CHAPTER FOURTEENTH.

ON THE NATURE OF THE COMMISSION GIVEN BY CHRIST TO THE APOSTLES; AND HOW FAR IT INVOLVED THE INSTITUTION OF MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL.

As we have now terminated our exposition concerning our Lord's personal ministry, and what he taught during that time as regards the scheme of Christianity; our next investigation apparently should be, to ascertain how, and under what forms, institutions or observances, the apostles established the Gospel Dispensation in its practical operation, among those who received it as being from divine constitution and authority.

But there is another subject which we must distinctly comprehend, before we can undertake to shew what the apostles did in promulgating the Gospel system. We must first fully appreciate what was the actual commission given them by our Lord; by which they were empowered to accomplish the important work committed to their hands.

The absolute necessity for determining this matter arises from the circumstance, that every particular of institution, practice, or belief, that prevailed in the Christian Church previous to the middle of the third century after Christ; which is not distinctly announced in the Gospels as standing on his authority, is assumed by theologians to have been appointed or sanctioned by the apostles, as his divinely constituted ministers.

Hence all matters as above mentioned, are regarded by most Christians with as much reverence, as if they had been instituted or sanctioned by our Lord himself; it being assumed that no innovations on apostolic institutions, or any new doctrines could have possibly been introduced into the Church during its supposed characteristic purity of the first and second centuries.

It is therefore indispensable that we ascertain what was the real commission which our Lord gave the apostles, before we can properly undertake to shew how they promulgated the scheme of Christianity after his ascension, as the great work for which they had been expressly appointed by him.

The prevailing doctrine of the Christian world concerning the apostles, is, that they were an ecclesiastic-theological body or corporation, who under a plenary inspiration from God, had authority to prescribe the doctrines, institutions, and discipline which their Christian disciples were to follow implicitly; as well as to organize and superintend them in all such particulars.

There is no statement whatever either in the Gospels or other books of the New Testament, of any such authority and powers having been conferred on the apostles by our Lord. The ordinary assumption on this subject will be found to rest essentially upon inferences drawn, first, from Acts i. 3, that Christ gave them such instruction and powers during the forty days that elapsed between his resurrection and ascension;-and secondly, from the operation of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, by which they were fully qualified to exercise all those spiritual powers that are ordinarily ascribed to them.

Though the words of Acts i. 3, of our Lord's "speaking of things pertaining to the kingdom of God," is sufficiently general to comprehend any assumption that men may see fit to make as to its import, we can distinctly shew from the after history of the apostles, that Christ did not give them any such instructions concerning the kingdom of heaven as are here assumed; and that the rational conclusion is that the above passage is only parallel to that of Luke xxiv. 44-48; in which he is represented as having expounded the import of certain predictions of the Old Testament concerning the Messiah which had been fulfilled in his life and death; and then as announced to them in the 47th verse, that repentance and remission of sins should be preached by them in his name to all nations.

Before we can appreciate the operation of the Holy Spirit on the apostles at and after the day of Pentecost, it will be necessary in the first place, to advert to what our Lord had communicated during his personal intercourse with them; and what it was he commissioned them to proclaim to mankind.

That Christ previous to his crucifixion had made every communication to the apostles pertaining to the dispensation he came to establish, is not only clear from his own words as to that matter; but he expressly asserted that what he had taught them he had done under the still higher authority of God, as is explicitly stated, (John xii. 49, 50,) “I have not spoken of myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. Whatsoever I speak, therefore,

even as the Father said unto me, so I speak;" i. e. to you. Furthermore, all these words of the Father our Lord says expressly (John xvii. 8, 14,) he had communicated to the apostles.

On such a foundation as this, as we should presume, no further revelation was necessary to mankind, so we find no intimation whatever in any part of the New Testament, that any after revelation was ever made to the apostles. For though our Lord did hold supernatural communications after his resurrection with Peter and Paul by trances or visions, as is recorded in certain places of the Acts and Epistles, yet in no instance did he give them any new doctrine or instruction additional to what had been communicated previously as recorded in the gospels.

Such being the facts of the case, the apostles evidently required. no further instruction from our Lord than what he had already given them; But to fully qualify them for their future ministry, he promised at the last supper, that they should receive a supernatural influence from God's spirit, which would bring to their remembrance whatsoever they had been taught by him; and which would (John xiv. 26; xvi. 13,) teach them all things; or, guide them into all truths pertaining to the Gospel Dispensation.

But there is an express limitation in our Lord's words, that this influence of the holy spirit would not give them any new communication, for he says, (John xvi. 13,) the spirit shall not speak of, or from himself, but whatsoever he may have heard, or has heard; for so axoven which is the aorist subjunctive should have been rendered, instead of by the future, (whatever he shall hear,) as is done in our translation. But our Lord also says, the spirit will shew you things to come, i. e. future events.* And consistently with this we find certain predictions in the apostolical writings, but nothing additional to Christ's teachings in the gospels.

The operation of the holy spirit, therefore, in bringing to their remembrance what Christ had said or taught, is so perfectly intelligible as to its principle that it requires no comment. But what is to be understood by the phrase, "lead them into all truth?" I

This covers those particulars in the Epistles that could only have been received by revelation; such as Paul's annunciation of the man of sin, 1st Thess., and his statement in 1st Cor. xv., &c.; that the righteous at Christ's coming should not die but be changed. Peter's account of the destruction of the earth, &c. by fire; though perhaps he may have simply inferred this from passages in Old Testament prophets. Paul also says he had seen or heard things which he was not allowed to utter.

consider it simply means that by the supernatural remembrance they should receive as to what he had distinctly said or taught that they would be thus led to the full comprehension of the whole truth as it had been previously announced by Christ himself; and not as communicating any new views or information by which they were to teach any thing additional to the positive instructions they had heard from him.

But theologians have given a very different interpretation to the phrase, shall lead into all truth; and as I apprehend the general belief to be the same every where, I quote Dr. A. Clarke's note on John xiv. 26, as giving the ordinary significance. His interpretation is, "if in the things I have spoken there appears any obscurity, the holy spirit will take away all donbts, free you from embarrassment, and give you a perfect understanding in all things." In other words, a plenary inspiration on every subject pertaining to the Christian Dispensation.

But in opposition to such an interpretation, we have positive proof both from the Acts and Epistles, that the Apostles never claimed any such inspiration as is thus ascribed to them; neither was it ever recognized by their Christian disciples, as the following statements distinctly prove.

Thus for instance, notwithstanding Paul had been an apostle for several years, and håd exercised a most extensive and successful ministry over Asia Minor, yet after his return to Antioch he and Barnabas were involved in an interminable controversy with the Christianized Jewish disciples of that city, concerning the observance of the laws of Moses, (Acts xv. 1, 2,) which, as they could not settle among themselves, was referred to the determination of the apostles, elders and brethren at Jerusalem.

If these Christian disciples believed the apostles possessed any inspired authority to decide on such matters, how could such a controversy have arisen between them and the Apostle Paul, as a divinely inspired minister of Christ?

And on the other hand, if the apostles considered themselves endowed by inspiration with authority to determine what their disciples were to believe and practice, why did not Paul on the above occasion claim such divine influence, and settle the question ex-officio? On the contrary, however, he argued on equal ground with his opponents, on the simple merits of the dispute, and as they could not agree on the subject the question was referred to and determined by the brethren at Jerusalem; as stated in the preceding paragraph.

The same condition of things is exhibited in the impeachment of Peter at Jerusalem by the Jewish Christians, (Acts xi. 1–13,) for having eaten with uncircumcised persons.. Neither Peter nor any other person said a word about apostolic authority in the case, and he vindicated himself by a simple statement of things such as they had occurred, for which they glorified God.

The same facts are also distinctly established by the statement made by Paul, (Gal. ii. 11-13,) where he relates that in consequence of fearing to offend those Christian Jews who insisted on the observance of the law of Moses, that Peter and Barnabas instead of settling the matter by apostolic authority, actually dissembled their own belief, and conformed to that of the Jews, which they did not believe.

Such conduct, whether on the part of the Jewish Christians or that of Peter and Barnabas, is manifestly impossible if either of the parties believed the apostles had any authority over men's faith or obedience, as would be necessarily implied by Dr. Clarke's interpretation, quoted on the preceding page.

Again, in various passages of his Epistles, Paul repeatedly complains of the opposition to his doctrines on the part of members of the different congregations established by himself. But in no instance whatever does he oppose to them his authority, as an apostle qualified by divine inspiration to determine such matters among them; see this strongly illustrated, 2d Cor. xi. 18-30. Neither is there the smallest intimation in the Epistles of Peter or John, that they claimed any authority as apostles, either collectively or individually, in the Christian world. John (Epistle iii. 9,) even mentions a bishop or chief presbyter of some church by the name of Diotrephes, who refused to recognize him in his apostolic character, and of speaking malicious words against him.

But the clearest proof that the supernatural operation of the holy spirit at Pentecost, did not communicate any inspired knowledge concerning the scheme of Christianity additional to what they had received from our Lord's previous instructions, is distinctly shewn by the ignorance of the apostles for some years after the day of Pentecost, of the essential principles of the scheme of Christianity itself, as contrasted with the Jewish Dispensation.

It was about eleven years after our Lord's ascension before the apostles even understood they were to preach the gospel to the heathen, as is shewn by the revelation made (Acts x. and xi.) concerning Cornelius. And though Peter's vision distinctly im