God.
Jews of the present day, with the Jews of the time
of Moses and the prophets.
It is quite certain that either the Christians or
Jews of the present day are in ecclesiastical and religious oneness, by descent from the people known
as Jews, at and before the birth of Jesus. And the
only possible way to determine that question is to
ascertain whether Jesus is or is not the Christ of
the ancient Jews. That will determine it infallibly.
If Dr. Collyer's reasoning is good, then the modern
Jews are the true followers of Moses and the prophets, and Christians are apostates from revealed religion.
434. Leland's View of Deistical Writers was published in England a little over a hundred years ago,
and is considered a good exposition of the subject.
But he certainly labors under the inconvenience of
holding that Christianity is, and is not, a new and
different religious system from that of the Old Testament.  On page 374, he says the miracles of the
Saviour " brought over vast numbers of both Jews
and Gentiles, in the very age in which the facts were
done, and when they had the best opportunity of
knowing the truth of these facts, to receive a crucified Jesus as their Saviour and their Lord."
That remark has very good application to Gentiles, those  out of the Church; but what were
those already in the Church brought over to? The
Christ they believed in and worshipped was previously invisible to sense; and now for the first time
He appears incarnate, and on the first good evidence
of the fact, they accept Jesus as their Christ.  That
bringing over! It is remaining intact.
435. On page 163, Dr. Leland says, "' One reason




Errors of Authors.             201
of the extreme virulence with which he (Lord Bolingbroke) hath attacked the law of Moses and the
Scriptures of the Old Testament scenes to be the
near connection there is between this and the religion of Jesus, which he represents to have been originally intended by our Saviour as a system of Judaism."
Well, that is better than the teachings of Paley,
Barnes, Jenyns, Dr. Stuart of Andover, and many
others, who declare that there is absolutely nothing
common to both. Leland admits a near connection.
I do not see that his infidel lordship was at fault in
insisting that objections would lie with equal force
against the Old and the New Testament.  Dr. Leland undertook the unequal warfare, with the great
and shrewd infidel, of defending Christianity as a
system of religion new and different from that of the
Old Testament. This wrongfully admitted difference
and even antagonism, as it is often said, is the great
support of infidelity.
436. Not a little discussion has been had about the
origin of priesthood. Fairbairn (Typology, vol. ii.
p. 220) opens his discussion of the subject, which is
both long and learned, on this wise: " It is somewhat singular that the earliest notices we have of a
priesthood in Scripture refer to other branches of the
human family than that of Abraham."  He then notices that the first mention of priest is of Melchizedek; then Potipherah.  "Not till the children of
Israel left the land of Egypt, were they placed under
that particular polity."  Then comes the question,
" How and when did it originate?" and, " How did
they make their approach to God, and present their
oblations?' Did each worshipper transact for himself




202              The City of God.
with God, or did the father of a family act as priest
for the members of his household?  Or was the
priestly function among the privileges of the firstborn?  This last position has been maintained by
many of the Jewish authorities, and also by some
men of great learning in Christian times."
I understand the subject differently.  First, there
never was any priest, any atoning or real priest, mediating between God and man in reference to sin and
salvation, but CHRIST. You could not speak of Jesus
before He lived.  The atonement of Christ has no
special reference to times, peoples, circumstances, or
chronological periods, but is unlimitedly comprehensive and plenary, relating to mankind.  How much
of divine, priestly atonement is comprehended in visible acts, cognizable to our senses, we do not know.
But we do know that those acts which date eighteen
hundred years ago, had, before that time, a prospective reference, as they since refer retrospectively.
How well this or that person understood this theological subject, in the period before the incarnation, is
the same kind of a question as might be asked of persons since. What the divine plan of atonement was,
and is, is one thing. How well somebody understands
it is another and different thing. The general rule
is, the more light the more vision. A child three
years old is taught to pray and worship, and yet he
knows very little of the theology of salvation.
It follows, therefore, that those who look for the
priestly function, or privilege, or franchise of atonement, or the origin of priesthood, among such men
as Melchizedek, Potipherah, Aaron, etc., whether they
be Jewish authorities or men of great learning in
Christian times, are searching for that which does




Errors of Authors.            203
not and never did exist. There never was, nor could
there ever be any such origin, privilege, or franchise,
so long as it remains written that there is "no other
name given under heaven " for priesthood and atonement but the one name. Then let these speculations
about priestly functions cease.
Then, what was the function, calling, or office of
those men called priests in the ancient Church? If
they were not real priests, what were they? They
were teachers, teachers of the doctrine of priestly
atonement. Their peculiar business was to inculcate
the principle and truth of priestly forgiveness. How
did they perform these teachings?  By actions addressed to the eye. Why not do as teachers of this
same doctrine do now, teach with words addressed to
the ear?  For the reason that before such atoning
acts as were intended for the cognizance of our senses
became visible and historic, that was impossible. In
the nature of things such teaching can be performed
in no other way than by adumbrant pre-representation.
Before the events of Calvary, it was impossibleto
teach the doctrine of atonement in any other way.
Our instruments of teaching are historic and sensible; theirs were prospective and theoretical. They
taught a truth; we teach a fact. The men are called
priests, metonymically, as we frequently call a book
by the name of the man who wrote it.  They are
called priests not because they possessed any atoning
franchise, not because they stood any nearer to God
than other men, not because they possessed any atoning ability, not because the blood they offered, the
blood of bulls and goats, had any atoning efficacy,
but because they acted the forms of atonement visibly,




204             The City of God.
as mere instruments of instruction. They did, in the
only possible way then, what historic lessons now do
by didactic means.
Let a man try to describe something he has never
heard, nor seen, nor felt, nor smelled, nor tasted, and
he may have some faint appreciation of the reasons
why the people of those times did not teach the doctrine of priestly sacrifice as we do now. They were
shut up to the necessity of teaching in the manner
they did.
437. " The Church of Rome, however, erroneously
believe their priests to be empowered to offer up
to the Divine Majesty real, proper sacrifice, as were
the priests under the Old Testament." (Buck's Dictionary.)
And why not?  I know of no reason why the one
may not be as readily believed as the other. The
mistake here is, first, in supposing that the priests
under the Old Testament were empowered to offer
up to the Divine Majesty, real, proper sacrifice.
There is no sacrificial virtue whatever in the blood
of bulls and goats. The next error is in not distinguishing between Christ and Jesus. Jesus was only
the human manifestation of Christ.  Jesus had his
origin and life like other men at his chronological
period. He lived and died.  Christ is immutable.
Or, without raising any question as to the eternity of
the Sonship, He was at least here, in the full exercise
of all the functions of Saviourship, in the time of
Adam and his sons. And this leads to the third
error of supposing that Christ became a sacrifice for
the sin of the world, only at the period of Jesus' life.
And hence the misinterpretation of Paul, in supposing him to speak of a new principle, or law of sacri



Errors of Authors.             205
fice, whereas he means only new and better facilities for teaching and understanding it.
438. " With the beginning of Messiah's reign on
Pentecost, the law of Moses was abolished, and the
gospel in its elements, and with its conditions of salvation, first proclaimed."
In one of the recent public debates in Kentucky,
on ecclesiastical science, of which there have been
quite a number, the above is the carefully prepared
proposition of Mr. Brooks of the Christian Church,
so called, one of the debaters.  The law of Moses is
here explained to include, in the largest sense, all
that is preceptive or obligatory in the Old Testament.
It has no more to do with true religion, with salvation, or the conditions of salvation, than the Koran
or the books of Confucius. And as God is unchangeable, it never had!
439. I regret to see that Dr. Lange's Commentary,
recently published, fails to notice the uninterrupted
continuance of the Church through the period of the
New Testament history; and so, on page 4 of his
Introduction, he says, "The history of revelation
may be divided into the pre-Christian, and the Christian (not post-Christian) era."  And elsewhere he
speaks more elaborately of the "pre-Christian era,"
etc.
These expressions are certainly understood to mean
what the scholarly author could not have intended.
Pre-Christian may be proper enough if it have reference to the mere name of the Church, but to have
application either to its religious faith, or the outward
organization of its fellowship, is out of the question.
440. Dr. Lange says of Matthew: "Before his
conversion, he was employed in collecting toll and
custom by the Lake of Gennesareth."




206              The City of God.
This is entirely unknown. There is not a word in
Scripture as to Matthew's early religious history,
when or where he was converted. The history of his
early acquaintance with the Saviour is exceeding
brief. It merely says that he was a collector of
custom; that Jesus, after more or less acquaintance
with him-we are not informed —proposed to him
the mission and calling of his after life; that he complied promptly, entering upon those duties after
reasonable time to disengage himself from his former
pursuits. But to assume that he was then converted
is entirely gratuitous. There is not the remotest
intimation, even inferential, of such a thing. We
know he was a member of the Church, and that his
written creed, or faith, was that of the Church now.
It certainly might be that, like Saul of Tarsus, his
faith was only nominal, and he then unconverted.
But there is not the least intimation that it was so.
It would be clumsy and absurd enough to suppose a
man was unconverted, because he held the faith of the
prophets and believed the Old Testament.  All the
presumptions are in favor of early piety in the
apostle.  He accepted the Christship of Jesus at
least as early as Dr. Lange did, that is, so soon as he
was informed of it.
441. It is certainly a great blunder of Dr. Lange,
to speak, as he does in several places, of " the esoteric
religion of the Jews." The meaning is, that all true
religion prior to the incarnation was esoteric. Used
as that word is here, it means private, private teaching, or private religious faith. It is used in contradistinction to exoteric, which means outward, public,
or not restricted.
Before that period was there no religion for man



Errors of Authors.             207
kind?  Let a man reflect a moment on the idea of a
mere private offer of salvation.  Many Christians
object to ordinary Calvinism; but this is tenfold
more objectionable.  Are " Whosoever will, let him
come," and more than a thousand other expressions
of the same general import, esoteric lessons? Are
the Ten Commandments esoteric?  We have no esoteric Scriptures. If the Old Testament was formerly
esoteric, how and by what authority did it become
exoteric?  We are told the- Old  Testament was
abolished by Jesus Christ. Did that abolition give
it exoteric authority? It has been heretofore explained that as true religion, from the early occupation of Palestine by the Hebrews to the incarnation,
was called Jew, or Jewish, it was a simple truism
that religion was confined to Jews; that is, religion is
confined to religious people.




208             The City of God.
II.
THE APOSTOLATE.
WHAT office did the twelve apostles hold in the
Church? What power, duty, franchise, or function
was peculiar to them, or, including Paul as the thirteenth, what pertained to them especially, as apostles?
First. It was not to introduce or teach any new
religion, or new doctrines, tenets, or principles of
religion, or any new  rules of morals not already
known to the Scriptures, and more or less taught by
ministers everywhere.  This they certainly did not
do. They were not, as we are told in Smith's Bible
Dictionary, " sent forth first to preach the gospel,"
if by gospel you mean the universal offer of salvation
to all men through Christ. This had been done for
hundreds and thousands of years, by thousands of
other ministers, and was then being done every Sabbath day by other thousands.
Second. It was not a peculiar function of the apostolate to "found churches," as we are told by the
same authority.  This they undoubtedly did, but
only in common with other ministers.  Thousands
did the same thing at the same time, as well as before
and since. Thousands of churches then existed, not
only throughout the little province of Palestine, but
over the entire known world almost. The general




The Apostolate.               209
rule then was, and had been for hundreds of years,
to extend and establish churches wherever there
were ten persons of leisure. So this extending of
churches, however much or little of it was done, was
neither new nor peculiar. It was always so.
Third. Neither was it the apostles' business to set
up, or assist in setting up a new general Church, as
Romanists suppose.  This, we may conclude has
been pretty well proven, was not done at all by anybody. This, then, was not- their office. There was
no kingdom of heaven, to introduce and set up anew
in the world, either in the form of doctrines or principles of salvation, or of social Christianity manifested
in outward religious communion.
Fourth. Neither was it an apostolic function to
govern the Church, to administer its laws, ordain its
ministers, or supervise its affairs. This was at least
physically impossible. Look at the facts, and it is
utterly out of the question. It is the notion of many,
but will not bear the least touch of sober inquiry.
In that age of the world, the Church never numbered
less than several millions, spread over the known
world. With their means of travel, it was physically
impossible they could see it, even once in their lives,
much less govern its affairs. The notion that these
twelve men governed the whole Church for some
years is inseparable from the Romish doctrine of a
new Church being then formed in Jerusalem, beginning in the nature of a corporation, with twelve,
twenty, or a hundred members.  Such a Church, if
there had been such a thing, might have been
governed by twelve superintendents or bishops, for a
time. But there was no such Church.  The only
Church known to Scripture, or to history, never, in
14




210             The City of God.
those ages, numbered less than several millions, with
probably ten thousand preachers at the very least,
and spread over the known world.  The travel was
on foot. What practical government could they
exercise?
Fifth. It is said the apostles were bishops. Perhaps they were, if there were any bishops in those
times, i. e., what is now commonly called bishops.
Of this, however, there is no mention in Scripture.
If the Church then had what we now call an Episcopal form of government, there must have been sever4'l hundred bishops.
S.ixth. Then if none of these things furnish us
with the peculiar apostolic function, what was it?
This must be an easy question to answer. Let us
look slowly at the condition of things at that period.
Christ, as the second person in the divine Trinity,
had existed and been in the Church since the days of
Adam, but was not to appear and be seen as a man
until now. We see also the mode of this appearance. And we see also, not an unlikely thing, that
there were false pretensions to the Christship.
Hence the necessity of some certain way of identifying the true Christ. Now how was this to be done?
His miracles would do something toward it, but we
see that these alone were not sufficient. It required
the best possible evidence, and of every possible kind.
His death and resurrection was the best conceivable,
but even that had to be verified.
Let it be borne in mind that this simple question
of fact, whether the man Jesus was or was not the
Christ, was the only mooted question of any importance in the Church in those times. There were no
serious questions about doctrines, or Church govern



The Apostolate.              211
ment, or anything of the sort.  The Christship of
Jesus was the only question. The resurrection was
the highest proof, but to whom was this presented?
Necessarily to a very few.  The great mass of the
Church was at a distance, and could not possibly see
or know these things. They could'not even hear
about them for months or years.  At this time perhaps three fourths, or for aught that we know, nine
tenths of the Church, had never heard of Jesus.
But a small part of the Church lived in Palestine.
And of these, but a few hundred, or at most a few
thousand, had had opportunity to learn much, conclusively, of these great matters, or had made the
best use of the opportunities they had. The resurrection was known to but a handful.
Now the question arises, How is the Church, and
through it the whole world, to be authoritatively informed of the human Christship, with such certitude
that it may at once be accepted as a conclusive matter of faith? This question must be settled wherever and whenever fairly presented. There must be
no unreasonable delay.  Jesus being the Christ, He
must be accepted at once. And the question must
be presented to the whole Church as soon as practicable. Those few just there, in and around Jerusalem, who were in favorable circumstances, could
know and decide.  But beyond this handful, how
are the millions to know?
Here we see the necessity for the apostles. This
was their great office. They were witnesses.  They
were to testify to the Church and the world that
Jesus was Christ.  It was first necessary that they
themselves be convinced by the highest possible
sanctions.  Now  look at their training for several




212             The City of God.
years, fitting them for the office. At the time of the
ascension they not only knew the fact themselves,
but were impressed with the necessity of publishing
it to the Church and the world, of course " beginning at Jerusalem." This was the natural place to
begin; and then in the synagogues, everywhere.
Christ crucified could not be preached until He was
crucified; and not even then by those not well and
authoritatively informed of the fact.  None could
know it at first but the apostles and a very few others. The world must be informed. The apostles
were the special heralds of this great fact. But in
this they certainly preached no new doctrines, they
introduced no new religion, they set up no new
kingdom.
It was impossible that Jesus could be known as
Christ, even after the resurrection, for months and
years, by large portions of the Church. So they
could not preach what they did not, and could not
know.  The high apostolic office was, to make this
fact known. They were the messengers specially
appointed to carry the intelligence speedily to the
churches.
Imagine ourselves living a hundred, or a thousand
miles from Palestine.  We are devout, pious people,
trusting for salvation as the prophets trusted, to the
merits of Christ.  The Old Testament is our Bible,
its God is our God, and its Christ is our Christ. We
hear strange rumors from Palestine.  We are bewildered with these statements.  Some of them  seem
plausible, others almost or quite incredible. Enemies
are likely to misrepresent; while friends are not always free from exaggeration.  Our piety, if nothing
else, forces upon us an intense anxiety to know the




The Apostolate.            213
truth. The Scriptures favor the general statements,
but cannot be conclusive because we do not know
whether the facts precisely fulfill the prophecies.
Nothing could be more welcome to our pious ears
than to hear, in solid, reliable certainty, that Jesus
was and is the very Christ. Most of our information
comes roundabout and through many hands. 0, for
something direct and certain! But as we value truth,
we must receive this information slowly and cautiously, hoping it may prove true, but fearing it may
not.
Now this was, it must have been, the case with
hundreds of thousands of pious people then living.
Jesus was unknown out of Palestine, nor are we
warranted in believing that many in Palestine knew
much about Him.
Under these circumstances, 0, how welcome a
messenger was an apostle affirming, "We tell what
we know, and testify what we have seen! "  They
would tell the churches: " We know Him well; we
were with Him almost every day for several years;
we saw Him in his ministry, and in his death; yea,
we saw Him forty days after his death. We conversed with Him repeatedly and freely after we saw
Him die, and in his tomb."  0, the thrilling scenes
they would relate! 0, the responses they would
receive!
And then they not only related what they had
seen, but they were well backed up with the Holy
Ghost, by which they compelled belief in all who
were willing to hear the truth. So, while the piously
inclined multitudes heard the apostolic messages with
delight, and by them were filled with the Holy Ghost,
the proud scoffed, and the worldly turned away.




214              The City of God.
How natural was all this! How true both to reason
and to Scripture!
Watson's Theological Dictionary, art. "Apostle,"
says it means, " One of the twelve disciples of Jesus
Christ, commissioned by Him  to preach his gospel,
and propagate it to all parts of the earth."
This, which is all he says about the peculiar apostolic function, is certainly no description at all of
apostle. If he had said they were " men who lived
in Palestine," the statement would be true, but would
be no description of the twelve apostles, because it
would apply just as well to thousands of others. So
there were in that age, as well as in this, many other
disciples of Jesus Christ, commissioned by Him to
preach his gospel, and propagate it to all parts of the
earth. The description describes nothing.
Sometimes we are told they were messengers sent
to proclaim the gospel.  So were Abel, Noah, and
every other preacher to this day.
Their office was to proclaim and prove the great
fact, and then to explain, where they could, the necessary discontinuance of those religious ceremonies
that pointed forward to the visible work of Christ.
Peter and the other apostles seem to have understood their office as here stated.  "Beginning from
the baptism of John unto that same day that He was
taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection."  (Acts i. 22.)
There is stated the true apostolic function: to be a
witness with us of his resurrection. They were to
witness his resurrection, and consequently, of course,
his Christship, first to the Church and then to the
world. Nothing is said specially about their governing the Church, here or elsewhere.




The Apostolate.               215
What is meant, therefore, when we are told,
" They were his messengers, sent forth to proclaim
his kingdom; and after his resurrection, they were
specially selected to bear witness of that event?"
(Scott's Bible, Matt. x. 1.)
What kingdom were they to proclaim?  Surely,
nothing but what prophets and preachers had always
proclaimed.  And as to his resurrection, it looks like
a very diluted expression to say, they were specially selected to bear witness of that event. Not
the mere event surely, but the great, vital truth
which this event, taken in connection with other
events, proves to be true, namely, the divine Christhood in the man Jesus.  The Christhood was the
question.
" The apostles were unlearned men, brought up
in obscurity, and not used to speak before public
assemblies."   Dr. Scott writes that just because
other men do, and for no other reason.  There is
not a word of testimony to justify the statement.
If I should write that they were mostly learned men,
preachers of considerable standing, accustomed to
public speaking, the statement would look a little
more reasonable, and would at least be difficult to
disprove.
" As regards the apostolic office, it seems to have
been preeminently that of founding the churches,
and upholding them by supernatural power, specially
bestowed for that purpose."  (Smith's Diet., art.
"Apostle.")
Where there is difference of opinion about either
the meaning of Bible language, facts, or doctrines,
one can tolerate, and even have high respect for that
which he does not believe. But that is not the case




216            The City of God.
here. There is no rational difference of opinion here.
Did the apostles found churches? Where is such a
thing intimated in Scripture?  Churches already
existed all over the land, the very identical churches,
hundreds and thousands, no doubt, that merely continued uninterruptedly. What churches were founded,
beyond such ordinary extension of churches as has
been always going on?
Mr. James Anthony Froude, in a recent address
to the University of St. Andrews, says, page 31:
"I am not about to sketch the rise of Christianity.
I mean only to point out the principles on which
the small knot of men gathered themselves together,
who were about to lay the foundations of a vast revolution."
Let the blunder here be pointed out, and neither
the learned Professor, nor any one for him, would
for one moment undertake to defend the language.
Here the twelve apostles are represented as being
about to lay the foundations of a vast revolution. I
will not argue the question how irreligious the
Church was, at the period in question; but I must
insist, that to sweep out a house is a different thing
from  removing it and building a new one. The
former is reformation; the latter is revolution. The
religion of the Church of that day was not revolutionized, for it is our Bible, verbatim, to-day. The
apostles, and those acting with them, improved it as
much as they improved it. If it had been told Isaiah,
that the Christ he worshipped, and of whose appearance he prophesied, was going to overthrow his religion, and raise up a new and different one, he would
have taught his informer better.
To say that the apostles set on foot-a revolution




The A:postolate.             217
means that the religion of the Church, that is, the
Old Testament, in its religious teachings was radically and thoroughly erroneous, and so had to be destroyed, and replaced by new Scriptures. This is too
wild and fabulous to think about. Everybody knows
that, holding the Scriptures intact, the Saviour and
apostles, and all those cooperating with them, labored
to improve the piety of the Church, just as men do
now.  They did not change, nor seek to change one
of its minutest doctrines or shades of doctrine. They
introduced such new modes of teaching as the divine
incarnation rendered necessary.
As to the government of the Church, there seems
to have been no trouble or material change on that
score. It is scarcely alluded to in the New Testament.  It is nowhere the prominent subject of remark. The Sanhedrim seems to have discontinued,
not however, because of anything wrong in its constitution, but because its members mostly apostatized,
and thus left the true Church; and so this made it
the governing body of another, a different, an apostate Church.  The Sanhedrim, though never necessary just as it was formed, was, no doubt, a very useful means of exercising the higher functions of government.  In its later history, it was much abused.
Something much like it has nearly always been in
the Church.  It is the mistake of many who suppose
that this council, so frequently alluded to in the New
Testament, pertained to the entire Church at that
time. It had no recognized jurisdiction, beyond the
Judean portion of it. The Hellenistic and Samaritan
portions of the Church had, no doubt, their respective legislative and judicial councils, more or less
similar to, or differing from that at Jerusalem.




218             The City of God.
The disruption of the Church and apostacy of a
large portion.of it about Jesus, with the terrible
strifes and animosities that ensued, seem  to have
destroyed the sectarian jealousies between these three
denominations.  The great and vital question of the
Christship overrode and absorbed everything.
But these matters of Church government had no essential connection with the apostolate. That referred
to the far higher, and infinitely more important matter of ordaining forever, at the very first moment
possible, the great and fundamental fact of the divine Christhood in humanity, the world-wide pedestal upon which all human salvation rests.




Matthew XVI. 18.             219
III.
MATTHEW  XVI. 18.
THE expression here cited, " On this rock I will
build my Church," is relied upon primarily, or, with
its supposed surrounding supports it might be said almost wholly, to maintain the doctrine of a new and
different Church for Christians from the then existing Church. And it is at once obvious that this
must be understood as a settled starting-point, before
you can begin to consider either Romanism or any
other branch of High Churchism. All forms of High
Churchism claim only to have ascertained the manner in which this new Church was formed, and the
legal principles which were interwoven in it.
That such a construction has been given to this
passage is indeed remarkable; and that it has been
generally conceded, without debate or question, may
be regarded astounding. It is not less than wonderful, that the only important question here has generally been passed over, and a mythical question
about Peter substituted in its place. The question
about Peter, so much debated between certain Romanists and Protestants, is called mythical, because
it inquires only whether Peter, the apostle, acted this
part or that, in the formation of the new Christian
Church, when there was, in truth, no such formation
of a new Church. It inquires how a thing was done,




220            The City of God.
without first stopping to see whether it was done at
all, and when the thing never was done.
" On this rock I will build my Church." It has
been generally understood in the books, and until
lately has not been seriously and widely questioned,
that the words, " I will build my Church," were
equivalent to his saying, " I am about to begin and
set up a new Church, distinct and different from the
one now existing."  And then the questions have
run as to the newly enacted laws of the new Church.
No other Scripture except this has been cited, as direct
proof of the new Church.
Now, it must first be conceded that this passage does
relate to a new Church formation, before any ques-'tion can arise as to the agency of Peter, or any other
agency in it. So a reply at all about Peter's primacy, headship, or office in this new Church, of
course concedes that there was such a Church.
This expression of Scripture, " I will build," etc., is
made to mean the very reverse of what it does mean.
Properly understood, it means that no new Church
was to be made, but that the Church then existing
was to be improved. Now this shall be made so
plain, that there shall not be room for either doubt
or objection.
Jesus said that "on" something He would "build"
his Church.  Now what is build?  What is the
meaning of build?  See Webster's Dictionary (ed.
1857): "In Scripture, to increase and strengthen;
to cement and knit together; to settle or establish
and preserve. Acts xx. 32; Eph. ii. 22; 1 Sam. ii.
35."
Now as there is no authority or pretense of authority differing from this definition, one would sup



Matthew XVI. 18.               221
pose it might be allowed to settle the question.
When the Saviour said He would do to or for the
Church what is here rendered build, He said He
would increase and strengthen the Church, He would
cement it together, He would settle, establish, and
preserve it.  These words in such a connection, all
mean  about the  same thing.  The  definition is
slightly different in verbiage, in different editions
of Webster, particularly those published since the
death of the author, but there is no authority in the
English language, differing  materially from  this.
Edify, also, means the same thing.. Milton, in
"Paradise Lost," referring to the return of the
Israelites from their captivity in Babylon, and their
rebuilding the temple, says, -
"The house of God
They first reedify."
A building is an edifice.  Though of late years custom has mostly discontinued the use of the verb in
this sense.
Now, repeating that there is no English authority
opposing these definitions, can anything be more certainly understood? What is the use of a spy-glass
to see a thing a yard from you, or an elaborate argument where there is nothing to argue about?
This word build, with its derivatives, is used in
the New  Testament about seventy times.  Sometimes- according to the subject and sense-it is
translated build, builder, building, etc., and sometimes edify, edification, etc., as sense, taste, and
idiom  may seem  to require.  But here is an important fact necessary to be specially noted: whenever the act is referred to the Almighty, as in this
text before us, in all Scripture, it invariably applies




222            The City of God.
to some well known thing already existing, and never
to a new thing brought, or to be brought into existence. So when the Lord is said to build, the meaning is that He strengthens, enlarges, makes better,
edifies. Any other meaning will make the Scripture appear ridiculous.
This text, therefore, clearly establishes the doctrine
of a then existing Church, which the Saviour said
He would enlarge, support, build up, and edify.
Surely He has done, and is still doing all this.
And then the Saviour said He would do this building, this enlarging, and edifying " on " something.
Now what is the meaning of on? Let us go again to
the Dictionary.
On means " in consequence of, or immediately following; " or in pursuance of; as we would say, " on
payment of the money, I will deliver the goods."
Now, there is one vitally important thing we know
with unmistakable certainty, about the Saviour's future intention to edify, enlarge, or build the Church,
whether He said so on that occasion or not. We
know that whatever was done, or to be done thereafter, in truth, to, for, or about the Church, was to
be done on, i. e;, in consequence of, in pursuance of,
or immediately following the fact just then stated by
Peter, that Jesus was Christ. This was now the
great and fundamental question of the Church. Supposing that Jesus was, and is Christ, it necessarily
follows that everything done in, or for the Church,
must be done hereafter, - but could never be done before, — on, or in pursuance of that great fact. Now
and thenceforward, everything in the Church rests
on that rock, on that fundamental fact, Jesus is
Christ.




lMatthew XVI. 18.            223
The language of the text looks too simple for difference of opinion. Then to what purpose are these
lengthy discussions about Peter —what powers or
prerogatives were or were not conferred upon him?
What is to be gained by the success of either party?
If the Church was then and there made a new religious corporation or society, to have perpetual succession from that time, and work under its then prescribed charter, who cares whether the first president's
name was Peter or something else? If Peter was not
the first president, or bishop, then somebody else was,
and who cares? The supposition that the conferring
of some powers of government upon one or more leading Church officers then, fixes official or legal rules
for Church government now, rests upon the supposition precedent that Jesus Christ then made anew this
Christian Church. And this seen to be a palpable
figment, the whole argument, both sides alike, is a
palpable figment. The argument is about nothing.
Those who have no better use for ink and paper,
may debate whether " Peter was thus honored to lay
the first foundation of the Christian Church," or
"be the foundation thereof;" and who cares which
may be judged the winning side?  The question
itself being fictitious, how can the answer be anything more?
If the Church is not a corporation formed in such
way at all, as we have perhaps abundantly shown,
then let that truth answer every conceivable question
about High Church doctrines, Popish, Episcopal, or
what not. The entire range of ecclesiastical science
is thus reduced to a unit, and the Church literature
is relieved of vast burdens of polemical rubbish.




224             The City qf God.
IV.
THE ANCIENT PROMISE OF A SAVIOUR.
CLOSELY connected with, and growing very naturally out of the great blunder of an entirely new system of divine administration in the moral affairs of
mankind, sought to be rectified in these pages, is the
idea that very early in the history of men, God promised a Saviour to the world, to be furnished in some
future age. And this idea they claim to get from
Gen. iii. 15, where we read, "It shall bruise thy
head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."  And then,
as if to make the matter sufficiently ridiculous, the
divine promise is regarded as being announced to
mankind in this precise form of words; so that the
entire sum of human knowledge for four thousand
years was these exact words spoken to the devil; and
it would seem presumable, though it is not so stated,
that the words were spoken in the hearing of Adam
or Eve, or perhaps both.
From these words alone it would be impossible for
rational men to come to the conclusion that the
world at some future time was to have a Saviour,
and if so, what that Saviour was to do for mankind.
From this teaching we learn that the seed of the
woman would bruise the head of Satan. But when,
where, how, to what end, for what purpose, and
several other things. easily conceived as necessary




The Ancient Promise of a Saviour.    225
to a rational understanding of the declaration, are
not alluded to. So of what advantage could such
a declaration be to mankind?
Moreover, it could not be very consoling to men
then, to be informed that the world, away in future
ages, perhaps some thousands of years thence, would
have a Saviour. It reminds one of the child who
came crying with hunger to his father, who replied,
"Never mind my son, I'm going to plant some beans
to-morrow."  The promise was sadly inadequate.
God never promised the world a Saviour. On the
contrary, He furnished the world a Saviour, full,
complete, adequate in all the functions of Saviourship
at the very first, From the first, Christ, our only
Saviour, was in full sympathy and activity. Then,
there, and not four thousand years afterward, He
undertook our cause. He began at the beginning, at
the right time, at the right place, and in the right
way. And He will finish it, not partially, but fully,
completely, in the shortest time possible. The bruising of that head was a far greater work than many
seem to think. A little has been done towards it
already, and the prediction will be fulfilled. In four
or five thousand years, or thereabouts, Christ manifested Himself to men, continuing his work uninterruptedly.
What we read in Genesis is the language of Moses;
what he wrote, in exceeding brief, laconic language,
many hundred years afterward, about God's early
teachings to mankind. How voluminous or extensive in detail these teachings were, or indeed exactly
how they were communicated, we are not informed;
but we are obliged to believe they were quite sufficiently voluminous to be fully intelligible and prac15




226             The City of Cod.
tical.  They were wisely and mercifully communicated to rational and intelligent beings for their
practical advantage.  It is impossible to suppose
they, as a whole, fell short of making up a complete,
intelligible, rational, religious system, in full accord
with everything else revealed in Scripture. The
supposition that it consisted wholly in this expression,
"It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his
heel," looks exceedingly Lilliputian. That was the
sum of it.  Moses wrote history.  His history of the
antediluvian age, and particularly the fore part of
it, is very laconic. What occurred, in full detail, is
one thing; what Moses wrote to us about it is quite
another.  This is the nature of all history. If Moses
had written ten thousand times more -than he did,
which certainly might have been, it would probably be of but little benefit to us. He wrote what
he wrote, and no more.
But he certainly did not write that God promised
that we should have a Saviour in some future age.




The First Church Council at Jerusalem.  227
V.
THE FIRST  CHURCH  COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM.
THE 15th chapter of Acts contains a very brief notice of some misunderstanding or disturbance in the
Church at Antioch, about the necessity or propriety
of continuing the rite of circumcision, and no doubt
other such obsolete ceremonies in the Church, which
seems to have been quieted by referring the matter
to the brethren at Jerusalem. Much more has been
made out of this affair than was ever dreamed
of by those who participated in it. It was not at all
unnatural or unlikely that such a question should
arise, nor that it should be quieted in the way it was,
without supposing any legal jurisdiction over such
questions to have resided with " the apostles and
elders " at Jerusalem.
Those who raised this question and favored the
continuance of the rite, were believers, -they "believed."  Believed what?  Evidently they were
members of the Church, and believed that Jesus was
the Christ. This was the only question then rife in
the Church.
Let it be understood that the ceremonies that discontinued in that period were exclusively those
which, in their external aspects and teachings, pointed
forward to the only atoning sacrifice of Christ; and




228             The City of God.
the discontinuance was because that sacrifice had
now  transpired.  Christ had now  made Himself
visible to the eyes of men; not that He now began
to atone for sin, for He was no more a Saviour now,
than He had always been. But He had now appeared; and so those teaching ceremonies that adumbrated the appearance must, of course, cease.
But it was not perfectly easy for every one, at the
first, to see and understand this necessity. Habit
had very deeply established these ceremonies. Many,
no doubt, did not well understand the reason for
them, and so, of course, they would be still more
slow to understand a reason for their discontinuance.
There was certainly no authoritative abrogation of
them, else it would be easy to point to the decree,
and there would be no necessity of sending to Jerusalem, to consult apostles and brethren about this question, nor any necessity that the brethren at Jerusalem should come together to consider this matter, nor
give opinions or sentence about it.
How both these things can be believed, is indeed
strange. And yet we are, in hundreds of places,
taught, first, that the whole " Ceremonial Law," as
they call it,' of course including circumcision, was
formally and authoritatively abolished by our Saviour; and then, that twenty years afterward, a
Church council was convened to consider, and give
sentence, whether circumcision should be continued
or not in the Church. But if you understand this
Church council in any sort of proper sense, it is as
easy to believe both things, contradictory as they are,
as to believe either.
Nothing is more easy now to see, than that the
discontinuance forever of circumcision, passover, etc.,




The First Church Council at Jerusalem.  229
was a necessary consequence of Christ's human appearance and visible work; but it does by no means
follow, that all would readily see it then. These
were great and important matters, more new then
than now. It would naturally take some time for
the mind of the Church to settle and adjust itself.
Some would see more readily than others. This, and
all such like disputes, in those times, for there were
many, were very natural.
But why was this question referred from Antioch
to Jerusalem?  Why not refer it to any other
Church?  There were scores, hundreds, yea thousands, all over the country.
A Romanist would answer this by saying that the
newly formed Christian Church had its headquarters,
its president and council, in that city, and that there
only could an authoritative decision be had, for these
apostles only could dispense the new religion.
But suppose there was, or had been, no new
Church or new religion, then how stands the case?
Then and in that case, there was no more of Church
authority in the Church at Jerusalem, than at Antioch, Cesarea, Damascus, Joppa, or churches of Macedonia, or elsewhere. Who made James, or Peter
either, a supreme president of a supreme Church
council? And what becomes of the question whether
the name of the first president was Peter or something else, since there was no such first Church or
first president?
It is seen therefore at a glance that this whole notion of supreme authority in the apostles and elders
at Jerusalem, is inseparable from and rests wholly
upon the Romish fiction of a new Church and new
religion. Let this be reduced to sober truth, and the




230             The City of God.
whole fabric is reduced to ruins. And then, also,
this great question, great in the estimation of some,
whether Peter or something else was the name of the
supreme bishop, is disposed of without any great
logical crash, by seeing that the entire story is a
fiction. There was no new Church.
Nevertheless, nothing is more natural than the
rise among honest Christians, at Antioch, of this
question about the Church rites with which they had
all been familiar all their lives; nor than that Paul
and Barnabas should "go up to Jerusalem, unto
the apostles and elders, about this question," that
they should gravely consider it, and give their advice
and counsel, and write a letter of greeting to their
brethren away yonder in Syria, in Antioch, and
Cilicia, about the matter.
They in Syria knew very well that in Jerusalem
they would meet, most likely, some of the apostles
and other grave elders of age and wisdom who had
had much personal intercourse with Jesus, and whose
advice would be almost, if not quite certain to quiet
the minds of the brethren. In that age much more
than in this, learning, wealth, wisdom, and influence
of all kinds concentrated in the cities, and especially
in the larger ones. Jerusalem was not only much the
largest and oldest city in the land, but was the great
religious capital, and had been for many hundred
years. But the Church, the entire Church, had
neither at that time, nor any other, any general
acknowledged synod, conference, or assembly. The
Sanhedrim we read so much about in that city had
no acknowledged jurisdiction beyond Southern Judea,
and perhaps more or less at times in Galilee. Samaria, and all Grecian and African countries had their




The First Church Council at Jerusalem.  231
own Church  governments.  So that it was very
natural and proper that these people in Syria should
send to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for ad
vice and counsel, but not for any legal decision about
this question. Let it be well understood, that the
Church in those ages, during every day of those
ages, was scattered thousands of miles over the known
world; much of it in interior countries, with very
slow and difficult intercommunication.  Many think
and write about it as a thing to be seen at one time
and one place, whereas it was so situate and conditioned that, as a whole, it could understand itself
about nothing under a number of years.  We see
that this great question of the Christship in Jesus
was not settled in all the Church for a long time,
probably thirty years or more.
Circumcision, and these other ceremonies, did not,
therefore, cease all at once. It required time, and
thought, and habit, for the Church to adjust itself to
their entire disuse. Men conformed their thoughts
and conduct to the truth and apostolic teachings, as
they better and better understood the remarkable
circumstances through which they were so rapidly
and strangely passing. I say strange because, strikingly unlike all other men that ever lived, they lived
both before and after the life and -death of Jesus.
They saw and felt the Church pass through the most
unique and wonderful crisis and period of its history,
actual or possible. This period was necessarily brief,
and in that country necessarily presented the most
rapid succession of thrilling scenes, at times almost
bewildering, and of the most vital importance.
The thought would not necessarily occur to every
one that such and such particular ceremonies would




232            The City of G-od.
be contradictory after the death of Jesus. The reason for the non-user was the same then as now, but
many did not readily see it; and though it was constantly taught by the apostles and others, yet, like
any other teaching, it was not always promptly and
readily received and appreciated. Many do not seem
to see its reasons very clearly now.
It was not by any means at Antioch alone, and on
this occasion, that this question arose and troubled
the Church; we have frequent intimations of the
same thing at other times and in other parts of the
Church. Two things, however, are certain: First,
circumcision was not discontinued by any formal enactment of abrogation, or decree, as many writers
teach; if so, there had been no disputation or different opinions about it. And secondly, the Church at
Jerusalem, its council or its bishops, had no more
legal authority or jurisdiction over the question than
the Church anywhere else. That Church no doubt
had its bishop, but he was no more, in a legal sense;
than any other pastor of any other Church. He, no
doubt, stood prominently above most other bishops;
but if so, it was because of his age, talents, wisdom,
and opportunities for the best information, and not
because of any legal authority.
But whether this council, if any one chooses so to
denominate it, was presided over by James, or Peter,
or somebody else, or why by James, instead of Peter,
might be questions of some interest among High
Churchmen, who could probably interest themselves
in such a debate. But it is clearly impossible that
any but a High Churchman could participate in
such debate, because all such questions, in every
aspect they present, suppose and grow out of the




The First Church Council at Jerusalem.  233
doctrine of a new Church and new religion then and
there set up for the first time.
Then let any man understand that the supposition
that this council at Jerusalem had any general jurisdiction, is inseparable from, and indeed is but part
and parcel of the supposition of a new Church and
new religion.  And then let him  not forget as he
passes, that a new Church, at any time, is a natural
and philosophical impossibility, with not a word of
either Scripture or reason to support it. And that a
new religion, or any new doctrines at any time since
the days of Adam, is necessarily a false religion.
Let these necessary things be understood, and let
it not be forgotten that the people then and there
were natural people; that they thought, reasoned, and
acted, much as we ourselves would be likely to do in
such circumstances; and we shall find no great difficulty in understanding this council at Jerusalem.
A hard lesson for many people to learn is that
changes, often very considerable changes, in external
manners are necessary in order to maintain consistency of principle. This was the case with the Church
of that age, in a most remarkable degree.
In understanding the Scriptures, as in construing
any other writing, we must be careful not to violate
well attested facts, or well settled principles.  The
introduction of a new religion, and the setting up of
a new Church, by Jesus Christ, or under his authority, is, when looked, nay when glanced at, with a
sober eye, a transparent error; and, looked at specifically, it cannot stand for a single moment. It is
both historically untrue, and philosophically impossible. While it has been asserted a thousand times,
no man ever even attempted to summon proof, or to




234             The City of God.
make an argument to support it. It is not only the
pillar, but the sole pillar of all objectionable Romanism.
Scripture must be maintained inviolate, both in its
integrity and consistency.  Then we must not on
any account, for any circumstances of convenience, or
for any reasons, construe Scripture so as to make a
court, a council, or anything of the sort, suppose,
require, or assent to such ascertained error. Some
other construction must be found.
Now read all that portion of the chapter before us;
and if you read with care and without prejudice, you
will be surprised almost at the simplicity and naturalness of the narration. To give anything then at Jerusalem even the tinge of a forensic, legal, or judicial
appearance, among those honest hearted apostles and
brethren, in their simple, easy, wise, and discreet attempt to reconcile the troubles away yonder in Syria,
you are obliged to screw up, force, and hyperconstrue
the simple literature, and also imagine and add to the
condition of things greatly, before you can make out
of it anything of the nature of Church court, or legal
council with authority to decree and decide theological questions.
And if that " first council " possessed the judicial
authority attributed to it, upon what ground do you
ignore similar authority in a similar council, which
sat in Rome in 1870?




The Kingdom of Heaven.          235
VI.
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.
IT is written in the third chapter of Matthew that
John, called the Baptist, came preaching and exhorting the people to repent, for that the kingdom of
heaven was at hand. What we read here, it should
be remembered, is the language of Matthew, not of
John. Matthew, fifteen or twenty years afterward,
writes, historically, about what John did and said.
He uses his own language in notes of great brevity.
In this place his language is exceedingly laconic,
barely intimating the general burden, substance, or
at least some of the general things about which John
preached. We learn first that John preached. We
know what preaching is. And in his preaching, he
brought forward the subjects of repentance and the
kingdom  of heaven. In this we see nothing new,
though from the manner in which the thing is mentioned, rather than from the mention itself, we should
suppose it probable that John, when he went out
into these country settlements to preach, made the
subjects of repentance and the kingdom of heaven
more prominent than other preachers were wont to
do in those times.
The supposition of its being entirely new to preach
repentance might, perhaps, be excused in fanciful
sophomoric theologians who had been taught so, but




236            The City of God.
it is as well known as anything else in Scripture,
that repentance and the kingdom of heaven had been
always preached everywhere, by preachers generally,
for thousands of years. Certainly Abel, Noah, and
all the prophets preached it. And when John
preached it, he only preached what he read allthrough his Bible.  Nevertheless there was, no
doubt, just then and there, great need that these
things be made prominent in a practical ministry.
The words " at hand," " the kingdom of heaven
is at hand," have attracted the attention of some
theologians so as to make the words mean that a
new kingdom  was about to be introduced. And
then a lively imagination connects this idea of a new
kingdom to be introduced with a prophecy of Daniel
ii. 44, where he says, "In the days of these kings
shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom," etc.
And' the two passages are made to support the doctrine of the introduction of a new kingdom of Christ,
meaning thereby a new system of religion, that is,
new rules and conditions of salvation, and a new
Church.
It is evident that this supposed relation between
these two passages of Scripture is entirely dependent on the preconceived supposition of a new religion
being introduced into the world, at the time of the
Saviour's advent. Remove this idea; let it be once
supposed that the conditions of salvation in the days
of Adam are the conditions always; that Christ, in
the days of his advent, introduces no new system
of religion; and then it is impossible to talk about
setting up a new, spiritual, religious kingdom, for
the two expressions; mean one and the same thing.
A system of religion is a spiritual kingdom. A spir



The Kingdom  of Heaven.           237
itual kingdom is a system of religion.  In this sense
the terms are synonymous.
The word kingdom, with a large class of words of
about the same meaning, such as throne, sceptre,
dominion, etc., are used many hundred times in Scripture. They all mean nearly the same thing, namely,
the authority, rule, or control which God rightly
possesses and exercises over the hearts and lives of
men. The temporal idea of kingdom- power, authority, etc. - is seen at a glance; and the spiritual
idea, which the same words represent, is easily seen,
if we but notice the simplicity of Scripture language,
and avoid hair-splitting interpretations.
What is religion?  It is obedience to God. It is
the promptly accepted, ready, unresisted rule, authority, or kingly control of God through Christ in
the heart and life of man. Obedience, unquestioning, implicit, and full obedience, is the utmost any
man ever did or can do; it comprehends the whole
subject.  How easy then is it to transfer the idea
of the temporal rule of a king over his subjects to
the moral and spiritual rule of the Almighty over
his! The loyal subjects of a king obey the laws of
the kingdom  promptly and readily.  They meet
fully all their civil obligations.  And so, religious
people obey the laws of God in like manner. They
are loyal subjects of that kingdom.  How natural,
then, to speak of a religious kingdom, to people so
well acquainted with a civil kingdom!
So it is in this figurative sense that religion, or religious people, or collectively the Church, is called
a kingdom.  The submission to divine authority, as
expressed in Scripture, is like the civil submission
in the other case. When, therefore, we speak of




2a8             The City of God.
Christ's kingdom, or read it in Scripture, the kingdom of God, kingdom of heaven, etc., expressions
with which the Scriptures abound, that we are in it,
or belong to it, we easily understand the meaning as
submission to the divine authority; the absolute rule
of God in the hearts of men, in and through Christ,
as this system of rule and dependence is set forth in
Scripture.
Now did this divine rule, control, authority, this
spiritual supremacy in the hearts of men, begin at
the time of the Saviour's advent or at the first?
That is the same as to ask, Did God begin to save
men from sin through Christ at the first, or at the
time of his human advent? Did the prophets teach
the same principles of salvation as the apostles?
Did Jesus set up a new religion?  Does the New
Testament contain conditions of salvation different
from the Old?
To ask these questions is to indicate the answer
unmistakably.  They are not debatable questions.
No two men can answer them  differently.  And it
would be idle to suggest such questions, were it not
for the fact that a nuniber of Protestant authors do
teach, unmistakably, the introduction of a new religion entire, in the time of Jesus and the apostles.
Strange inconsistency; as palpable as it is strange!
Right here, exactly here, is the point of divergence between Romanism and Protestantism. Popery supposes a new religion, a new kingdom. And
thus arises her-teaching as to how this was done;
what new tenets, what new Church authority, what
office the first bishop Peter held, etc., to the end of
a long chapter. But upon supposition that no new
kingdom at all was set up, there can be no debate as
to how it was done.




The Kingdom of Heaven.            239
We ought not to debate questions until we get to
them. Debates, where there is no rational issue, are
unprofitable.  The passage in Daniel, as sometimes
interpreted, is put to a very great and unnatural tension by supposing it to describe the great Fifth Monarchy. That fable has long since ceased to attract
attention. Before any inquiry about it can be set
up, it is necessary to suppose that the principles,
mode, and means of salvation, in vogue at and before
the time of Jesus, came to an end.  This, as a specific doctrine, is absurd. It is more than simply untrue. That the world was left four thousand years
or more - for we have no certain ancient chronology
-without true religion, as true and good as the
world has now; or that any part of it was without
revealed religion, only exactly as that is the case
now; and that a fuller, or better religious system
became necessary; all this is so palpably at war
with everything taught in Scripture, that it is a
wonder that even the cause of Popery ever resorted
to such strange fancies.
There is not a word in Daniel, nor anywhere else,
that alludes to a new kingdom, or anything new in
the principles, conditions, or means of salvation.
These were fixed at the first, and always the same.
The kingdom  of God, the kingdom  of Christ, the
kingdom  of heaven, are always and everywhere
spoken of as universal, spontaneous, everywhere present, everywhere  accessible, everywhere  in  force,
everywhere available.  Chronology and history do
not divide or limit it; neither do geography or lines
of civil jurisdiction affect or improve it.
There were some few, we know  not how many,
in the Saviour's time, who had this same notion of




240            The City of God.
a kingdom of God to be set up at that time. (See
Luke xvii. 20-27.)  And they inquired of Jesus
when this was to be done. His reply ought to have
been satisfactory both then and now, but it was not.
He told them there was, or was to be, no such kingdom  as they inquired about. "The kingdom  of
God cometh not with observation."  It is not some
new thing to be seen.. it is not something historic,
something outward, observable, phenomenal, something to occur in these days. It is already. "The
kingdom of God is within you."  It is spontaneous,
not occasional. It is universal, not special. It is
not something to come, but something that is now.
You have only to submit to it.
And if any would understand the Saviour's reply
to mean that the kingdom, or a kingdom of God,
was indeed about to be set up, as a new phenomenal
or observable thing, but not with such visible aspects
and appearances as some anticipated, let him understand that that is supposing the absurdity of a new
religion and new Church, dating at that time.
The phrase " at hand," as in Matt. iii. 2, does by
no means, as many seem to suppose, always refer to
something future. Webster says it means, "Near in
time or place, either present and within reach, or not
far distant." It is used about thirty times in Scripture, and it sometimes refers to something then present, and sometimes to the future. (See 1 Sam. ix.
8; Jer. xxiii. 23; Ezek. xii. 23; Matt. xxvi. 46;
Mark xiv. 42; John ii. 13; Phil. iv. 5, etc.)
It is not denied but the prophecy in Daniel has
reference to the post-messianic period of the Church;
it is only intimated, for nothing is needed but an
intimation, that no new kingdom or new system of
grace was introduced at the period in question.




The Kingdom of Heaven.           241
The kingdom of heaven, we are told, "signifies
the gospel dispensation." That is true, provided you
understand the gospel dispensation to signify the dispensation of salvation, or the dispensation of grace,
in which God saves men from perdition through
Christ, i. e., by faith in Christ, and obedience to the
laws of repentance. But the entire teaching and
drift of Scripture is ignored, when we are told that
this kingdom was about to appear, or shortly to appear, in the days of John. We know very well that
the same gospel dispensation we have now, and about
which John preached so well, existed four thousand
years or more, before he preached. The dispensation
of salvation was as fully known to Abel, and Noah,
as to John. The light and the facility of teaching
were not so great, we all know; but that the same
system of grace existed is equally well known. One
day may be dark and cloudy, and the next, a bright
sunshine. That indicates the removal of clouds, but
not the creation of the sun. Before the life and
death of Jesus, thousands and millions of men had
faith in Christ.  Among them  are many of the
highest examples of Christian faith known to the
history of religion. But of course none in that age
had faith in Jesus, for Jesus had not been seen. The
incarnate did not exist.
Now we all know that after Christ was manifest
in the person of Jesus, the favorable results of the
manifestation were enjoyed by the Church, and by
mankind generally; religious teaching was more
facile, more easy of inculcation, more readily discerned. This is a very different thing from the creation and introduction of a new system of religion,
with new conditions of salvation.  The system  of
16




242            The City of God.
astronomy is the same it always was, notwithstanding
the introduction of the artificial globe and telescope.
The system  of religion now is the very same in
Madagascar and in the best theological schools. The
kingdom is, and always remains the same, though its
spread and inculcation are greatly facilitated by the
visible state of its -Christ, its king.
But when told, as we are by Dr. Dwight, that,
"As the Mediator, Jesus Christ began to exist at
the birth of the man, Jesus Christ," we cannot understand the meaning except in violation of the
plainest and best settled principles of Christian
truth.  That the world had no Mediator until the
incarnation of the Mediator, is as clumsy an idea as
could well be conceived. Again, he says, " This
person, it is plain, had received no kingdom, until his
ascension into heaven."  Then it is by no means
plain what person he is talking about.
Salvation was offered to all mankind, in full time
for its acceptance, before any man died. The conditions upon which it was offered were one and the
same, unaltered and unalterable. These conditions
imply sovereignty, rule, or dominion, on the one
hand, which is called a kingdom, by a very simple
figure; and on the other hand, by the same comparison, the submissive obedience required places the
subjects, by similar metonymy, in the attitude of a
kingdom. The kingdom of God is within you.




The RBeformation of the Sixteenth Century. 243
VII.
THE REFORMATION OF THE SIXTEENTH
CENTURY.
IT was impossible that the fundamental principles
of Romanism could be developed and understood from
the bottom, at the first, in the sixteenth century, or
for a long time afterwards. There was not a man in
Europe but had grown up with stereotyped and unquestioned ideas of government, exceedingly unfavorable to such development. The things objected to
by the Reformers were not defended on the ground
of their usefulness, their merit, or their accordance,
with either the scope or the letter of Scripture, but on
the ground of Church authority. " The Church says
so," was a complete answer to every objection. In
the habitudes of the people, there was no clear distinction between civil and ecclesiastical government.
There was none in, practice. The two jurisdictions
were but partially separate. The complaints against
the usages of the Church which led to the Reformation, exceedingly well put and well sustained as far
as they went, were leveled only against the things
they saw. They declared that these things were improper, useless, and unlawful. And when it was insisted and reiterated that " the Church says so," it
was responded, - " These unlawful acts are those of
Church officers, beyond their lawful jurisdiction, out



244            The City of God.
side the Church constitution." And the question between Romanists and Protestants, from that day to
this, has been, mainly, whether the primary Church
authority did or did not authorize those things specifically objected to, without stopping to inquire
whether there was any such primary Church authority or not.
And now it is here held, that this plea of the Protestants, however well put, as far as it lay, against the
matters objected to, was nevertheless an acknowledgment of a great and fundamental error in ecclesiastical science in favor of Popery, and amounts to
an estoppel to the most important argument in the
case. It virtually acknowledges a divine Church
constitution, governing the external matters of social
religion. And so the Romish party defended themselves by claiming that the government of the Church
being divinely framed, the jurisdiction of its officers
must descend perpetually; and so, this authority being divine, it cannot, of course, be inquired into by
unofficial men.
To this it was replied, that the Church could not
have been organized on such basis, because the teachings of Jesus in organizing the Church must harmonize with other divine teachings. The question was
not whether Church authority in the time of the
apostles was divine authority. This was virtually
conceded. The question was, What is this divine
Church authority? The Protestants said, The Scriptures, when they are clear, must govern; and so we
must presume the original Church constitution to
have been framed that way. While Romanists contended that a divine Church constitution must be
infallible, and must descend infallibly, and so the




The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century.  245
Scriptures must be construed that way, for the Church
teachings must be right.  Here it is seen that an
original Church charter, or constitution, or law of
Church government, or the formation or organization
of the Church of Christ, call it what you will, as
divinely ordained in the apostles' days, is conceded.
It is strange that it did not occur to the Protestants, but it did not, that there was. no divine Church
constitution at all, fixing either this or that in Church
government.  But we now see that this was the form
in which the argument was mainly conducted, and is
still conducted.
The Romanist asserts the authority of the Church,
that it is divine. The original Church, he says, has
merely descended to our times just as its original
framers left it. The Protestant says the Church has
diverged from the original model, because it now
varies from Scripture. Thus the controversy continues. The formation of a new Church, and introduction of a new religion is admitted; and the question
is, how was the former arranged, and what are the
principles and constituents of the latter?
When certain usages are objected to by Protestants, as opposed to Scripture, it is replied, " That
may seem so to unsanctified, i. e., out of the Church,
human  judgment, but these things accord with
divine revelation; the Church is as divine as the
Scripture, and so this is but an attempt to oppose
divine doings here, with divine doings there.
This is the disadvantage the Protestant oftentimes
labors under.  He acknowledges the Church to be a
divine revelation, that is, a divine institution, in that
the constitution of its government is divinely prescribed; and in opposing Romanism, he is obliged to




246              The City of God.
oppose Church revelation  to Scripture revelation.
He makes a good argument as far as it goes.  He
says these things are anti-Scriptural, and therefore
erroneous.  But the Romanist answers, "How can
that be?  How can one form of revelation be supposed to conflict with another form? "
The Protestant who says the Church is a " divine
institution," or who talks about an " original Church
of Christ," original in the days of the apostles, or
about a new Church, or any of the thousand expressions of the same import, is hardly aware that he is
virtually, by fair implication, affirming the doctrine
of Church infallibility. And yet such is the purport
of such declarations.  If Jesus Christ revealed a
Church constitution, or law of government, i. e., instituted a Church, then it must have descended infallibly, or is as likely to have done so as that the writing of Scripture did so.
So it is easy to see the disadvantage or unnecessary
weight the Protestant carries, who makes the admission that our Saviour formed a Church. Why admit
what is not only untrue in fact, but so greatly damaging in this argument?  Why not deny peremptorily, at the threshold, that there is revelation at all,
or inspiration at all, or divinity at all, in the laws of
Church association?  The true course is for High
Churchmen of all classes to be required first to prove
that a Church was organized in the days of Jesus at
all.  Who would undertake to face such a question
fairly?  The suggestion once made, any man must
see that it is preposterous.
The question then arises, Why has not this point
been made and brought prominently forward long
before? This question, it must be confessed, may




The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century. 247
not be easily answered. Perhaps the most satisfactory solution may be found in this, that our ecclesiastical history and thinking comes through England.
In England everything is monarchical and hereditary.
All public authority is transmitted or transmissive.
The inherited thoughts and habitudes of the people
were such, that the effort there to get the Church
out of this channel of thought was more than could
be expected. The Romish Church had interwoven
the idea of transmitted Church authority into the
very warp and woof of everything ecclesiastical, not
indeed as a question, but as a matter not admitting of question. There was no question about apostolical Church origin. It was a well understood
axiom from which all Church questions were reasoned. The great question of the Reformation was
debated on other grounds, where, indeed, there was
no lack of material in the then present state of the
public mind.
As in Germany, so in England, the Protestants contented themselves with charging and proving against
the Papists, " You have departed from the Church."
This they did to their everlasting renown, and the
honor of Christianity. But the debates did not necessarily, and did not in fact, raise- and make prominent the question of a Church departure, in the sixteenth century, or the seventeenth, from the external
usages of the same historic Church of the first century, it having been set up and made working under
an infallible rule, and the divine promise of infallible
direction. Whether the Church from which Papists
had departed was the Church they alleged to have
been organized anew by our Saviour, or a Church
consonant to the religion of Scripture, is a question




248            The City of God.
which, vital as it is in ecclesiastical science, did not
enter prominently into those  debates.  English
Methodists contented themselves with showing that
they were not departing from the general ground
occupied by the Church of England; while other
dissenters showed that they were keeping within
the lines of Scripture.
It is a far greater wonder that the question of the
apostolic Church, what it was and what it was not,
has not been raised in the United States, where these
controversies have run high, and where the mind was
more free, the scope of investigation more ample.
But it must be confessed, we Americans have not
made much use of these advantages. Where is the
book on either theology or ecclesiastical science that
has been written in America? We have a number
compiled here, but where are those written here?
They are few indeed. We go to England for all our
thinking. Cramped, iron-clad, tight-bound English
thought, which was drawn out and shaped under the
clouds and pressure of one or two hundred years ago,
form the staple of American thinking to-day!
This ding-dong repetition of English argument and
English ideas, drawn from the times of the Reformation or near there, when it was impossible there could
be much of clear, independent thinking about it, beyond the simple fact that the Church as reformed
is inside the Scriptures, and the Popish Church, much
of it, outside, may be excusable in European authors.
But why in this country, if not in that, has not the
argument been carried much farther? Why has not
this supposed model Church, this new Church, this
divine institution, this embryo Church, in the college
of the apostles, why has not all this been long since




The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century.  249
denied as a Popish fiction and monstrous untruth?
Why do writers of the nineteenth century tacitly or
plainly admit that the apostles made a new Church,
the then existing Church being abolished?  Why
give Romanists or any other High Churchmen this
foothold? It is as untrue in fact as it is damaging in
policy.
Mr. R. I. Wilberforce, an English pervert to the
Romish Church, says, " Now that a paramount authority was possessed by our Lord himself, and that
He committed the like to his holy apostles, is admitted probably by all Christians."
That in Jesus dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead
bodily, and therefore that not only all authority, but
all power was possessed by Him, is, of course, unquestioned; but that He committed the like authority
to the apostles, or to any other men, is unqualifiedly
denied. There, right there, is the great High
Church falsehood. And not only so, it is the only
High Church error I know of that is fundamental.
No Scripture'underlies it, no deduction of reason supports it. It is a myth. It must be denounced and
exposed.
And so, consistent with this erroneous assumption, Mr. Wilberforce speaks of " the origin of the
Church's powers;" "its action depends upon his
authority," etc. And he inquires, " Was the Church
then a mere congeries of individuals gathered together, and possessing no collective character except
that which is derived from the conglomeration of its
parts? "
I answer it is, and always was, a mere congeries of
Christian people, gathered together by the gravitating
and cohesive force of the religion possessed by the




250              The City of God.
individuals, and making their own laws of external
association as the interest of their cause requires.
The love of God and of the brethren keeps them together, as conjugal and parental love keeps families
together.
Thus it is that the Church results naturally and
necessarily from the personal religion of the individuals.  The one supposes the other.  They coinhere
and coexist. The absence of the Church, in any community, is the best evidence there can be of the absence of religion.
The inculcation and diffusion of a principle requires, necessitates, and supposes social combination
and union.  And then, as the principle, doctrine, or
truth is important to human well being, and of general or universal application, the popularity of the
union becomes extended, while the bonds of cohesion
become more and more definite, exact, and strengthened in their operation. That is, they become more
and more a government for the more definite and
certain application of labor within the purview of the
enterprise. Here, and here alone, is found both the
reason for, as well as the utility of civil government,
and of military, political, educational, or merely industrial enterprises.
And when you apply this rule to religion, a matter
of such intense interest to those who enjoy it, where
the anxiety to spread and encourage it is equal to the
degree of personal enjoyment, not only popular combination, but regularity of government and submission to rule, are both natural and unavoidable. Religion supposes and necessitates the Church.




The JRomish Church System.         251
VIII.
THE ROMISH  CHURCH  SYSTEM.
IT is by no means my intention to write a treatise,
or set down a catalogue of objections against the
tenets of Popery.  This would raise questions of
controversy which I wish to avoid. I wish merely
to state the question. This shall be done so fairly
and impartially, that it shall not be objected to on
either hand.
The difference between Romanism and what Protestants call Christianity, is, in the first place, constitutional, or of a primary and fundamental character; and secondly, in tenets, forms, and modes of
worship which seem to grow out of, or be sanctioned
by such first principles. The creed of the Roman
Catholic is to believe in the Church and all her
teachings. This is substantially the sum and substance of it. The creed or confession of faith which
is most commonly used among them  is that compiled by Pius IV., and is " drawn up in conformity
with the definitions of the Council of Trent."  This
is specifically, set forth and recognized as official by
Dr. Milner in his -End of Controversy, as may be seen
at page 99. This creed consists of fifteen articles,
and sets forth, first, such fundamental things as were
never questioned by any people professing Christianity at all; and secondly, refers everything to the




252             The City of God.
Church. The Roman Catholic believes what the
Church believes, and because the Church believes
it. This is the sum of it.
Church authority is, therefore, the fundamental
principle. This Church authority is claimed to be
derived directly from Christ; the frame-work of the
Church government being its vehicle of communication. All the peculiarities objected to by Protestants are mainly derived, plausibly, if not necessarily,
from this fundamental principle.
If the offices of Church government were divinely
created, and the duties, powers, and functions of some
of the different officers fixed by divine revelation,
then that means that they were infallibly prescribed.
And that means that such officers, and, as the Church
was to continue, their successors, were to be protected from error in discharging their particular duties so assigned. This protection we may suppose to
work in the ordinary way of what we call inspiration
for any other particular work. Inspiration does not
make the man infallible. Paul said it did not so protect Peter.  It only protects men against error in
discharging certain duties. And we cannot suppose
any greater difficulty in inspiring men to govern a
Church, under prescribed laws, than to write a book
of Scripture.
Supposing that Jesus Christ organized the Church
society, appointing its first officers, prescribing their
duties, etc., we would be obliged to suppose that He
appointed a head officer, by whatever name he might
be designated; and this would suppose that this
divine direction would be of the same kind as that
given to Matthew and Mark and others, to write the
New Testament. And if the first president or chief




The Romish Church System.          253
officer was thus inspired or protected, it would certainly be gratuitous to suppose that thenceforward
such preternatural protection would cease. Why
should we suppose the Church to be more fallible or
less divinely protected in after years, than at the
first? Its necessities would be as great, if not greater.
If the Church originated in the way we are supposing, then we can imagine ourselves to have been
present at the meeting when it was done. The
twelve apostles, or eleven, were present, and perhaps
a few others.  The Saviour explains to them  the
wholesale dissolution of the former Church; and He
administers to them the constitution of the new one
to take its place. We are obliged to suppose the old
was dissolved, because it lacked this constant, day by
day, divine protection. It is impossible to imagine
any other lack it could have suffered. Now we are
about to have a permanent Church that shall lack
nothing. Now Jesus says: " Here is your charter.
Whatever incidental rules you may need as you go
along, make them, but do not infringe upon these
fundamental provisions. You, Peter (or you, somebody else), are president. When you cease to preside, this is the way the vacancy will be filled. And
so of the other officers; and so I now, here, provide
for the Church's perpetuity."
The Church was then infallibly organized. Or, as
some have it, the Church was organized on the day
of Pentecost. This amounts to the same thing, for if
so, it was done under directions previously given to
the apostles. Any way it can be imagined, it was
either inspired or uninspired. And as to its being
uninspired, that is not supposable. Inspiration means
the support, divine influence, and protection accom



254              The City of God.
panying divine instructions respecting assigned duties
to be performed.
Now, when the first members stood thus in the
presence of the Saviour, and the Saviour had finished
dispensing to each officer the duties assigned him,
was it not an infallible Church? How could it be
otherwise? It must have been free from defect, because we cannot suppose the Saviour to have made
a defective Church. And then the question arises,
how did it lose its infallibility? How could divine
provision be made for a fallible or defective Church?
All this does not imply human, but divine infallibility; that is, it is divine inspiration, as we call it,
in similar matters respecting other official functions,
in other assigned duties.
If the Church was made -in the way supposed, then
it could hardly be questioned that it might have been
infallible, that the original infallibility might have
been made to continue: We can hardly conceive of
a reason why it should not be.  The natural presumption would seem to favor it.
It would seem, then, that the Protestant who concedes that the Church originated in this way, assumes
the burden of proof as to how the Church lost its
original infallibility.
The objection urged against papal infallibility is
that men are fallible. But in the condition of things
supposed, this is not the question.  Everybody acknowledges that sometimes some men are inspired.
The apostles were all inspired. Inspired to do what?
Merely to write what they wrote?  No; their Scripture writing was done ten, twenty, or thirty years
after this time. We suppose they were inspired to
do. all things pertaining to the apostolate. Then we




The Romish Church System.           255
are obliged to suppose the first Church officers, and
particularly the-first president, to be inspired. Now
did the Saviour inspire the first officers of a Church
which was to continue forever, in the discharge of
their duty, with the understanding that when they
would fall, and their offices be filled by others, this
protection would cease? Is it too much to ask for
some reason, either in Scripture, or the nature of the
thing, why it should cease?
I can see very plainly why, outside of apostolic
functions, there should not be inspiration, because
there need be no apostolic succession of the afflatus
covering the apostles in the discharge of their duties.
But that is not the case here. Here are men succeeding to, and performing the very same duties which
were performed exclusively by apostles. Was it less
important, less arduous, less necessary or useful for
the welfare of the Church, viewed in any way, that
the second or third presidents should be inspired,
than that the first should be?  If the same duty
and same responsibility, a duty and responsibility at
one time peculiar to apostles, did not follow these
succeeding official functionaries, then it would be unreasonable to suppose the protection of inspiration
would follow. But here is a case where the very
same. functions follow. Here the succeeding men
are discharging the very same duties which one year,
or one day ago, were especially and peculiarly appropriate to apostles, and none else, and at a time, too,
when it is impossible they ever could be more important than now.  Then why should we look for
divine protection in the one case, and not in the
other?
This, then, surely, cannot be a serious or funda



256             The City of God.
mental question between Protestants and Roman
Catholics. It lies further back. Let the Protestants
deny at the outset that there was any such original
Church, or any such first presidency, or any new
Church. Let the Romanist first be required to show
that there were any such first officers, that is, anything of this nature to descend from man to man.
Let it be readily granted, that all functions of the
apostolate were covered by inspiration, but let it be
denied that governing the Church is, or ever was an
exclusive function of the apostolate. If we have not
heretofore done so in the highest and most peremptory manner, it is high time we were doing it.
It may readily be believed that there is not a
Roman Catholic argument extant that is not based
squarely upon this supposed new Church formation.
It is either expressed or implied everywhere. One
of the best arguments I know of, in support of Romish Church authority, is that of Mr. R. I. Wilberforce. We might look at it again, because it is substantially the same as stated everywhere.
" Now, that a paramount authority was possessed
by our Lord himself, and that He committed the like
to his holy apostles, is admitted, probably, by all
Christians. Authority to organize and govern the
Church is here meant."  Let that be granted, and it
will be very difficult to disprove his argument.
Again he says, " The Church's existence has been
shown to result from Christ's coming in the flesh."
So, according to Romanism, the Church had no existence before the incarnation. It could not be said
that there was no association of religious people before that time, but there was no Church corporation.
The Church, then, is a corporation made at that




The Romish Church System.           257
period, and working under a divinely prescribed
charter.  This is the fundamental idea of Romanism,
and the only idea it has that is fundamental.
Then, I am not able to see the force of the loud
and peremptory objections to Church infallibility,
nor to a creed that requires mere subscription to the
teachings of the Church. Infallibility might be regarded an open and debatable question, with something to be said on both sides. If I had to debate
the question bn that basis, I would greatly prefer the
affirmative.  If Christ enacted the Church charter
eighteen hundred years ago, giving it the elements
of perpetuity, then it is in the same condition now as
if He had made it yesterday.  Subscription to the
Church is subscription to Christ. Obedience to the
Church is obedience to Christ. To follow the Church
is to follow Christ. The Church is the living, visible,
practical, and real legate and representative of Christ
on earth.
Dr. Charles Elliott (on Romanism, vol. i. p. 129)
says, " It is not controverted between them and us
whether Christ is the great foundation of his Church,
for in this all are agreed." It may be doubtful what
he means by great foundation. The figure is ambiguous. He nowhere ignores or denies the Romish understanding as stated above, that Christ is the maker
of its fundamental laws of government; that He prescribed its charter in terms.
Then, I inquire, what is the vital, controlling question between Romanists and Protestants?  What
one question will control and decide all others? Evidently it is the question whether the Christian religion and Christian Church originated at the time
and by authority of Jesus Christ.  If these two
17




258             The City of God.
things found their absolute origin then and there,
then it follows necessarily, first, that the religion
actually taught in the Old Testament is ignored, and
should no longer form a part of Christian Scripture.
And then we encounter the awkwardness of repudiating Scripture books which teach exactly the same
doctrines as the retained books. And secondly, we
open the endless inquiry as to how the Church was
first formed; that is, how a thing was done which
evidently was never done at all!




Romanism among Protestants.         259
IX.
ROMANISM  AMONG PROTESTANTS.
ON a little reflection, if need be, the following
propositions will not probably be questioned.
First. There is but one thing in Romanism that
is objected to by Protestants, of a fundamental character. All other objectionable things are secondary,
and grow out of this one thing. This principal thing
is, that Jesus Christ introduced a new system of religion, and set up a new Church.
Second. This remark will apply equally well to
prelacy, to Campbellism, so called, and to all other
forms of High Churchism.
Third. This new Church and new religion is assented to, nay, it is taught, by many Protestant
writers, who oppose not only Popery, but who oppose
Campbellism and High Church Episcopacy.
On these points a few explanatory observations
might be profitable. The reason, and only reason,
why Roman Catholics do not allow private judgment
to question the acts of the Church, is certainly not
unreasonable, if the Church is what they claim it to
be. If Christ organized the government of the
Church, set it going, gave it laws, provided for the
mode of bringing in new officers, fixed their powers,
assigned their duties, etc., all of which and much
more is implied in the idea of organizing a new




260             The City of God.
Church; and if He then, at the same time, set up a
new religion, putting its teaching and inculcation in
the custody of the Church; then, in such case, both
the Church and religion are divine revelations. They
are not subjects of rational consideration. We have
no more right to interfere with either, or to exercise
human judgment about either, than about another
revelation that prescribes salvation on certain conditions.  We do not judge whether prayer, repentance, keeping the Sabbath, etc., are suitable enactments in religion. We receive them as divinely prescribed or revealed. And so also of the Church; if
its laws of government and authority are divinely
revealed, what right have unofficial men to say this
is erroneous, and that is unnecessary?
On the principle that the Church is, in this sense,
a divine institution, it is a complete and sufficient answer to objections against auricular confession, virgin
worship, seven sacraments, penance, priestly forgiveness, prayers for the dead, etc., to say, The Church
says so. If the Church, in its outward frame-work, is
a divine institution, and it says so, how can it be
wrong?  Is not one form of revelation as good and
as infallible as another form? Suppose. we stood in
this newly formed Church, in the. presence of the
Saviour, and the president, ruling bishop, or whatever you may choose to call the chief officer, should
direct any practice, or ordain any tenet now seen in
Romanism, would we not receive it upon his mere
dictum - other officers then present assenting- without attempting to set up our judgment, or interpose
other revelations in objection?  And if Church authority, as such, was good then, is it not equally good
now?  If the Church was an institution of that sort,




Romanism among Protestants.       261
and was to continue, then it contained the means of
continuance. The succeeding officers stood squarely
in the tracks of the first ones, receiving all their authority.
It follows, then, that all the peculiar things objected to in Romanism, rest upon and grow directly
out of this supposed divine authority in the Church.
Let this be removed, and then the government of the
Church being human, other human judgment may
properly come in. It is then human judgment here
against human judgment there. But if the Church
is a divine institution, these objections to it are
human judgment against divine provisions.
A Church acting under divine laws, revealed laws,
is a very different thing from one framed by the
judgment of men. If the latter, then it may be
inquired into, modified, and improved from time to
time. But if the form and functions of government
are divinely prescribed, how can men inquire into it?
The Church was not only to continue, but the specific means and elements of its continuance and perpetuity were provided and placed in the custody of
the Church. So the government of the Church is as
divine now as at the first.
Then what right have men to object to this or that,
if done by the Church in this historic succession?
The Church says so, is a complete answer and estoppel to any such objections. Church authority, in
this case, is divine authority. So this doctrine of a
new Church lies at the bottom of all Romish errors.
Remove that, and then each particular error must
rest on its own intrinsic merits. Their truth or falsity can be inquired into in no other way.
And these same considerations will apply to all




262              The City of God.
other forms of High Churchism.  Every peculiarity
of the system rests squarely upon the doctrine of an
original Church, with a divinely formed government.
High Church Episcopalians say the original constitution provided and enjoined three orders of ministry,
the twelve apostles being the first bishops, etc.
Their successors must be regularly appointed; hence
the so called, and correctly called, apostolic succession, etc.
Now it is clear the moment you assert the doctrine
of a new Church and new religion, you virtually give
up the question. High episcopal authority and apostolic succession are the most natural, rational, plausible, if not the necessary and logical results of the
erroneously alleged facts of a new Church and new
religion.
It is seen, therefore, that primary, essential, fundamental Romanism consists in the single, simple idea
of a new Church and new religion, and that this is
abundant among Protestants. This, therefore, wheresoever, or by whomsoever taught, is rational Romanism.  To inculcate the doctrine is to lay a broad
Romish foundation; and although practical Popery
is not by any means always built upon it, logical
Romanism is never built upon any other foundation.
There is no other foundation upon which it can be
built.
This view of the subject has been practically verified in recent debates with Campbellites, where it
was alleged that the Christian Church is the identical Church formed by the apostles. In opposition
it was said: " I deny that any Church was formed
by the apostles, or in that age. Let it be first proved
that a Church was then formed at all." This position,




Romanism among Protestants.        263
strongly taken, was a poser.  It was utterly confounding. Even a reply of any sort could not be
extorted. It had not entered into the polemical curriculum. It can but produce utter silence in any
argument of this sort.
Now, what is to be done? Will any one say that
fundamental Romanism is not sometimes unwittingly
taught by Protestant writers and preachers? It is
not always the easiest thing in the world to rectify
an error. It is hard to change old sayings and old
modes, but it is not impracticable. It ought to be
done. Protestants ought, at least, to be themselves
Protestant. The writer of these strictures confesses
to as much error in these premises, as he dares to
attribute to others. In earlier years he did not know
any better, and thought and wrote as he saw others
do.  He followed older and better men.  In riper
years he saw his error, and dared to correct it.
It is easy to see that here is a point where the
great principles of the great Protest were not fully
followed up in after years. To close up this point is
a duty we owe both to ourselves and to posterity.
The Church has a right to the promulgation and
elaboration of the argument so lightly and feebly set
forth herein. A man unwilling to acknowledge and
rectify an error, when pointed out, is a shallow
thinker and an unsafe man.
It is remarkable how readily we drift into both the
thoughts and expressions of others. Very much of
what we boastfully call our thinking and opinions is
but the almost passive gliding along in the grooves
formed by others.
It cannot be expected that these arguments will
reach that large class of men who know everything,




264             The City of God.
and never commit a blunder. But there are others
less confident and more thoughtful, and with them
there is more hope.
The careful, candid reader can hardly fail to see
that the entire subject of ecclesiastical science, in all
its forms and phases, rests upon the primary question
brought forward herein. If Christ formed a new
Church, prescribing for it some perpetual laws of
government, then to that extent the government is
divine, and must not be interfered with; and if not,
then the government is in human hands, and men
are responsible for it. Hardly any question about
the Church can be answered without first understanding this point.
Now, would it be out of the way to say that most
of the questions about the Church, discussed nowadays, proceed upon the assumption precedent, that
the Church, in its external frame-work, as well as in
its faith and doctrine, was original, had its historic
origin in the days of the apostles?  How oan such
teachings lead to valuable results? One says the
succession from the original Church must be by official investiture in Church officers; while another says
it must be in the faith of the body of the Church. I
would inquire, succession from  what?  Evidently
from nothing real, but from something merely mythical and imaginary.
We frequently speak of the primitive Church; but
it is not the Church that was primitive in those days,
but certain aspects of, and facilities for teaching now
for the first time found in the Church. A sensible,
historic, or phenomenal view of the atonement was
primitive in the days of the apostles; but the religious association of religious people was certainly




Romanism among Protestants.          265
not then first seen.  The knowledge and recognition
of the crucifixion and other sufferings of Christ were
of course primitive, because they did not occur before; but surely the mediation and Immanuelship
of Christ were not then primitive, for they existed in
all their fullness, thousands of years before.
Dr. Schaff, in his History of the Church, says,
"The beginning of Church history is properly the
incarnation of the Son of God, the entrance of the
new  principle of light and life into  humanity."
Again, " But since the Church as an organic union
of the disciples of Jesus, came into view first on the
day of Pentecost, we take this point as the beginning."  And again, "For us, then, Church history
embraces a period of eighteen centuries."
Now if these things are true, if this is the proper
view of the Church, I am not able to see how we
can get clear of the Romish doctrine of entire social, legal, and constitutional separation between the
Church and religion of the prophets, and that of the
apostles.  See where this doctrine carries us! It
not only flatly and palpably ignores all the Bible
history in the case, but it makes the Church not a
mere religious brotherhood, but a new divine corporation. It is no longer a congeries of religious element brought together by the attracting force of its
own gravitation, and governed by its own religious
principle and integrity, but a special corporation
brought into being by power outside of itself, and
placed under a prescribed law of perpetual application and force.
Then it is simply absurd, as well as highly illegal
and disobedient, to connect the old, abolished Testament with proper Christianity.  For in that case,




266              The City of God.
everything religious, as well as ecclesiastical, was
abolished and-forever set aside. In that case, I cannot see that the religion and Church of historic priority to the life and times of Jesus, had any sort of connection with those subsequent.  There may be more
or less of external likeness or similarity between
them, but they stand related just as Christianity and
Mohammedanism  stand related; that is, in an attitude of eternal and unchanging hostility.
Protestantism   cannot consistently stand  before
such  doctrine at the  bar of enlightened  public
opinion.  And as to history, it is unceremoniously
put out of doors altogether.




The Jews.                267
X.
THE JEWS.
ONE of the commonest mistakes of writers as well
as readers of the New Testament is in the meaning
put upon the words heading this chapter, which tre
so frequently used in those Scriptures. Who were,
and who were not Jews? And then, secondly, does
the term Jews, in the New Testament, always mean
the same thing?
We need not spend time with the etymology of the
word. We know it came from Ju-dah, and after the
separation under Rehoboam and Jeroboam was applied
to that branch of the Israelites who held with the
large tribe of Judah; and in process of time it was
applied, or at least we now apply it generally to the
Church, with but little, or at most but very nominal
reference to genealogical descent. In the time of the
Saviour and previously, there was a well known and
distinctly marked people, chiefly in Western Asia and
Africa, called Jews. Their numerical strength is not
certainly known, but is generally estimated at five to
seven millions. They were distinguished from other
people by their religion. We know what this was
with certainty, for we have it now word for word.
Some writers seem to regard the Jews or Israelites,
at the time of the Saviour's life, as wholly pure blood
descendants of Abraham.  This is a transparent




268            The City of God.
error, which none can fail to see at a glance. There
was a historic period,' and but a short one, when that
branch of the Church, but certainly not the whole
Church, was confined to the family of Jacob, the
grandson of Abraham. Of other religious people,
such as those connected with  Job, Melchizedek,
Balaam, etc., there is but bare allusion, and we
know very little about them. Of the early Israelites
we know but little; but the Church in that age and
country, which is historically connected with the
modern Church, was for a time confined to the apparent posterity of Abraham, though other large
branches of the Abrahamic family were not connected
with it.
But the Israelites, even in Jacob's family, were by
no means pure blood descendants from Abraham.
The twelve sons of Jacob were only one eighth pure.
And after this, as the twelve patriarchs did not marry
their sisters, their children were but one sixteenth
pure as to Abraham. And so the blood necessarily
dilutes by halves every generation, save when by
marriage the posterity is bred in-and-in. It is as
likely as otherwise, so far as I know, though we have
no information about it, that the grandsons and
granddaughters of Jacob, or many of them, may have
intermarried; that is, married their cousins. If so,
and this course was maintained strictly, then they
would continue one sixteenth pure blood descent from
Abraham. There was no law that they should so
intermarry, nor do we know of any reason why they
should, save their civil relation to the Egyptians.
But it is distinctly intimated that there was considerable mixture with Egyptians before the exodus. Portions of those who went out with Moses were a
" mixed multitude."  (Ex. xii. 38.)




The Jews.               269
This is about all we know of their genealogy, prior
to the exodus. How much foreign blood they possessed by inlet from without, we know not with certainty. The purest were one sixteenth pure. From
this time on, forty years, until their entrance into
Palestine, they bred in-and-in, remaining, not each
family, nor yet each tribe, but as a whole, where they
were at the time of the exodus.
Now we enter upon a new genealogical era. A
greater blunder could never be made than the supposition that from this time on, the Israelitish people
maintained a genealogical exclusiveness as to other
people. Both the law and the practice was the very
reverse. An ecclesiastical exclusiveness was generally maintained. They might continue to marry in
the Church, both men and women, and yet, genealogically, as to ancestral blood, its degree of purity might
dilute one half every generation. Thus at the end of
fourteen generations,.David might have been one sixteen thousandth pure blood as to his ancestral progenitor, Abraham. And at the time of the Babylonian captivity, fourteen generations more, Jechonias,
though in a direct male line, might have had blood
diluted as to Abraham, one part in sixty millions
pure. And at the time of the Saviour's advent, or
at any other time, there might have been, and no
doubt were, thousands and millions of Jews without
the least particle of blood descended from Abraham;
while there were other millions whose proportion of
pure blood from the patriarchal ancestor was almost
incalculably infinitesimal.  It was philosophically
possible, though improbable, that any Jew at the
time of the advent could have had blood' as pure
as one in thirty-two, sixty-four, or a hundred and
twenty-eight.




270             The City of God.
The historic facts bearing upon this point, though
greatly overlooked, are easily seen. It is strange
that the notion ever got into the books that the Jews,
from Abraham to Jesus, were exclusive as to other
people, socially, ecclesiastically, and genealogically.
If by the Jews in that period you mean the Church,
the only rational meaning the term could have, then
it is a simple truism that religious people are exclusive as to irreligious people. This was the only kind
of exclusiveness we see among the Jews from the
exodus to Jesus.
The historic facts are plain. For about fourteen or
fifteen hundred years, during the period of the residence in Palestine, the well known law of the Church
was as it is now, to take in all who would come in from
without; and now when in, they were in, and were in
all respects on an equal footing with those previously
in. There was to be no difference between those
born in and their posterity, and those who came in
and theirs.  (See Ex. xii. 49; Num. ix. 16; Lev.
xix. 33, 34.) After the first generation there could
be no difference, for they were intermarried ad libitun, and the posterity was common. This influx
from without was great and constant. "Many people of the land became Jews."  So a Jew was not
necessarily a descendant of Abraham. This mixing
of blood in a few descending generations goes much
more rapidly than one would suppose, until one
comes to look at it carefully.
We have seen that a portion of the people who
came out of Egypt with Moses were a mixed people;
mixed by intermarriage with foreigners. And we
know that the Canaanitish population were by no
means wholly extirpated, though wholly conquered.




The Jews.                271
Many remained alive and became incorporated with
the Israelites. Many children never knew the difference. And then, besides those who from time to
time, in various ages and various circumstances, joined
the Jews from proper religious motives, there were
captives, fugitives, hired servants, etc., who came in in
great abundance. These incomers are spoken of in
Scripture generally as "strangers."  That is, this
term is applied to those who came in, but not to their
posterity.  They were soon mixed with the whole
mass.
In the time of Solomon we see it incidentally mentioned (2 Chr. ii. 17, 18) that there were at that
time, of these strangers, able-bodied, working men,
not counting women, children, or infirm, 153,600
in or in reach of Jerusalem.  There were then,
probably, of those who were themselves proselytes
from without, not less than half a million of persons. Nor is there an intimation that this is at all
unusual.  Then it is probable that at that time
proselytes were coming in at the rate of about five
hundred thousand in thirty-three years, or about
fifteen thousand a year. At other times they came
in by nations, and in various ways. And although
many, perhaps most of these accessions were, as to
themselves personally, of a very dubious or unworthy
character, yet this was comparatively unimportant,
when we consider that it could only attach to themselves who came in, and not to their posterity. The
children soon became mixed with the general and
undistinguishable mass.
After the captivity, proselyting among the Israelites improved greatly, both as to numbers and characters. The conquests of Alexander, the Egyptian




272            The City of God.
and Syrian wars, the struggles under the Maccabean
princes, and the general expansion of the Roman government, all tended greatly to bring the Jews into
notice, to spread them abroad, and give them influence
in the world. So we see them everywhere in these
later ages, and their proselytes very numerous. The
distinction made between proselytes of the gate, and
of righteousness, is probably more fanciful than otherwise. Things did not proceed in that exact, mechanical way. They were all natural people. There were
probably among them as many degrees of righteousness as we find now among similar converts. Moreover, in a range of many centuries, and in different
countries, there must have been great variety in all
these habits and customs.
And then, too, we must remember, there was not
only great and constant influx from without, by which
the genealogical blood of the Church became mixed
and mingled in a thousand ways, and as many degrees, with the people of the whole East, but also, in
these long years, there was great and constant outflow. Only a comparatively small portion of the
blood of Abraham  ever was among the Israelites.
Look at the Ishmaelites, Edomites, Midianites, all
Arabia, and many peoples lost to history long since.
Neither Scripture nor reason attaches any importance to mere blood descent from Abraham, beyond
a single genealogical line, showing the Saviour's lineage. It is the inheritance of Abraham's faith, not
his blood, that makes a Jew or Christian.
Therefore the term Jews, in Scripture, before the
separation, means the Church. In the Saviour's lifetime it is highly probable that most of the Church
were Greeks, who, so far as we know, never had any




The Jews.                273
connection lineally with Israelites, much less with
Abraham.  The Church  then  existed in  three
branches or denominations, namely, the Judean, the
Samaritan, and the Greek or Hellenistic.
When, therefore, " the Jews " are spoken of before
the resurrection, the entire-Church is referred to, except in places where the sense distinguishes between
the different denominations; After the resurrection,
when Jews are spoken of, three different significations are to be given to the term. Sometimes these
different meanings are specified, but generally they
are not. The sense specifies sufficiently.  These
three senses of the word arise out of the apparent
fact, that in this period there were three distinct
classes of Jews, or parties in the Church. To understand the Scriptures, therefore, in Acts, the Epistles,
and Revelation, you must know which class is meant,
or your reading will be to little purpose. To understand this better, let a few suggestions be made.
The only question of importance in the Church at
this period, on which the Church was divided, was
this, Is Jesus the Christ?  Some holding that He
was, it necessarily follows that to. acknowledge Him
is to stay in the Church, to deny Him is to go out.
Here the Church, that is, the Jews, divided. Some
stayed in, and some went out. Here are now two
classes of Jews. Both claimed to be the Church, on
the ground that Jesus was, and that He was not, the
Christ of the Old Testament. But the whole Church,
consisting of several millions of persons, and being
spread over much of the continents of Asia and Africa, travel being mostly on foot, it was impossible
this separation could take place at a single time. It
began soon after the resurrection, in Jerusalem; but
18




274              The City of God.
as to most ot the Church, they could not take sides
for years, because they could not have the necessary
information about it. They could not either accept
or deny the Christship of Jesus, until they had
received the fullest and most reliable information.
Here, then, for the space of ten, twenty, or most
likely, in some cases, thirty or forty years, there must
have been a third party of Jews.  They stood as
before the birth or crucifixion of Jesus.
It is obvious that in a few years all Jews then
living must either receive or deny the Christship of
Jesus finally; so, thereafter, there could be but two
classes of Jews.  And it is also obvious that one or
the other of these classes must cease in common parlance to be called " Jews." All distinct things must
have distinct names.  And so it was in this case.
Naturally enough, the believing Jews took the name
of Christian. And as this branch of Jews, gradually
of course, took the name of Christian, and so called
themselves, the other branch would naturally retain
the old name of Jews.
The common error, therefore, of regarding these
rejecting Jews as the proper and sole representatives
of the Jews as they existed at and before the time
of Jesus, is apparent. Historically they are no more
their successors than the Christian party are. The
succession lineally was, so far as we know, about
equally divided. But religiously the Christians are
the sole and exclusive successors. This must be so
with unmistakable certainty, if Jesus was and is the
Christ.
So that while modern Jews, that is, the successors
of the rejecting Jews, are called Jews, and exclusively so called, they are by no means entitled to




The Jews.                275
the name. They are not really Jews, but only
falsely pretend to be. This we see clearly stated in
Rev. ii. 9 and iii. 9. They blasphemously say they
are Jews and are not, but are of the church of Satan.
They say they are Jews and are not, but do lie.
They abandoned the Church of Scripture, setting up
a new and false Church.
It is then a great and dangerous error, however
popular it may be, to class modern Jews with the
people called Jews at and before the time of Jesus,
and to regard the former as both the religious and
ecclesiastical successors of the latter. Most assuredly they are neither. To suppose that they are is
to suppose that the religion called Christianity is a
new and false religion, and the Church called Christian, a new and false Church.
Modern Jews are the lineal descendants of about
one half, probably, of the Jews in the Saviour's time,
but as to both religion and Church, they are wholly
and entirely apostates. This does not admit of question, for it is a conclusion both necessary and palpable.




276            The City of God.
XI.
THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
To debate a question is to acknowledge that it is
debatable. And this means that certain premises
are mutually agreed upon; and furthermore, that
the conclusion you deny might be so. If two men
were to debate whether Washington was the first or
the second president of the United States, it would
be a virtual acknowledgment that the United States
had presidents, and also that Washington was president at either the first or second term. And after
joining that issue, it would be incompetent to deny
that the United States ever had a president. You
have acknowledged that the United States had presidents, and that the first one might have been Washington.
So, to debate what kind of government Julius
Caesar set up in the United States would be an
acknowledgment, on both sides, that Julius Caesar
did set up some kind of government in the United
States.
Then if it were alleged that the government set
up by Caesar in the United States, in 1776, was republican, with many peculiar details, and not monarchical, and this is the issue presented, there would
be two ways in which the allegation might be met.
One would be to resort to the history of the country




The Apostolic Succession.      277
to show that the government was different from that
set up in the allegation. The other would be to
deny at the threshold that the Roman emperor was
ever in the United States at all, or ever set up any
government there. If it could not be shown that
Caesar set up some kind of government there, then
all possible questions, and proof thereof, as to the
kind of government, are at once avoided. No man
would think of meeting such an issue in any other
way than by cutting off all argument at once by
denying that Caesar set up any government there at
all.
This is exactly the character of the debate - thousands of volumes, and millions of sermons — about
the kind of government that Jesus Christ set up in
Jerusalem for the Church. I.asked a little schoolboy at table, what kind of government Marc Antony set up in Mexico.  He replied that Marc
Antony did not set up any government in Mexico;
that he was never in Mexico. I thought to myself
it was strange some of our theologians did not make
a reply as true, as sensible, and as conclusive, to the
many arguments and historic testimony about the
kind of Church government set up by Jesus Christ.
The following facts are true, and so notorious they
will not be questioned: First, thousands of volumes
and tens of thousands of lesser publications have
been made to prove, pro and con, the kind of Church
government under which Jesus Christ set up and
organized the Church at the first in Jerusalem.
High Church Episcopalians have published many of
these thousands to prove that the new Church government so set up had three orders in its ministry,
with prelatical power in the first order, called bish



278            The City of God.
ops. This was one of its main features. Campbellites, or " Christians," and other Baptists, have published their thousands to prove that the new Church
government so set up by Jesus Christ was on the
republican order. This was a fundamental provision
in the new Church. Methodists have published as
many to prove that the Church so organized by the
Saviour and his apostles had two orders in the ministry only, alleging that in the new Church law, " a
presbyter was the same as a bishop." Presbyterians
of different classes have published their full share
of these thousands, to prove that the new Church so
set up by Jesus Christ provided in its government
for parity in the ministry. Roman Catholics, since
the first distinct formation of their Church, in the
eighth century, have held that the new Church of
Jesus Christ so set up as above was on the high
monarchical principle. Various other denominations
have taken various other views about the Church
government so set up at the first by Jesus Christ,
and with the implied understanding, on all hands,
that this new Christian Church government was to
be perpetual for the Church in all future time.
Second, Jesus Christ, by Himself or his apostles,
did not set up, organize, or establish anew any
Church, or the government of any Church, directly
or indirectly, in Jerusalem or elsewhere. He merely
continued, or suffered to continue, the Church of
his fathers as it was of old, and is now'. He never
intimated, so far as we know, nor did any one else
in that age intimate, that the old and then existing
Church even needed modification or change.
Now are these two propositions strictly true in
every particular? Will any man question either, or




The Apostolic Succession.       279
any part of either? Then they furnish matter for
sober reflection. Perhaps no question in ecclesiastical science has been more voluminously debated
than the "Apostolic Succession" so called. What
is that question? It is how a thing was done, which
confessedly was never done at all! It is the same
kind of a question precisely, as to inquire what kind
of a government Julius Caesar formed in the United
States. Everybody knows he formed none.
The question called " Apostolic Succession " is not
a debatable question. Then there has been no such
debate. There has been a wrangle about myths and
fables, things which never had an existence. I do
not see that the man who denies the doctrine is any
nearer the truth than he who affirms it. Such an
argument at all, irrespective of any sides, rests wholly
upon a falsehood. The question concedes and supposes that Jesus Christ organized a new Church government, and the affirmant says that in doing so,
in arranging the new Church law, it was provided
that the ministerial authority, which at first resided
solely in the twelve apostles, must be handed down
from them tactually by personal transmission. And
the objector to this doctrine of personal transmission simply denies that the first constitution of the
Church contained such provision, alleging that it
provided for the enfranchisement by mere Church
authority. So the one is evidently as much in error
as the other.
The arguments on this subject, many of them,
affirm, 1st, that Episcopacy was and was not of divine
appointment; that is, was and was not so provided
in the new Church law. 2d. Episcopacy is necessary to the perfection of Church government, but not




280             The City of God.
its being.  3d. It is absolutely necessary.  4th.
Bishops are by divine right superior to and distinct
from  elders. They have the sole right to ordain
ministers, and govern the Church. 5th. Bishops of
this order are the sole official successors of the apostles.  6th. Bishops and presbyters are by divine
right the same order in the ministry. 7th. All ministers are the same order. This is according to the
primitive Church. To prove what a Church must
be now, you have only to ascertain what it was in
that respect when it was primitive; i. e., when it
was fresh and new from apostolic legislation.
Now I ask, what are all these arguments about?
Evidently nothing. They begin and end in myth,
romance, and error. It is precisely as if we argue
the question, What kind of a government did Julius
Caesar set up in America in the eighteenth century?
When therefore it is said there must be a chain
of tactual ordinations from the apostles down, in
order to continue the proper existence of the Church
set up by Jesus Christ, the only reply that can be
made, consistently with historic truth, is that Jesus
Christ set up no Church of any kind. It cannot be
argued what kind of Church He made, until it first
be shown that He made a Church of some kind.




Who are Converted Jews?          281
XII.
WHO ARE CONVERTED JEWS?
THERE are two senses in which this expression may
be understood, and the meanings are very different.
Before the apostacy and secession of the unbelieving
Jews, after the death of Jesus, the religion of all
Jews was nominally the same. Save some occasional
lapses into idolatry in their earlier history, there
never was any difficulty among them  about their
creed. It was nominally the same. Nevertheless
in that period, as in all other periods of the Church,
you would no doubt find unconverted persons in
the Church. Indeed, more strictly, then as now
and always, all conversion, regeneration, is in the
Church, virtually at least. So such persons being
Jews, and being converted might be called converted
Jews.
But that is not the sense in which the expression
is generally used.  Commonly, it means a person
converted from Judaism to Christianity. Of course
such conversions can be predicated only of the apostate Jews, after the secession. Of such we are informed in the New Testament of but one instance,
though quite likely there were many.
Saul of Tarsus left the Church, and went with the
apostates, and after a few years he was converted
from his apostacy, from this new form of Judaism,




282             The City of God.
to Christianity. He was in the most proper sense
a converted Jew. It was not merely the conversion
of a Jewish person, but he was converted as a Jew.
It was like the conversion of a Jew now.
But the great mass of' Jews who acknowledged
the Christship of Jesus in that age could not be
called converted Jews.  They never had any religion but Christianity.  They never denied Christ,
either in the person of Jesus or otherwise. It matters not when they acknowledged Jesus as Christ,
whether on the day of the resurrection, or ten or
twenty years after, if they received Jesus at the
first opportunity without denying Him. They were
not apostates, and so, not converted Jews. Accepting Jesus as their Christ was only a firm maintainance intact and inviolate of their former religious
creed. They retained and maintained the religion
of their fathers, receiving Jesus when presented,
They could not receive Him before.




Modern or Post-Messianic Jews.    283
XIII.
MODERN OR POST-MESSIANIC JEWS.
THE status of present Jews, those since the time of
Jesus, and their relation to the true Church, should be
noticed in this connection.
We have seen that before the death of Jesus, the
people afterward called Christians and those called
Jews were together in one religious brotherhood; and
when the question arose about Jesus, whether He was
or was not the Christ of the Old Testament, some
took one side and some the other. This separation
began soon after the death of Jesus, and we may suppose that in thirty or forty years it became complete.
The scattered condition of the Church, the civil state
of the country, and other circumstances, rendered it
impracticable that it should become complete sooner.
We see too that this question about the Christship
was, in its consequences, absolutely vital both to religion and to the Church. It could but be well understood on all hands, that if Jesus was Christ, then to
deny Him was to deny Christ, and apostatize from
the common faith. And if He was not the Christ
of prophecy, in that case to accept and claim Him
as such was to deny the faith, and apostatize. They
separated. Both parties were large, but at this day
it is impossible to determine which was the larger, and
which the smaller of the two. The question on which




284             The City of God.
they separated being in its nature vital to religion, it
threw the parties wide asunder. Their hostility was
naturally great. It could not be otherwise. Assuming that Jesus was Christ, then it follows that those
so holding, afterwards called Christians, held the old
faith firm, and the denying party apostatized. Each
party claimed to be right, claimed to be the true
Church, the mere regular continuance of the old
Church. The Jews, as the denying party came to
be exclusively called, after the other party came to be
well known by the name of Christians, claimed the
regular ecclesiastical legitimacy, on the ground that
Jesus was an impostor, while the Christians claimed
it on the sole ground that He was the very Christ.
Everything hinged upon this simple fact. There was
no difference between them about doctrines, apart
from this.
Irreligious, outside people then, and those in Christendom now, stood on very different ground. Then
outsiders were mostly heathen people, idolaters, believed in no Scripture, denied all revelation. They
looked down from their wisdom on both parties, and
regarded this separation as a party quarrel among
fanatics about one Jesus, who being dead, it was affirmed that He was alive. The denying Jews, keeping up those outside forms of worship most prominently seen, and also retaining the old name, would
be naturally regarded the regular party, and the
Christians as a new sect or secession. And this they
would be still the more likely to do, as the Christians
held the strange doctrine that a man once dead was
alive. And so we hear the heathen writers of that
day speak of them as a new sect.  On the question as to which party seceded, the Roman officials




Modern or Post-Messianic Jews.       285
and the denying Jews very naturally took the same
ground.
And then the deifying and worshipping a convicted
criminal, one who had been judicially executed, was
in their eyes foolishness indeed. So the government
officials and leading men among the heathen, whose
position and circumstances caused them to know, or
care, or think much about Jew or Hebrew people,
would very naturally fall in with the rejecting Jews,
without taking any interest at all in the religion of
either of the two parties.
So the government hunted, persecuted; and punished the Christians, because they were, as they regarded them, a new sect, and not because they cared
a fig about the doctrines of either party. The Romans had stipulated to protect the Jews in their worship, innocent and foolish as they regarded it; and
here was in their estimation an opposing religious
party, and a disturber of the religious quiet. What
many theologians call the calling of the Gentiles was
the mere putting forth of more of the proper aggressive force and missionary spirit of the common religion of Scripture.
Thus matters drifted for the space of about forty
years, with more or less persecution against the Christians, according to the taste, ambition, personal
wickedness, etc., of the conflicting and changing rulers
of Rome, until the great Jewish revolt, which ended
in the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. This Roman war had little to do with Church or religious
matters, so far as history informs us. It was a revolt,
not of the Jews, but chiefly at least of the anti-Christian Jews of Lower Judea. What other portions of
that class of Jews, if any, joined them, we are not




286             The City of God.
informed. The insurgents were routed, cut up, and
dispersed. And after some years we find the whole
remainder of rejecting Jews holding on in religious
ceremony to ante-messianic forms and modes of worship, which ceremonies, of themselves, declared against
Jesus as Christ.
Our Palestinian history of those times is very
meagre and unsatisfactory, owing, as we may suppose, to the great destruction of literature, centuries
afterward, in the Mohammedan wars. The few
scraps left us, hardly amounting to anything like consecutive history, show us that the breach between
the Christian and repudiating Jews became deeper
and deeper.
In the first three centuries, the rejecting Jews continued to be regarded by the Roman government as
the true Israelites, and the Christian party as an
illegitimate offshoot. Constantine became emperor
A. D. 306. Unlike his predecessors, who were mostly
mere despotic rulers, he was a man of the people.
Of his semi-fabulous conversion to Christianity, much
more has been written than is known. His politics
were certainly Christian. Thus much we know, that
he made Christianity largely and strikingly popular,
and gave it large magnificence and patronage. Now
the popular tide turned against the Jews, and they,
in turn, became the illegitimate offshoot.
From that time io the present, the Jews have been
generally regarded a despised, disfranchised, and
downtrodden people. Their religion caused them
to prefer exclusiveness, and their neighbors compelled it.
One remarkable circumstance in their civil history
has generally been lost sight of. For more than six



Modern or Post-Messianic Jews.       287
teen hundred years, up to one hundred or one hundred and fifty years ago, they have not been permitted to live in the world like other people. Their
repudiation of Christ, and consequently of all revealed
religion, has been so abhorrent to Christians, and
their religion so unable to commend itself to other
people, that they have found toleration nowhere.
So wherever they have gone, they have been compelled
by the civil authority to occupy exclusive, assigned
districts, and scarcely to change and reside here and
there among other people, as they might choose. It
is but lately, mostly within the last hundred years
or so, that they have attempted to mix and associate
with other people. Either choice or compulsion prevented it.  The late liberal principles amongthe
nations of Europe and America have been showing
themselves only in the last one or two hundred years.
Considerable changes in this respect have been witnessed in the present century. But in some parts of
the world, these civil hamperings are felt by the Jews
even at the present.
What effect such conditions of life would have upon
a people in so long a period, we are poorly prepared
to judge, for we have no precedent or parallel case in
human history.  All nations and peoples are more or
less clannish and exclusive, and in proportion as this
characteristic is more or less strict, and of long continuance, it produces a nationality of physical appearances as well as of habitude of life. This is
plainly seen everywhere.
Now the question is, will not this circumstance account for the physical peculiarities which we see
among the Jews of the present day?  It is worse
than useless to attempt to trace these peculiarities be



288              The City of God.
yond the apostolic age, as if the ante-messianic Jews
were one and the same people, as to race or nation.
We know that at the time of Jesus, many of the
Jews, perhaps most of them, were Grecians and others,
who never had any sort of connection with Israelites,
except in their religion.  Why does it follow, either
from the nature of the Church, or from anything else,
or where is the history to show, to indicate, or to suppose that the members of the Church at that day,
any more than at this, were all of one nation, one
kindred, or one people, either civilly or genealogically
considered?  Fancy and fable do not make good history, though repeated a thousand times. All the history we have proves the contrary.
Some fanciful writers affect to trace the physiognomy of Abraham in the Jewish features of the pres
ent day. Why not trace it in those of the Arabians,
the Moabites, if they can be found, or in the Chris
tians of the present day?
The Jews before the separation, in the apostolic
period, were less clannish and exclusive than other
peoples of those ages, so far as we are informed. Like
the Church of this and all other ages, the policy was
to bring in from without anybody and everybody who
would worship God aright.  This arises from  the
very nature of the Church and its religion. And we
know abundantly that the Church, for more than a
thousand years before the incarnation, did, as it does
now, extend itself outward everywhere, that is, bring
in from without greatly, so as thereby to swell its
numbers more or less in different ages.
It is therefore little short of folly to attempt to
trace the present Jews, as a nation or separate people, back beyond the separation. They are traceable




Modern or Post-Messianic Jews.      289
since that period only on account of their strange
religion, and their strange relation to surrounding
nations.  The people known as Jews since the separation are but an anomalous fragment of the Jews,
that is, of the Church before that event.
It is plainly perceivable that in the last twenty or
fifty years, the Jewish physiognomy and external
peculiarity is beginning to dilute and disappear. It
is not always now, more especially in England and
America, that a Jew can be distinguished; and many
persons are half, quarter, or one eighth or a sixteenth
Jewish, as to one of the ancestral lines a few generations back. And the operation of the same causes,
namely, the prevalence of liberal principles by which
Jews may live and intermarry freely, like other people, will in time, and indeed in no great time, render it impossible to distinguish a Jew; and thus, by
the natural but gradual operation of the same cause,
in no great time hence, there will be no such people
as Jews in the world, in any national, genealogical, or
physiological sense, whatever course the present Jewish religion may take.
Then what comes of all those speculations about
the restoration of the Jews?  Who are to be restored? and to what are they to be restored? The
restoration is predicated of promises in the Old Testament, away in early Hebrew history, and in reference to the seed of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob.
Then how can it have any more reference to this
fragment of Jews now found in the apostacy, than to
those who accepted the Christship in Jesus, or those
who branched off from the Church in any way?
Still, the posterity of Jacob have performed a
most remarkable, nay a wonderful part in the history
19




290            The City of God.
of the world. They were made wonderfully instrumental in putting down idolatry, and establishing the
true worship of the true God among men. For
a time they were distinguishable from other people in
a genealogical sense, and then only in a religious
sense. Modern or post-messianic Jews, a fragmentary
offshoot of a fragment of the old ancestral Jews, have
had a wonderful history; but in the end have perhaps furnished more material for semi-romance than
for historic truth.




Modes of Teaching in Different Ages.    291
XIV.
MODES OF TEACHING IN DIFFERENT AGES.
IT has been insisted that the religion of the Old
Testament was the religion of the New; that the
one is no more spiritual, or suited to mankind in
general, than the other; that the Bible knows no
religion but faith in Christ, and corresponding obedience; that there is nothing new in the New Testament, as to the Old, except modes of teaching.
Nevertheless, historic facts are always in their nature
new.
Religious principles and doctrines are inculcated
chiefly in two ways: by verbal or didactic lessons,
and the performance of ceremonies. These are done,
when properly done, and best to purpose, not always
in the same way; but in different ages, in different
countries, and among different peoples, in different
ways.
The difference, then, between the old and the new
dispensations, as these two periods are sometimes
called, is not in religion, but merely in the modes of
teaching it.
The necessity of different modes of teaching arises
out of the nature of things, particularly religious
things, and the mental constitution. Before the incarnation of Christ was seen, it was impossible to
teach the doctrine of faith in Christ, in the mode,




292             The City of God.
and with the instruments used since. This impossibility is peculiar to religion'only in so far as religion
comprehends moral and spiritual things. I beg just
here to remind the reader of a chapter in Ecce Ecclesia, on the " Origination of Ideas."
Before the incarnation, the Church could know
nothing of the vicarious atonement, except as an abstract doctrine. Now it is known as a practical, sensible fact, as well as a doctrine. Knowledge on all moral
or immaterial subjects must necessarily proceed in this
way. The improvement in language and advance of
human society must proceed together. They are
mutually dependent. By long processes and familiar
usage, we have brought into our employ a number
of words pretty well fitted to convey a number of
ideas respecting this general doctrine, which our distant ancestors did not, and could not possibly have.
So they must needs use other instruments. But
when the lessons or doctrines to be taught become
familiarly associated with the words describing them,
then the physical means, formerly useful, or even necessary, become a hindrance.
It is the great mistake of those who make it, to
suppose that the Mosaic Church machinery was always the same.  On the contrary, it was almost always changing. Like the upward progress of thought
and action elsewhere, it was constantly evolving, not
new principles, but new modes of displaying and inculcating old ones. So we once saw the tabernacle,
greatly useful and much used in its time; but after
the location of the tribes in Palestine, we see little or
nothing of it. It was not now useful. Thereafter
we see more of the verbal teachings of the prophets.
So, after the captivity, we see congregational worship




Modes of Teaching in Different Ages.   293
much in use. Perhaps there was not much, if any,
of it before. The state of things now called for it.
And in the later prophets, we see an evident departure from  reliance on external forms, and a more
open application of the ideas connected therewith.
If the condition of mankind had been such at the
first, that man could properly use and appreciate the
knowledge which was furnished in the historic scenes
of the incarnation and visible work of Christ, then
there would have been no postponement of the incarnation. But such was not the case. Man has always been natural. And so it was only in the fullness
of time, the time wanted by regular and natural processes, that Christ assumed manhood, and appeared
in the humanity of Jesus.
These developments do by no means create new
doctrines, or-new principles of religion to be taught,
but only new and greater facilities for teaching the
old ones.
Some of the early Mosaic laws seem to us to be almost devoid of religious principle of any kind. Perhaps in themselves considered they are; but there is
a principle in religion, often very much overlooked;
the greatest and most fundamental of all, the foundation and substance of all, that could not fail of inculcation by any of these direct precepts understood
to be divine, no matter to what they might relate
immediately. That is, obedience. Obedience, full,
complete, absolute, implicit. obedience to divine command, is religion of the highest type, no matter to
what the particular command may relate. Perhaps
much of the early Hebrew ritual was of this charac
ter; that is, intrinsically of little or no value, but
highly important' to strengthen and habituate a spirit




294             The City of God.
of obedience. A thing commanded to be done may
be, in itself, unimportant, and yet the obedience put
forth in doing it may be vitally important. So, very
much of the early precepts given to the Church might
be very safely laid aside, after they had answered
their end.
But all the principal or important things which
went into disuse in the age of Jesus were, so far as
we know, not even of this character. They were not
laid aside by mere command, or as matter of prudence and expediency. They ceased by the simplest
operation of common sense, from absolute necessity,
and the nature of things. They pertained strictly
and naturally to the ante-messianic period. To continue them, or any of them, would be absurd and
contradictory. It would be to declare that Jesus was
not Christ; that the appearance was yet to be looked
for.
To have clear ideas, therefore, about either religion
or the Church, we must distinguish between modes
of teaching and the things taught. As to the introduction of spiritual religion into the world at the
period of Jesus, all before that time being legal,
physical, external religion; it must be treated in no
other way than to denounce it as absurd and ridiculous! It is out of all reason, and out of all question.
Stated a thousand times, it is dishonoring to God,
derogatory to religion, and most signally untrue.
It is wonderful how a man can read in the Psalms,
and many other parts of the Old Testament, of the
highest and holiest Christian experience, descriptions
of the sublimest and most fervid communion with
God, and exhortations to holiness the purest and
loftiest ever uttered in human language, - and then




JiJidus of Teaching in Different Ages.   295
write that spiritual religion was not known, that
repentance was not taught, that faith in Christ had
no existence among men before the incarnation!
Shall such stumbling blocks remain in the Church?
0 Lord, how long!




296            The City of God.
XV.
THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST.
A NUMBER of writers make frequent mention of
the Mystical Body of Christ, without, so far as I remember to have seen, any explanation of the meaning of the curious phrase. How it ever got into religious literature, others may know better than I do.
It seems to be sometimes used as another name for
the Church. But what there is mysterious about
the Church, I have not been able to see.
Dr. Kitto says (Cyclopcedia, art. "Mystery"),
"A most unscriptural and dangerous sense is but too
often put upon this word, as if it meant something
absolutely  unintelligible  and  incomprehensible;
whereas in every instance in which it occurs in the
Septuagint or New Testament, it is applied to something revealed, declared, explained, spoken, or which
may be known or understood."
This is both sensible and important. The author
then proceeds to quote and explain the several passages where the word occurs in Scripture. It seems
to me there is far less mystery about the Church,
than almost anything else in religion.
I suppose we know very little, if anything, about
final causes in any of the departments of knowledge.
And in the very nature of religious things, standing
as they necessarily do, upon the very borders of finite




The Mystical Body of Christ.       297
things, and shading, if it were possible, into the regions of the infinite, it can but be that our knowledge is restricted by our constitutional inability to go
farther. And when we know so little about many
familiar things, we should not be surprised at our
lack of knowledge of religious things.  Religious
teaching carries us as near to the incomprehensible
as it is possible. It teaches of God, but cannot carry
the mind to God. It teaches of eternity, but cannot
conduct the mind to eternity. And so of heaven, of
hell, and other things pertaining to spiritual and infinite things.
In all these matters, revelation teaches as far as
man can receive the teaching.  Things beyond that
might be called mysterious. But what are generally
called mysteries in Scripture are revealed things,
which otherwise we would not be able to know.
But who does not comprehend the idea of the
external association of Christian people?  There
is nothing more mysterious about that, than about
family association. Mystery, indeed! I know of
not many things more simple or more easily understood.
And yet the Church is the mystical body of
Christ; it is mysteriously connected with the Saviour in some hidden, obscure way, with some secret,
allegorical meaning, growing, we may suppose, out of
the manner of its formation, taken in connection with
the destruction, at the same time, of the former
Church.
Thus it is that semi-Romanism  is propagated
among us in an insidious, matter-of-course kind of
way. Thus it is that almost if not quite all the mischievous errors in the Church, about the Church,




298             The City of God.
grow out of this popular er'or of a new Church, of
a new dispensation.  The dispensation is new in
the sense that, according to a distinguished author,
"All before was earthly, or animal, or devilish, or
all three together; but now, all is holy, spiritual, and
divine."  And according to another, " The planting
of Christianity was the total abolition of all the religion that preceded it."  A third," The Christian
religion is entirely new, both with regard to the object and the doctrines, not only infinitely superior to,
but totally unlike everything which had ever before
entered into-the mind of man." A fourth says that
"All the religion of the Jews before the apostles
was, throughout, a system of folly and delusion."
A  fifth, that " The kingdom of God, which is the
Church of God, had no existence, no pretense to
existence, before the apostles erected it by Christ's
command."  And a sixth, a tenth, and a hundredth,
in like manner.
Now when the tall teachers of religious teachers
teach thus, what are we humble assistants to do?
What are we expected to teach?  We must break
through such shackles and teach the truth.
If we set it down as true that no new Church was
formed, and no new religion was introduced in the
time of the apostles, then we must maintain that
ground, and understand all Scripture that way. All
Scripture must conform to everything that is true.
Truth must not yield to accommodate anybody, or
for fear of anybody.




The Hundred and Twenty Disciples.   299
XVI.
THE HUNDRED AND TWENTY DISCIPLES.
ACTS i. 15 reads on this wise: " And in those
days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and
said (the number of the names together were about
an hundred and twenty), Men and brethren," etc.
He then goes on, as the history informs us, to propose another apostle in the place of Judas.
A good deal has been said about this hundred and
twenty disciples, so alluded to on that occasion.
Olshausen says: "The whole body of the little
Church at Jerusalem amounted, at that time, only to
one hundred and twenty souls."  How he'ets his
information is a very serious question.
Burkitt calls them the " primo-primitive Church,
consisting of a  hundred and  twenty persons."
Neither does he give us the least intimation as to
where he gets his information.
Scott's Commentary says, " The whole number of
disciples collected together at this time was about a
hundred and twenty."  That is a very safe remark.
It is what Luke had just stated, that the number of
disciples at that time and that place was about a
hundred and twenty.
Benson paraphrases thus: " That is, who were together in the upper room, were a hundred and
twenty."  That is very sensible, and is plainly stated
without any conjecture or gpess-work.




300            The City of God.
Dr. Clarke is quite as satisfactory. He regards
the one hundred and twenty as the number of persons then and there. present in that room; and remarks, " It is remarkable, that this was the number
which the Jews required to form a Council in any
city."
To the conjecture of Burkitt. and of Olshausen, it
might be replied, first, that the words used by Luke
as to the number present on the occasion referred to,
are merely incidental and parenthetic, forming no
part of the staple of the thing he is relating.
Secondly, there is not the slightest intimation anywhere in any history, that this number of persons
has anything whatever to do with the number of
Church-members at that time. The supposition, as
we will see, is a mere conjecture, and a very wild
one. Third, it could not be intended to number the
Church, for Paul, in First Corinthians, in a remark
equally irrelevant to the numerical strength of the
Church,;says that some tinge before that, before the
ascension, above five hundred brethren saw the Saviour at one time after his crucifixion. And Burkitt,
who, as above, says this one hundred and twenty
constituted the entire Church, says also that this five
hundred were all members of the Church, of the
highest veracity and piety. Both things cannot be
true, for they plainly contradict each other.
But in the fourth place, before any person can
regard this one hundred and twenty as making up
the entire Church of God upon earth, he must answer the question, What became of the Church
that undeniably existed a few weeks before, amounting to millions? To question that, a few weeks before this, a Church, a divinely recognized Church,




The Hundred and Twenty Disciples.    301
call it by what name you will, existed, a little of it
in Palestine, and the rest in other countries, amounting to several millions, would be to question a fact
that never was questioned, we may suppose.  This
Church, the Church of God, with our Bible —-all
of it that then existed — for their Bible, our Christ
for their Christ, and our God for their God, had, it is
said, over four hundred of its congregations in the
city of Jerusalem alone, and thousands more in other
parts of the world. Jesus himself was a member of
it. It was physically impossible that any large portion of them could have even heard of those then
recent, wonderful events at Jerusalem. Not one
tenth, probably, could have heard of his crucifixion
and resurrection, and so, could not have denied
Him. They could not have questioned his resurrection, either as a fact or as evidence of his Christship.
Those who denied the Saviour did it after this.  At
that time, no serious objection is intimated against
any portion of the Church, except a few officials
and others in Jerusalem, who aided and abetted in
the trial and crucifixion. These could not have
amounted to over a few  hundred, at most. Now,
what became of this entire Church, with its millions
of members, and tens of thousands of divinely called
and divinely recognized ministers? Does any one
say - as no one ever did say, that I know of - that
they were all excommunicated, wholesale, without
impeachment, without their knowledge, and when
they could not have heard of it for many years afterward?  As there is not the least historic intimation
of such a proceeding, the supposition is absurd. Or
did divine wisdom  set up two rival churches to
waste and devour each other?  The one supposition
is about as ridiculous as the other.




302            The City of God.
Dr. Schaff, in his romantic, and it might be prudently added, rather fabulous history of the Church's
origin, tells us that the Church was not organized by
Jesus in person, nor by the apostles, but by this
company of followers and friends of the Saviour,
consisting of a hundred and twenty, or thereabouts,
and including the apostles, on the day of Pentecost.
And although he is very minute in his details about
everything that happened, either with or without
historic warrant, often drawing very largely on his
imagination, he makes not the slightest allusion to
the formation of a Church, or anything of the kind.
But without a word or hint of history, or pretense of
history, he tells us that then and there one hundred
and twenty persons formed and founded a new divine Church for mankind! This, for a scholar and
a theologian, is certainly extraordinary.
Those speculations, many and varied as they are,
about this hundred and twenty, have all grown out
of a very natural, but very incidental remark of the
writer of Acts, that when it was proposed to select a
man for apostle in the place of Judas, there were not
many persons present, only about a hundred and
twenty.
Whether this number present, one hundred and
twenty, had any reference to a Church council, an
ecclesiastical body with which they must be presumed to be familiar, we are not informed. This is
the opinion of Dr. Clarke and other leading commentators. But it would seem strange that the formation of a new and antagonistic Church, one that
was to destroy the Jewish Church then existing,
should be set up and made to work by a Jewish
Church council!




The Hundred and Twenty Disciples.    303
But from the brief historic notes we have of this
selection of Matthias, it does not appear that anybody participated in it but the apostles themselves.
Were it not for the old fable that the Christian
Church that now is had its absolute, organic beginning at, or just about this time, one would no more
think of finding the formation of a Church in this
assembly of a hundred and twenty, than in any other
historic matter alluded to in the New Testament.
Some find the beginning of the Church when Jesus began to preach; some here and there in the
course of his preaching, and some on the last day of
his ministry. Others again find it to have been organized by the apostles, some here and some there,
after the death of Jesus. If anything could be found
anywhere in the New Testament on the subject, or
making any allusion even to such a thing, it would
relieve the subject of much of its most serious difficulty. As it is, it is not only wholly conjecture, but
looked at soberly, as elsewhere intimated, the thing
itself is not only. historically untrue, but philosophically impossible.




304             The City of God.
XVII.
THE TRIAL AND EXECUTION  OF JESUS.
IT is appropriate that a few observations be made
here on this subject. It is the foundation of all true
religion, and might be justly regarded the cornerstone of the Church. The accounts we have of this
transaction are historically exceedingly meagre and
unsatisfactory. Indeed, we have nothing that can be
called a history, or even a comprehensive outline of
the transactions. We have but a few isolated, disintegrated facts. It is a mistake with those of us
who suppose that the four Evangelists, or any one of
them, undertook to write a history of anything. The
object of writing the New Testament seems to be,
first, to make it patent, to the Church and then to
the world, that the great Christhood of revealed religion had culminated in actual, historic manhood;
and second, in connection therewith, to give authoritative exposition and elaboration to the revealed
doctrines and morals. How much of historic detail
of occurrences would be useful to such ends is
another question. We may presume we have as
much as would be useful to us, though it be not at
all satisfactory to our wishes.
Moreover, we are but poorly informed as to the
jurisprudence of either Jews or Romans, either civil,
criminal, or ecclesiastical, in those times. Our infor



The Trial and Execution of Jesus.    305
mation is in isolated scraps, and is very general. Judea, but a part of little Palestine, was a petty Roman province, a sort of property of little hereditary
tyrants.  The civil government, as compared with
almost anything seen in modern times, was disgracefully miserable. It was this way or that way, here
and there, as prejudice, passion, bribery, and tyranny
chanced to fancy. And it must be remembered, too,
in those days human life was cheap. Cruelties and
executions were commonplaces.
Again, the very gospel of human salvation, from
the very first, contemplated the sacrificial death of
the human exhibition of the Godhead. Voluntary
sacrifice, the extremest possible, lay at the foundation, and was inseparable from the idea of man's
justification before God. Without the shedding of
blood there is no remission of sin. Not that the shed
blood, or the shedding of it procures or produces the
remission, but because nothing short of that, the
knowledge'of it on our part - could give us the
proper sense of benevolence in a benefactor, which
would be sufficient to produce the degree of dependence and humility necessary to establish the natural
relation of saved mendicant and independent Saviour.
The voluntary death of the Saviour-victim, then, lay
at the very foundation —.nay, it was itself the very
principle of human. recovery.
How  the Saviour-man would die was an  open
question.  Not only the death, but the manner of
the death was essential. Suppose Jesus had died of
sickness, as other men die. Then it were a failure,
because that could not have produced the necessary
effect in the heart of man. In such a death we
could see, or be made to perceive very little of sacri20




306             The City of God.
fice and self-denial. And we must remember that
nothing but sacrifice and self-denial, in actually relieving the distresses of the distressed, can give adequate evidence of any considerable degree of benevolence in a benefactor. Benefaction which costs but
little gives no evidence of benevolence.
The death, of Jesus, then, as looked at by us, must
be inflicted- nay, it must be cruelly and wickedly
inflicted. In the very nature of things it was anomalous. While, as Peter said on the day of Pentecost,
it was the work of " wicked hands," it was but the
regular administration of the law of the Church.
The immediate legal cause of Jesus' death was that
He claimed equality with God; but the real, procuring cause was largely to be found in jealousy and
rivalship of the members of the Sanhedrim.  To
suffer Him to live, they would lose office, place, and
position. So that while the Jewish crucifiers were
glad to vindicate and execute the law, they needed
the law as their own vindication to back up and justify their own conduct.
Blasphemy was a capital offense by the law of the
Church. And it is not at all certain that the death
of Jesus was the only one of this sort, about this
time. Gamaliel, in his speech before the Sanhedrim,
as cited in Acts v. 35-39, mentions two others, Theudas and one Judas. Josephus speaks of a Theudas
who played a similar part several years later, in the
time of Claudius, and others along in periods not far
distant. The times were turbulent; the land was
frequently overrun by insurrectionary chiefs. The
notion prevailed in Judea somewhat, to what extent we are not informed, that the Jewish Messias
would be a civil prince, and free Judea, if not Pales



The Trial and Execution of Jesus.    307
tine and even much more of the empire, from the
yoke of Rome. So the Messiahship seemed usually
connected with the idea of civil insurrection.
The execution of Theudas and'of Judas were
probably fresh in their recollection. And although
they claimed the Messiahship, it is likely their civil
offenses so far took the lead, that they were disposed
of by Roman authority without much, if any, of
ecclesiastical complaint on the part of the Jews.
This was the point in Gamaliel's speech. He
seemed to have the true idea of the Scriptural Messiah, and so argues- If Jesus is a false Messiah,
like Theudas and Judas, He will soon be checked
as an insurrectionist by the civil power; but if He
proves to be the true Messiah, He will commit no
civil offense; and surely you will not oppose God's
true Messiah, lest haply you be found to fight
against God.
That argument was very good so far as it went;
but it did not, and could not go far enough. The ecclesiastical law denounced the death penalty against
blasphemy, irrespective of any civil offense. The
Jewish doctors said, We prove Him guilty of blasphemy because, being a man, He maketh Himself
God; and if Ile has not as yet committed overt
insurrection, He soon will. It is dangerous to the
government to suffer a man to go at large who
claims supreme power. If He is the Christ, let
Him disprove the charge of blasphemy; Surely He
can do that.
Reasonable as that would seem, it was demanding
an impossibility. The true Messiah must be apparently guilty of blasphemy, and so, liable to the death
penalty. It is very difficult, nay, we may say it is




308             The City of GCod.
impossible, to judge a priori of the proper proofs
of the true Messiahship. It is very certain Jesus
did not convince anybody, not even his warmest and
best friends, definitively and conclusively, that He
was the real Christ.  The most He did, and the most
it would seem it was possible to do, was to create,
in those in the best position to be informed, a high
probability that He was what He claimed to be, the
very Christ.
The Scriptures everywhere hold, and reason also
seems to hold, that a resurrection from the dead,
and that alone, can give the final, conclusive proof of
the Christship. This evidence is to be presented in
the world but once.
It is a principle in evidence, and a sound one, that
nothing is conclusively proved until the best evidence
the nature of the case admits of is adduced. Then
how, in the nature of things, could Jesus while alive
prove certainly that He was Christ? He could not.
The nature of the case admits of better evidence
than anything a live man can do or say. Resurrection from the dead is the highest conceivable evidence, and nothing else is.
Then Jesus being the very Christ, He was shut up
by the very providence of God, and his own plan of
redeeming the world, to the inescapable necessities
of a judicial death. It was in this way that He
planned a voluntary death. Much of the Sanhedrim
may have voted with reluctance, but the law  impelled them. Jesus did not convince his best friends
conclusively; and how then could it be expected of
rival enemies, or cold, reluctant friends to be convinced?
So Jesus was virtually slain from the foundation




The Trial and Execution of Jesus.    309
of the world. His death was planned from the beginning. The seeming agents were but instruments.
Verily they did, they knew not what. Mostly, no
doubt, they were concerned about office, and place,
and salary, etc. Jesus could have arrested them and
saved his own life, but not without arresting the constitution and course of things; and this would have
arrested the entire course and progress of human salvation.
Human salvation is looked at by many too superficially. It is a far greater thing than many suppose. Many of its aspects are no doubt far beyond
human thought or conception. It had to meet the
necessities of the case. And some of these necessities were the constitution of man, and the circumstances of human condition. To change man's constitution, and place him in different relations to God
and nature, would not be salvation. It was man
that was to be saved. The mode was planned by
infinite wisdom. The instruments were adapted to
the ends. A  Christhood, supposed and explained,
and the thing is conceivable. To be Godlike, salvation must be within reach of all men. Partial salvation, restricted as to times, places, countries, peoples, chronology, - is unworthy the God we adore.
A " temporary system," "confined -to the Jews," or
confined at all, looks Lilliputian. To be Godlike, it
must be plenary and world-wide. And so it was,
and is. How could the great Almighty measure and
dole out salvation by an almanac and a surveyor's
chain, or the petty jurisdiction of some ephemeral
king or usurper? God deals with man, and discriminates only between those who are obedient and
those who are not.




310             The City of God.
That aspect of the Godhead which we call Christ,
the Divine Son, undertook the enterprise of renovating this world. He began at the right time, and in
the right way.  The time was before any man died;
and the way was by the voluntary suffering and
denial of his own self. That part of the work
which was designed for the sensible observance of
men was not, for natural and obvious reasons, performed at the very first, but somewhat later in the
world's history. So this event was, of course, chronological; and so, part of the world's history was
before, and part after. But the Christship no more
began at this period than the Godhead began at
some chronological date.  Dates and dividing lines
refer to human things, not to great, plenary, divine
operations.
The death of Jesus was the death of the son of
Mary, but did not affect the Christhood. The son
of Mary lived but the very brief space of one third
part of a single century; but Christ is coeval with
the coeternal years of God.
As to the Church, that naturally takes care of
itself. Christianity supposed, the Church is absolutely unavoidable.  Internal piety, not external
laws, makes the Church.  Christians associate religiously for the enjoyment and promotion of Christianity from the very necessities of the case. It would
be no more of a contradiction to suppose that Christians did not love God and each other, and did not
love private, public, and social worship, than to suppose religion without a Church. Social and public
worship are as naturally and as necessarily the consequence of individual piety, as that the social constitution produces its legitimate results in any other




The Trial and Execution of Jesus.    311
departments of life.  The Church is the confluent
result of personal religion, because of the social gravitation which is the controlling religious ingredient.
A thing is the result of its ingredients.
And then, Christianity supposes a ministry, and
fellowship; that is, personal membership; and so,
all the  other external machinery of a  Church.
Christians who do not attend to, labor and participate in these things, are not Christians. Religion
and the Church coinhere, coexist and cosupport each
other.  They are not two separate things, but two
aspects of one and the same thing. They are separable only as filial love and duty are separable, in
reference to the father and the mother.  But filial
duty includes both.
Before the actual life and suffering of the Messiah,
the pious man looked to these sacrifices and self denias - adumbrantly it certainly was, because it
could not possibly be otherwise -from the position
he occupied.  He had  Moses and the prophets.
Their teachings are slightly but clearly hinted at in
the writings of the Old Testament.  After these
things transpired, the pious man beholds the very
same thing from  a different point of observation.
Before, the Christian could only speak or think of
sacrifice-: now he thinks and speaks of crucifixion;
still, they are one and the same thing.  The cross is
but an instrument of vicarious sacrifice and self-denial.  We remember what was formerly anticipated.
But the great DEATH underlies the whole. In both
cases the pious man has something besides mere external information to rely upon as the pillar of. his
faith.  Human knowledge has two sources, testimony  and  consciousness; the one addresses his




312              The City of God.
senses, the other his mind.  So with the Christian;
there are the testimonies, here the witnessing Spirit.
Glorious system! God is merciful! Jesus suffered! And the man of faith and obedience is justified!




INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS REFERRED TO
IN THE SECTION "ERRORS OF AUTHORS."
Abbey, 161.                          Clarke, 5, 6, 9, 68, 87, 102-104, 181.
Alexander, 177.                      Coleman, 17, 24.
American Bible  Society, 109-111,  Coleridge, 195.
141.                             Collyer, 199.
American Cyclopaedia, 116, 133.      Comprehensive Commentary, 166.
American Tract Society, 97-100.    Conybeare  and Howson, 11, 12,
19-21, 80, 183, 184.
Bangs, 9.                            Cookman, 89.
Barnes, 59.                          Covel's Dictionary, 116.
Barth, 195.                          Cudworth, 105.
Belcher, 38.
Bellarmine, 130.                     D'Aubign6, 74, 75.
Benson, 152.                         Dick, 35, 179.
Benson, G., 139.                     Dixon, 115.
Binney, 106.                         Doddridge, 71, 72.
Bloomfield, 33.                      Dwight, 67.
Bridges, 196.
Brown, 189.                          Eadie, 33.
Bryant, 188.                         Ebrard, 66.
Buck's Dictionary, 6, 23, 204.       Ecce Deus Homo, 44, 45.
Burnet, 187.                         Ecce Homo, 190.
Bushnell, 132.                       Edwards, 89, 90, 92.
Butler, 61-65.                       Elliott, 141-143.
Calmet, 59.                          Fairbairn, 135, 193, 201-203.
Calvin, 53-55.                       Farrar, 59.
Campbell, 78.                        Fleetwood, 147, 180, 192.
Campbell, A., 148, 160.              Fletcher, 150.
Cave, 82, 83, 91.
Celsus, 28.                          Gieseler, 119, 120.
Chalmers, 34.                        Greyson, 71.
Chapman, 162.
Chateaubriand, 128.                  Hagenbach, 55, 56.
Christian Remembrancer, 58.          Hales, 146.
Clark, S., 148.                      Hall, 92.




314                    Index of Authors.
Harbaugh,.171.                      Milligan, 44.
Hare, 150.                           Milman, 3, 4, 134.
Henderson, 78.                       More, 101.
Henry, 30, 31, 68, 78, 79, 87, 147, Morris, 83.
172.                             Mosheim, 73, 153.
Hey, 86.                             Murphy, 33.
Hicks, 157.
Hobart, 86, 147.                     Neander, 47, 48, 55
Hook, 85, 157.                       Nelson, 68.
Hopkins, 163-165.                    Nevin, 1.
Home, 41, 75, 76.                    New Biblical Atlas, 43.
Hunter, 153.                         Newcomb, 178.
Newton, 148.
Jacobus, 70, 71, 148.
Jahn, 7, 12.                         Olin, 177.
Jenks, 151.                          Olivers, 99, 184.
Jenyns, 130, 131.                    Olshausen, 26, 30, 108, 149.
Jimeson, 66.                         Onderdonk, 133.
Owen, 36, 69.
Keith, 25, 29, 34.
King, 8.                             Paley, 151, 177, 181.
Kitto, 13, 35.                       Palfrey, 89, 188.
Knapp, 152.                          Parker, 81.
Patrick, Lowth, and Whitby, 58,
Lange, 205-207.                          59.
Lardner, 32.                         Pearce, Bishop, 105.
Latimer, 91.                         Peck, 121.
Lee, 129.                            Percy, 74.
Leigh, 100.                          Philip, 93, 94.
Leland, 200.                         Philpotts, 129.
Liddon, 57.                          Pierce, B. K., 102.
Lightfoot, 147.                      Pierce, L., 76.
Lives of the Apostles, 143.          Powell, 154-156, 162.
Longking, 84.                        Pratt, Woodford & Co.'s edition of
Lyttleton, 150.                          the Bible, 96.
Prideaux, 88.
McClintock and Strong, 46, 51, 52,
58.                              Quintard, 90.
MacEwen, 194.
McIlvaine, 117, 118.                 Raffles, 102.
Macknight, 5, 23, 29, 37, 91, 92, Raphall, Rabbi, 145.
174.                             Reinhard, 152.
Marvin, 144.                         Religious Enyclopsedia, 22, 23.
Means, 76.                           Renan, 77, 107.
Melville, 102, 119.                  Rice, 197.
Methodist Catechism, 115.            Robbins, 66.
Michaelis, 100.                      Ruter's Gregory, 1, 10.




Index of Authors.                           315
Sawyer, 169, 170.                    Thompson, 80.
Schaff, 2, 3, 16, 168, 181, 182,     Toinard, 105.
Schenkel, 56, 57.                    Tomlin, 65.
Schottgen, 146.                      Trench, 151.
Scott, 88, 157, 176.
Seabury, 108, 116, 153.              Union Bible Dictionary, 146.
Sewel, 122.
Sherlock, 147                        Van Doren, 61.
Smith, 2, 11.
Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, 158, Warburton, 149.
159.                             Watson, 111-114, 132, 167, 175.
Stevens, 15, 24.                     Watson, Bishop, 185, 186.
Stier, 153, 189.                     Watts, 118.
Stillingfleet, 16, 171.              Wesley, 121, 135.
Stone, 198.                          Wesleyan Catechism, 150.
Stuart, 38-40, 69, 122-127           Whately, 136-140.
Whedon, 48-52.
Tacitus, 134.                        Williams, 69.
rappan, 72.
Taylor, 14, 15.                      Young, 94-96.