true, though much imposture has been grafted upon it, and that its
doctrines may challenge our belief, though they be not within the reach
of our knowledge.” This, I say, is now so uncontroverted among men of
sense, that, if the list of those, who, in the course of two or three
centuries, have supported the infidel cause on those grounds, were
ever so great or so conspicuous, it could furnish no argument, or even
presumption, in favour of that cause itself.
But the truth is, that list is neither formidable for its numbers, nor
for the capacity of those, of whom it consists. It shrinks into nothing,
when we oppose to it the multitudes of able men, who have been, during
this period, and are, the advocates of Christianity; and, among these,
when we recollect the names of Grotius, Pascal, Bacon, Locke, Boyle,
Newton, and many others (not of the sacred order, though I know not why
the authority of these should be left out of the account); when, I say,
we look up to these great lights and ornaments of the Christian world.
Nor let it be surmized, that the reasonings of infidel writers have been
better, or other, than they are here represented to be, or that they have
not been enforced with full liberty, and in all their strength. What
the liberty, or rather licence, of these enlightened times has been, we
all know: And of their arguments, ye may all judge: though this labour
be the less necessary, as most of them have not only been triumphantly
confuted by believers, but successively exploded by unbelievers
themselves; and the rest of them, have not prevented men of thought and
ability from being generally on the side of the Christian religion, even
to this day.
Ye see, I am as concise as possible, and omit very much of what might
be said on this subject, not to exceed the limits usually prescribed to
a discourse in this place. But when ye contemplate the present state
of Christianity, in an age of the greatest light and freedom, and the
respect that is still paid to it, I must just desire you to call to
mind the state of pagan religion under the like circumstances; and to
reflect that, when men of sense examined its pretensions in the Augustan
age, there was not a single person, in the priesthood or out of it, of
ability and learning, who did not see and know that the whole was a
manifest imposture, and destitute of all evidence, that could induce a
well-grounded and rational assent[300]. Can any thing like this be said,
or even suspected, of the Christian faith?
I know, that fraud and falsehood, by being mixed with a great deal of
acknowledged evident truth, may obtain respect even with some acute and
inquisitive men; as, without doubt, has been the case of Popery, since
the Reformation: I know, too, that a false religion, unsupported by any
truth, may even keep its ground in a learned age, when restraint or other
causes have prevented a free inquiry into that religion; as may have been
the case of Mahometanism, in one stage of the Saracen empire: but that
a religion, like the Christian, as delivered in the Scriptures, which
must either be wholly false, or wholly true, and has been scrutinized
with the utmost freedom and severity, should yet, if the arguments for it
were weak and fallacious, maintain its credit, and subsist in the belief
of the most capable and accomplished reasoners, is, I think, a prodigy,
which never has appeared, or can appear among men.
I suppose, enough has been, now, said to shew, that, in fact, the
knowledge of past or present times has not discredited the cause of
Christianity; and that what there is of infidelity may be well accounted
for from certain prevailing prejudices, which unhappily sprung up with
returning Letters, at the Reformation. I might go on to shew, that the
evidences of the Christian religion, as drawn out, and set before us, by
its modern apologists, are now stronger, and more convincing, than they
ever were in any former period; and that, on the whole, this religion has
not lost, but gained infinitely, by all the inquiries, which improved
science has enabled men of leisure and curiosity to make into it. But it
is time to return to the TEXT, and to conclude this commentary upon it,
with one or two short reflexions.
FIRST, if it be true, that after so many trials of every kind, those
especially of reason, and philosophy, to which the religion of the Gospel
has been exposed, the belief of it remains unshaken in the minds of men,
Then is the prophecy of the text thus far signally verified; and it is
indisputable, that _the gates of hell have not_, hitherto, _prevailed
against it_.
SECONDLY, if it be scarce imaginable that any future trials, from
without, should be more severe, than those which Christianity has already
suffered; or that those, from within, I mean the trials of severe
rational inquiry, should be more formidable, than what it has undergone
in two periods, the most distinguished for the free exertion of the
human faculties, of any that have occurred in the history of the world;
then may it seem credible, or rather then is the presumption strong and
cogent, that neither, hereafter, will the prophecy be confuted, and that
the _gates of hell shall not_, at any time, or at all, _prevail against
it_.
THIRDLY, and lastly, We may learn, from both these conclusions, to put
our trust in this impregnable fortress of our Religion; to embrace with
stedfastness, and to observe with the utmost reverence, a RULE OF FAITH
AND LIFE, which bears the signatures of immortality upon it, and appears
to be under the special protection, as it proceeded originally from the
special favour and authority, of God himself.
A
LARGER DISCOURSE,
BY WAY OF
COMMENTARY,
ON
THAT REMARKABLE PART
OF
THE GOSPEL-HISTORY,
IN WHICH
JESUS IS REPRESENTED,
AS DRIVING THE BUYERS AND SELLERS
OUT OF THE TEMPLE.
A
DISCOURSE[301]
ON
CHRIST’S DRIVING THE BUYERS AND SELLERS OUT OF THE TEMPLE.
I propose, in this discourse, to take into consideration a very
remarkable part of the Gospel-history; in which Jesus is supposed to have
exercised an act of authority on some persons, whom the Jews permitted to
carry on a certain traffic within the walls of the Temple.
I shall, FIRST, recite the several accounts, which the sacred historians
have given of this transaction; and shall, THEN, hazard some
observations, which will, perhaps, be found to lessen, or to remove, the
objections commonly made to it.
I begin with St. John’s account of it, which is delivered in these words:
Ch. ii. 13-17.
“And the Jews passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to
Jerusalem, and found in the temple those that sold oxen, and
sheep, and doves, and the changers of money, sitting: And when
he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out
of the temple, and the sheep and the oxen; and poured out the
changers money, and overthrew the tables; and said unto them
that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s
house an house of merchandize. And his disciples remembered
that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.”
Thus far the Evangelist, St. John: And the order of the history shews,
that this was done at the _first_ Passover which Jesus attended, after
he had taken upon himself his prophetic office.
The other Evangelists relate a similar transaction, which had happened at
the Passover, immediately preceding his crucifixion. Some have imagined
that, on this last occasion, the same act was repeated by him, on two
several days; but I see no sufficient ground for that supposition.
St. Mark is easily reconciled with St. Matthew and St. Luke by only
admitting, what is very usual in the sacred writers, some little neglect
of method in the narration of one or other of those historians.
Mat. xxi. 12, 13.
“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them
that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables
of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
and said unto them, it is written, My house shall be called the
house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves.”
Mark xi. 15-17.
“And they come to Jerusalem: And Jesus went into the temple,
and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple,
and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats
of them that sold doves; And would not suffer that any man
should carry any vessel through the temple. And he taught,
saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called
of all nations the house of prayer? But ye have made it a den
of thieves.”
Luke xix. 45, 46.
“And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that
sold therein, and them that bought, saying unto them, It is
written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a
den of thieves.”
In reading these passages, one is led to conclude, that the ACT itself,
here ascribed to our Lord, was of no small importance; for it is related,
we see, by every one of the four Evangelists. The substance of what we
learn from all of them, compared together, is this: “That Jesus, at two
several times, _once_, before the first Passover which he attended
after the entrance on his ministry, and _again_, before the Passover
which preceded his passion, went up to Jerusalem, and entered into the
_temple_; that is (as all interpreters agree, and as the nature of the
thing speaks) into the _first_, or outermost court of the temple, or
that which was called _the court of the Gentiles_; because the Gentiles,
who acknowledged the one true God, were permitted to come and worship
him there; that in this court (which was separated from the next or
second court by a sept or low wall, and deemed by the Jews _prophane_,
in contempt of the Gentiles, to whose use it was dedicated) _he found
those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money_;
that is, persons who attended there to furnish what was necessary for the
service of the temple, and so made a kind of market, of this first court
or division of it: that, upon observing this prophanation, _he made a
scourge of small cords_, or, as the word in the original strictly means,
of _rushes_, such as he may be supposed to have found upon the spot, and
with this scourge drove these traffickers from their station; signifying,
by this and such like actions, his displeasure at this pollution of a
part of the temple; and saying to them, withall, _It is written, My house
shall be called the house of prayer of all nations: But ye have made it
an house of merchandize_, or, as the equivalent expression is, _a den of
thieves_.”
Thus stands the history itself: And the light in which it is commonly
understood, is this; “That Jesus, in virtue of his prophetic, or, if you
will, _regal_ character, did this act of authority, to testify his zeal
for the honour of God’s house, thus polluted and desecrated, contrary to
its original purpose and design, by the base and commercial uses, that
were now made of it;” and it is probable, that the Disciples themselves,
_at the time_, considered it in this light, only, _for they remembered_,
St. John says, _that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten
me up_—applying a passage out of the Psalms, to this act of zeal in their
master.
It is true, this circumstance is only related by St. John, who records
the _former_ transaction, and omits the _latter_: the reason of this
difference will, perhaps, be seen, as we proceed in our inquiry.
But to this solution of the case some objections have been made.
Besides the strangeness and indecency, as many apprehend, of the
proceeding itself, and the improbability that the persons concerned
in this chastisement, who had public allowance for what they did,
should patiently submit to it (for we hear of no resistance, nor of any
complaint, made by them)—Besides, I say, these obvious considerations,
the act itself was an act of CIVIL POWER, which Jesus always disclaimed,
and for which, it will be said, he had no warrant, either from the
ruling Jews, themselves, or from his regal, or prophetic character: not,
from _the ruling Jews_, who, we know, were offended at his behaviour;
not, from his _regal_ character, which was not of this world; nor yet,
lastly, from his _prophetic_ office: for, though that might authorize
him to declare his sense of this prophanation, it may be thought not to
extend so far as to justify him in disturbing the civil rights of men,
and doing a direct violence to their property and persons. Jesus himself,
we understand, was so tender of _both_, that, upon another occasion,
when it was proposed to him to divide a contested inheritance between
two claimants, he said to the proposer, _Man, who made me a judge, or a
divider over you_[302]? Whence it may seem reasonable to infer, that he
would not have interposed, by an overt act of authority or jurisdiction,
in _this_ case; notwithstanding the reference it had to the honour of
religion, or the right he might have to condemn an abusive practice,
from his spiritual character.
These difficulties seem to shew, that there is something more in the
case, than a mere expression of zeal against the prophaners of the
temple: not but this might be one end, but it could not be the sole or
even principal end, of so extraordinary a transaction.
I do not indeed find, that the ancient commentators on the Gospels have
said any thing to the difficulties, I have mentioned. They seem to have
looked no further than to the obvious sense of this transaction, and to
have acquiesced in the opinion of its being intended to evidence our
Lord’s zeal for the honour of God’s house, without any further view or
purpose whatsoever. They found it related as a matter of fact; and they
piously admitted the authority of Jesus to controul the civil usages
and rights of the Jews, by virtue of his transcendant power and divine
character.
But the moderns have been aware of the objections, which lie against this
interpretation. Our learned Selden, in particular, has an entire chapter,
in his book _De jure naturali et gentium juxta disciplinam Hebræorum_, on
this subject[303]. His notion is, That Jesus exerted this act of power,
in virtue of what the Jews called THE RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE OF ZEALOTS[304];
by which they meant, not a general zeal or indignation (such as is before
spoken of) against what they conceived to be derogatory to the honour
of their religion; but a _right_, strictly so called, derived to them
from the civil institutions and approved usages of their country, of
interfering, in some extraordinary cases, to repel a manifest insult on
their law, by private force, without waiting for the slow process of a
judicial determination.
The principal, or rather sole foundation, on which this notion is
erected, is the case of _Phinehas_, related in the book of NUMBERS[305]:
which the Jews afterwards construed into a _law_, or embraced at least
as a _traditionary_ rule of conduct, derived to them, as they supposed,
from the times of Moses. But this case will by no means bear the
construction, which has been made of it. For,
1. It was a single and very _particular_ case, without any intimation
from the historian, that it was afterwards to be drawn into precedent.
2. It may seem to have been, if not commanded, yet in some measure
authorized, or it was at least, by an express revelation, afterwards
justified. For the matter is thus related. Upon the defection of the
Israelites at Shittim into idolatry, in consequence of their prophane, as
well as impure commerce with _the daughters of Moab_, God sent a plague
among them, and besides commanded Moses to put to death all those who had
been guilty of such abominations. Moses obeyed, and _said unto the judges
of Israel, slay ye every one his men, that were joined unto Baal-Peor_.
This command was issued very properly to the _Judges_: but a _private_
man, _Phinehas, the son of Eleazer, the son of Aaron the priest_,
instigated by his zeal, and presuming perhaps on his relationship to the
high priest (from whose family, a more than ordinary zeal in such a case
might be expected) did, under these circumstances, take upon himself to
execute that command on two persons, surprized in the very act, for which
the penalty had been denounced, in the presence of all the people. Now,
though this proceeding was irregular in itself, yet the notoriety of the
fact, the most atrocious that could be, and the most daring insult on the
divine authority, seemed almost to supersede the necessity of a legal
process. The consequence was, that God himself was pleased to accept and
reward the deed, because the author of it, on such a provocation, and at
such a time, _was zealous for his God, and had made an atonement for the
children of Israel_.
But to argue from a single instance, so circumstanced, that the same
zeal was allowable in other cases, in which no such countenance had
been given, and no such necessity or provocation could be pretended,
is evidently so unreasonable, that no stress ought to be laid on this
argument. The Jews, indeed, in succeeding times, might fancy a general
rule to have been implied in this single instance; and we know from their
history, to what enormous excesses this their easy belief, concurring
with a natural violence of temper, afterwards transported them, during
the last calamities of this devoted people[306]: but our Lord was
very unlikely to give a countenance to their traditions, or to add the
sanction of his authority to a principle, so weakly founded, and so
liable to the worst abuse.
3. This _traffic of the merchants_, in the court of the Gentiles, how
unfit soever it might be, depended on the same authority, as this
pretended _right itself of the zealots_; that is, on the allowed usage
and constant discipline of their country. No express precept of the law
could be alledged for either. So that this _right_ could not be exerted
but at the expence of _another_, equally well founded.
4. Mr. Selden himself appears to have had some distrust of his own
hypothesis, by the care he takes to interweave, in his discourse, a
charge of _fraud_ on the merchants, together with their _prophanation_
of the temple. But the learned writer forgets, that ZELOTISM (if I
may have leave to use a new term) respected _religion_ only, and not
private morals. For even _the act of zeal_, performed by Phinehas (from
which, only, the very idea of this _Jewish right_, if it were one, was
derived) had, for its object, not the _fornication_ simply, but the
_idolatry_, of the criminals: it was a sacrifice, not to the honour of
_virtue_, as such, but to the _honour of God_. And, indeed, nothing but
the singular structure of the Jewish polity, in which the honour of God
was so extraordinarily considered, could give any the least colour to the
_fiction_ of such a right.
5. _Lastly_, whatever degree of credit this principle of _zelotism_ might
have acquired among the Jews, it was very unlikely, perhaps we may say,
impossible, that Jesus should act upon it. When the Disciples, _James_
and _John_, on a certain occasion, were instigated by this _zeal_ to
call for fire from Heaven on the heads of some persons, who had offered
an insult to their master, Jesus himself rebuked them in these terms—_Ye
know not what spirit ye are of: For the Son of man is not come to destroy
men’s lives, but to save them_ [Luke ix. 55.]—To _burn with fire_, is
indeed something more than, _to scourge_: but, though the vengeance be
not equal, in these two instances, the _spirit_ is the same from which
it is derived, and by which it is justified: and this _spirit_, we are
expressly told, is not that by which Jesus chose to conduct himself. It
was to no purpose to alledge the case of a Phinehas, or even an Elias:
these were no precedents for HIM, who _came not to destroy men’s lives,
but to save them_.
I conclude then, upon the whole, that Jesus did not perform this act
of driving the merchants out of the temple, in the Jewish character of
ZEALOT; in what _other_ character he might possibly perform it, I shall
now inquire.
The ingenious conjecture of Mr. Selden, already considered, was
apparently taken up by him to avoid the difficulties which he found
in accounting for this act of zeal in our Lord, from his _prophetic_
character only. These difficulties, he saw very distinctly, and has
explained with much force.
“Though the Saviour of the world, says he, was undoubtedly both God
and King, and, by his absolute dominion, not over the Jews only, but
the whole race of mankind, must be supposed to have had a right of
doing whatever he saw fit to do; yet since we know, that he constantly
submitted himself in all things to the established forms of civil
justice, whether of Jewish, or Roman institution; and, as being desirous
to exhibit in his own person a most absolute example of obedience to
the course of human authority, was careful always to abstain from every
thing, that might be thought a violation of it in any private man; since,
besides, we know, that, considering the peculiar envy, to which his life
was exposed, he could not possibly have gratified his enemies more, than
by putting it in their power to bring a criminal charge against him:
it must, on all these accounts, be thought reasonable to suppose, that
our Lord would not have ventured on so extraordinary an act, as that of
driving the merchants out of the temple, unless it had been such, as,
even in the opinion of those who were most prejudiced against him, he
might lawfully and regularly perform[307].”
All this, the reader sees, is prudently, piously, and ably said, by
this very learned writer; and I readily subscribe to every word of it.
We only differ in our conclusion from these premises. Mr. Selden holds,
that what Jesus did on this occasion, _cannot_ be reconciled to the idea
of his PROPHETIC CHARACTER, as sustained by him in the course of his
ministry: I, on the contrary, conceive, that it very well _may_. But then
I consider that _character_, as exercised by our Lord, at this time, in
_another manner_, and to _other ends_, than the learned writer supposed.
In a word, I see Jesus in the light, not of a ZEALOT, but of a PROPHET
only, in this whole transaction. I see him acting, not on precarious
principles and rabbinical traditions, but on the sure basis of scripture;
and regulating his conduct by the known ideas of his office, such as had
at all times been entertained of it, and were even now familiar to the
Jews in the times in which he lived.
To make way for what I have further to advance on this subject, it will,
then, be necessary to consider, _first_, the PRACTICES AND USAGES of
the Jewish prophets, I mean the _manner_, in which that high office was
sometimes discharged and exercised by them, even to the very times in
question: and, _secondly_, to consider, the true scope and meaning of the
PROPHECY itself, to which Jesus appeals, and on which he justifies this
obnoxious part of his conduct.
1. It is impossible for those, who have read the scriptures of the Old
Testament, not to observe, how much they abound in figures and material
images. Nay, the prophets are frequently represented as instructing
those, to whom they are sent, not in figurative expression only, but in
the way of action and by sensible signs. And this mode of information has
been shewn by learned men[308] to arise from the very nature of language,
in its rude and imperfect state; being indeed an apt and necessary
expedient to supply the defects of speech, under that circumstance. It
has further been made appear, from the history of mankind, that this
practice universally prevailed in all barbarous nations, as well as in
Judæa; nay, that it every where _continued_ to prevail, as an ornamental
method of communication, long after the necessity was over, which had
given birth to it; especially among the inhabitants of the East, to whose
natural vivacity it was so well suited. Hence, the Jewish prophets, it
is said, but conformed to the established practice of their own times,
when they adopted this use of representative action: as, when one Prophet
_pushed with horns of iron_, to denote the overthrow of the Syrians[309];
and another, _broke a potter’s vessel to pieces_, to express the
shattered fortune of the Jews[310]; with innumerable other instances of
the like nature.