fully defined by Milton ; whence also it follows clearly, says Milton, “ that of all known Sects, or pretended Religions at this day in Christendom, Popery is the only, or the greatest Heresy : and he who is so forward to brand all others for Heretics, the obstinate Papist, the only Heretic.Hence, one of their own famous writers found just cause to style the Romish Church, Mother of Error, School of Heresy*.”

Schism (yloua) is a " division," or "rent" in the Church. It is either partial or total. Partial, as in the disorderly mode of celebrating the Eucharist among the Corinthians; reprehended by Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 20—34. or Total, where it comes to the separating of congregations from the common rites and ordinances of religious worship; as of the Reformed Churches from the Romish.

Schisms, therefore, may subsist in a true Church as well as in a false; where they only involve secondary points of doctrine or discipline, without subverting the foundations of the Christian Faith. Hence, Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, &c. and Churchmen, ought not to separate from each other, nor break off communion, since they agree in fundamentals; no more than the different sects or parties in the Church of Rome, Dominicans, Franciscans, Carthusians, Thomists, Molinists, Jansenists, Jesuits, &c. who, notwithstanding the diversity of their tenets, and their mutual controversies, all live in communion with each other.

Protestant Sects, however, were, and are, imperiously required to separate from the Church of Rome, because she erred, and still errs in fundamentals, respecting Faith and Works ; and this, in obedience to SCRIPTURE :-“to avoid Heresies and Heretics,” subversive of the Gospel, and “to secedefrom such, and“ withdraw" from them for fear of contamination ; “to come out of” the mystical and devoted “ Babylon," the mother of

Harlots," idolatries and heresies," that they might not be partakers of her sins and of her punishment,” Rom. xvi. 17, 2 Thess. iii. 6–14; 1 Tim. vi. 3–5; 2 Tim. iii. 5; Tit. iii. 10; Rev. xiv. 6-11, xviii. 4, &c. &c.

Grace be with all that love OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST

See Millon's excellent Tract on true religion, heresy, schism, and toleration, &e. first printed in the year 1673; and lately republished in Baron Maseres' Occasional Essays, p. 418.

incorruptly * Amen,Eph. vi. 24.-“ If any love not the LORD CHRIST [incorruptly] let him be anathema, maran atha [accursed, or excommunicated] 1 Cor. xvi. 22 +.

But the mild Spirit of Christianity abhors all manner of Religious persecution for conscience sake. “ THE Son of MAN came not to destroy men's lives but to save,” Luke ix. 55, 56. And the prudential and tolerant wisdom of the Gospel, suffers “ the wheat and the tares” of pure and of corrupt Churches, “ to grow both together" in the field of this world, “ till the harrest,” or general resurrection at the end of it; when a final separation shall be made between them by “OUR LORD and his reapers,the Holy Angels. See the foregoing explanation of this parable, this Vol. p. 117.

While the Gospel earnestly recommends the “divine panoply," for our defensive armour, so beautifully described by St. Paul; the only offensive weapon it permits, is the “ sword of the Spirit, which is THE WORD OF GOD,” (Eph. vi. 10-17.) cautiously and skilfully handled, in humble imitation of CHRIST himself in his controversy with Satan; and of Michael the Archangel, his representative, contending with the Devil. He declares, that " all they that use the temporal sword, to maintain his cause, shall perish by the sword,Matt. xxvi. 52. A most awful warning to all persecuting Churches. And is not the Church of Rome, in particular, now drinking the bitter cup of all her former persecutions, in fulfilment of prophecy? While those reformed Churches are sharing in her potion, who were infected by her example, more or less.

The spirit of Antichrist is not exclusively confined to the Church of Rome; for we are told, there are many Antichristsamong the Laity as well as the Clergy every where. Who can read, without amazement, the resolutions of the Whig parliament in 1689, to charge the Earls of Salisbury and Peterborough, Sir Edward Hales and Mr. Walker, with high treason for their conversion to popery!-How infinitely wiser was the declaration of that great lawyer, Lord Mansfield : Nothing is more unreasonable, more inconsistent with the rights of human nature, more contrary to the precepts and spirit of the CHRIS

Ev apdaporq, “in incorruption or purity ;" put for aplaprwS, "incorruptly or purely." Schleusn.

Ava0eua, is the Greek rendering of the Syro-Chaldaic, papav ala (X0X170) " accursed be thou,” which was the Jewish form of excommunication, Galat. i. 8.

TIAN RELIGION, more unjust and iniquitous, more impolitie, than persecution: it is against natural Religion, revealed Religion and Polity.Taylor's Thoughts on the Grand Apostacy, , p. 67-70.


Τα μεν ουν Ευαγγελια ών ο Χριστος εποιησε και ειπεν ιστορια τις εστιν αι δε

Πραξεις, ών ο έτερος Παρακλητος ειπε και εποιησε. The Gospels, are a History of what Christ did and said ;

The Acts, of what THE OTHER ADVOCATE said and did.--Chrysostom. The latter portion of the History, to which we are now arrived, is comprized in the sequel of the

IX. CHRONOLOGICAL PERIOD, reaching from our LORD'S ascension, A.D. 31, to the destruction of Jerusalem, A. D. 70. See this Vol. p. 1,2. During which,“ beginning from Jerusalem, the GOSPEL was published among all nations, until the end" of that devoted city, Matt. xxiv. 14; Acts i. 8.

Before we proceed thereto, it will be necessary, 1. to verify its chronology, as assumed in the foregoing outline; and 2. to establish the canonical authority of the Acts and Epistles, in which the history is principally contained.

THE CHRONOLOGY VERIFIED. The first leading date therein is that of the martyrdom of Stephen, and enşuing persecution of the Church, A. D. 34, according to Syncellus, Usher, and Pearson. This closed the latter half of the single week of Daniel's famous prophecy of the 70 weeks, in the midst of which, "THE MESSIAH was cut off," A.D. 31. which began, therefore, A.D. 28. See the explanation of that prophecy, Vol. II. p. 514.

The next is the conversion of Saul, afterwards the Apostle Paul, A. D. 35. This introduced a new era in the History of the Church ; corresponding to the beginning of Daniel's five last weeks, or 35 years, ending with the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70. In this assigned date A.D. 35, agree Syncellus, Usher, Pearson, Barrington, and the Bible Chronology *, corrected from Usher's, by Bishop Lloyd.

Petavius and Cave, date Paul's conversion........ A.D. 33.

Lenfant, Beausobre, and Lardner
Michaelis, about

38. Spanheim, Witsius and Fabricius


Pontius Pilate, the fifth procurator of Judea, was deposed by Vitellius, governor of Syria, upon a complaint of mal-administration by the Samaritans, A.D. 35, as shewn in the first volume of this work, p. 87. And the same date is thus verified from Eusebius. Pilate, according to him, was appointed procurator in the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius, A. D. 14 +11 = A. D. 25; but he governed ten years, according to Josephus, Ant. xviii. 5, 2. And therefore was deposed A. D. 35, as before. This fixes the time of the appointment of his successor Marcellus, to the year A. D. 35, noticed by Josephus, in that place; who observes, that Tiberius was dead before the arrival of Pilate at Rome. But Tiberius died A. D. 36. This fixes Pilate's deposal in the year A. D. 35, beyond a doubt, after he had witnessed and winked at the outrageous massacre of Stephen. Soon after his disgrace, he put an end to his life, like his accomplice, Judas, for“ betraying the innocent blood.

The embassy of the Jews to Caius Caligula, deprecating the erection of the emperor's statue at Jerusalem, described by the intelligent Philo, who was employed therein, took place A.D. 40, in the last year of his reign, not long before he was assassinated, as we learn from Tacitus*. He was succeeded by the emperor Claudius.

Soon after the accession of Claudius he appointed Herod Agrippa his friend king of Judea, and restored to him all the dominions of Herod the Great, his grandfather, Ant. XIX. 5, 1. We are warranted, therefore, to date Herod's reign A.D. 41. He reigned three years, and died of an extraordinary disease A.D. 44, which Josephus has caricatured from the Acts, xxii. 20—23; Ant. XIX. 8, 2.

This fixes the year of famine in Judea in the [fifth of] Claudius Cæsar, Acts xi. 28, and the second Jewish persecution by Herod, shortly before his death, A.D. 44.

After Herod's death Cuspius Fadius was appointed procurator, about A.D. 44, Joseph. Ant. XIX. 9, 2.

Tiberius Alexander succeeded him, and died in office, when Ventidius Cumanus was appointed procurator in the eighth year of Claudius, A.D. 47, Ant. XX. 4, 2.

The first Apostolic Council, held at Jerusalem to decide the

Judai jussi a Caio Cesare effigiem ejus in templo locare, arma potius sumpsere: quem motum Cæsaris mors diremit, Hist. V.9.

question whether the Gentile Church was bound to submit to circumcision and the law of Moses, Acts xv. 1, 2, is reckoned to have been held fourteen years after the Apostle Pauls conversion, A.D. 35 + 14 = A.D. 49. Compare Gal. ii. 1-4. This fundamental date has been adopted by Petavius, Pearson, Barrington, Lardner, Paley, and Michaelis *.

This important date, however, has been much disputed upon the grounds of the ambiguity of the original expression, επειτα, δια δεκατεσσαρων ετων, παλιν ανεβην εις Ιεροσολυμα, Gal. i. 1.

1. It has been contended that these “ fourteen years" are rather to be counted from Paul's first visit to Jerusalem, three years after his conversion, A.D. 35 + 3 = A.D. 38, Gal. i. 18; which would give the date of the council, A.D. 38 + 14 = A.D. 52, three years later. And this has been adopted by Jerom, Usher, &c. and A.D. 51, by the Bible Chronology.

But it is more natural to refer them to the fundamental date of his conversion ; especially as another TelTa intervenes, Gal. i. 21, to break the connexion with the first visit to Jerusalem, Gal. i. 18.

Lardner observes that the expression dia signifies about,” or during," and that the fourteen years are current, not complete. If so, the date of the council should be A.D.35 + 13 = A.D. 48; which, perhaps, is rather more correct.

2. But Paley doubts whether the visit to Jerusalem might not have been different from that at the time of the council, from the following differences in the circumstances of both, Hora Paulinæ, p. 195–207.

1. Titus is mentioned as accompanying Paul and Barnabas in the Epistle, but not in the Acts.

But Titus is plainly included in the definite expression of their attendants, and “ some others of them," Acts xv. 2. The name of Titus is no where found in the Acts.

2. Paul is said to have gone up to Jerusalem by “ revelation," Gal. ii. 2; whereas he is represented as deputed by the Church of Antioch in the Acts.

Both these accounts are consistent. Thus Peter was sent for by Cornelius, but the Holy Spirit directed him to go with the messengers, Acts x. 20.

3. Paul communicated his Gospel to the Gentiles, “ privately to them which were of reputation," or the Pillars of the Church, Peter, James, and John, (Gal. ii. 2–9;) for which there seemed to be no occasion, since this formed the subject of his publie mis ion, (Acts xv. 4.)

But Paul's peculiar mission as an extraordinary Apostle to the remote Gentiles, Acts xxii. 21, (pakpaveča TOOTENW,) would have been offensive to the Mother Church in general. The public avowal of it afterwards at Jerusalem occasioned great offence to the Jewish zealots, and much persecution of the Apostle, Acts xxii. 21-22, xxvi. 21.

4. The last and chief difficulty is, that in the Epistle no notice is taken of the deliberation and decree of the Council of Jerusalem, which formed the business, for the sake of which they were sent thither from Antioch.

But Paley himself has furnished satisfactory answers to this:

1. It was not agreeable to St. Paul's manner to defer much to the authority of the Apostles, with the chief of whom he reckoned himself equal, as receiving his commission not from man, but immediately from Christ himself, Gal. i. 1.

2. The authority of the council of Jerusalem would have had little weight with the Gentile Galatians. He, therefore, argues the point with them upon principle.

« VorigeDoorgaan »