word or our epistle." He commended also the Corinthians for this thing,† and exhorted Timothy to "hold fast the form of sound words which he had heard of him." We shall have occasion presently to see how tenacious primitive Christians were on this very matter; and although afterwards, the disposition to adhere to apostolic traditions, became the means of gross corruptions, which the church of Rome, by the council of Trent and the decretals of popes, imposed on popular credulity, when piety had greatly deteriorated; yet, in the primitive church, this respect for traditionary information operated so beneficially, as to prevent schismatic divisions, and to render specific creeds, which have since become the badges of sect, unnecessary.

2. There was a greater lenity and simplicity of faith, too, during that period, and much less of the subtleties, speculations, and refinements of philosophy than afterwards. Christianity was the religion of the heart and of the life, and remained more pure, more elementary, more influential, more efficacious, during the trials and persecutions of plain, humble, unlettered early Christians and martyrs, than when Platonic philosophers, subsequently converted, and dwelling at ease, began to incorporate their mysticism and metaphysics, with its precious and efficacious truths. "Because it is of the very essence of truth in religion," observes Isaac Taylor, the author of Ancient Christianity, to blend itself with a certain series of events, and to mix itself with history; example more than precept, biography more than abstract doctrine, are made to convey to us in the Scriptures the various elements of piety. Truth in religion is something that

66

2 Thess. 2. 15.

† 1 Cor. 11. 2.

2 Tim. 1. 13.

has been acted and transacted; it is something that has been embodied in persons and societies."

These remarks apply, in some degree, equally to the primitive history of the Christian church. It is in the sentiments, writings, lives, sufferings, and martyrdom of primitive Christians, that we are to get an acquaintance with the motives, hopes, and views that animated and sustained them; or in other words, the manner in which they apprehended the grand distinctive influential truths and facts revealed in the Sacred Scriptures. "All mystification apart, as well as a superstitious and overweening deference to antiquity, nothing can be more simple than the facts on which rest the legitimate use and value of the ancient documents of Christianity, considered as the repositories of those practices and opinions which, obscurely or ambiguously alluded to in the canonical writings, are found drawn forth and illustrated in the records of the times immediately succeeding. These records contain at once a testimony in behalf of the capital articles of our faith, and an exposition of minor sentiments and ecclesiastical usages, neither of which can be surrendered without some serious loss and damage."*

While, therefore, we do not overvalue and exalt tradition as of equal authority with the written word, yet are we far from undervaluing it as a legitimate aid in attempting to ascertain the import of that written word, being, as far as it goes, the exponent of their views who lived nearest the apostles, and possessed much of their spirit. We claim, however, that this remark be not understood to apply to a later period, however far in antiquity from us, when we know, from abundant historical documents, that the church,

• Ancient Christianity, pp. 71, 72.

agreeably to apostolical predictions, had become greatly corrupted through philosophy and vain deceit.

With these preliminary remarks, we are prepared to trace the history of the views entertained by the primitive church, relative to the coming and kingdom of Jesus Christ. They did not apprehend such a Millenium as the spiritualists anticipate; nor did they regard the church to be the kingdom of Heaven. They looked for the personal visible coming of Jesus Christ and his kingdom as drawing nigh. All their joy and hope of triumph centred in His "appearing," nor did they look for the arrival of his kingdom on earth, till he should have destroyed the Antichrist, which the apostles had predicted would arise, and was destined to be destroyed "by the brightness of Christ's appearing,"

It is proper, however, in order to the full and fair exhibition of the views of the primitive church on this subject, to remark, that we must first start with the traditions, so far as we can ascertain them, which were current before Christ, and sanctioned and transmitted by the apostles. Here, too, we must discriminate between what were matters of faith, simple statements of their belief, founded on the word of God,-and what were conjectures and opinions, founded on their inferences. This is always necessary, for we cannot long or often speak on the mere facts of Christianity, without mixing up with them more or less of our own reasonings and philosophy, which may or may not be erroneous, but which do not form part of revelation.

Whoever will read the New Testament attentively, cannot fail to perceive that John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, Christ himself, and his apostles, adopted phrases, and a style of speech on various subjects, quite current among the Jews of that day.

The burden of their preaching was, "Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand;"* i. e. is drawing nigh, approaching. They assumed that their hearers had some ideas in common with them, about an approaching kingdom, called sometimes the kingdom of Heaven, and sometimes the kingdom of God. They did not commence it as a new thing, and startling to the Jewish faith. Nor did they deem it necessary to define their terins, and carefully correct any current mistakes and misapprehensions about its nature, although the Saviour took occasion, both for the benefit of his disciples, and for the reproof of the Pharisees, to illustrate, by similes and parables, many of its important features. The points inculcated, were the motives and obligations to repentance drawn from the fact, that the kingdom of Heaven was drawing nigh, of course not yet arrived. Thus John the Baptist preached, till God out of Heaven, by miraculous sights and sounds at his baptism, proclaimed Jesus of Nazareth to be his beloved Son the Messiah, and John announced him to be "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world," and quickly ended his ministry.

The general opinion of the Jews was, that, imme. diately on the appearance of the Messiah, He would set up his kingdom so long predicted. On one occasion, multitudes collected around Jesus of Nazareth ready to enlist under his banner, and to embark in any measures for the purpose of proclaiming and establishing him as their king. But the Saviour, so far from favoring the idea that his kingdom had arrived, disdained all their professions of attachment, and proffers of help to make him a king. He never, how† John 1. 29.

* Mat. 3. 2; 4. 17; 10. 7.

ever, for a moment, denied, either that he was a king or the king's son. On the contrary, he distinctly affirmed it, thus directing the Jews, to whom his ministry was restricted, to look to him for the verification of all the great and wondrous things, which their prophets had proclaimed about him and his kingdom. At the same time, he expressly intimated, that his kingdom had not yet come. All that He proclaimed on the subject was, that it was at hand-approaching-how near or how far off, he thought not proper to declare.

It is, therefore, of some moment for us to inquire, what were the views entertained by the Jews prior to the coming of Christ, we mean, especially, by the more devout? What was their exposition of the prophecies? We cite them not as decisive authority, but as historical testimony of value, under all the circumstances of the case, in attempting to ascertain the import of Christ's preaching and predictions. It is true, there is but little testimony up to the time of Christ, beside that of the inspired writers, which latter we do not now bring into view,-the question being, how were, and are, they to be understood? Still there is enough of orthodox Jewish testimony, which deserves not to be confounded with the writings of later and anti-Christian Rabbis.

The writer of the Apocryphal book of Esdras II. who was captive in the land of the Medes, in the reign of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians,* relates a dream which he had, with the interpretation, which we quote, not as of canonical authority, but as historical testimony to the manner in which the ancient Jews understood the prophecies before the coming of Christ.

2 Esdras, 13. 25-50.