The Grounds of Christianity Examined by Comparing The New Testament with the Old Part 8

Paul was indeed vehemently accused of teaching a contrary doctrine, as we find in the history of the transactions respecting him in his last journey to Jerusalem. Acts xxi. 21,? They (i. e. the Christians) are informed of thee (says James to Paul) that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circ.u.mscise their children, neither to walk after the custom.? Here James gives Paul to understand that he considered the report as a calumny, and accordingly, to convince the Jewish Christians that it was a false report, he advises Paul to be at charges with some Jewish Christians, who were under a vow of Nazaritism, (which is an instance in point to prove that the first Christians kept the law,) and thus publicly manifest that he himself ?walked orderly, and kept the law.? Paul complies with this advice, and purified himself in the temple, and did what was done in like cases by the strictest Jews. He also circ.u.mcised Timothy, who was a convert to Christianity, because he was the son of a Jewish Mother. And he solemnly declared in open court. Acts xxv. 8, ?Against the law of the Jews, neither against the Temple, have I offended any thing at all,? and again, to the Jews at Rome, Acts xxviii., 7, he a.s.sures them that ?he had done nothing against the people, or the customs of the fathers.?

But some men will say,? did not Paul expressly teach the abrogation of the law, in his Epistles, especially in that to the Galatians?? I answer, he undoubtedly did; and in so doing he contradicted the Old Testament, his master Jesus, the twelve Apostles, and himself too. But how can this be? I answer, it is none of my concern to reconcile the conduct of Paul; or to defend his equivocations. It is pretty clear, that he did not dare to preach this doctrine at Jerusalem. He confined this ?hidden wisdom,? to the Gentiles. To the Jews he became as a Jew; and to the uncirc.u.mcised as one uncirc.u.mcised, he was ?all things to all men!? and for this conduct he gives you his reason, viz. ?that he was determined at any rate to gain some.? If this be double dealing, dissimulation, and equivocation, I cannot help it; it is none of my concern, I leave it to the Commentators, and the reconciliators, the disciples of Surenhusius; let them look to it; perhaps they can hunt up some ?traditionary rules of interpretation among the Jews,? that will help them to explain the matter.

Lastly, it has been said that there was no occasion for Jesus, or his Apostles to be very explicit with respect to the abolition of the laws of Moses, since the Temple was to be soon destroyed, when the Jewish worship would cease of course.

This argument, flimsy as it is, is nevertheless the instar omnium of the Christian Divines to prove the abolishment of this Law: (for the other arguments adduced by them as prophecies of it from the 1 ch. of Isaiah, and some of the Psalms, are nothing, to the purpose; they being merely declarations of G.o.d, that he preferred obedience in the weightier matters of the Law; Justice, Mercy, and Holiness, to ceremonial observances; and that repentance was of more avail with him than offering thousands of rams, and fed beasts,) and this argument like so many others, when weighed in the balance, will be ?found wanting.?

For, as the destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar certainly did not abolish the Law, so neither did the destruction by t.i.tus, do it. And as it would be notoriously absurd to maintain the first, so it is equally so to maintain the last, position. Besides, a very considerable part of that Law can be, and for these seventeen hundred years, has been kept without the Temple. As for example, circ.u.mcision, distinction of meats, and many others. And when, if ever, they shall return to their own land, and rebuild the Temple, they will then, according to the Old Testament, observe the whole, and with greater splendour than ever.

CHAPTER XII.

ON THE CHARACTER OF PAUL AND HIS MANNER OF REASONING.

As Christians lay great stress upon their argument for the truth of their Religion, derived from the supposed miraculous conversion of Paul; and since almost the whole of Systematic Christianity is built upon the foundation of the Epistles ascribed to him, we shall pay a little more attention to his character and writings.

Paul was evidently a man of no small capacity, a fiery temper, great subtilty, and considerably well versed in Jewish Traditionary, and Cabbalistic Learning, and not unacquainted with the principles of the Philosophy called the ?Oriental.? He is said by Luke to have been converted to Christianity by a splendid apparition of Jesus, who struck him to the ground by the glory of his appearance. But by the Jews and the Nazarene Christians, he is represented as having been converted to Christianity from a different cause. They say that being a man of tried abilities and of some note, he demanded the High Priest?s daughter in marriage, and being refused, his rash and rageful temper, and a desire of revenge, drove him to join the ?sect of the Nazarenes,? at that time beginning to become troublesome to the Sanhedrim. However this may be, whether he became a Christian from conviction, or from ambition; it is certain from the Acts that he always was considered by the Jewish Christians, as a suspected character; and it is evident that he taught a different doctrine from that promulgated by the twelve apostles. And this was the true cause of the great difficulty he was evidently under of keeping steady to him, his Gentile converts. For it is evident from the Epistles to the Galatians, and the Corinthians, that the Jewish Christians represented Paul to them as not ?sound in the Faith,? but as teaching a different doctrine from that of the Twelve, and so influential were these representations, that Paul had the greatest difficulty in keeping them to his System.

That there were two Parties, or Schools in the first Christian church, viz. the adherents of the Apostles, and the Disciples of Paul, is evident from the New Testament, and has been fully, and unanswerably proved by the learned Semler, the greatest scholar certainly in Christian Antiquities, that ever lived. The knowledge of this secret, accounts for the different conduct of Paul when among his Gentile converts, from that which he pursued when with the apostles at Jerusalem. He had a difficult part to act, and he managed admirably. He was indeed, as he says, himself, ?all things to all men,? a Jew with the Jews, and as one uncirc.u.mcised among the uncirc.u.mcised. To the Jews, he a.s.serted, that he ?

taught nothing contrary to the Law, and the Prophets,? and when brought before the Sanhedrim for teaching otherwise than he said, he dexterously got himself out of tribulation, by throwing a bone of contention among the Council, and setting his Judges together by the ears. ?And when Paul perceived that the one part (of the Council) were Sadducees, and the other, Pharisees, he cried out in the Council: Brethren, I am a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead, I am now judged. And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the mult.i.tude was divided. For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both. And there was a great cry, and the Scribes that were on the part of the Pharisees, arose and strove, saying, ?We find no evil in this man? &c. This, indeed, was a masterly manoeuvre, and produced the desired effect; and Paul by this shows his knowledge of the human heart, in trusting to make his Judges forget what he was accused of, by making an appeal to their sectarian pa.s.sions. For, in truth, he was not accused concerning his opinion about ?the hope, and the resurrection of the dead,? but for the following cause, as his accusers vociferated (in the xxi. ch.) when they seized him in the Temple, ?Men of Israel, Help! This is the man, who teacheth all men every where against, the people, and the Law, and this place.?

These strokes of character enable us to understand the man; and I shall now go into the consideration of some of the arguments he has deduced from pa.s.sages in the Old Testament in support of his opinions; after premising, that the truth of the story of the manner of his conversion depends entirely upon his own a.s.sertion; and whether his credibility be absolutely unimpeachable, can be easily determined by an impartial consideration of the history of his conduct already mentioned. I will only add upon this subject, that in telling the story of his conversion, he ought to have had a better memory; for in telling it once in xxvi. ch. of Acts, he says, in describing his miraculous vision, that ?those that were with me, saw indeed the light, and were afraid, but heard not the words of him that spake to me;? and thus he directly contradicts the story of it recorded in Acts ix., where it is said, ?that the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one.?

In the 9th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, v. 24, he thus proves; that the Old Testament prophecied of the conversion of the Gentiles, to the Gospel--?Even us whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles, as he saith also in Hosea ?I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pa.s.s, that in the place where it was said unto them, you are not my people, there shall they be called the sons of the living G.o.d.?--Is not this to the purpose? yet, in applying this pa.s.sage to the Gentiles, Paul has wilfully, (yes wilfully, for Paul was a learned man, and knew better) perverted the original from its proper reference, and has pa.s.sed upon his simple converts., who did not know so much of the Jewish Scriptures, as he did, a prophecy relating entirely to the Jews, as referring to the Gentiles!! By turning to Hosea, Reader, you will find this to be verily the case; here is the pa.s.sage, ?Then said G.o.d, call his name (Hosea?s son) Loammi, for ye (the Israelites) are not my people, and I will not be your G.o.d, yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured, nor numbered. And it shall come to pa.s.s, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not my people, there shall it be said unto them, ye are the sons of the living G.o.d.? Hosea chapter i

?Again v. 33. ?As it is written, Behold I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, and every one who believeth in him shall not be ashamed.? Here Paul has pieced two pa.s.sages together, which in the originals are disconnected. For in the 8th chapter of Isaiah it is written, ?Sanctify the Lord of Hosts himself, and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence, to both the houses of Israel; for a gin, and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.? And in the 28th chapter it is written, ?therefore, thus saith the Lord G.o.d, behold I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation, he that believeth shall not be ashamed,? (or disappointed) Here ?you see, reader, that he jams two distant pa.s.sages together no ways related; and alters some words, and applies them to Jesus, with whom, it appears from the context of Isaiah, they have no concern.

Ch. x. v. 6. ?The scripture saith, ?say not in thine heart, who shall ascend into Heaven? (that is, that he may bring down Jesus from above.) Again, ?who shall descend into the abyss?? (that is, that he may bring up Jesus from the dead.) But what saith it? ? The word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart.? (that is the word of Faith which we speak.) For if thou confess Jesus with thy mouth, and believe in thine heart that G.o.d raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.? Here you will see another instance of misapplication of Scripture by Paul, in order to dazzle the eyes of his simple and credulous converts, for let any one took at the place in the Scripture whence the quotation is taken, arid he will immediately see the inapplicability of the words, and the adulteration of those of the original, in order to make them apply.

For the Scripture quoted speaks of, and refers to penitence, and.

not at all about believing on, or bringing down Jesus from Heaven, or up from the dead; for here are the words, Deut. 30.--?If thou be converted to the Lord thy G.o.d with all thy heart, and with all thy mind.?--Immediately is subjoined--?For this Law which I command you this day is not far from thee; neither is it afar off. It is not in Heaven, that thou shouldst say, who shall ascend for us into Heaven, that he may bring it unto us, and declare it to us that we might do it,? &c. The sense of the whole is, that G.o.d wills us to repent of sin; and that you may know when you have sinned, you have only to look at his Law, which is not in Heaven, nor afar off, but is put in your own hands, and is perfectly familiar with your heart, and lips.

1 Cor, ch. v. 1. Paul accuses one of the Christians of the church of Corinth of the crime of incest, because he had married his step-mother, and orders them to excommunicate him. But Paul, in all his Epistles and teachings to the Gentiles, p.r.o.nounced them free from the Law of Moses. Wherefore then for the violation of one of those Laws interdicting such a marriage, does he so vehemently, blame them? Such a marriage is not forbidden in the Gospel: it was forbidden to them no where in the Scriptures but in the Mosaic Code. Therefore, Paul must have founded his judgment against the criminal upon the dictum of that law in such cases. Paul puts the man under a curse; and it is the Mosaic Law which says, Deut. 27, ?Cursed is he who lieth with his father?s wife.? It seems, therefore, that Jesus did not deliver his followers from ?the curse of the law,? as Paul taught them it did in Gal. iii. 13.

1 Cor. ch. x.:--?And let us not pollute ourselves with fornication, as some of them were polluted, and fell in one day to the number of twenty-three thousand.? Here is a blunder, for it is written ?

twenty-four thousand.?--Num. 25.

Gal. iii., 13, Paul says, ?Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.? What he says of the Christ, or the Messiah redeeming from the curses written in the law, that by no means agrees with truth; for no Jew can be freed from the curses of the law, but by repenting of his sins, and becoming obedient to it.

And in alledging the words ?cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,? from Deut. xxi., he, as usual, applies them irrelevantly.

Paul says, Gal. iii, 10:--?For as many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse; for it is written, Deut. xxvii. 26, ? Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.?? And he interprets this to mean that all mankind, Jews and Gentile, are liable to d.a.m.nation, (except those who are saved by faith) because no man ever did continue in all things written in the law. Now, in the first place I would observe, that Paul has inserted the word ?all? in the pa.s.sage he quotes from Deuteronomy, (in the original of which it is not) in order to make it support his system; for the whole of his argument is built upon this one surrept.i.tiously inserted word. 2. The words according to the original are simply these:--?Cursed is he that continueth not the words of this law to do them;? i. e.,--He who disobeys, or neglects to fulfil the commands of the law, shall be under the curse denounced upon the disobedient. But who would conclude from this that repentance would not remove the curse? Does not G.o.d expressly declare in the x.x.x. ch. of Deut., that if they repent, the curses written shall be removed from them? And have we not innumerable instances recorded in the Old Testament, of sinners, and transgressors of this very law, received to pardon and favour, upon repentance and amendment? So that this argument founded upon an unwarrantable undeniable interpolation, and supported by bad logic, is every way bad, and insulting to G.o.d and his (by Paul acknowledged) word.

Gal ch. iii. 16:--?To Abraham, and his seed were the promises made, He saith not ? and to seeds,? (as of roomy) but as of one, ?

and to thy seed,? which is Christ.? Here is an argument which one would think too far-fetched, even for Paul; and it is built on a perversion of a pa.s.sage from Genesis, which Paul, bold as he was in these matters, certainly would not have ventured, if he had not the most a.s.sured confidence in the blinking credulity of his Galatian converts. His argument in this place is drawn from the use of the word ?seed? in the singular number, in the pa.s.sage of Genesis, from whence he quotes. And because the word seed is in the singular number, f.a.g tells the ?foolish Galatians,? as he justly calls them, that this ?seed? must mean one individual (and not many,) ?which,? says he, ?is Christ.? Now, let us look at the xv.

ch. of Gen., from whence he quotes, and we shall see the force of this singular argument, derived from the use of the singular number. ?And He (G.o.d) brought him (Abraham) forth abroad, and said. Look now towards heaven, and tell the stars if thou be able to number them, and He said unto him, so shall thy seed be.--And He said, know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and they shall afflict them, &c., afterwards they shall come out with great substance.--In that same day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying, unto thy seed have I given this land,? &c. Again, ch. xxii., G.o.d said to Abraham by his Angel, ?I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea sh.o.r.e; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his (or its) enemies, and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice! Reader, what do you think now of Paul?s argument from the use of the singular number?

Which is most to be admired? His offering such an argument to the Galatians; (for being a learned man, he certainly knew that the argument was nought,) or their credulity in receiving such reasoning as Divine? Really, I fear there is some reason for admitting as true what Celsus maliciously says of the simplicity of the Primitive Christians, if Paul could with impunity feed his ?spiritual babes? with such pap as this!

I intended to have concluded this subject, by bringing under examination some of the arguments and quotations in the Epistle to the Hebrews; but upon looking over that Epistle, and contemplating my task, I confess I shrink from it. That Epistle is so replete with daring, ridiculous, and impious applications of the words of the Old Testament, that I am glad to omit it; and I think after the specimens which have been already brought forward, that my reader is quite as much satiated as myself. I will, therefore, bring forward only one quotation, which is alledged in that Epistle to prove the abolition of the law of Moses; and as for the rest, I content myself with referring those who want to know more of it, to the pieces written by the celebrated Dr. Priestley upon Paul?s arguments in general, and those in that Epistle in particular, preserved in his Theological Repository, where he will see absurdity in reasoning, and, something worse, in quotation, exposed in a masterly manner. Indeed, some learned Christians are so sensible of the insuperable difficulties attending every attempt to reconcile that Epistle to the Doctrine of inspiration, or even to common sense, that they avoid the trouble, by denying that Paul could have been the author of such a work, and attribute it to the same, or a similar, hand, with that which forged the marvellous Epistle ascribed to Barnabas.

The quotation brought forward in the Epistle to the Hebrews, to prove the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, and the subst.i.tution of a new one, is taken from Jer. x.x.xi. 31, &c.--?Behold the days come saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Judah. Not according to the covenant which I made with they fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, (which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord.) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their G.o.d, and they shall be my people; and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, saying know the Lord, for they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sins no more.? Upon this pa.s.sage the author of the Epistle observes ?in that he saith ?a new covenant,? he hath made the first old;? and he sagely concludes ?

now that which decayeth, and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away!!?

and takes the quotation to be a prophecy of the abolition of the old law, and the introduction of the Gospel Dispensation.

Now, I would observe on his reasoning, in the first place, that, allowing for a moment his interpretation of the prophecy to be correct, (i. e., that it signifies the abolishment of the old, and an introduction of a new law) the prophecy, at any rate, cannot refer to Jesus, or the Gospel; for so far from having been fulfilled in the time of Jesus, or his Apostles, it has not been fulfilled to this day; for certainly G.o.d has not yet made a new covenant with the Jews, to whom the prophecy refers, nor has he yet ?put his law in their hearts;? nor ?caused them to walk in it;? neither has he yet ?

forgiven their sins, or forgotten their iniquities,? since they are even now suffering, the consequences of them.

I will now retract what I granted, and a.s.sert that the prophet did not mean an abolition of the Mosaic, and the introduction of a new, law; for though the prophet speaks of a new covenant, he says nothing of a new law; but on the contrary, a.s.serts that this new covenant would be effectual to make them obey the law. G.o.d promised to put his law within their hearts (not out of remembrance, as the catechisms say;) and in this alone this covenant differs from the one entered into at Mount Sinai. For, then, though the law was given them, it was not ?put within their hearts,? but they were apt, to their own controul, to obey it, or not, being a.s.sured, however, that happiness should be the reward of obedience, and death and excision the punishment for revolt and disobedience. And you will moreover observe, that, notwithstanding what is here called a new covenant, nothing is here said of the abrogation of any former covenant, or const.i.tution, or of any new terms, that would be required by G.o.d on the part of the Israelites. The prophet, by expanding his idea, sufficiently explains his whole meaning, which is evidently this, viz.: That G.o.d would make a new, and solemn promise to the Israelites, that they should be no more out of favor with him; that their hearts would be hereafter so right with G.o.d, that in consequence of it, they would continue in the quiet possession of their country to the end of time; and all this is intimated by Moses, in the quotation from Deuteronomy, quoted in the last chapter.

Thus is the pa.s.sage perfectly consistent with those in the Old Testament, which affirm, (whether right or wrong is not my concern) the perfection and perpetuity of the Mosaic Law. ?

Remember,? are the last words of the last of the prophets, Malachi,--?Remember the Law of Moses, my servant which I commanded unto him in h.o.r.eb, with the Statutes, and Judgments.?

Also in the Psalms:--?The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The Testimony of the Lord is faithful, bringing wisdom to the simple. The Precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart, and enlightening the eyes.? ?The works of his hands are Truth, and Judgment. All his Precepts are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever: being done in Truth and Uprightness.?

CHAPTER XIII.

EXAMINATION OF SOME DOCTRINES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT DERIVED FBOM THE CABALLA, THE ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY, AND THE TENETS OF ZOROASTER.

I have said in the preceding chapter, that Paul was well versed in Cabbalistic Learning, and not unacquainted with the principles of the Philosophy styled ?the Oriental;? and to prove and exemplify this a.s.sertion, is the subject and intention of this chapter. None but the learned know, how much of Systematic Christianity is derived from the Cabbalism of the Jews; the Religion of the Magi of Persia; and the Philosophy of the Bramins of Indostan. I shall attempt to lay open these Theological Arcana, and make them known to those who ought to know what they have been kept in ignorance of.

Many of my readers have, no doubt, frequently puzzled themselves over these words of Paul?s, Eph. v. 30:--?For we are members of his (Christ?s) body, of his flesh, and of his bones. Because of this, a man shall leave his father, and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This mystery is great, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.? This pa.s.sage exemplifies the connexion between Christ and the Church, by that which subsists between a man and his wife; and this Paul calls ?a great mystery;? and it no doubt must be a very mysterious pa.s.sage to all those who are unacquainted with the cabbalistic notion to which it alludes, and refers. To ill.u.s.trate the pa.s.sage, and to prove that Paul raised his Cabbalism with his religion, I shall set down here the note of Dr. Whitby, the Christian Commentator, upon the text of Paul.

?The learned Dr. Allix saith, The first match between Adam and Eve, was a type of that between Christ and his Church; and in this, saith he, the Apostle follows the Jewish notions. The Jews say, the mystery of Adam, is the mystery of the Messiah, who is the Bridegroom of the Church. These two persons, therefore, confirm the observation of Munster, that the creation of the woman from the rib of the man, was made by the Jews to signify the marriage of the celestial man who is blessed, or of the Messiah, with the Church; whence the Apostle applies the very words which Adam said concerning Eve his spouse, to the Church, who is the spouse of Christ; saying, ?for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.? For the explanation of these words, take what follows:--?The profoundest of the Jewish Divines, whom they now call Cabbalists, having such a notion as this among them, that sensible things are but an imitation of things above, conceived from thence, that there was an original pattern of love and union, which is between a man and his wife in this world. This being expressed by the kindness of Tipheret and Malchut, which are the names they give to the invisible Bridegroom and Bride in the upper world. And this Tiphiret, or the celestial Adam, is so called in opposition to the terrestrial Adam; as Malchut also (i. e., the kingdom) they call by the name of Chinnereth Israel the Congregation of Israel, who is, they say, united to the celestial Adam as Eve was to the terrestrial.? So that in sum, they seem to say the same that Paul doth, when he tells us, that ?marriage is a great mystery, but he speaks concerning Christ and his Church.?

For the marriage of Tipheret and Malchuth, is the marriage of Christ, ?the Lord from Heaven,? (?the first man was of the Earth earthly, the second man is the Lord from Heaven,? says Paul I Cor.

xv.,) with his spouse the Church, which is the conjunction of Adam and Eve, and of all other men and women descended from them.

Origen also seems to have had some notion of the relation of this pa.s.sage to Adam and Eve, when he speaks thus:--?If any man deride us for using the example of Adam and Eve in these words, ?and Adam knew his wife,? when we treat of the knowledge of G.o.d, let him consider these words--?This is a great mystery.??

Tertullian frequently alludes to the same thing, saying--?This is a great sacrament, carnally in Adam, spiritually in Christ, because of the spiritual marriage between Christ and the Church.?

Thus far Dr. Whitby, and the intelligent reader, who is acquainted with the dogmas and philosophy of Indostan, will not fail to see through this cloud, of words the origin of this a.n.a.logy of Paul. The fact is, that in India and in Egypt, the Divine creative power which produced all things and energizes in everything, was symbolized by the Phallus; and to this day, in Hindostan, the operation of Diety upon matter is symbolized by images of the same; and in the darkest recesses of their Temples, which none but the initiated were permitted to enter: the Phallus of stone is the solitary idol, before which the illuminated bowed. This symbol, though shameful and abominable, is yet looked upon in India with the profoundest veneration, and is not with them the occasion of shame or reproach. It is, however, a blasphemous abomination; and the marriage between Christ and the Church ought not to have been thus ill.u.s.trated by Paul, who reproached the heathen mysteries as ?works of darkness,? which mysteries, in fact, consisted princ.i.p.ally in exhibiting these symbols, and similar abominations.

But, it may be asked, what is the meaning of the other clause of the verse--what could Paul mean by the strong language, ?We are members of his body? of his flesh, and of his bones?? Why, my reader, he meant, that Christians were really part of the body of Christ and if you desire to know How he imagined this union to be effected, I request you to see the 10th ch. of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, where at the 16th verse he thus writes to them:--?The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a partic.i.p.ation of the blood of Christ? The loaf (according to the Greek original) which we break, is it not a partic.i.p.ation of the body of Christ? for, Because the loaf is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of that one loaf.? Again, ch. xi. 19, ?For he that eateth, and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not distinguishing (or discovering) the Lord?s body;? and in ch. xii.

27, he says to them, ?Ye are the body of Christ, and his members severally.? (See the original of these pa.s.sages in Griesbach?s Greek Testament.) Thus you see, reader, that Paul considered Christians ?as members of his (Christ?s) body, of his flesh, and of his bones,? because they partook of one loaf, which was the body of Christ. The Papists are in the right, and have been much slandered by the Protestants, for the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or at least the Real Presence, is as plainly taught in the New Testament, as the doctrine of the Atonement. You have seen what Paul believed upon this subject, and I shall corroborate the sense I put upon his words, by the words of Jesus, his master, and by quotations from the earliest Fathers.

Jesus says, John vi.--?I am the living bread which came down from Heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, and the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.? The Jews, therefore, contended among themselves, saying, ?How can this man give us his flesh to eat??

Jesus, therefore, said unto them, ?Verily, verily, I say unto you, unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have not life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

For my flesh is verily food, and my blood is verily drink. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, (here is an oath) so he likewise that eateth me shall live by me.?

This strange doctrine was the faith of the Primitive Christians, as is well known to the learned Protestants, though they do not like to say so to their ?weaker brethren.?

Ignatius says, ?There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the unity of his blood;? and of certain heretics he says, ?they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.?

Justin Martyr, in his Apology, a.s.serts that the consecrated bread ?is, some how or other, the flesh of Christ.?

In the dispute with Latimer about Transubstantiation, it is acknowledged by the most candid writers, that the Roman Catholics had much the advantage. It must have been so, where quotations from the Fathers were allowed as arguments. For what answer can be made to the following extracts?--? What a miracle is this! He who sits above with the Father, at the same instant, is handled by the hands of men.? [Chrysostom.] Again, from the same, ?That which is in the cup, is the same which flowed from the side of Christ.? Again, ?Because we abhor the eating of raw flesh; therefore, it appeareth bread, though it be flesh.?

[Theophylact.] Or to this?--?Christ was carried in his own hands, when he said ?this is my body.?? [Austin,] Or to this?--?We are taught, that when this nourishing food is consecrated, it becomes the body and blood of our Saviour.? [Justin Martyr.] Or, lastly, to this? [from Ambrose]--? It is bread before consecration, but after that ceremony, it becomes the flesh of Christ.?

Another doctrine which Paul derived from the Oriental Philosophy, and Which makes a great figure in his writings, is the notion, that moral corruption originates in the influxes of the body upon the mind.