Part the First. On the Object of Orthodox Theology
“He who clings to the Lord becomes one spirit with Him.” (1 Cor. 6:17)
“Of old, in many measures and many manners, God spoke to the fathers through the prophets; now, in these last days, He has spoken to us in the Son.” (Heb. 1:1)
“I am the way and the truth and the life; apart from Me none can come to the Father.” (John 14:6)
“For under heaven there is given to men no other name by which it is appointed for us to be saved.” (Acts 4:12)
§6. The Composition of This Part
The subject of Orthodox Theology, as we have already noted, is the Christian Faith, or religion. The task of this Part is accordingly to set forth a correct understanding of the Christian Faith. But the concept of the Christian Faith, as a revealed faith, necessarily presupposes two further concepts, without which it cannot be complete or clear: namely, the concepts of faith and revelation in general. For Christianity is one of the faiths existing in the human race; it is the one true, divine revelation among all those so-called revelations that falsely claim this name. It follows that the first Part of the Introduction to Orthodox Theology must contain two sections: the first, preliminary section, on Faith and Revelation in general; the second, essential section, on the Christian Faith as the one true revelation.12
Section I. On Faith and Revelation in General
Chapter I. On Faith
§7. From What Aspects May Faith Be Considered?
Faith, or religion (religio), may be considered from three aspects:
I. in its foundations, or the fundamental truths on which it rests,
II. in its essence—abstractly, and
III. in its application, or actual existence, as the possession of all rational beings and of man—and a complete view of Faith must, without doubt, embrace it from all these aspects.
I. The Fundamental Truths Presupposed by the Concept of Faith
§8. A Statement of These Truths
First of all, we must set forth and establish the fundamental truths on which faith rests, and without which it cannot exist: the truth of the being of God, and the truth of the spirituality and immortality of the human soul. For if there is no God, and if the soul within us is not spiritual and immortal, then faith is an empty word; and to expound a doctrine of it without first establishing these two truths would be to build a house upon sand.
§9. The Truth of the Being of God
I. Every path open to us for the acquisition of knowledge in general leads us to a certainty of the being of God, the all-perfect Being, the Creator and Provider of the world:
a) the path of tradition and of historical testimony;
b) the path of one’s own outward experience;
c) the path of inward experience and self-examination;
d) and finally, a special and the best path of all—the path of a godly life.
e) History presents us with three remarkable phenomena in this regard.
The first is that men from the beginning of the ages, at every stage of their development—savages, the half-educated, and the educated alike—have always acknowledged the being of God, although they differed greatly in their conceptions of Him. For the ancient peoples we have the testimony of the most learned men of Greece and Rome: Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Seneca, Cicero, Sextus Empiricus, and Plutarch, all of whom, as is well known, made use of this proof of the being of God.13 “Look upon the face of the earth—says, for example, the last of these—and you will find cities without walls, without letters, without government; you will see men without fixed dwellings, ignorant of the use of coin, having no notion of the fine arts; but you will not find a single human society without faith in a Divinity.” And if certain ancient writers sometimes called particular peoples godless, as with the Gauls,14 this meant only that those peoples did not acknowledge the gods in whom the writers themselves and their countrymen believed, or else it arose from extreme ignorance, or was the fruit of religious fanaticism, hatred, and slander. For the little-known peoples of more recent times (for it would be superfluous to speak of the well-known Europeans, Asians, and certain Africans and Americans) we have the testimony of many learned travelers and explorers, who have crossed seas, passed through forests, mountains, and deserts until then impassable, and discovered new lands, and nowhere met with men wholly strangers to every notion of a Divinity. It has happened, it is true, that certain savages, upon a first, superficial observation, were suspected of godlessness—as with the Tahitians, the Hottentots, the inhabitants of Brazil, Canada, the Antilles, and others; but afterward, upon careful investigation, it was found that these peoples too have their own beliefs and rites, however crude,15 so that today even freethinkers admit as certain that faith in God is universal in the human race.16 How, then, are we to explain the origin of this faith, which has existed in every age, has won over the simple and the wise alike, and has outlived every upheaval that has come upon the face of the earth? By the ignorance of men who, understanding neither the forces nor the laws of nature, grew accustomed to suspect some higher being in almost everything—as the atheists have tried to explain it? But experience testifies that it was never the ignorant alone who believed in God, but educated men, even the most educated of all, and that the higher true enlightenment has risen, the more it has confirmed this faith in men.17 Or by fear before the terrible phenomena of nature? But —
a) in that case faith would likewise be the possession only of uneducated men, who do not understand such phenomena, and —
b) if fear had instilled in man the notion of gods, it would most likely have been the notion of evil gods only; yet it is known that men have also worshiped good deities, and that among all the ancient peoples there were many rites and festivals accompanied not by feelings of grief and terror but, on the contrary, by the fullest, liveliest joy; it is known that even today the savage tribes of America express this joy at their festivals with music, dancing, and the like. Or by the deceit of priests? But the very existence of priests already presupposes the existence of faith and worship. Or by the cunning of statesmen, who, noticing that fear of the gods best tames the unruliness of a people and can keep it in obedience, took care to instill this fear in men? But history answers that the thought of God, and faith, are more ancient in the human race than any political order,18 and if this thought had not already existed in men beforehand, how could statesmen have made use of it for their own purposes? No—everything that freethinking has been able to devise in order to explain the remarkable agreement of the nations in acknowledging a Supreme Being explains nothing at all.19 There remain only two explanations, the simplest and most natural, which sound-minded men have always accepted: that this faith in a Divinity, so ancient and so universal in mankind, is, as it were, an instinct of our spiritual nature, and is therefore implanted in us by the Creator Himself, together with our other noble needs; or else that it had its origin in a primeval revelation with which God favored our forefathers soon after their creation, and which then, quite naturally, spread among all their descendants together with the spread of the human race—which, however, would itself have been impossible had the ground for this faith not already lain in the very substance of our spirit.
The second phenomenon that history presents to us is this: the most ancient tradition that God Himself once appeared to men, spoke with them, and taught them the faith… Clear traces of this tradition, preserved for us in all its purity by the God-inspired lawgiver of the Hebrew people, Moses (Genesis, chapters 1–3), are found among all the peoples of the earth, both ancient and modern.20 Whence, then, could such a continuous and universal Tradition have arisen, if we do not suppose a real event to lie at its foundation? Here is a fresh testimony, borne by the whole human race, to the existence of God!
The third phenomenon is the series of miraculous works in the Old Testament and New Testament Church, especially at the founding of the latter. The authenticity of these works is beyond historical and philosophical dispute.21 Yet they surpass both the powers and the laws of nature; they therefore necessarily presuppose a Cause that is higher and mightier than nature and holds full power over it—that is, they necessarily presuppose the being of a Supreme Being, the Creator and Lord of the universe.
II. In visible nature we find two clear indications of the being of God.
We see, in the first place, that all things in the world are contingent: they arise, change, and pass away. Everything changes in the material world, by the very nature of material things composed of destructible parts; everything changes in the world of finite spirits, by the very limitation of their nature, their powers, faculties, and acts. The whole world, then, is contingent, and therefore does not exist from eternity but necessarily had its beginning and received its being from someone. For however far we mentally extend the chain of contingent, finite beings and phenomena, ascending from effects to causes, we can in no way extend it to infinity, but must necessarily stop somewhere and set its beginning. Who, then, gave being to the world? Certainly not the world itself, which did not yet exist. Chance is an empty word. There exists, therefore—and reason must inevitably admit this—outside the world a Being that is not contingent but necessary, eternal, self-existent, and perfect, which gave being to the world. Traces of this proof may be found in the Word of God, for example in the following places: Job 12:7–11; Isaiah 40:26, and others; and still more among the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church: Justin Martyr, Cyril of Alexandria, John of Damascus, and others.22
On the other hand, amid all the changeableness of things in the world, we observe in it a wonderful order, proportion, and beauty. From the greatest bodies swimming in the spaces of the heavens to the least insects crawling upon the earth, everything has been given its own most wise arrangement; each has its appointed place, its appointed relation to other beings, its appointed purpose, and out of it all is formed the most harmonious and beautiful whole. How, then, are we to explain such a wise arrangement, unless we acknowledge as certain that there is a perfect Being who created the world and governs it? The sacred books very often point to this proof, especially in the following places: Psalms 8, 18, and 44; Isaiah 40:21 and following; Matthew 6:25–30; Acts 14:15,17; 17:24,28; Romans 1:19–20. It is set forth with full force by many holy Fathers and teachers of the Church: Theophilus of Antioch, Dionysius of Alexandria, Gregory the Theologian, Athanasius the Great, and others,23 as well as in certain works of more recent times devoted specifically to this subject.24
III. Turning to inward experience, and searching deeply into the constitution of our own soul, we find three indications of the being of God, one in each of its three principal faculties.
In our mind there is an idea of a perfect and infinite Being, which, before the awakening of consciousness in man, expresses itself only in an unaccountable yet involuntary striving toward God, and which becomes clearer and ever more distinct as consciousness unfolds. External nature could not have given us this thought, for in it we see everything limited both in being and in perfection; nature, therefore, can only remind us of an infinite Being of whom our soul already possesses a preliminary notion. Nor could we have formed it ourselves, for in that case each of us would be able to recall the origin of this idea of God within himself; it would not precede the full development of consciousness in us, nor would it be universal in the human race. It is a clear sign that this idea is innate in our mind,25 given to us by the very One by whom being itself was given: can we, after this, doubt that reality must correspond to it?
In our will we are conscious of a moral law which, notwithstanding its manifold variations both in the consciousness of individuals and in that of whole nations, has always acted and continues to act with invincible force throughout the whole human race. This is the never-silent voice of conscience, which, from the time reason awakens in our soul, urges upon us the good and turns us away from evil in the name of a Supreme Being, approving and condemning our deeds, rewarding and punishing us. The inward, involuntary consciousness of good and evil; the joy that follows the doing of the one; the shame and remorse inseparably joined to the other; the sight of a criminal who bears within himself the source of his own torment; and the picture of the unshaken good cheer with which the virtuous man is filled—all this involuntarily convinces us of the being of a most holy Being, in whose name the moral law, or conscience, speaks to us; so that the ancients themselves already called conscience the effect of the presence in our heart of God Himself, who unceasingly teaches us our duties.26
In our feeling there is an innate striving toward blessedness. Sound reason and the moral law tell us that this blessedness ought to be the result only of a virtuous life, a reward for piety; while the impious, notwithstanding their natural thirst for blessedness, deserve punishment. Yet experience testifies that no such correspondence exists in fact. Hence the necessary requirement to admit the being of a righteous Rewarder, who created us with such strivings and needs, and who, if not here, then in another life, renders to each according to his deserts.27
IV. A godly life, in all justice, ought to be called the best means of assuring man of the being of God. For:
a) in a godly man all the powers of the soul have the most natural, right development and direction: for the mind, the will, and the feeling in us have been so created as to strive and lead us directly to God;
b) through a godly life man, created in the image of God, becomes ever more godlike; and seeing clearly in himself the reflection of the perfection of a perfect Being, can man doubt His existence? But what is most important of all —
c) through this growing likeness to God, the godly man comes ever nearer to close, immediate communion with God, lives in God and by God, as it were touches and tastes Him: here there can no longer be room for any doubt. This is why, as may indeed be seen, virtuous men, even if they are little educated and unable either to prove the being of God by reason or to refute the objections of the godless, are as firmly convinced of this truth as of their own existence.
From this the causes of godlessness, too, are easily determined. These are, in general, an unnatural, distorted development and direction of our spiritual powers—namely, in some men a distorted development and direction of the mind, in others of the will and the feeling. Our mind is corrupted chiefly by the reading, or merely the hearing, of freethinking and blasphemous writings and conversations, especially in the years of youth, when it has not yet become established in the sound principles given it by God but is only unfolding, and is capable of receiving every suggestion and thereby stifling in itself the seeds implanted within it. The will is corrupted by a self-willed, immoral life, and, being itself corrupted, draws after it the mind as well, and draws the feeling too. Following upon this, all the natural strivings toward God, which He has placed in the very nature of these powers, are little by little stifled and, as it were, uprooted. Then it is that every proof of the being of God becomes unpersuasive to such a man.
§10. The Truth of the Being and Immortality of the Human Soul
The proofs of the being within us of a rationally free soul, and of its immortality—proofs which are presupposed as already known to us from Psychology—need only be recalled here. Every sound-minded man is assured of these two truths, inseparably bound together, by:
1) One’s own consciousness and daily experience. Consciousness tells each of us that he thinks; and constant experience testifies that matter does not think. Consequently, there is in us something distinct from matter and immaterial. Consciousness tells each of us that we are free—that we can suddenly begin, or alter, or wholly stop a train of our thoughts, desires, and actions, sometimes even against every outward compulsion to the contrary—while experience testifies that everything material is subject to the laws of necessity, that everything material follows inevitably from something else, and so on… Hence, again, the same conclusion. Observing, in particular, the course of life within ourselves, we notice that our hand, our foot, and the other members and parts of the body are in no way self-conscious and do not think; and yet something within us does think. That something, therefore, is distinct and separate from our body. It is likewise known that within us there are two circles of vital functions, entirely unlike one another: a circle of functions that occur outside our consciousness, are subject to the laws of necessity, and depend not at all on our will—such as the functions of digestion and the circulation of the blood—and a circle of free functions, of which we are the full masters, such as the functions of thought, of movement, and the like. This means that within us there are two principles of life, entirely distinct from one another, and by no means one only.
2) Certain particular phenomena, which clearly show that the soul in man is something wholly other than the body, separate from it, and possessing an independent being. It happens that, absorbed in ourselves and occupied with some weighty matter, we feel no outward impressions at all, although all our bodily organs stand open to receive them: looking at things, we do not see them; touching them, we do not feel them; hearing a noise, or sounds of any kind, we do not hear them, and the like. It happens that in moments of bodily sickness the soul rejoices, while with the body in health the soul is sick. Certain men have stifled in themselves the sense of unbearable pain by will alone, and have been able calmly to occupy themselves with strenuous mental labor. The examples of the holy martyrs, who amid the body’s most terrible sufferings rejoiced and sent up hymns of praise to God, show to what degree the soul—especially with the cooperation of grace—can rise above the body and be independent of it… And so —
3) If there is a soul within us; if it is a being separate from the body and immaterial: then, in the first place, there is not the least ground for supposing that the life of the soul should cease at the very time our body dies; and in the second place, it is evident that the soul, being immaterial, cannot die the death the body dies—that is, through the dissolution and decay of its parts. The very annihilation of the soul, bearing as it does in its very substance the image of God, is likewise impossible: for —
4) This would be wholly contrary to the most exalted attributes of our Creator and Lord, in whose right hand lies the life and death of everything that exists.
God is infinitely wise; and yet He has given the soul of man such powers and faculties as only begin to awaken in the present life and come nowhere near their full development. The greatest sages confess that there is very much they do not know; the loftiest of the righteous feel within themselves many deficiencies; and, in general, all sound-minded men who have searched deeply into themselves affirm with one voice that man’s spiritual thirst can be satisfied by nothing earthly, and that his spiritual powers are capable of infinite perfection. How, then, are we now to suppose that the all-wise Creator, who made us with such powers and such needs, has not ordained for us yet another, unending life, after the close of this present one?
God is infinitely just; and yet we do not see the full manifestation of His justice in the present life. Often the wicked enjoy every good thing of this world and win new goods by new iniquities of their own; while those minded to live a godly life in the Lord are persecuted and endure misfortunes, however worthy their labors may have made them of the greatest rewards. Can we, without renouncing our own reason and our sound conceptions of God, suppose that there will be no other life, in which the just heavenly Judge will render to each according to his deserts?
God is infinitely good: what sound-minded man, then, will grant that the Creator, having given us being, having given us an insatiable thirst for being, will forever deprive us of this most exalted gift of His love the very moment we have had time to taste and feel the whole sweetness of it? And indeed, our entire earthly life is nothing more than a first tasting of the sweetness of being.
5) It must finally be noted that the best means of convincing oneself both of the being and of the immortality of the soul is the very same means that leads to the being of God: a godly life. In the righteous the soul is not overborne by the body, but, on the contrary, rises above it and prevails over it; and for this reason they readily feel within themselves its being, its separateness and distinction from the body, its needs and destiny that are not of this earth. Living by God, sensing within themselves the presence and breath of the Spirit of God, godly men already foretaste the sweetness of another sort of being altogether, wholly unlike the earthly—a being properly spiritual and eternal… And in this, who can shake their assurance of the soul’s immortality?…
II. The Essence of Faith
§11. The Concept of Faith
On the foundation of the truths we have set forth thus far—concerning the being of God, the all-perfect Being, the Creator and Provider of the universe, as well as the being and immortality of the human soul—we may now proceed to set forth the concept of the essence of faith, or religion.
The most fundamental thought concerning Faith is that it is a covenant, or union, between God and a rationally free creature, and therefore, in particular, a covenant between God and man. It is precisely this thought of Faith that the Word of God gives us, presenting, under the form of a covenant between God and man:
a) the original faith, which existed before the fall of our forefathers: the Lord, it says, established an everlasting covenant with them, and made known to them His judgments (Sir. 17:1–10);
b) then—the patriarchal faith: the Lord appeared to Abraham and said to him: I am your God; walk well-pleasing before Me and be blameless… and I will set My covenant between Me and you and your offspring after you, throughout their generations, an everlasting covenant, that I may be God to you and your offspring after you (Gen. 17:1, 7 and following);
c) further—the faith under the Law: the Lord said to Moses: write down these words for yourself, for by these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel (Ex. 34:27, cf. Ex. 19:5; 23:22); and
d) and finally—the Christian faith: Christ has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, established upon better promises (Heb. 8:6).
But being, in its essence, a covenant or union between God and man, faith, in its distinctive character, is precisely πίστις — faith. For, as we shall see, this covenant embraces within itself two essential conditions, without which it would be impossible—on the one side, God’s revelation to man (Rom. 1:19) and God’s own faithfulness, or trustworthiness (Rom. 3:3); and on the other, man’s faith, by which he can and must appropriate to himself the revelation of God and thereby remain faithful to God: without faith, the holy Apostle testifies, it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He rewards those who diligently seek Him (Heb. 11:6). It is for this reason that in Holy Scripture this covenant is most often called faith (Acts 6:7; 15:4; 24:24; Rom. 1:5; 15:13; 1 Cor. 15:14–17; 16:13; Eph. 4:5–13; 1 Thess. 3:5; 1 Tim. 1:2–19; 4:1; 5:8; 6:10, 12, 21; 2 Tim. 2:18; 2 Pet. 1:1; Jude 3; Rev. 2:13),28 and it is spoken of as faith in general (Acts 25:19; James 1:26–27; 1 Tim. 3:9), as the faith of the patriarchs (Heb. 2:4–22), as the faith that existed in the period under the Law (Heb. 11:23–40), and especially as the Christian faith, the faith of Jesus (Gal. 1:23; 3:23–25; 6:10; Rev. 14:12, and elsewhere). For this same reason the holy Fathers and teachers of the ancient Church, too, most often call this covenant in their writings faith (πίστις, fides). And in our own Orthodox homeland, from ancient days to the present, the word faith has been the most common and most readily understood name for this covenant.
§12. The Foundation and Origin of Faith
The foundation of faith, which in its essence is a union between God and man, as well as, in general, between God and rationally free creatures as such, is —
a) on the side of the Lord, His all-good will, by which it pleased Him to adorn man, as He did all spiritual beings,29 with His own Divine image—that is, to grant us a soul that is rational, free, and capable of feeling;
b) on the side of man and of all spiritual beings, the very image of God serves as the foundation, by which man naturally strives toward his Archetype: he strives toward Him with his mind, as toward the highest truth; with his will, as toward the highest good; with his feeling, as toward the highest blessedness. In consequence of this, man proves capable of so exalted a union with the Lord: “The Lord made the soul such—remarks St Macarius the Great—that it might be one spirit with Him, as the Apostle says: he who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit with the Lord” (1 Cor. 6:17).30 And consequently, faith arose—both in the spiritual world at large and, in particular, in the human race—together with the very moment each received its being from God; for faith is a necessary attribute of rationally free nature, is, as it were, the very life, or the beginning of life, of every spiritual being. And every man, in particular, becomes a partaker of this covenant with God from the very origin of his existence. The Lord, as it were, calls man to Himself, having given him His image, which involuntarily draws man toward the Creator; man, as it were, answers this call with his natural yet consciously free striving toward God as the highest truth, good, and blessedness, with all the powers of his soul—mind, will, and feeling; and it is in this sense that faith is called natural, or innate, to man. But it is evident that here we have only the foundation for a free union between God and man, and not yet the union itself.
§13. God’s Cooperation in the Work of Faith, and the Duties of Man
I. In order that man, called to so exalted a union with his Lord and Master, might actually enter into that union, the All-Good and All-Wise God has Himself been pleased to grant, and continues to grant, man every means necessary for it.
1) Man, by the will of his Creator, naturally strives toward union with Him in mind, will, and feeling. But our mind is only a faculty, and cannot know any thing or being unless that thing or being discloses itself before it; our will, likewise, is only a faculty, which cannot act rightly unless the laws of action are clearly shown to it; our feeling, too, being only a faculty, cannot strive toward any good until that good becomes known to it (ignoti nulla cupido). It is therefore necessary that the Lord Himself, who was pleased to call man into communion with Himself, should also be pleased to reveal Himself to man for this purpose: to impart to his mind the knowledge of Himself, or the truths of faith; to declare to his will His own will, in moral laws, or the truths of love; to show to his feeling His highest goods, in promises, or the truths of hope; in short—it is necessary that God Himself should teach man the Faith… And God has indeed revealed Himself to men in a twofold manner:
a) Naturally. He revealed Himself to their mind, on the one hand, within the mind itself (Tim. 1:16), imparting to it a concept (an idea) of Himself, which the mind, as it develops, perceives ever more clearly; and on the other hand, in outward nature, where His invisible attributes — His eternal power and Godhead — have been visible since the creation of the world, perceived through the things He has made (Rom. 1:20). He revealed, and reveals, Himself to their will through conscience, which, as the voice of God within us, pronounces to us the moral laws (Rom. 2:15). He revealed, and reveals, Himself to our feeling both through the mind and through conscience together, and following their promptings, our feeling rightly nourishes an unfailing hope in a heavenly Judge who is both just and all-good.
b) Supernaturally — as when, immediately after the creation of our forefather, He vouchsafed him particular direct appearances of Himself, in order to teach him the Faith (Gen. 2:16; 3:8); then, over the course of many ages, He spoke to us in many parts and many ways through the prophets, and at last spoke in the Son (Heb. 1:1).
The All-Good has vouchsafed these revelations, natural and supernatural, to all the other spiritual beings called to union with Him as well; for they too, being finite, do not know all things, and can know of God only what is disclosed before them, and only so much as is disclosed. For this reason the ancient Christian teachers, together with the whole Orthodox Church, affirmed that the Angels, too, besides their natural knowledge, receive in the matter of faith sanctification and illumination from God Himself.31
2) But having imparted, and continuing to impart, according to their need, this knowledge of Himself to spiritual beings, and thus showing these beings the true path to entering into union with Him, the Lord further grants them the powers necessary for it. All God’s creatures, since they do not have life in themselves but have received it from God, cannot of themselves sustain their own existence without outward assistance. For this reason the All-Good and All-Wise, having granted them being, likewise gives all that is necessary to sustain and continue that being. Our body, like every living body, has need of food, drink, clothing, and air, without which it would inevitably be deprived of life. In just the same way our soul, and likewise all spirits, necessarily have need of food, drink, clothing, and air of their own kind, by which their life might be sustained and spiritual death averted from them. For spiritual beings this food, drink, and air is divine grace—a power that gives life to all, strengthens, and exalts. This the Lord ever imparts to the Angels, who, if they continue in truly spiritual life, if they remain faithful to God and unchangeably firm in good, do so, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, by no means by their own nature, but by the grace of God.32 By this same Divine power our forefather, too, constantly lived in the days of his innocence and remained faithful to his union with God,33 and this power became all the more necessary for man after the fall, that he might be born anew and again begin and carry on a spiritual, holy life (Jn. 3:5; 6:44; 1 Cor. 12:3; Rom. 8:9, and elsewhere).
II. As for man, he, for his part, in order to enter into union with God, is necessarily bound to make use of the means that the Lord grants him for this purpose, namely:
1) He must appropriate to himself, with the cooperation of divine grace, this revelation: with his mind—that is, believe in God; with his feeling—that is, hope in God; with his will—that is, love God.34 For if man will not appropriate to himself, with all three powers of his soul, the truths disclosed to him by God, then, evidently, he will not enter into union with God at all. St Paul the Apostle enumerates all three of these conditions, on man’s side, when he says: and now abide faith, hope, love, these three (1 Cor. 13:13); and, following him, blessed Augustine also, when, to his disciple Laurentius’s question—what especially is to be held to in the matter of faith, wherein lies its essence, what is its chief foundation, and the like—replies: “all this you ask about you doubtless already know, since you know perfectly well what is to be believed, what hoped for, and what loved; for it is precisely this, and this alone above all, that must be followed in the matter of faith.”35
2) He must, as all created spirits must, with the cooperation of that same divine grace, express his faith, love, and hope in a godly life, in the keeping of God’s commandments: for this is already the necessary consequence, fruit, and witness of true faith, love, and hope, and in the contrary case it would rightly be concluded that these virtues do not exist in man at all in their true form.
3) Finally, man alone (since he is not pure spirit only, but body as well, the two being essentially united in him) must express and bear witness to his faith, love, and hope in outward signs of the worship of God; otherwise it will again follow that in the very soul of man there is either no true faith, love, and hope at all, or that they are exceedingly weak.
III. But we have said very little indeed in saying only that man is bound to believe in God, to love God, to hope in God, and to express all this in a godly life and in outward signs of the worship of God, merely because otherwise he would not enter into union with God. No—it must be said that man is unconditionally bound to enter into this union, and has not the least right to evade or violate it; that is, he is bound both to inward worship and to outward worship: by the very constitution of his nature, by his feeling of gratitude toward God, and by the necessity and salutary benefit to him (man) of the worship of God.
There is no doubt that every thing in the world, and every being, is bound to strive toward its end and to be that for which it was created. The constitution of our soul is known to everyone; it has three principal powers: the mind, which strives toward truth; the will, which loves the good; and the feeling, which thirsts for blessedness. Perfect truth, the highest good, and infinite blessedness is the Lord God. Our soul, therefore, is so created as to know God above all, to love God above all, and to desire union with God above all: this constitutes inward worship. And our body was created to be in obedience to the soul, to express outwardly its thoughts, desires, and feelings, and is so closely joined to the soul that, standing in its due relation to it, it cannot but express them, especially when they are very lively and strong: hence appears the necessity of outward worship and a godly life.
The Lord God is our first and greatest Benefactor. Out of love and goodness alone He has granted us being, endowed us with such lofty faculties, and abundantly sends down to us, for our enjoyment, everything needful for our existence. Our very nature compels us to repay benefits with gratitude, which ought to be the greater and the stronger the greater the benefits we have received. And after all this, not to strive to know God and believe in Him, not to cherish toward Him the most ardent love and submission, not to place in Him our whole hope, and, in general, not to glorify God in our souls and in our bodies (1 Cor. 6:20), which alike partake of His unspeakable bounty—would be, on our part, a plain and most brazen ingratitude.
The knowledge of God and faith in Him are necessary and exceedingly useful for our mind in its inquiries. For as in God lies the origin and cause of all things, so in the knowledge of God lies the origin and foundation of all our knowledge; and as, in the actual world, everything would fall into disorder and be destroyed if God’s cooperation were withdrawn from it, so too, in the domain of any man’s knowledge, everything becomes confused, unstable, and insecure when he supposes he can do without the knowledge of God. The knowledge of God and love for Him are necessary and exceedingly salutary for our will: for here lie the chief incentives to growth in piety, and in God lies the highest pattern of moral perfection. The knowledge of God and hope in Him are necessary and exceedingly salutary for our feeling, amid those disturbances and misfortunes which surround us in the present life at almost every step, where, in the Apostle’s own words, hope in God alone can truly serve us as a sure and steadfast anchor (Heb. 6:19). Finally, outward worship is necessary and exceedingly useful for our very growth in inward worship: the former arouses, nourishes, and strengthens the latter.
§14. The Purpose and Consequences of Faith
The purpose and consequences of faith are already evident of themselves, namely:
1) The nearest and most immediate purpose or consequence is the living and mysterious union of man with God. And the Lord, indeed, in proportion to a man’s faith, hope, and love, attested in outward worship and piety, descends into him with His gracious gifts, unites Himself to him by His divine powers — everything needed for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3)—and, as it were, makes in him His continual dwelling (John 14:23), so that the man becomes now a temple of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 3:16), a church of the living God (2 Cor. 6:16), one spirit with the Lord (1 Cor. 6:17), abides in God, and God abides in him (1 Jn. 4:16), and, in that he lives, he lives to God (Rom. 6:10); he no longer lives of himself, but God lives in him (Gal. 2:20). It must be remembered that the degrees of this mysterious union with God may be countless—as many as there are possible degrees of a man’s growth in faith, hope, and love; that the Angels, too, are granted this same mysterious union, according to the measure of their moral growth;36 and that we, together with all spiritual beings, shall attain the higher degrees of this mysterious communion with God only in the life beyond the grave, the eternal life, when God shall be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28).
2) The mediate purposes, or consequences, naturally flowing from the first, are the glory of God and the blessedness of man. The glory of God: for by remaining faithful to our union with God, by fulfilling His will and the commandments given us, we thereby glorify Him directly ourselves, manifesting in ourselves ever more of His highest perfections, and at the same time give others occasion, seeing our good works, to glorify our Father who is in the heavens (Matt. 5:16). He filled them with the skill of understanding, Sirach says of God and the first humans… He established an everlasting covenant with them and showed them His judgments… that they might praise the name of His holiness and declare the greatness of His works (Sir. 17:6, 8, 10). The blessedness of man: for through union with the Lord we attain our highest end, and thereby find satisfaction for all the noblest needs of our being. On the other hand, when we abide in union with God, all the powers of our soul and body stand in the most natural disposition and relation to one another: everything within us flows in its own order, in harmony, and we taste perfect tranquility. At the same time, by remaining faithful to our appointed end, standing firm in that rank in which the Creator has set us among His other creatures, we naturally remain in a right relation to everything around us—to our fellow men and to all of nature—preserve good accord with them, and avert every occasion of grief. In this way, if all men were truly godly, as they ought to be, happiness would then be the lot of each of them individually and of whole human societies as well. There would then be for them no source of misfortune, either in themselves, or in their neighbors, or in outward nature: everything would then abide within its own rank and bounds and would not forcibly encroach upon a realm not its own. It follows, then, that of all the blessings with which the all-good Lover of Mankind has favored us, the first and highest, beyond dispute, is faith: for it is only through it, and in it, that we can find true happiness and blessedness for ourselves… And faith serves, of course, as this same blessing for all spiritual beings as well, who glorify the Lord by their good life and find in Him their own true blessedness.
§15. The Division of Faith
From all that has been said thus far, it becomes immediately evident that faith is, as it were, composed of two parts. One part of it consists of everything God has been pleased to do to bring man into union with Himself: inscribing in man’s very substance His own image, which involuntarily draws him toward his Archetype; giving man a revelation of Himself, both natural and supernatural; and offering him the necessary powers of grace. This part of faith is usually called objective Faith, this name being applied, however, in its strictest sense, to the divine revelation alone, both natural and supernatural. The other part of faith consists of everything man does, for his part, actually to enter into union with God—namely, the faith, hope, and love of this or that man himself, expressed in good conduct and in outward worship. This part is usually called subjective Faith, and also piety, or the worship of God. In this respect the common definition of faith, that it is the knowledge, or rather the acknowledgment and worship, of God,37 will likewise hold true. And it is evident,
a) that objective faith without subjective faith is not yet, properly, faith at all, while the latter without the former is not even possible;
b) that the former is incapable of improvement and is unchangeable: for the union of God with man is eternal and unchangeable, and truth cannot be more or less true, though it may be disclosed in a lesser or greater light; while the latter is capable of infinite improvement and is changeable: for man may continually ascend the degrees of the knowledge of God and of piety, and may likewise descend them, and even lose true faith altogether.38
subjective faith, or the subjective knowledge of God, is further divided into two kinds: inward worship, inasmuch as faith, love, and hope abide only within the soul of man, and outward worship, inasmuch as they are manifested in outward signs of the service of God and in a godly life.
objective faith is likewise divided into two kinds: natural Faith and revealed Faith. Natural faith is the teaching concerning God’s relation to us, and our own due relation to Him, such as is composed by man himself, by the natural powers of his mind, on the basis of the natural revelation granted us by God—within our own nature and in outward nature. Since, however, this teaching, though composed on the basis of God’s natural revelation, is nonetheless composed by the human mind, which may misunderstand that revelation, even distort and corrupt it, and may likewise alter and improve its own conceptions of it, natural Faith, in this sense, may with greater justice be reckoned as subjective. Revealed faith properly so called, however, according to the strict and generally accepted concept, is the teaching concerning the mutual relation between God and man, communicated to us in a supernatural manner, and, moreover, communicated by God Himself—both directly, and through Angels and men who had first been vouchsafed a direct revelation of God in order to hand it on to other men. Under the name of natural faith must be reckoned, besides the Christian faith alone, taken in its broad sense, every faith that exists or has existed in the human race—such as the pagan faith in all its forms, and the so-called philosophical faith, which has grown stronger of late and is known by the name of naturalism and rationalism,39 and the like. But the truly revealed faith, granted us by God Himself in a supernatural manner, is the one Christian faith alone.
III. Faith as the Possession of All Spiritual Beings and of the Whole Human Race: The Concept of the Church
§16. The Connection Between Faith and the Church
Thus far we have considered Faith in its essence, as a union between God and a rationally free creature, and, in particular, between God and man. If we now look at it in its application, or actual existence, as the possession not of some one spiritual being, or of one man, but as the possession of all spiritual beings and of all men—who, being bound by union with God, are at the same time bound to one another by that same union—we shall obtain a new concept: the concept of the spiritual kingdom of God, or of the Church, the unfolding of which is necessary for the completeness and clarification of the very concept of Faith itself, since the Church and faith exist inseparably.
faith, as has been said, in its broadest meaning, is a union between God and a rationally free creature; and the Church40 is the totality of rationally free creatures joined to one another by this very union. And consequently, in particular, if we turn only to ourselves—faith is the union of man with God, and the Church is the society of men holding one and the same Faith, and bound to one another through it. It follows, then:
a) this same union with God, considered in relation to moral beings taken separately from one another, constitutes Faith; while considered in relation to all of them together, as the bond between them, it forms the Church;
b) the Church, or the society of moral beings holding one and the same Faith, may be said to be a body; while faith, binding all these beings into one whole, is the soul of the Church, so that faith and the Church form one inseparable whole;
c) faith cannot exist without the Church: for, being the possession not of one spiritual being alone but of all, it naturally unites them into one moral society; still less can the Church exist without faith, which it necessarily presupposes for its very existence.
From this general concept of the Church, as a society so closely bound up with Faith, certain more detailed concepts concerning it are also determined of themselves.
§17. The Origin and Composition of the Church
It is evident, first of all, that the founder of the Church could be, and indeed was, none other than the one, three-hypostatic God. He was pleased to call moral beings into union with Himself—to call not this or that one of them, but all of them alike—and consequently, by this very act, already united them to one another into an ecclesial society. He, moreover, also created all these beings in such a way that they should pass their life not in separation from one another but in mutual communion, striving with united powers toward every end of their being, and consequently toward that highest end which consists in Faith. If, then, we now recall that God called moral beings into union with Himself at their very creation, having endowed them with such powers and needs as naturally impel them toward Him as the final end of their being, we shall agree that the Church came into the world from the very moment the spiritual world was created; and that, in particular, the Church was founded on earth by the Creator Himself at the creation of the first two human beings, and was at first contained within that first-created pair.
Turning to the spiritual beings out of whom the Lord was pleased to form His Church, we may just as readily understand its composition. All these beings, to the very last one, are unconditionally bound to belong to the Church and to be its members. This is required of them by the will of God the Creator, by which they are all alike called both to union with Him and to union or communion with one another; it is likewise required by the very constitution of their nature. Their nature is one and the same in all of them, spiritual: hence their involuntary sympathy for one another, their impulse toward mutual love and, consequently, toward society. By nature they are all finite: hence, naturally, in each of them a consciousness of insufficient power, a consciousness of the need for mutual assistance and, consequently, again an impulse toward society. By the constitution of their nature they are not equal to one another, but are endowed by the Lord, in differing measure, with powers and perfections, one more, another less: a further, natural inducement to society, to mutual help and assistance. All the inducements here enumerated compel moral beings to unite generally into societies in which they might satisfy their natural needs; consequently, to unite also into the society of believers, or the Church, in order to satisfy the foremost need of their nature. It goes without saying that what has been said here applies both to spiritual beings in general and, in particular, to men.
§18. The Purpose of the Church, and the Means to That Purpose
If the Lord Himself founded the Church in the world and on earth, then, without doubt, being all-wise, He also appointed for it a purpose. From the relation of the Church to Faith it is evident that their purpose is one and the same; only in the Church, as in a society, the members must strive toward their appointed end not each separately, but with united powers. The purpose of faith, as we said in its proper place (§14), is the moral union of spiritual beings with God, and, from this, the glory of God in rational creatures and the blessedness of those creatures. It is to this same highest purpose that the Church, too, must lead all its members. But in order to attain the purpose of faith, we have seen (§13), the fulfillment of certain necessary conditions is required on the part of spiritual beings, namely:
a) these beings are bound to believe in God, to hope in God, to love God;
b) they are bound, if clothed with flesh (as men are), to express their inward worship in outward worship;
c) they are bound to actualize their faith, hope, and love in their very activity and life. Besides its chief purpose, then, the Church has, so to speak, a preliminary and mediating purpose in relation to that chief purpose—namely, to train and strengthen its members ever more in faith, love, and hope, to perform for them and together with them the outward worship of God, and by every means to promote their growth in piety.
This purpose of the Church immediately points also to those necessary means the Church must have. In order to bring its members to the glorification of God, union with Him, and blessedness, the Church needs:
a) to teach them true faith in God, true love for Him, and true hope in Him: consequently, there must necessarily exist in the Church a teaching, in which these truths of faith, love, and hope are contained;
b) to perform, for its members, if they are clothed with flesh, an outward worship of God, both to express their inward feelings toward God and for their further edification in this: consequently, there must exist in the Church sacred rites;
c) to guide its members toward establishment and growth in piety: consequently, there must exist in the Church a moral governance.
§19. The Constitution of the Church
But the means we have enumerated are not, in themselves, sufficient for this purpose. Living instruments are further required within the Church, to set the former in motion: there is need, namely, of a particular order of persons from among its members, who would employ these means for their own good and that of their neighbors. The need for such an order becomes evident from the very nature of the case. If it were left to all the members of the Church alike to teach others, to perform the public worship of God, and to guide their neighbors on the path of a godly life, collisions and disorder would inevitably follow from this… On the other hand, the duty of performing the sacred acts of the Church, falling equally upon all its members, would fall exclusively upon none, and so there could be no particular zeal or success in carrying it out. But where a special sacred order, or hierarchy,41 exists within the Church, both the first inconvenience and the second are not only prevented, but on the contrary everything falls into an orderly rank and sequence: some in it teach, others receive the teaching; some perform the outward worship of God, others avail themselves of that worship; some hold the power of governance, others obey it. And the members of the hierarchy, sensing that the sacred duties of the Church rest properly upon them, find in this every incentive to labor in their calling with full zeal. Thus, like every well-ordered society, for the sake of proper order and the ready attainment of its purpose, the Church must have two classes of members: the ruling sacred class, bound to care for the rest of the members and to employ every means to bring them to their purpose, and the subordinate class, bound to obey the former.42
The whole constitution of the Church, however, is not limited to this. It is a society of spiritual beings who stand not only in union with one another but likewise in union with God. Consequently, besides its sacred rulers drawn from among its own members, it also has over it a single supreme Master, whom it is right to call both its King and its Head. Its King: for the Lord Himself is the supreme legislator of this kingdom, who has inscribed the moral laws in the conscience of its members, and, when needful, vouchsafes them His particular revelations; He Himself is also its supreme ruler, acting both directly and through the hierarchy; He Himself its supreme judge, who renders, or will render, to each according to his deserts. Its Head: for having called the spiritual beings that compose the Church into direct union and communion with Himself, He has thereby joined them all in Himself and under Himself, permeates them all with the very same gracious powers flowing from Him, and thus gives life to, and binds together, the whole constitution of the Church.
§20. The Division of the Church on Earth
Corresponding to the way objective faith is divided within the human race, the Church, too, is divided. There was on earth a primeval faith before the fall of our forefathers; there was then, too, a primeval Church, contained within the first-created pair. But now, after the fall, there exist within the human race: the true faith, revealed to men by God Himself in a supernatural manner, and false faiths, in their various forms. Just so there now exist, on earth, churches as well: the true Church, instituted by God, and false churches—in their various forms.43
Chapter II. On Revelation
§21. Delimiting the Subject
We have sought to set forth the general concept of Faith from precisely those aspects which seemed to us needful for confirming and clarifying the subsequent particular concept of the Christian faith. In just the same way the general concept of revelation must now be set forth—that is, set forth only from those aspects from which it can contribute to confirming or clarifying the subsequent concept of Christian revelation. These very aspects are pointed out to us by the opponents of supernatural revelation themselves (the naturalists and rationalists), when some of them say that supernatural revelation is impossible; others, that it is superfluous, even granting it possible; and still others, that there are no means of distinguishing such a revelation from among false revelations, even if it had truly been given by God—and by this they lead us, on the contrary, to show that Divine revelation is both possible and necessary, and can easily be distinguished, by its essential marks, from every false revelation. Without first resolving all these questions, we would, without any doubt, be unable either to establish firmly or to set forth adequately the concept of Christian revelation. But once we have resolved them—once we have recognized its possibility, felt its necessity, and seen the distinguishing marks of a true Divine revelation—it will remain for us only to apply these marks to Christianity, in order to attest the undoubted certainty of its origin from God.
I. The Possibility of Revelation
§22. The Concept of Revelation, and the Aspects from Which Its Possibility May Be Considered
By the name revelation (Col. 1:26–27; Rom. 1:17–19) we understand here the supernatural communication by God to man of certain truths of faith. The possibility of revelation may accordingly be considered from three aspects: on the side of God, who communicates the revelation; on the side of man, who receives the revelation; and on the side of the very truths that God discloses to man.
§23. The Possibility of Revelation on the Side of God
On the side of God, the possibility of revelation must be beyond doubt. For God to be able to communicate a revelation to man, it is required only that He know what to communicate, and have the means of communicating it… But God is an all-knowing Being: He knows all things, knows all our needs, even our most hidden ones, better than we know them ourselves; He knows in what respects we may manage with our own natural powers, granted us by Him, and in what respects His supernatural help is necessary to us. God is an almighty and all-wise Being, to whom everything He has created and preserves—the material world and the spiritual world—is wholly subject, and therefore He always has at His disposal a countless multitude of means for attaining His purposes. As King of the spiritual world and purest Spirit, He can act directly upon our soul, bring it into a supernatural rapture, fill its mind with an extraordinary light, disclose before it a series of new objects, or converse with it in dreams and the like44 — all of which is known to us from the history of the holy Prophets and Apostles. And as the absolute Master of the material world, He can act upon the soul through material objects, by means of our outward senses: He can, for example, Himself assume for a time the form of a man and appear to some righteous person to communicate His revelations to him, as He appeared to Abraham, the father of believers; He can appear also in other sensible forms, as He appeared to Moses in the wilderness and on Mount Sinai, when He gave the Law to the Israelites. God’s other attributes are in no way contrary to this possibility. God is boundless and eternal; but He is boundless not in the sense of material extension, but boundless as Spirit, who, filling all things, is wholly present in every place; and He is eternal not in the sense of an infinite extension of time, but in the sense of timelessness, by which there is for Him neither past nor future, but all is present. It is for this reason that He, notwithstanding His boundlessness and eternity, Himself directly governs the world and carries all things forward by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3)—that is, He acts within space and time; and for this same reason He can, notwithstanding His entire boundlessness and eternity, communicate His revelations directly to man within a definite space and time. God is infinitely righteous and good: and when we say that He can communicate His supernatural revelation to man, we presuppose in man an extreme need for that revelation; here, then, is precisely the field for Divine goodness and righteousness, which cannot refuse one who needs help. God is the very highest holiness and goodness; and revelation is looked for from Him by man for no other purpose than moral ends; He is the very highest truth, to whom every falsehood and every error is intolerable; and revelation is likewise looked for from Him by man precisely for the correction of his errors in the matter of faith.
§24. The Possibility of Revelation on the Side of Man
Revelation is no less possible on the side of man. He is in general capable of receiving truths from without, communicated to him by others: why, then, could he not receive truths from God alone? As a citizen of two worlds, the material and the spiritual, by the very constitution of his being, man naturally possesses within himself the capacities for receiving impressions of both worlds—that is, both material and spiritual; it follows that he is equally able to appropriate divine revelations to himself, whether they are communicated to his soul directly, or whether they are communicated to him by means of some sensible signs. Man has no need whatsoever of new, supernatural faculties for receiving supernatural revelation; it is enough only that his natural faculties be aroused by God in a particular manner, and that God, being infinitely wise, adapt the manner of His revelation to the measure of man’s natural capacity to receive it—and God will, of course, always find a way to do so. A further difficulty is found in how man is to recognize God’s revelation and be assured that it is indeed a true revelation, and not a deception of his senses, or of his imagination, or a self-delusion. But it must be remembered that in the communicating of revelation it is God Himself who acts; and if God should decisively will to communicate some truth to man, whether for his own particular, moral benefit, or for the benefit of many, He will already have found the means to attain the end He has chosen, and will employ such signs as will let man recognize the divine revelation without error and be assured of its origin—as is known from the example of Moses and of God’s other messengers. In apparent and false revelations, delusions are possible, and indeed not infrequently occur; but in a true revelation, never—for He who acts in it is infinitely wise. The men themselves whom He chooses to communicate truths to could be deceived; but He will not allow this to happen to them, for otherwise He would not have chosen them at all, but would have chosen others more capable. But how we, as outside observers, may recognize the true messenger of God, who has indeed been vouchsafed a divine revelation, and distinguish him from a self-deluded man, or a deliberate deceiver—this will be spoken of later.45
§25. The Possibility of Revelation on the Side of the Truths of Revelation Themselves
The truths of revelation may be of two kinds: those comprehensible to the human mind, and those which surpass its understanding—that is, truths in which the mind, while it understands the definite thought they express, does not understand and is unable to explain to itself the mutual relation between subject and predicate, and which are known by the name of mysteries. The possibility of the first kind of truths is not in dispute; the possibility of the latter the naturalists deny, but unjustly.
Mysteries are possible in revelation by the very subject-matter of revelation. The subject of revelation is faith, or the union between God and man. The truths of revelation must, therefore, touch upon God with His highest attributes and infinite perfections, and upon His relation to the world and to man; must touch upon man in his very being and in his destiny—present, past, and future; and must, finally, touch upon the invisible, inward, immediate communion and union between God and the spirit of man. Who, then, would say that in all this there could not be for us much, and very much, that is wholly incomprehensible? Judging by the subjects of faith here named, it is evident that there are mysteries in natural Faith as well: for in natural Faith we must be guided by our own reason alone, and no sound-minded reason has ever boasted that it has known, in the proper sense, God—that incomprehensible Being—or has fully known man in his wondrous constitution and mysterious destiny.46 On what ground, then, is even the possibility of what truly exists in natural Faith to be denied in revelation?
No—it is not enough to say that mysteries in revelation are merely possible; they are, in fact, necessary here.
Mysteries are possible in revelation on the side of God, too, the Author of revelation. That He has, in His infinite mind, truths of a kind wholly incomprehensible to our limited reason, and has every means to declare them to us, should He so will, it would be superfluous even to mention. But it must be noted that the existence of mysteries in revelation proves consonant with the very wisdom of God—the one Divine attribute, of all of them, to which these mysteries would seem, at first sight, to be opposed. The nearest purpose of supernatural revelation is to remedy man’s ignorance in the matter of faith, whatever that ignorance may stem from—whether from the mere finitude of human nature, or also from its corruption; and so it might seem that there ought to be no mysteries in revelation at all. But every mystery has within it a twofold aspect: a shadowed side, incomprehensible to our mind, and a luminous side, readily intelligible; for every mystery expresses within itself a definite thought, a definite truth, the content of which can be wholly clear to the mind, even though its inward possibility remains beyond understanding. And consequently every mystery, as a definite thought, can readily be received by the mind among its other thoughts, and, being luminous in its content, can naturally impart its light to man’s other thoughts and remedy his ignorance. Thus (to take an example from actual revelation): the mystery of the Fall, preached by Christianity, expresses this clear thought—that man, created pure and innocent, once transgressed the commandment of God, and thereby let into himself the poison of sin, which, having corrupted his whole nature, then spread successively, as an unavoidable evil, from our fallen forefathers to all their descendants, to the whole human race; the mystery of the Incarnation expresses this luminous truth—that the Son of God, without ceasing to be God, was pleased to become man, and to unite in His one Person two natures, the Divine and the human; the mystery of redemption preaches this definite truth—that the incarnate Son of God died for our sins on the cross, to satisfy the justice of God on our behalf and to acquire for us all the divine powers that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3); the mystery of regeneration and sanctification, this—that we can be cleansed from every defilement of flesh and spirit, and grow in the virtues, only with the help of the Divine grace of the Holy Spirit, and the like. All these thoughts, in their content, are unquestionably intelligible to our mind, although we do not comprehend how the poison of sin could corrupt the whole of man’s nature and infect the whole human race, how God became man, how the death of the Redeemer could redeem us from sin, the curse, and death, and how the Holy Spirit regenerates and renews us by His grace. And it is not merely that these thoughts are intelligible in themselves: they explain to us a very great deal about ourselves and about everything around us; they truly disclose to us something we did not know before, and resolve for us the weightiest problems of life. Without the mystery of the Fall we could never have understood whence moral and physical evil in the world comes, why the lot of man on earth is so calamitous and pitiable, and why his whole history presents almost nothing but a succession of errors and vices of every kind; without the mysteries of the Incarnation, redemption, and sanctification we could never have reconciled this unhappy state of things, within us and around us, with the thought of a perfect Creator of the world and His providence; we could never have explained to ourselves what the purpose of our existence on earth amid so many evils and calamities could be, and whether it would not have been better had we never come into the world at all, and the like. It must be added that the purpose of revelation is not only to remedy man’s ignorance in the matter of faith, but also to help his morality—to show him the abyss toward which his vices inevitably draw him, and, on the other hand, to show him the highest goods to which his virtues can lead him; in a word, to set before him every most powerful inducement to grow in piety. And how greatly the mysteries of true revelation can contribute to this—mysteries incomprehensible to the mind, but very near to the heart! Man has fallen, all his powers are corrupted, and he can of himself produce nothing wholly good: what an inducement to humility and to fervent prayer to God! The very Son of God was pleased, for our redemption, to take the form of a servant and to die upon the cross: what an inducement to boundless gratitude and love toward the divine Redeemer, and, in general, to the keeping of all His commandments! We are a temple of the Holy Spirit, who accomplishes our sanctification within us: what an inducement to keep ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, even from wicked thoughts, desires, and feelings!
As for, finally, man himself, who must receive the mysteries of revelation—in him too we find a complete capacity and possibility for this. It is known that man, by the very constitution of his mind, appropriates truths to himself in two ways: some by knowledge, others by faith — that is, some on the basis of his own experience and direct consciousness that they are indeed truths, and others on the basis of the testimony and authority of persons outside himself, in the same way that historical, sometimes geographical, knowledge is generally acquired, and knowledge in general of such subjects as we have not seen ourselves, but of which reports are conveyed to us by others. By this latter means, evidently, man can also appropriate to himself the mysteries of revelation: without directly understanding that these are indeed truths, yet being aware of their definite content, he can accept these truths on the basis of the testimony concerning them and the authority of God Himself, who reveals them, and who, being truthful, can never deceive. The one thing man could set against this, as indeed some do try to set against it, would be if he had the right to say that the mysteries of revelation contradict his reason. But this no sound-minded person can say:
1) A mystery, by its very concept, is wholly incomprehensible to our mind, and surpasses its understanding; but in order to maintain of some thought that it truly contradicts reason, that thought must first be understood and grasped. It follows that, concerning a mystery, so long as it remains a mystery, no one has the right to pronounce anything definite—neither that it accords with reason, nor that it contradicts reason; and one who asserts the latter thereby plainly implies that he has, in fact, comprehended the mystery;
2) our discussion here concerns the mysteries of a true revelation, which are presupposed to be disclosed to man by God Himself, together with other comprehensible truths, and disclosed in such a way that man is clearly assured that it is God Himself who speaks to him; and can God communicate to us anything that contradicts our reason, and can a man who is assured that certain incomprehensible truths were indeed communicated to him by God Himself even arrive at the thought that in these mysteries there might be found any incongruity with the first principles of reason and truth?
II. The Necessity of Revelation
§26. In What This Necessity Consists, and Whence It Is Disclosed
When we speak of the necessity, for man, of supernatural revelation, we mean by this that he, in his present state, cannot, by his natural means alone, either rightly know God, or worthily worship Him, or, in general, attain all those ends for which faith was given him.
This insufficiency of natural faith, and the necessity of supernatural revelation for man, are disclosed:
A) from the fact that among peoples not illumined by the light of supernatural revelation, faith has always appeared, and still appears, in the most pitiable state; and
B) from the fact that no philosophy, and in general no human wisdom, has ever been able, or is able, to lead men out of this pitiable state without the supernatural cooperation of God.
A. The State of Faith in the Human Race Outside Christianity as the True Revelation
§27. A Survey of the Pagan Faith
It is very easy to be convinced of the correctness of the first thought, and even the opponents of supernatural revelation themselves, the naturalists and rationalists, scarcely rise up against it. It is therefore sufficient, in confirmation of it, merely to take a general survey of the faiths existing in the human race outside Christianity as the true supernatural revelation—first of all, the pagan faith, and then the remaining two: the modern Jewish faith and the Mohammedan faith.
Turning our attention to the inward worship of the pagan peoples, we see that not one of them had, or has, a true teaching about God, such as would let them rightly believe in Him, love Him, and hope in Him. The thought of one God, which flickers among many of them, is wholly suppressed and disfigured by various beliefs in many gods; the glory of the incorruptible God, infinite as He is, has been exchanged for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things (Rom. 1:23), and of finite beings and objects generally; and finally, the concept of the all-holy God has been distorted in the extreme by beliefs in gods and goddesses possessed of moral defects and misdeeds that would be degrading even for the meanest of men. In general, the pagans have paid, or do pay, divine honor—some to the heavenly bodies: the sun, moon, stars, and their images (astrolatry, or Sabaism); others deify the earth, sea, winds, springs, plants, and, in particular, idols made of wood, stone, and the like (fetishism); others still, irrational animals—four-footed beasts, birds, fish, insects, creeping things (zoolatry); a fourth group, men distinguished in their lifetime by power, prudence, benefactions, or misdeeds, and the like (anthropolatry); a fifth, evil spirits or demons (daemonolatry); a sixth, images of abstract things, such as glory or happiness, of physical evils such as fever and other diseases, and of moral evils such as shamelessness and the rest.47 In short, there is hardly a single thing to be found, either in the physical world or in the moral world, that the pagans have not deified in this or that country, at this or that time: they have deified almost everyone and everything; the only thing they have not properly deified is the one true God.48
The outward worship of the pagans presents just as gloomy a picture. We will not even mention their empty, superstitious, and senseless rites (such as the various forms of divination by the flight and cries of birds, by dreams, by smoke, by wax figures, by the entrails of sacrificial animals, and the like, and the various oracles, full of cunning, deceit, and ambiguity, and so forth); we will point out only, on the one hand, rites of extreme cruelty and inhumanity, and, on the other, rites of utter shamelessness. To the former belong:
a) the offering of human sacrifice, which, according to the testimony of reliable writers, was practiced among many peoples of the pagan world from time immemorial, though not to an equal degree—namely, among the Syrians, Phoenicians, Arabs, Egyptians, Carthaginians, and other peoples of Africa; among the Indians, Persians, and other peoples of Asia; among the Thracians, the ancient Scythians, Greeks, Romans, Gauls, Britons, Germans, and other inhabitants of Europe;49 among the Mexicans and other peoples of America;50
b) the voluntary self-scourging of priests in honor of certain deities, on their feast days, as, for example, the priests of Baal did, who, according to the testimony of Holy Scripture, cut themselves after their custom with knives, and many of them lashed themselves with scourges until their own blood was shed (1 Kings 18:28); the priests of Isis, according to the testimony of Herodotus; the priests of Bellona, according to the words of Lampridius and Lucan; and especially the priests of Cybele, according to the harsh description of Seneca, preserved for us by blessed Augustine;51
c) similar voluntary self-scourgings even among ordinary believers at certain sacred rites: for example, in India, even to this day, some deeply wound their own feet and hands, others slit their tongue in several places, still others set snakes upon their wounds, and in this state follow the processions, and the like;52
d) the scourging of small children, practiced in Sparta in honor of Diana at her altars, and this with such cruelty that many of these unfortunates, as the eyewitness Plutarch writes, died there on the spot in their sufferings;53
e) similar scourgings of maidens, practiced in many places in Arcadia in honor of Diana and Bacchus, and often ending in the death of those who were subjected to such torment;54
f) cannibalism in honor of idols, still preserved to this day among the Sandwich Islanders and many other savage islanders;55
g) the burning of living wives together with their dead husbands, as still, for the most part, occurs among the Indians.56 To the shameless rites belong all the bacchanalia, saturnalia, indecent dances, and other lewd practices in honor of Pan, Cotys, Venus, Bacchus, Juno, Adonis, Cybele, and the rest—lewd practices in which shamelessness, intemperance, debauchery, and much else too shameful even to name were displayed in the highest degree; and all this was considered not merely permissible but even sacred; all this was performed in the temples, before the whole people.57
After this, one may already judge the moral condition of the pagans (Rom. 1:26–32). Here everything conspired to foster impiety:
a) their gods themselves, many of whom were nothing other than personified passions—Mercury, Venus, even Jupiter, for example—and who, the higher they were reckoned, the more, as blessed Augustine remarks, they seemed to care only about outdoing one another in various vices;58 and being themselves distinguished by their misdeeds, they naturally taught mortals the same by their own example;
b) their laws, too, which not infrequently permitted and approved hatred toward enemies, contempt for the poor and unfortunate, theft, the killing of children and of the aged, debauchery, and other vices—which remains the case among many pagan peoples even to this day;59
c) their sacred festivals, ceremonies, and customs as well, and not infrequently the very temples themselves, with shameful images of the gods and their lewd acts;60
d) public entertainments of various kinds as well, and especially the theaters and spectacles, which served as public schools of impiety: here the very gods themselves, with all their defects and disorders, were not infrequently brought out on stage for ridicule, and the people took pleasure in mocking those to whom they offered sacrifice in the temples.61 In a word, the moral side of man was always left, as it were, forgotten and neglected in paganism: in this respect paganism left man entirely to himself, requiring of him, to please the gods, only the strict performance of outward rites and sacrifices.62 This faith gave man neither rules, nor incentives, nor means, nor examples for growth in piety; on the contrary, it supplied rules, incentives, means, and models for growth in impiety.
Vain is the attempt of certain scholars to prove that paganism, especially ancient paganism, is by no means as crude as it appears at first sight; that the pagans did not believe in many gods but regarded them and their idols only as various images, modifications, or likenesses of the one true God; and that pagan mythologies and mysteries conceal beneath themselves a profound allegorical meaning and express the purest truths of faith. This attempt is not new: certain of the ancient pagan philosophers already resorted to it, especially in the first centuries of Christianity, when, as the true faith spread, all the absurdities of paganism became the more plainly exposed. But it is quite impossible to agree with such a proposal:
a) it is wholly arbitrary in its very origin: as Eusebius already demonstrated, the learned pagans arrived at this idea only at a later time (after the appearance of Christianity), whereas before that it was unknown—they arrived at it out of a recognition of the extreme deficiencies of the popular faith, and from an uncommendable, forced desire to justify and prop it up to some degree;63
b) it is even more arbitrary in its application: for the allegorical meaning of these myths and mysteries was never defined by any of the ancients—neither by any founder of the pagan faith in a given country, nor by any of the high priests—but is left for each individual scholar to define according to his own considerations; and what can come of this but disagreement among the interpretations?
c) there are many mythological tales and mysteries that cannot possibly be explained in any lofty, pious sense whatsoever—such as all the tales of the exploits of the gods and goddesses, their passions, vices, and misdeeds, and all the dissolute festivals and saturnalia in honor of Bacchus, Venus, Adonis, and the rest;
d) the pagan writers themselves—Horace,64 Seneca,65 Cicero, and others66 — have left a great many testimonies that the pagans, in the literal sense, believed in many gods, and reckoned even the most lifeless idols as gods;
e) in Holy Scripture, whose testimony, in the present case, must carry full weight for everyone, if only as the testimony of unquestionable antiquity, there occur numerous sayings, and examples too are presented, confirming that, both before the Savior’s coming and after it, the pagans truly believed in many gods (Judith 5:8; Is. 44:12–20; Jer. 2:27; Dan. 14; Gal. 4:8; Acts 14:11–18);
f) the ancient Christian pastors—many of whom, before their conversion to Christianity, had themselves been pagans, and learned pagans at that, and who afterward, to the end of their lives, occupied themselves with exposing pagan superstitions, and could therefore study pagan theology far better than present-day researchers—all these pastors preached openly that the pagans do not know the one God but believe in many gods and worship idols; they refuted in detail the attempts of those who wished to defend paganism by allegorical interpretations, and testified that they themselves, from their own experience, knew very well both the substance and the whole worthlessness of the pagan mysteries;67
g) in general, out of the countless multitude of pagans who converted to Christ at the beginning of the Christian era—of whom, without doubt, very many had previously been initiated into all the mysteries of paganism—not one appeared who openly confessed that the pagan mysteries concealed within themselves profound truths of faith consonant with revelation; on the contrary, all spoke of these mysteries with a certain revulsion, as of things unclean and impious;
h) even if it were granted that certain pagan myths truly had a higher, mysterious meaning, without any doubt very few indeed knew that meaning; the people as a whole did not know it at all, and always understood their traditions about the gods, their rites, and their festivals in the plain, literal sense: what use, then, is this supposed allegorical meaning of the pagan faith?68
§28. A Survey of the Modern Jewish Faith
By the name of the modern Jewish faith is understood not that faith which was given to the Israelites through Moses and the Prophets, and which they professed before the coming of the Messiah, but that which they themselves devised, having departed from the true spirit of Moses and the Prophets, and which they hold now,69 after the coming of the promised Messiah, whom they have not recognized. The former faith is truly divinely revealed and forms one whole with the Christian faith, and therefore does not fall under our consideration here; the latter, properly the modern Jewish faith, being the fruit of the errors of natural human reason, may be called a form of natural faith in the subjective sense, and must therefore claim our attention here.
But what can be said of it, except that it is indeed the fruit of the most extreme blindness of human reason, and moreover of a reason that is coarse and steeped in prejudice? It is set forth in two books held by the Jews to be divine—the Kabbalah and the Talmud70 — but in both these books, alongside truths borrowed from the Bible, there are so many oddities, absurdities, and contradictions that it becomes hard to believe how men could have invented such things, and how others can accept notions so grotesque as sacred and irrefutable truths without renouncing common sense. Such are —
In theoretical matters, such tales are:
a) concerning God’s daily occupations;71
b) concerning the purpose for which the world was created;72
c) concerning the Messiah and the circumstances of His coming;73
d) concerning the resurrection of the dead,74 and the like.
In moral matters, such are:
a) the fundamental law concerning man’s relation to his neighbor: “any good the law of Moses commands, and any evil it forbids doing to a neighbor, a brother, a comrade—the Talmud explains—is to be understood only in relation to Jews”;75
b) its view of the other nations: calling them unclean and God-hating peoples, with whom the Jews must not only enter into no ties of kinship whatsoever, but must have no communion even in food and drink, especially on certain days, the Talmud teaches that a Jew may without sin break oaths given to a person of another faith, may deceive him, oppress him, persecute him, and even put him to death for his unbelief, and that, in general, all these unbelieving nations will, at the coming of the Messiah, either be utterly destroyed or be enslaved to the Jews, so that even foreign kings will become servants to the least of the children of Israel;76
c) the teaching on the means of justification: the Talmud preaches that both original sin and, in general, all sins can be blotted out and destroyed through the strict fulfillment of all the prescriptions of the ceremonial law, and the like.
As a consequence of this, the Jews are exclusively devoted to their rites, so much so that, in the words of one of their own scholars, for the Jews faith as such does not exist, but only the law—that is, the ceremonial law.77 But it must further be added how strange, petty, and trivial this law is in its countless prescriptions and ordinances. For example, on the basis of a single commandment of God — you shall do no work of any kind on the Sabbath day (Ex. 20:10)—there now exist 949 rabbinical ordinances, one of which “forbids a Jew even to spit into the air on the Sabbath, because this act resembles the winnowing of unhulled rye”.78 On the basis of God’s prohibition against eating leavened bread at Passover (Ex. 12:20), 265 ordinances have been devised, one of which declares that if 10,000 Jews were, on the day of Passover, to cook food in water drawn from a single well in which some barley grain was afterward found, all of them would be obliged to burn or throw into the river the food they had prepared, together with the vessels. On the subject of forbidden foods alone there exist over 3,000 different ordinances; on the single rite of the washing of hands, up to a hundred; and on the salting of meat, up to two hundred; there are even determinations concerning the manner of trimming one’s fingernails… On the basis of the commandment of Moses forbidding the boiling of a kid in its mother’s milk (Ex. 23:19; Deut. 14:21), the Talmudists have forbidden:
a) the boiling of any meat whatsoever in milk;
b) even the use of a vessel in which meat food is prepared for the preparation of dairy food; and
c) they have determined that dairy food is not to be taken sooner than six hours after the taking of meat food, and meat food after dairy sooner than one hour. And it would be one thing if the observance of all such trifles were left to each person’s own discretion; but on the contrary, the Talmud raises every rite to the level of dogma, and demands the most rigorous observance of the ordinances and rules pertaining to them.79
Even the more discerning Jews themselves admit80 that their Talmud and Kabbalah contain many fables which, taken literally, contradict both common sense and themselves, and are wholly unworthy of God and of man alike. But by what, then, do they think to justify this? By claiming that these fables must be explained in an allegorical, spiritual sense—a forced evasion, resorted to when nothing else remains to be said! And what allegorical sense could there possibly be, for example, in the ordinances we have set forth concerning foods, the Sabbath, and the like?
§29. A Survey of the Mohammedan Faith
In the Mohammedan faith, as set forth in the Koran,81 two sides must be distinguished: first, truths borrowed from the holy books of the Old and New Testament, such as many sound conceptions of God and His attributes, of the angels, many moral precepts and commandments, and many historical narratives—which is confirmed by Mohammed’s own frequent references to these books; and second, everything borrowed from other sources—partly from the ancient Arabian faith, partly from the Jewish Talmud, and partly the inventions of Mohammed himself.
Truths of the first kind possess their full worth; but they belong to Divine revelation, not to Mohammed or the Koran. To the Koran belongs only this: that here these luminous truths are not infrequently mingled with such errors and fables as almost entirely obscure and overwhelm them. Thus, for example, the Koran states that Abraham and Ishmael built the temple at Mecca (Sura 2, verse 121); that Ishmael was the one offered in sacrifice (Sura 38, 188); that Solomon was cast down from his throne by the cunning of Satan (Sura 38, 26); that the Virgin Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus, was the sister of Aaron; that Jesus, while still in the cradle, declared of himself: “I am the servant of God; He has given me the Book and made me a Prophet” (Sura 19, 18); and the like.
As for all the remaining parts of the Mohammedan teaching, which are borrowed into the Koran from human sources, and therefore belong to natural Faith—here we find almost nothing but errors, and often absurdities.
Thus, in its theoretical part, it is maintained:
a) that everything that occurs in the world is subject to the unconditional predestination of God, and cannot occur otherwise (Sura 17, 13; 9, 53);
b) that, in particular, every man also has his own inevitable, inescapable fate (Sura 16, 13), and to each is predetermined a certain manner of life and action, good or evil—by which all freedom and morality are plainly undermined, and God is made the author of evil;
c) that God created many men for Gehenna, and is therefore, in the proper sense, a despot (Sura 7, 180; 37, 163; 3, 189);
d) that the universal judgment, at the end of the world, will last 5,000 years;
e) that the eternal blessedness of the righteous in paradise will consist in the crudest sensual pleasures (Sura 2, 25; 37, 41; 55, 45), and the like.
In its practical part, the Mohammedan faith —
a) although it not infrequently speaks of love for God, this love necessarily degenerates into servile fear and blind submission to fate;
b) it also speaks of love for one’s neighbor, but limits the number of one’s neighbors to the faithful alone—that is, to Mohammedans, and, moreover, to friends;
c) toward those of other faiths, however, it commands that they be persecuted and killed for refusing to accept Mohammedanism (Sura 47, 4);
d) toward enemies and those who give offense, it permits vengeance and even killing (Sura 42, 38). Besides this —
e) it permits polygamy and concubinage (Sura 4, 3; 2, 224; 36, 50);
f) it forbids all inquiry in the matter of faith, on pain of death;
g) it commands that the Faith be spread by sword and violence (Sura 8, 4; 9, 13); and
h) prescribing numerous ceremonial ordinances—such as fasts, washings, various kinds of prayer, pilgrimage to Mecca, abstinence from certain foods and drinks, and the like—it assigns to all these things such worth that man’s eternal salvation is supposed to depend on them entirely. The inevitable fruit of such a teaching is that the whole morality of the Mussulman is confined to the strict performance of mere outward ordinances, while almost no attention whatsoever is paid to the amendment of the heart.
§30. General Conclusions and Reflections
Thus, even a passing glance at the moral condition of men not illumined by the light of divine revelation convinces us that the primeval faith in the human race exists today in a distorted form: neither among the pagans, nor among the modern Jews, nor among the Mohammedans do we find either right knowledge of God or right worship of Him. And after this it is only natural that such a faith should fail entirely to bring men even to those high purposes or consequences to which it ought to lead them. The first purpose and consequence of faith, as we have seen, is the mysterious union of man with God; but this union is possible only on the condition, on man’s part, of true faith in God, true love for God, and true hope in God, which must, moreover, express themselves in worthy outward worship and a godly life. And among the pagans, the modern Jews, and the Mohammedans none of this exists, nor can it exist, given the very substance of their teaching and their whole constitution: what communion, then, can these men have with God? What fellowship has light with darkness (2 Cor. 6:14)? The second purpose and second consequence of faith is the glory of God among men; but God can be glorified among men only through their right faith in Him, through their right worship of Him, and, above all, through their godly life—and none of these conditions can be fulfilled either by the pagans, the modern Jews, or the Mohammedans. Who, then, would maintain that God’s name could be hallowed among them? Finally, the last purpose and consequence of faith is the happiness and blessedness of man himself; but when and where has man been happy, that is, man not illumined by the light of divine revelation? In what age, in what country, has he not complained of his fate, has he not felt within himself, at least at certain moments, a bitter languishing of spirit, an exhausting struggle of powers and passions, has he not experienced misfortunes and sorrows from his fellow men, has he not been subjected to manifold calamities from outward nature itself? The history of individual persons, the history of whole kingdoms and peoples, the history of the entire human race is entirely like that scroll of a book seen by the Prophet Ezekiel, in which was written lamentation, and mourning, and woe (Ezek. 2:10). Reading it, one cannot help feeling that some heavenly chastisement, menacing and inescapable, weighs upon poor mankind.
What, then, does this grievous condition of faith in the human race, and of man himself, mean? Whence does it come? The All-Perfect, All-Holy, and All-Good One could not, without doubt, have created man so imperfect, as if for misfortune and suffering alone; the True and Faithful One could not Himself have renounced the union into which He was pleased, at the beginning, to call man. If the union has been broken, then it has been broken by man, who, being a free and finite being, was able to keep this union, and was also able to betray it, and then inevitably to arrive at his present lot. Sacred history (Gen. ch. 3) and the traditions of all peoples82 do indeed testify that man himself broke the covenant of God already at the beginning, provoked his Creator to wrath, and became unhappy.
It now remains for us to show the correctness of our second proposition, which the naturalists strive by every means to deny—namely, that —
B. No Human Wisdom Can Lead Men Out of Their Pitiable State in the Matter of Faith Without the Supernatural Cooperation of God
§31. What Is Required for This?
What is required is:
1) to illumine the human race with the light of the true teaching of faith: here is the beginning of the saving change;
2) to reconcile men with God, whom they have infinitely offended by their falling away from His primeval covenant, and thereby to restore that covenant: here is the center of the saving change;
3) finally, to amend human morality, to make men good and holy out of evil and corrupt: here is the completion of the saving change. Upon the fulfillment of all these three conditions, man will again enter into mysterious union and communion with God, to the glory of God and his own blessedness. But this is precisely what man is unable to accomplish by his own powers.
§32. Human Wisdom Cannot Illumine Men with the Light of the True Teaching of Faith
Human wisdom neither could, nor can, illumine men with the light of the true teaching of faith.
First, because human wisdom itself has never fully known, and can never fully come to know, this teaching. Its principal subjects—God, the destiny of man, the immortality of the soul, the origin of moral evil, and other subjects beyond experience—are, consequently, in our present state, not directly accessible to our mind, and are seen by us only in part, as through a mirror, in a riddle (1 Cor. 13:12). In that case there can be no infallible, irrefutable knowledge for man—though we by no means deny, holding firmly to the Word of God (Acts 14:17; Rom. 1:20) and to universal experience, that man can, to some degree, know even these highest subjects. For this reason all philosophers, even the best of them, ancient and modern alike, have not been free from errors concerning the truths of faith, and errors not infrequently quite gross and dangerous.83 Some of these sages themselves openly confessed the weakness of the human mind with regard to divine subjects, and even the need for help from heaven.84
Second, because, on account of the inaccessibility and incomprehensibility to the mind of the principal subjects of faith, the philosophers themselves neither could, nor can, be indubitably convinced of the truth of their own conceptions of it, even where those conceptions were sometimes in fact true;85 and without conviction in one’s own thoughts, what can be done to spread them?
Third, because the philosophers would have lacked the requisite resolve and self-denial for this task, even had they been convinced of their own doctrines of faith. To preach a new Faith to men and compel them to renounce the superstition of their forefathers requires resolving upon the greatest labors and sacrifices—perhaps even the sacrifice of life itself, as the history of the spread of the Christian faith among the human race has shown: and who is equal to such a task (2 Cor. 2:16)? We know more than one of the ancient sages who, in the quiet of his study, boldly laughed at the superstitions of the crowd and spoke of God as he truly thought. But when it came time to declare his opinion publicly, he would begin to speak of the gods with feigned conviction, and to preach that lifeless idols must be worshiped, that sacrifices must be offered to them, and that all the ancestral traditions concerning religion must be sacredly observed. Pythagoras86 and Plato,87 the freethinker Cotta88 and Cicero,89 Epictetus90 and Marcus Aurelius91 — all plainly expressed this same view and strove to justify it, and Cicero even maintained that wisdom itself commands one to act in this way.92
Fourth — on account of the great disagreement among philosophers and whole philosophical schools, in everything generally, but especially in their doctrines of faith. Anyone acquainted with the history of philosophy knows that these disagreements have never ceased from the first philosopher of antiquity down to the philosophers of our own day. And, not infrequently, both in ancient and in modern times, what was accepted by some thinkers as unquestionable truth was considered by others to be utter falsehood.93 It must be added that these disagreements can never come to an end:
a) in particular, by the very nature of the human mind: the mind of each individual person, according to the differing degrees and circumstances of its development, very often changes its thoughts about one and the same subject and contradicts itself—all the more inevitably is this so between the minds of persons differing from one another in natural disposition, in upbringing, and in many other circumstances;
b) still more, because in the domain of philosophy there exists no tribunal at which the disputes of thinkers could be finally settled, and whose verdict would be respected by all as unquestionably true and unalterable; and still more —
c) by the very nature of human self-love—the self-love of learned men, the strongest and most irritable of all forms of self-love. In such a state of affairs, what could the philosophers accomplish, even had they resolved upon every sacrifice, in order to impart their philosophical faith to the human race? What some would build up, others would tear down; and men would not know which of them to follow, and, having looked closely at their disagreements, would certainly have followed none of them. This obstacle alone, even setting aside all the others, would have made any success in the sages’ undertaking impossible.
Finally, the last reason for the evident futility of such an attempt is the philosophers’ lack of authority to communicate their conceptions of Faith to men: to take from peoples their former, ancestral, age-old beliefs, which they have grown accustomed to regard as having come from God Himself, and to instill in their minds and hearts new convictions suggested to them by a mere man, in every way like themselves—this is wholly impossible. “Philosophers, too, sometimes approach the truth,” says Lactantius, “but their teachings carry no weight, because they proceed from man and are not sealed with a higher authority—that is, the authority of God; no one believes them, for everyone senses that the one teaching is a man just like the one listening.”94 And so, even if the philosophers had themselves known the true teaching about God, and, being deeply convinced of it, had resolved to impart their knowledge to others; and even if, having resolved on this, they had acted with one accord—even then they would have had not the slightest success in their undertaking.
§33. Human Wisdom Cannot Reconcile Men with God
Nor could any human wisdom, nor can it now, discover a true means of satisfying the justice of God for our sins, of reconciling man with God, of restoring the union between them. Foolish, of course, was the opinion of those who thought to cleanse themselves before God from the defilements of sin by bodily washings95 — a means the pagans themselves mocked.96 Foolish, too, was the universal conviction of the pagans that the Deity, provoked by human sins, is appeased by offerings, and especially by animal sacrifices: it takes little to recognize the justice of the holy Apostle’s words — it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (Heb. 10:4)—as even sound-minded pagans themselves sensed.97 If the sacrifices of the Jews had their own power and meaning, this was because these sacrifices were types of the universal Sacrifice offered on Golgotha (Heb. 9:13–14; 10:1; 12:24). Unsound, finally, is also the teaching of the naturalists,98 who maintain that man’s true repentance for his sins and the amendment of his life are sufficient, without any outside help, to reconcile man with God. Repentance will never annul the sins we have already committed, nor blot out the effects they have left in our nature; and in this state we remain, as before, by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3): sin is always, and in every respect, hateful and offensive to a Being most holy and most just. The amendment of life and our good deeds can by no means serve as a substitute for, or a satisfaction of, our former transgressions before the tribunal of eternal Justice: for these good deeds, which we begin, let us say, to perform from a certain point onward, must answer for themselves alone—that is our own duty; while our former debts remain debts still.99 But the main question is this—is such an amendment of life, such a moral regeneration, even possible for fallen man, left to his own powers?…
§34. Human Wisdom Cannot Amend Human Morality
If human wisdom neither could, nor can, illumine men with the light of the true knowledge of God, and neither could, nor can, discover a means for reconciling man with God, then all the more—or at the very least, no less—is it powerless to amend the moral condition of the human race.
The first condition for this amendment is, without doubt, to know the moral law and rightly explain it to men—a condition that would appear, at first sight, quite easy: for the moral law is deeply imprinted on our conscience, and is so close to our heart, so intelligible to sound reason! Yet, as centuries of experience testify, even the best thinkers have fallen into great errors in interpreting this law and applying it to the particular circumstances of life. Alongside the excellent moral rules that flicker through both ancient and, especially, modern philosophical ethics, how often does one meet with rules that are utterly false and dangerous to morality!100..
The second condition is to give men, along with the law, sufficient incentives for keeping it—incentives capable of turning man away from his former vices, restraining him from new ones, and making him love virtue. But our reason, left to its own considerations alone, cannot discover such incentives: for what can it point us to for this purpose? To the lofty consciousness of moral duty, to the excellence of virtue and the baseness of vice, to the voice of conscience, which rewards virtue and punishes iniquity? All these noble incentives can have almost no influence on the greater part of men, sunk in sensuality and led by their passions, before such men are first amended. Or will it point to the fact that virtue is the surest path to happiness, while vice leads to ruinous consequences? But is not this indisputable truth not infrequently contradicted by the actual state of human affairs?… Do we not see from experience how the innocent and the good suffer, while evildoers triumph and prosper?… Revelation has explained this riddle of our existence to Christians, and it does not trouble us; but what could reason say against it in favor of the virtue it preaches?…
Finally, it must be remembered that to amend man it is not enough merely to explain to him the moral commandments and point out sufficient incentives to virtue—he must also be given, for this purpose, the powers which, in the present, corrupted state of his nature, he does not possess (Rom. 7:14). We do not bring sin into ourselves on our own; we are born already in sins and with an inclination toward them, as the Word of God testifies — behold, in transgressions was I brought forth, and in sin did my mother conceive me (Ps. 50:7)—and as the wisest of the pagans themselves recognized.101 And this inclination unfolds within us before we come to the full use of our freedom, and afterward grows stronger and increases through every voluntary wicked act of ours. It is this inclination, innate in our fallen nature, that, strengthened by our personal sins and turned into habit, brings us to the point where we are unable to master ourselves: there has never yet been among men a sage who showed himself the complete master of himself and carried his own wise precepts into practice; there has never been a philosopher whose life did not at times prove greatly at odds with his own lips and heart.102 It is this inclination which, in the words of the holy Apostle Paul, is a law in our members, warring against the law of the mind and taking us captive to the law of sin (Rom. 7:23); it is the reason why even the very law of God, the remedy for sin, becomes for man an occasion for sin (Rom. 7:7–10). Man can never root this moral corruption out of himself by his own power,103 for to do so he would need, so to speak, to remake his very being, which is wholly permeated by the poison of sin (Eccl. 1:15; Jer. 13:23).
The direct consequence of all the considerations set forth on the insufficiency of natural faith is evident. If this faith proves to be in the most lamentable state among men who do not know Divine revelation; if no man is able to illumine wandering mankind with the light of the true knowledge of God, to reconcile sinners with God, and to amend their morality—then one last resource remains: to desire and await the supernatural help of God. And fallen mankind has desired it, has awaited it, in every age: traces of this expectation are found among the ancient Egyptians, Chaldeans, Persians, Indians, Chinese, Greeks, Romans, Carthaginians, Scythians, Scandinavians, Germans, Gauls, Americans, and others.104 And it has indeed been granted us by the all-merciful Lord in the Christian revelation.
III. The Marks of Revelation
§35. The Necessity of These Marks, the Means of Determining Them, and Their Division
Without marks and characteristic properties, no thing in the world can exist as a definite thing; nor can it be distinguished by us from all other things, and known: such is the universal law of being and of our knowledge. Consequently, the supernatural revelation of God, too, if it has been granted to men, must have its own essential marks, by which it could exist in the world as something definite, and could be recognized by us and distinguished from every false revelation.
For judging the marks of supernatural revelation, we have two resources: on the one hand, the concept of the essence of revelation which we have already formed—for when the essence of a thing is known, it is easy to surmise its essential properties as well; and on the other, the pattern of an actually existing revelation, that is, the Christian revelation, which has been sealed by God Himself with every distinguishing feature of a true revelation, so that it remains for us only to abstract these features from Christianity, generalize them, and consider them as something distinct.
With the help of these two resources, all the marks of divine revelation are, customarily and quite justly, divided into two kinds: internal marks and external marks.
A. The Internal Marks of Revelation
§36. Their Subdivision
The internal marks are drawn from the very content of revelation, and are subdivided into negative marks, which indicate what a true revelation cannot have, and positive marks, which indicate, on the contrary, what it must have, or at least may have.
§37. The Negative Marks
From the concept of revelation we know that it is communicated by God Himself, that it is communicated to man, and precisely for the purpose of helping him in the matter of faith. Consequently —
1) It cannot be that a true revelation should contain within itself any thoughts absurd and irrational, contradicting sound human sense: God cannot give such notions without ceasing to be God, and man cannot accept them without ceasing to be man; in particular:
a) it cannot be that a true revelation should preach any dogmas of faith—concerning God, for example, or His relation to the world and to man—that overthrow the fundamental truths of the mind implanted in it by nature itself, that is, by the Creator Himself;
b) it cannot be that it should preach any laws of morality that are ruinous to morality; and
c) or prescribe ordinances, or instill feelings, unfavorable to the true happiness of man and of whole societies: such a revelation would not only fail to serve as a help to us in the matter of faith, would not contribute to our growth in true faith, love, and hope, and would not bring us nearer to the desired goal of union with God; on the contrary, it would still further hinder us from striving toward this goal and would lead us away from it. By this mark alone it is already easy to judge, for example, that neither paganism, nor modern Judaism, nor Mohammedanism is a truly revealed faith: for we know that the first preaches an absurd doctrine of many gods, undermines pure morality by its very spirit and not infrequently by plain precepts, and permits the offering of human sacrifice; the second, likewise, is not free of an unreasonable doctrine of God, thinks to replace the whole of morality with mere rites alone, and instills a certain contempt for other peoples; the third, finally, is steeped in an absurd doctrine of blind fate, an equally absurd doctrine of polygamy, concubinage, and sensual pleasures beyond the grave—by which the flesh is inevitably given the advantage over the spirit and pure morality is undermined—and, besides this, breathes a blind fanaticism so ruinous to all who hold another faith.
2) It cannot be that a true revelation, in its manner of expression, should be ambiguous, riddling, and should speak in general as only cunning and deceit, and not truth, are capable of speaking. For it is evident that in such a case, too, it could not proceed from God, could not be received and appropriated by man, and could not correspond to the purpose of revelation. Thus, when one considers the sayings of the ancient pagan oracles, ambiguous, riddling, or altogether indefinite, one cannot help recognizing that these are false pronouncements, and could not have proceeded from God.
§38. The Positive Marks
On the contrary, it is natural to expect:
a) that the true revelation of God, in keeping with its very essence and purpose, will contain within itself only the purest and most perfect truths relating to Faith;
b) that among these truths, some, which were previously known to men, will appear in a better light, while others, previously unknown, will be disclosed anew; and
c) that, among the newly disclosed truths, some will be comprehensible to human reason, although unknown to it before their disclosure, while others will remain incomprehensible even after their disclosure, and must be appropriated by Faith: for such, as we have noted in its proper place, is the subject-matter of faith and revelation, that mysteries here are not only possible but wholly unavoidable. In particular, it is natural to expect that —
a) the dogmas of faith, in a true revelation, will be distinguished by a particular depth and saving power;
b) the promises of hope, by a particular loftiness and spirituality;
c) the laws of love, by a particular purity and life-giving power; and
d) the whole teaching, whatever subjects it touches upon, will possess a palpable superiority over ordinary human teaching.
As for the manner of setting forth these truths, it is natural to expect that everything in revelation will be presented —
a) with such clarity as is possible given the nature of the subjects disclosed: this the wisdom of God, the Author of revelation, requires;
b) with such an adaptation to man’s understanding as can be allowed without prejudice to the truth: this the purpose of revelation requires; and
c) in such a tone that it would be directly evident that it is God who speaks here, and not man… and the like.
It must be remembered, however, that it is without doubt impossible to determine with complete precision and in full detail what a revelation must not, and what it must, contain: this depends on the will of God. And so we have sought to indicate only the principal features of revelation, and general marks, directly evident from the very concept of it.
§39. The Worth and Significance of the Internal Marks
Regarding the worth and significance of these internal marks, justice requires us to say that, although they are wholly necessary in a revelation, they alone are not sufficient for the purpose—that is, for definitively convincing us of the divinity of its origin. They are necessary, because the absence of them in any faith claiming to be a revelation would be undoubted proof that this revelation is false—as we have already noted in examining these marks one by one. They alone are not sufficient for the purpose, because the presence of them in any faith would make it only probable that it is a revelation of God, but not yet fully certain; it would guarantee that this faith, being wholly worthy of God, could have come from Him, but would not yet show that it has, in fact, come from God. However excellent the teaching of a given faith might be in every respect, corresponding to the marks we have indicated, the question would still always remain, upon examining it: why, indeed, must this excellent teaching necessarily be considered a revelation of God, and not the fruit of some extraordinary human mind, when the human mind is capable of understanding and appreciating this teaching? It could have come from God, but it could also have come from man; the former may be more probable, but that is all… Consequently, the internal marks of revelation, on their negative side, can carry a force of undeniability: by them false revelations can always be recognized; but on their positive side, only a force of probability: by them one can only surmise about a true revelation, but cannot yet know it with certainty.
Moreover, the insufficiency of the internal marks alone, and the necessity of other marks, is further disclosed by the following considerations:
a) revelation is given for all men, and must therefore be received by all; but the greater part of the human race, for lack of education, is wholly incapable of judging the worth of a revealed teaching, so as to be convinced by it of the divinity of the revealed faith;
b) even educated men themselves, differing as they do in their degrees of education, guided by different principles, and never wholly free of one prejudice or another, cannot all understand and appreciate the excellence of a revealed teaching, and will inevitably disagree among themselves, waver, and be perplexed, unable to say anything indisputable about it;
c) let us not forget that revelation, by the very essence of its subject-matter, may contain within itself mysteries—that is, truths wholly incomprehensible to human reason, yet necessary in the matter of revealed faith; how, then, is reason to judge the divine origin of such truths by their internal worth?
This insufficiency of the internal marks of revelation is supplied by the external marks.
B. The External Marks of Revelation
§40. Their Subdivision
The external marks of revelation are drawn, first, from the character of those persons who present themselves as preachers of a true revelation sent by God Himself, and from the manner in which the faith they preach is spread; and second, from certain particular, supernatural events accompanying the appearance, or even the whole existence, of the revelation. Marks of the first kind, in comparison with the latter, may be called natural marks, and the latter, supernatural.
§41. The Natural Marks
In the character of persons presenting themselves as preachers of a revelation supposedly received by them directly from God, it is natural to look for those traits that must be the indispensable properties of every witness to the truth: for these persons appear before us, in fact, only as witnesses to what they hand on to us. And so, first of all, one must observe whether these witnesses are in any way deceived themselves, and, next, whether they wish deliberately to deceive others. And if it turns out —
a) that they are in a state of self-delusion, carried away by the reveries of an overheated imagination and a frenzied fancy, breathe fanaticism, or even display signs of insanity—in such a case these witnesses deserve no credence whatsoever. If it turns out,
b) that those calling themselves messengers of God are guided in their actions by impure motives, and, while apparently laboring for the reform of faith, aim not at moral ends at all but at earthly, political ends, and care not for the salvation of their neighbors but only for their own gain, power, glory, and vicious pleasures—in such a case, again, we cannot place any credence in such witnesses. By this trait alone the Mohammedan is rightly recognized as a deceiver, and his teaching as a false revelation. If, on the contrary —
c) if the persons preaching some teaching as a revelation of God are not only free of all self-delusion, but, on the contrary, display sound sense and clear judgment in everything; if they not only pursue no self-interested ends, secretly or openly, but, on the contrary, are distinguished by the highest self-denial and breathe nothing but love for God and their neighbor, forgetting themselves—then the thought inevitably arises in the soul that here, indeed, no deceivers are at work, and it becomes highly probable that these persons are messengers of God, that they were worthy to hear His holy will directly from the Lord and to become organs of His revelation to others. This probability grows all the stronger the purer and holier their moral character appears, and the more morally impossible any deception on their part proves to be.
From the manner in which a divine revelation is spread, it is natural to expect that it will be wholly worthy of God, who reveals His will, of man, to whom the revelation is given, and of the revelation itself. Therefore:
a) it can in no way be granted that, in the spreading of a true revelation, cunning, deceit, and the like should have been employed; that gold, silver, and bribery could have been at work here, or that the sword, compulsion, and bloodshed should have been permitted… And so, for example, Mohammedanism, spread in such a manner, on this trait alone no longer deserves the name of revelation. On the contrary,
b) when we see that the preachers of some faith, presented by them as a revelation, employ no other means for spreading it besides preaching itself, seeking only to illumine the minds and hearts of their hearers with the word of truth, leaving each person free to believe or not believe the preaching; when we see that, notwithstanding the absence of any other assistance, this preaching alone, of itself, draws thousands of people and spreads everywhere with astonishing speed—will not conscience then tell us that no ordinary men are at work here, and that their manner of action may be called worthy even of God Himself?
Regarding the demonstrative force of these external marks of divine revelation, which we have called natural, the same must be repeated as was noted above concerning the internal marks—that is, that on their negative side they carry a force of undeniability: by them a false revelation can always be recognized; while on their positive side they carry only a force of probability: by them one can only surmise, and find it probable, that a given revelation is true. Nevertheless, when joined to the internal marks of revelation, these external marks naturally raise the degree of their demonstrative force, strengthen and reinforce them, and together make the divine origin of a given faith more probable than the internal marks alone.
The decisive, incontestable proofs of the divinity of any teaching, however, are what we have called the supernatural marks of revelation.
§42. The Supernatural Marks
By this we understand two kinds of particular signs with which God has always been pleased to surround His true revelation, namely: miracles and prophecies.
§43. a) Miracles: Their Possibility, Necessity in Revelation, and Credibility
I. Miracles are events in nature, or the created order (φύσις), that are supernatural—that is, such as surpass the powers and laws of nature itself, and can be brought about in it only by the highest power, the Divine power.105
II. There is not the slightest reasonable ground for doubting the possibility of miracles. Miracles would be impossible only in three cases: if there existed insurmountable obstacles to this possibility either on the side of the miracles themselves (that is, in the very concept of them), or on the side of the nature in which they must take place, or, finally, on the side of their sole Author—God.
But on the side of the miracles themselves there is no such obstacle: in the concept of miracles which we have formed, not the slightest internal contradiction or incongruity can be pointed out. We do not say that miracles are supernatural acts, surpassing the powers and laws of nature, and yet brought about by these same powers and according to these same laws: that would involve an obvious contradiction in the concept, and a miracle would, by its very essence, be impossible. But we say that these are supernatural events, brought about by an equally supernatural power; that is, we admit in the effect no more than there is in the cause, and consequently affirm something entirely possible both physically and logically.
Nor can there be an obstacle on the side of nature: nature stands in absolute dependence on its Creator. From Him it received its given powers, its given laws; but it could have received other ones, had it pleased the Creator to grant it them. From Him it received the given direction and course of its whole life, the given manner of operation of its powers and laws; and by His will it can likewise admit within itself any change: in this respect it may be said to be entirely indifferent. Now, for example, the sun and all the heavenly bodies, by the powers and laws given them by God, move through the spaces of the heavens; but all these bodies can also be stopped, should God will to stop them by His supreme power, being absolutely subject to Him—and this would be a miracle. An example of something similar, though on a smaller scale, often occurs before our eyes. We often see that a machine, entirely at the disposal of its operator, moves with a certain speed by the power of steam and the laws of mechanics. But this machine can also be stopped, the moment its operator wishes to stop it, and afterward, by his will, it can again begin its motion, and so on. It is pointed out, in vain, that the laws of nature are unchangeable and immutable, while miracles supposedly alter and violate them: this is not so. Miracles do not alter or violate the laws of nature, but only halt their course for a time, and, moreover, halt it in some particular case and place, introducing here something supernatural. And does the temporary halting of the machine by the operator’s hand in any way alter or violate the laws of mechanics by which the machine was moving before that? Both before and after any miraculous occurrence, the laws of nature remain the same, and pursue their natural course; even at the very time they are halted in some one case and place, in all other places they continue their ordinary operation without interruption. When, for example, in one place, by the will of God, fire does not burn, water does not drown, and the like—throughout the rest of the vast realm of being these elements act in accordance with their natural properties. It is likewise asserted, in vain, that miracles in nature are incompatible with the perfection of nature, since they compel us to suppose that its natural powers and laws are insufficient for its purposes and stand in need of supernatural assistance. Miracles are not supposed to be needed at all for the purposes of nature, which, indeed, can always attain them by its own natural means, given it by God, but properly for the purposes of man, and, moreover, the highest and even supernatural purposes. Precisely so that now, when man, having broken his primeval union with God, finds himself in an unnatural state and stands in extreme need of supernatural revelation, he might, by these miracles, always recognize the true revelation and be assured that here, indisputably, God is at work.
Finally, no obstacle to the possibility of miracles can be pointed to on the side of God, either. He can always act within nature, although He has granted it a distinct being of its own—just as He acts by His constant providence; He can also act specifically in a supernatural manner, that is, produce in it effects surpassing the powers and laws of nature itself, because He is almighty.106 His wisdom does not forbid this, for miracles prove necessary for the highest ends of faith. His infinite goodness likewise does not forbid it, for miracles prove necessary for wretched man, fallen and unable to rise on his own. In a word: miracles, or the supernatural acts of God in the world, are possible in general in exactly the same way that supernatural revelation is possible in particular.
III. That miracles are necessary in the matter of revealed faith,107 as one of the most important marks of its divine origin, is evident at first glance. A miracle, let us repeat, is a supernatural act within nature, which only God alone can perform; it follows that man and other created beings can work miracles only by a power given them from God. And consequently, when we see that a man or an Angel, proclaiming to us some teaching, calls it a revelation of God, and works miracles in proof of his words, is this not a plain sign that God Himself confirms these words? Neither an Angel nor a man can, of themselves, perform true miracles; and God, who is Holiness and Truth itself, cannot grant the power of working miracles to any deceivers for the seduction of men. Consequently, at the sight of true miracles, performed in proof of the divinity of some teaching, no room remains for wavering or doubt: here there is room only for unquestioning conviction, unless, of course, we should prove deliberately obstinate in unbelief. This is why all peoples, educated and uneducated alike, have always prized so highly the significance of miracles in the matter of faith, have always desired them for their own full assurance in it, or have striven by their means to persuade others of the worth of their beliefs. This is why the Savior Himself, too, gave His miracles complete precedence over every other proof of His divine mission. You sent to John, and he bore witness to the truth… He said, turning to the Jews who did not believe His teaching, but I have a testimony greater than John’s: for the works the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me (John 5:33, 36). If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in Him (John 10:37–38). If I had not done among them the works no one else has done, they would have no sin (John 15:24; cf. Matt. 11:5–6; John 14:11).
Besides this chief advantage of miracles over all the other marks of revelation we have so far examined—that is, besides the fact that miracles decisively convince us of the divinity of some teaching, whereas those other marks can lead only to probability—miracles have other, no less important advantages over them as well. This is, first, the universal accessibility and evidentness of miracles as proof, equally for all men, educated and uneducated. Here no investigations, reasonings, or abstract considerations are required, of which very few are capable—as is required in assessing the internal marks of revelation, and even the external natural ones. Here one need only have a sound eye to see, and sound sense to grasp the impression and be assured that the power of God is indeed at work before us. And second, this is the universal usefulness of miracles as proof with respect to every subject that revelation may contain. On the basis of miracles performed by a messenger of God in confirmation of the teaching he preaches, we can, with equal faith, accept both truths comprehensible to our mind and truths incomprehensible to it. Whereas by the other marks of revelation, internal and external-natural, we can be convinced only of the worth of truths of the first kind, while reason can never assess, and consequently never rationally accept, the mysteries.
IV. But in ascribing such importance to miracles as marks of divine revelation, we mean, of course, only true and credible miracles. This credibility of miracles is of two kinds: since every miracle is both a definite event in nature and, specifically, a supernatural event, there is needed, first, credibility confirming that this event actually occurred in nature, and second, credibility attesting that this event is indeed a supernatural event.
For credibility of the first kind, the following is required:
a) if we are ourselves witnesses of the miraculous event, to have sound senses and sufficient attention to receive a correct impression of the event;
b) and if we hear of the miracle from other witnesses, to assess their testimony according to the rules of historical criticism;
c) and if, finally, this testimony has come down to us only in writings, to first determine the authenticity and unimpaired integrity of the writings themselves…
All these requirements are evidently the most just requirements possible, and those miracles that fail to withstand such a test must inevitably be recognized as false, as illusion, as deceit, or as a later invention. On the basis of this principle alone, all the miracles of the pagan world, for example, are rightly rejected as lacking full historical credibility—such as:
a) the miracles of Pythagoras, of which not eyewitnesses or contemporaries speak, but Iamblichus and Porphyry, who lived several centuries afterward, and who speak of them with the deliberate purpose of setting these miracles against the miracles of Christ;
b) the miracles of the Roman emperors Vespasian and Hadrian, of whom the former, according to Tacitus, is said to have restored sight to a blind man by a single touch, while the latter, according to the testimony of Spartianus, performed similar healings more than once. For Tacitus himself relates the miracle of Vespasian as a deliberate hoax,108 and, likewise, concerning the healings of Hadrian, Spartianus himself notes that the historian from whom he borrowed the accounts of them mentions these miracles as fabricated events;109
c) the miracles of Apollonius of Tyana, concerning which contemporaries are entirely silent, and to which Philostratus is the first to testify, almost two centuries later—testifying, like Iamblichus and Porphyry, with the plain, deliberate purpose of setting the miracles of his hero against the miracles of the Gospel, and this in a work that bears many traces of fabrication and deceit;110 and
d) in general, all the other miracles of mythological antiquity, which the pagan writers themselves not infrequently rejected and mocked.111
For credibility of the second kind, strict attention must be paid:
a) first of all, to whether the event in question could truly not have come about by the powers and laws of nature itself. For this it is not at all necessary to know all the powers and laws of nature, as some maintain; it is enough only to see and understand whether that particular power, or cause in general, from which the miraculous event arose, could of itself have produced it. Whether, for example, a single word of a man could instantly still a storm at sea and raise the dead, or a single touch instantly heal diseases, and the like;
b) to the object of the miracle: a miracle, as a direct act of the power of God, must always be worthy of God; and therefore, naturally, we can in no way credit accounts of miracles that are absurd or ridiculous, such as the story of the Arabian writers about the moon descending into the sleeve of Mohammed;
c) to the purpose of the miracle, which likewise must always be entirely worthy of God, and, moreover, as the purpose of a particular, supernatural act of God, must be some particular, highest purpose. Preeminently, only one such purpose presents itself—to assist fallen mankind, and individual men, in the lofty matter of faith and morality, for which man’s natural means, in his present corrupted state, prove insufficient. By this trait a true miracle can always be distinguished from certain marvelous deceptions on the part of evil spirits, whose purpose is always different, and opposite;
d) to the circumstances of the miracle—place, time, manner of performance, and the like—where, too, everything must be in keeping with the concept of a supernatural act of God. And so, if we notice that certain supposedly miraculous acts are tied to one fixed time, to one fixed place, can be performed only with certain preparations, or are performed in some strange and ridiculous manner, such as various feats of conjuring, we are always entitled to say that these are by no means miracles, but rather the works either of skill, or of knowledge of certain hidden powers of nature, or even of outright deception, even should we ourselves be unable to explain them naturally and expose the suspected deception.
By all these traits taken together it can always be determined whether a given miracle is truly a true miracle, or a false one. And when, at last, it turns out that the miracles performed in proof of the divine origin of some faith are fully credible, both as events and, specifically, as supernatural events, then it only remains to acknowledge this Faith as a true revelation of God and to give oneself over entirely to its guidance.
§44. b) Prophecies: Their Possibility, Importance in the Matter of Revelation, and Credibility
I. The other supernatural mark of revelation—prophecies—possesses exactly the same demonstrative force. By the name prophecies are understood clear and definite predictions of future events wholly contingent, which are consequently inaccessible to the reasoning of a finite mind, and known only to the infinite Mind. It follows that prophecies, too, when uttered by a man or by any created being in general, are, as surpassing the powers and laws of these beings, the very same miracles in the proper sense, or a particular kind of miracle.
II. The possibility of prophecies—that is, the certainty of the truth that God, all-knowing and almighty, is able to communicate to man certain knowledge of future events, while man, generally capable of receiving instruction of every kind from without, is able to receive such knowledge from God and then proclaim it before others—this possibility requires no new proofs, once we have already established the possibility of supernatural revelation in general: for prophecies are only one kind of divine revelation, one concerning future matters.
III. The importance of prophecies as a mark of revelation is evident from the very concept of them. These, we have said, are clear predictions of future events wholly contingent. And contingent events are called those which may either happen or not happen, which may occur one way or another, and whose very beginnings and seeds are unknown at the present time—events that may follow from the most varied and most unforeseen circumstances of the physical world, from the most inconstant and capricious desires of the human will, and which always, without fail, take place under the direction, or at least by the permission, of the all-governing Providence of God. Consequently, to predict with accuracy any contingent event, one would have to know in advance every possible chain of causes and circumstances from which it might arise; one would have to penetrate the hidden recesses of the human heart and determine beforehand its future desires within it; one would have to penetrate the very plans and intentions of Providence itself, which governs everything in the world—requirements which, without dispute, no finite mind is capable of fulfilling, not only human, but even angelic. Consequently, when we see that a certain man, preaching some teaching, utters prophecies in proof of its divinity, and these prophecies afterward truly come to pass in their own time, then, without any doubt, he received these prophecies by inspiration from above: these prophecies are the undeniable testimony of God Himself, the true and all-holy, to the trustworthiness of His messenger’s words, and the evident, indelible seal of God, ratifying a true revelation. The pagan philosophers themselves fully recognized this truth, always ascribing the foreknowledge of contingent futures exclusively to God alone, and regarding men-prophets as heralds of His will.112 Moses, the lawgiver of the Old Testament, pointed to prophecy as the most decisive mark of the divinity of a teaching: and if you say in your heart, how shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken—when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, and the thing does not come to pass or come true, that is a word the Lord has not spoken: the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him (Deut. 18:21–22). Then the Prophet Isaiah, exposing the nothingness of the pagan gods, said: declare to us the things that are to come hereafter, and we shall know that you are gods (Is. 41:23), and, speaking in the person of the true God, testified: remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is none besides Me; who declares from the beginning the things that shall be at the end, and before they come to pass they are already accomplished (Is. 46, v. 10). Finally, Christ the Savior, too, in proof of His divine mission, says to the Jews: search the Scriptures, for you suppose that in them you have eternal life, and it is they that testify of Me (John 5:39), and to His disciples, beginning from Moses and from all the Prophets, He expounded to them, in all the Scriptures, the things concerning Himself (Luke 24:27).
Prophecies acquire a special demonstrative force:
a) in the case where their object is not merely contingent future events, but miraculous ones as well, depending wholly on the will of God alone—such as the prophecies of Moses concerning the ten plagues of Egypt, the prophecies of the Savior concerning His own resurrection, and others;
b) when they form a single unbroken chain of predictions, continuing across a whole succession of centuries in favor of one particular faith, as has happened with regard to the Christian Faith.
IV. The credibility of prophecies, exactly like the credibility of miracles, is of two kinds: one must show that the prophecy was indeed uttered and indeed fulfilled, and the other must determine whether this prophecy is indeed a supernatural act and cannot be explained naturally.
In establishing credibility of the first kind for prophecies, three cases are possible:
a) we may ourselves both hear the prediction from the prophet’s own lips and, after some time, see the prediction’s fulfillment, as repeatedly happened with the Apostles, who both heard and saw many of Christ’s prophecies fulfilled;
b) we may not hear the prophecy ourselves, but only see its fulfillment, learning of the former from the testimony of others, as generally happened with the contemporaries of the Savior, who saw in Him the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies;
c) we may, finally, neither hear the prophecy ourselves nor see its fulfillment, but learn of both from others, through oral or written testimony—such as, for us, those same Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in Christ. In the first case, and partly in the second, to assure ourselves of the historical credibility of a prophecy it is enough only to have sound senses and due attention; in the third, and partly in the second, it is necessary to test the testimony by the rules of historical criticism. And if these conditions are met, the historical credibility of the prophecies must stand beyond all doubt.
And in order to determine whether prophecies are credible in the second respect, attention must be paid —
a) to their object, which, as we know from the very concept of prophecy, must necessarily be contingent events: it is by this alone that supernatural predictions can be distinguished from all natural, human predictions, whose object is necessary events, such as the predictions of astronomers, statesmen, and physicians;
b) to the manner of the prediction, which likewise, by the very requirement of the concept of prophecy, must necessarily be as clear and definite as possible: by this trait prophecies are distinguished from human presentiments, usually obscure, from various forms of divination and conjecture about future occurrences, and from all pagan oracles, which were always vague, obscure, and ambiguous, being the work of cunning and deceit, and were therefore rightly mocked by the pagan writers themselves;113
c) to the purpose of prophecies, which, like the purpose of miracles, must always be
entirely worthy of God, and, moreover, some particular, highest purpose—which here, too, must preeminently be recognized as assisting fallen men in the matter of faith and morality;
d) to the circumstances of prophecies: true prophecies, as received by the prophet directly from God Himself, cannot depend on conditions of place, time, or any prior preparations, depending solely on the will of God. It would therefore be strange to call the false pagan oracles prophecies, since these were, so to speak, tied to definite places where the oracles stood, and to definite times (for example, at Delphi the Pythia could give her predictions only once a year, around the beginning of spring), and were usually uttered only after various preparations (that same Pythia, for example, before ascending the tripod, would fast for three days, wash in the Castalian spring and drink several drops of water from it, chew laurel leaves gathered at that same spring, and then be led up onto a tripod made in a particular manner and set beforehand in a place where the spring vapors rising from the earth could act with special force, and the like). Finally —
e) attention must be paid to the very fulfillment of the prophecy: it is not enough that a prediction unconfirmed by the event is unworthy of the name of prophecy, even if it should combine within itself all the other properties we have enumerated—it is further required that between the prophecy and the event there be found not some accidental, most trifling resemblance, but a resemblance essential and complete, at least in its principal features.
Thus, from this survey of the marks of divine revelation—internal and external, natural and supernatural—it is disclosed that these marks are entirely sufficient for recognizing a true revelation by them and distinguishing it from false ones. It is true that the internal marks and the external natural marks can only expose a false revelation, while making a true one merely plausible; but, in compensation, the supernatural marks, miracles and prophecies, if they prove fully credible, can already decisively attest a true revelation.
Section II. On the Christian Faith as the One True Revelation
§45. Points of View on the Subjects of This Section
The preliminary work is finished: we have set forth the general concepts of Faith, in order, with their help, to understand in particular what the Christian faith is; we then set forth the general concepts of revelation, in order, on their basis, to show that the Christian faith is indeed the one true revelation. It is now time to make use of these preliminary concepts and actually apply them to Christianity—1) as Faith, and 2) as revealed Faith.
It must be noted, however, that the manner of applying these concepts cannot be the same in every case: from some, as general principles, it is enough merely to draw conclusions with respect to Christianity, without any new explanations or proofs. Others, on the contrary, must be applied to Christianity in their full extent, with various detailed remarks concerning it. Thus, in the general teaching on Faith, we —
first, established those truths on which every faith rests, and without which it cannot exist: the truth of the being of God, and the truth of the being and immortality of the human soul;
second, examined the very essence of faith, with its indispensable properties and attributes;
third, showed the living relation of faith to the Church, by which they form one inseparable whole, and without which neither the one nor the other can be adequately understood.
All three of these considerations are equally necessary for a thorough establishment and clarification of the correct concept of the Christian faith; but of them the first and the last require here no further new exposition or detailed application to Christianity, and it is enough merely, on the basis of the first, to draw the conclusion that the Christian faith, too, as a faith, rests on unshakable supports, and, on the basis of the last, that the Christian faith, too, is inseparably joined to the Church. Only the second consideration—that is, the consideration of the very essence of faith—requires a special application to Christianity and detailed development. For the Christian faith, besides the general properties of faith, has its own particular properties as well, by which it is distinguished from every other faith, and without which it cannot be understood at all.
Likewise, in the general teaching on revelation, we showed first the possibility of supernatural revelation, then its necessity, and finally its essential marks. All these are considerations without which we would never have been able to set forth thoroughly the concept of Christianity as revelation, and are therefore, for us, considerations of the utmost importance and necessity. But now that we already possess them, now that we know that supernatural revelation is both possible and necessary, and must have these particular marks and no others, only one question remains for us to resolve: does the Christian faith indeed possess all these marks? If we find that it truly does, then the conclusion will follow of itself that the Christian faith, as a supernatural revelation, is both possible and necessary, and has indeed been granted by God Himself.
Having thus established our points of view on the subjects of this new section of the Introduction to Orthodox Theology, let us proceed to their actual examination.
Chapter I. On Christianity as Faith
§46. The Concept of the Christian Faith
The Christian faith, in its essence, is not merely a union between God and man, but specifically a new union, restored after man’s breaking of the primeval union. In other words: the Christian faith is the reunion of fallen mankind with the three-hypostatic God, through the death on the cross of the incarnate Son of God, by whom, as the holy Apostle says, we have access, in one Spirit, to the Father (Heb. 2:18). In these words of the God-inspired Apostle is indicated not only the distinctive character of the Christian faith, by which it is, properly, a bringing back to God of men who had once departed from Him—and is consequently not an original union but already a reunion with God—but also the very participation of each of the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity in this bringing back and reunion: the participation of the Son — through Him we have access…; the participation of the Holy Spirit — access in one Spirit…; and the participation of the Father — access to the Father. The most detailed unfolding of this concept of the Christian faith may be said to be furnished by all the Gospels and all the apostolic Epistles, of which we shall cite, by way of example, only a few of the clearer passages. Such are —
first, the words of the Savior Himself:
a) I am the way and the truth and the life; apart from Me none can come to the Father… (John 14:6);
b) just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that everyone who believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:14–15);
c) unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5); and,
second, the words of the holy Apostles:
a) having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained access, by faith, into this grace in which we stand (Rom. 5:1–2);
b) who Himself bore our sins in His own body upon the tree, that we, having been set free from sins, might live for righteousness (1 Pet. 2:24);
c) no one can say that Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3, and following).
In order to set forth the essence of this new union in greater detail, let us examine it too by those same essential qualities by which we have already examined Faith in general.
§47. The Foundation and Origin of the Christian Faith
The occasion for the restoration of the union between God and man through the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was man’s fall, or his unfaithfulness to the primeval union: otherwise there would have been no need of a new one. This was, however, a fall of such a kind that man did not lose the image of God entirely, was not deprived of free will, and did not become, like the fallen spirit, hardened in evil. On the contrary, he remained conscious of his guilt before God and with a sincere desire to be reconciled to his Creator; otherwise man would no longer have been capable of reunion with God at all. The Christian faith turns to man as a fallen, corrupted, sick being, offers him a saving remedy, and, before all else, requires of him that he repent and abandon his former, vicious way of life: repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near (Matt. 4:17)—so the Savior began His preaching, on entering upon His public ministry; repent (Acts 2:38)—the Apostles, too, cried out, beginning their evangelical proclamation. In general, the dogma of the fall of man is so essential to the Christian Faith that, were it refuted, the Faith would lose its whole significance.
On the side of God, the foundation for this new union, as once for the primeval one, was solely His all-good will toward man—namely, the infinite love toward us sinners of God the Father, who gave His own only-begotten Son, that everyone who believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16); the infinite love toward us of God the Son, who laid down His very life for us (Matt. 20:28); and the infinite love toward us of God the Holy Spirit, the most bountiful giver of every gracious gift (1 Cor. 12:7), who pours out love in our hearts (Rom. 5:5).
Judging by the infinite goodness of our Creator toward us, and by the timing of man’s fall, we may already judge as well when the beginning was laid for this new, gracious union. The All-Good foresaw our fall from eternity, and therefore predestined from eternity to restore us through His only-begotten Son (Acts 2:23), and chose us in Him even before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him in love, having beforehand marked us out for adoption through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will (Eph. 1:4–5). In time, however, the fulfillment of this predestination of God’s infinite love for us began the very moment man fell. In pronouncing His righteous judgment upon our unfortunate forefathers for their betrayal of the terms of the primeval covenant, the heavenly Judge, at that very moment, called them into a new covenant with Himself, giving them the comforting promise of the Seed of the woman, who would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). From that time forward, faith in Christ the Savior has never ceased in the human race (Heb. 11:2–32; 12:2), just as it will never cease (Matt. 16:18); and the earth has beheld upon itself a holy seed—true Christians—even before the coming of the Messiah,114 just as it has beheld and beholds them since the time of His coming.
§48. What God Has Accomplished in the Matter of the Christian Faith, and What Is Required of Man
I. Having willed to lead fallen man out of his pitiable state into a new, gracious one, the Lord was pleased to fulfill all those conditions which were required for this, and which, as we saw in their proper place (§§31–34), man himself could never fulfill by his own powers. Specifically, He was pleased to employ the following three means:
1) The means for illumining fallen man with the light of the true teaching of faith: supernatural revelation. To this end, even in the days of the patriarchs, the Lord sometimes appeared to them Himself, sometimes granted the gift of prophecy to some of them, sometimes declared His will to them through Angels, and the heavenly teaching of faith then passed from generation to generation by oral tradition. Then He solemnly granted the Israelites a written law through Moses, and sent them a whole succession of Prophets, who, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declared the word of Jehovah to men both orally and in writing. To this same end, among others (Luke 4:43), the only-begotten Son of God, who dwells in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18), finally appeared on earth, preached the Gospel of the kingdom Himself (Matt. 9:35), sent the holy Apostles to preach it, who, having been clothed with power from on high, proclaimed the teaching of Christ to the whole world, both orally and in writing, and afterward gave, and continues to give, His Church pastors and teachers appointed by the Holy Spirit to preserve and proclaim this teaching to all generations, until the end of the age (Eph. 4:11, 14).
2) The means for reconciling fallen mankind to Himself. It consists in this: that the only-begotten Son of God became man, and, being wholly sinless and innocent, voluntarily took upon Himself the sins of the world. And since the inescapable wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:24), He, by the Holy Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God (Heb. 9:14) as a propitiatory sacrifice for us — the righteous died for the unrighteous (1 Pet. 3:18)—and thus redeemed us, not with the price of silver or gold, but with His own precious blood, from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (Gal. 3:13; cf. 1 Pet. 3:18); He blotted out the record that stood against us…, nailing it to the cross (Col. 2:14)—and we, though we were enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of His Son (Rom. 5:10): for God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their (that is, men’s) trespasses against them (2 Cor. 5:19). But having accomplished, upon the cross, the redemption of the whole human race, Christ, as eternal High Priest, further instituted in His Church the holy sacraments (Matt. 28:19; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24), through which believers in Him, receiving grace, might, with the cooperation of this divine power, each one individually appropriate to himself the merits of His cross, for reconciliation with God; He also instituted stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 4:1), granting them, among other things, the exclusive right and authority to perform the sacred rites for the faithful (Heb. 5:4; Eph. 4:11–12).
3) The means for the moral amendment of fallen mankind, and for its growth in piety and holiness. To this belong both the divine revelation, in which the moral laws are disclosed to us in their full light, and the divine sacred rites of the holy sacraments, through which the gracious powers necessary for cleansing ourselves of sins and strengthening ourselves in good are sent down to us; finally, for this same purpose, among others, the Lord instituted on earth the ecclesiastical hierarchy (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2), with authority to bind and loose our consciences (Matt. 16:19; 18:18; John 20:22–23), to watch over our moral conduct, and to guide us on the path to spiritual perfection and eternal salvation (1 Tim. 5:19–20 and 22; Eph. 4:11–12).
II. What the Lord has done for man’s restoration determines also the conditions man himself must fulfill for this on his part. In general, these conditions consist in this: that every man is unconditionally bound to become a true Christian. For if each of us, by his very nature, is called to union with God; and if, upon our breaking of this union, God Himself offers us supernatural means for its restoration in the Christian Faith, then none of us has any right either to refuse the means offered, or, having received them, to fail to use them according to their purpose, or to misuse them; and one who acts thus necessarily becomes inexcusable before the tribunal of eternal Justice (Mark 16:16; Matt. 10:14–15; 7:21). In particular, every Christian man is bound:
1) to accept the whole Divine supernatural revelation, and to appropriate the truths of faith, hope, and love set forth in it exactly as they are taught by the Church, authorized for this by the Savior Himself, and by her teachers (Mark 16:15; Matt. 18:17; Rom. 10:15; Eph. 4:11, 14);
2) to make use of the holy sacraments, and of the sacred rites of the Church in general, performed by those same persons called by God Himself (John 3:5; 6:53; Heb. 5:4–5):
3) finally, to submit to the spiritual governance of the Church, and, following her guidance, to grow more and more in virtue (Matt. 7:21; 19:17; Heb. 13:17).
When man fulfills all these conditions for the restoration of his union with God, the purpose of the Christian faith is thereby attained.
§49. The Purpose of the Christian Faith
This purpose is the very same as was the purpose of the primeval faith, with only certain particularities flowing from the essence of Christianity, namely:
1) The mysterious union of the Christian man with God—but a union through Christ and in Christ. That they all may be one, our Lord prayed on earth to His heavenly Father for all believers, that they all may be one: as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us (John 17:21). But at the same time He said to them: no one comes to the Father, but through Me (John 14:6); at the same time He commanded them: abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing (John 15:4–5), and, disclosing the mystery of this mysterious union of men through Him with God, He testified: I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you (John 14:20). This is why the holy Apostles, too, taught that God, calling us through Christianity into a new union with Himself, properly calls us into the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord (1 Cor. 1:9); they called true Christians those who had put on Christ (Gal. 3:27), partakers of Christ (Heb. 3:14), while urging the weak and the fallen to put on Christ (Rom. 13:14), to have Christ formed within them (Gal. 4:19; 5:4), adding that we are heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17), and that we have already been seated together with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:6). And of the Christian alone, at the present time—that is, after the fall of our forefathers—can all be said that we said (§14) of man standing in union with God: the Christian alone is both a vessel of God’s grace and a temple of the Holy Spirit and a dwelling of the whole Holy Trinity; his mind is the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16); Christ is in his heart (Eph. 3:17); his very life is hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3); and he, truly, no longer lives himself, but Christ lives in him (Gal. 2:20).
2) The glory of God. It is for this reason that Holy Scripture says that our Savior Himself, who is the radiance of the glory of God the Father (Heb. 1:3), came to earth to seek this glory (John 7:18; 17:4); that we, too, have been called for this very reason into the gracious kingdom of Christ, that we might be to the praise of the glory of the three-hypostatic God (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14), to be filled with the fruits of righteousness through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God (Phil. 1:11). For this reason we are also commanded that we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord in Christ (2 Cor. 3:18), should do all things to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31).
3) Finally, the blessedness of the Christian man himself. In the present life, this blessedness consists chiefly in tasting the sweetness of the virtues themselves (Matt. 5:3–12), in the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding (Phil. 4:7), in the foretaste, through hope, of the blessings of heaven, in sweet spiritual union with Christ, the God of all comfort (2 Cor. 1:3), and in joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17). But full blessedness for Christians will come only in the life eternal, where they shall see God face to face (1 Cor. 13:12), shall shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father (Matt. 13:43), shall come forever into communion with the Lord (1 Thess. 4:17), so that God shall be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28).
§50. The Division of the Christian Faith
The Christian faith, like Faith in general, is divided into objective and subjective—revelation and the worship of God—for the same reasons as before (§15).
In its objective sense it is further subdivided into two kinds: the Old Testament faith, or revelation, consisting of the patriarchal and the Mosaic faith, and the New Testament faith, or revelation—which, for all their essential likeness, also have their differences.
I. Between them there is an essential likeness. For —
1) Both have one and the same origin—God Himself—and are equally supernatural revelations: for just as of old God spoke to the fathers in many parts and many ways through the prophets, so in these last days He has spoken to us in the Son (Heb. 1:1). And, in both the Old and the New Testament alike, prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). In particular, they have one and the same mediating Author, Christ the Savior Himself, in virtue of whose merits, as of a lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8), revelations were given to the patriarchs. He alone could entreat the Father that the Holy Spirit should descend upon the Prophets, just as He afterward descended upon the Apostles (John 14:16)—for which reason it is said of the Prophets, too, that the Spirit of Christ guided them (1 Pet. 1:10–11).
This thought was very often set forth by the holy Fathers of the Church, many of whom, moreover, maintained that almost all the Old Testament theophanies to the patriarchs, to Moses, to the Prophets, and to other righteous men were precisely appearances of the Son of God, or at least occurred in virtue of His saving merits on the cross. “We say,” wrote the Orthodox bishops of the Council of Antioch (around A.D. 266) to Paul of Samosata, “that this Son came and appeared to Abraham beneath the oak of Mamre. He was one of the three with whom the patriarch conversed as with a Lord and Judge, since He has received all judgment from the Father (John 5:22)… It is He who, fulfilling the will of the Father, appeared to the patriarchs and conversed with them—now as an Angel, now as the Lord, now as God…. We even affirm that the Law, too, was given to Moses in the very same manner, through the mediation of the Son of God, as the Apostle teaches (Gal. 3:19). For we know no other Mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5).”115
2) Both these revelations have one and the same principal subject—the salvation of the human race in Jesus Christ. Promises concerning Him were given even to our forefathers immediately upon their fall (Gen. 3:15). Moses wrote of Christ (John 5:46). The Prophets foretold beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that would follow after them (1 Pet. 1:11), and all the Old Testament Scriptures bear witness to Him (John 5:39). And the New Testament revelation, too, preaches Christ crucified (1 Cor. 1:23). Corresponding to this principal subject of both Testaments, Old and New, there is likewise a great likeness in their whole composition—namely, in their doctrine, their sacred rites, and their ecclesiastical governance. In doctrine, both Testaments set forth one and the same truths of faith: concerning the one God in three hypostases, His attributes, His actions in the world, the angels, man, his fall, his redemption through Jesus Christ, the life to come, and the rest; truths of love in the Decalogue and in many other precepts; truths of hope in the promises of the blessings of the present life and the life to come… The Old Testament sacred rites, and especially the sacrifices, prefigured the great Sacrifice of Golgotha, and came to their end in it. The New Testament rites take their beginning from this redemptive Sacrifice, and derive their saving power from it, and always will. Finally, just as the Old Testament hierarchy, which had the governance of the Church upon its conscience and responsibility, consisted of three essential degrees, each with its own particular duties, so we see these same three essential degrees, and almost the same offices for each, in the New Testament hierarchy as well. And, consequently —
3) Both supernatural revelations—the Old Testament in both its forms, and the New Testament—stand in the closest, most unbreakable connection with one another, so that they properly form a single revelation. This is one great plan of the divine economy of human salvation, a plan in which every part occupies its own place, and none can be separated from the rest. This is one and the same great day of the true knowledge of God: in the patriarchal revelation mankind saw the joyous dawn of that day of grace; in the revelation under the Law, its beautiful morning; in the Christian revelation it beholds the very noonday. This unbreakable connection between these revelations was set forth in their addresses to the Jews by the holy protomartyr Stephen and the holy Apostle Paul (Acts, chapters 7 and 13).116
II. The entire difference between the Old and New Testaments consists:
1) in the fact that the Old Testament revelation, in both its forms, was only a preparation for the New: the law was our guardian leading us to Christ (Gal. 3:24). There was a shadow of the good things to come, but now there is the very image of the things themselves (Heb. 10:1): there, men believed in a Messiah yet to come, and beheld Him only in promises, prophecies, and types; but now we believe in the Messiah already come, who has fulfilled in Himself all the ancient prophecies. And, consequently —
2) in the fact that the Old Testament revelation contained, in a lesser degree, everything that the New Testament possesses.117 It did not have the same clarity, the same fullness, or the same loftiness —
a) in doctrine: thus, in the New Testament certain truths of faith are disclosed far more clearly—for example, concerning the Holy Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, His death on the cross, the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, and the like; certain truths of love are set forth far more fully and sublimely, especially in the Savior’s Sermon on the Mount (Matt. ch. 5–8); and higher and purer motives are indicated for hope (cf. Deut. 19:8, 28; Ex. 1:12, 20; and Matt. 5:3–22).118 The same must be said —
b) concerning the sacred rites of the two Testaments: those of the Old Testament could not, of themselves, impart saving grace to man or cleanse him from sin (Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:4), but had power only insofar as they served as types of the sacrifice of Christ (cf. Heb. 9:11–24; Lev. 5:5; 6:7; and Acts 15:11)—whereas the New Testament sacred rites, called sacraments, by their very essence already impart to believers the divine grace for their regeneration, sanctification, and growth in piety (Acts 2:38; Titus 3:5–6, and others),119 even though they, too, derive their power from that same redemptive sacrifice; and —
c) concerning ecclesiastical governance: the spirit of the Old Testament was preeminently a spirit of severity and servile fear, and for this reason the Jews stood, in the Apostle’s phrase, under a yoke of bondage (Gal. 5:1), and were children of the bondwoman (Gal. 4:31)—whereas Christians are free children, and in the New Testament Church the spirit of governance is preeminently a spirit of meekness (2 Tim. 2:24–25; Acts 20:19), and the authority of the Church is preeminently a spiritual authority (Matt. 18:18).
3) Finally, in the fact that the Old Testament law was given only for a time,120 and was to be replaced by a more perfect one (Luke 16:16; Gal. 3:24–25; Heb. 7:12). The New Testament revelation, by contrast, is already the final revelation, which will not be replaced by any new one, but must remain in the human race until the end of the age. For the covenant of Christ is an everlasting covenant (Heb. 13:20); Christ Himself is the same yesterday, and today, and forever (Heb. 13:8); against His Church the gates of hell shall not prevail (Matt. 16:18); and He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet (1 Cor. 15:25).
Chapter II. On Christianity as the One True Revelation
§51. The Importance of the Subject, and the Division of the Chapter
We now come to the most important of all the subjects of Christian Theology. That the holy Christian faith is indeed the one true, divine revelation, and is therefore the one faith saving for men in their present, corrupted state—this is a truth on which all the other dogmas of Christianity are founded, and from which they draw their force and significance; on which all our beliefs and sweet hopes are founded; on which our whole moral life is founded. From this one may judge how precious it must be to the mind of a Christian, and how greatly to be desired by his heart, to grasp this fundamental truth of Christianity as clearly and distinctly as possible, in all its force and unshakableness, and to what degree, therefore, it must claim our attention.
And thanks be to the Lord, infinitely wise and all-good! Having been pleased to grant men His supernatural revelation—first the Old Testament, then the New—He, in both cases, did not leave Himself without witness (Acts 14:17). He imparted —
I) both to the Old Testament revelation, in both its forms—that is,
a) in the patriarchal Faith, and
b) in the Faith under the Law—and
II) to the New Testament revelation, all those marks, internal as well as external, which a true revelation must have, and by which men may readily be assured of its divinity and distinguish it from every false revelation.121
I. On the Divine Origin of the Old Testament Revelation
§52. Sources of Knowledge Concerning This Faith
The one source from which we can draw reliable knowledge of the patriarchal Faith, which prevailed among the better part of the human race for about 4,000 years, is the Book of Genesis, the most ancient of all books in the world. To it may be added the forty-fourth chapter of the Book of Jesus, Son of Sirach, the seventh chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, the eleventh chapter of the holy Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, and a few brief passages from other books of Holy Scripture, where remarks about the patriarchs are likewise found. Nevertheless, even from this not extensive source we may sufficiently grasp both the inward worth of the teaching the patriarchs professed, and the incontestable force of the outward signs that vouched for its origin from God.
A. The Internal Marks of the Divinity of the Patriarchal Faith
§53. The Parts of the Inquiry
The holy Author of Genesis does not set forth, in his book, a deliberate exposition of the very content of the patriarchs’ faith; he describes only their life and deeds. But this life and these deeds clearly show what the patriarchs believed, what rules they held to in their morality, and in what their outward worship consisted.
§54. A Survey of the Doctrine
In the doctrine of faith, as is evident from the very concept of Faith, the principal articles are:
a) the teaching concerning God, His relation to the world and, especially, to man—since faith is a covenant between God and man; and
b) the teaching concerning man, his high dignity, his freedom and immortality, by virtue of which man proves capable of so exalted a covenant, and, through it, of eternal life in God, of eternal blessedness. To this, in the restored Faith, a third essential article is necessarily added:
c) the teaching concerning the Restorer of the faith, the Mediator between God and men who had broken the primeval covenant. And already in the patriarchal period we find the truest conceptions of all these articles of faith.
I. The patriarchs conceived of God:
1) as to His essence —
a) as the one God (Gen. 14:19), who appeared to them always one and the same;
b) as spiritual, who, looking upon the increasing impiety of men, once said: My Spirit shall not abide in these men forever, for they are flesh (Gen. 6:3);
c) as almighty, who at another time said to Abraham: I am your God (Shaddai—mighty, strong): be well-pleasing before Me (Gen. 17:1);
d) as all-good, who repeatedly appeared to the patriarchs, conversed with them as a Father with His children, gave them comforting promises, and sent down blessings upon them (Genesis, chapters 15, 17, and others);
e) as all-knowing and all-present, who saw all their deeds, heard their prayers (12:8), and smelled their sacrifices (8:21), and uttered to them predictions that were fulfilled before their very eyes (18:20, and others);
f) as most holy and just, who richly rewarded good and strictly punished transgressions (4:11, and others);
g) as true and faithful, in whose promises they always believed, and who more than once fulfilled before them the promises He had given;
h) as eternal, who made with them an everlasting covenant (Gen. 17:7), and the like.
2) as to His relation to the world —
a) as God Most High, who made heaven and earth (Gen. 14:19, 22; cf. 1:1–27);
b) as the one supreme Master of all creation, who spoke the very same words to Adam at his creation, and to Noah and all his offspring after the Flood: increase and multiply, and fill the earth and have dominion over it… (Gen. 1:28; 9:1);
c) as the Provider and Ruler of the universe, who more than once foretold to men future events, and then vindicated these predictions by the events themselves—such as the universal Flood (6:13–22 and 7), the birth of Isaac, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (ch. 18), and others. In particular —
3) as to His relation to man:
a) as moral Lawgiver, who prescribed particular commandments to Adam and Eve (2:16–17), to Noah and his sons (9:3, and following), and to Abraham and his posterity (17:11, and following);
b) as Judge and Rewarder, who subjected our forefathers to punishment for their disobedience, and their son Cain for fratricide, but translated the righteous Enoch, who did not taste death (5:25); who punished the whole human race by the Flood for its impiety, but preserved the righteous Noah with his household; who destroyed the lawless inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, but saved the righteous Lot, and the like.
II. The patriarchs regarded man —
a) as a being composed of body and soul—a body created by God from dust, and a soul which God breathed into his face (Gen. 2:7);
b) as the most excellent of all creatures on earth, created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27; 9:6), and appointed to be king and master of all creation (1:28; 9:1);
c) as a being endowed with freedom, on the condition of which God gave His commandments to Adam (2:16–17), to Noah (ch. 9), and to Abraham (17:1), safeguarded these commandments with promises and threats, and finally did in fact reward and punish men according to their deeds; while the patriarchs, for their part, received the divine commandments, entered into covenant with God, and voluntarily submitted themselves to the conditions and consequences of the covenant (15:6–13);
d) as a fallen being, who had not stood firm in the primeval union with God, and was doomed to bear the whole weight of the ruinous consequences of his transgression, but who, at the same time, had already been shown mercy by God, and called by Him into a new union of faith, a union of grace (Gen. 3:15);
e) as an immortal being, which, at the close of the present life, passes over, in its better half, the spirit, into another, invisible world.
This lofty truth was, without doubt, known to the patriarchs. They —
a) called themselves strangers and sojourners on the earth—by which, as the holy Apostle remarks, they plainly declared that they sought a homeland, and desired a better, heavenly one; and it was for this reason that God Himself was not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared for them a city, the same Apostle adds (Gen. 47:9; Heb. 11:13–16). They —
b) commonly called God the God of their fathers, already deceased; and this, as the Savior Himself explained, served as fresh proof of their faith in immortality: for He is not a God of the dead, but of the living (Matt. 22:32). They —
c) regarded death as a passing-over to one’s own people: Jacob, having blessed his sons before his end, said to them: I am passing over to my people; bury me with my fathers (Gen. 49:29); and just so it is remarked earlier of Abraham: and he passed over to his people, and they buried him (Gen. 25:8); and of Isaac: and he was gathered to his kindred…, and they buried him (35:29). In all these cases, passing over to one’s own people is distinguished from the burial of the body in the grave, and consequently points to the migration of man’s other part, the soul, into the land where the souls of those already departed already dwelt. Indeed —
d) believed in the existence of Sheol, the place to which souls pass over after death: mourning the loss of Joseph, the patriarch Jacob, notwithstanding the consolations of all his sons and daughters, refused to be comforted, saying: I shall go down to my son, mourning, into Hades (Gen. 37:35). By the word Hades (Sheol) the holy patriarch undoubtedly meant not the tomb of Joseph’s body, but the place to which his son’s soul had departed: for Jacob did not believe Joseph to be buried in any tomb, but was convinced that he had been devoured by a wild beast: a fierce beast has devoured him; a beast has torn Joseph to pieces (Gen. 37:33), Jacob cried out when he saw the bloodied garment of his beloved son.122 A particular, tangible proof of the existence of another world and of man’s immortality could serve, for the people of that period —
e) the translation of Enoch: and Enoch was well-pleasing to God, and was not found, for God translated him (Gen. 5:24). That what is meant here is not the death of Enoch, but his translation into another world, is already evident from the context of the speech: in numbering, in that same (fifth) chapter, the succession of patriarchs who lived before Enoch and after him, the holy Author of Genesis concludes the life-account of each of them with the word and he died; but speaking of Enoch alone, he replaces this expression with another: and God translated him. Moreover, the translation of Enoch is portrayed as a reward to him from God for the holiness of his life: and Enoch was well-pleasing to God, and was not found… What kind of reward, then, would an ordinary death, common to all, be? The holy Apostle Paul convinces us incontestably of the truth we are demonstrating, saying plainly: by faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death, and was not found, for God translated him: for before his translation he had been attested to have been well-pleasing to God (Heb. 11:5; cf. Sir. 44:15).
III. Finally, it cannot be doubted, on the exact testimony of the holy Apostle (Heb. 11; Gal. 3:16; Rom. 4:13), that faith in the future Deliverer, or Messiah, also formed the most essential article in the Faith of the patriarchs. God Himself nurtured this faith in them by His promises concerning the Messiah.
The first promise was given already to Adam and Eve, immediately after their fall. Having pronounced His just judgment upon the transgressors, and given over to a curse the author of their transgression, the Lord at the same time added: and I will put enmity between you (the serpent) and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall watch for (crush) your head, and you shall watch for his heel (Gen. 3:15). Veiled as this promise is, our forefathers understood by the seed of the woman the future Deliverer, who was to crush the head of their deceiver, the serpent—that is, to conquer the devil. And Adam, as is reasonably conjectured, expressed this faith of his in the naming of his wife—life (Gen. 3:20)—and Eve in the naming of her two sons, Cain (4:1) and Seth (4:25).123 This saying of God to our forefathers concerning the seed of the woman was afterward understood in the same way by all the ancient Jews as well, on the basis of a tradition constantly preserved among them—of which their targums, or paraphrases, composed before the birth of Christ, may serve as proof.124 Many of the more recent Jews, too, understand this saying in the same way, on the basis of the same tradition, who, according to the testimony of one scholar (Buxtorf), confess in their creed: “I await the coming of the Messiah, who was promised to us from the beginning.” The true Messiah, who has already come to earth to fulfill the ancient promises, is indeed also called in the New Testament born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), and the purpose of His coming is, among other things, said to be to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), and to bind the serpent, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan (Rev. 20:2).
The second promise was given by God to Abraham: and in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed (Gen. 22:18); it was afterward repeated to Isaac (26:4) and to Jacob (28:14). That by this seed, in whom all the nations of the earth would be blessed, the holy patriarchs understood not their entire posterity, but some one great descendant, or Messiah, is plainly confessed by one of them, Jacob, who, prophesying of the coming of the Reconciler (Shiloh), called him the expectation of the nations (Gen. 29:10); and the Reconciler Himself, when He had come to earth, bore witness to this when He said to the Jews: Abraham your father rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad (John 8:56). Following their forefathers, all the Jews, too, constantly understood this promise of the Messiah, both before the birth of Christ125 and afterward. For this reason the holy Apostles, too, addressing the Jews, boldly said: you are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham: and in your seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed (Acts 3:25); or: to Abraham the promises were spoken, and to his seed; He does not say, and to seeds, as of many, but as of one: and to your seed, which is Christ (Gal. 3:16).
On the other hand, the patriarchs’ faith in the future Deliverer could also have been nurtured by many types, which visibly bore upon themselves the seal of a particular divine intention—such as: the sacrifices, which prefigured the great sacrifice of Christ; the ladder Jacob saw in his dream, which prefigured the union in Christ of the divine and human natures; the fate of Joseph, which prefigured the sufferings of the Savior at the hands of His own people, which afterward became a source of blessing; the sacrifice of Isaac, which pointed to the death on the cross and resurrection of the Messiah; the priesthood of Melchizedek, which prefigured the eternal priesthood of Christ; and others.126
§55. A Survey of the Moral Teaching
The moral teaching, or the rules by which the patriarchs were guided in their life and conduct, were likewise of the purest kind.
In relation to God, we see in the patriarchs:
a) faith in a God all-knowing, most holy, and just—which is confirmed by their very use of the oath alone (Gen. 21:23; 24:3, and others);
b) perfect obedience to the will of God, so that this will was the constant principle of their whole conduct. This is why the holy Author of Genesis, wishing to depict the moral character of one or another of them, ordinarily expresses himself thus: he walked before God, he was well-pleasing to God, he found favor before the Lord God, he was righteous, perfect before God (chapters 5, 6, and others);
c) the fear of God—but a filial fear, tempered by complete trust in God and filial love, as was especially manifested in the example of Abraham, the father of believers, and of Joseph;
d) gratitude to God for His benefactions, known to us from the history of Noah and Jacob. Together with these fundamental virtues of true piety, all the other particular virtues that spring from them—every virtue man can have in relation to God—without any doubt dwelt in the hearts of the patriarchs as well.
In relation to their neighbors, one cannot fail to notice in the life of the patriarchs:
a) respect for the dignity of man as the image of God, and respect for his life (Gen. 9:6);
b) love for one’s neighbor, which was especially manifested in the hospitality that prevailed at that time (19:8);
c) respect for the sanctity of the marriage union (2:24, and others);
d) love and complete reverence for parents and for elders in general;
e) love for children (37:34, 35);
f) solicitude for preserving the chastity of daughters, and the like.
Finally, the chief of the duties the patriarchs kept in relation to themselves were:
a) self-denial: this is evident from the fact that, as we have already noted, the root principle of their conduct was the will of God and complete devotion to it, and consequently not self-love;
b) consciousness of their own moral weakness, and, necessarily joined with it, faith in the promised Messiah and hope in Him alone: it was this faith, permeating, so to speak, all their moral acts, that gave these acts, by the testimony of the Apostle Paul, their worth in the eyes of God; by this faith Abel offered to God a greater sacrifice than Cain…, by this faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death… and so forth (Heb. 11:1–23);
c) diligence in labor, moderation in food and drink, and mastery over the passions: in this, indeed, may have lain one of the causes of the patriarchs’ longevity.
§56. A Survey of the Outward Worship
The composition of outward worship in the patriarchal period, for all its simplicity, fully expressed the spirit of their inward worship.
The essence of the sacred rites was confined to sacrifices: let us recall the sacrifices of Abel, Noah, Abraham, and Jacob. And these sacrifices, prefiguring in themselves the great Sacrifice of Golgotha, and bearing witness to the patriarchs’ faith in the promised Deliverer, were, without doubt, the most pleasing service to God. The sacrifices were accompanied by the invocation of God and by prayers, which the patriarchs, moreover, offered up to God not only at the time of sacrifice, but at other times as well (Gen. 12:8; 25:21, and others). From the time of Abraham there appears, further, a most significant sacred rite, circumcision, to which all the descendants of this patriarch were required to submit for their actual entry into the society of believers. As a sacrament, circumcision signified:
— in the state preceding it, the impurity and corruption of human nature;
— in its object and its timing, the correction of the corruption through the Messiah, who was to be born without a husband;
— and, in its very manner of action, an inward circumcision, or the putting to death of the fleshly man and the birth of the spiritual man (Acts 7:51; Rom. 2:28, 29);127 consequently, circumcision expressed the most essential dogmas of the restored faith.
As for the appurtenances of outward worship: though these were not yet determined with precision in the patriarchal period, they nevertheless corresponded fully to the holiness of the worship itself. We do not see, in that period, any fixed sacred places or temples: this was without doubt hindered by the patriarchs’ wandering way of life; nor do we see any fixed sacred times, apart from the Sabbath. But the places and times for sacred rites were, for the most part, determined by the appearances of God and by His other benefactions, and at these places altars were not infrequently erected, which enjoyed a particular veneration among the people. Nor was there, at that time, any special sacred persons (hierarchy) for the performance of the sacred rites: rather, this right of performing the sacred rites belonged to the elders of the patriarchs’ families, the fathers of households, or, according to Jewish tradition, to the firstborn.128
§57. A Judgment on the High Worth of the Patriarchal Faith
However brief the survey we have made of the patriarchal faith, this sketch already shows its worth clearly enough. In its whole teaching—in its teaching of faith, in its teaching of morality, and in the composition of its outward worship—there is nothing unworthy of God and of man; on the contrary, everything is true, holy, and consonant with its high purpose. (If we compare this Faith with the faiths of other contemporary peoples, such as the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Assyrians, we shall see its complete superiority: there, polytheism and idolatry already reigned everywhere; there, men deified either the heavenly bodies, or men, or lower animals, or plants and stones. If we compare this Faith even with the faiths of the later, most enlightened peoples of antiquity, such as the Greeks and Romans, we shall again see its complete superiority: for polytheism, and above all the deification of men and heroes with all their human passions and vices, formed the very essence of these faiths too. If, finally, we compare the teaching held by the patriarchs with the teaching of the philosophers of Greece and Rome themselves, here too we shall not hesitate to give full preference to the former over the latter. In the philosophers we meet with bright thoughts about God and man, about man’s destiny, about moral principles and man’s duties; but all this is scattered through their writings, and so intermingled with errors, that it is almost impossible for a person not yet acquainted with the revealed teaching of faith to separate the one from the other—whereas in the patriarchal Faith everything is pure, everything is true, everything is holy.
Whence, then, could such a faith have arisen? Is it truly a product of the natural mind of man? But how could this same mind, having taught so bright a doctrine of inward and outward worship of God in the families of the patriarchs, have taught polytheism and idolatry to all other peoples? How could it, even in the very best representatives of its worth, the philosophers, not have been free of very many errors? What exception is there for the patriarchs alone? Yet, according to the natural order of things, we should expect quite the opposite: the faith of the patriarchs is the most ancient of all faiths; consequently, if it is the fruit of the human mind, and the mind develops gradually and moves toward perfection, then it ought to be the most imperfect faith of all—it ought to stand lower not only than the faith of the Greeks and Romans, the most enlightened of peoples, but even than the faith of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Assyrians, and the other unenlightened peoples of the East. And when it is certainly known that our mind, at its first awakening, can develop only under the guidance of other, more perfect and more experienced persons, how can we suppose that the patriarchs, the first inhabitants of the earth, having no guides or teachers whatsoever, could of themselves have arrived at so lofty a doctrine of God and of everything belonging to the essence of faith? On this consideration alone, we must necessarily agree with the account of the holy Author of Genesis, Moses, that God Himself was the Teacher of the patriarchs in the matter of faith, and that this faith is by no means an invention of the human mind, but a true Divine revelation.
But we shall be still more convinced of this truth when we turn our attention to those signs which, according to the account of the Author of Genesis, constantly accompanied both the appearance and the whole existence of the patriarchal faith.
B. The External Marks of the Divinity of the Patriarchal Faith
§58. Theophanies and Appearances of Angels
The most important of these signs are: theophanies and appearances of Angels. God Himself appeared more than once to our forefathers, appeared afterward to Cain, to Noah, and especially often to Abraham, the father of believers, and further to Isaac and Jacob. At other times He sent His Angels to the patriarchs—for example, to that same Abraham, to Lot, and to others.
That all these extraordinary appearances truly took place, there is not the slightest ground to doubt. Moses narrates them in exactly the same manner as he narrates all the other, natural events in the lives of the patriarchs; Moses so closely intertwines the one and the other in his narrative that whoever should resolve to reject the former would necessarily have to reject the latter as well; Moses further notes that some of the theophanies were attested by the patriarchs and sealed for the memory of their descendants in a particular manner—such as by the naming of the places where the Lord appeared, the setting up of pillars or stones, the renaming of persons (Gen. 22:14; 17:5; 28:19), and the like. The reality of these theophanies is assumed as certain in the period under the Law, when God called Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex. 3:6 and 16; Josh. 24:3), and is directly confirmed in the books of the New Testament (Acts 7:1–20; Heb. 11:4–24). This reality is finally pointed to by the traditions of all the pagan peoples, which, passing from generation to generation, though very greatly distorted and containing much that is strange concerning the ancient theophanies, nevertheless necessarily presuppose a truth at their foundation.129
That all the theophanies of which Moses narrates were entirely worthy of God is self-evident. Men had only just appeared on the earth, in a world still new to them and wholly unknown; they were in extreme need of instruction, of guidance, especially as to why they had been placed in the world, how they ought to live, and what they ought to strive for: and so God Himself, their Creator, resolved to be their Teacher in the matter of faith, which contains the first purpose of their existence. He appears to our forefathers—first, to give them a commandment, and thereby to confirm their will in good; then, as Judge, but an all-good Judge, to pronounce upon them just punishment for sin, together with a comforting promise concerning the future Deliverer of the world. He appears to Cain—first, to warn him against fratricide; then, after the crime was committed, to impose punishment on the fratricide and to call him to repentance. He appears to Noah before the Flood, to foretell to the righteous man the approach of the universal calamity and to show him the means of saving himself, his family, and certain animals; and after the Flood, to renew the everlasting covenant with the father of the new world and to pronounce His blessing upon the whole renewed creation. He appears to Abraham, to preserve him from the general impiety, to raise him up as the father of believers, and to grant him the promise concerning that Seed of his in whom all nations would be blessed. He appears to Isaac and Jacob, to repeat this same promise, which formed the chief article in the Faith of the patriarchs. What, then, could be more worthy of God than to appear with His help wherever that help is needed, to appear as a Father in the midst of His children, and this for so lofty a purpose as the salvation of man?
§59. Miracles
Besides theophanies, some other miraculous events also took place in the patriarchal period, which served the patriarchs as a sign of God’s goodness toward them and of the divine origin of the faith they professed. Such, for example, was the translation of Enoch, which was without doubt known to his contemporaries and descendants and produced upon them a beneficial moral effect: Enoch, says the wise son of Sirach, pleased God, and was translated, an example of repentance to all generations (44:15). Such, too, was the confusion of tongues for pride and arrogance (Gen. 11:1–10)—an event that occurred openly before all men, which had all the more effect upon them because each felt its force directly in himself. Such, too, was the turning of Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt for her disobedience to the will of God—again, the most edifying lesson in piety that the Lord gave to men at that time.
§60. Prophecies: a) Uttered by God to the Patriarchs
A further undeniable proof of the divinity of the patriarchal faith was, and is, the prophecies uttered both by God Himself to the patriarchs, and by some of the patriarchs themselves, by the gift of God.
To the first kind belong:
a) the prophecy of the Flood, an event not only wholly contingent but also extraordinary, and therefore a prophecy in the proper sense;
b) the prophecy of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:20; 19:24), likewise a wholly contingent and extraordinary event, which could not have been foreseen by any human calculation;
c) the prophecy of the birth of Isaac from aged and barren parents, who, by the natural order of things, could no longer even hope for a child (17:16–19; 21:1, cf. 16:1, 2);
d) the prophecy that twelve nations, or tribes, would descend from Ishmael, uttered at a time when Ishmael was only about thirteen years old (17:20, 25);
e) the prophecy concerning the fates of Esau and Jacob, while they were yet in their mother’s womb (25:24). All these predictions must have had all the greater effect upon the patriarchs in that almost all of them were vindicated by events before their very eyes. Finally, to this same category belongs:
f) the prophecy God uttered to Abraham, while he was still childless, that from him would come innumerable descendants (Gen. 15:5); that this offspring would be resettled in a land not their own, where they would be enslaved, oppressed, and afflicted for four hundred years (v. 13); that afterward they would go forth from the foreign land with great possessions (v. 14); and that they would receive as their inheritance the land from the river of Egypt even to the great river Euphrates (v. 18): such features of the event no created mind could have foreseen, and yet, as is known from history, they were all fulfilled in the most exact manner.
§61. Prophecies Uttered by the Patriarchs Themselves, and Specifically Jacob’s Prophecy of the Time of the Messiah’s Coming
Of the prophecies uttered by the patriarchs themselves,130 it is enough to dwell on one of the most important, which determines the time of the Messiah’s coming. The patriarch Jacob, blessing his sons before his death and foretelling the fate of their descendants, when it came Judah’s turn, said to him, among other things: a ruler shall not fail from Judah, nor a leader from his loins, until there come the things stored up for him (ἔως ἄν ἔλθῃ τὰ ὰποκέιμενα ὰυτῷ): and he is the expectation of the nations (Gen. 49:10), or, as in the Hebrew text: “the scepter (shevet) shall not be taken away from Judah, nor the lawgiver (mechokek) from his loins, until the Reconciler (Shiloh) comes, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples”.131 That a future event is spoken of here is evident from the direct sense of the words given and from the whole structure of the speech. Jacob, having called his sons together, first said to them: gather yourselves together, that I may declare to you what shall meet you in the last days (Gen. 49:1), and then indeed proceeds, in order, to disclose to them the future fate of their descendants. That some future person is spoken of here, and a person of very great importance, is likewise evident from the very words: “until the Reconciler comes, and he is the expectation of the nations”—or: “and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples”. But for us it is especially important:
1) that a prophecy is given here concerning the Messiah;
2) that the time of the Messiah’s coming is determined here; and
3) that this prophecy was fulfilled exactly in our Lord Jesus Christ.132
1) The holy patriarch points to two sharply distinctive features in the future Person of whom he testifies—features that apply fully to the Messiah alone, and cannot be applied to anyone else.
The first feature. Jacob calls this Person—Shiloh (ὸ) (Schiloh), as it is now read in the Hebrew text, or, as the Seventy and certain other translators of Holy Scripture probably read it in the most ancient copies—Shelloh (ὸ) (Schelloh). Whichever of these two readings we accept, both can equally be referred to the Messiah, and, in the understanding of all the ancient Jews, to the Messiah alone. Shiloh, from the Hebrew shalah, means reconciler, savior—with which the Samaritan text, too, fully agrees.133 But —
a) one of the most essential blessings which, by God’s promise, was to be expected from the Messiah is this: that He would be our peace, that He would reconcile us to God, reconcile heaven with earth, the Gentiles with the Jews, and bring with Him peace and happiness upon the earth; for which reason, too, the prophet Isaiah calls Him the Prince of Peace (Is. 9:6);
b) one of the most essential names the ancient Jews applied exclusively to the Messiah is the name Shiloh, whatever it may mean.134 For example, the Babylonian Talmud reads: “Rabbi Yohanan asked concerning the Messiah, what is His name? The disciples of Rabbi Sila answered: Shiloh is His name, for in the book of Genesis, chapter 49, verse 10, it is said: until Shiloh comes.”135 Shelloh (Schelloh) means: to whom it belongs (cujus est), and consequently the sense of the prophecy would be: “the scepter shall not be taken away from Judah, until he comes to whom the scepter belongs.” The prophet Ezekiel expresses himself in just this way in a similar prophecy concerning the Messiah: take off the miter, and remove the crown…, until he comes to whom it (that is, the crown) belongs, and I will give it to him (Ezek. 21:26–27). The word Shelloh is rendered in this same way by the ancient Syriac version: “he to whom it (the scepter) belongs, is, cujus illud est”, and by the ancient Arabic version: “he to whom it belongs, is, cui est”;136 and the Seventy translated it thus: until there come the things stored up for him, or, according to another reading: “until he comes for whom it (that is, the scepter) is laid up, ᾧ ἀποκεῖται”. But here, too, remarks similar to the previous ones must be made:
a) one of the most essential qualities which, by God’s promises, was to be expected in the Messiah is this: that He would be a king, that the kingdom would belong to Him (Is. 9:6–8; Jer. 23:5–7; Dan. 2:44);
b) the ancient Jewish paraphrasts, in accordance with the Tradition and belief of the whole people, translate the word Shelloh by the words: “the Messiah, to whom the kingdom belongs”.137
The other feature: Jacob, having mentioned Shiloh, immediately adds: “and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples”, or, as it is read in the ancient paraphrases: “and to him the nations shall submit, all the kings of the earth shall submit”;138 and, in the most ancient translations, the Greek of the Seventy: and he is the expectation of the nations (ἀυτός προσδοκία τῶν ἐθνῶν); the Syriac: “and the nations shall wait for him”; the Arabic: “and to him shall the nations gather and come”.139 To whom, then, apart from the Messiah alone, can all these expressions be applied in their proper sense, whether together or each separately? Of which ordinary descendant of Judah could it have been foretold that he would be the expectation of the nations, that the nations would come to him, that even all the kings of the earth would submit to him?140 All this suits the Messiah all the more, since something similar concerning Him was proclaimed even before Jacob, in the promises of God to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob himself (in your seed shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed), and the like is not infrequently repeated in the later prophecies, especially in Isaiah—for example: in the last days the mountain of the Lord shall be made manifest…, and all the nations shall come to it (2:2, and following); or: and in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, and he who rises up to rule the nations, on him shall the nations set their hope (11:10; cf. 49:6; 51:5; 65:1; 66:19, and others).
2) Just as clearly, the very content of the prophecy concerning the Messiah that we are examining fully convinces us of the thought that the time of His coming is precisely what is determined here. Jacob’s words are: the scepter shall not be taken from Judah, nor the leader from his loins, until Shiloh comes. But the Hebrew ad-ki, until, according to the testimony of the most ancient Hebrew paraphrasts and by the agreement of all the ancient translations, properly means—up to that point, or not until;141 and the most ancient Jews, without any doubt, knew their own language far better than their present-day descendants, and, moreover, had no motive whatsoever deliberately to distort the sense of the prophecies concerning the Messiah, as the more recent rabbis do.142 The purpose of Jacob’s prediction, addressed to Judah, is evidently, on the one hand, to show Judah himself the time until which his descendants would have their own government and preserve their political existence: the scepter shall not be taken from Judah until…; and, on the other hand, to give both Judah with his descendants, and all his brothers present there with their descendants, such a sign by which they could recognize, without error, the Messiah who was to come: until Shiloh comes. But if this until is not understood as marking a definite limit of time, then neither purpose would be achieved. It must be added that all the ancient Jews unanimously saw in these words of the patriarch Jacob a prophecy of the limit, or end, of the kingdom of Judah and the beginning of the kingdom of the Messiah.143
3) Finally, in order to see how Jacob’s prophecy concerning Shiloh was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, it is necessary to determine more precisely the sense of the whole prophecy, and then apply it to the event.
The sense of the prophecy is this: “the tribe of Judah will not cease to have its own government and its own legislation until the Messiah comes”. This is evident:
a) from the word shevet, which, though it sometimes means simply a rod (Ps. 88:33), here means precisely the rod of dominion, governing authority, as it is used in many other places of Holy Scripture (Num. 24:17; Is. 14:5; Zech. 10:11): this we affirm —
b) on the basis of the word mechokek, set in the same utterance to correspond with the word shevet, and meaning properly a lawgiver, a keeper of the law, or legislative authority (Num. 21:19; Judg. 5:14; Ps. 59:9); and —
c) following the most ancient translations and paraphrases: the Seventy and Theodotion translated the word shevet as ἄρχων, ruler; Symmachus as ἐξουσία, authority; Aquila as σκῆπτρον, scepter; Onkelos as one holding dominion. But, on the other hand, it must be remembered —
a) that the prophecy by no means expresses the thought that the kingdom of Judah, before the Messiah’s coming, would continually have one particular form of government—kings, say, or monarchs; rather, it speaks generally: it will have its own government, in whatever form that government exists. The words shevet and mechokek, as can be seen from the texts cited, apply equally to kings, to princes, and to anyone holding authority, and not only to individuals but to whole classes vested with power; consequently they signify governing and legislative authority in general. It must also be remembered —
b) that this government is credited with an unfailing authority in the tribe of Judah alone and over that tribe alone, and by no means over all the tribes of Israel: for here Jacob foretells to his son Judah the fate of his own descendants specifically, while to his other sons he spoke of the fate of their descendants partly before and partly after, to each separately.
Now it is not difficult to apply the prophecy to the event. The tribe of Judah, like the others, began to have its own particular princes, or elders, from among its own members, immediately upon the exodus from Egypt (Num. 1:4, 17; 2:3), where indeed Jacob’s prophecy was uttered, although the chief leader over all the Israelites, throughout their whole journey in the wilderness, remained Moses. This tribe, like the others, did not cease afterward to have its own particular princes even after the occupation of the promised land (Josh. 22:13, 14 and others), although at the same time all Israel was under the supreme authority first of Joshua, then of the judges, and finally of the kings—Saul, David, and Solomon (2 Sam. 2:4; 5:1, 2). It goes without saying that throughout this whole period the tribe of Judah, like the others, was governed by its own native legislation, given through Moses, and not by any foreign law. From the time of Solomon’s son Rehoboam, under whom the division of the kingdom into two parts followed, the fate of the tribe of Judah, in fulfillment of the prophecy, already begins to stand out sharply from the fate of the other tribes. While the ten tribes composing the kingdom of Israel were thereafter governed in succession by kings from various tribes and various dynasties, the tribe of Judah alone—as it were absorbing into itself the small tribe of Benjamin, which was joined with it into one kingdom (which for this reason was called the kingdom of Judah, and sometimes even the tribe of Judah, 2 Kings 17:18)—this one tribe of Judah alone did not cease to have an unbroken line of kings from the house of David alone, and consequently from his own loins. But this is not all: the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, soon followed, and this destruction was final. From that time the ten tribes of Israel never again formed any political body governed by native authority and laws, but, having been carried off beyond the Euphrates and scattered, submitted to foreign rule, while new inhabitants were resettled in their native land (2 Kings 17:28). But the tribe of Judah, though it too soon fell under the Babylonian captivity, nevertheless even in that very captivity, under the rule of the kings of Babylon and afterward of Persia, did not cease to form one body, to have its own elders, and to be governed by its own laws (Dan. 13; Esther 3:8; 8:11). And upon its return from captivity, with the consent of the pagan kings themselves, it continued to have its own princes, elders, and judges according to the laws of its own God (1 Ezra 7:25, 26; 9:1; Neh. 5:7), being under the chief guidance first of leaders such as Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, then of the high priests, and finally of ethnarchs, or national rulers, as the Maccabees were called (1 Macc. 8:20; 12:6).
About sixty years before the Nativity of Christ, Pompey took possession of Jerusalem and made the Jews tributaries of the Romans; twenty-five years later the Romans set over Judea, as king, Herod, a foreigner by descent, an Idumean, from whom power passed to his children. Soon Judea began to be ruled by Roman procurators, or governors, who administered it throughout the whole earthly life of the Savior and afterward, right up to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. This brief period, so closely embracing the life of Jesus Christ on both sides, may indeed be called the time of the gradual, but now final, failing of the tribe of Judah’s own government and its own legislation. And in the days of the Savior’s earthly life, under the Roman procurators, we still see among the Jews traces of self-government according to their native laws (John 8:3 and following, 9:1 and following, 18:31); but all this was already being suppressed more and more by the power of the Romans, until at last Jerusalem fell by their sword, and the people who had put the true Messiah to death lost their political existence forever.144
§62. The Historical Reliability of the Theophanies, Miracles, and Prophecies of the Patriarchal Period
The historical reliability of the theophanies, miracles, and prophecies of the patriarchal period that we have examined, as well as of all the other events described in the book of Genesis, rests upon the testimony of Moses and is confirmed by the traditions of the pagan nations.
All these events, though they occurred before Moses, were nonetheless such that he had even natural means of learning them himself, and could not have misled others (not to mention that Moses spoke and wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: for, having said this, we would for the believer have said everything). These means present themselves as follows:
1) Oral tradition—a tradition living, fresh, and uncorrupted, on account of the patriarchs’ great longevity. It is known that Levi, Moses’ great-grandfather, lived together with Jacob and saw Isaac, while Isaac’s father Abraham could have seen all his forefathers back to Arphaxad, Noah’s grandson, through Shem. Consequently Moses and his contemporaries were separated from the Flood by only some five or six persons, if not fewer, and, without going outside their own family, could easily have learned a reliable history of many centuries: for tradition is corrupted not by the length of time it has existed, but by the multiplicity of persons through whose mouths it successively passes. It is likewise known that Noah, who lived about 600 years before the Flood, could have seen Enoch, the son of Seth, himself and conversed with him, while Noah’s father Lamech was born in the very year that Adam died. Thus even the whole antediluvian history could have been known to Moses’ contemporaries through the mediation of three or four successive witnesses. Let us add to this that if the Israelites in general were always distinguished by a special love for preserving the traditions concerning their forefathers, their faith, and their fate, this must be said all the more of the most ancient Hebrews; and the history set forth in the book of Genesis concerns their most illustrious forefathers, the patriarchs, contains the very beginnings of their faith, the promises concerning the Messiah, and together with these the most consoling promises of God concerning the blessing and multiplying of Abraham’s seed—that is, it concerns matters whose memory was always the most sacred and precious of all to the Hebrews.
2) Sacred hymns, psalms, and songs in general, which from time immemorial both the nations at large and the Hebrews in particular loved to compose and sing, to express their reverent feelings before God, to glorify His various acts of mercy, to commemorate and honor their illustrious forefathers, to perpetuate the most important events of their lives, and the like. These songs, as a precious inheritance, passed from generation to generation, from fathers to children, and sometimes preserved within themselves the most significant part of a people’s history. Moses himself mentions the existence of such songs among the Jews—for example, in the book of Numbers 21:17, 18, 27.
3) Many material monuments of ancient events, still existing even in the time of Moses. Such were: the altars raised by Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and the other patriarchs; the Tower of Babel, testifying to the scattering of the nations and the confusion of tongues; the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah, recalling the judgment of God that overtook those wicked cities; the remains of Noah’s ark, recalling the Flood; the circumcision of the Hebrews, speaking of God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendants; the field bought by that same patriarch for the burial of the members of his household; the tomb of Rachel; the wells dug by the patriarchs; the very names of many of them—Noah, Abraham, Isaac—expressing in themselves some historical event or other, and the like.145
Given such means of knowing everything noteworthy that occurred in the patriarchal period—means equally accessible to Moses and to his contemporaries—any deliberate falsehood on Moses’ part in the narration of these events would have been utterly impossible: it would have been exposed at once, by the aid of these same sources, and the book of Genesis, far from being received by his contemporaries with the greatest reverence, would on the contrary have been rejected as an unreliable book. But in receiving it, and with such unconditional faith, they thereby bore witness to the undoubted authenticity of everything set forth in it.
Traditions concerning the events of the patriarchal period have been preserved not only among the Israelites but also among the pagan nations. Evidence of this is furnished by the testimonies of many ancient pagan writers, which, when gathered together by industrious scholars, yield, under sound critical method, a fairly accurate outline of the whole primeval history of mankind as set forth in the Bible. Thus Berossus the Chaldean and Hieronymus the Egyptian speak of the Flood that occurred in Noah’s days, of the ark that came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, and of the birds that were sent out from the ark; the same Berossus, together with Manetho, mentions the patriarchs’ longevity; Abydenus, Eupolemus, Astrabanus, Cleodemus, Theodotus, and Hestiaeus speak of the building of the tower and the confusion of tongues, of Abraham’s journey from the land of Ur to Phoenicia and Egypt, of the victory over Lot’s enemies, of the gifts presented to Abraham by Melchizedek, of Abraham’s children by the slave woman and the free woman, of the offering up of Isaac, and of the sons and, in general, all the descendants of Jacob down even to Moses and Aaron… and so on, and so on.146 This is confirmed still further by many recent discoveries, made through closer acquaintance with the pagan peoples of the whole world. It turns out that among all the most ancient pagan nations—the Chinese, the Indians, the Persians, the Egyptians, the Arabs, the Assyrians, and many of the American peoples—there are preserved to this day traditions of the creation of the world, of man’s primeval state and fall, of the Flood, the building of the tower, the confusion of tongues and the scattering of mankind, of the offering up of Isaac, and of other events set forth by Moses in the book of Genesis.147 How, then, are we to explain such agreement among these pagan traditions with one another and with Moses’ account, if we do not admit that historical truth truly lies at their foundation?
§63. General Conclusion from the Foregoingand Transition to What Follows
From the survey we have made of the patriarchal faith, it emerges that it was stamped with all the marks of divine revelation, and led directly to Christ. By confessing it and holily following its precepts, the patriarchs were well-pleasing to God, and were saved through faith in the Messiah who was to come (Heb. ch. 11). It would seem, then, that there was no need at all to change this faith right up to the Savior’s own coming: it could just as well have led all later generations of men to Him as it led the patriarchs. And indeed it did remain unchanged in its spirit and essence. Only the Infinitely Wise One, in response to new needs that had arisen among men, gave it a somewhat different outward form.
At first, in the person of Adam, the forefather of the first world, God gave His revealed faith and the promises concerning the Messiah for the whole human race. But most men soon forgot their Creator, and wickedness so increased upon the earth that it had to be washed away by the waters of a universal flood. Then God renewed His covenant with the forefather of the second world, Noah, and in his person again repeated His promises for the whole human race; but this time too, little by little, men departed from the gracious covenant: polytheism and idolatry spread across the whole earth. After this, God, to preserve the true faith within the human race, chose out from among all men one—Abraham—Himself raised him up to be the father of believers, and now made His covenant with him alone, saying: and I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you and to your descendants after you (Gen. 17:7), while on the other hand requiring: and you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you in their generations (v. 9). From that time God did indeed, so to speak, concentrate all His blessings upon the one line of Abraham’s descendants, gave to it His promises, temporal and eternal, and preserved within it faith in the Redeemer to come, through whom, in time, all the nations of the earth were to be blessed. And what came of it? Scarcely had a few generations passed before Abraham’s own descendants, despite all the benefits shown them by the God of their fathers, forgot Him, and, living in Egypt, grew accustomed to idolatry and all the abominations of Egypt (Ezek. 20:7–9). It was then that the All-Good One, who wills not the death of sinners nor the ruin of the whole human race, resolved, in order to preserve within it His saving faith, to give that faith a somewhat new form. He did not abandon the unworthy sons of Israel, having once uttered the promise to be their God; on the contrary, having chastened them for a time in the midst of the land of Egypt, He soon miraculously brought them out of that land, solemnly renewed with them the covenant they had broken, again repeated to them His promise to be their God and to have them as a people chosen out of all the nations, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, if they would hearken to His voice and keep His covenant (Ex. 19:4–6; Deut. 26:16–19). But knowing this people’s fickleness, its readiness to slide into idolatry and forgetfulness of the true faith, its inclination toward sensuality and every kind of impiety, God commanded Moses to set down for the Israelites, in writing, with the utmost detail, the law of faith and morality, so that they could no longer excuse themselves by having forgotten this law, since they would always have it, as it were, before their eyes;148 and together with this He gave them a most detailed ceremonial law, so that through the many outward sacred rites, which carry a deep inner meaning, continually acting upon their feelings, a devout disposition might more and more be sustained and cultivated in them; and He gave them, finally, a civil law as well, bound up most closely with their faith, so as to help preserve and foster it among this coarse people, among other things through its political institutions. In this way the revealed faith remained the very same faith that had existed before, in the time of the patriarchs: and God, speaking to Moses and to the Israelites, called Himself by no other name than the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob (Ex. 3:6); but it was now set down in writing, expounded in its full breadth and detail, and, being bound up with the political constitution of the Hebrew people, became, as it were, the exclusive possession of that people alone. In this form it is known by the name of the Faith under the Law.
§64. The Source of Information about This Faith, for Purposes of Study
the Faith under the Law was given by God to the Israelites in its full compass through Moses, who set it forth in his Pentateuch; it was afterward explained more than once, chiefly on the side of the divine promises and on the side of morality, through the Prophets, who likewise set it forth in their writings. All these messengers of God, in delivering the revealed teaching, at the same time worked many miracles and uttered prophecies, and thus left men the full possibility of being convinced of the divinity of the Faith under the Law, not only from internal marks but from external ones as well.
A. THE INTERNAL MARKS OF THE DIVINITY OF THE FAITH UNDER THE LAW
§65. Limitation of the Subject
We shall not examine the Faith under the Law here in all its particulars; that would carry us too far afield, and would be superfluous for our purpose—namely, to understand its internal worth. For this it is enough to examine, only in general outline, each of its three constituent parts: the law of faith and morality, the ceremonial law, and the political law.
§66. A Look at the Law of Faith and Morality
I. What Did the Faith under the Law Teach concerning God?
First of all, it affirmed in the plainest terms the truth of the oneness of God,149 at a time when polytheism reigned throughout the whole pagan world: hearken, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord alone is (Deut. 6:4); behold, behold, that I am He, and there is no god besides Me (Deut. 32:39).
At the same time, directing the Israelites’ attention to the essence of God, it depicted God to them as:
a) as bodiless and wholly spiritual, again contrary to the universal error of the pagans: to whom have you likened the Lord, and to what likeness have you compared Him (Is. 40:18); take diligent care for your souls: for you saw no likeness whatsoever on the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire—do not transgress the law, and do not make for yourselves any carved likeness (Deut. 4:15–16);
b) as self-existent and independent: I am the One Who Is (Ex. 3:14); I am the first, and I am after these; besides Me there is no God (Is. 44:6);
c) as eternal and unchanging: in the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; and all things will grow old like a garment…, and be changed; but you are the same, and your years will not fail (Ps. 101:26; cf. Is. 40:28; Mal. 3:6);
d) as infinite and omnipresent: where shall I go from your Spirit, and where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend into heaven, you are there; if I go down into Hades, you are there; if I take my wings at dawn and dwell in the farthest parts of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, and your right hand will hold me fast (Ps. 138:7–11; Deut. 4:39; Jer. 23:23);
e) as wise and all-knowing: Lord, you have known all things, both the latest and the oldest (Ps. 138:4); try the hearts and inward parts, O righteous God (Ps. 7:10); great is our Lord…, and His understanding is beyond number (Ps. 146:5; cf. Jer. 23:24; 2 Chron. 16:6; Dan. 13:42);
f) as a strong and almighty God: He spoke, and they came to be; He commanded, and they were created (Ps. 32:9; Is. 40:26, 28, and others);
g) as true and most holy: true are His works (Deut. 32:4; cf. 10:10);
h) as an all-good and most just God: good is the Lord to all, and His mercies are upon all His works (Ps. 144:9); righteous is the Lord, and He has loved righteousness; His face beholds what is upright (Ps. 10:7); and, in general —
i) as a most perfect Being: great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and of His greatness there is no end (Ps. 144:3); there is none holy as the Lord, and there is none righteous as our God (1 Sam. 2:2).
Finally, with respect to God’s relation to the world, it called Him —
a) as Creator and Provider of the universe, who made heaven and earth (Jer. 32:17), made the heaven, and the heaven of heavens, and all their host, the earth, and all that is on it (Neh. 9:6); and from that time cares for all things (Wis. 12:13), and all things are in His service (Ps. 118:91), He counts the multitude of the stars and calls them all by name (Ps. 146:4), makes His angels spirits, and His servants a flame of fire (Ps. 103:4), draws up clouds from the ends of the earth, and turns the lightnings into rain (Ps. 134:7), causes grass to spring up… and the green herb…, and brings forth bread from the earth (Ps. 103:14), and governs all things well (Wis. 8:1);
b) as Creator and Provider, in particular, of man: know that the Lord… He made us, and not we ourselves (Ps. 99:3); God is our refuge and strength, a helper in troubles (Ps. 45:1); unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain (Ps. 126:1); the Most High rules over the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He wills (Dan. 4:22), He stores up salvation for the upright, and shields their path (Prov. 2:7).
II. What Did the Faith under the Law Teach concerning Man? It taught —
a) that God created man in His own image and likeness (Wis. 2:23), clothed with strength (Sir. 17:3) and upright (Eccl. 7:30), created for incorruption (Wis. 2:23), made him a little lower than the angels, crowned him with glory and honor, and… put all things in subjection under his feet (Ps. 8:6–9), and then, having brought him into the garden of delight, gave him a definite commandment for the exercise of his will in the good and for his gradual advancement in moral perfection. But —
b) that man transgressed his Creator’s commandment, and through this lost many perfections and privileges: the poison of sin penetrated and corrupted the whole being of our fallen forefather, so that all his descendants are conceived in iniquities and born in sins (Ps. 50:7); they have all turned aside, together they have become worthless; there is none who does good, not even one (Ps. 52:4); calamities of every kind became the lot of men on earth (Eccl. 2:23–26), and death entered into the world (Wis. 2:24). However,
c) that however deep man’s fall, he did not cease to be a free being: even now life and death are set before him, and whichever he chooses shall be given him (Sir. 15:11–17 and 20), and although his body, deprived of the fruits of the tree of life, became mortal, his soul, as before, remains immortal; and at the time when our dust returns to the earth as it was, the spirit returns to God who gave it (Eccl. 12:7; cf. Wis. 3:1–4).
III. What Did the Faith under the Law Teach concerning the Messiah? That in the Old Testament there was a teaching concerning the Messiah, and moreover concerning Him as one particular Person, a mediator between God and men,150 — of this, first of all, we are assured by many quite plain passages of the Bible itself, in which the time of the Messiah’s coming is predicted with precision, the place of His birth, the tribe from which He was to come, the miraculous manner of His birth from a Virgin; His distinguishing qualities are depicted, the main kinds of His ministry, and the numerous circumstances of His life: the reliability of the prophetic significance of these passages we shall examine afterward; here we shall only note that they can evidently be applied only to one definite, and moreover particular, Person.
This same truth is confirmed, secondly, by the universal belief of the ancient Jews specifically in one definite Deliverer, promised to them by God. And this belief constituted for them an essential dogma, which they habitually expressed in the following formula: “everything mentioned in the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (the Hagiographa) points to Wisdom—that is, to Christ”.151 In this belief all the Jewish sects agreed and still agree with one another, sects otherwise so much at variance in many other teachings—among the ancient ones, the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians; among the modern ones, the Rabbinites and the Karaites;152 and, despite all their mutual hostility, the Samaritans too, who possess only the Pentateuch of Moses, agreed and still agree with the Jews on this (John 4:25–29). And this is why, the moment the time foretold by the Prophets for the Messiah’s appearing arrived, the Jews, as it were, themselves went searching for Him, and, seeing the extraordinary life and works of John the Baptist, expressly sent priests and Levites to ask him whether he himself was the Christ (Luke 3:15; John 1:19)—whereas in all earlier ages, however many messengers of God appeared, the sons of Israel never once addressed such a question to any of them. This is why, too, when, at the Savior’s birth, the pagan magi, guided by a wondrous star, appeared in Jerusalem asking: where is he who is born King of the Jews, and Herod, having gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people, inquired of them where the Christ was to be born — they answered him directly: in Bethlehem of Judea: for so it is written by the prophet… (Matt. 2:1–6). This is why, too, the Samaritan woman, in conversation with the Savior, said: I know that the Messiah is coming, who is called Christ; when he comes, he will tell us all things (John 4:25)—and did not say that the Messiah had already come, or that many were to come. This is why, finally, when the Savior Himself pointed the Jews to the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah and applied them to Himself alone, and when the Apostles afterward, likewise before the Jews, pointed to these same prophecies and to their fulfillment in Jesus Christ alone: neither the Savior nor the Apostles ever once heard from the Jews the objection that no such prophecies existed in the Old Testament, or that they referred to many Messiahs.
Nor can we fail to recall, in this connection, that the expectation of some mediator, an intermediary between God and men, existed even among the pagans themselves—among the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Sabaeans, Greeks, Romans, and many others—and survives to this day among the Indians, Chinese, Japanese, and certain American peoples.153 The spread of this belief among the pagans can be explained in only one of two ways: either it passed to them by tradition from ancestors who still lived in the patriarchal age, when the promises concerning the Messiah were given by God for the whole human race, or else it came later, from the Jews, through contact with them. But in either case, here is fresh, incontestable proof of the truth that the teaching concerning the Messiah existed in the Old Testament.
In the New Testament this truth is unfolded in great detail: the Savior Himself testified that Abraham saw His day (John 8:56), that many prophets and righteous ones desired to see it (Matt. 13:17), and kings as well (Luke 10:24); that Moses wrote of Him (John 5:46), that in Him all the things written by the prophets were fulfilled (Luke 18:31), all that was said in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms (Luke 24:44). The holy Apostles likewise preached that Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote of Jesus (John 1:45); that all the prophets from Samuel and those after him, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold the days of Jesus Christ (Acts 3:24); that God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets that Christ should suffer (Acts 3:18), and all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:43). In particular, the Apostles affirmed that the very ceremonial law of the Old Testament was a guardian leading us to Christ (Gal. 3:24), had a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things themselves (Heb. 10:1), and came to its end, or was fulfilled, in Christ (Rom. 10:4).
IV. What Duties Did the Faith under the Law Prescribe to the Israelites in Relation to God? As the foundation of all these duties, it commanded love for God: you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength (Deut. 6:5). This fundamental duty it expressed in greater detail in the first four commandments of the Decalogue, of which the first commands us to know and honor the true God, the second to shun false worship, the third not to violate true worship even in word, and the fourth to observe order in the time and in the practice of true worship (Ex. 20:1–12). And from these four commandments all of man’s more particular duties toward God easily unfold—duties which are, moreover, set forth very fully and repeatedly in various places throughout the Old Testament. At the same time, the Faith under the Law taught plainly and quite frequently that man’s true love for God, true service to Him, must necessarily be expressed in the keeping of His commandments, His judgments, His statutes: and now, Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you, but to fear the Lord your God, and to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, to keep the commandments of the Lord your God, and his statutes, which I command you this day (Deut. 10:12, 13); and you shall love the Lord your God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, always (11:1; cf. Deut. 6:1, 13, 17, 18, 24; 8:6, 7 and 11).
V. What Duties Did the Faith under the Law Prescribe in Relation to One’s Neighbor? Here too love was laid down as the foundation of everything: you shall love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18). The forms of this love were defined in greater detail in the last six commandments of the Decalogue, of which the fifth commands us to love and honor our neighbors, especially those closest to us, beginning with our parents; the sixth, not to harm our neighbors’ lives; the seventh, not to harm the purity of their morals; the eighth, not to harm their property; the ninth, not to harm them by word; the tenth, not even to desire to harm them (Ex. 20:12–18). Still more particular forms and expressions of love for one’s neighbor were defined in many other places of the Old Testament Scripture—such as love or respect for elders (Lev. 19:32), for orphans and widows, for strangers, for debtors (Ex. 22:21–26; Lev. 19:13, 33), for the poor (Deut. 15:7–11), for slaves (Ex. 21:1–6 and 20; Deut. 15:12 and 15; 16:10 and 14), for the deaf and the blind (Lev. 19:14), and the like; and, to some degree, even love for one’s enemies: you shall not hate your brother in your heart; you shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him; and your hand shall not take vengeance, and you shall not bear a grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord your God (Lev. 19:17 and 18); if you meet your enemy’s ox, or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him; and if you see the donkey of one who hates you fallen under its burden, you shall not pass it by, but you shall surely help him lift it up (Ex. 23:4–5).
VI. What Duties Did the Faith under the Law Prescribe in Relation to Man Himself? The Decalogue does not speak of this directly—on the one hand because, even without an express commandment, by nature no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it (Eph. 5:29); and, on the other hand, of course, because once a man properly fulfills his duties toward God and his neighbor as prescribed in the Decalogue, his rightful relation to himself will naturally already be determined thereby. Still, outside the Decalogue there are, in the Old Testament, many instructions to man concerning himself as well; for example, a pattern of moral perfection is pointed to: you shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy (Lev. 19:2); and prescriptions are given concerning bodily purity, concerning chastity (Ex. 22:16, 17; Lev. 20:10), and others.
VII. What Motives Did the Faith under the Law Present for Keeping the Commandments? It —
a) pointed out that these were precisely the commandments of God, the will of the Lord of Hosts (Deut. 5:1–5);
b) pointed to the holiness and majesty of this Lawgiver, the Master of all creatures: you shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy (Lev. 19:2); keep my sabbaths: I am the Lord your God (v. 3); do not follow after idols: I am the Lord your God (v. 4); you shall fear the Lord your God: I am the Lord your God (v. 14, and following);
c) called to mind the greatest benefits the Lord had wrought for Israel: O perverse and crooked generation, is this how you repay the Lord—a foolish and unwise people? Is not this One your father, who acquired you, and made you, and formed you? Remember the days of old, consider the years of generation after generation: ask your father, and he will tell you; your elders, and they will say to you… (Deut. 32:5–7; cf. Josh. 23:2–13; 24:17); finally,
d) it pronounced numerous blessings and promises for keeping the commandments of God, and, on the other hand, fearsome threats and curses for failing to keep them (Deut. 6:3, 18, 24; 28).
§67. A Look at the Ceremonial Law
The ceremonial law, given by God through Moses, defined with complete precision the place of worship, the sacred times, the sacred actions, and the sacred persons, or hierarchy—and all this with the wisest of purposes.
The Place for worship was appointed as one and definite—first the tabernacle, then Solomon’s temple: this served the Israelites tangibly toward their ecclesial unity with one another, vividly reminded them of the oneness of their God, whom they were bound to serve, and thereby all the more nourished in them a sense of reverence for the temple itself, as the special, abiding dwelling-place of the Lord of Hosts. This feeling was excited still more by the very structure of the temple: it consisted of three parts—the court, to which all Israelites were admitted; the sanctuary, which only the priests could enter; and the Holy of Holies, which only the high priest had the right to enter, and that but once a year. Here too were kept the ark, containing within it the tablets of the covenant, the book of the law, the golden jar with the manna, and Aaron’s rod—all objects that spoke plainly to the sons of Israel of God’s benefits, nourished in them feelings of love and gratitude toward God, and served as a visible sign of His invisible presence in the temple. Finally, the structure of the temple, with its various parts and furnishings, carried a still higher, spiritual meaning, prefiguring many things belonging to the kingdom of Christ’s grace, and thus taught the Israelites faith in the Deliverer to come.154
The Sacred Times likewise were all instituted either in memory of great events and benefits of God toward Israel, which naturally stirred in them a grateful love for God their Benefactor, or for the performance of certain rites that pointed typologically to the Messiah and nourished faith in Him. Thus the Sabbath was instituted in memory of God’s creation of the world (Ex. 20:11); the Passover — in memory of the Israelites’ deliverance from Egypt (Ex. 12:14–18); Pentecost — in memory of the giving of the Law at Sinai, and at the same time for the solemn thanksgiving to God for the new fruits of the earth (Lev. 23:16–21); the Feast of Tabernacles — in memory of God’s benefits toward Israel during their wandering in the wilderness (Lev. 23:42, 43); the Day of Atonement, accompanied by fasting and repentance—for the solemn offering of a blood sacrifice for the sins of the whole people of Israel, which prefigured that other Sacrifice, offered on Golgotha for the sins of the whole world (Heb. 9:11–25).
Sacred Actions and Rites were very numerous. Here belong, besides circumcision—whose mystical significance we have already seen (§55), and which at the same time taught the Israelites the circumcision of the heart (Deut. 10:16)—the various kinds of sacrifices, such as the whole burnt offering, the sin offering, the guilt offering, and others, with their detailed variations, and various rites or prescriptions concerning food, clothing, and bodily purity, likewise given in the greatest detail. The significance of these sacred actions and rites, however unimportant some of them may seem at first glance, was of the highest order. Some—the sacrifices above all—served as a shadow of the good things to come (Heb. 10:1), and were a continual preaching to the Israelites concerning the Messiah to come; others, especially the ordinances concerning food and clothing, had as their aim to guard the Hebrews against the idolatry155 to which they were always inclined, to set them apart from the pagans even in food and drink, and thereby to cut off every occasion for Israel’s turning aside from the path of the true faith; still others, especially the institutions concerning bodily purity, while contributing to bodily health and the outward well-being of society, were at the same time directed toward maintaining and elevating inward purity as well, toward arousing and nourishing a spirit of piety.156
The Sacred Persons forming the standing hierarchy were all drawn from the one tribe of Levi, and, corresponding to the temple’s three parts, were divided into three degrees, of which the first and lowest was occupied by the Levites, the second by the priests, and the third and highest by the high priest, or great hierarch. All these persons had their own particular consecration, particular duties, particular rights and distinctions… This wise arrangement had one purpose: that every part of public worship might be carried out with the greater order, zeal, and benefit for the faithful, and that faith and piety might thereby be more readily sustained and cultivated throughout the whole Jewish people.
§68. A Look at the Civil Law
1) The civil law, given by God through Moses to the Hebrew people, had a distinctive character: the form of government it established was theocratic. Having freed the Israelites from Egyptian bondage, and having solemnly renewed with them at Sinai the covenant established already with their forefather Abraham for the preservation, in his descendants, of the true faith and the revelations concerning the Messiah, the Lord God at the same time, and to the same end, was pleased to put to them this proposal: whether they wished to have Him as their King and to keep the laws He would give them. The Hebrews accepted this proposal, by which God gave the promise to reign over them and protect them, if they were obedient to Him in all things, but, failing that, threatened them with every misfortune, while the Hebrew people promised complete submission and obedience to their heavenly Master, agreeing to be subject to His punishments should they fail to keep it (Ex. ch. 19–24; 32–34; Deut. 27–30). As a result of this, God was, in the proper sense, King of the Hebrews: their supreme Lawgiver, Ruler, and Judge (Ex. 19:4, 5; Deut. 33:5; cf. 1 Sam. 8:7; 10:18, 19). He gave them laws directly (Deut. 6:20–24); He set over them chiefs and judges who governed them in ordinary matters in His name (Deut. 1:17; 19:17); in special cases He made His will known through the high priest (Num. 27:21; cf. Judg. 1:1; 20:18 and 23; 1 Sam. 22:10, 13, 15), or through persons expressly chosen for that purpose; He raised up men to carry out His decrees, worked miracles, and so forth. The Hebrews themselves belonged to Him (Ex. 19:4, 5; Lev. 25:39–55), as did all their lands (Lev. 25:23; cf. Gen. 47:19–20). The tabernacle was, as it were, a royal palace, in which God, as the supreme Master of His people, manifested His presence (Ex. 25:8). And for this reason the Hebrew people was accounted a people chosen out of all the peoples of the earth, a people consecrated to God, a holy nation, a royal priesthood (Ex. 19:5, 6; Deut. 7:6).
2) Corresponding to this political arrangement of the Hebrew people, the Mosaic civil law was most closely bound up with the Faith, and had a twofold purpose: to promote by its ordinances not only the outward well-being of the Israelites, but, above all, their advancement in faith and good morals.
To ordinances of the first kind belong the laws concerning agriculture (Lev. 19:23; 25:4, 5, 10–16), concerning trade (Lev. 19:25, 36; Deut. 25:13–16), military laws (Deut. 20:1–15), judicial laws (Deut. 16:19, 20; Ex. ch. 21–23), family laws, laws concerning slaves, property, bodily purity, food, clothing, and the like,157 though even these laws are, more or less, all stamped with the character of the faith and directed toward sustaining it among the people.
To the ordinances directly intended for this latter purpose belong those which formed, as it were, a firm hedge around the moral law contained in the Decalogue, and which threatened death for the violation of almost every commandment. Thus —
a) in defense of the first commandment it was decreed: to put to death the prophet who should speak to Israel so as to turn it away from the Lord its God (Deut. 13:5); every Israelite was to be the first to expose, and the first to lay a hand on, his brother, son, daughter, or wife, if any of them should secretly say: let us go and serve other gods (Deut. 13:6–10);
b) in defense of the second it was ordained: to put under the curse and the sword all who lived in a city infected with idolatry, and to burn the city itself and its spoils, that it might remain waste and never be rebuilt (Deut. 13:15–16); to search out with all diligence any man or woman reported to have worshiped the sun, or the moon, or any of the host of heaven, and to stone them with stones, that they should die (Deut. 17:2–5); death for those who gave of their offspring to Molech, and for those who attached themselves to Baal-peor (Lev. 20:2 and 3; Num. 25:4–5); death for sorcerers, mediums, and enchanters, as well as for those who resorted to them (Ex. 22:18; Lev. 20:6, 27);
c) in defense of the third: let the whole congregation of Israel stone with stones the man who curses his God, and whoever names the name of the Lord in this way shall surely die (Lev. 24:15, 16);
d) in defense of the fourth: every soul that profaned the Sabbath by doing any work was to be cut off from among the people (Ex. 31:14; 35:2; Num. 15:32, 36), and, in general, death for anyone who violated any ceremonial ordinance (Lev. 23:29; 17:11 and 12);
e) in defense of the fifth: acts of disrespect toward parents—striking, reviling, cursing—were punished with death and with the curse (Ex. 21:15, 17; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 27:16), and a rebellious, dissolute, and incorrigible son was removed from the midst of the people as an evil, as a plague upon it (Deut. 21:18–21);
f) in defense of the sixth: life, health, and the wholeness of the whole body and of every member in particular were safeguarded by the courts, and it was ordained to render life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, foot for foot, hand for hand, wound for wound, and so forth (Ex. 21:23–25; Lev. 24:19–29; Deut. 19:16–21);
g) in defense of the seventh: death for incest and, in general, for unchastity in every form (Ex. 22:16, 17; Lev. 26:10–21);
h) in defense of the eighth: the property of citizens, and every loss to it however small, was secured by a strict law of restitution (Ex. 21:33–36; 22:1–11; Lev. 24:21);
i) in defense of the ninth: a false witness, once convicted, was made to suffer the very punishment that would have fallen upon the one he had falsely accused, had that person been found guilty (Deut. 19:19). In defense of the tenth commandment alone—which forbade the very desires and thoughts contrary to love of neighbor—there were not, and could not be, any particular civil ordinances, since these, occupied as they are with the outward alone, can never extend to what is inward.
3) The necessity of such a safeguarding of the moral laws by civil laws, and of such severity of punishment for every offense against the faith, is fully explained:
a) from the character of the Hebrew people: the Hebrews, as their whole history attests, were prone to idolatry and, in general, to violating the will of their God, despite all His commandments, all His fatherly, surpassing love for them, all His miracles, His bounties and benefits—so that, after repeated experience, no other means remained for keeping them in obedience to the law except the fear of the strictest punishments (Ezek. 20:3–25; Tal. 3:19).158
b) from the Hebrews’ special appointed purpose: the Hebrew people was chosen in order to preserve within itself, amid the universal corruption of morals, the seeds of the true faith and God’s revelations for the whole human race: all the more, then, was it necessary to employ every means to keep this very people in faith and morality;
c) from the Hebrews’ special relation to God, who had given them such moral and political laws: God was pleased to be called, above all, their God; He cared for them more than for all other nations, cared for them as no father can care for his own children; He freed them from Egypt, worked a whole series of miracles for their sake, gave them for an inheritance a beautiful land flowing with honey and milk, and spared nothing for them. For such love and such benefits, was He not entitled to require of them more than of anyone else—to require the most perfect obedience and devotion to Himself? And did not the sons of Israel, for every act of disobedience to Him, truly deserve the penalty of death? They themselves fully recognized the justice of this when they voluntarily submitted to such strict laws, acknowledging God as their King and promising to endure every punishment for violating His will. It must be added that this very strictness of the law, which the Hebrews were unable to fulfill in its entirety, made them feel their unworthiness before God all the more deeply, and thereby stirred in them all the more strongly their faith in the promised Messiah, and made them long for His gracious coming.
§69. A Judgment on the High Worth of the Faith under the Law
Thus the Faith under the Law, in all its parts, bears upon itself the indelible stamp of the highest wisdom. The sole aim of this faith was to establish in the Israelites faith in the one, invisible God, the Creator and Provider of the universe, to teach them to honor Him worthily and to do His will in everything; to preserve in them, and through them for the whole world, faith and the promises of God concerning the future Deliverer of the world; and to form them into a truly pious people, as a holy seed for the sanctification of all mankind. Toward this end the law of faith was directly aimed, teaching so perfect a doctrine of God, man, and the Messiah, and the moral law, prescribing to man such pure rules of love toward God, neighbor, and himself; toward this, above all, the ceremonial law and the civil law were also aimed, so that the whole life of the Israelite, private and public, was permeated with the Faith, and the whole course of his actions was meant to be one unbroken service to God. In food and clothing, in the purity of body and household, Israel saw not merely a reminder of his God, but did His will. Israel dwelt in a beautiful land, but it was God’s; he had strong cities, good houses, but God had given them to him; the firstborn of every Israelite, and of his livestock, was God’s own possession, and every good thing in general he awaited and received directly from God. With God’s blessing he began the harvest, continued it in joy over that blessing, and finished it with living thanksgiving; he would not eat of the grain, nor taste of the fruit, without first consecrating a portion of it to the Lord. Made glad, he offered thank-offerings to God and prepared a feast, in which, besides his own household, there shared the widow and the orphan, the stranger and the Levite (Deut. 12:4–19); he ate and rejoiced before the Lord (16:11), not for the sake of satiety, but that he might learn to fear the Lord (Deut. 14:22–29). To the Lord, Israel consecrated the morning and evening of each day, the beginning of each month and each year: all his feasts, instituted in memory of the events that established his national independence, were ecclesial feasts, and in his sabbatical years and jubilees he exercised nothing but his own good will, either serving God or learning to serve Him. Israel tolerates nothing unclean, because his holy God dwells among him (Deut. 23:13–14; Lev. 13:46; 15:23). Israel has written laws, but these laws are from God; he has chiefs and judges, but God chooses them, and Himself decides much on their behalf. God is everything to Israel: both the King, to whom alone he pays tribute (Ex. 30:13–14), and the supreme Lawgiver, hallowing every law with His royal name (Lev. ch. 19–23), and the supreme Judge, deciding doubtful cases both mediately and immediately (Num. 21:1–11; Deut. 17:8–12, and others), and the chief Commander in war, appointing whom to fight, whom to spare, and whom to destroy utterly, Himself fighting on Israel’s behalf in battle, and receiving from them a portion of the spoil (Num. 33:37–44) and the like.
From whom, then, did Moses borrow such a wise arrangement, which he delivered to the people of Israel? He could not have borrowed it from any of the neighboring, or indeed any contemporary, nations: for at a time when all these nations were sunk in paganism and worshiped idols, Moses alone preached the doctrine of one God, a most perfect Spirit, forbidding all worship of graven images; at a time when all these nations walked in the lusts of their own hearts and were drowned in impiety, in keeping with their notions of their imaginary gods, Moses alone proclaimed the purest rules of morality, and found the surest means of all for sustaining it among his people. By the admission of the most learned pagans themselves, he gave the Israelites a Faith altogether unlike every other faith that existed in the world,159 gave them rites new and unknown to other peoples, and formed of the Jews a people wholly particular and distinct from all other peoples, among whom what was reckoned unclean elsewhere was accounted sacred, and what was forbidden elsewhere was permitted.160 Even the civil laws of Moses, when compared with the laws of the pagan nations contemporary with him, hold every advantage over those laws—not only as a wise means for the moral education of the people, but in their very substance, as purely political laws.161 If we ask concerning the origin of the Faith under the Law from Moses himself and from the Prophets, the continuers of his great work, if we ask all the Israelites who heard and saw Moses and the Prophets—we receive one and the same answer: that this whole teaching and arrangement, so perfect in itself, so unlike every other teaching and arrangement, derives its origin directly from God, and that Moses and the Prophets were only His messengers, the instruments of His revelations. This answer deserves the whole of our faith by the very nature of the subject in question: a faith such as the Faith under the Law is, in truth, fully worthy of God; but it deserves it especially because this faith is stamped, in the most tangible way, with the external, irrefutable marks of God’s true revelation as well.
B. THE EXTERNAL MARKS OF THE DIVINITY OF THE FAITH UNDER THE LAW
§70. Enumeration of Them
Here we mean:
a) the personal character of the divine lawgiver of the Hebrew people, Moses,
b) his miracles, and
c) his prophecies; then
d) the personal character of the Prophets who came after him,
e) their miracles, and
f) their prophecies.
§71. The Character of Moses
In the whole conduct of Moses one cannot detect the slightest shadow of self-love or self-interest. He despised all the splendors of the world at Pharaoh’s court, and withdrew into the land of Midian, where he spent a full forty years in obscurity, tending flocks; then, obeying the voice of God, he did not refuse, for another forty years, to endure in the wilderness every hardship and vexation, leading an unruly and ever-discontented people. Throughout this whole time Moses accepted, as he himself confesses in prayer to God, no gain whatsoever, either for himself or for his family, from the people for whom he sacrificed everything (Num. 16:15). And after so laborious and so publicly useful a life, going down to the grave, he bequeathed to his own descendants neither wealth nor honors, choosing as his successor Joshua, a man of another tribe. Nor did Moses spare himself in his own writings, setting down in them, for all future generations, his own weaknesses and imperfections, and taking not the least care to justify himself: thus he several times mentions his own sin, which shut him out from entering the promised land (Num. 20:12 and 24; Deut. 1:37); while of his own advantages—that, for example, at Pharaoh’s court he had been trained in his youth in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was afterward mighty in words and deeds (Acts 7:22)—of all this and the like162 he said not a word. And how ardently, at the same time, did Moses love his own native people! For this people, ungrateful and unworthy as it was, he gladly bore, for forty years, every privation, labor, and vexation in the wilderness, and was even ready to be blotted out of the book in which God had written him (Ex. 32:32). What a zeal for God continually consumed this extraordinary man! It was not enough for him to have delivered to the Israelites the whole will of God in the Sinai legislation; in the time that followed he ceaselessly reminded them of this most holy will as well: on every occasion he addressed them with speeches, stirred them to piety, taught them the worship of God, and turned them from vice. Finally, he devoted even the last moments of his life to this very same end: in a farewell, moving address to the Israelites, he implored them, by heaven and earth, to remain faithful to the God of their fathers. With such a lofty moral character—one that involuntarily inspires confidence in him and removes every suspicion of deceit—Moses moreover performed, in confirmation of his divine mission, numerous miracles.
§72. The Miracles of Moses
I. These miracles can be divided into two classes: some were performed through Moses himself; others were performed only for Moses—directly by God’s own power, that is, to attest that he was indeed acting not on his own but by commission from God. To the first belong the signs Moses performed before the elders of Israel in Egypt, which won their trust in him; the turning of his rod into a serpent before Pharaoh; the ten plagues that followed, each of which was foretold by Moses, began and ended at his word, and, while falling upon the Egyptians, did not fall upon the sons of Israel; the crossing of the Red Sea, divided by Moses’ rod for the Hebrews and then swallowing up all the Egyptians; the sweetening of the bitter waters of Marah by a piece of wood; the bringing forth of water from the rock at Horeb; the victory over the Amalekites through Moses’ prayer, and others. The signs and miracles performed at the same time directly by God Himself are: the burning bush, in which He was pleased to appear to Moses, burning yet not consumed; the pillar of cloud, which, throughout the whole wandering of the Hebrews in the wilderness, showed them the way, appointed the place and time for rest, overshadowed them by day, and gave them light by night; the manna, descending from heaven every morning, which on the first five days of the week was gathered in a measure proportioned to daily use, and on the sixth in double measure, remaining unspoiled from the previous day only on the sabbath; the smoke, lightning, thunder, flame, earthquake, and trumpet blast that marked God’s presence on Mount Sinai during the giving of the law; the punishment of Nadab and Abihu, Aaron’s sons, for offering incense from strange fire; the punishments that overtook Korah, Dathan, and Abiram with their fellow conspirators; likewise the repeated punishments—now by sudden fire, now by plague, now by serpents—that struck whole thousands of the Israelites for their murmuring, disobedience, and rebellion against Moses; and healing from the bite of serpents through a mere look at the bronze image of a serpent, raised up by Moses at God’s command, and the like.
II. The historical reliability of all these miracles is vouched for by:
1) The testimony concerning them of Moses himself, of his successor Joshua, and of the later sacred Jewish writers. The testimony of Moses himself is important here: he speaks of these miracles solemnly before all the Israelites, as before eyewitnesses; by these signs of God he urged them to remain faithful to the God of their fathers, and at the same time reproached them for their disobedience to Him and their ingratitude (Ex. 19:4; Deut. ch. 32, and others). How, then, would Moses have dared to act in this way, if nothing of the kind had happened? How would he have ventured to tell his own contemporaries of such wondrous deeds, which he had never in fact performed? And how could this whole people, numbering about two million, have been so foolish as to believe so obvious a fabrication? And yet the Hebrews believed Moses’ words; they accepted from their lawgiver’s own hands all his books, in which his miracles are recounted in detail, and accepted them, moreover, with complete faith and reverence. What does this mean? Suppose Moses had somehow flattered the Israelites in his Pentateuch, wishing thereby to win them over: but instead of currying the Hebrews’ favor by flattery, he ceaselessly reproaches them for their stiff-neckedness and hardness of heart, for their ingratitude toward God, for their rebellions, for their idolatry. Moses did not even spare the tribe of Reuben in particular, describing in detail the sin of that tribe’s ancestor, for which he was so heavily rebuked by his grieved father (Gen. 35:22; 49:3); nor did he spare the tribe of Judah, depicting Judah’s own transgression, which had such shameful consequences (Gen. ch. 38).163 If, then, despite all this, the Jews accepted Moses’ Pentateuch from him with the greatest reverence, this is a clear sign that they fully recognized the truthfulness of the whole content of these books, and by their assent bore witness to the reliability of all the miracles Moses described. Important to us, too, is the testimony of Moses’ successor Joshua—on the one hand as the testimony of an eyewitness to all these miracles, and on the other because it is confirmed by the agreement of countless other eyewitnesses. Drawing near to his own grave, Joshua gathers all the tribes of Israel at Shechem, and, charging them to remain faithful to Jehovah, reminds them of the signs God performed for them and before their own eyes in Egypt and in the wilderness — and the people answered and said: far be it from us to forsake the Lord to serve other gods. For the Lord our God, He is God; He brought us and our fathers up out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, He who did these great signs before our eyes (Josh. 24:16–17). The testimony of the later Jewish writers is important too, for it shows us that not only in the days of Moses and Joshua, but in every later age as well, the Hebrews continually believed in the miracles of Moses and passed on their memory from generation to generation. These miracles are spoken of in the book of Judges (2:1–12; 6:9–13); they are afterward sung by the crowned Singer of Israel (Ps. 77:12–56; 105:5–25; 135:10–23, and others), and his inspired songs, for whole ages, resounded beneath the vaults of the Jerusalem temple, in the hearing of many successive generations of the Jewish people. An account of Moses’ miracles occurs in the book of Judith (5:11–16) and in the book of the Wisdom of Solomon (10:15–21); and the Prophets, too, not infrequently remind the ungrateful people of Israel of them (Is. 51:9–11; 63:11–15; Jer. 32:20, 21).
2) Certain ordinances, festivals, and sacred songs of the Hebrews, preserved to this day as living memorials of Moses’ miracles and of other events contemporary with him. To this day the Jews celebrate their Passover, which speaks to them plainly of their exodus from Egypt and their crossing of the Red Sea; to this day they sing, to the glory of the God of their fathers, the exalted Song of Moses, which was sung by their ancestors after that crossing of the sea. The feast of Pentecost, kept by the Hebrews, still brings to mind today the solemn giving of the law at Sinai; the Feast of Tabernacles recalls their wonder-filled journey through the Arabian wilderness. Many other memorials, even if they have not survived to this day, nonetheless for a long time reminded posterity of the wondrous events that took place under Moses. Such were: the two stone tablets on which the ten commandments were inscribed; the golden jar with the miraculous manna, and Aaron’s miraculous rod, kept in the tabernacle, by God’s command, as a sign for later generations (Ex. 16:33–36 and Num. 17:10); the beaten plates made from the bronze censers of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, which served as a covering for the altar, likewise as a sign to the sons of Israel (Num. 16:37–40); and the bronze serpent, raised up by Moses for the healing of those bitten by serpents, and preserved down to the time of Hezekiah, king of Israel (2 Kings 18:4).
3) The whole history of the people of Israel, from the time of their exodus from Egypt to the death of Moses. For it presents nothing other than a series of actions brought about by the miracles of Moses. How did the Jews come to entrust themselves to Moses, and, despite their weakness and exhaustion from their heavy labors in Egypt, resolve to go with him to fight numerous and warlike peoples for the promised land? If not altogether impossible, it is, at the very least, exceedingly difficult to explain this event unless we grant that Moses had already convinced the Israelites, by his miracles, of God’s special help toward them. How did the king of Egypt come to consent, without any bloodshed, to lose all at once about two million of his subjects, who had formerly performed all the hard labor of his kingdom? This is altogether inexplicable unless we grant that the leader of Israel wrung this bitter consent from Pharaoh by his terrifying miracles. How could the whole Hebrew people, for forty years, have survived in the barren Arabian desert, which offers almost nothing in the way of food or drink, if it is not true that they were continually fed by the miraculous manna falling from heaven, and received drink from the rocks in time of need? How did the Israelite people, unruly and rebellious as they were, humbly accept from Moses such strict laws, threatening death for almost every sin? How did this people, who several times rose up against Moses, never strip him of his power and authority, but instead, again and again, submit themselves to him in full obedience? Miracles, and miracles alone, of Moses could have produced such effects.
4) The memory of these miracles was preserved among the pagan nations as well. Josephus, in his work Against Apion, testifies that the Egyptians themselves regarded Moses as a wondrous and divine man (ἀνδρα θαυμαστόν καὶ θεῖον);164 Artapanus, praised by Eusebius, records a tradition preserved among the people of Hierapolis concerning the Israelites’ crossing of the Red Sea, a tradition agreeing in every respect with Moses’ own account;165 Numenius, the Pythagorean philosopher, relates that the Egyptians, wishing to check the plagues with which Moses—a man exceedingly powerful in prayer before God—struck them, set against him their two renowned magicians, Jannes and Jambres;166 Pliny,167 Apollonius Molon,168 Celsus,169 and others handed down the tradition that Moses was a magician who surpassed all magicians in his art.170
III. Equally evident is the reliability of Moses’ miracles as supernatural events. It is evident —
1) From the very nature of these miracles: all of them, indisputably, exceed the power and capacity of man, and could in no way have been produced by natural means through the instruments Moses used to perform them. All nature obeyed his single word, or a mere gesture of his hand, when he struck Egypt with the ten terrible plagues. In particular there obeyed him: the heavens, which sent down every day manna of a miraculous nature to feed the Israelites in the wilderness; the earth, which more than once opened its depths and swallowed up the guilty; the sea, which opened its floor for the Israelites to cross and became a grave for the Egyptians who pursued them; the rocks, which poured forth water. How, then, can it be thought that all this took place without God’s own special cooperation?
2) From the manner of their performance and the circumstances amid which they occurred. Moses performed his miracles without any preparation whatever, by a single word, or a gesture of the hand, or a prayer to God; he performed them not secretly before a few witnesses, but openly—some before the eyes of two whole nations, Egypt and Israel, and others before the eyes of all Israel, or at least of its elders. Moses sought out no special places for this, nor did he wait for opportune moments, but worked miracles always and everywhere, the moment a need for them arose. Some of these miracles (the manna, the pillar of cloud) continued uninterruptedly for a full forty years before the eyes of all Israel, and all of them, taken together, were exceedingly varied among themselves—which undermines every suspicion of fraud.
3) From their purpose. The purpose of Moses’ miracles was to show that Moses was truly God’s messenger, that Jehovah was truly God, and that, consequently, the faith given to the Israelites through Moses was a true divine revelation. If they will not believe me, nor heed my voice, for they will say, God has not appeared to you—what shall I say to them? — thus Moses questioned God, when sent by Him to bring the Israelites out of Egypt. Then God, having worked two miracles before him, said: if they will not believe you, nor heed the voice of the first sign, they will believe you because of the voice of the second sign (Ex. 4:1–9). And experience soon bore this out: when Moses performed the signs before the people, the people indeed believed him, and rejoiced, for God had visited the sons of Israel (Ex. 4:30–31). Some time later God said again to Moses: I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt… — and all the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord (Ex. 7:3–5); and a little further on: go in to Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that these signs of mine may yet come upon them, so that you may tell in the hearing of your children and your children’s children how I made a mockery of the Egyptians, and my signs which I worked among them, and you shall know that I am the Lord (Ex. 10:1–3).
A detailed examination of Moses’ miracles shows that each of them, besides this general purpose, also had its own particular purpose, which was always most beneficial, or even necessary, for the people of God (the crossing of the Red Sea, the manna, the bronze serpent, and the like).
§73. The Prophecies of Moses
Moses, the great wonder-worker, was at the same time a great prophet. Of his numerous prophecies it is enough to point to a few:
1) He foretold most of the miracles he performed in Egypt and in the wilderness, such as:
a) each of the ten plagues of Egypt, their beginning and their end (Ex. ch. 7–11), for example: thus says the Lord: by this you shall know that I am the Lord: behold, I will strike with the rod that is in my hand upon the water of the river, and it shall be turned into blood (7:17) — and Moses and Aaron did so, as the Lord commanded them…, and he turned all the water of the river into blood (v. 20);
b) God’s sending of quail as food for the Israelites: the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: I have heard the murmuring of the sons of Israel; say to them: in the evening you shall eat meat… and you shall know that I am the Lord your God; and it was evening, and quail came up and covered the camp (Ex. 16:11–13);
c) the death of all the Israelites in the wilderness, beginning with those twenty years old, except Joshua and Caleb: your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness, and all of you who were numbered, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, who have murmured against me…, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun (Num. 14:29–30)—and indeed, at the third census, taken in the plains of Moab and by Jericho, there was already not a man of those numbered by Moses and Aaron in the wilderness of Sinai…; not one of them remained, except Caleb and Joshua the son of Nun (Num. 26:64–65);
d) the unhappy fate of Korah and all his fellow conspirators (Num. 16:28–32), and the like. At the very first glance at all these predictions—at their subject matter, their precision, and their fulfillment—their complete reliability becomes evident.
2) Having given the Israelites the law of celebrating the sabbatical (seventh) year, of not tilling the fields in that year, of not gathering the grapes, and of leaving whatever the land produced of itself for the servants and the animals (Lev. 25:4–8), Moses continues, in God’s own voice: and if you say, what shall we eat in this seventh year, if we do not sow nor gather in our produce? Then I will send my blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall yield produce enough for three years: and you shall sow in the eighth year, and eat of the old produce until the ninth year; until its fruit comes in, you shall eat the old store (vv. 20–23). And this—in a certain sense a miracle, by which, every sixth year after a sabbatical year, the land of Judea yielded the most abundant produce, enough for three whole years—continued for several centuries: the Hebrews kept the sabbatical year down to a very late period (1 Macc. 6:49)—so much so that, by Josephus’s testimony, Alexander the Great, and afterward the Romans, once they had taken possession of Palestine, did not collect tribute from the Jews, at their request, in the sabbatical years.171 Who, then, could have given the Israelites such a law? Who could have promised them that in every sixth year their land would yield the most abundant harvest? Who could have foreseen this? Suppose Moses himself knew the fertility of Palestine; but he also knew that it was not infrequently barren, and that famine raged in it—as he himself describes (Gen. 12:10; 26:1; 42:5; 47:4): how, then, would he have dared to assure the Israelites that at certain fixed times their land would without fail be most fruitful—that precisely in the sixth year after a sabbatical year it would bring them fruit enough for three whole years, and that therefore, in the seventh year, the Hebrews should sow nothing at all? All this could be foreseen, all this could be guaranteed, only by Him in whose right hand is power over nature, and who alone is able to fulfill such a prophecy.
3) Moses promised the Israelites that God would one day raise up for them a Prophet like himself: the Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brethren, like me; him you shall heed (Deut. 18:15). Without yet saying to whom exactly this prophecy refers, we must acknowledge that Moses could not have uttered it of himself—that is, he could not, on natural grounds, have promised the Jews that another true prophet would in time arise among them: for the appearance of true prophets is an extraordinary, supernatural matter, and depends wholly on God alone. Consequently, by this feature alone, one cannot fail to see a true prophecy here. But since, moreover, of all the prophets who followed in Israel, the Messiah alone—the God-man in the strict sense—was like Moses in the quality of a mediator between God and men, in the quality of a deliverer of the new Israel from spiritual Egypt, in the quality of a lawgiver and at the same time a King, or supreme Master, and in the extraordinary abundance of miracles: this means that Moses uttered this prophecy some fifteen centuries before the event.172
4) Taking leave of the Israelites before his death, Moses assures them that, if they remain faithful to the God of their fathers, if they diligently heed the voice of the Lord their God, to keep and do all His commandments, then He will send down upon them all His blessings, make them the happiest nation on earth, subdue their enemies before them, and work for His faithful people the same signs and wonders He had worked for them in Egypt and the wilderness. This indeed came to pass under Joshua, under Samson, under Gideon, under Hezekiah, and others. But if, on the contrary, they do not heed the voice of the Lord their God, to keep and do all His commandments, if they are unfaithful to their God: then all the curses and blows of heaven’s justice will strike them; the Lord will then bring against them enemies, and especially a nation from far off, from the end of the earth, swooping down like an eagle (the Romans), which will crush them in all their cities, tear down their high and strong walls, afflict and distress them to such a degree that a tender young wife will secretly eat her own child for want of everything else—and the Lord will then bring upon them great and wondrous plagues and grievous sicknesses, and they will be left few in number, and be plucked from their native land, and the Lord God will bring them back to Egypt in ships, and they will be sold there to their enemies as slaves and bondwomen; and at the same time the Lord God will scatter them among all the nations, from one end of the earth to the other, and they will become there a byword, a proverb, and a taunt, and the Lord will give them there a sorrowful heart, and failing eyes, and a pining soul, and so on, and so on (Deut. ch. 28, cf. ch. 32, and Lev. ch. 26). All this was fulfilled in detail during the Babylonian captivity, and began to be fulfilled with full force and precision at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and continues to be fulfilled even to this day in the whole subsequent condition of the Jews… A prophecy astonishing in the highest degree! How many centuries before the event was it uttered! And yet it was uttered with such clarity and detail, as though Moses himself had been an eyewitness of these dreadful events and had written them down only after they occurred.173
Consequently the whole history of the people of Israel, from the beginning of their exodus from Egypt down to the present day, is, in a certain sense, a single sum of proofs of the divinity of the faith given by God through Moses. For what does this history present? From the beginning of the Hebrews’ exodus from Egypt to the death of Moses, it presents a series of the miracles of Moses; and from the death of Moses to our own day, a series of events fully vindicating his prophecies.
§74. The Character of the Prophets
All the Prophets who followed were likewise distinguished by the same lofty moral character we have seen in Moses, the divine lawgiver of the Hebrew people—Prophets whom God sent to His people continually, and in such numbers, especially from the days of Samuel down to the second temple, that this age may with full justice be called the prophetic period.174
Complete self-denial and disinterestedness, the most ardent zeal for God’s glory and for the happiness of one’s neighbors—both temporal and eternal—were the distinguishing marks of all the Prophets. The aim of their service, to which they were called by the word of Jehovah (Jer. 1:2 and 4; Ezek. 1:3), was to be servants and messengers of God (2 Kings 17:13, 23; 2 Chron. 35:5; Jer. 25:4; Hag. 1:13; Judg. 2:1), watchmen of the house of Israel (Ezek. 3:17; 33:7), to make known to their countrymen the will of God in all its forms, to instruct, admonish, reprove, warn, console, and, in general, to form them in true faith in God and in the promised Messiah. In keeping with so lofty a purpose, the Prophets, the moment they were called to their office, at once set aside their ordinary worldly cares, so as to devote themselves more readily and more completely to their new service. For the most part they left even their families, their property, their very native country. I am no prophet, I am a man who tills the ground (Zech. 13:5), said one false prophet of himself, disowning the title he had stolen—and by this very disavowal he bore witness that ordinary worldly occupations and cares were regarded as incompatible with this lofty calling. Elisha, the moment he heard God’s call, at once left his field (1 Kings 19:20); Amos, his flock (Amos 7:15); Jeremiah, the privileges of his priestly birth (Jer. 1:1).
From that time they began their poor, wandering life, and, without any settled dwelling, went about with their heavenly preaching from city to city, from village to village. Hear the word of the Lord (1 Kings 22:19; Is. 1:10; Ezek. 13:2), they cried, appearing everywhere as messengers of God, and this word was spoken by them in royal palaces (Ex. 38:1–4; 2 Sam. 12:7) and in the house of an artisan (Jer. 17:1–4), in the court of the temple, before numerous hearers (Jer. 26:2–8), and amid private conversation (1 Kings 13:20; 2 Kings 6:32), or in prison confinement (Jer. 33:1). They seemed to forget themselves entirely and their own bodily needs during this time, and their freedom from acquisitiveness was so well known that even kings did not venture to offer them rich gifts: not talents of silver or gold, but a few loaves and a jar of honey, did Jeroboam, king of Israel, once send to the prophet Ahijah (1 Kings 14:3). Never did they flatter kings or a people that wished to hear from prophetic lips only human flattery (Is. 30:9–10); on the contrary, they ceaselessly preached the word of God to every single person, however bitter and hard it might seem to their hearers. In vain did their corrupted contemporaries say to them: do not prophesy, do not tell us, do not speak (Amos 2:12; 7:12 and 13; Is. 30:10); in vain did their persecutors assail them with threats, reproaches, and plots (Jer. 11:21; 5:13; 20:10; 26:8), shut them up in prisons (1 Kings 22:6–27), and subjected them to various sufferings (Jer. 20:2; 26:20–23): nothing could shut the mouths of the servants of God who did the will of their heavenly Master, and many of them sealed their fidelity to their calling with their own blood (Matt. 23:30, 31; Acts 7:52).
§75. The Miracles of the Prophets
I. The Lord God was pleased to invest these messengers of His with manifold signs and miracles, in witness of their heavenly commission. Best known in this regard, above all others, are:
a) Joshua, who stopped the waters of the Jordan and led the Israelites across its dry bed, who destroyed the walls of Jericho by the sound of trumpets and the shouting of the whole people, and who stopped the sun and the moon during the war with the Canaanites;
b) Elijah, who for about two years fed the widow of Zarephath and her whole household with a handful of flour and a small quantity of oil, who raised her son to life, who brought down fire from heaven upon his sacrifice, and who himself was taken up, as it were, into heaven (2 Kings 2:11);
c) Elisha, who performed two resurrections—one during his life, the other after his own death, by the mere touch of his bones—who healed the Syrian commander Naaman of leprosy, and so forth; finally —
d) Isaiah, who caused the sun’s shadow to go back ten steps before the eyes of King Hezekiah, and who, by the power of his prayer joined to the prayer of that pious king, miraculously destroyed in a single night 185,000 men of the Assyrian army besieging Jerusalem.
II. That all the miracles of the Prophets are miracles in the proper sense—that is, that they are supernatural events—is evident —
1) From their very nature. To stop the motion of a heavenly body or the flow of a river, to raise the dead, to bring down fire from heaven, and the like—all these are, evidently, actions that entirely exceed the natural powers of man, and can be produced only by the supernatural power of God.
2) From the manner of their performance. The Prophets performed their miracles openly before all—Joshua, for example, in the presence of all Israel and its enemies; Elijah, in the presence of the king, a great multitude of the people, and the hostile prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:21); they performed them by a single word, or by prayer to God, or by touch, and in general by such means from which no one could possibly have expected such effects; and they performed them without being tied to any fixed place or time, but everywhere, as occasion arose.
3) From their purpose. The chief purpose of these miracles was always the God of Israel, and consequently the worthiness of the faith He had given to the Israelites. On Mount Carmel, Elijah invites the prophets of Baal to perform a solemn miracle for the very purpose of deciding whether Jehovah or Baal is the true God: call, he says to them, upon the names of your gods, and I will call upon the name of the Lord my God, and the God who answers by fire, he is God (1 Kings 18:24). Then, turning to God, he cries out: hear me, Lord, hear me by fire, that this people may know that you alone are the Lord God (v. 37). And when, indeed, as a result of this fervent prayer, fire fell from the Lord out of heaven and consumed the burnt offering, and the wood, and the water that was in the trench, and licked up the stones and the dust with fire — all the people fell on their faces, and said: the Lord, he is truly God (vv. 38–39). Naaman the Syrian, healed of his leprosy by Elisha, likewise confesses before him: now I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel (2 Kings 5:15).
III. And as proof that all these miracles are historically reliable, there serve —
1) The testimony of all the sons of Israel: they accepted, and to this day hold, the sacred books in which the accounts of these miracles are set forth. And it must be noted that
a) the books were accepted by the Jews from the hands of the writers themselves, and consequently by Jews contemporary with them;
b) they were accepted with the greatest reverence, and consequently with full confidence in their truthfulness; and
c) that this reverence and confidence were handed down by their forefathers to every succeeding generation, and remain in full force down to the present day. It must be added that these books contain strong reproaches against the Jews for their ingratitude and unfaithfulness to the God of their fathers, for their extreme impiety and idolatry, and pronounce fearsome threats against the apostate nation: how, then, could this people have accepted and preserved, with the greatest reverence, books so shameful to itself, unless it were fully conscious of the striking justice of their whole content? Yet the Jews put to death the Prophets who rebuked them, while preserving, as a great treasure, the very writings that recount, among other things, their miracles!..
2) The testimony of foreign nations: from them, of course, one cannot expect testimony to all the prophetic miracles, most of which took place in the midst of Israel alone; but it is natural to expect testimony to those signs that occurred, one might say, before the eyes of the whole world—such as, for example, the miracle of Joshua’s stopping the sun. Of this miracle, worldwide in scope, traditions have indeed been preserved among very many peoples, not only in Asia, Africa, and Europe, but in America as well—namely, among the Arabs, the Egyptians, the Indians, the Chinese, the Greeks (in Homer, Herodotus, Xenophanes, and Plato), the Romans (in Virgil and Varro), the peoples of Florida, and the Otaheitans.175 Such universality of tradition concerning one of the greatest of the prophetic miracles, without doubt, incontestably confirms its reliability.176
§76. Their Prophecies
The chief, distinguishing mark by which the Prophets bore witness, above all, to their divine commission—and from which they took their very name—is their prophecies. These prophecies are exceedingly numerous and varied. They concerned the fate of whole kingdoms and nations—the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, the kingdoms of Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and others; the fate of cities, such as Tyre and Nineveh; the fate of private persons, and not infrequently the detailed circumstances of their lives. But the first and most important subject of the prophetic predictions was always the Messiah promised by God—the center and goal of the whole Old Testament economy. It is on these predictions of this last kind that we shall here fix our attention, considering it unnecessary to examine all the rest, which, given their great number, would carry us too far afield.177 We choose these prophecies, and not the others, on the one hand for the special importance of their subject, and on the other for their special closeness to our purpose: having been uttered by the Prophets in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New in the very Author and Perfecter of our faith, they serve at one and the same time as proofs of the divinity of both the Old Testament revelation and the New, and consequently a survey of them presents the most natural transition from the present treatise to the one that follows.
Nevertheless, even the prophecies concerning the Messiah alone are exceedingly numerous, so that an examination of all of them, even a brief one, would require a whole vast work.178 For this reason, from among these prophecies we shall choose only a few—the most important and the most evident—arranging them, for greater ease of survey, under certain known classes.
§77. Prophecies Determining the Time of the Messiah’s Coming
Here belong:
a) Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks, or more precisely, the prophecy uttered by the Archangel Gabriel to Daniel, and
b) the prophecies of Haggai and Malachi concerning the glory of the second Jerusalem temple, into which the Messiah was to come.
§78. a) Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks
I. This prophecy, as well as the occasion on which it was uttered, is set forth in the ninth chapter of the book of the prophet Daniel.
While in the Babylonian captivity together with his countrymen, and having learned from the book of the prophet Jeremiah that God had appointed seventy years for this captivity, which were already drawing to their end, St. Daniel once gave himself to the most fervent prayer. He confessed before the Almighty that the Jews, for their sins, fully deserved His wrath and the calamities with which He would strike them; but at the same time he implored Him to make His face shine upon the sanctuary, desolate in Jerusalem, and to spare the city and the people upon whom His holy name was called. In these very moments, while St. Daniel was still praying, the Archangel Gabriel suddenly stood before him and said: Daniel, I have now come forth to give you understanding. At the beginning of your supplication a word went forth, and I have come to declare it to you, for you are a man held dear; consider the word, and understand the vision. Seventy weeks are appointed for your people (from the original: determined for your people) and for your holy city, that transgression may be worn away, and sin may come to an end, and sins may be sealed up, and wrongs may be blotted out, and iniquities may be cleansed, and everlasting righteousness may be brought in: and vision and prophet may be sealed, and the Holy of Holies may be anointed. And you shall know and understand, from the going forth of the word to answer and to build Jerusalem again (that is: know and understand—from the issuing of the decree concerning the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem) to the coming of an Anointed One, a Prince, there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and it shall be built again, with square and rampart, and the years shall be cut short (that is: the squares and the surrounding rampart will be rebuilt and restored, and this amid straitened times). And after the sixty-two weeks the anointed one shall be cut off, and judgment shall not be his (that is: Christ will be put to death—and not for Himself): and the city and the sanctuary shall be laid waste together with the coming prince, and they shall be destroyed as by a flood, and to the end of the war desolations are determined by decree (that is: afterward the city and the sanctuary will be destroyed by a people under a coming leader, and they will be swept away as by a flood, and desolations are appointed until the end of the war). And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week: and in the middle of the week the sacrifice and the offering shall be taken away, and upon the sanctuary shall be the abomination of desolation, and even to the consummation of time the appointed end shall be poured out upon the desolate place (that is: and near the wing, or roof, of the temple, the abominations of the desolator will be set up, and even to the end of the age the temple, together with the city, will be given over to desolation).
It is evident that the Archangel’s speech concerns future events, and corresponds fully to Daniel’s prayer. Daniel prayed for the holy temple of Jerusalem, for Jerusalem itself, and for the whole Jewish people: and so the Archangel discloses to the Prophet, in God’s name, their whole future fate; but with this he inseparably joins a discourse concerning the coming of the Messiah, His death, and the fruits of that death. The sense of the prophecy is precisely this: “seventy weeks—that is, four hundred and ninety years—are appointed for the Jewish people and for the Holy City, until the Holy of Holies comes, blots out iniquities, brings in everlasting righteousness, and fulfills in Himself all the prophecies. The beginning of these weeks will be marked by the issuing of the decree concerning the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple; their end, by a new devastation of both. In the order of events these weeks will unfold as follows: during the first seven weeks (that is, 49 years) Jerusalem and the temple will be restored, amid very straitened circumstances; after the sixty-two weeks that then follow, Christ will be put to death, and put to death not for Himself; during the final week a New Covenant will be confirmed for many, and in the middle of this week the sacrifices will cease, and in the sanctuary there will be the abomination of desolation. Then a people, led by a prince, will come, will destroy the holy city and the temple, and these will be given over to desolation even to the end of the age.”
II. Bearing in mind this general sense of the prophecy, we shall, in keeping with our own particular purpose, endeavor to show that it indeed —
1) refers to the Messiah,
2) determines the time of His coming, and
3) was fulfilled precisely in Christ the Savior.
1) The truth of the first proposition is evident from the very content of the prophecy. In it there is spoken of —
a) At first, indefinitely: of some Person who was to come, who would blot out wrongs, cleanse iniquities, and bring everlasting righteousness to the earth. But all these are such acts as, according to the teaching of the Old Testament (see, for example, Is. 61:1; Zech. 3:8; Mal. ch. 3–4), only the one coming Messiah was to accomplish, so that the holy Apostle Peter did not hesitate to say: of Him all the prophets bear witness, that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:43).
b) Then—far more clearly: this Person is called the Holy of Holies, who is to be anointed, and in whom all the prophecies will be fulfilled, or sealed. But the Holy of Holies—that is, the Most Holy One—could be, and indeed is, called this above all others (Ex. 12:6; Ps. 15:10) only of the Messiah;179 it was foretold of Him that, according to His humanity, He would indeed be anointed with the Holy Spirit (Is. 61:1; Ps. 44:8), and in Him alone could all the Old Testament prophecies be fulfilled, brought to their end, and sealed, since He was their chief subject and goal (Rom. 10:4)
c) Finally—now with complete clarity: this Holy of Holies is called directly Christ the Prince, or Leader, who will be put to death not for Himself, and who will confirm the New Covenant. The name Christ, or Anointed One, though in Holy Scripture sometimes ascribed to other persons as well, was, above all, always claimed by the Jews for the Messiah, as belonging to Him exclusively. Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ (John 1:25), the Pharisees asked John the Baptist, in whom they had at first thought to see the Messiah. I know that the Messiah is coming, who is called Christ (John 4:25), said the Samaritan woman to the Savior. You are the Christ, said the holy Apostle Peter to Him as well (Mark 8:29), wishing to confess Him as the promised Messiah. And the Messiah, indeed, was to taste death, according to the ancient prophecies, not for Himself, but for the sins of men (Is. ch. 53), and by His death to establish the New Covenant on earth (Is. 42:6; 49:8), for which reason He is called the Angel of the Covenant (Mal. 3:1).
It must be added that all the features of the prophecy we have examined must be taken not each separately and outside the structure of the speech, but all together and in keeping with the connected sense of the whole discourse: in that case no one will be able to point us to any person in the whole history of mankind to whom these features could fully apply, except the Messiah alone.
This same conclusion is confirmed also by the agreement of the ancient Jewish synagogue, which we can see in the testimonies of the rabbis. One of them (Manasseh) plainly admits that his fellow countrymen referred Daniel’s prophecy of the weeks to the Messiah, and that this conviction was shared by all those Jews who, in the days of Vespasian and Titus, took up arms against the Romans.180 Another (Mordecai) states that the Messiah is the one to whose coming Daniel’s weeks lead.181 Some assert that the Messiah must bring in everlasting righteousness, that He Himself is everlasting Righteousness, is the Holy of Holies — evidently borrowing these expressions from Daniel’s prophecy.182 Still others relate a story that Jonathan ben Uzziel, who wrote a paraphrase of the Prophets, was forbidden from on high to write a similar paraphrase of the Hagiographa (among which the Jews reckon the book of the prophet Daniel), precisely because the time of the Messiah’s coming is determined there.183
2) From these testimonies the truth of the second proposition, too, already emerges in part—namely, that Daniel’s prophecy, in referring to the Messiah, determines precisely the time of His coming. But this truth is seen still more clearly:
a) From the very content of the prophecy. Here it speaks in an entirely definite way of a period of time comprising seventy weeks; this period is divided into three equally definite parts: seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week, itself subdivided into two halves. More than that—here is indicated even the terminus from which the reckoning of the weeks is to begin, and another terminus at which it is to end.
b) From the connection of the discourse. Daniel, as is related in the ninth chapter of his book, having learned from Jeremiah’s prophecy that God had appointed seventy years for the Babylonian captivity, and seeing their end drawing near, began to pray fervently to God for the Jews’ forgiveness, for their return to their homeland, for the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple. Gabriel, who appeared to Daniel at this time, reveals to him that the Jews will be forgiven, and that for them, as well as for the existence of their Holy City, seventy weeks are appointed by God. Is there not, here, an evident correspondence to those seventy years of the Babylonian captivity mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, and with which Daniel’s mind was occupied in the moments of his prayer? And if those seventy years, without any doubt, meant a definite span of time, as Daniel himself understood them, then it would be strange to suppose that the seventy weeks mean some indefinite period.
3) In order, finally, to show the truth of the third proposition, it is necessary, first, to clarify how Daniel’s weeks are to be understood; second, from what time their reckoning is to begin; and only then to apply the prophecy to the events, whence it will become evident that it was fulfilled in Christ the Savior.
a) Two kinds of weeks were known among the Jews: weeks of days (Dan. 10:2) and weeks of years (Lev. 25:8). Moreover, more recent rabbis maintain that in Daniel one must understand weeks of seven-year periods, each of which ended in a jubilee year and contained 49 years apiece, or even weeks of centuries. But it cannot be admitted either that Daniel’s prophecy means weeks of days, or simple weeks, or that it means here weeks of seven-year periods, or of jubilees, still less weeks of centuries.
The first cannot be admitted: for in that case the seventy weeks would comprise only 490 days; and in so short a time the events that, according to the prophecy, were to take place within the weeks could in no way have occurred; in particular, Jerusalem and the temple, for whose restoration seven weeks are appointed, and that amid straitened circumstances, would have had to rise from their ruins within 49 days—which is not at all borne out by history. It is also noteworthy that throughout the whole book of the prophet Daniel, whenever a week is called a sedmina, the word days is added to it (Dan. 10:2–3); but in the prophecy we are examining, this addition is absent.
Nor can the second be admitted: for in that case the Jews would have had to spend, on the building of the temple, either 343 years, if weeks of jubilees are meant, or 4,900 years, if weeks of centuries are taken—totals equally refuted by history. Further: when the Archangel Gabriel communicated the prophecy to Daniel, he spoke, of course, so that Daniel might understand it; and Daniel, in delivering the prophecy he had received to the Jews, wished, of course, that they too should understand it, and thereupon duly prepare themselves to receive the Messiah at the appointed time. But it is evident that neither would the Jews have understood Daniel, nor Daniel Gabriel, if by weeks were meant weeks of jubilees or of centuries—weeks never at all in use among the Jews; and both Daniel and the Jews would have been led into error by the Archangel: they would have begun to expect, in the near future, an event that was, in fact, to take place far later—after several centuries, or even millennia.
It remains to agree that by weeks are to be understood weeks of years; these weeks were known to the Jews by the law’s own prescription: you shall count for yourself seven sabbaths of years, seven times seven years: and there shall be to you seven weeks of years, forty-nine years (Lev. 25:8), and they indeed represent just such a period of time (490 years) within which the events predicted in the prophecy could take place. Thus we know, from the book of Ezra and from Josephus’s history, that the neighboring nations hindered the building of the new Jerusalem temple by every means—now by slanders and intrigues at the Persian court, now even by armed force; and so it is no wonder that the building of the temple lasted 49 years, or seven weeks, in accordance with the prophecy.
b) The terminus from which the reckoning of the weeks is to be counted is indicated in the prophecy by the words: from the going forth of the word to answer and to build Jerusalem again — that is, from the going forth, or issuing, of the decree concerning the restoration and building of Jerusalem. But of the four decrees given, after Daniel’s prophecy, by the Persian kings in favor of the Jews, none of the following can be meant here:
aa) not the decree of Cyrus (1 Ezra 6:3): for it permitted the Jews not to build Jerusalem, but only to build the temple; and it is known that the Jews who returned from captivity at that time lived in their own cities, and not in Jerusalem, to which they gathered only for the offering of sacrifices (1 Ezra 3:1 and following);
bb) nor the decree of Darius Hystaspes (1 Ezra 6:1), which merely repeated Cyrus’s decree concerning the building of the temple;
cc) nor the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus addressed to Ezra (1 Ezra 7:12): this decree commanded no more than that he visit Judea and Jerusalem, and deliver the king’s gifts to the temple (1 Ezra 7:14–15). Rather, one must understand the second decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus, given afterward, addressed to Nehemiah (Neh. 2:5–6): here it speaks directly of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, its walls and its houses (Neh. 2:8), which none of the earlier decrees mentions, and Nehemiah, on returning to Jerusalem, found that, up to that time, the city wall had been torn down, the gates of the Holy City consumed by fire (Neh. 2:13), and Jerusalem itself laid waste (v. 17).
This second decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus was given in the twentieth year of his reign,184 as Nehemiah himself testifies (Neh. 2:1). But Artaxerxes ascended the throne in the third year of the 76th Olympiad,185 which, by our reckoning, corresponds to the year 473 before the Nativity of Christ.186 Consequently, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes’s reign, by the Greek reckoning, is the third year of the 81st Olympiad; by the Roman reckoning, the 299th year from the founding of Rome;187 by our own reckoning, the year 453 before the Nativity of Christ. It is from here that the reckoning of the weeks must begin. Let us, then, make this reckoning and apply the weeks to the events.
c) In the prophecy, from the beginning of the weeks to the appearing of the Messiah-Prince, there are appointed, besides the 7 weeks set apart for the building of Jerusalem, another 62 weeks—in all, 69 weeks, that is, 483 years. The end of the 69th week must refer not to the Messiah’s birth (since His death is already placed within the following, 70th, week), but to His baptism and public appearance in the office of Messiah. His death is placed after the 69th week—that is, within the course of the last, or 70th, week—and specifically, in the middle of that week, when the cessation of the Old Testament sacrifices was to follow, a cessation that could be accomplished only by the sacrifice of the Messiah Himself (Heb. 10:4–10). And the whole of the last week, in general, is appointed for the confirmation of the New Covenant.
Whatever system of chronology we now use to count the weeks, we shall arrive everywhere at one and the same result. If by the Greek reckoning—that is, taking the third year of the 81st Olympiad as the beginning of the weeks—then, converting 69 weeks, or 483 years, into Olympiads (this comes to 120 Olympiads and 3 years), and adding these new Olympiads to the starting point, we obtain the 2nd year of the 202nd Olympiad: and this is precisely the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Jesus Christ was baptized by John (Luke 3:1 and 21), and appeared before the people in the office of Messiah. If by the Roman reckoning—that is, taking the 299th year from the founding of Rome as the beginning of the weeks—then, adding to these years 69 weeks, or 483 years, we obtain the 782nd year from the founding of Rome: again the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and consequently the year of the Savior’s baptism and appearance in the office of Messiah. Finally, if we count the weeks by our own reckoning—that is, from the year 453 before the Nativity of Christ—then the final year of the 69th week, or the year 483, falls in the 30th year of the Savior’s earthly life: which again means the time of His baptism and appearance in the office of Messiah (Luke 3:23). In the middle of the 70th week, the Anointed One was to be cut off and the sacrifices abolished: and Christ died on the cross three and a half years after entering upon His office as public Teacher—that is, in the middle of the week. And the whole 70th week was to confirm the covenant for many. And Christ Himself spent the first half of this week confirming His New Covenant for many in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria; and in the three and a half years following His death and resurrection, the Gospel was proclaimed by the Apostles everywhere the scattered sheep of the house of Israel were to be found.
To all this let us add two further general observations. The first is that the time of the Messiah’s coming, as determined in Daniel’s prophecy, has without any doubt long since passed: for, immediately following the Messiah’s death, the prophecy foretells the destruction of the Hebrew people’s independent existence, the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by a foreign people, who were to come under the leadership of their own prince and bring about a desolation lasting to the end of the age. But everyone knows that about eighteen hundred years have now passed since Titus, with the Roman armies, destroyed Jerusalem and the temple to their very foundations, and put an end to the Jewish kingdom. The second observation is that the time of the Messiah’s coming indicated by Daniel falls, incontestably, precisely on the period when Christ was born, lived, and tasted death: for, on the one hand, it is to this very time that Daniel’s weeks lead; and, on the other, Titus destroyed Jerusalem together with its temple, and put an end to the Jewish kingdom, about forty years after the Savior’s death—and these events, according to the prophecy, were to follow soon after the Messiah’s death.
§79. b) The Prophecies of Haggai and Malachi concerning the Glory of the Second Jerusalem Temple, into which the Messiah Was to Come
1) We join these two prophecies together because they have one subject, and explain one another.
Saint Haggai began to prophesy at the time when the Jews, having returned from the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel, undertook the building of the second Jerusalem temple. Soon meeting with numerous obstacles, they very nearly abandoned the work they had begun, consoling themselves that, surely, the time to build the house of the Lord had not yet come (Hag. 1:2). It was for this reason that God raised up Haggai, who strove by every means to stir his countrymen to complete what they had begun: now asking them whether it was fitting for them to dwell themselves in paneled houses, while leaving the house of God in ruins (v. 4); now assuring them that the renewal of the temple would draw down God’s favor upon them (v. 8); now threatening them with punishments for their resistance and negligence in this matter (vv. 10–11); now encouraging them with the truth that God Himself was continually present among them with His almighty power (Hag. 2:5–6). Finally, to act upon them still more forcefully, Haggai utters to them a prophecy concerning the glory of this temple: take courage: for thus says the Lord Almighty: yet once more I will shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land, and I will shake all the nations, and the chosen of all the nations shall come (or: the desire, or expectation, of all the nations shall come) and I will fill this house with glory, says the Lord Almighty. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says the Lord Almighty: for the glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former, says the Lord Almighty, and in this place I will give peace… (Hag. 2:6–10).
St. Malachi, the last of the Prophets, uttered his prophecy concerning the Messiah a few years after Haggai, in the following words: behold, I send my Angel, and he shall survey the way before my face: and the Lord whom you seek shall suddenly come into his temple, and the Angel of the covenant, whom you desire: behold, he comes, says the Lord Almighty (Mal. 3:1).
2) It is not difficult to be convinced that the Person whose coming the Prophets foretell here is none other than the Messiah.
a) in Haggai’s prophecy this Person is called the desire, or expectation (the chosen one), of all the nations—a name by which the Messiah was already designated in the patriarch Jacob’s own prediction (Gen. 49), and which, according to other, likewise most ancient, promises of God and prophecies (Gen. 22:18 and others; Is. 11:10; 49:6), can befit the Messiah alone. The consequence of this Person’s coming is set forth as the glory of the second temple—and, moreover, a glory that will surpass the glory of the first temple: what other Person, besides the Messiah, could have been, in the Jews’ own understanding, so great that by His coming alone He would bestow the greatest glory—and upon what? the very house of God? And that this glory of the second temple is indeed made to depend on the coming into it of the expectation of the nations, and on nothing else, is shown by the very connection of the discourse: no sooner has the Prophet said, in God’s own name: yet once more I will shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land, and I will shake all the nations, and the chosen [things] (that is: the expectation) of all the nations shall come, than he immediately adds: and I will fill this house with glory. Besides this, without admitting this thought, we would be unable to show the prophecy’s vindication in the event. It is known that the second temple lacked much of what constituted the glory and distinction of the first temple—namely, it had no ark of the covenant, no rod of Aaron, no tablets of the law, no jar of manna, no Urim and Thummim. Likewise, in outward wealth and beauty it was far inferior to the first temple, so that the Jewish elders who remembered the glory of the first temple wept, looking upon the poverty of the second (1 Ezra 3:12). The sole advantage of this temple over the first, its sole glory, consisted precisely in this: that the Messiah Himself, the King of glory (Ps. 23:7–8), the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8), honored it with His own visitation.
b) Still clearer are the indications of the Messiah in Malachi’s prophecy. Here the Person spoken of is called directly the Lord and the Angel of the Covenant—names which, by the whole spirit of the Old Testament, can befit no one but the Messiah. It is said that this Lord will come into His own temple: this can be said of no one but God and the Messiah. Finally, this Lord and Angel of the Covenant is called the expectation of the Jews, whom they desire and seek: who, if not the Messiah, was for the sons of Israel, at every period, the object of the most fervent desires and expectations?
c) The Jews themselves, both ancient and many of the more recent ones, have referred, and still refer, these prophecies to the Messiah. Among the ancients, especially notable here is Rabbi Sira, renowned even before the destruction of the second temple;188 among the more recent ones, one may point to the rabbis Rashi,189 Akiva, Manasseh,190 and others.191
3) Nor can one fail to see that in both these prophecies, Haggai’s and Malachi’s, the time of the Messiah’s coming is determined, though not with the same precision as in Daniel’s prophecy of the weeks. According to both these predictions the Messiah was to come into the second temple—consequently, at a time when this temple still stood, and by no means afterward. The invention of certain more recent rabbis, that what is foretold here is the greater glory not of the second temple compared with the first, but of a third compared with the second (a third temple, supposedly to be built by the Messiah Himself at His coming), is entirely refuted by the course of the discourse and the content of Haggai’s prophecy. We have already noted that the very occasion on which this prophecy was uttered was furnished by the restoration of the temple by the Jews who had returned from the Babylonian captivity under Zerubbabel, and that Haggai disclosed to them the future glory of this temple in order to spur them all the more strongly to finish the building they had begun (see Haggai chs. 1 and 2). Speak now, God commanded the prophet, to Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, of the tribe of Judah, and to Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and to all the rest of the people, saying: who among you saw this house in its former glory? and how do you see it now, as though it were nothing before you? And now be strong, Zerubbabel, says the Lord, be strong, Joshua son of Jehozadak, high priest, and let all the people of the land be strong, says the Lord (Almighty), and work, for I am with you, says the Lord Almighty: the word that I covenanted with you when you went out of the land of Egypt, and my Spirit stands in your midst: take courage: for thus says the Lord Almighty: yet once more I will shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land, and I will shake all the nations, and the chosen [things] of all the nations shall come, and I will fill this house with glory, says the Lord Almighty.
The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says the Lord Almighty: for the glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former, says the Lord Almighty, and in this place I will give peace, says the Lord Almighty, and peace of soul as a provision to everyone who builds, so as to raise up this house (Hag. 2:3–10). Is it not evident that this speaks of that very temple to whose building the Prophet is spurring his contemporaries—the very temple that stood before their eyes and his own? Several times he points to it: this house, this temple. Does the passage not speak directly of the glory of the second temple specifically over the first, and not of a third over the second: the glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former (Hag. 2:10)?
4) And that both these prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ is evident from the fact that He indeed came to earth while the second temple still stood, and visited this temple more than once. This feature, in itself, might seem common to others, since other people living at that time also visited the Jerusalem temple; but, unlike all these others, the prophecies also point to particular features of the Messiah that were realized only in Jesus Christ alone, and in the circumstances of His coming and His life. He alone, of all who came into the second temple, could rightly be called the Lord of that temple and the Angel of the Covenant, and likewise the expectation of the Gentiles and the Jews; He alone, by His coming into that temple, bestowed upon it a greater glory than the first temple had possessed. By Malachi’s prophecy, the Messiah was to have a forerunner: and John the Baptist was the forerunner of Christ the Savior. By Haggai’s words, God promised to shake the heavens and the earth and to shake all the nations at the time of the Messiah’s appearing: this feature, too, was borne out in the circumstances of our Savior’s birth and death.
In general, it must be said that the time of the Messiah’s coming, as indicated in the prophecies of Haggai and Malachi, has long since passed, and that, consequently, the Jews wait for their Messiah in vain even to this day. It is known to all that about eighteen centuries have now elapsed since the second Jerusalem temple was destroyed to its very foundations, and that every effort to restore it has remained fruitless.
§80. Prophecies Concerning the Messiah’s Origin
Having determined the time of the Messiah’s coming, the Prophets also foretold —
a) the tribe from which He was to come,
b) the place where He was to be born, and even —
c) the very manner of His birth.
§81. a) The Tribe from which the Messiah Was to Come
This prediction was first uttered by the prophet Nathan. Having announced to David that, after his death, his son would raise up a house for the Lord, Nathan added, in God’s own name: and his house shall be faithful, and his kingdom shall stand before me forever: and his throne shall be established forever (2 Sam. 7:16). Then, in one of his own psalms, David himself repeated this, almost in the same words, speaking in God’s own name: once I have sworn by my holiness, I will not lie to David: his seed shall endure forever, and his throne shall be as the sun before me, and as the moon, established forever (Ps. 88:36–38). Further, this prophecy occurs in Isaiah: a rod shall come forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up from his root: and the Spirit of God shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the Spirit of knowledge and godliness: the Spirit of the fear of God shall fill him (Is. 11:1–3); and in that day there shall be the root of Jesse, and he who rises up to rule the nations: on him the nations shall set their hope (Is. 11:10). After Isaiah—in the prophet Jeremiah: behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and a king shall reign, and he shall be wise, and shall execute judgment and righteousness on the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell in hope, and this is his name by which they shall call him: the Lord our Righteousness (Jer. 23:5–6); and in another place: in those days and at that time I will cause a Branch of righteousness to spring up for David: and he shall execute judgment and righteousness on the earth. In those days Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell in hope: and this is the name by which they shall call him: the Lord our Righteousness (Jer. 33:15–16). Finally—in the prophet Ezekiel: and I will raise up for them one shepherd, and he shall shepherd them, my servant David; he shall shepherd them, and he shall be their shepherd, and I, the Lord, will be their God, and my servant David a prince in their midst: I, the Lord, have spoken (Ezek. 34:23–24).
a) From their very content. Nathan, and David himself, speak of a descendant of David who will reign forever—a feature that cannot befit Solomon, nor even the whole line of David, which reigned in Judah only until the Babylonian captivity, but is entirely fitting for the Messiah alone, the eternal King of a spiritual kingdom. The prophet Isaiah testifies that upon this Rod from the root of Jesse the Spirit of God will rest with all His abundant gifts, and that the nations will set their hope on this Descendant of David; Jeremiah adds that this King will be wise, will execute judgment and righteousness on the earth, and that His name will be—the Lord our Righteousness; Ezekiel presents this future David192 as both Shepherd and Prince, to whom the Lord Himself promises to be God—all such features as cannot, in their proper sense, befit anyone but the Messiah alone.
b) From the unanimous consent of the Jews. All their paraphrasts, all the Talmudists, and all the ancient writers refer these prophecies to the Messiah,193 and regard Him as a descendant of David. This universal belief of the ancient Jews is also very well attested from the Gospel history. Zechariah, at the birth of his son John the Baptist, blesses the Lord God of Israel for having wrought redemption for His people, and for having raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David his servant: as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets, who have been since the world began (Luke 1:68–70). The Pharisees, on the Savior’s question, what do you think of the Christ? whose son is he?, answered: the son of David (Matt. 22:42). Astonished at the Savior’s miracles, the Jews asked one another in perplexity: can this be the Christ, the son of David? (Matt. 12:23). The sick, calling upon His mercy and wishing to confess their faith in Him as the Messiah, called Him the son of David (Matt. 9:27; 15:22; 20:30; Luke 18:38). At the Savior’s solemn entry into Jerusalem, those who wished to see in Him the promised Deliverer cried out: hosanna to the Son of David (Matt. 21:9). And in the time that followed, the universal conviction of the Jews that the Messiah must come from the line of David was so deep and so widely known that the emperor Trajan, wishing to put a stop to the uprisings stirred up among them by false messiahs, ordered all the descendants of David that could be found to be put to death—and it was on this very occasion that St. Symeon, a kinsman of the Lord and bishop of Jerusalem, tasted death.
§82. b) The Place where the Messiah Was to Be Born
1) The place where the Messiah was to be born was foretold by the prophet Micah in the following words: and you, Bethlehem, house of Ephrathah, are you too small to be among the thousands of Judah? Out of you shall come forth to me a Ruler, to be a prince in Israel, whose goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity (Mic. 5:2).
2) And in this instance too, both the content of the prophecy itself and the constant, unanimous consent of the ancient Jews serve as irrefutable proofs that the Messiah is spoken of here.
In the prophecy it is enough to point to one decisive feature. The Prophet foretells that out of Bethlehem there shall come forth a Person who possesses also other goings-forth, goings-forth from the beginning, from the days of eternity (a pre-temporal existence, days without beginning)—that is, He possesses eternal being: of whom, among all born on earth, can such a thing be said, except the Messiah alone? Meanwhile the other features of the prediction, too, apply entirely to the Messiah. It is said, for example, that His origin from Bethlehem will bestow great glory on this small town; the Person who is to come forth is called the Prince (or Master) and ruler in Israel, just as other prophets, too, called the Messiah (Ezek. 37:21–24). In the following verses it is affirmed that this King, acting by the power of Jehovah, will gather all Israel under His authority, and will be glorified to the ends of the earth (Mic. 5:3–4), in correspondence with other prophecies concerning the Messiah (Ezek. 37:21; Ps. 21:28; 71:8); that He will bring with Him complete peace for Israel (Mic. 5:5), again in agreement with other prophecies concerning the Messiah (Is. 9:6 and 7; 11:5–7; Zech. 9:10); that He will root out from His people sorcery and divination, and overthrow idols and every form of idol-worship (Mic. 5:12–14), again in agreement with other prophecies concerning the Messiah (Ezek. 37:23).
The constant belief of the Jews that Micah’s prophecy refers to the Messiah is known:
a) from the testimony of their most ancient paraphrast, Jonathan, who lived before the Nativity of Christ, and who translates the words, out of you shall come forth to me a Ruler, thus: “out of you shall come forth to me the Messiah”;
b) from the Gospel history, which relates that the representatives of the Jewish church, all the chief priests and scribes of the people, on Herod’s question—where the Christ was to be born—answered with one voice: in Bethlehem of Judea, and in confirmation of their answer cited Micah’s prophecy (Matt. 2:4–6); as likewise the people, thinking that Christ had come from Galilee, asked in perplexity: has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was? (John 7:42);
c) from both Talmuds, and in general from the testimonies of all the ancient Jewish writers, which it would be superfluous to cite here;194 and
d) finally, from the historical fact that the Romans, when they suppressed the Jewish revolt led astray by the false messiah Bar Kokhba, forbade them entry even into Jerusalem and Bethlehem, whence they had expected their Messiah to come.195
The fulfillment of this prophecy in Jesus Christ is well known from the Gospel (Luke 2:1, and others).
§83. c) The Manner of the Messiah’s Birth
I) The Messiah was to be born not as ordinary men are born, but of an immaculate Virgin, and consequently in a supernatural, miraculous manner. This was foretold by Isaiah, when he said: behold, a Virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bear a Son, and you shall call his name Emmanuel (Is. 7:14).
II. These words indeed —
1) refer to the Messiah,
2) determine the miraculous manner of His birth, and
3) were fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
1) Proof of the first point is furnished by the exalted titles the Prophet gives to the infant who was to be born of the Virgin, and, in part, by the occasion on which the prophecy was uttered.
At first the Prophet calls the infant Emmanuel, a name that can befit the Messiah alone. For the word Emmanuel means—God with us—and consequently points to a Person in whom, and through whom, God Himself would dwell among men; and such a thing can be said only of the God-man (Ps. 45:8 and 12; 88:25). Then, in chapter 8, verse 8, the Prophet presents this Infant as the Master of Israel, when, foretelling the Assyrian king’s invasion of Judea, he says: and his army shall be, to fill the breadth of your land, God with us (that is, Emmanuel)—a new attribute which, as we have already seen from other prophecies, befits the Messiah. Finally, in chapter 9, verse 6, he depicts Emmanuel with features still far more exalted, crying out: a Child is born to us, a Son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called Angel of Great Counsel, Wondrous One, Counselor, Mighty God, Ruler, Prince of Peace, Father of the Age to Come. Of whom among men can such things be said, except the Messiah alone—in whom the Old Testament righteous truly awaited God Himself (Ps. 45:7–8), the Lord (Ps. 109:1), Jehovah (Gen. 16:7, 10–11; Ex. 3:2, 4, 6)?196 And that all three chapters of Isaiah—7, 8, and 9—speak of one and the same Infant is confirmed by the very structure of the discourse and by the agreement of eminent Christian197 and even Jewish198 commentators.
The occasion on which the prophecy was uttered was as follows: two kings, Rezin of Syria and Pekah of Israel, waging war against Ahaz, king of Judah, took counsel together, once they had taken possession of Judea, to depose him from the throne and to set up on that throne a new dynasty, that of the son of Tabeel (Is. 7:6)—which, by the customs of the time, meant at once to put Ahaz to death and to exterminate the whole line that had until then reigned in Judah, that is, the line of David.199 This struck terror into Ahaz, the whole house of David, and all the Jews (v. 2): and so, to calm them, Isaiah comes to the king, and assures him, in God’s own name: this counsel shall not stand, nor shall it come to pass (v. 7), and, to confirm the truth of his words, invites him to ask of God any sign he wishes. Ahaz, of little faith, having already resolved to seek help from men (2 Sam. 16:7–9—so in Macarius’s own text; the episode described, Ahaz’s appeal to the Assyrian king, is actually 2 Kings 16:7–9), refuses to ask for a sign, under the pretext, as it were, that one ought not to tempt the Lord. Then the Prophet, leaving the king, turns to the whole house—the whole line—of David, which was threatened by this same danger, and cries out: hear now, house of David: is it a small thing for you to weary men, that you should also weary my God? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, a Virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bear a Son, and you shall call his name Emmanuel (Is. 7:13–14). A sign for the house of David, truly the most comforting and convincing, if it is beyond doubt that the Prophet is here pointing the members of that house to the future birth of the Messiah: for they already knew, together with the whole Jewish people, that the Messiah would come from their line; and so, upon this fresh assurance of it from God Himself, they would naturally have come to the thought that the line of David would without fail remain intact, that it could not be destroyed, however great the danger now threatening it. But if, on the contrary, we suppose that some ordinary person is spoken of here, one yet to be born at some future time, we shall be wholly unable to understand how the Prophet’s words could have served as any comfort to the house of David in the straitened circumstances of that hour.
2) Proof of the second point, likewise, is furnished by:
a) the name the Prophet gives to the Mother of Emmanuel, and
b) the occasion on which the prophecy was uttered.
The Prophet named the Mother of Emmanuel with the word Almah, which, in its strict sense, means a virgin—a pure, undefiled, wholly virginal maiden. It occurs seven times in the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament, and everywhere is used in precisely this sense, and no other (see Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; Ps. 67:26, cf. Ex. 15:20, 21; Song of Songs 1:2, cf. Rev. 14:4; Song of Songs 6:7; Prov. 30:19; Is. 7:14).200 The seventy-two Jewish elders, men skilled and experienced in the law, who translated the Holy Scripture into Greek about 250 years before the Nativity of Christ, rendered this word with the Greek παρθένος, and thereby bore witness that all the ancient Jews understood by Almah specifically a virgin, and not some married young woman, as their more recent descendants would have it understood.201 The proselyte Onkelos, who wrote a Chaldean paraphrase of the Pentateuch of Moses not long before the Nativity of Christ, everywhere uses the word Almah likewise to denote only a virgin (see, for example, his targum on Gen. 24:16; Deut. 22:11; 32:25), furnishing fresh testimony to how the ancient Jews understood this word. By its etymology, Almah means one who is hidden—a name that could rightly be given, in the East, only to virgins, who, by the custom there, dared not appear in public before the time of their marriage, but remained concealed in their parents’ house (2 Macc. 3:19; 3 Macc. 1:15).202
The occasion of the prophecy, already known to us, shows that the Prophet, in uttering this prophecy, intended to give the members of the house of David a sign—and the greatest of signs (Is. 7:11 and 16)—that would assure them that the plan of the kings of Syria and Israel to set up a new dynasty on David’s throne would not come to pass. In keeping with this purpose, the Prophet not only recalls the Messiah, who was to be born of the house of David—which the Jews already knew—but adds to this a further feature of the Messiah’s birth, wholly unknown until then, an extraordinary and astonishing feature, one that could truly serve believers as a sign, and the greatest of signs. The Prophet says that the Messiah will be conceived and born of a most pure and undefiled Virgin, of an Almah, and consequently will be conceived and born in a miraculous, supernatural manner. But in what, let us ask together with the ancient teachers of the Church,203 could this greatest of signs have consisted, if the Prophet were here pointing the Jews to the ordinary birth of some infant—if he meant, as the more recent Jews suppose, that a woman, and not a virgin, would bear a son?
It is worth noting, in this connection, that many of the ancient Jews, too—though on the basis of other passages of the Bible—believed that the Messiah would be born in a special, supernatural manner, without a father, of a Virgin.204
3) The fulfillment of this prophecy of Isaiah in Jesus Christ was expressly noted by the holy Evangelist Matthew, who, having just spoken of His seedless conception in the womb of the most holy Virgin Mary, immediately adds: now all this took place, that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying: behold, the Virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is, God with us (Matt. 1:22–23). And how well all the names Isaiah gave to the wondrous Infant suit Jesus Christ is known to every believer.
§84. Prophecies Concerning the Person and Ministry of the Messiah
In this regard the Prophets foretold that the Messiah —
a) would be at once both man and God;
b) would be a Prophet, who would deliver to men a new law;
c) would be a High Priest, who would offer up Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of men;
d) would be a King—but King of a spiritual kingdom, of the New Israel.
§85. a) The Messiah—Man and God Together
I. The humanity of the Messiah is plainly indicated by all those prophecies we have already examined, which speak of the tribe from which He was to come, of the place of His birth, and of the very manner of His birth from a Virgin. It would therefore be superfluous to adduce here still other prophetic utterances of a similar kind.
II. The Godhead of the Messiah is attested by:
1) Those passages of the Old Testament where the Messiah is called directly Jehovah — a name which, by the acknowledgment of all the Jews, belongs exclusively to God alone, and which was held by them in such reverence that it was uttered by the high priest only once a year, on the Day of Atonement. Passages of this kind we read in the prophet Jeremiah:
a) behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, and I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and a king shall reign, and he shall be wise, and shall execute judgment and righteousness on the earth—in his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell in hope, and this is his name by which they shall call him: the Lord (Jehovah) our Righteousness (Jer. 23:5–7), and —
b) behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, and I will fulfill the good word which I spoke to the house of Israel, and to the house of Judah—in those days and at that time I will cause a Branch of righteousness to spring up for David, and he shall execute judgment and righteousness on the earth—in those days Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell in hope: and this is the name by which they shall call him: the Lord (Jehovah) our Righteousness (Jer. 33:14–16). The proofs that both these texts refer to the Messiah we have already seen (§81), and the Jewish rabbis themselves understand them in this way, and no other.205
2) Passages in which the Messiah is called Adonai, Elohim, and similar names—which, though they are not exclusive names of God alone, and are sometimes given in Scripture to kings and angels, are nevertheless, above all, names of God. Here belong:
a) the words of Psalm 44: your throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom—you have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: for this reason God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions (vv. 7 and 8)—words unanimously referred by the rabbis to the Messiah:206
b) the words of Psalm 109, likewise referred to the Messiah:207 the Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand (v. 1);
c) the words of the prophet Isaiah: behold, a Virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bear a Son, and you shall call his name Emmanuel (Is. 7:14), and his name is called Angel of Great Counsel, Wondrous One, Counselor, Mighty God, Ruler, Prince of Peace, Father of the Age to Come (Is. 9:6); likewise: a voice crying in the wilderness: make ready the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God (Is. 40:3); behold your God, behold the Lord: the Lord comes with might (v. 10);
d) the words of the prophet Malachi: and the Lord shall suddenly come into his temple… (Mal. 3:1) and so on.
3) Finally, passages where the Messiah is depicted as the Son of God, begotten from eternity. Thus, in Psalm 2, which the whole Jewish church referred to the Messiah,208 the Messiah says of Himself: the Lord said to me: you are my Son, today have I begotten you (v. 7); in Psalm 109, which likewise refers wholly to the Messiah,209 God says to Him: from the womb, before the morning star, have I begotten you (v. 3); the prophet Micah testifies concerning the Messiah that his goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity (Mic. 5:2).
The union of the two natures, human and divine, in the Person of Jesus Christ, corresponding to all these prophecies, is proclaimed to us by the Gospel.
§86. b) The Messiah—a Prophet
Passages foretelling that the Messiah would be a Prophet, and a universal Prophet—that is, not for the Jews alone, but for the Gentiles as well—are very numerous in the books of the Old Testament, especially in the prophet Isaiah. Such, for example, are the following:
In the last days the mountain of the Lord shall be made manifest, and the house of God upon the summit of the mountains, and shall be raised up above the hills: and all the nations shall come to it, and many peoples shall go and say: come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will show us his way, and we will walk in it: for out of Zion shall the law go forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem: and he shall judge among the nations (Is. 2:2–4). This passage was unanimously referred to the Messiah not only by Christian but also by the ancient Jewish commentators.210
And he (God) said to me: it is a great thing for you to be called my servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to turn back the dispersion of Israel: behold, I have set you as a covenant for the people, as a light for the nations, that you may be for salvation even to the ends of the earth (Is. 49:6). That this passage, too, refers to the Messiah is evident from the very context of the discourse, and is, moreover, confirmed by the agreement of both the Christian and the ancient Jewish writers.211
Such, too, are the passages: Ps. 2:7–12; Is. 42:6 and 7; 52:10; 55:3–6; 61:1 and 12, and others. In consequence of all these prophecies, the ancient Jews did indeed expect in the Messiah a Teacher and Enlightener, not for themselves alone, but for the whole world—as is evident, among other things, from the words of Simeon, who received the Lord in his arms, and who called the Lord Jesus a light for the revelation of the nations (Luke 2:32).
There are, moreover, not a few prophetic sayings which declare that the Messiah-Prophet would proclaim to men a wholly new law, and not merely renew the ancient, Mosaic one, as some of the Jews of today teach. But here too it is enough to cite only the two clearest sayings:
The first is found in the prophet Jeremiah: behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make with the house of Israel and the house of Judah a new covenant—not according to the covenant I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not abide in my covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel: after those days, says the Lord, I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no one shall teach his neighbor, or his brother, saying, know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least to the greatest of them: for I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and I will remember their sins no more (Jer. 31:31–35). It is evident that this passage is, as it were, deliberately aimed against the false opinion of the Jews. The Prophet speaks in the most definite terms not of a renewal of the Old Covenant given through Moses, but of a New Covenant, distinct from the Mosaic one: and I will make with the house of Israel, and the house of Judah, a new covenant—not according to the covenant I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt. In precisely this sense the holy Apostle Paul explained this passage (Heb. 8:6–13), and after him many holy fathers and teachers of the Church explained it likewise.212
The second passage we read in the prophet Malachi: and the doors shall be shut against you, and you shall not kindle fire on my altar in vain: I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice from your hands. For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, my name is glorified among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice: for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord Almighty (Mal. 1:11). Here too, in the plainest terms, there is foretold, on the one hand, the abolishing and rejection by God of the Old Testament sacrifices, and consequently of the Mosaic ceremonial law, according to which they were offered in Jerusalem alone; and, on the other, the establishment of a new, purest Sacrifice, which would be offered in every land of the world—in keeping, of course, with the spirit of the New Law that was to replace the Mosaic one. Many of the renowned pastors of the ancient Church made use of this passage as well, against the Jews, proving to them that their legal shadow must pass away, now that grace had come.213
Christ the Savior was indeed a Prophet in exactly the sense in which the Prophets foretold this of the Messiah, and He gave to the whole world a new law.
§87. c) The Messiah—a High Priest
1) That the Messiah would be a High Priest, or Priest, is plainly foretold in verse 4 of Psalm 109: the Lord has sworn, and will not change His mind: you are a Priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek. Besides the fact that this whole psalm, as we have seen,214 refers to the Messiah, the very content of this passage, and its connection with what precedes it, thoroughly convince us that it can be referred to no one but the Messiah. The Person spoken of here is called —
a) a Priest forever—which cannot be said of any man;
b) a Priest after the order of Melchizedek, whereas all the Jewish priests were after the order of Aaron, and no priests at all after the order of Melchizedek are known from antiquity;
c) He is even called the Lord of David, and, moreover, one to whom Jehovah Himself said: sit at my right hand (v. 1).
And that this extraordinary Priest, after the order of Melchizedek, would offer to God, for the sins of men, an extraordinary sacrifice as well—not after the pattern of the Old Testament priests, who were after the order of Aaron, but specifically the sacrifice of Himself—this is evident:
a) from the words of Daniel’s prophecy: and after the sixty-two weeks the anointed one shall be cut off, and judgment shall not be his — that is, the Messiah will be put to death, and not for Himself (Dan. 9:26); and —
b) still more clearly and fully from the 53rd chapter of the prophet Isaiah, where we read: Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? We declared him as a child before him, as a root in thirsty ground: he had no form, nor glory: we saw him, and he had no form nor comeliness; but his appearance was without honor, diminished beyond all the sons of men—a man acquainted with affliction, knowing how to endure sickness, for his face was turned away; he was dishonored, and was not esteemed. He bears our sins, and suffers grief on our account, yet we accounted him stricken, afflicted by God, and brought low. But he was wounded because of our sins, and tormented because of our iniquities; the chastisement that brings us peace was laid upon him, and by his wound we were healed. Like sheep, all of us had wandered off; each of us had turned aside to his own path, and the Lord delivered him up on account of our sins. And he, because he was afflicted, does not open his mouth: he was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and, like a lamb silent before the one who shears it, he does not open his mouth. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken up from the earth; for the transgressions of my people he was led to death (Is. 53:1–10). This passage bears so striking a resemblance to the history of our Lord’s sufferings that, in the words of Christian writers, it was written by the Prophet as though he stood at the foot of the cross of the Divine Sufferer. And the ancient Jews themselves referred this passage to the Messiah. “What is the name of the Messiah?” asks the Talmud, and answers: “the Afflicted One, as it is said: he bears our sins, and suffers grief on our account (Is. 53:4)”.215 “The Messiah takes upon Himself,” it is said in another place in the Talmud, “all the sufferings and torments for the sins of the Israelites. Had He not taken these sufferings upon Himself, not one person in the world could have endured the punishments that inevitably follow from breaking the law. When the Israelites dwelt in their own land, they warded off all suffering and calamity by means of sacrifices; but afterward it is the Messiah Himself who wards off these calamities, as it is written: he was wounded because of our sins, and tormented because of our iniquities; the chastisement that brings us peace was upon him (Is. 53:5)”.216
The fulfillment of all these prophecies in Jesus Christ was shown, with the utmost thoroughness, by the holy Apostle Paul in many places in his epistles (Heb. chs. 7, 8, 9, and others).
§88
d) The Messiah—a King
1) That the Messiah, according to the prediction of the Prophets, would be a King—this we have already seen, in going through the prophecies concerning His descent from the line of David and concerning the place of His birth, namely:
a) Nathan’s prophecy: his (the Messiah’s) kingdom shall stand before me forever: and his throne shall be established forever (2 Sam. 7:16);
b) Isaiah’s prophecy: and in that day there shall be the root of Jesse, and he who rises up to rule the nations: on him the nations shall set their hope: and his resting place shall be glorious (Is. 11:10);
c) Jeremiah’s prophecy: behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, and I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and a king shall reign, and he shall be wise, and shall execute judgment and righteousness on the earth—in his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell in hope, and this is his name by which they shall call him: the Lord our Righteousness (Jer. 23:5–6);
d) Micah’s prophecy: and you, Bethlehem, house of Ephrathah, are you too small to be among the thousands of Judah? Out of you shall come forth to me a Ruler, to be a prince in Israel, whose goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity (Mic. 5:2). To this can be added a great many other passages, for example: Ps. 2:3, 8; 44:4, 8; 71:8–11; Is. 60:6; 61:5.
2) Equally beyond dispute is the fact that the Messiah, according to the prediction of the Prophets, would be a king in a spiritual sense—King of a moral kingdom—and not some earthly king and glorious conqueror, as the erring Jews imagine, who would supposedly subject all the other nations to their dominion.
a) This follows necessarily from the spirit of those prophecies we have already examined, which declare that the Messiah would be not a mere man, but at the same time also true God; that He would appear on earth for the purpose of proclaiming to men a new law, a new teaching of faith, and proclaiming it not to the Jews alone, but to the Gentiles as well; that He would also appear in order to offer up Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of men: how well the notion of the Messiah as a spiritual King fits with this whole teaching, and how ill, on the contrary, fit all the Jewish fantasies of a Messiah who is an earthly, warlike king, who must shed a multitude of human blood in order to subject all the other nations to them!
b) This is confirmed, too, by the ancient promises of God—that the Messiah would be the expectation not only of the Jews, but of the Gentiles as well (Gen. 49:10; Hag. 2:8), that in Him all the tribes of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 22:18), that all the nations would call Him blessed (Ps. 71:17). All such promises are intelligible on the thought of the Messiah as a spiritual King, who would form out of all men, Jews and Gentiles alike, one single kingdom of grace, would grant to all of them new and most perfect laws of faith and morality, would send down an abundance of spiritual powers, and would guide His followers by every means toward attaining the kingdom of glory. But how are these promises to be reconciled with the notion of a conqueror-Messiah, who must destroy, perhaps, whole millions of people in subjecting them to his scepter, and in the end bring all the nations under the eternal yoke of the Jews? In what sense would He then be a source of blessing for all the nations? For what, then, would all the tribes of the earth call Him blessed?
c) This, finally, is confirmed also by the many prophecies that foretell in the Messiah a peaceable and gentle King, one who would establish peace everywhere between Jews and Gentiles, and found such a kingdom—a kingdom of universal love and quiet—where the wolf would dwell together with the lamb, where even the weapons of war would be beaten, as wholly unneeded, into farming implements, and no one would learn the art of battle. Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion, one of the Prophets cries out on this occasion, proclaim it, daughter of Jerusalem: behold, your King comes to you, righteous and bringing salvation; he is gentle, and mounted on a beast of burden, and a young colt—and he will destroy the chariots out of Ephraim, and the horses out of Jerusalem, and the bow of war shall be destroyed, and abundance, and peace from the nations: and he shall rule over the waters from sea to sea, and from the rivers to the ends of the earth (Zech. 9:9–10). Righteousness shall shine forth, says another Prophet of the Messiah, in his days, and abundance of peace, until the moon is taken away, and he shall rule from sea to sea, and from the rivers to the ends of the world (Ps. 71:7–8). And he shall be, continues a third, girded with righteousness about his loins, and wrapped in truth about his sides: and the wolf shall graze together with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the young bull and the lion shall graze together, and a little child shall lead them: and the ox and the bear shall graze together, and their young shall be together, and the lion, like the ox, shall eat straw: and the young child shall put his hand into the dens of vipers, and into the lair of the brood of vipers: and they shall do no harm (Is. 11:5–8. See also: Is. 9:6 and 7; 52:7 and 10; Ezek. 34:23–26; Mic. 4:3 and 4; Nah. 1:15, and others).
3) How all these prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, He explained Himself (Matt. 4:17; John 6:15; 18:36 and 37, and others).
§89. Prophecies Concerning Various Circumstances of the Messiah’s Life
Having determined the time of the Messiah’s coming, having foretold from whom, where, and how He would be born, what personal character He would have, what qualities and what ministry, the Prophets, with astonishing particularity, foretold also all the circumstances of His life, so that, on the basis of the prophecies alone, one could write a complete Gospel history. They foretold, for example:
a) that the Messiah would have a forerunner: behold, I send my Angel, and he shall survey the way before my face (Mal. 3:1); a voice crying in the wilderness: make ready the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God—every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and all the crooked places shall become straight, and the rough ways smooth, and the glory of the Lord shall appear, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God, for the Lord has spoken (Is. 40:3–5; cf. Matt. 3:1 and following; 11:7 and 10);
b) that magi, kings of the East, would bring Him gifts and worship Him: the kings of Tarshish and the isles shall bring gifts, the kings of Arabia and Sheba shall bring gifts: and all the kings of the earth shall worship him (Ps. 71:10–11; cf. Is. 60:6);
c) that the Holy Spirit would descend upon Him: a rod shall come forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up from his root: and the Spirit of God shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the Spirit of knowledge and godliness: the Spirit of the fear of God shall fill him (Is. 11:1–3; cf. Is. 42:1 and following; 61:1 and following);
d) that He would begin His preaching in Galilee, within the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali: drink this in first, act quickly, land of Zebulun, and land of Naphtali, and the rest who dwell by the sea, and the region beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations—the people walking in darkness have beheld a great light: those dwelling in the region and shadow of death, a light shall shine upon you (Is. 9:1–2; cf. Matt. 4:12–17);
e) that He would teach much in parables: I will open my mouth in parables, I will declare riddles from of old (Ps. 77:2; cf. Matt. 13:3–10 and 13–16);
f) that He would work miracles, giving sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, healing every disease, raising the dead: strengthen the weakened hands, and the feeble knees; comfort the fainthearted in mind, be strong, do not fear: behold, our God renders judgment, and He will render it; He will come and save us—then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear, then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the stammerers shall speak plainly (Is. 35:3–6); the dead shall rise, and those in the tombs shall stand up (Is. 26:19);
g) that He would make a meek entry into Jerusalem on a colt: rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion, proclaim it, daughter of Jerusalem: behold, your King comes to you, righteous and bringing salvation; he is gentle, and mounted on a beast of burden, and a young colt (Zech. 9:9);
h) that He would be betrayed by one of His own disciples: the man of my peace, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has raised up his heel against me (Ps. 40:10); and betrayed specifically for thirty pieces of silver: and I said to them: if it seems good to you, give me my wages, or refuse: and they weighed out my wages, thirty pieces of silver—and the Lord said to me: put it into the furnace, and see whether it is genuine, in the same way I was tested concerning them—and I took the thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12–13);
i) that many false witnesses would rise up against Him: unjust witnesses rose up against me, asking me of things I did not know—they repaid me evil for good, and my soul was bereaved (Ps. 34:11–12); all my enemies whispered against me, they devised evil against me: they laid a lawless charge upon me (Ps. 40:8–9); that He would be subjected to mockery and contempt: I am a worm, and not a man, the scorn of men, and despised by the people (Ps. 21:7); to blows and spitting: I gave my back to the scourges, and my cheeks to blows, and I did not turn my face away from the shame of spitting (Is. 50:6);
j) that He would be condemned to death: they lie in wait for the soul of the righteous, and condemn innocent blood (Ps. 93:21); that they would pierce His hands, His feet, and His side: they have dug through my hands and my feet (Ps. 21:17); and they shall look upon him whom they pierced (Zech. 12:10); that those passing by would mock Him: those who saw me mocked me, they spoke with their lips, they shook their heads: he trusted in the Lord, let Him deliver him, let Him save him, since He desires him (Ps. 21:8–9); that they would divide His garments by lot: they divided my garments among themselves, and cast lots for my clothing (Ps. 21:19); that they would give Him, to quench His thirst, vinegar mixed with gall: they gave gall for my food, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink (Ps. 68:22);
k) that during His sufferings He would be humble and meek: and he, because he was afflicted, does not open his mouth (Is. 53:7); that He would pray for His enemies: O God, do not keep silence at my praise: for the mouths of the sinful and the mouths of the deceitful have opened against me, they have spoken against me with a lying tongue, and surrounded me with words of hatred, and fought against me without cause—instead of loving me, they slandered me, but I kept praying (Ps. 108:1–5); that, as He was dying, He would cry out to His Father: with my voice I cried to the Lord, with my voice I made supplication to the Lord—I poured out my prayer before him, I declared my grief before him: when my spirit was failing within me (Ps. 141:2–4), and that then the sun would grow dark and the foundations of the earth would be shaken: and it shall come to pass in that day, says the Lord God, that the sun shall go down at noon, and the light shall grow dark upon the earth in the daytime (Amos 8:9); yet once more I will shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land, and I will shake all the nations (Hag. 2:7);
l) that, after His death, He would descend into Hades: you will not abandon my soul in Hades, nor let your Holy One see corruption (Ps. 15:10; cf. Acts 2:29–31);
m) that He would rise again: though you have shown me many sore troubles, you will revive me again, and bring me up again from the depths of the earth (Ps. 70:20; cf. 48:16; 3:6)—and specifically on the third day: he will heal us after two days, on the third day we will rise, and live before him, and know him: let us press on to know the Lord (Hos. 6:2);
n) that afterward He would ascend into heaven and sit at the right hand of God the Father: you have ascended on high, you have led captivity captive (Ps. 67:19; cf. Eph. 4:8–10); the Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet (Ps. 109:1; cf. Acts 2:34);
o) that, finally, He would send down, in His own place, the Holy Spirit upon the earth: and it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions (Joel 2:28; cf. Acts 2:17).
§90. General Conclusion from the Foregoing and Transition to What Follows
Three main conclusions follow from the survey we have made of the Faith under the Law. The first and most immediate is that this faith bears upon itself the indelible stamp of divine origin, and is, consequently, beyond dispute, a supernatural revelation. The second is that this revelation was only preparatory, and not final, and was, consequently, given only for a time, and was bound to yield its place to another, more perfect revelation. This thought is evident from the very doctrine of the Faith under the Law, in which the chief article was the article concerning the Messiah who was to come; from the whole ceremonial structure, which, in the literal sense, was only a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things themselves (Heb. 10:1); and especially from the numerous prophecies in which it was foretold that the Messiah would appear as a Prophet, and would proclaim to men a new law, in place, of course, of the Old one given through Moses, and would proclaim it not to the Jews alone, but to the Gentiles as well; that He would appear as High Priest, and would establish a new, purest Sacrifice, to be offered in every place, and would thereby put an end to all the Old Testament sacrifices offered in Jerusalem alone; that He would appear as King, and would form on earth a single spiritual kingdom out of all men, Jews and Gentiles alike, and would thus abolish the particular political order that had separated the one from the other. Finally, the third conclusion is that this Messiah—Prophet, High Priest, and King—foretold by the Old Testament Prophets, is none other than our Lord Jesus Christ: for in Him, as we have seen, all the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah were fulfilled with complete precision—and, consequently, this most perfect revelation, for which the Old Testament one served only as a preparation, is the New Testament revelation, brought to earth by Christ the Savior.
But, in order to prove and explain this last truth still more fully, let us turn to the New Testament revelation itself.
II. ON THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT REVELATION
A. THE INTERNAL MARKS OF THE DIVINITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT REVELATION
§91. A Look at the Doctrine of Faith
I. The essence of the doctrine of faith in the New Testament is the very same as it was in the Old Testament; only in the New it is disclosed with greater clarity, fullness, and perfection (see §50).
1) God, the New Testament revelation teaches, is the highest and most perfect Spirit (1 Tim. 6:13–16; Matt. 5:48; John 4:24; 2 Cor. 3:17), a self-existent Spirit (John 5:26; Acts 17:25), eternal (1 Tim. 1:17), omnipresent (Acts 17:26–28), unchangeable (James 1:17); an all-knowing Spirit (Heb. 4:13), most wise (1 Cor. 2:7; 1 Tim. 1:17), wholly free (Eph. 1:11), almighty (Matt. 19:26); a most holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:13–16), most just (1 Pet. 1:17; Rom. 2:11), all-good (James 1:17; Matt. 19:17), wholly true and faithful (John 17:17; Heb. 6:18). This most perfect Spirit is one in essence (Mark 12:29; 1 Cor. 8:4), but threefold in Persons (Matt. 28:19): Father (John 17:3), Son (John ch. 1), and Holy Spirit (Luke 3:22, and others)—the Father, who before all ages begets the Son from His own essence and brings forth the Holy Spirit; the Son, begotten of the Father before all ages and consubstantial with Him; the Holy Spirit, proceeding from eternity from the Father, consubstantial with the Father and the Son (John 3:16; 5:17 and 18; 15:26; 17:5, and others). In relation to other beings: this triune God is the Creator of the world, who made all things out of nothing, what is in heaven and what is on earth, visible and invisible (Col. 1:16; cf. Heb. 16:3); He is the Provider, who upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3), makes His angels spirits, and His servants a flame of fire (v. 7), and keeps the angels who did not keep their own dominion in everlasting chains for the judgment of the great day (Jude 6)—the Provider who cares in fatherly fashion for all His creatures, gives to all life, and breath, and all things (Acts 17:25), Himself clothes even the lilies of the field, Himself feeds even the birds of the air (Matt. 6:26–29); and cares for man with a special love, so that not even a hair falls from his head without the will of the heavenly Father (Luke 12:7), and the Angels themselves are ministering spirits, sent forth to serve those who are to inherit salvation (Heb. 1:14).
Concerning man, Christianity presents a twofold teaching. The one affirms that this God-like being (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10) is in a state of fallenness—that through one man sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and so death passed to all men, in whom all sinned (Rom. 5:12); that, in consequence of this, we are all by nature children of the wrath of God (Eph. 2:3), all dead in trespasses (Eph. 2:1), and we can no more of ourselves do good works and restore the union with God that we have broken than light can have fellowship with darkness (Eph. 5:8; 2 Cor. 6:14, 15), truth with falsehood (John 8:44, 45), or life with death (Rom. 6:26); and that, therefore, a Restorer is necessary for us (Acts 4:11–12). The other depicts man in a state of restoration, and says that, the very moment he believes in Christ the Savior and receives baptism (Mark 16:16), he is at once cleansed from all his sins (1 Cor. 6:11), becomes a partaker of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), a son of God (John 1:12–13), a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19), and, making use from that time of all the gracious gifts granted to believers through the Church’s other holy sacraments, growing strong against the wiles of the devil (Eph. 6:11) and leading a life pleasing to God, can undoubtedly hope to receive eternal blessings in the kingdom of the heavenly Father (Matt. 7:21, and others).
Concerning the Redeemer of mankind, the New Testament revelation teaches that He is Himself the only-begotten Son of God (John 1:18), who was pleased to take our nature upon Himself (v. 14), proclaimed to men the Gospel of the kingdom (Matt. 9:35), offered Himself on the cross, without blemish, to God, as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins (Heb. 9:14; Rom. 5:10), founded His holy Church on earth for the appropriation, to men, of the salvation He accomplished (Eph. 4:11–15), and, having Himself ascended into heaven, sends down from there, to those who believe in Him, all the divine powers pertaining to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3), intercedes for them before eternal Justice (Heb. 7:25), until He comes again to earth to judge the living and the dead and to repay each according to his deeds (John 5:25–29)—after which He will deliver up His kingdom to God the Father, and God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:24–28).
II. It is evident that the truths of the Christian doctrine are of two kinds: some are accessible even to our reason—for example, the teaching on God’s highest perfections, on God’s relation to the world and especially to man; others, on the contrary, are wholly incomprehensible to us, such as: the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, the mysteries of the Fall, the Incarnation, Redemption, and man’s regeneration and sanctification. Examining the first class of truths attentively, every sound-minded person cannot but acknowledge that they are set forth in Christianity with a clarity, a loftiness, and a fullness that appeared in none of the philosophers. As for the mysteries: though, not comprehending them, we cannot judge their inward worth, we are entitled to affirm that these mysteries are fully worthy of God, the Author of Christianity. Let us take into consideration only the following circumstances (besides what has already been said concerning the possibility of mysteries in revelation, see §25):
1) Mysteries are, for man—a finite being—unavoidable in everything. He himself is, for himself, the first and greatest mystery: for he comprehends neither the essence of his own soul, nor the wondrous structure of his own body, nor the manner of their connection and mutual relation. He meets with mysteries at every step in external nature as well, being unable to determine what matter and its elements are in their essence, what the forces are that move the whole mechanism of the world, in what way the countless, astonishingly varied phenomena of life arise, and how life’s elusive process is carried out even within each individual being. Every new discovery man makes in nature, from time to time, always opens before him new regions of mystery as well; and the more he studies nature, the more and more he notices in it what is enigmatic and inexplicable to him. How, then, is it possible that in Faith alone—where the matter concerns God Himself, the Highest Being, and His most hidden relation to man—everything should be plain to us and wholly comprehensible?
2) Mysteries are unavoidable in natural Faith as well—that is, within the circle of those concepts of God which man forms for himself, and which he cannot but acknowledge as true. Our reason necessarily agrees, for example, that God is a self-existent and absolutely necessary Being; but let reason explain to us how a being can have the cause of its own existence within itself. It agrees that God exists eternally: but what is existence without any succession of time, without a past and a future—or succession of time without any beginning or end? It agrees that God is infinite and omnipresent: but it is unable to conceive either of omnipresence without extension, or of extension without matter—and yet God is Spirit… On what ground, then, shall we demand that revealed Faith alone should be free of mysteries, when we see that this mysteriousness depends, on the one hand, on the limitedness of our reason, and, on the other, on the infinity of God? Is the purpose of revelation to make the finite infinite, or to confine the Infinite within limits? On the contrary, since revelation is meant to disclose the infinite God to man’s finite mind more fully than natural Faith disclosed Him, revelation must inevitably contain more mysteries as well.
3) Examining the mysteries of the Christian faith more closely, we notice that they stand in the closest connection with one another, and explain one another mutually. Thus the mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God points to the mystery of the Holy Trinity; the mystery of Redemption presupposes the mystery of the Fall; the mystery of man’s regeneration and sanctification flows from the mystery of Redemption… In a word, they all form together a single, coherent, and most wise system, in which every point has its own profound significance and cannot be rejected without rejecting the whole system. The question arises: who, then, composed this most wise system of mysteries? Was it the Apostles (since it was they who set down these truths in the sacred books)? But the Apostles, as everyone knows, were the simplest of men, and, by their degree of education, wholly incapable of such a work… At the very least, it must be granted that so perfect a system is by no means unworthy of God Himself.
4) Looking closely, in particular, at each of the mysteries of Christianity, we notice that they, while remaining themselves incomprehensible to us, explain to us a very great deal, and communicate to us important knowledge necessary for the matter of faith. Thus the mystery of the Fall explains to us the origin of evil in the world and that inward struggle which every man feels within himself, and the misfortunes every man experiences in life; the mystery of the Incarnation presents to us, in the fullest light, the high dignity of our nature and the infinite love our Creator bears us, and points us, in the Incarnate One, to the highest example for our imitation; the mystery of Redemption and the Redeemer’s death on the cross discloses to us still more fully both the whole preciousness of our soul and the whole greatness of our Creator’s perfections: His infinite goodness and righteousness, His infinite holiness and wisdom, His infinite power and faithfulness to His promises.
5) Mysteries in the Christian Faith are also most beneficial both to the faith itself, and to man, who must receive it. If revelation contained only comprehensible truths, it would soon lose its full worth in our eyes, whereas, stamped with the divine character of incomprehensibility, it naturally excites in man, and continually sustains in him, a feeling of reverence, wonder, and awe. The existence of mysteries in the Christian revelation shows man the shortest path to appropriating revelation—the path of faith; it heals the grievous ailment of our nature, the pride of reason, the source of countless evils, and gives worth to our faith, to our humility and submission to the will of God, when we take our own reason captive to the obedience of Christ (5 Cor. 10:5).
6) These mysteries of Christianity, the object of our faith, bear the most beneficial relation to our activity as well. By disclosing before us the infinite perfections of the Lord, they nourish our reverence for Him; and by testifying to His infinite benefactions toward us, they arouse and nourish in us love for Him and gratitude. They show man both the strongest motives to virtue, and the highest pattern of all virtues—in the Divine Redeemer—and the surest means for realizing them, in the gifts of divine grace.
§92. A Look at the Doctrine of Morality
In the moral teaching of the New Testament two parts can be distinguished: first, the law; and second, the motives for keeping the law.
I. The law, having as its aim to teach us, on the one hand, to put off, as regards our former manner of life, the old man, corrupted through deceitful lusts, and, on the other, to put on the new man, created after God in righteousness and true holiness (Eph. 4:22–24), sets before us two chief principles of action: in relation to ourselves, the principle of self-denial; in relation to God and neighbor, the principle of love. The first is expressed in the following words of the Savior: whoever wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me (Mark 8:34), and is aimed directly at rooting out in us that principle by which fallen man is governed—that is, at rooting out self-love, which serves in us as the source of every sin (Sir. 10:15). The second is likewise expressed by the Savior Himself in the following words: you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind: this is the first and greatest commandment; and a second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 22:37–39), and has as its aim to root in us the seed of a new life, holy and pleasing to God, and to bring into us the bond of perfection (Col. 3:14).
1) In unfolding, in particular, the principle of self-denial, the New Testament commands us
a) that we should, first of all, repent, and in general repent of all our sins: repent (Matt. 3:2)—thus the Divine Teacher began His own preaching, and thus He commanded His Apostles to begin theirs as well (Luke 24:47);
b) that we should then begin an unceasing struggle with ourselves, striving even to the point of blood against the sin dwelling in us (Heb. 12:4), and endeavor to crucify our flesh with its passions and lusts (Gal. 5:24), to put to death our members that are on the earth—fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry (Col. 3:5), to cleanse ourselves from every defilement of flesh and spirit (2 Cor. 7:1), and to sin not only in deed, but not even in thought or word (Matt. 5:28; 12:36; Eph. 5:3);
c) that at the same time we should begin an unceasing spiritual struggle with the world as well, which lies in evil and continually draws us into temptations, and should withdraw from everything by which it can arouse in us the threefold lust—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (1 John 2:15–16); and, on the contrary, in place of the first, should strive to root in ourselves self-restraint and purity (Luke 21:34; Matt. 5:27–30; Rom. 13:14), in place of the second, freedom from possessions and disinterestedness (1 Tim. 5:8 and 10), in place of the third, humility (Luke 22:26); that we should willingly give up any object of this world, however dear it may be to us—as dear as our own eye, or hand, or foot—the moment we notice that it tempts us and draws us toward sin (Matt. 5:29–31); that we should leave even our own house, father, mother, and family, if we see that otherwise it is impossible for us to turn away from impiety and attain eternal salvation (Mark 10:29; Luke 14:26). Finally, the law of the Gospel commands us —
d) to wage continual war also against our chief and ancient enemy, the devil, who is the original author of every sin and every temptation (1 John 3:8)—and, for this, to put on the whole armor of God, so as to be able to stand against the wiles of the enemy (Eph. 6:11), to be sober and watchful without ceasing (1 Pet. 5:8), to pray with every kind of prayer and supplication at all times in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18), and to be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might (v. 10). In a word: the principle of self-denial requires of us that we renounce everything, and resist everything that could, in any way, arouse sinful desires in us and draw us toward vice. But, being directed toward rooting out in us everything old and sinful, this principle, by itself, is still not enough to plant in us a new Christian life: for this, love is necessary: though I give away all my goods, and though I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing (1 Cor. 13:3), said the great Apostle.
2) The principle of love toward God and neighbor is likewise unfolded in the New Testament with the utmost fullness.
Love for God, according to the teaching of the Gospel,
a) must be the most sincere, complete, and perfect: you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind (Luke 10:27)—and therefore can in no way coexist with love for the world: no one can serve two masters: he cannot serve God and mammon (Matt. 6:24);
b) must be expressed in obedience to the will of God, in the keeping of His commandments: if you love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15); he who has my commandments, and keeps them, he it is who loves me (v. 21); this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments (1 John 5:3);
c) must strive to imitate the perfections of the Highest Being, and must have His glory as its aim: be imitators of God, as beloved children: and walk in love, as Christ also has loved us (Eph. 5:1–2); let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father, who is in heaven (Matt. 5:16);
d) finally, must be so deep and unshakeable that we would be ready for every sacrifice for the sake of God’s name—that neither affliction, nor distress, nor persecution, nor hunger, nor nakedness, nor danger, nor the sword, nor death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, could separate us from the love of God (Rom. 8:35, 38, 39; cf. Mark 8:35).
Love for one’s neighbor, inseparably bound up with love for God (1 John 4:20), has in Christianity this distinguishing character, that it —
a) embraces all people, friends and enemies alike: love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you: that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust (Matt. 5:44–45);
b) is always without hypocrisy, fervent, from a pure heart (1 Pet. 1:22); and
c) is necessarily expressed in deeds: let us not love in word, nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:18); he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law—love does no harm to one’s neighbor: love, therefore, is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10). In particular, one imbued with Christian love —
d) does not wrong one’s neighbor, not only in deed, but even in word and thought: whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them as well (Matt. 7:12); do not judge, that you may not be judged: for with the judgment you judge, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you (7:1–2); everyone who is angry with his brother without cause is liable to judgment; whoever says to his brother, raca, is liable to the council; and whoever says, fool, is liable to fiery Gehenna (5:22);
e) on the contrary, magnanimously bears all insults himself, and forgives every injury not only up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven (Matt. 18:22); if anyone strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also (5:39); if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well (6:14);
f) is always merciful and generous to his neighbors: give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you (Matt. 5:42); do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return (Luke 6:35); be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful (v. 36);
g) is concerned not only for others’ outward well-being, but for the salvation of their souls: we urge you, brethren, admonish the disorderly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all, see that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always pursue what is good, both toward one another and toward all (1 Thess. 5:14, 15); let us consider one another, to stir up love and good works (Heb. 10:24);
h) and, in general, is so devoted to his neighbors that he is ready, following the example of his Savior, to lay down his very soul for them: this is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you—no one has greater love than this, that someone lay down his soul for his friends (John 15:12–13).
II. The motives that Christianity offers in order to turn men away from impiety and establish them on the path of virtue are very numerous and varied.
First of all, it addresses sinners, and says:
a) that, however great their sins may be, all these sins will be forgiven them, if only they sincerely repent and resolve to live a holy life: if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9); if we walk in the light, as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from every sin (v. 7);
b) that, however weak their own strength may be for so great a task, they can boldly approach the throne of grace, and, in the Savior’s name, ask for themselves all the divine powers pertaining to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3): ask, and it will be given to you: seek, and you will find: knock, and it will be opened to you (Matt. 7:7); if you ask anything in my name, I will do it (John 14:14); let us come with boldness to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and find grace to help in time of need (Heb. 4:16);
c) and that, laying aside the heavy chains of sin and taking up the good yoke of Christ, they will find rest, at last, for their souls: come to me, all who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart: and you will find rest for your souls; for my yoke is good, and my burden is light (Matt. 11:28–30).
In other places the Gospel speaks to all Christians together, sinners and righteous alike, and stirs them to piety —
a) now by the superiority of the faith they confess over the Jewish and the pagan: if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? do not even the tax collectors do the same? and if you greet only your brethren, what more do you do than others? do not even the pagans do the same? be, then, perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matt. 5:46–48);
b) now by the loftiness of the vows they made at baptism: or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried with him, therefore, through baptism into death: so that, as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might begin to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3, 4);
c) now by the dignity of their own calling: I, therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk worthily of the calling with which you were called (Eph. 4:1), for you are all sons of light and sons of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness—let us not, then, sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober (1 Thess. 5:6); you are the temple of the living God (2 Cor. 6:16).
In yet other places the Gospel points Christians to the consequences of vice and virtue, and says that —
a) even in the present life the wrath of God is not infrequently revealed from heaven against every impiety and unrighteousness of men (Rom. 1:18), while in the life beyond the grave eternal fire awaits unrepentant sinners (Matt. 25:41), where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Luke 13:28); whereas —
b) piety is profitable for all things, holding promise for the present life and the life to come (1 Tim. 4:8), and to the righteous who seek the kingdom of God, for all their labors and self-sacrifices, a hundredfold is not infrequently repaid even now, and all the good things of the world are added to them (Matt. 6:33; Mark 10:30), while after death such good things are prepared for them as eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has entered into the heart of man (1 Cor. 2:9).
But the most exalted, without any doubt, and the most moving motives, Christianity offers us when —
a) it speaks of the astonishing greatness of God’s mercies toward us in the mystery of redemption: I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, well-pleasing to God, your reasonable service (Rom. 12:1);
b) when it reminds us of the infinite love of the heavenly Father toward us, manifested in this great mystery: in this the love of God was manifested to us, that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him—in this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son as a propitiation for our sins—beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another (1 John 4:9–11); we love him, because he first loved us (v. 19); and —
c) especially when it calls us to virtue by the cross-sufferings of our Redeemer: we implore on Christ’s behalf, as though God were entreating through us: we implore on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God: for he made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in him (2 Cor. 5:20–21).
III. This whole New Testament moral teaching can be examined from three points of view:
a) in relation to the dogmatic teaching of the New Testament,
b) in itself, and
c) in comparison with all other moral teachings that have ever existed.
In the first respect, one cannot fail to notice the closest connection between the New Testament moral teaching and the dogmatic teaching. The dogmatic teaching tells us, first, that man has fallen and is in a state of corruption, and, second, that he has been restored by the cross-death of the divine Redeemer; the moral teaching shows us the very path by which to pass from the first state to the second, and delivers to us the rules for what we must do, so as to destroy in ourselves, with the help of God’s grace, everything sinful and old, and become renewed and holy people. The dogmatic teaching speaks of the highest perfections of the three-hypostatic God: of His omnipresence, omniscience, goodness, justice, and the rest; it speaks of the Incarnation, sufferings, death, and infinite merits, on our behalf, of the God-man, of the manifold means He employs for the salvation of each of us, of the universal judgment, and of the eternal recompense of the righteous and of sinners. And the moral teaching draws from all this its numerous motives, by which it strives to turn sinners away from impiety and establish them in the labors of virtue, so that these two teachings of Christianity, the dogmatic and the moral, are, properly speaking, two parts of one and the same living and inseparable teaching.
In the second respect, the New Testament moral teaching strikes us by the loftiness and perfection of its rules, by the power and purity of its motives. The aim of these rules is to teach man how to renounce impiety and to live temperately, righteously, and piously (Tit. 2:12), and all of them are adapted to this aim with astonishing wisdom. For the eradication of sins within us, with the help of God’s grace, man is commanded to self-denial—and such a self-denial that, should the need arise, he must be ready to sacrifice his very life for it. For the acquiring of virtues, love for God and neighbor is prescribed—and again to such a degree that, out of love for God and neighbor, the Christian must be ready to sacrifice his own life. And by its motives Christianity, so to speak, embraces man from every side, whatever moral state he may be in, and acts upon every power of his soul—upon his mind, his will, and his heart—persuading the one, bending the other, and moving and drawing the third.
In this last respect, the New Testament moral teaching strikes every thinking person by its decisive superiority over all moral teachings217 — not only human ones, but even the divine, Old Testament one (see Matt. chs. 5, 6–7). This truth is so well known and so undoubted that it would be superfluous to prove it: even the enemies of Christianity have confessed it openly.218 The most important advantage of the Christian moral teaching over all human ones lies in the fact that the holy Christian faith not only delivers to us the rules of life and points out motives for pious action, but at the same time grants us all the divine powers pertaining to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3), which no man can grant us.
§93. A Look at External Worship
The external worship existing in the Church of Christ is not set forth in detail in the New Testament revelation, as the ceremonial law was set forth in the Old Testament. But since this worship, in the whole of its composition and spirit, is founded upon the New Testament revelation itself; since the most important of the Christian sacred rites—the holy sacraments—are all commanded within this very revelation: it is impossible not to say a few words here about New Testament external worship as well.
The purpose of this worship is twofold: on the one hand, it presents to us a means for expressing our inward worship of God, our faith, hope, love, and, in general, all those feelings we ought to have toward God and His Saints; and, on the other, it arouses, nourishes, and elevates within us this very inward worship, kindles our faith, inflames our love, gives wings to our hope, and, under visible signs, brings down into our hearts the invisible grace of God, for our establishment in true piety. In keeping with this purpose, everything in Christian worship bears within it a deep, mysterious meaning; everything expresses one or another truth of the Gospel, and serves for our edification.
Christian temples are adorned with sacred images of God and His Saints: these images, raising our mind from the image to its prototype, remind us of God’s infinite perfections and benefactions toward us, especially those manifested in the mystery of our redemption, and thus stir us to glorify the Lord, to thank Him, and to pour out our whole soul before Him; they also recall the lofty labors of God’s Saints, who have already attained the heavenly kingdom, and thereby stir us to bless their memory, to seek their intercession before the throne of the Most High, and to imitate their lives.
The sacred times, or Christian feasts, are of three kinds: some are instituted to the glory of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, others in honor of the Mother of God, and others in honor of the Bodiless Powers and the Saints. The first recall various manifestations of the Godhead, and especially various circumstances of our Savior’s earthly life, which naturally awaken in our hearts feelings of gratitude and love toward the Lover of mankind, and impart to us numerous moral lessons. The second bring to mind various circumstances from the life of the Mother of God and various benefactions of hers to the human race, which likewise move us both to give thanks to the Heavenly Queen and to imitate her most holy life. The third, finally, refresh in our memory the labors and benefactions toward us of God’s Saints and holy Angels, who cooperate in our salvation, and thus lead us to bless them, and set before our eyes various patterns of Christian virtues.
The sacred actions, or church services, in their sequential order, symbolically depict before us the whole wondrous order of the Divine economy of our salvation, and especially the history of our Redeemer’s earthly life, and thereby raise the Christian’s soul to the loftiest thoughts, to the holiest feelings and desires. In particular, the chief of the sacred rites—the Divine sacraments—as instruments and visible signs of the invisible grace of God, poured out into believers’ hearts and accomplishing their salvation, point to the infinite merits of our Redeemer and His infinite goodness toward us, and in the highest degree arouse our faith in Him, our love for Him, and our hope in His intercession and help.
Even the very objects used in the church services, even the vestments of the clergy, each severally have their own inward meaning, and raise the Christian’s thoughts from the visible to the spiritual, awakening pious reflections in his soul. We say nothing yet of the sacred hymns, prayers, and readings, which, in the distinct sounds of human speech, convey to believers, with the utmost clarity, both the dogmas of the faith and the rules of conduct. In a word: whoever knows the mysterious meaning of every part of the New Testament worship, as it exists in the Orthodox Church, cannot but agree that this is the truest and worthiest expression of the spirit of the Christian faith, and the best school of piety for Christians.219
§94. A Look at the New Testament Revelation’s Relation to Man’s Temporal Fate
No civil law of any kind for Christians is set forth in the New Testament revelation either, as it was set forth for the Jews in the Old Testament revelation. The holy Christian faith, it would seem, pays no attention at all to man’s temporal fate, being concerned only to regenerate sinful man, to cleanse his soul of every defilement, to make him holy, and to bring him to eternal blessedness. But, in transforming man’s whole inward being, the holy faith thereby exerts the most beneficial influence upon his outward condition as well: in making man holy, it makes him happy at the same time—even while being a kingdom not of this world (John 18:36). Christianity, nevertheless, contains within it, in the Apostle’s words, the promise of life not only to come, but also present (1 Tim. 4:8).
1) First of all, the holy faith makes, and it alone can make, every individual person truly happy. Man’s first enemies, the first source of all his misfortunes, are his own passions: envy, vengefulness, ambition, avarice, hatred, and the like. Once strengthened within him, they become his true tyrants: they tear at his soul, wear down his body, and undermine his health; they not infrequently earn a man a multitude of enemies, and, however rich he may be in worldly goods, they do not let him be satisfied with those goods or find in them any repose for himself. The sinner carries a storm within himself that nothing external can calm. And it is this storm the holy faith calms, destroying in man the chief source of his misfortunes: for it not only forbids believers all the passions and commands them to crucify them, but at the same time grants all the powers necessary for this—without which its commandments alone, and man’s own efforts alone, could accomplish nothing, and which nothing but Christianity can grant us. Having taught man to conquer his passions, the holy faith then settles peace in his soul (Phil. 4:7)—that gracious peace which can never be accessible to people governed by their passions (Is. 57:20–21); and, in place of self-love with all its branches, it establishes in the heart two new feelings—love for God and love for neighbor—and thus makes that heart a sanctuary of true happiness. Then nothing is any longer able to disturb the inward peace and contentment in a Christian’s soul. Do temporal goods flow to him? He does not reject them; he sees in them a gift of God and a means for helping his neighbors and for the salvation of his own soul; but he does not set his heart upon these goods (Ps. 61:11), and therefore, on losing them, feels no loss and does not grieve. Does the Lord visit him with calamities and temptations? Filled with filial trust in Providence, the Christian rejoices even in his sufferings (Col. 1:24), being convinced that these trials are fresh proofs of the heavenly Father’s love for him (Heb. 12:6), since they are sent for his own moral good (1 Pet. 1:6–7), and that the Most High will never allow him to be tempted beyond what he is able to bear (1 Cor. 10:13). Do his neighbors rise up against him with their envy and malice, and, despite his innocence, oppress and persecute him by every means? His love bears all things, is not provoked, thinks no evil (1 Cor. 13:4, 8); it forgives its enemies and even prays for them; it loves them, it repays them good for evil (Matt. 5:44). The true Christian is always content with his lot, whatever it may be—and in this, precisely, true happiness on earth may consist.
2) The holy faith brings true happiness into the bosom of families as well. In this regard, what it has done for the good of mankind is beyond price. First, it forbade its followers polygamy, and pointed to the true form of marriage—monogamy—the only form under which sincere love and concord within families, and the attainment of all the moral ends of married life, are possible. Second, it sanctified the contracting of marriage with a mysterious sacred rite, through which grace-filled powers are granted to the couple for a blessed cohabitation, in a spirit of pure love, and for the corresponding bearing and raising of children, and it explained the spiritual significance of marriage, calling it an image of the mysterious union of Christ with the Church (Eph. 5:29–33). Third, it freed the wife from the contempt that weighed upon the female sex in the pagan world, and restored to her, in her husband’s eyes, her human dignity (Gal. 3:28; 1 Cor. 11:12), without which no moral union or pure love could be possible between them. Finally, it defined their mutual relations to one another—relations of love and peace—with such precision that husband and wife form, as it were, one body and one spirit in Christ Jesus (Eph. 5:22–33). With no less precision Christianity defined, elevated, and ennobled the mutual relations of parents and children as well. The natural love for children took on, in Christianity, a higher character, because children began to be regarded as children of God and members of the heavenly kingdom, extended on earth through marriage blessed by God. Parents received the duty of raising their children not for this life alone, and not for their earthly homeland alone, but chiefly for eternal life, for their heavenly homeland (Eph. 6:4). Correspondingly, the natural love of children for their parents also received new motives and a higher character: the former began to obey the latter and to love them in the Lord (Eph. 6:1), being joined to them by a bond not only of the flesh, but also of the spirit, in Christ Jesus. Thus, in the Christian world, family life became a sanctuary of the purest love, binding together all the members of the household, a seedbed of piety, an abode of peace and happiness. And truly Christian families are, without any doubt, the happiest families.
3) Finally, nothing can be more beneficial than the relation the holy Christian faith bears toward whole political societies and states. It defined, elevated, and sanctified the mutual relation of Kings—or governments in general—and their subjects. It commanded the latter: honor the King (1 Pet. 2:17), render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s (Matt. 22:21), submit yourselves to every human authority for the Lord’s sake: whether to the king, as supreme, or to governors, as sent by him (1 Pet. 2:13–14). Why? Because there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are established by God (Rom. 13:1); because every ruler is a servant of God to you for good, a representative on earth not only of Providence’s mercy, but also of its chastisement, a formidable avenger against the one who does evil (v. 4); because, consequently, whoever resists authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves (v. 2). The holy faith then commanded subjects that submission is necessary not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake (v. 5), serving with good will, as to the Lord, and not as to men (Eph. 6:7); that it is necessary to submit to masters, not only the good and gentle, but also the harsh, for this is well-pleasing before God (1 Pet. 2:18–19); and that the subjects’ first prayer must be for the King, and for all who are in authority (1 Tim. 2:1–3). In return, Christianity instilled in earthly rulers, too, feelings they had not known before toward their subjects—feelings of justice, gentleness, mercy, and love. For it declared to earthly rulers that their subjects, too, are people just like themselves, descended from the one forefather common to all—Adam (Acts 17:26); that they are children of the same heavenly Father as themselves (Matt. 5:48; 6:8), their brothers in Christ Jesus (Col. 3:11), for each of whom Christ died (1 Cor. 8:11); that they are partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), destined one day to sit with their Savior on heavenly thrones (Rev. 3:21), and that over the earth’s own rulers, just as over their subjects, there is in heaven a Lord with whom there is no favoritism (Eph. 6:9). At the same time, the holy faith defined, elevated, and strengthened, in the best possible way, the mutual relations of subjects among themselves, as members of one great political body. This it accomplished chiefly through its two commandments—the commandment of self-denial and the commandment of love for one’s neighbor. By the first, which commands Christians to root out self-love within themselves and to crucify all their passions, the holy faith cuts off the chief source of the various evils of public life; by the second, it opens the most important source of blessings for that same life, because those who truly love their neighbors live not for themselves but for others, are ready to sacrifice everything for them, and, in case of need, are each ready to lay down their very soul for their friends. These two commandments, once appropriated by the members of society, naturally move them to bear all civic duties, as necessary for the common good, to fulfill all political laws directed toward that same end, to make every kind of donation for the poor, the suffering, the aged, widows, and orphans, to build shelters for them, and so on. The true Christian, animated by self-denial and love for his neighbor, is the best citizen, whatever rank he may hold—whether he be a nobleman or a commoner, a scholar or an artisan, a soldier or a craftsman: for he carries out all the duties of his station with the utmost diligence, directing everything, moreover, toward the common good. In general, if all the members of any state were to become true Christians—that is, were governed by Christian self-denial and love—this earthly kingdom would appear as a kind of likeness of the heavenly kingdom, a kingdom of continual inward peace and universal brotherly love, a kingdom in which all citizens would truly form one body and one spirit… And let us not forget that these two virtues (self-denial and love), so necessary for the true good of nations, can be cultivated in people by Christianity alone.
B. THE EXTERNAL MARKS OF THE DIVINITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT REVELATION
§95. Parts of the Inquiry and Limitation of the Subject
Turning to the external marks, or proofs, of the divinity of the New Testament revelation, we cannot but note, first of all, that they are extraordinarily numerous. They fill:
1) the history of Christ the Savior, and
2) the history of His whole Church.
Here we shall confine ourselves to pointing out only the chief of these marks.
Marks from the History of Christ the Savior
§96. Their Enumeration
The history of the Savior’s earthly life presents proofs, directly, of the truth that He is the true Messiah and the true Son of God, as He Himself repeatedly testified concerning Himself (John 6:38–40; 7:28; 10:30; 17:5, and others), and, indirectly, of the truth that the faith He brought to earth is a divine faith (John 7:16–17; 8:26–28). Such proofs are furnished by:
a) the very time and circumstances of Christ the Savior’s coming to earth,
b) His character,
c) His miracles,
d) His prophecies, and
e) in particular, His resurrection, as the greatest of His miracles and prophecies.
§97. The Time and Circumstances of Jesus Christ’s Coming to Earth
I. The time of Jesus Christ’s coming to earth occurred precisely when the Messiah was to come, according to the ancient prophecies, and when both Jews and pagans were expecting Him.
The truth of the first point we have already seen, in examining the prophecies themselves: Jacob’s, concerning the ruler not failing from Judah, and Daniel’s, concerning the seventy weeks—prophecies that were fulfilled in our Savior with the most striking precision. In confirmation of the second point, which we have likewise touched upon more than once, let us present here fuller proofs.
First, concerning the Jews. That they did indeed expect the Messiah’s appearing at that time is known from the Gospel history, from the testimony of Josephus, and from the admission of the later Jewish rabbis. The Gospel, in confirmation of this, presents several instances, for example:
a) as soon as John the Baptist appeared at the Jordan with his preaching, his countrymen sent to ask him: was he not the Christ? (John 1:19–27).
b) when John answered them that he was not, and, calling himself only the Messiah’s forerunner, began to preach: repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand…, one mightier than I is coming after me… (Matt. 3:2; Mark 1:7), everyone believed this preaching, and all the region of Judea went out to John, and the people of Jerusalem: and all were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins (Mark 1:5);
c) when the magi, guided by the wondrous star, came to Jerusalem and asked: where is he who is born King of the Jews—their single question threw all Jerusalem into commotion (Matt. 2:3);
d) when the Savior, still an infant, was brought, according to the law of Moses, into the temple to be presented to the Lord, He was met there by the elder Simeon, who awaited the consolation of Israel (Luke 2:25), and Anna the prophetess spoke of Him to all who awaited redemption in Jerusalem (v. 38). Josephus relates that in those days many impostors appeared who passed themselves off as the Messiah and always drew crowds of people after them;220 and this attests that both the impostors and those they deceived were equally convinced that the time for the true Messiah’s coming had at last arrived. Among the later rabbis, Manasseh, for example, states plainly that all the Jews who took up arms against the Romans in the days of Vespasian and Titus (that is, in the period nearest to the Savior’s own time) were firmly convinced that Daniel’s weeks, which pointed to the Messiah’s coming, had already been fulfilled, and that, consequently, the Messiah must already have appeared.221
Not less certain is it that a similar expectation existed among the pagans at that time. The contemporary historian Tacitus, in setting forth the history of the Jewish War, writes: “many believed the ancient testimonies of the priests, that at this very time the East would gain new strength, and that those coming out of Judea would become masters of the world”.222 Suetonius expresses this even more forcefully, though in almost the same words: “throughout the whole East there was spread an ancient and constant opinion that it was fated that, at this time, those coming out of Judea would become masters of the world”.223 Two other contemporary writers, Philo224 and Josephus,225 and the second-century writer Hegesippus,226 repeat the very same thing. In particular, it is certain:
a) that this universal expectation of some great King existed then among the Romans, that it powerfully occupied every mind, and that many ambitious men tried to turn it to their own purposes: “relying on this expectation,” Sallust testifies, “Lentulus involved himself in Catiline’s conspiracy, and vaingloriously maintained that the foretold King was to arise from the Cornelian family”;227
b) it was far more precise and definite among the Persians, as is shown by the journey of the magi from the East—from Persia specifically228 — to worship the newborn Jesus (Matt. 2:1);
c) it existed even in far-off China, so that, according to the testimony of historians there, sixty-five years after the Nativity of Christ the Chinese emperor sent a special embassy to Palestine to find out whether the great Messenger of heaven had indeed appeared.229 This expectation, so firm and so widespread at that time even among the pagans themselves, furnishes fresh proof that it existed all the more strongly at that time among the Jews: for it could have passed to the pagans in no other way than from the Jews. And as for how it could have passed—to explain this it is enough to recall, first, the dispersion of the Jews, which had already occurred much earlier, into various countries of the world: Babylon, Persia, Media, Syria, Phoenicia, Egypt,230 India,231 China,232 even, as is conjectured, America;233 and, second, the translation of Holy Scripture into Greek, made more than two centuries before the Savior’s Nativity, and which passed from that time into the hands of learned pagans. Both these most important events were, without doubt, arranged by Providence itself, so that, through them, all might be prepared, before the Messiah’s coming, to receive Him: and so, indeed, at the very time when Christ was to appear, He was awaited by all—both Jews and pagans.
II. But while the time of our Savior’s coming, occurring in an age of universal expectation of the true Messiah, spoke of Jesus Christ’s divine commission very forcefully, yet still indefinitely, the extraordinary circumstances surrounding His birth already testified plainly that, of all who were born at that time, He specifically was the Deliverer promised of old. Of these circumstances, some preceded the birth of Christ the Savior, and others followed it.
The preceding circumstances. Some time before the Nativity of Christ, the Archangel Gabriel appeared in the Jerusalem temple to a devout Jewish priest named Zechariah, with the news that a son, John, would be born to him, Zechariah, despite both his own old age and the old age and barrenness of his wife Elizabeth—a son who would be the Messiah’s forerunner. Zechariah expressed his disbelief at the Archangel’s miraculous prediction, and for this became mute until the day this prediction was fulfilled, while St. Elizabeth did indeed conceive in her womb (Luke 1:5–25).
Six months later the same Archangel was sent by God to the Galilean town of Nazareth, to the most immaculate Virgin Mary, and announced to Her that from Her the Messiah Himself, the Son of God, would be conceived and born in a supernatural manner. The holy Virgin believed this, and, remaining a Virgin, conceived in Her womb of the Holy Spirit (vv. 26–38).
Soon, at the meeting of Mary with Elizabeth, the latter felt the babe leap within her womb, and, filled with the Holy Spirit, confessed Her to be the Mother of the Lord and blessed Her faith; and the most holy Virgin Mary, hearing such a greeting, poured out Her soul in a solemn song to God, in which She glorified the greatness of His benefactions to Herself and to all Israel, and foretold Her own future glory (vv. 39–56).
Still some time later, when the righteous Elizabeth was delivered of her child, her husband Zechariah, on the day of the newborn infant’s circumcision, to everyone’s astonishment, was freed from his muteness, and, filled with the Holy Spirit, glorified the God of Israel for the fulfillment of the ancient promises concerning the Messiah, and foretold the future ministry and labors of his son (vv. 59–79).
At last the time came for the birth of Jesus Christ, who, according to prophecy, was to be born in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2); yet the holy Virgin was still residing in Nazareth, Her permanent dwelling place. What, then, does Providence arrange? At this very time the Roman Caesar issues a decree for a general census of the people, and Mary, together with her betrothed Joseph, must go, on this occasion, to their ancestral town of Bethlehem; she arrives, and there gives birth to a Son (Luke 2:1–8).
The circumstances that followed. As soon as Christ was born, the Angel of the Lord appeared to the Bethlehem shepherds, who were keeping watch over their flock by night, and an extraordinary light shone upon them. They heard from the Angel of the Savior’s birth in the city of David, received instruction on how to find the divine Infant, and at the same moment beheld a whole heavenly host glorifying God and singing: glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will among men (Luke 2:8–14).
Meanwhile the magi, from the distant East, guided by the wondrous star, come to Bethlehem to worship the King of the Jews, born in a cave, and bring Him gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Matt. 2:1–12).
When the days of purification were fulfilled, and the infant Jesus was brought, according to the law of Moses, into the temple to be presented to the Lord, at that very same time, moved by the Spirit, the elder Simeon also came into the church, was accounted worthy to take the promised Deliverer into his arms, confessed Him as the Savior of the whole world, the Enlightener of the nations, and the Glory of Israel, and at the same time uttered a prophecy concerning both Him and His Mother. The righteous Anna, daughter of Phanuel, who happened to be present, likewise glorified the divine Infant Jesus, and spoke of Him to all who awaited redemption in Jerusalem (Luke 2:22–38).
Soon a twofold appearance of the Angel to Joseph followed. The first time, on account of Herod’s intention to put the infant Jesus to death, the Angel commanded Joseph to take the Child and His Mother and flee into Egypt. The second time, after Herod’s death, when the danger had passed, the heavenly messenger directed the holy family to return to their native land (Matt. 2:13–23).
Thus, from the very moment of Jesus Christ’s entrance into the world, everything already foretold in Him an extraordinary Messenger of God, the true Messiah. He appeared surrounded by signs and wonders, in which one cannot fail to recognize the special finger of God. If we now look at the very life of our Savior, we shall be convinced that these forewarnings were fulfilled with complete precision.
§98. The Character of Jesus Christ234
And, first of all, it presents to us, in our Savior, a truly divine character, to which history knows no equal.
1) The goal toward which the Lord Jesus strove throughout the whole of His life, and which He called His own work (John 17:4), was the loftiest goal, never before heard of in the world. There have been men who made it the task of their lives to reform this or that branch of learning, this or that art; there have arisen lawgivers and sages who strove to reform the political order of some one state, to change and improve the beliefs of some one particular people… Christ the Savior appeared with the thought of recreating the whole human race, corrupted by sin, of enlightening all people with the light of the true knowledge of God (John 12:46; 17:3), of teaching all sinners the purest morality and making them holy (Matt. chs. 5, 6, and 7), of forming out of all the earth-born a single flock, a single kingdom of God (John 10:16; Matt. 4:17), and then of leading all into the eternal dwellings of the heavenly Father (Matt. 25:34). And at what point did He appear with such a thought in the midst of the Jewish people? At a time when the sons of Israel, having lost the true sense of their own divine writings, expected in the Messiah an earthly conqueror-king, appropriated to themselves alone all the blessings of God, and looked with contempt on all the other nations. How unlike our Savior were all the other figures who dared, around that time, to pass themselves off as the Messiah! Not one of them rose above the errors of their fellow Jews—on the contrary, they tried to exploit these very errors, proclaimed themselves earthly rulers and warriors of Israel, failing to understand how unworthy such rule would be of the true Messiah, drew crowds after themselves, and soon exposed themselves as impostors. Not so did our Lord act: He went directly against the superstitions of His own people, chose for Himself a goal wholly worthy of the Messiah, and remained faithful to it to the end, despite every obstacle, all the malice and opposition of His enemies; He endured slander, reproach, and persecution for it; He tasted death itself. Who, by this feature alone, would fail to recognize the God-man? The means He employed to draw people to Himself were no less astonishing than the goal itself. What were these means? Riches, or the promise of a happy life on earth? But He Himself was born in poverty and, throughout His ministry, had nowhere even to lay His head (Matt. 8:20), while to His own followers He foretold nothing but reproach, persecution, and death itself (Luke 6:22; John 16:2). Earthly wisdom and lofty eloquence? But He chose, for the spreading of His teaching, unlettered and simple men (Acts 4:13); He chose the foolish things of the world, to shame the wise: and the weak things of the world, to shame the strong: and the base things of the world, and the despised, and the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are (1 Cor. 1:27–28): He was pleased to save believers through the foolishness of preaching (v. 21). Indulgence of human sensuality and passions? But the very first requirement He made of His followers was self-denial, renunciation of the passions, and a strict, godly life. How far all this rises above ordinary human calculation! How pure and blameless are Jesus’s intentions, and how worthy of the God-man! What ordinary man would ever have dared choose, for his own goal, means that, to all appearances, could only drive him further from it?
2) The intellectual qualities of the Lord Jesus likewise plainly indicate in Him the One He claimed to be (John 3:17). His wisdom was extraordinary, not human at all. Extraordinary, first, in that He employed no means whatsoever to acquire it (John 7:15), having been born in the utmost poverty (Luke 2:7) and having spent, up to the age of thirty, His life in carpenter’s labor, in a town devoid of any learning (John 1:46). Where did this man get this wisdom (Matt. 13:54), His fellow townsmen asked in bewilderment—men who knew well both His lineage and His upbringing — how does this man know letters, never having studied (John 7:15)? Extraordinary, too, in that it plainly outstripped His age (Luke 2:52): while still twelve years old, He once, by His answers and understanding, brought the very legal experts of the Jews in the temple to astonishment and awe (vv. 46–49). Extraordinary, too, because it rose above the knowledge of all men: in the days of His public ministry the Lord more than once displayed it to such a degree that He roused universal astonishment in His hearers (John 7:46), and put to shame the most skillful debaters and teachers of the law among His own people (Matt. 22:46). But the Savior’s wisdom was especially extraordinary in that it extended, first, to the knowledge of hearts, to a perfect knowledge of men’s most secret thoughts and intentions (John 1:47; 2:25; Matt. 12:25; Mark 12:8; Luke 6:8), and, second, to a clear foreknowledge of the future (Luke 19:43; 22:34; Mark 13:9, and others): both these features of knowledge are such as can belong to God alone, by His own words (Jer. 17:9; Is. 44:7).
3) The moral qualities of Jesus Christ present to us, in Him, the most perfect model of every virtue. He was the first to embody in His own life what He taught others, and the loftiest Gospel morality appears still loftier in His own example. What could be deeper than His self-denial? That freedom from possessions, by which, throughout the whole of His ministry, He had nowhere even to lay His head (Matt. 8:20), and had to rely on the assistance of others to meet His necessary bodily needs (Luke 8:1–3); that humility, extending so far that He washed the feet of His own disciples (John 13:4–15), and withdrew from the very royal crown that the Jews once wished to force upon Him (John 6:15); that astonishing gentleness, patience, and magnanimity with which He bore the slanders and persecutions of His enemies, endured mockery, spitting, blows, and beatings before His death; and finally, that very death itself—the most agonizing and most shameful—which, nevertheless, He tasted willingly and wholly innocently, for the sake of others: where in the whole history of mankind shall we find features like these? And what of His love for God? I came down from heaven, He said of Himself, not to do my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me (John 6:38), that the world may know that I love the Father, and, as the Father commanded me, so I speak (14:31)—and His whole life was devoted to the fulfillment of this most holy will: all His works were directed toward teaching men the knowledge of the one true God (John 17:3), toward teaching them to glorify the heavenly Father through good deeds (Matt. 5:16), toward founding and establishing the kingdom of God on earth (Mark 1:14–15). In this alone—the fulfilling of the Father’s will—He found His true food (John 4:34); for this He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even to death, even death on a cross (Phil. 2:8). What was His love for men like? He undertook boundless labors to enlighten them with the light of the Gospel, went from place to place, preached, exhorted, reproved, endured griefs and persecutions. To prove His divine commission He had to work miracles—and He performed all these miracles chiefly to help the unfortunate: He healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, cleansed lepers, doing good to all (Acts 10:38). In particular, He showed filial love and obedience toward His Mother and His supposed father Joseph (Luke 2:5; John 19:27), love for kinsmen and acquaintances (John 11:5, 11 and 36; 13:23), love for His homeland (Matt. 15:24; 23:37; Luke 19:41), love for children (Matt. 19:13–15), love for His own disciples (Matt. 18:1–5, and others), and goodness and unparalleled condescension toward sinners (Matt. 9:10–13; Luke 19:10). But the very utmost degree of His love for men He revealed on the cross, which He mounted solely for their salvation, and where, amid the greatest sufferings, He prayed to the Father for His own crucifiers and enemies (John 3:16; Luke 23:34). With such supreme perfections, the Lord Jesus was wholly free even from the slightest defects. Not only, by the testimony of His own disciples, did He commit no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth (1 Pet. 2:22, cf. 1 John 3:5), but His very bitterest enemies could accuse Him of nothing. The chief priests, the elders, and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus, that they might put Him to death, and found none (Matt. 26:59); Judas, who knew his Teacher’s life intimately, betrayed Him, and repented, saying that he had betrayed innocent blood (Matt. 27:4). Pilate, having carefully examined all the slanders and accusations of the Jews against Jesus, said, in the hearing of the very slanderers: I find no fault in this man (Luke 23:4); I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man: you shall see to it (Matt. 27:24). Such perfect holiness and sinlessness in the Lord Jesus—wholly foreign to men in their present, fallen state (Rom. 5:12)—points us, in our Savior, to more than a man; it points, in truth, to the incarnate Son of God, as He Himself was pleased to call Himself.
§99. The Miracles of Jesus Christ235
I. But the miracles of Jesus Christ furnish a still stronger, and indeed wholly incontestable, proof of this truth (John 5:33–36; 10:37–38). These miracles were extraordinarily great and numerous, and, in general, such as no one else has done (John 15:24). In them He showed Himself —
a) master of external nature, when He turned water into wine (John 2:1–11); commanded the winds and the sea, and they obeyed Him (Luke 8:24; Matt. 8:23–27); walked upon the waters (Matt. 14:26); fed, with a few loaves and fish, once five thousand men, and another time four thousand, besides women and children (Matt. chs. 14 and 15);
b) master of human nature, when, by a single word, by a single touch of His hand or garment, He healed every disease (Matt. 9:20–23; 14:35 and 36; Luke 4:40); gave sight to the blind (Matt. 20:29–34; Mark 10:46–52), hearing to the deaf, speech to the mute (Matt. 9:32–35; 12:22; Luke 11:14), and healing to lepers (Matt. 8:1–5);
c) master of the underworld itself, when, merely by His approach to people possessed by unclean spirits, He made those spirits tremble, and cast them out of the people with a single word (Matt. 8:28–34; Luke 8:26–40);
d) master of life and death, when He raised the son of the poor widow of Nain (Luke 7:11), the daughter of Jairus, a ruler of the synagogue (Matt. 9:18–19; Luke 8:49), and raised Lazarus, who had already been four days in the tomb (John ch. 11). To all this must be added the extraordinary signs performed not by the Savior Himself, but for the Savior’s sake, amid various circumstances of His earthly life, such as:
a) suddenly after His baptism, when, as He came up out of the water, the heavens were opened above Him, the Holy Spirit appeared descending upon Him in the form of a dove, and a voice was heard from on high: this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Matt. 3:16–17; Mark 1:10–11; Luke 3:21–22);
b) during His transfiguration on Tabor before three Apostles, when His face shone as the sun, and His garments became white as light, when Moses and Elijah appeared to Him to converse with Him, and again a voice followed out of the cloud: this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear Him (Matt. 17:1–5);
c) once in Jerusalem, in the presence of a great multitude, when, at the Lord’s prayer to the heavenly Father to glorify His name, a voice came from heaven: I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again (John 12:28–31);
d) finally, during the Redeemer’s passion on the cross, when from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour, and, as soon as He gave up His spirit into the hands of the heavenly Father, the veil of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the sleeping saints arose (Matt. 27:45, 51–52). In a word: the life of our Savior, which is itself a miracle in its moral character, is filled and surrounded with miracles on every side.
II. That these miracles were genuine, that is, were supernatural events. The proof of this is furnished by:
1) Their very nature: all of them evidently exceed the powers and laws of nature, and no sound-minded person will maintain that it is possible, for example, for a man by a single word to raise the dead and heal every disease, or with a few loaves to feed whole thousands, or to give sight to one born blind and to command the elements of nature, and so forth.
2) The manner of their performance. The Savior performed His miracles in such a way that it is decisively impossible to suspect in them any fraud or contrivance. He performed them
a) without any preparation, suddenly, as soon as occasion presented itself;
b) performed them with a single word, often with a single touch, or even with a thought and a wish (Luke 6:19; John 4:50–54; Matt. 8:8 and 13): He said to the paralytic: get up, take up your bed, and go to your house—and the paralytic was healed (Matt. 9:6); He said to the leper: I am willing; be clean—and instantly the leprosy left him (Matt. 8:3); He called to the dead man: Lazarus, come forth—and the four-days-dead man, who had already begun to stink, came out of the tomb (John 11:43);
c) performed them not in any one particular place nor at any one particular time, in the presence of a few witnesses; on the contrary, always and everywhere, openly and before the whole people. He went through the cities and villages of Judea, often accompanied by whole thousands of people, appeared in Jerusalem, in public places, in the temple, during the great feasts to which Jews gathered from every side, and everywhere showed forth His omnipotence and wonder-working power. Those He healed lived, after their healing, in the same cities and villages where they had formerly been seen sick. Both their diseases and their miraculous healing were known to their relatives, neighbors, and all their fellow citizens; whole crowds flocked, for example, to see the risen Lazarus, so that the rulers of the synagogue sought to destroy him, because on his account many of the Jews went away and believed in Jesus (John 12:11).
3) The purpose of these miracles. The purpose of the Gospel miracles was of the highest kind, fully worthy of God. It consisted in showing to men, in Jesus Christ, the true Messiah, the Son of God, in disposing them to believe in Him, to receive His teaching and grace, and thus to attain eternal salvation (John 10:38; 15:24; Matt. 11:20–24).
4) Their number and variety. The Savior wrought not one miracle only, not two, not ten, but a countless multitude. His wonder-working power was not confined to any few known acts, but was expressed in manifold forms, extended to the whole world, and showed in Him the Lord of all that exists.
5) The investigation of these miracles by the Savior’s own enemies (John 9:12–34). The Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, and priests who were hostile to Jesus were themselves frequently witnesses of His miracles, and saw all their extraordinary effect upon the people (John 12:19). It cannot be that these enemies would not have taken every measure to expose the deception, had one been concealed here. In their hands lay all public authority: it would have been easy for them to prove the falsehood by judicial inquiry; it would have sufficed to expose the fraud of a single miracle in order to gain the right to suspect the truth of all the rest. And what then? The enemies of the Lord Jesus themselves confess the genuineness of His miracles: what shall we do, for this man performs many signs, they said among themselves; if we let him alone thus, all will believe in him (John 11:47–48). And, in condemning the Savior to death on the cross, they did not dare to charge Him before the people with performing false miracles, though this would have been greatly to their advantage; but were compelled to devise false witness against Him.
6) The fearless, open appeal to these miracles by the Lord Jesus Himself, as the weightiest proof of His divinity. If I am not doing the works of my Father, He said before all, do not believe me; but if I am, even though you do not believe me, believe the works (John 10:37–38); for the works which the Father gave me to accomplish, the very works that I do, testify about me, that the Father has sent me (John 5:36, cf. 14:11; 15:24). Could Jesus Christ so resolutely and publicly have appealed to His miracles and given them so high a significance, if their performance had concealed any fraud or involved any contrivance?
7) Precisely the same appeal to the miracles of Christ by the holy Apostles. Jesus did many other signs before His disciples, which are not written in this book, says the holy John the Theologian in his Gospel, but these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name (John 20:30–31). Men of Israel, cried the Apostle Peter in his speech to the Jews, after the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested by God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know, this man, delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you took, and by the hands of lawless men crucified and killed: whom God raised up (Acts 2:22–24; see also Acts 10:38; Heb. 2:3–4).
8) Finally, the effect of these miracles upon their witnesses. After the Savior worked His first sign in Cana of Galilee, his disciples believed in him (John 2:11); after His healing of a certain nobleman’s son in Capernaum, the nobleman himself believed, and his whole household (John 4:53); after the Savior stilled the storm on the sea, those who were in the boat came and worshiped him, saying: truly you are the Son of God (Matt. 14:33); after He had fed several thousand people with five loaves and two fish, those who saw the sign that Jesus did said, this is truly the prophet who is to come into the world (John 6:14). In general, moved by the Lord’s miracles, many of the people believed in him, and said, when the Christ comes, will he do more signs than this man has done (John 7:31)—and the number of these believers was so great that the Pharisees themselves confessed: behold, the world has gone after him (John 12:19).
III. If we now turn to the historical reliability of the miracles and of the Gospel events in general, we shall see that in this respect too nothing more remains to be desired.
1) These events have been transmitted to us by eight contemporary writers: for the historians of Jesus Christ must be reckoned to include not only the four Evangelists, but also all the Apostles who left writings, in which, as is known, the Gospel events are either clearly presupposed or even directly recounted. Five of these writers—Matthew, John, Peter, James, and Jude—belonged to the number of eyewitnesses; they accompanied the Savior throughout the whole time of His ministry, and each of them, like St. John, could say: that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at, and our hands have touched, concerning the Word of life—and the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and declare it (1 John 1:1–2). Two others, Mark and Luke, though they did not belong to the twelve Apostles, belonged to the number of the seventy, were contemporaries of Jesus Christ, associated most closely with His eyewitness disciples, and heard His history from them. Finally, St. Paul also associated directly with the closest disciples of the Lord, and may therefore justly be called a contemporary witness to the deeds of Christ. If this is so, it must be granted that of all the most remarkable events of antiquity, none is so well attested as the Gospel events, for none is recorded by so great a number of contemporaries. And whoever should resolve, after this, to reject these events would plainly convict himself of extreme obstinacy against sound sense, and would have to begin by rejecting all of ancient history.
2) To suppose that the Apostles, who were with the Savior throughout the whole time of His ministry and saw all His miracles with their own eyes, could have been deceived in them, is utterly unreasonable. This is contradicted by the very character of Christ’s miracles, which, as we have already noted, were exceedingly various and numerous, were performed without any preparation, openly and before the whole people, were not tied to any one place or time, but occurred at every time and in every place. Still more is it contradicted by the length of the Apostles’ time with the Savior: one may be deceived once, twice, three times, or more; but to be deceived for three and a half years, to be deceived daily, and sometimes several times a day, and moreover not in some one miraculous act repeated many times, but in all the countless miracles—this is a supposition to which no sound-minded person would agree. Granted that the Apostles were simple and unlettered men; but was it not enough for them to have sound senses and sound common sense alone, to be convinced how, at a single word of the Savior, the sick were healed, the blind received their sight, the dead were raised? The highest and most all-round education would have added nothing here: the educated man, like the unlearned, would have seen only the miracle, equally without understanding how it was performed.
3) Everything likewise convinces us that the Apostles, who had every opportunity to know the truth about their Teacher, also conveyed only the truth to others. Let us take into consideration the circumstances and manner of their preaching. They preached at the very time when the Gospel events had only just taken place, and in the very places where these events occurred. They name cities, villages, families, even the very persons who were witnesses of Christ’s miracles, or upon whom these miracles were performed; they make no effort at all to prove to the Jews the truth of the events described, but most often appeal to their being common knowledge, and call the Jews themselves as witnesses of these events: can deceivers act in this way? Let us add to this the striking marks of sincerity and candor with which the writings of the Apostles are so plainly stamped. They do not even conceal their own shortcomings: their slowness of understanding, their disagreements among themselves, their mistaken notions concerning the kingdom of the Messiah, their misplaced zeal; they speak of Peter’s denial, of Thomas’s unbelief, and so forth. In the Apostles’ narrative one cannot detect even a shadow of partiality toward their Teacher, or of hatred against His enemies. The Evangelists relate His sufferings just as simply as they relate His miracles. In depicting the Savior in the full majesty of His divine power, they do not conceal how few at first believed in Him, and they express the terrible scene of His crucifixion only in the words: there they crucified him (Luke 23:33). But the most important proof of the Apostles’ sincerity is this: that they not only preach the Gospel events before the whole people, but also, in witness of their words, willingly expose themselves to dangers, endure countless insults, persecutions, torments, and go even to death. That several men should agree to invent occurrences, and then pass them off as real, without any benefit to themselves—on the contrary, at the risk of their own lives; that they should even wish to seal their testimony with their own blood, as though they had seen what they had not seen at all, and heard what they had not heard: this is the extreme degree of improbability! True, people hardened in prejudices which they drank in with their mother’s milk, and raised in error, can take their false notions for true, and are sometimes ready to sacrifice everything in their defense; but the Apostles were not at all like such people—on the contrary, for the sake of the new teaching they rejected all the prejudices of their upbringing, left the faith and customs of their fathers, and became Christians solely because they had seen with their own eyes the wondrous deeds of the Savior. They testify directly and openly: we declare to you that which we heard, which we saw, which we looked upon with our eyes and touched with our hands (1 John 1:1); for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard (Acts 4:20).
4) New unimpeachable witnesses to the reliability of the Gospel miracles are furnished by all those persons who turned to Christianity in the days of the Apostles. It is known that the Apostolic preaching spread with extraordinary speed, that not only pagans, but even before them the Jews themselves, accepted it by whole thousands at once. And how did they accept it? In such a way that they sacrificed everything for it, gladly exposed themselves for it to the hatred of their neighbors, to persecutions, torments, and death itself. Meanwhile, all these people were contemporaries of the Apostles, and many were contemporaries of Jesus Christ Himself; all of them, therefore, especially the Jews, had the opportunity to verify the Apostles’ accounts of Christ’s miracles, to examine them strictly, and to learn the actual truth. Let us now suppose that the Gospel miracles never happened at all, that they were invented—the question arises: how then could these thousands of contemporaries have accepted the Apostolic preaching; how could they have agreed to believe deceivers; how could they have resolved, for the sake of this deception, to sacrifice all the most sacred beliefs of their ancestors and to spare not even their own lives?
5) But we can call to witness the miracles of our Savior His own enemies—the Jews who did not believe in Him. They did not deny the genuineness of these miracles; on the contrary, for all their envy of Jesus Christ, they involuntarily confessed that this man performs many signs, so that he draws the world after him (John 11:47 and 48; 12:19). Only to quiet themselves and justify their unbelief did they try to maintain that Christ performed signs by the power of Beelzebub (Matt. 12:24). In the Jewish Talmud it is likewise said that Christ truly performed wondrous deeds, that His very name, pronounced by others, healed every disease; several instances of His wonder-working power are even related, though in a most distorted form…; but it is only added that He accomplished all this not by His own power, but by the mysterious, unutterable name of Jehovah, which He cunningly stole from the Holy of Holies, where it was engraved on a stone—an absurdity which the Jews, from ancient times down to the latest, have never ceased to repeat in explanation of Christ’s miracles, not daring, after the example of their forefathers, to deny the very reality of these miracles.236 In particular, we may point to the testimony of the Jewish historian Josephus concerning Jesus Christ. In his work on Jewish Antiquities, describing the rule of Pilate in Judea, and having spoken of the Jews’ uprising against him, Josephus adds: “at this same time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one may call Him a man: for He performed wondrous deeds, taught those who gladly receive the truth, and won for Himself a great many followers both from among the Jews and from among the Gentiles: this was the Christ. And although Pilate, upon the denunciation of our elders, condemned Him to the cross, His followers did not abandon their former love for Him. On the third day He appeared to them again alive, according to the predictions of the divine Prophets, who had foretold this, as well as many other wonders concerning Him. And the community of Christians, named after Him, exists to this day”237. The genuineness of this testimony of Josephus is vouched for by —
a) the fact that it is found, without any alteration, in all the ancient manuscripts and in all the printed editions of the Jewish Antiquities;
b) Eusebius cites it not only in his church history,238 but also in a work239 directed expressly against the Jews: and this was at a time when, by the words of Eusebius himself,240 the writings of Josephus were in the greatest renown and use among both Jews and Romans;
c) it is cited afterward by Jerome241 and Isidore of Pelusium at the end of the fourth century,242 by Sozomen in the first half of the fifth,243 by Cedrenus and others in later times;244
d) the fact that the Jews, throughout all the ages, never charged the Christians with having themselves inserted this passage into the work of Josephus, or with having tampered with it in any way;
e) the complete conformity of the style of this passage with the style of the whole work;
f) the improbability that Josephus, who relates with strict accuracy all the leaders of the various political and religious factions that arose among the Jews from the time of Augustus down to the fall of Jerusalem—such as Judas the Galilean, Theudas, and others245 — and who also mentions John the Baptist246 and James, whom he even calls the brother of Jesus, called Christ (τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ),247 should have passed over in silence Jesus Christ alone, whose name was by then common knowledge, and whose followers already formed, within the bounds of the Roman Empire itself, numerous communities that drew the attention of the Caesars.248 And if the cited testimony of Josephus concerning Jesus Christ is genuine, then no better proof is needed that the Jews contemporary with the Savior did not at all deny the reliability of His miracles, though they explained them in their own way: Josephus lived in the first century, and in Jerusalem itself, was one of the most learned men among his contemporaries, and speaks so plainly of these miracles in a work intended for general use!
6) In like manner, the pagans too did not in the least deny the genuineness of Christ’s miracles. Here, first of all, worthy of note are:
a) The so-called Acts, or reports, of Pontius Pilate to the Roman emperor Tiberius concerning Jesus Christ, His life, condemnation to death, and resurrection, as well as concerning many other miracles—as, for example, that He healed the sick, raised the dead, and that at the moment of His death the sun grew dark. That these Acts undoubtedly existed, the first witness to this is the martyr Justin Martyr (in the first half of the second century). He refers to them twice249 in the apology which he wrote in Rome itself, where they were kept in the public archive, and where it was easy for him to inquire into the truth in detail. In an apology addressed to the emperor himself, the senate, and the whole Roman people—that is, to persons who could not but know of such acts. In an apology by which Justin wished to defend the Christians from the injustices of the pagans, and where, therefore, he had every reason to take the greatest care for the accuracy of his statements, so as not to be exposed to refutation, and thereby not to harm his own cause. After Justin, these Acts are cited by Tertullian (at the end of the second century), likewise in an apology written in defense of the Christians against the pagans,250 by Eusebius at the beginning of the fourth century,251 by St. Chrysostom in the second half of the same century,252 and by Orosius at the beginning of the fifth.253 Eusebius explains the very reason that led Pilate to act in this way. “Among the Romans”, says this expert in history, “it was the custom for the governors of provinces to report to the emperor everything new that occurred among them, so that nothing should be hidden from the emperor. For this reason Pilate reported to Tiberius concerning the resurrection of our Savior Jesus Christ, who had filled all Palestine with His glory—adding that he (Pilate) had also heard of many other miracles of Jesus, and of how, after His resurrection, He was honored by many as God”254. Let us also recall that Pilate himself, in judging our Savior, pronounced Him innocent and did everything he could to release Him, that Pilate’s own wife interceded with him on the Savior’s behalf (Matt. 27:18–25), and that afterward, having had the weakness to yield to the Jews’ insistent demand, Pilate, when he heard of Christ’s resurrection, could very naturally, partly from conscience and partly from fear, have hastened to report the whole matter to the Roman emperor, in order to deflect from himself the blame for condemning so extraordinary a man to death. Finally, one more very important report—Eusebius relates that the emperor Maximinus, one of the most savage persecutors of Christianity (in the third century), ordered false acts, under the name of Pilate’s, to be composed and circulated throughout the whole empire, filled with slanders and abuse against Jesus Christ255: does this not directly testify that genuine Acts of Pilate once existed, to which Justin and Tertullian had already pointed, in refutation of the pagans, as early as the second century, and whose content, as is evident from the words of these writers, was quite different? Tertullian and Eusebius note that Pilate’s report on Christ’s miracles was set forth in such a way that Tiberius, upon reading it, wished to include Jesus Christ among the gods, and proposed this to the senate, though the senate did not agree with the emperor, on the ground that it had not itself examined the matter.256 Besides Pontius Pilate, the genuineness of Christ’s miracles was attested by many other pagans as well, for example:
b) Thallus, or Thalus (Thallus seu Thalus), a Greek writer of the first century, says that, in the eighteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, a sudden darkness once spread over the land at the very hour of midday; and this was precisely the year and hour of Christ’s death.257
c) Phlegon, a freedman of the emperor Trajan (second century), mentions a violent earthquake that destroyed many buildings in Bithynia, and together with it an extraordinary darkening of the sun at the sixth hour of the day (extraordinary, because it occurred at the time of the full moon), and refers this event to the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad, that is, to the same eighteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, and consequently to the time of Christ’s death.258
d) Celsus, an Epicurean philosopher of the second century, one of the most learned and most fervent opponents of Christianity, does not in the least deny the genuineness of all the Gospel miracles in general, but only ascribes them to magic, and does not agree that Jesus Christ should be honored as God merely because He healed the blind and the lame.259
e) Chalcidius, a Platonist philosopher of the third century, in his commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, speaks of the appearance of a special star, announcing the descent of God to earth and leading the Chaldean sages to the cradle of the divine Infant to worship Him and bring Him gifts.260
f) Porphyry, a Platonist philosopher of the third century,261 and many other philosophers of his time, according to Arnobius, likewise did not deny the reality of Christ’s miracles, but only ascribed them to magic.262
g) Hierocles, who was governor of Alexandria in the year 303, under the emperor Diocletian, acknowledges the genuineness of Christ’s miracles, but only endeavors to set against them the miracles of Apollonius of Tyana.263
h) Even Julian the Apostate himself, the most bitter enemy of Christianity (in the fourth century), did not dare deny the reality of these miracles, but only tried to represent them as a matter of little importance. “Christ, he says, throughout His whole life, did nothing remarkable, unless indeed one should reckon it a great thing that He healed the lame and the blind, and exorcised those possessed by demons in Bethsaida and Bithynia”264.
In general it must be said that in the first centuries of Christianity none of the pagans denied the reality of the Gospel miracles. This is best seen from the Christian apologies written at that time. Here the defenders of the faith speak with confidence of the Gospel miracles as facts already proven, which no one disputes with them, and try only to refute the pagan notion that these miracles were wrought by the power of magic, and that similar, even greater, miracles had more than once been performed by the gods and by certain heroes of the pagan world.265
After such a multitude of witnesses to the reliability of the Gospel miracles—witnesses both of our own and of others, both friendly and hostile to Christianity—to doubt the genuineness of these miracles would, without question, be a matter of the most extreme historical injustice and skepticism.
§ 100. The Prophecies of Christ266
The prophecies of Jesus Christ concern, some His own person, others His disciples, others His teaching and Church, others the fate of Jerusalem and of all the Jews, and others, finally, the last events of the world.
I. Concerning His own person the Savior foretold the following: behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes; they will condemn him to death and hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked, scourged, and crucified; and on the third day he will rise again (Matt. 20:18–19; cf. Luke 18:31–32). That this prediction is a true prophecy is proven by:
a) its perfect clarity, precision, and definiteness: the Savior spoke it several times (Matt. 12:40; 16:21; 17:22–23; John 10:17, and elsewhere), and always expressed the same thing;
b) it concerns such details of the event as could in no way have been guessed at by natural reasoning: the Savior speaks not only of His death, but also of the fact that it would take place precisely in Jerusalem, that He would be betrayed not only to the chief priests and scribes but also to the Gentiles, that He would then be mocked, reviled, and spat upon, and that, of all the forms of death, precisely a death on the cross awaited Him;
c) together with such wholly contingent circumstances, Jesus Christ foretells yet one more thing, miraculous in the strict sense: His own resurrection, which still less could have been foreseen by any natural reasoning;
d) finally, the fact that all these details of the prediction were fulfilled with the greatest precision (Matt. chs. 26 and 27; Luke chs. 23 and 24).
II. The prophecies concerning the Apostles, some referred to one or another of them, others to all of them. Christ —
a) foretold that one of His disciples would betray his Teacher—when none of them knew this—and even indicated the traitor himself (Matt. 16:21; Mark 14:18; Luke 22:21; John 13:21 and following);
b) foretold to the Apostle Peter, at the very time when this Apostle was assuring Him of his special devotion to Him, of his readiness to die with Him and not to abandon Him even if all the other disciples should abandon Him—foretold that he, Peter, despite all his assurances, would deny his Teacher, would deny Him as many as three times, would deny Him that very same night, and before the cock crowed (Matt. 26:33–35; Mark 14:29–30; Luke 22:33–34);
c) foretold also to the Apostle Peter his martyr’s death (John 21:18). And to all the Apostles He foretold —
a) that they would abandon their Teacher when He was betrayed, and would be scattered as sheep having no shepherd, though the Apostles tried to assure Him of the contrary (Matt. 26:31 and 35);
b) that, after His ascension, the Holy Spirit would descend upon them (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7 and following), and that this would happen in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4 and 8);
c) that they, like all who believed in Him, would perform great miracles (Mark 16:17 and 18; John 14:12);
d) that they would be subjected, for His sake, to persecutions, torments, and death itself (Matt. 10:17; 24:9; Luke 21:12; John 15:20; 16:2).
III. Concerning His teaching and Church the Savior foretold —
a) that the Gospel would spread over all the earth, not only among the Jews, but among the Gentiles as well (Matt. 8:11–12; 24:14; Mark 13:10; Luke 24:47; John 10:16; 12:32; Acts 1:8);
b) that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, and that it would not only become established on earth, but would exist until the end of the world (Matt. 16:18; 28:20), and
c) that the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist would be celebrated on earth, in just the same way, until His second and glorious coming (Luke 22:16; cf. 1 Cor. 11:24 and following). And when did He foretell this? At a time when, by every human calculation, one ought to have expected quite the opposite. The Savior was surrounded on every side by enemies, and moreover by such as held almost all public authority in their hands; death on the cross awaited Him: this He foresaw; His teaching was directly contrary to the wisdom and customs of His contemporaries: this He even experienced (John 6:66; Matt. 19:22); for the spreading of this teaching He had only twelve disciples, all of them unlettered men; these very disciples, by His own prediction, had universal hatred, persecutions, and a martyr’s death awaiting them… How, then, was it possible, in spite of all this, to declare with such certainty that the Gospel would spread throughout the whole world, and that the followers of the Gospel would form a society that would remain unshaken until the end of the age? Only God alone, all-knowing and all-powerful, could have declared this.
IV. In the prophecy concerning the fate of Jerusalem and the Jews, Jesus Christ foretold various circumstances that preceded the destruction of the Holy City, and with it of the whole Jewish kingdom, circumstances that accompanied this dreadful event, and circumstances that followed after it.
1) The preceding circumstances may be reduced to the following five:
a) Many false prophets shall arise, and shall deceive many (Matt. 24:11; Mark 13:6). If this had been said at a time when the prophetic period still continued for the people of God, and when, alongside true prophets, false ones not infrequently appeared, such a prediction would have contained nothing surprising. But now, after the line of prophets had already ceased for the Jews since the Babylonian captivity, could it have been expected and predicted, on natural grounds alone, that many false prophets would soon appear? And yet this was fulfilled with complete precision. Before the destruction of Jerusalem, many false prophets indeed appeared and deceived many, such as: Theudas (Acts 5:36; cf. Ioseph Flavii Antiqu. lib. XX, cap. 5), Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8:9, 10), Elymas (13:6 and following), a certain Egyptian, who is mentioned both in the Acts of the Apostles (21:38) and in Josephus,267 Dositheus,268 and other deceivers, who, in the reign of Nero (55–68), having spread throughout all Judea, stirred up the people to revolt against the Romans and called them out into the wilderness, promising to show them there some great sign.269
b) You will hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that you are not alarmed, for all these things must happen, but the end is not yet—for nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and plagues and earthquakes in various places (Matt. 24:6–7). And history bears witness that the whole span of time from the death of Nero to the destruction of Jerusalem (68–70) was, within the bounds of the Roman Empire, nothing other than an unbroken series of wars among Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian. And that at the same time uprisings and revolts occurred in various other lands of the world: in Caesarea, Ptolemais, Scythopolis, Tyre, Damascus, Alexandria. Around the same time, famine three times devastated Italy, under the reign of Claudius and then of Nero,270 and once also Judea;271 a pestilence raged in Rome, Campania, and Jerusalem;272 and terrible earthquakes destroyed whole cities in Asia, Sicily, Calabria, Pontus, Campania, Macedonia, and Achaia.273
c) And there will be terrifying sights and great signs from heaven (Luke 21:11). These wondrous signs, which could in advance be known, without question, only to the all-knowing and almighty Ruler of the world, did indeed precede the destruction of Jerusalem. Josephus and Tacitus bear unanimous witness that, before that time, the inhabitants of the Holy City heard in the air the movement of an invisible army and chariots. Once in the temple, at the very hour of midnight, a light was seen around the altar, like the light of day. On another occasion the eastern bronze doors of the temple, which twenty men could scarcely close, opened of themselves about the sixth hour of the night. On the night of the feast of Pentecost, a mighty voice, as of a great multitude, was heard from the sanctuary: let us depart hence.274
d) And because lawlessness will increase, the love of many will grow cold (Matt. 24:12). Josephus writes: “had the Romans not struck down this people (the Jews), they would either have been swallowed up by the earth, or drowned by a flood, or devoured by fire, as Sodom was: for their iniquities had grown beyond all measure.”275
e) But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, handing you over to the synagogues and prisons, and bringing you before kings and governors for my name’s sake (Luke 21:12). This too was fulfilled: from the very beginning of their preaching the Apostles were subjected to persecution, both from the Jews and from the pagans, were dragged before tribunals, were shut up in prisons, and before the destruction of Jerusalem had already tasted a martyr’s death: James the son of Zebedee, James the brother of the Lord, Peter, and Paul.
2) Concerning the destruction of Jerusalem itself, and the circumstances that accompanied the destruction, the Savior foretold:
a) The time of the event: truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place (Matt. 24:34; Luke 21:32). And indeed, the destruction of Jerusalem followed thirty-six or thirty-seven years after the utterance of this prophecy, as is known from Josephus.276
b) The departure of some from Jerusalem before the siege: then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains (Matt. 24:16). And, according to Eusebius, these were the Christians, who at that time withdrew from Jerusalem into the mountain country, to the city of Pella.277
c) The manner of the siege: and your enemies will cast up a bank around you (Jerusalem), and surround you and hem you in on every side (Luke 19:43; 21:20). And so Titus did: wishing to cut off every outside help and every possibility of flight for the besieged, so as the sooner to compel them to surrender, he ordered a wall to be built around Jerusalem (a thing never before used in sieges up to that time, and this gigantic work was accomplished in three days by the Roman legions.278
d) The sufferings of the besieged: for then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will be (Matt. 24:21), and woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days (Matt. 24:19). Josephus, in describing these calamities, expresses himself almost in the words of the Gospel, considering it incredible that, from the creation of the world, any other city should have suffered as much as Jerusalem did at that time.279 The Idumeans, called in to defend Jerusalem, on the very day of their entry into the holy city, stained its streets with the murder of 18,000 citizens; at the same time three bands of villains were formed, who, hiding behind the name of defenders of the fatherland, carried on bloody feuds in the city, in the temple, and in the sanctuary itself, sparing neither sex, nor age, nor condition, putting to death old men, women, and infants in their cradles. Many of the citizens hastened to hide from these monsters in the underground passages around Jerusalem, but, being seized by the Romans at the command of Titus, were crucified at the rate of five hundred a day, in full view of the city and the temple. Soon a terrible famine broke out, and after it came a pestilence with all its devastating effects, so that at almost the very beginning of the siege as many as 115,000 corpses were thrown out of Jerusalem through a single gate; the living fed on the bodies of the dead, and one of the mothers, in despair, slaughtered her own child for food.280
e) The extent of the destruction of Jerusalem itself and of the ruin of the Jews: truly I tell you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down (Matt. 24:2) — and they will level you to the ground, you and your children within you, and will not leave in you one stone upon another (Luke 19:44). Enraged by the Jews’ stubborn resistance, the Roman legions, having taken Jerusalem, showed no mercy to anyone or anything: the city, the villages surrounding it for several miles, and the waters of the Jordan were stained with blood; in Jerusalem itself, according to Josephus, there remained not even a trace that it had once had inhabitants.281 The temple, despite the fervent wish and order of Titus to preserve this magnificent building, was consumed by fire through the carelessness of a single soldier. In the course of the whole siege as many as one million one hundred thousand Jews perished.282
3) Finally, the circumstances that followed after this the Savior expressed in the following words: and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (Luke 21:24). Josephus writes that, after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, as many as 97,000 Jews were taken captive; in captivity many of them perished in games held for entertainment, some fighting one another, others fighting wild beasts; many were sent to Egypt, Alexandria, and other lands to be sold into slavery.283 About seventy years later, on account of new uprisings of the Jewish people, Jerusalem was again taken by the Roman legions, whereupon as many as 580,000 Jews perished. At this time, by order of the emperor Hadrian, the holy city was utterly destroyed, and a plow was driven over the ruins of the temple: a new city, with new inhabitants, a new name (Aelia), and new gods, arose on the site of Jerusalem, and the Jews were forever expelled from it and scattered to every part of the world. Since then the holy city, though it recovered its former name in time, has visibly remained given over to the mockery of the Gentiles even to this day. All the attempts of Julian the Apostate and of the Jews themselves to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple proved in vain.
Thus, not one jot of Christ’s dread prophecy concerning the fate of Jerusalem and the Jews remained unfulfilled! And it is easily understood why the ancient defenders of Christianity pointed to this prophecy as one of the most striking proofs of the divinity of the holy faith.284
V. To examine here the prophecies of Christ concerning the last events of the world—its end (Luke 21:34–36), the resurrection of the dead (Matt. 22:30–32), the universal judgment and its consequences (Matt. 25:31–46)—would be superfluous, since these prophecies have not yet been fulfilled. Let us therefore pass over them and turn to the examination of the greatest of the Gospel miracles and prophecies.
§ 101. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead285
The resurrection of our Lord serves, as it were, as the crown of all those extraordinary events by which His divine origin and mission are proven, and together with them the divine origin of His faith. The Savior Himself expressed this when, to the Jews who demanded new miracles from Him, He twice answered: an evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah: for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matt. 12:39–40; 16:4), and when, going to His death on the cross, which His resurrection was to follow, He cried out: now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him (John 13:31). So too did the holy Apostles regard this event, when they affirmed that through His resurrection Christ was declared with power to be the Son of God (Rom. 1:4), and preached that if Christ be not risen, our faith is in vain (1 Cor. 15:17, cf. Acts 4:33). Here we see, first, the greatest prophecy: for Christ, in speaking of His own future resurrection, foretold a supernatural event, which, consequently, could not have been foreseen by any reasoning of the mind. Moreover, the Savior uttered this prophecy not once only and as it were in passing, but repeated it several times, on various occasions—not only to His closest disciples (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 22 and 23; 20:17–19; 26:31–32), but to the whole Jewish people and to their teachers (Matt. 12:40; 16:4; John 2:19; 10:17 and elsewhere), not in ambiguous terms, but so clearly that no one could fail to understand this prediction, or misunderstand it (Matt. 27:62–64), and finally uttered it with the most exact statement of the time He was to remain in the tomb (Mark 8:31; Matt. 12:40; 16:21; 20:19). Here too we see, second, the greatest miracle. Greatest, if only because it was clearly foretold, and foretold by the Risen One Himself: Christ is risen, as he said (Matt. 28:6). Greatest also because of the extraordinary manifestation in it of the power of God: the raising of the dead is, without any doubt, a work of greater power than the healing of the sick, the cleansing of lepers, and the like. Greatest, finally, because the Savior’s resurrection was accomplished not by some outside wonder-worker, as all the other raisings of the dead mentioned in the Old and New Testaments were accomplished, but the Risen One Himself, as He had power to lay down His soul, so He also had power to take it again (John 10:18): He rose by the power of His own Divinity, by His consubstantiality with God the Father, who raised Him from the dead (Rom. 8:11; 10:9)—who, as He Himself has life in Himself, so gave to the Son also to have life in Himself from eternity (John 5:26).
The only witnesses of Christ’s resurrection could be the Jews, among whom it took place—that is, on the one hand, the Savior’s disciples, and on the other, His enemies. Both, indeed, bore witness to this event, but in entirely different ways. The Apostles testified before the whole world, both by word and by writing, and by their life, and by their very death, that Christ, having died on the cross and been laid in the tomb, to which a guard had been expressly set, rose on the third day, as He Himself had repeatedly foretold even during His life. The hostile Jews, on the contrary, spread the report that He had not risen, but that His disciples had secretly stolen the dead body of their Teacher from the tomb by night, while the guards slept. And it is remarkable that this was the only explanation which the enemies of Christ tried, then and in the time that followed, to set against the testimony of the Apostles—as is evident:
a) already from the words of the holy Evangelist Matthew (Matt. 28:15);
b) from the words of St. Justin Martyr, who, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, tells him that his countrymen, when Christ had risen, sent their own partisans in every direction to spread everywhere the report that His body had been stolen by His disciples,286 and even more plainly —
c) from the disputes of the earliest opponents and defenders of Christianity, of whom the former (Celsus, Porphyry, Julian), finding no other objection, kept repeating only this against Christ’s resurrection—that the Apostles had carried off their Teacher’s body—while the latter tried to refute only this objection, hearing no other of the kind… What, then, are we to say of these two so mutually discordant witness accounts?
Let us say,
I) that there are certain circumstances of the event which both accounts equally admit;
II) that the account of the Jews is utterly absurd and improbable, whereas —
III) the testimony of the Apostles is stamped with every mark of unimpeachable credibility.
I. Both sides evidently agree with each other:
1) that Jesus Christ truly died. The Apostles not only assume this in their testimony, but state it plainly (John 19:30), and the hostile Jews necessarily assume it as well. Everything the latter could contrive against the Apostles’ testimony, as we have already noted, amounted to one thing only—that the Savior’s body had been stolen. And under no circumstances did the Jews dare to spread the rumor that Christ had not died on the cross; consequently, the Savior’s death was so certain and so widely known that even His own enemies found it decisively impossible to deny it. And indeed, many bore witness to it. The soldiers bore witness, who, coming to Jesus to break His legs, did not break them, seeing Him already dead (John 19:33). And in particular—that one of the soldiers who, for greater certainty of our Savior’s death, pierced His side with a spear, from which blood and water at once flowed out (v. 34). From this one blow alone, so violent, the feeble thread of the Divine Sufferer’s life would without doubt have been cut off, had He still been alive at that time. The centurion who stood at Christ’s cross bore witness, and Pilate himself, who did not permit Joseph of Arimathea to take the Savior’s body down from the cross until he had made certain that He was indeed dead (Mark 15:44). Finally, the very enemies bore witness, when they came to Pilate and asked him to set a guard at Jesus’s tomb: we remember, they said, that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, after three days I will rise again… (Matt. 27:63); which means that, by their own words, He was by then already dead… And had the least doubt remained among the Jews on this point, would they not have taken care to make certain and to expose their victim? In general, throughout all the first centuries of Christianity, the notion that Christ had not died on the cross was never once heard from His enemies; on the contrary, both Jews and pagans constantly reproached the Christians for deifying a man who had died the most disgraceful of deaths.
2) that a guard was set at the Savior’s tomb by His own enemies. The Apostles’ testimony to this is known from the Gospel (Matt. 27:66); the Jews’ testimony is evident from their own account. Christ’s body, according to their words, was secretly carried off from the tomb by the disciples while the guards slept… It follows, then, that this guard was indeed present at the tomb. Who, then, set it there? Certainly not the disciples, but the enemies. For what motive? None other can be named than the one the Evangelist Matthew relates: the chief priests and Pharisees gathered to Pilate, saying: sir, we remember that this deceiver said, while he was still alive, after three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night and steal him away and tell the people, he has risen from the dead—and the last deception will be worse than the first (Matt. 27:62–64). Here before us is the unquestionable testimony of the very enemies that the Savior had indeed prophesied His own resurrection!
3) that, finally, Christ’s body was still in the tomb on Saturday morning: otherwise, had the Jews not been convinced of this, for what purpose would they have set a guard at the tomb? — and that on Sunday morning the body was no longer found in the tomb: otherwise why would the Jews have spread the rumor that Jesus’s disciples had carried off His body?
After this, the entire disagreement between the Jews and the Apostles comes down to settling only one question: where, then, did the Savior’s body go? Did He truly rise, as the latter say, or was it secretly stolen by the disciples, as the former maintain?
II. The testimony of the Jews is utterly absurd and improbable. The theft of Christ’s body by the disciples, while the guards slept, appears either impossible or senseless:
1) On the side of the Apostles. It is known that up to that time they were timid and fearful men: whence, then, did such boldness suddenly come to them? Were they the sort to steal a dead man, when they had abandoned Him living? They scattered at the sight of a few servants with clubs who came to seize Jesus: how then did they now dare to attack armed soldiers? And what could have driven the Apostles to so desperate a deed? If Jesus Christ had not risen as He had foretold, what could the disciples have expected from Him? What use to them was His dead body? But let us grant, despite the whole moral impossibility of the act, that the Apostles stole the Savior’s body—the question arises: why then did they not do this on the very first night (from Friday to Saturday), when everything favored them, since there was as yet no guard at the tomb—and instead conceived of carrying out their plan only once the tomb was already guarded? Besides, even had they in fact managed to take advantage of the guards’ sleep, how ought they to have acted in that case, by simple prudence? They ought, without doubt, to have hurried from the tomb with the body as swiftly as possible. But the thieves, as if on purpose, linger in the cave, remove the burial wrappings and the napkin from the Savior, and lay them in order—the very order in which Peter and John afterward found these things (John 20:6–9)—and thus waste, uselessly, time so precious to them.287
2) On the side of the deed itself, that is, of the secret theft. Is it possible that the Apostles approached the tomb, broke the seal on it, rolled away the enormous stone from its entrance, lingered for a considerable time in the cave, and then managed to carry off from it their Teacher’s dead body, without any of this waking even a single one of the soldiers, however deeply all of them were sleeping?
3) On the side of the guards. Let us not forget that it was the Jews themselves who set them at the tomb. Had Pilate taken this matter upon himself, they could have accused him of negligence, could have said that he had presumably assigned careless soldiers to the task, who allowed Christ’s body to be carried off. But the chief priests and scribes themselves came to Pilate to ask him for a guard, themselves sealed the tomb, themselves set the soldiers over it—without doubt from among men most devoted to them and known for their fidelity and vigilance. How, then, could these soldiers have permitted such carelessness? They say: his disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept (Matt. 28:13). But how could a soldier plead sleep while on watch? And how did they learn of this theft, when they themselves were sleeping so soundly that they saw and heard nothing? What sort of testimony is that of sleeping men?
4) Finally, on the side of the circumstances that followed this supposed theft. The soldiers confess that they slept when they were obligated to keep watch, that they allowed Jesus’s body to be stolen when they were bound to guard it—consequently, by their own confession, they were guilty in the highest degree. And yet these guards are not only not punished in any way, but are, on the contrary, given a large sum of money!.. Whence such leniency? It is well known how strictly such offenses were punished in those days. Herod put to death the soldiers who guarded the Apostle Peter in prison—put them to death because they had failed to keep watch over Peter, who had been miraculously freed from confinement (Acts 12:19). Yet the soldiers who allowed Christ’s body to be stolen from the tomb are left without any punishment at all?.. The Apostles would have been no less guilty had they stolen the Savior’s body, in defiance of every precaution taken by the authorities. But the Apostles too are left unmolested—the Apostles are not sought out, not tried, not punished. What, then, does this mean? Why did the chief priests and Pharisees, having every opportunity to learn the truth, not investigate the matter judicially; why did they not openly expose the fraud, so as once and for all to silence the Apostles? An investigation might have divided Christ’s disciples, produced disagreement among them. The reason is plain: the Jews were afraid to investigate the truth, because they were secretly convinced of it, and knew that an investigation would expose not the Apostles at all, but themselves.
A further incongruity: a few weeks later, when the Apostles, by their preaching of the Savior’s resurrection, began to convert whole thousands of Jews to Him, the Sanhedrin was greatly troubled by this astonishing success and summoned the preachers before it for trial. For what purpose? To expose and accuse them of stealing Jesus’s body? No—only to forbid them to preach in the Savior’s name… Why, then, did the Sanhedrin not, even now, expose Christ’s disciples in this theft, when the very occasion called for it? Had it exposed the Apostles, it would have cleared itself of the charge of having killed the true Messiah, and would have turned all their followers away from them. The reason here too is plain: the Sanhedrin did not do this because it feared to expose, in place of the Apostles, itself.
After some time the Apostles are again summoned to trial, and this time the members of the Sanhedrin, exasperated by their unceasing preaching of Christ’s resurrection, were ready to put them to death (Acts 5:33). Then Gamaliel, a renowned Pharisaic teacher of the law, offers this counsel: keep away from these men and leave them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow it—or you may even be found fighting against God (Acts 5:38–39). And what happens? This counsel is accepted by all and carried out. We ask: how could Gamaliel have dared to offer the Sanhedrin such an opinion, favorable to the Apostles, if the members of the Sanhedrin were truly convinced that the Apostles had stolen their Teacher’s body? And still more, how, holding this conviction, could the Sanhedrin have heeded such counsel? If they had no doubt that the Apostles were deceivers, would even the slightest fear that their preaching might be of God have made any sense at all?..
Thus, if anywhere, then especially here, in this false testimony against the Apostles, falsehood has lied against itself (Ps. 26:12).
III. Wholly different is the testimony of the Apostles concerning the Savior’s resurrection. Here we see every mark of the purest and most unimpeachable truth.
1) The Apostles could not have been mistaken in this case. They knew Jesus Christ perfectly, for they had lived with Him for about three and a half years, and had been almost constantly at His side; consequently, they could not have confused Him with anyone else, or mistaken another for Him.
Had they said that only one of them saw the Lord after His death, one might still suppose that this sole witness had seen an apparition, or had mistaken one person for another. But the Apostles proclaim that they all saw the risen Savior, and that on one occasion He appeared to more than five hundred of His disciples at once. How, then, can we suppose that so great a multitude of people, all together, could have been deceived, and all in the same way? Had the Apostles said that they saw the Lord only once, and that from a distance, briefly, and as it were in passing, again one might be permitted to suspect an error. But the Risen One, they testify, appeared to them many times, over the course of forty days, sometimes separately to some, sometimes to all together, and ascended into heaven before their very eyes. Moreover, during His appearances He held lengthy conversations with the Apostles, in which He explained the Scriptures to them, revealed to them the mysteries of His kingdom which they were to preach, foretold to His disciples what would happen to them, and traced out for them the plan of their future actions. He even, precisely to reassure His disciples, ate food and drink before them, showed them His wounded hands and feet, His side pierced by the spear, and made them touch Him. Could the Apostles, even after all this, have failed to recognize their Teacher and somehow been deceived?
It is remarkable that the Apostles, in this instance, showed themselves especially incredulous. They felt the full weight of the truth of Christ’s resurrection, and therefore tried by every means to be convinced of it beyond doubt. They were not carried away by the first report of the Lord’s resurrection, did not believe one another, did not trust even their own eyes at first sight, until they were completely assured. When the holy women brought word to the disciples that Jesus Christ had risen, and that they had seen Him, the Apostles took everything the women told them for an idle tale: their words appeared to them as an idle tale, and they believed them not (Luke 24:11). When the disciples who were going to Emmaus likewise brought word of the Savior’s appearance to them to the other Apostles: neither believed they them (Mark 16:13). Soon the Risen One appeared also to His other disciples, and at first they thought they were seeing a spirit (Luke 24:37). And Thomas, who was not present at this, did not believe even the unanimous assurance of his fellow disciples, and said: except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe (John 20:25). This slowness to believe in Christ’s resurrection, this caution with which they sought to be convinced of it, these proofs which they demanded for their own conviction—all this bears unimpeachable witness that if the Apostles, in the end, believed with such certainty, then they had learned the truth in the fullest and most evident way.
2) Just as little can Christ’s disciples be suspected of intending to deceive others in speaking of their Teacher’s resurrection.
This is contradicted, first, by the moral character of the Apostles. Can one suppose an intention to deceive other people in men who, preaching the purest and holiest morality the world has ever heard, were themselves the very first to vindicate it by their own lives? They preach contempt for wealth—and, following the Savior’s example, abandon everything; their poverty was such that, amid the heavy labors of the apostolate, they still had to work with their own hands to earn their bread. They preach the mortification of the flesh—and who can number all the exploits, privations, and sufferings to which they subjected their own flesh throughout the whole time of their apostolic ministry? They preach humility—and, amid the greatest successes of their preaching, show not a shadow of vanity in their whole conduct. They preach the forgiveness of injuries, and, constantly persecuted and afflicted, allow themselves not the slightest complaint, not one word of vexation or murmuring. They enjoin sincerity and candor upon others—and themselves, with unparalleled openness, relate their own faults and weaknesses: their dullness of understanding, on account of which they had previously failed to grasp much of their Teacher’s words; their faintheartedness and timidity at the hour of His sufferings; their little faith, and so forth. Are such men to be suspected of a design to deceive their neighbors?
This is contradicted, second, by the very circumstances of their preaching. They preach of their Teacher’s resurrection in the very city where He was crucified; before the faces of all those people who had seen Him and had even been the authors of His death on the cross. They preach no more than fifty days after the event, when everyone’s memory of the life and death of Jesus Christ was still fresh, and when, therefore, it would have been easy for anyone to convict the preachers of falsehood. They begin their preaching at the time of the greatest feast, to which countless multitudes had flocked to Jerusalem from all Judea and even from foreign lands; they seem to have waited for just such a day, so as to call whole thousands of enemies to contend against them. How, then, can it be granted that a design to deceive others lay concealed in the Apostles’ preaching?
This is contradicted, third, by the fact that the Apostles had no motive at all to resolve upon such a design—on the contrary, they had every motive to renounce it. Indeed, what could have induced the Apostles to preach the Savior’s resurrection, had He not risen? Their former love for Him? But this love would necessarily have turned into hatred: they would now have seen, in their former Teacher, a man who, having beguiled them with an unrealizable dream, having made them abandon their homes, their property, and all worldly things, having armed the whole Jewish nation against them, had in the end abandoned His disciples to the mercy of fate. Or the hope of worldly goods? But to preach that Jesus Christ had risen meant declaring to the Jews that they were the murderers of the true Messiah—that is, openly accusing them of the greatest crime one could imagine, and consequently exposing themselves to the full malice and hatred of a people who, as the Apostles already knew from experience with their own Teacher, were implacable in taking revenge. Moreover, the Apostles had been forewarned by Jesus Christ Himself, even during His lifetime, that when they went out to preach to the whole world, the harshest of fates awaited them, that they would inevitably be subjected, for His name’s sake, to universal hatred, privations, persecutions, torments… Or could some hope of reward from God in the life to come have moved the Apostles to deceive? But is such a hope natural in deceivers? Could the Apostles really have failed to understand that for such deeds one must expect, beyond the grave, not rewards from God, but a fearful punishment?.. Meanwhile, had the Apostles agreed to go over to the side of their Teacher’s enemies, and declared that He, having died, had not risen, though He had repeatedly foretold His own resurrection, and that He was, consequently, a deceiver—in that case they would not only have been freed from all the dangers threatening them, but would, without doubt, have gained no small advantage besides. The chief priests and Pharisees did not spare money even for the guards, merely so that they would spread the rumor that the disciples had stolen Jesus’s body…
3) Finally, a whole series of direct proofs can be adduced that the Apostles, in bearing witness to the Savior’s resurrection, were indeed speaking the truth, were completely convinced of it, and that Christ had truly risen.
The first of these proofs is the sudden and decisive change that took place in the Apostles themselves after Jesus Christ’s resurrection. Before, they were timid and fearful men; now they suddenly become bold and resolute, go out to preach to the whole world, appear before assemblies of Jews, before kings and tribunals, before scribes and philosophers. Before, when the Savior was led away to suffering and death, all the Apostles forsook Him and fled. But now, a few days after this event, now, when their Teacher had already died, the disciples suddenly resolve to make every sacrifice for Him, despise every labor, danger, persecution, bond, and prison, do not fear death itself, joyfully accept it, and seal their testimony to the Lord’s resurrection with their own blood. Who, then, breathed this courage into men who had before so faintheartedly abandoned their Teacher at the first danger, and, seeing Him in His torments, on the cross, and in the tomb, had trembled for their own fate? Only the Savior’s resurrection can explain to us so extraordinary a change in the Apostles: without this great miracle, their faith, zeal, self-denial, and courage would be inexplicable by the laws that govern the human heart.
The second proof is the belief given to the Apostolic preaching by the Jews, and after them by the pagans. The Apostles, soon after the bloody sufferings and death of their Teacher, which all Jerusalem had witnessed, began, in that same city, solemnly to proclaim to the Jews that Christ, whom they had crucified, had risen… And what happened? The Jews receive their preaching by whole thousands. From Jerusalem the preachers of Christ’s resurrection go out to the neighboring towns and villages—and many believe their good tidings there as well; they go to the pagans—and the pagans too, by the thousands, abandon the gods of their fathers, and, following the example of the Jews, resolve to believe in the Crucified One. Thereupon the new converts become objects of hatred and contempt among their own countrymen, are subjected to every kind of privation and calamity, and nothing—neither tribulation, nor distress, nor persecution, nor famine, nor nakedness, nor the sword—can separate them from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:35 and 39). They are accounted as sheep for the slaughter, put to death every day (v. 36)—and three centuries of the most savage persecutions of the Christians pass, while the Christians remain unshaken in their faith. What does all this mean, if Christ did not rise? How could whole hundreds of thousands of contemporaries have believed the Apostles? And what could have changed these hundreds of thousands to such a degree, and inspired them to every sacrifice?..
Further proofs of Christ’s resurrection, no less striking, may be found in all those extraordinary events presented by the subsequent history of the New Testament Church, as new and unmistakable signs of the divine origin of the Christian faith.
Signs from the History of Christ’s Church.
§ 102. An Enumeration of Them
To this belong, chiefly:
a) the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles,
b) their character and miracles,
c) in particular, the conversion and miracles of the holy Apostle Paul,
d) the miraculous spread of Christianity on earth, and
e) its miraculous effects in men.
§ 103. The Descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles
The descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles was the first extraordinary event in the Church of Christ, with which her very history began. How it came to pass is described in considerable detail by the holy Evangelist Luke in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. When the days of Pentecost were fulfilled, he says, all the Apostles were together with one mind. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like that of a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them to speak. Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. When this sound came, the multitude gathered and was confounded, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. And they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another: Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? How is it that each of us hears his own language, in which he was born—Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and those who dwell in Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the mighty works of God? And they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another: What does this mean? (Acts 2:1–12).
The importance of this event, as a proof of the divinity of the Christian faith, is revealed:
a) from its very character: it is evidently a supernatural event;
b) from the fact that it was clearly and repeatedly foretold by the Savior (John 14:16, 17, 26; 16:7, 8, 13, 14; Luke 24:49);
c) from the fact that it serves as unimpeachable testimony to the Savior’s resurrection and ascension into heaven, without which it could in no way have come to pass (John 7:39; 16:7, 8); finally —
d) from the fact that the descent of the Holy Spirit to earth was the beginning and cause of all the subsequent signs in the Church of Christ, testifying to her divinity.
And the reliability of this miracle —
a) was revealed at once, in the Apostles themselves, by a new miracle: the Apostles, as soon as the Holy Spirit descended upon them, suddenly began to speak in various tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2:4); and —
b) it was attested by a countless multitude of people, both Jews and Gentile proselytes, who had gathered at that time in Jerusalem from every side for the feast of Pentecost. The amazement of these witnesses was so great that, as soon as the Apostle Peter had explained to them the extraordinary event that had taken place before them, and said: repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), as many as three thousand were converted to Christ that very day. The proof that the Apostles truly received then the gift of tongues, which remained with them forever, is furnished by their preaching: how could they have carried it over all the earth, proclaimed it to every nation, and founded communities of believers in every part of the world (an undeniable fact!) without this wondrous gift?
§ 104. The Character and Miracles of the Holy Apostles288
But the action of the Holy Spirit who descended upon the Apostles was not confined to this alone: it transformed their very intellectual and moral qualities; it clothed them with power to work signs and miracles.
I. The Savior promised His disciples: when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth (John 16:13); he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said to you (14:26). And so indeed it came to pass. The Apostles were simple, unlettered men (Acts 4:13), and however much the Savior instructed them, they all failed to understand much of His teaching (Luke 24:25, 26; John 16:12), sometimes contradicted Him (Matt. 16:22), and, even after His resurrection, after new and more detailed instructions, could still not entirely free themselves from their countrymen’s mistaken notions concerning the Messiah, or properly understand the mysteries of the kingdom of God (Acts 1:6, 7). Now we see in the Apostles something entirely different. As soon as the Holy Spirit descended upon them, they suddenly begin to proclaim the most exalted and perfect teaching about God, to unfold conceptions of the Messiah than which none could be purer or worthier, to deliver rules of morality infinitely surpassing all human moral teaching that ever existed. These fishermen soon astonish Judea, lesser Greece, Asia, and other lands with their preaching; they boldly enter into disputes with scribes and philosophers, proclaiming the salvation of the world, put the wisdom of the wise to shame, and by the power of their word draw countless multitudes everywhere to Christ. Their holy writings have come down to us, preserved in the Church—and, reading these writings without prejudice, with an open soul and heart, who has not marveled at the extraordinary loftiness and clarity of the truths they contain, at the clarity and purity of their precepts, at the wondrous power of the very word? What, then, does all this show, if not that God Himself gave the Apostles a mouth and wisdom (Luke 21:15), that they preached and wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that their word was and is not a human word, but truly the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13)?
We have already noted the Apostles’ moral qualities (§101). Let us now repeat briefly that, through the Holy Spirit’s descent upon them following Christ’s resurrection, they became incomparably higher in moral stature than they had been before. Great was their self-denial when, having forsaken everything, they followed the Savior; but the example of the sons of Zebedee (Mark 10:35–37) shows that in the hearts of Christ’s disciples there still lurked remnants of self-interest and attachment to worldly goods. Great was the Apostles’ love for their Lord and Teacher; but it had not yet overcome, had not yet subdued in them their love of self: for when danger came, the disciples all forsook their divine Master and fled (Matt. 26:56). Their love for their neighbors, too, was beyond doubt; but certain incidents revealed its weakness as well (Luke 9:54). With the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, everything in them changed. Their self-denial, their love for God and neighbor, suddenly reach the very highest degree. For the glory of God’s name and the salvation of their neighbors, they resolve upon every sacrifice and affliction — they hunger and thirst, they are poorly clothed and beaten, and wander homeless; they labor, working with their own hands; being reviled, they bless; being persecuted, they endure; being slandered, they entreat; they have become like the refuse of the world, trampled by all (1 Cor. 4:11–14); and finally, to crown all their labors and sufferings, out of love for God and their neighbors, they lay down their very lives.
II. The gift of miracle-working which the Apostles received, together with the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them, was manifested in their numerous signs. Thus St. Luke relates:
a) that the Apostle Peter healed a man lame from birth—and as a result of this miracle about five thousand souls were converted to Christ (Acts ch. 3), and even the enemies themselves acknowledged the reality of the miracle (4:16);
b) that, afterward, Peter healed a certain Aeneas, who had already lain paralyzed for eight years—and all who lived in Lydda and Sharon turned to the Lord (9:33–35);
c) that, shortly afterward, he raised in Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha—and again many believed in the Lord (9:37–42);
d) that even Peter’s shadow alone, falling upon the sick as this Apostle passed by, healed every affliction (5:15, 16). Besides this, St. Luke —
e) notes, of the Apostles in general, that by the hands of the Apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people, as a result of which believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women (5:12, 14);
f) speaks of St. Philip: the people with one accord gave heed to those things which Philip spoke, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did: for unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed (8:6, 7); and
g) mentions certain other signs performed by the Apostles (e.g., Acts 5:1–5; 10:44, 45).
In confirmation of the historical reliability of the Apostolic miracles, one may point to:
1) The qualifications of the writer who bears witness to them. St. Luke, in addition to his inspiration by the Holy Spirit, had every means, even natural ones, of knowing the truth: some of these miracles he saw himself; of others he could have heard from eyewitnesses. He was personally acquainted with the workers of these miracles—the Apostles, with whom he even had personal dealings—and with those upon whom the miracles were performed, and with those who came to believe on account of the miracles. From all these persons he could have obtained the most authentic information. Nor can it be suspected that St. Luke intended to deceive others in composing his account of the Apostolic miracles. This is contradicted by —
a) the manner of narration he chose: the holy narrator indicates with precision the places where any given signs took place, names the persons upon whom they were performed, often mentions the witnesses present, and many other detailed circumstances of this or that miraculous event;
b) the time of the writing: St. Luke wrote his book among contemporaries who themselves knew the deeds of the Apostles very well and, using, moreover, the very indications Luke provided, could very easily have verified his narrative, and exposed him, had any inaccuracy been found in it;
c) the purpose of the writing: St. Luke, without doubt, had in view the benefit of the Christian faith, wishing to display its divine dignity, and thereby to dispose others to accept it. But had he inserted into his book many invented events, whose falsity could very easily have been exposed by his own indications, he would evidently have chosen a means wholly opposed to his own purpose. In a word: if St. Luke had not spoken the truth in relating the miracles of the Apostles, his contemporaries would not have believed him, and would have rejected his book. But it is known, on the contrary, that they received this book from his hand with the utmost reverence, as a divine book, and passed on their reverence for it to all posterity: no better testimony to the reliability of any historical work can exist.
2) The churches founded by the Apostles in every corner of the world. This fact can in no way be denied, since it is confirmed not only by Christian writers, but by pagan contemporaries as well, such as Tacitus,289 Pliny,290 and others. We now ask: how, then, could the Apostles have founded all these churches? By what means could they have induced Jews and pagans to abandon the faith and all the sacred customs of their fathers, and to accept a teaching full of mysteries, a morality of the utmost strictness, demanding renunciation of every worldly good, and to believe in One crucified on a cross? No explanation of this can be given other than the one St. Luke offers in relating the Acts of the Apostles. Only the Apostles’ miracles could convince anyone of their divine commission; only these miracles, aided by the grace of God, could compel whole thousands of people suddenly to abandon everything for the Christian faith, and to resolve, for the sake of Christ’s name, upon every trial, suffering, and death.291
3) Finally, even the enemies of Christianity who lived at the beginning of our era, who never denied the Apostolic miracles when they heard believers point to them. Proof of this is furnished by the fact alone that the ancient defenders of the Christian faith, in refuting in their writings the various objections of its opponents, never tried to answer any objection against the genuineness of the Apostolic miracles: it cannot be that these defenders would have left so important an objection unanswered, had it truly existed. And, second, this is unquestionably known from the conduct of Celsus,292 Porphyry,293 and Julian,294 who, without denying the Apostolic miracles, any more than the miracles of Christ, wished only to ascribe their performance to the power of magic.
A new proof of the genuineness of the miracles that took place in the days of the Apostles, and at the same time a new miracle that served as the beginning of many other miracles of that time, was the conversion of the holy Apostle Paul to Christianity.
§ 105. The Conversion and Miracles of the Holy Apostle Paul295
I. This conversion is related twice by St. Paul himself—the first time before the assembly of his countrymen, the Jews (Acts 22:1–20), the second before King Agrippa (26:1–20)—and is, besides, described by St. Luke (ch. 9). Let us here make use of Paul’s own words from his speech to his countrymen: “I”, he told them, “am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, carefully instructed in the law of our fathers, and zealous for God, as all of you are today. I persecuted the followers of this teaching even to death, binding both men and women and handing them over to prison, as the high priest and the whole council of elders can bear me witness. From them I even took letters to the brethren and set out for Damascus, to bring those who were there in chains to Jerusalem, to be punished. While I was on my way and drawing near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me: Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? I answered: Who are you, Lord? He said: I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting. Those who were with me saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the words of the one who spoke to me. Then I said: Lord, what am I to do? The Lord said to me: Get up, go into Damascus, and there you will be told everything you are appointed to do. And since I could not see for the glory of that light, those who were with me led me by the hand, and so I came to Damascus. There a certain Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews living there, came to me, and, standing beside me, said: Brother Saul, receive your sight. And at that very moment I saw him again. He said: the God of our fathers chose you beforehand to know his will, to see the Righteous One, and to hear the voice from his mouth; for you will be his witness before all men of what you have seen and heard. So why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord Jesus.”
To suspect that any design to deceive others lay concealed here would be the height of unreason:
1) No motive can be conceived for such a design. Deceivers always act from self-interested aims—either from a desire for fame, or a desire for wealth, or, in general, from some other worldly advantage. But could Paul have expected anything of the kind by going over to the side of the Christians? The outward condition of the Christians at that time was the most unenviable imaginable. Everyone persecuted and despised them; to His Apostles, in particular, the Savior had foretold nothing but privations, afflictions, and sufferings of every kind. And Paul’s subsequent history shows that such, indeed, was his own fate after his conversion to Christianity, as he himself repeatedly testified concerning himself (1 Cor. 4:9–13; 2 Cor. 4:8; 11:23–28). On the contrary, had he not gone over to the side of the Christians, and remained in the sect in which he had been raised, he could far more surely have attained both honors and worldly advantages. He was distinguished by extraordinary abilities, had been raised by one of the most renowned rabbis of that time, and had already succeeded in drawing his superiors’ attention by his ardent zeal for the law and his hatred of the Christians. Besides, Paul could not have failed to foresee that, in abandoning the faith of his fathers and the sect of the Pharisees, to which he had formerly belonged and which had even chosen him as its own instrument for persecuting the Christians, he was exposing himself, as an apostate, to the greatest hatred of his countrymen, and could not have failed to understand what fate awaited him from the Jews (Acts 9:23). The death of Stephen was still before his eyes… And yet, in spite of all this, Paul became a Christian, and from a fierce persecutor of the Christian Church became her most zealous defender.
2) The Jews would in no way have believed this supposed deception on Paul’s part. Inflamed with hatred for him on account of his defection, they would have taken every care to expose him as a liar, all the more since Paul himself, as if heedlessly, had pointed out to them every means of doing so: for he declared that the witnesses to his miraculous call to the Christian faith were all his own companions on the road to Damascus, who, like him, were of course breathing out murder against the Church of Christ; that all of them had seen the extraordinary light at that moment, had seen him—Paul—struck blind, and had been compelled to lead the blind man by the hand to the very destination of their journey, where he too was miraculously healed. Meanwhile, what does subsequent history show? In their fanatical hatred of Paul the Jews very often rose up against him, tried to accuse him of sedition, of apostasy from the faith, and of disturbing the public peace; but never, never did they dare to charge him with collusion and falsehood. More than this: they listened attentively and entirely without contradiction to Paul’s speech when he related to them the circumstances of his miraculous conversion, and fell into a frenzied uproar only after they heard that he had been sent by the Lord to preach to the Gentiles (Acts 22:1–22).
3) Nor would the Christians themselves have believed this deception, even though it might seem, on the face of it, to have favored them. The Christians knew that Paul had until then been one of their fiercest persecutors. And therefore they naturally had to regard his conversion to their Faith with suspicion, wondering whether some particular, premeditated cunning aimed at harming them lay concealed here. And consequently they could not have believed in this conversion except after having first examined it with the utmost caution. And so, indeed, it happened: when Paul, shortly after his conversion, came to Jerusalem, and tried to join the disciples of Christ, they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple (Acts 9:26), and believed only once they were convinced that he had indeed been miraculously called by the Lord Himself.
4) Finally, any thought of a supposed deception on the part of St. Paul is utterly undermined by his own miracles, which he worked, and could work, only, of course, by power given him from God.
II. Many of these miracles are recorded by St. Luke in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. Thus he relates that St. Paul —
a) struck the sorcerer Elymas with blindness, saying to him only: behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind, unable to see the sun for a time — and the proconsul Sergius Paulus, who witnessed this miracle, believed in the Lord Jesus (Acts 13:8–12);
b) at another time, being in Lystra together with his companion Barnabas, likewise healed with a single word a man lame from birth, and brought all the inhabitants into such astonishment that they took the wonder-worker and his companion for gods who had come down to earth, and were about to offer them sacrifice (Acts 14:8–18);
c) a third time, being in Troas, raised a certain young man, Eutychus, who, having fallen down from the third story, was found dead (20:9, 10):
d) a fourth time, on the island of Melita, healed Publius, the father of the local chief man, by prayer alone and the laying on of hands upon the sick man; and healed also all the other sick who were on the island who came to the wonder-worker for that purpose (28:8, 9); and —
e) in general possessed such an abundance of wonder-working power that the very handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched his body were carried to the sick, and the sick were healed, and evil spirits went out of people (19:11, 12).
In proof of the genuineness of Paul’s miracles, besides what has already been said concerning the genuineness of the Apostolic miracles in general (§103), it is enough here to appeal to St. Paul’s own epistles. In them he not infrequently mentions his own miracles, precisely before those very people before whom he performed them. Our gospel, he wrote to the Thessalonians, did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and with full conviction; as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake (1 Thess. 1:5), and then repeats the same thing before the Corinthians, saying: my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power (1 Cor. 2:4), and testifying that he displayed the signs of his apostleship before them with utmost patience, by signs and wonders and mighty deeds (2 Cor. 12:12), and that, consequently, he was in no way inferior to the foremost Apostles (v. 11). In like manner he testified concerning himself before the Romans as well: I have reason, then, to boast in Christ Jesus in what pertains to God. For I will not venture to speak of anything Christ has not accomplished through me, to bring the Gentiles to obedience, by word and deed, through the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God—so that from Jerusalem, and all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ (Rom. 15:17–19).
We ask every reasonable person: how could Paul have written to the Thessalonians, the Romans, the Corinthians, that he had worked miracles before them, and even called upon them themselves as witnesses of these miracles, if he had performed not a single miracle before them? What effect could such a declaration have had upon these newly-converted Christians? For whom, then, would they have had to take Paul himself, and how would they have received his epistles? Meanwhile, history tells us that Paul’s epistles were received with the utmost reverence, not only by those individual churches to which they were written, but by the whole Christian Church. And that these epistles, from the very beginning of Christianity, were solemnly read in the assemblies of believers, as divinely inspired writings.296 Is this not a plain sign that the Romans, the Corinthians, and the other Christians of that time truly saw the miracles of St. Paul with their own eyes, and were completely convinced of their genuineness?
§ 106. The Miraculous Spread of Christianity297
Here is yet another event, miraculous in itself, and one that vouches for the reality of all the other Apostolic miracles! Christianity, whose first preachers were the Apostles, spread over the earth with extraordinary speed, and spread not by human means, but truly by the power of God: two propositions whose truth is equally beyond dispute.
I. Christianity spread with extraordinary speed. This is universally known:
1) From Holy Scripture. As soon as the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles, it tells us, on that very day one sermon of Peter converted as many as three thousand to Christ (Acts 2:41). A few days passed—and another speech of the same Apostle, accompanied by a miracle, drew as many as five thousand more to the holy Faith (Acts 4:4). Soon after this the Apostles dispersed with the good news to every land of the world—and, a few years after the Lord’s ascension, the Apostle Peter is already writing an epistle to the believers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1). And St. Paul sends his epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Thessalonians, and to the Bishop of the Cretan church. More than this: the writer of the book of the Acts of the Apostles mentions many other places where believers in the Lord Jesus already existed as well, such as Antioch, Athens, Damascus, Caesarea, Iconium, Miletus, and so forth; and St. Paul testifies in general:
a) concerning himself, that he had filled with his gospel all the places from Jerusalem, and all the way around to Illyricum (Rom. 15:19);
b) concerning the other Apostles, that their voice has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world (Rom. 10:18).
2) From the testimony of contemporary pagan writers, who speak of the wondrous successes of the Gospel preaching both in the Apostles’ own time and after them, during the first three centuries. Tacitus (at the end of the first century), for example, relates that when Nero, who had burned Rome, laid the blame for this deed upon the Christians living in Rome, and ordered them to be hunted down, a great multitude (ingens multitudo) of the guilty was found. Not, however, the historian observes, guilty of the crime of which they were suspected, but of hatred of the human race (as the Christians were then commonly slandered).298 This great multitude of Christians in Rome alone gives some idea of what their number must already have been throughout the whole world at that time. Pliny, proconsul of Bithynia, reporting (around the year 104) to the emperor Trajan on the progress of the persecution of the Christians then underway, writes: “it seems to me that this matter is worthy of the most careful consideration, especially on account of the number of those who are in danger: for many of every age, every rank, and both sexes are already, and will continue to be, exposed to it. The contagion of this superstition has spread not only through the cities, but even into the villages and the countryside. It has reached the point that the temples of the gods are almost deserted and their festivals have long been abandoned.”299 Another proconsul, Tiberianus, who governed First Palestine, informs the same emperor that he has already grown weary of punishing and putting to death the Galileans known by the name of Christians, since they never cease going to every torment, and asked the emperor’s permission as to how he should proceed.300
The open enemy of Christianity, Celsus (2nd century), called it “an extraordinary strangeness that Christ, while He was alive, could arouse faith in no one. But once He had died, His disciples draw to the faith whomever they please.”301 Lucian, the Greek writer (2nd century), likewise hostile to Christianity, remarks in one place that the province of Pontus is full of atheists and Christians.302 From the most savage persecutor of the Christians, the emperor Maximin II (303), Eusebius has preserved two documents of great importance for the present case. The first is an edict for the persecution of Christians, which states, among other things, that the cause of all the calamities that had befallen the Roman Empire was the Christians’ ruinous error, which had spread its darkness over almost the entire world.303 The second is a letter of the emperor to the provincial governors, which states that his predecessors, Diocletian and Maximian, had resolved to persecute the Christians precisely because almost all men, having abandoned the service of the gods, had united and merged with the Christian people.304
3) Finally, from the testimony of contemporary Christian writers as well. Thus, in the first half of the second century, St. Justin the Philosopher, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, observes: “truly, there is not a single nation, whether among the Greeks or among the barbarians, by whatever name they may be called, whether they dwell in tents or in wagons, or have no dwellings at all, moving from place to place with their herds—there is not, I say, a single nation among whom prayers and thanksgivings are not offered up to the Father and Maker of all things, in the name of Jesus crucified.”305
A little later, St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, testifying that one and the same faith is kept throughout the whole Church of Christ, mentions, in particular, the churches in Germany, Gaul, Spain, the East, Egypt, Africa, and the regions in the middle of the earth.306 Toward the end of the second century Tertullian, in his apology, addressing the Roman government and people, expresses himself still more forcefully: “We came into being only yesterday, and already we fill everything that is yours: your cities, islands, fortresses, meeting-places, even your camps, your tribes, your decuriae, the palace, the senate, the forum—leaving you only your temples. We could defeat you, even without any weapon or uprising, merely by our own withdrawal from you. Were we, in our great numbers, to depart from you to some remote lands of the world, your empire would be sorely shaken by the loss of so many citizens: their departure alone would be a punishment for you. Without doubt you would be terrified at the wilderness in which you would find yourselves, at the universal silence and stupor in which your world, as though dead, would appear before you. You would be seeking someone to rule…”307
And, we repeat, thus spoke Tertullian in an apology written in defense of the Christians, addressed to the Roman government and people—spoke boldly before those who could know the true state of affairs very well, and could very easily have exposed any falsehood…
It would be superfluous to cite here similar testimonies from many other Christian writers of the second and third centuries, who spoke with the same boldness before the pagans of the extraordinary spread of Christ’s Church throughout every region of the world.308
II. But what matters, properly speaking, is not that Christianity spread with extraordinary speed, but that this spread of Christianity is truly the work of God, a supernatural, miraculous event. To be convinced of this, one need only attend to:
1) Christianity’s relation to the then-existing state of religion, learning, morality, and politics among mankind.
There were two faiths in the then-known world: the Jewish and the pagan. The former was true, divinely revealed; but by that time it had already been badly disfigured by false notions about the Messiah, rooted so deeply that the Jews failed to recognize the true Messiah and crucified Him on a cross. The latter, false in its very origin and essence, had by then reached the utmost extreme of its development and corruption: men had succeeded in deifying everyone and everything, and the number of gods had grown beyond belief. Let us add to this that both faiths, having existed already for whole centuries, seemed sacred by their very antiquity alone; that just as the Jews considered their faith a revelation from God—and considered it quite rightly—so too the pagans traced their beliefs back to the gods themselves, though falsely; and that both faiths were deeply rooted in the heart of each of their followers, through their parents’ first instruction and their upbringing… And now a new faith appears, and tells Jews and pagans to root out of themselves their religious convictions, grown together, so to speak, with their very being. It tells the Jews to abandon the ceremonial law of Moses, to which they were so attached, and to part forever with their seductive dreams of a Messiah who would be an earthly king and conqueror; it tells the pagans that their gods, whom they had worshiped until then, are soulless idols, and their stories about the gods mere fables. But this is not all: in demanding of Jews and pagans such heavy renunciations, what does the new faith offer them in exchange for their former beliefs? It offers faith in One crucified on a cross…, it offers what, as one of the holy Apostles himself observed, was to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness (1 Cor. 1:23). What fruit, by every human calculation, was such preaching to be expected to bear?
In the state of learning at that time, the chief and dominant direction was philosophical. All the ancient systems—the Platonic, the Stoic, the Epicurean, and the rest—had their ardent devotees and followers; everyone sought the honor of being, or seeming to be, a philosopher; even the emperors themselves (Antoninus the Philosopher, for example) loved to occupy themselves with philosophy. It was, consequently, a time when everyone tried to bring everything under the principles of reason, to subject every thing to its criticism and judgment, and to heed its voice alone. And Christianity suddenly began to proclaim openly that the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God (1 Cor. 3:19); that those who wish to be saved must renounce all philosophy according to the elements of the world and the traditions of men, and know only one philosophy—that which is according to Christ (Col. 2:8); that it is necessary to subject the mind to faith and bring it into captivity to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5), that it is necessary to accept, by faith alone, many mysteries of the Gospel wholly incomprehensible to the mind… One can judge how all the wise men of that time must have received the Christian Faith.
The moral state of the world at that time was most wretched: corruption had reached extremes it had never before attained. All human passions had been deified in personified form, and the gods, by their own example, seemed to license men for every kind of wickedness. Rome especially, the capital and mistress of the world, which served as a model in everything for all the peoples subject to her, was likewise a model for them in impiety. The ages of the Tiberii, the Caligulas, the Neros, and the Caracallas are known to everyone. The two sects that chiefly dominated at that time, the Stoic and the Epicurean, cultivated in men, the one pride, the other a bent toward sensuality. The rich of Rome indulged in a luxury whose description seems almost unbelievable, and all the lower classes, carried away by imitation of their betters, knew no bounds in sensual pleasures and vices. In the midst of such a general corruption of morals the voice of the strictest, Christian morality suddenly rang out. It was to such people that the Gospel began to preach that everyone who wishes the salvation of his soul must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Christ; must renounce all the pleasures of the world and crucify his flesh with its passions and lusts; must be wholly reborn and begin a life utterly opposed to the one he had led until then… How, then, must such a teaching have appeared at that time?
In political terms, all peoples had by then grown accustomed to regard their own gods as their exclusive protectors, and their own faith as the foundation of civic happiness and good order. This conviction was especially deeply rooted among the Roman people. There the emperor united in his own person the office of supreme high priest as well; every public undertaking began with solemn rites and sacrifices; every success was concluded in the same way, and was ascribed to the favor of the gods. Throughout the whole people there was a widespread conviction that Rome owed her greatness to the protection of her gods, and that, were they rejected, she must necessarily fall; and for this reason the laws forbade the introduction or acceptance of any new faith.309 What reception, then, could the Christian faith expect from this Roman people, as from all other peoples, when it began its preaching by declaring that they must abandon their former gods and believe in the Crucified One?
2) The obstacles which the Christian faith actually did encounter, and against which it had to struggle. Against it, as was to be expected, everyone and everything in the world of that time took up arms: the fanaticism of Jews and pagans took up arms, priests and the coarse mob took up arms, wise men and philosophers took up arms, people accustomed to live according to the lusts of their hearts took up arms. And who does not know how all this expressed itself? In the most fearful, the most varied persecutions.
The mob and the priests persecuted the Christians everywhere, chiefly by slander. They called them atheists, on the ground that they did not believe in the pagan gods; agitators, since they held themselves apart in so many ways from their fellow countrymen; magicians and sorcerers, because they worked miracles; a rabble of the coarsest and most ignorant people, a rabble of despised slaves, criminals, and villains of every kind. They ascribed to them various shameful and dreadful vices, claiming, for example, that the Christians, in their assemblies, killed infants and ate them, and indulged in vile debauchery. The Christians were held responsible for all the calamities the Roman Empire suffered, and, in general, everything that could make them an object of universal loathing and hatred was invented against them.
The wise men and philosophers (such as Celsus and Porphyry) persecuted the Christians with their writings. These sages read the sacred Christian books expressly to try to find supposed contradictions in them. They mocked bitingly many sayings and deeds both of the Savior Himself and of the Apostles, ascribed all their miracles to magic, set against these miracles the false miracles of Apollonius of Tyana and other pagan wonders, and at the same time reviled the Christians themselves, their deeds, and their manner of life.
But the harshest of the persecutions against the Christians were, without doubt, the persecutions on the part of the government. Here the sword, violence, and every kind of coercion were already at work. There was no mercy for anyone or anything—not for sex, not for age, not for rank, not for merit; all who were even suspected of following Christianity were dragged before tribunals and forced to renounce Christ publicly. Here they were first cajoled and every effort was made to win them over, now with lavish promises, now with threats; then they were subjected to torture, and finally to death itself. The tortures and executions were extraordinarily varied and inhuman: some had their limbs cut off, others were crucified, others burned at the stake, others had their eyes torn out. Confiscation of property and rank, prisons, starvation, iron claws and gratings, hooks, braziers, pincers, iron plates, various kinds of wheels, the pouring of molten lead, and, in general, everything that infernal malice could devise, were employed to wrest from the Christians a renunciation of their faith. And this continued not for one year, not for two, not even for ten or twenty years, but for about three centuries. Within the bounds of the Roman Empire it is customary to count as many as ten persecutions in this period; but, in truth, it was one unbroken and most protracted persecution. Not all the emperors issued edicts to persecute the Christians; but almost all permitted and connived at it, leaving their predecessors’ edicts unrepealed. From Nero to Constantine the Great one can scarcely name two or three rulers who forbade the persecution… And what happened? In spite of all these kinds of executions, in spite of the fact that the faithful went to their deaths in such multitudes that the persecutors themselves could not help but marvel,310 and though Christian blood, for nearly three centuries, flowed like a river—the Church of Christ not only did not shrink within her bounds, but, on the contrary, spread still more widely, with extraordinary speed. “Torture us, tear us apart, crush us”, exclaimed one of the followers of Christ in that time, “we become the more numerous, the more we are mown down; the blood of Christians is the seed of new Christians, and all your studied cruelty does not help you in the least.”311…
3) Finally, the means by which Christianity spread. If one cannot but be astonished at the rapid spread of the holy Faith when one looks at the obstacles it had to struggle against, one must marvel still more at this wondrous event when one looks at the means by which it was accomplished.
Indeed, what were these means? The fame and renown of the preachers? But the Apostles were men of the lowest condition, and entirely unknown; they had no authority in the eyes of their own countrymen, and still less could they have had it in the eyes of the pagans, going forth to preach from the midst of a people then the most despised of all peoples. Extraordinary wisdom and learning, which so often unwittingly subdues men’s minds? But the Apostles were unlettered men, wholly unacquainted with human wisdom, and themselves called themselves the fools of the world (1 Cor. 1:27). Powerful and fervent eloquence, which sweeps away the crowds? But the Apostles, by their own confession, were unskilled in speech (2 Cor. 11:6). Or did the preachers of the Gospel perhaps employ some unworthy means? Did they, for example, resort to cunning and intrigue? But history says the opposite. The Apostles acted openly everywhere: in Jerusalem they preached before the Sanhedrin, in Athens in the presence of the Areopagus, in Rome at the very court of Caesar. Did they perhaps win others to their side with money and bribery? But where could poor Galileans, who had abandoned for Christ even the little they had once possessed—homes, property—have found so much treasure? Did the Apostles perhaps resort to any kind of violence? On the contrary, they themselves were the object of every kind of violence and persecution; they wandered everywhere as sheep in the midst of wolves (Matt. 10:16), and opposed every persecution with patience alone. In a word: the means employed for the spread of the Gospel were of such a kind that, by every human calculation, they could not only not have helped, but must rather have hindered its spread…
How, then, after all this, are we to explain to ourselves the wondrous success of the Gospel preaching? By what did it overcome every obstacle? By what did it bring the world into subjection to Christ? The weapons of our warfare, the great teacher of the Gentiles answers us, are not fleshly, but mighty in God for the tearing down of strongholds; we tear down arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:4–5); for the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow (Heb. 4:12); my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God (1 Cor. 2:3–5): here is where the mystery of the whole success of the Apostles lies hidden. They went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the accompanying signs. Amen (Mark 16:20).
§ 107. The Miraculous Effects of Christianity in Men312
Having marked its very appearance in the world with a countless series of miracles, Christianity has, from that time on, never ceased to bear witness to itself by miracles of the same kind. That which the history of Christ the Savior presents to us in proof of the divinity of His faith, and that which the history of the holy Apostles then presents, we find likewise throughout the whole history of His Church.
1) The Lord Jesus, as the God-man, and the holy Apostles, as clothed by Him with power from on high, were distinguished by a wisdom of the highest order, which they had acquired by no human means. And there were, afterward too, in the Church of Christ, men who, without any worldly education, put to shame and astonished the greatest pagan sages by their wisdom, possessed the gift of discerning hearts, could perceive events separated from them by great distances, and so forth.313
2) The Lord Jesus, and, following His example, the holy Apostles, were distinguished by the highest holiness, by extraordinary self-denial out of love for God and their neighbors. Many Christian virgins of all the ages that followed, countless Christian martyrs and martyresses, Christian ascetics, hermits, stylites, fools for Christ, hesychasts, and others likewise presented examples of astonishing, almost incredible self-denial and most perfect love for God and neighbor.
3) The Lord Jesus and the holy Apostles worked numerous miracles. In the Church of Christ the gift of miracle-working has never ceased: her whole history, and especially the history of her countless ascetics, is filled with miracles.314 The wonder-working relics and remains of the Saints, wonder-working icons, and the miraculous effects of the very water sanctified by the Church, which we witness even in our own times, serve as the most evident proof of this same unshakeable truth.
4) The Lord Jesus and the holy Apostles prophesied: the gift of foresight is found in the Church in all succeeding times as well. Among the Saints there is even known a special class of people called by the Church clairvoyant, on account of their manifold predictions and their insight into the depths of the human soul…
In a word: even at the present time, examining more closely the course of Christianity, we can find in it the same incontestable proofs of its divine origin that Christ the Savior Himself presented for it. And every Christian—especially if he resolves to be, and truly becomes, a genuine believer—can, like other true Christians, come to know for himself the full force of these proofs. That is, he can obtain from the Lord both the highest wisdom, and the gift of miracle-working and foresight, and can perform great feats of self-denial out of love for God and his neighbor (Matt. 17:20; John 7:17; 1 John 2:27).
Works in which the doctrine of faith and revelation in general, and in particular of the Christian Faith as the one truly divine revelation, is unfolded and defended, are extremely numerous. In the first centuries of Christianity these works were directed against pagans, Jews, and heretics; in the middle period, against pagans, Jews, and Mohammedans; in the most recent period, against the so-called indifferentists, atheists, naturalists, and rationalists in all their forms. A most detailed enumeration of these works can be found in vol. 1 of Biblioth. Theolog. Walchii, Jen. 1757; in Bibliograph. Dogmat. Goldwitzeri, Solisb. 1831, and in many other reference works of this kind. Here we shall mention only two recently published collections, of which one presents the best excerpts from the works of the most celebrated modern writers in favor of the Christian faith, under the title: La Raison du clirisliu-nisme, Paris, 1834; and the other, no longer excerpts but whole works, under the title: Demonstrations Evangcliques de Tertulien, Origene, Eusebe etc., re produces intigralement, par M. L’abbd M en XVI tom. Paris, 1843. In our own fatherland, original works written in defense of the Christian faith have, for lack of occasion, scarcely appeared at all. Only the following are known: a) the Enlightener of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk, written in the fifteenth century against the Judaizers; b) two works of Ioannikii Galiatovsky (in the seventeenth century), one against the Jews, the other against the Mohammedans; c) the Discourse on Godlessness of Theophan Prokopovich, printed in 1774; and d) one short Discourse on the Divinity of the Christian Teaching, published by Theoktist, Archbishop of Kursk and Belgorod, in 1801. But this scarcity of original works has, since the latter half of the last century, been sufficiently made up for among us by translations of foreign apologetic books, such as: a) Grodievo’s Discourse against Atheists and Naturalists, published in 1765, 1781, and 1801; b) The Atheist and Naturalist Put to Shame, St. Petersburg, 1787; c) The Cry of Truth against the Temptations of the Age, Moscow, 1804; d) Jewish Letters to Voltaire, Moscow, 1808 and 1816; e) The Triumph of the Gospel, in 3 parts, St. Petersburg, 1821; f) The Evidence of the Divine Origin of the Christian Faith by Jenyns, St. Petersburg, 1827;
Plat, de legib. lib. X; Aristot. ad Nicom. lib. X, cap. 11; Epicur. – apud Ciceron. de natur. Deor. lib. 1, cap. 16; Senec. epist. 117; Cicer. Tuscul. Quaest. lib. 1, n. 13; Sext. Empir. lib. 1 contra physic cap. 61; Plutarch, contra Coloten. Epicur. pag. 1125.
Cicero portrays them as godless (Orat. pro Fonteio, η. 20 et sequ.), whereas Julius Caesar portrays them as most devoted to their faith (De bello Gallico lib. VI, η. 16).
Bergier, Traité historiq. et dogmat. de la vraic relig. tom. 11, c. 4, art. 12, § 1 and following. It must, however, be observed that certain savages, with respect to the development of their spiritual powers, are the same as children: from the fact that infants can neither think nor speak, it does not follow that thought and speech are not natural to man; just so, were there found savages having no thought of the Deity at all, it would not follow that this thought is not natural to us.
See Résumé de l’histoire des traditions morales et religieuses chez divers peuples, by M. de S., Paris, 1825, pag. 3 and following.
There is a well-known saying of one thinker (Francis Bacon, Baron Verulam): loves gustos in philosophia movere fortasse posse ad atheismum, sed pleniores haustus ad religionem reducere… (De augm. scient. lib. 1).
Origine des lois. des arts et des sciences, part. 1, lib. 1, ch. 1.
Detailed refutations of these opinions can be found in Bergier’s Theological Dictionary, under the word: religion.
This subject has been examined in detail by many apologists of Christianity; see, for example, Geschichte der Relig. Christi von Stolberg. Th. 1, Beylag. IV und V, seit. 340–405, Wien, 1817.
We shall see this later in §§ 61, 71, 74, 98, 100, 104.
Justin. Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 5; Cyril of Alexandria, On the Trinity 1, 3; Damascene. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, bk. 1, ch. 3.
Theophilus. ad Antol. 1, 7; Dionysius. de natura n. 1 (in Routh. Reliqu. sacr. t. IV); Gregory the Theologian, Oration on Theology 11, in the Works of the Holy Fathers III, 21, 32; Athanasius, Against the Pagans: ch. 35 and following; Nemesius de natur. homin. c. 42; Damascene, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1, 3.
Such as: Theologia aquae – Fabricii; Theologia Anatomica – Njenentyt; Theologia insectorum – Lesseri; Théologie Astronomique on demjnstration de l’existence etc…. par Derham (in tom. VIII des Démonstr. Evangel.); La Geologie et la Minéralogie dans leurs rapports avec la Théologie naturelle par Buckland (ibid. in tom. XI), and others.
The innateness in us of the idea of God was acknowledged by the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church: St. Justin (Apolog. 11 no. 6), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. V, 13), Tertullian (adv. Marcion. 1, 10; Apolog. c. XVII), St. Basil the Great (on Ps. 33, no. 1), St. Cyril of Alexandria (de trinit. 1, 2), St. John of Damascus (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, vol. 1, 1), and others.
Seneca. Epist. 41.
This proof, as is known, Kaite held in preference above all other proofs of the existence of God.
St. Chrysostom (on 1 Tim. 5:17) observes: “πiςiν τὴν συνθήχην λεγει” (Homily XV on 1 Timothy). And Oecumenius adds: “τὴν πρὸς Χριςὸν συνι1ηχην”.
“God is the maker and creator of the Angels, who brought them from non-being into being, and made them in His own image”, says St. John of Damascus (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, bk. 11, ch. 3, p. 52, M. 1844.
Discourse on the Conversion of the Soul to God and Union with Him. In Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1837, 11, 119.
The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church, part 1, answer to question 20; St. Gregory the Theologian, in the Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation, 1844, I, 50; Augustine, de civ. Dei lib. 11, c. 9; John of Damascus. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, bk. II, ch. 3, 6; Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Heavenly Hierarchy, ch. 3, 4, 6.
The Orthodox Confession, part 1, answer to question 20; Ambrose, lib. 1. de Spir. S. c. 7; John of Damascus, bk. 2, ch. 3; Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Heavenly Hierarchy, ch. III, § 3, Moscow, 1839, p. 17. See our Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, § 104.
“God, having created the body, says St. Macarius of Egypt, did not appoint it to receive life, food, clothing, and footwear from its own nature, but ordained that everything necessary for the maintenance of life should be borrowed from outside it, so that the body, of itself, without external aid—that is, without food, drink, and clothing—cannot live: just so the soul, not having the Divine light within itself, but having been created in the image of God, does not draw for itself spiritual food and drink and a heavenly garment—that is, its own true life—from its own being, but from God, from His Spirit and from His light” (Homily 1, § 10, 11). “The Creator made man, says St. John of Damascus, granting him His own Divine grace, and through it setting him in communion with Himself” (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Moscow, 1844, p. 132). “And man, with the cooperation of God’s grace, could abide and progress in good; and, likewise, by his own freedom, with God’s permission, could also turn away from good and be in evil” (ibid., p. 91). For more on this see our Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, § 85.
Here faith is ascribed to the mind, hope to feeling, love to the will, only in accordance with their distinctive properties. But, strictly speaking, since the mind, the will, and feeling are, in their essence, wholly inseparable in man, and are powers of one and the same soul, we must both believe in God, and hope in Him, and love Him with all these powers of our soul. For this reason faith itself, love, and hope are in experience inseparable from one another: where one is present, the other two are necessarily present as well.
Enchir. de fide, spe et char. c. IV, p. 144, in T. VI, Antw. 1700.
“The sacred orders of the heavenly beings, says St. Dionysius the Areopagite, without doubt have communion with God…, and, drawn by a divine, mighty, and unswerving love, ever stretch forward and are partakers of the Godhead in manifold ways” (On the Heavenly Hierarchy, ch. IV, § 2). “The purpose of the heavenly hierarchy is the greatest possible likeness to God and union with Him” (ibid., ch. III, § 2. Cf. St. Damascene’s Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, bk. 11, ch. 3).
Religio est cognitio seu agnitio Dei cultusque, cognitioni illi consentaneus.
Hence come all the errors in matters of faith: superstition, fanaticism, indifferentism, fatalism; likewise ditheism, polytheism, and so forth.
The naturalists maintain that natural knowledge alone is entirely sufficient in matters of faith, and reject the need for any cooperation of God in this matter, and consequently for any divine revelation. There are, however, two kinds of naturalism: crude naturalism, which entirely rejects supernatural revelation as impossible, useless, and even harmful; and a less crude naturalism, which admits this revelation as a temporary aid for weak mortals, one destined to pass away once the human race comes of age. The rationalists teach that there is only one revelation, through human reason, and that to this end God rouses the minds of certain men to a thorough knowledge of the principles of the true faith and to their communication to their neighbors. Such is the small difference between naturalism and rationalism, so closely akin to one another. In contrast to them, belief in Christian revelation, as supernatural, is called supranaturalism.
The Greek name for church — ὲκκλησια — and from it the Latin ecclesia, according to the explanation of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lecture XVIII, no. 24), St. Athanasius the Great (De parabo). Scripturae quaest. XXXVII) and Blessed Augustine (tom. III, pars 2, p. G73, Antwerp, 1700), means those called together, or the assembly of the called, and consequently corresponds very felicitously to the very concept itself: “Ἐκκλησία καλειται φερωνύμως”, says St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the passage cited, “διὰ τὸ πάντας ἐκκαλεισδαι και ίμου συνάγειν”. See also Confess. Cath. et Apost. in Oriente Eccl, per Metroph. Critopul. c. VII, pag. 79, edit. Helmstad. In Holy Scripture the word “church” is used in two senses: most often it denotes an assembly of people (Acts 19:30; 39, 40, see the Greek text), and specifically one united by the bond of faith (Gal. 1:13, 1 Cor. 15:9); and sometimes it denotes the very temple of God, where believers gather for public worship (1 Cor. 14:34, Rev. 11:1–2; 14:17). In these same two senses the word in question was used by the Fathers both of the Eastern Church (see, for example, Chrysostom, tom. V, p. 498, 127, 133, and others, Venet. 1741) and of the Western Church (e.g., Augustine. tom. VII, p. 385, 390 et tom. III, par. I, p. 386, 390). It is likewise used among us; though, in the understanding of the common people among us, the word church is applied chiefly, if not exclusively, to the temple of God—since the very word “church” was formed from the Greek “Κιρίακον”, meaning the house of the Lord.
See — ιεπαπχία in Thesaur. Eccles. of Suicer.
It is known that in the angelic world too there is its own hierarchy: there are some who guide others toward union with God, and others who are guided… For details see the book On the Heavenly Hierarchy by St. Dionysius the Areopagite.
Just as, in the strict sense, only the true, Christian faith can be called Faith—since it alone possesses all the properties of faith, and truly binds (religit) man to God—so too only the true, Christian church is worthy to be called a church. In a broader sense, however, both these names are applied also to false faiths and to societies of believers. Hence even in the church hymns one finds the expression “the pagan church”, though it is called barren.
See on this St. Basil the Great, Preface to the Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah, in the Works of the Holy Fathers VI, (6–8; commentary on Isaiah ch. 1, ibid. 15; on ch. VI, ibid. 250, 260
in the article on the marks of revelation: §§ 36–44.
St. Gregory the Theologian discourses beautifully on this incomprehensibility, both of the divine essence and of human nature and of God’s other creatures, in his second oration on Theology (Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation, part III, pp. 33–40, Moscow, 1844).
Reliable proofs and detailed descriptions of this pagan polytheism can be found: 1) in pagan writers: in Homer, in his Iliad (1, 423, 609, 611); Herodotus (lib. 1, 131, 144), especially in Cicero (de natura deorum, I, 42; III, 15, 16, 23, 24; de legibus II, 8; Quaest. Tuscul. 1, 12, 13) and Pliny (Histor. Natur. III, 5); 2) in the Fathers of the Church, for example St. Athanasius (Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1837, IV, 3), St. Gregory the Theologian in the Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation, 1844, I, pp. 15 and 30–32, and many others; 3) in modern writers who have made a particular study of this subject, for example: in The Temple of Antiquity, containing the names, genealogy, festivals, and associated rites of the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman gods, and so forth, Moscow, 1784; in Reinhard’s Abriss der Geschichte der Entstehung und Ausbildung der religiösen Ideen; and in various accounts of modern travels among pagan peoples, such as Jacques Arago’s Voyage Round the World, translated by Korsakov, St. Petersburg, 1844—see vol. 1, p. 158; vol. 2, p. 218, and elsewhere.
The longest lists of pagan deities can be seen in Blessed Augustine: de Civit. Dei V, cap. 8—a list drawn from the writings of Varro, and in the same book, cap. 11, 16, 21—lists compiled by Augustine himself; also in Arnobius—advers. Gent. IV, pag. 128 et sequ.
In confirmation of all this, Porphyry adduces testimonies in his work: Περὶ Αποχῆς, lib. II, §§ 27, 34, 35 et 36, edit. Cantabrig. 1605. In particular, concerning the Gauls, the Germans, and the Britons, Tacitus speaks—Annal. XIV, cap. 3; and Julius Caesar—de bello Gallico VI, cap. 21.
Ascota, Histor. Indie. V, cap. 19, and others.
Lucan. Pharsal. 1, vers. 56, 57; Augustine. de Civ. Dei VI, cap. 10.
East India: Customs, Manners, and Monuments, published by Semyon and Stoykovich, p. 59, Moscow, 1846.
Plutarch—in the Life of Lycurgus.
Potter’s Antiquities of Greece, vol. 1, 193, and others, St. Petersburg, 1844.
Jacques Arago’s Voyage Round the World, translated by Korsakov, vol. 2, p. 74
East India: Customs, Manners, and Monuments, published by Semyon and Stoykovich, pp. 190–194.
Strabo, VIII, pag. 537 et 581, edit. Amstelod. 1707; Diogen. Laërt. III, § 39. See also Tertullian, Apolog. c. 14; Clement of Alexandria, Cohort. ad gentes; Origen, contra Celsum V; Lactantius, Divin. Inst. 1, de falsa relig.; Hugo Grotius, de verit. relig. Christ. IV, c. 1 et seq.; Montfaucon, L’antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures, Paris, 1719; De S-te Croix, Recherches historiques et critiques sur les mystères du paganisme, Paris, 1784; On the Origin, Multiplication, and Fall of Idolatry, on Divinations and Sacrifices, translated from the French, Moscow, 1792; On the Temples, Priests, Worship, and so forth… of the Ancient Greeks, St. Petersburg, 1815.
De civitate Dei. VII, cap. 2 et 4.
See in Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1840, II, pp. 312–318, and, concerning the ancients, apud Cicer. de natura Deorum. 1, cap. 28; de legihus. III, cap 8, et Euseb. Praepar Evangel. 1, cap. 4.
Euseb. Praepar. Evang II, cap. 6; Augustine, de civit. Dei VII, cap 21; Arnobius, advers. Gent. V, p. l68, 169, Batav. 1615.
Tertullian, Apolog. cap. 15; Augustine, de civit. Dei IV, cap. 26; VI, cap. 8; Arnobius, advers. Gentes. VII, n. 238. Non alii ditridentur in theatris, says Blessed Augustine, quam qui adorantur in templis, nec aliis ludos exhibetis, quam quibus immolatis.
Pers. Satyr. II, vers. 69 et seq. Nihil ibi (in deorum cultu), says Lactantius, disseritur, quod proficiat ad mores excolendos vitamque formandam, nec habet inquisitionem aliquam veritatis, sed tantummodo ritum colendi, qui non officio mentis, sed ministerio corporis constat. Inst. divin. IV, c. 3, n. 1, 2; edit. Cellar
Euseb. Praepar. Evang. 11, cap. 6, pag. 74, 75, Paris. 1628.
Horace, in book 1, satire 8, writes: Olim truncus eram ficulnus, inutile lignum; Cum faber, incertus scamnum faceret-ne Priapum, Maluit esse Deum: Deus inde ego.
Seneca says of the pagans: simulacra deorum venerantur, illis supplicant genu posito, illa adorant, illis per totum assident diem aut adstant, illis stipem iaciunt, victimas cedunt et caet. See in Lactantius, Div. inst. 11, cap. 2.
A series of pagan testimonies on this can be found in Bergier—Dictionnaire de Théologie, under the words: idole, idolâtre, idolâtrie.
Among the ancient Christian pastors, especially notable in this respect are: a) Justin the Philosopher—Apolog. 1, cap. 9; b) Tatian—Oratio ad Graec. cap. 9, 33 and 34; c) Tertullian—Apolog. n. 13 et sequ.; d) Clement of Alexandria—Cohort. ad gentes; e) Arnobius—adversus gentes; f) Eusebius—Praepar. Evangel. II, cap. 3 et caet.; g) Augustine—de civit. Dei in many places;
All the assumptions in general of the defenders of paganism who have appeared in modern times are refuted, with complete thoroughness and irresistible force, in the specially extensive work of Doctor Leland, under the title, in the French translation: Nouvelle démonstration Évangélique, which is included in volume VII of Démonstr. Evangél., published by the Abbé La-m., in Paris, 1843. See also the word: Faganisme in Bergier’s dictionary, especially §§ III, IV, and VII.
With the exception of the small sect of the Karaites and the Biblists, who to this day strictly adhere to the Old Testament Scripture alone, and only wrongly interpret the passages relating to the Messiah. See The Jewish Sects in Russia, by Grigoryev, St. Petersburg, 1847, pp. 11–48.
The Kabbalah, according to Jewish understanding, is a code of philosophico-mystical traditions, serving as a supplement to and explanation of the Law, while the Talmud is a code of traditions chiefly historical, ceremonial, and civil, serving the same purpose of supplement and explanation. Information on the Kabbalah can be found in the work of Rabbi Franck. La Kabbale, Paris. 1843; and on the Talmud and its contents in Drach: De l’harmonie entre l’Eglise et la Synagogue, Paris. 1844, tom. I, pag. 121–181: notice sur le Thalmud.
“Denm dicunt quotidie tres horas legi thalmudicae disceuidae impendere, et totidem cum pisce Leviathan ludere; guotidie ob excidium Solymae et templi lacrimari, et Messiae venturo monstrosum convivium parare… et caet.” For more detail see apud Raum. Martinum-Pugio fidei adversus Mavros et Judaeos, p. III, dist. 3, cap. 22, Lips. 1687, and in Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1834, III, 283–309.
“God created light solely in order to put into effect the law of circumcision.” The Jewish Sects in Russia, by Grigoryev, p. 95.
Tenent aliqui, Messiam iam advenisse et vel in horto Edem capillis foeminae ligatum, vel Romae inter leprosos, donec ab Elia inauguretur, vel in alio incerto loco morari… et caet. Buxtorf. de Synagog. Jud. 1, 50.
“The resurrection of the dead can take place only in Palestine: therefore the Lord opens, beside the graves of the Jews who died in exile, long caverns, through which their bodies roll, like barrels, into the Holy Land, in order to receive their soul there.” Talmud, Jerusalem, tractate Kilim.
Talmud, tractate Bava Metzia.
Moses Mendelson, Jerusalem oder über religiöse Macht und Judenthum. Оfen. 1819. s. 128.
See the preceding note.
Chayei Adam – by Abraham Danzig, Vilna, 1825, on the sabbath ordinances § 15, art. I, fol. 30 verso.
See The Jewish Sects in Russia, by Grigoryev, pp. 87–89, 116, and elsewhere; also in the aforementioned book of Abraham Danzig.
For example, the renowned Maimonides.
The Koran—the book of recitation, given, according to the belief of the Mohammedans, by God Himself—was actually compiled by Muhammad’s successor Abu Bakr from fragments left by the false prophet, and consists of 114 surahs, or chapters, each of which has its own title.
Moeurs et institutions des peuples de l’Inde, par Dubois, tom. II, c. 12; tom. III, c. 6; Vues des Cordillières et c. par M. de Humboldt, tom. 1, p. 235; Mémoires concernant les Chinois, tom. I, p. 106 and 107; Zendavesta, edita a Kleukero, tom. I, pag. 25 et III, pag. 84. By Voltaire’s own admission, the fall of man is the foundation of the theology of almost all the ancient peoples (Vid. Philos. de l’histoire, c. 17).
Nihil tam absurde dici potest, Cicero observed, qnod non dicatur ab aliquo philosophorum (de Divin. II, 58). In particular, for example, Socrates and Plato, while believing in one supreme God, also admitted lesser gods, taught that the ancestral gods should be piously honored and that the popular faith should not be changed; the former doubted the immortality of the soul; the latter distorted this important truth with the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, derived evil from matter, and so forth; Aristotle speaks so obscurely of God that he has been reckoned by many an atheist, admitted the eternity of matter, confined divine providence to the heavens alone, doubted the immortality of the soul, and so forth; Zeno subjected both God and man to fate; Cicero admitted many gods, wavered concerning the immortality of the soul, and, together with Epictetus, held it necessary to honor the ancestral gods. Among modern philosophers we find materialists, atheists, pantheists, and skeptics, all of whom, though not in the same way, undermine the very foundations of faith. We do not consider it necessary to mention the very names of these philosophers or to show their errors in detail: for those familiar with the history of philosophy this is perfectly well known, while those unfamiliar with it may be advised to read some history of this kind—and they will learn by experience to what degree, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:22). It must, finally, be noted that just as the pagan philosophers who lived in the early ages of Christianity borrowed the best of their systems chiefly from the Christians (v. dissert. de studio Ethnicornm Christianos imitandi, a Moscheim, Helmstad. 1729), so too the modern Christian thinkers, by the own admission of some of them (Leibniz, Wolff, and others), owe their best thoughts to Holy Scripture.
Such as: Melissus of Samos (apud Diogen. I.aërt. IX, § 21), Socrates (v. Xenoph. memorab. lib. IV, et Platon, dialog. “Alcibiades”), Plato (in Epimenide), Cicero, who says (Quaest. Tuscul. lib. III): ex philosophis nonne optimus et gravissimus quisque confitetur, multa se ignorare; Iamblichus (in vita Pythagorae cap. 28), in whom we read: quae Deo grata sunt, scire difficile est, nisi quis vel Deuin ipsum, vel eum, qui Deum audit, audiverit; and others.
Some philosophers acknowledged this too. Harum sententiarum quae vera sit, Cicero said, having run through the various opinions of thinkers on the human soul, deus aliquis viderit, quae verisimillima, magna quaestio est (Tuscul. Quaest. 1, §23); he says the same concerning our knowledge of God (lib. 1, de natur. Deor.) and concerning the immortality of the soul (Tuscul. Quaest. 1, c. 11—Seneca says something similar concerning this last truth (Epist. 102)
Ἀδανάτους μeυ πρῶτα δεούς, νόμῳ ὠς διακέιται, τίμα, runs the first of the so-called Golden Verses of Pythagoras.
Plato, Орег. pag. 700–702, edit. Ficin. Lugnun. 1590.
Ego vero, he says, eas (the beliefs of our forefathers) semper de fendam semperque defendï pec me ex ea opinione, quam a maioribus accepi, de cultu deorum immortalium, ullius unquam oratio, aut docti aut indocti, movebit. Apud Ciceron. de natura Deorum III, cap. 2, pag. 266.
Cicero, de Legibus II, cap. 8, pag. 100.
Epictet. Enchiridion cap. 31.
Ammian Marcell. XXV, pag. 427, Paris. 1681.
Maiorum instituta tueri sacris caeremoniisque retinendis sapientis est. Cicero, de Divinat. II, cap. 72.
Lactantius, too, spoke very well of this (Divin. Instit. lib. 7): Facile est docere, pene universam veritatem per philosophos et sectas esse divisam..., nullamque sectam fuisse tam deviant, nec philosophorum quemquam tam inanem, qui non viderit aliquid ex vero. Sed dum contradicendi studio insaniunt, dum sua etiam falsa defendunt, aliorum etiam vera subvertunt, non tantum elapsa illis veritas est, quam se quaerere simulabant, sed ipsi etiam potissimum suo vitio perdiderunt.
Nihil ponderis habent ista praecepta, quia sunt humana, et auctoritatt maiori, id est, divina, illa carent. Nemo igitur credit, quia tain se hominem putat esse, qui audit, quam est ille, qui praecipit. Lactantius, Divin. Instit. III, cap. 27. How little authority the ancient philosophers had in the eyes of the people is plainly stated by Cicero—Tuscul. Quaest. 1, c. 1; V, cap. 2.
Apud Sophoclem – Ajax flagel. vers. 665.
Euripides, apud Stobaeum – serm. 4; Ovid. last. 245.
Cicero, de Legibus II, c. 9.
Kant and others
See the article: A Critique of Kant’s Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone, printed in the Journal of the Ministry of National Enlightenment.
Instead of enumerating in detail the errors of the various philosophical systems of morality, let us recall the remarkable verdict on them given by Kant, who, having examined their very first principles in his Critique of Practical Reason, called these principles of morality (the very principles themselves!..) — immoral.
Plato (de leg. lib. IX) says thus: ώ θαυμάσιε, ὀυκ ἀνθρώπινόν σε κακόν ὀυδὲ θεῖον κινεῖ τονῦν ἐπὶ τὴν ἰεροσυλίαν προτρέπον ἰέναι; οίστρος δὲ ἐστί τι ἐμφυόμενος ἐχ παλαιῶν χὰι ὰκαθάρτων τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἀδικημάτων πεοιφερόμενος ἀλιτηριώδης; Seneca (I, cap. 6 do dementia): peccavimus omnes, alii gravia, alii leviora; alii ex destinato, alii forte impulsi, aut aliena malitia ablati; alii in bonis consiliis parum fortiter stetimus, et innocentiam inviti ac renitentes perdidimus. Nec delinquimus tantum, sed usque ad extremum aevi delinquemus. Etiamsi quis tam bene purgavit animnm, ut nihil obturbare eum amplius possit ac fallere, ad innocentiam tamen peccando pervenit, and others.
Cicero’s well-known verdict on the ancient philosophers is: Quotus enim quisque philosophorum invenitur, qui sit ita moratus, ita animo et vita constitutus, ut ratio postulat? Qui disciplinam suam non ostentationem scientiae, sed legem vitae putet? Qui obtemperet ipse sibi, et decretis suis pareat? Videre licet alios tanta levitate et jactatione, at iis fuerit non didicisse melius, alios pecuniae cupidos, gioriae nonnulles, multos libidinum servos, ut cum eorum vita mirabiliter pugnet oratio,– quod quidem mibi videtur esse turpissimum. Quaest. Tuscul. II, cap. 4.
For this reason even the pagan Antoninus (lib. V, de se ipso) maintained: fieri non posse, ut homines tales efficias, quales habere cupis…
See 1) in Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1839, III, the article: Did the pagans expect a Savior, and if so whence did this expectation come? and 2) Rédemption da genre hamain, аnnoncéе par les traditions et les croyances religieuses, tigurées par les sacrifices de tous les peuples, trad. de Pallemand de B. J. Schmidt par М. B. A. Henrion. Paris, 1827. This work is also included in vol. XIII of the Démonstr. Evangéliques, Paris, 1843.
Chrysostom. Genes. homil. XXXIX, n. 1; θeodor. of Heraclea, in leann. XI. 40 (in Corder. Gaien, in loan.): Arnob. adv. gent. 1, 47.
Ἐπειδη γάρ Κύριος ἐστι τῆς φὐσεως κὰι δημιουργος, δυνατόν ἀυτῷ κὰι τὰ ὑπ ?? τῆν φύσιν δωρ σασθαι. Chrys. in Genes. homil. XXIX, n.1.
See the article: On the Necessity of Miracles in Revealed Faith, printed in Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1830, XL, 212.
Histor. lib. IV, n. 81. Conf. Avg. Reumann. Dissert, de miraculis Vespasiani… tom. II, lib. 2, pag. 427.
In hist. Ang. in Hadriano, n. 25. Maximus haec per simulationem facta commemorat…
Apud Huetium, Demonstr. Evangel., proposit. IX; also Dissert. de Du-Pin sur l’histoire d’Apollonius, convaincue de faussete…
See, for example, Cicer. de Divinat. II, cap. 38; Lvcian. in Dialogö Jupiter confutatus et Jupiter Trageedus; Valex. Max. I, cap. 8, n. 6.
Thus Iamblichus says: Πρόγνωσις δε όυκ έστιν ἔν των ὲν τῷ γίγνεσδαι, ὸυδ οισν φυσική τις ἀπεργάζεται μεταβολή, όυδέ τι τέχνασμα ἐξεύρηται τδυτο ἐις τὴν τοῦ βίου κατασκευὴν χρήσιμον μεμηχανημένον, όυδ δλως ἀνθρωπιχόν ἐστι τοἒργον, θεῖον δέ καὶ ὑπερφυὲς, ἄνωθέν τε ἀπὸ του ὀυρανδυ καταπεμπόμενον; ἀγἔννητόν τε καὶ ἀίδιον ἀυτοφυῶς προηγἕιται (Jambl, sect. III, cap. 1, conf. cap. 7 et 8). Many other similar testimonies can be found apud Dan. Huetium—Demonstr. Evangel, axiom. IV.
For example, Cicero speaks thus of the famous oracles of Apollo: sed jam ad te venio, sancte Apollo..., tuis enim oraculis Chrysippus totum volumen implevit, partim falsis, ut ego opinor, partim easu veris, ut fit in omni oratione saepissime, partim flexiloquis et obscuris, ut interpres egeat interprete, et sors ipsa referenda sit ad sortes, partim ambiguis et quae ad dialecticam deferenda sind… (De Diviu. lib. II, cap. 56). Lucian speaks in a similar way: recte quidem hoc dixisti, Apollo, quod eos laudasti, qui perspicue loquantur; quamquam id non admodum in oraculis tuis observare soles, quae tu obliqua et intrieata reddis, et in mediam intercapedinem tuto projicis plerumque, ut ad eorum expositionem auditores alio egeant Pythio (in Jove tragoed.).
This idea can be found in Irenaeus (Contra haeres. IV, cap. 22), in St. Chrysostom (Орр. tom. XI, pag. 75, Venet. 1741), in Eusebius (Hist. I. 1, cap. 4), in Gregory the Great (Homil. XIX in Evangelia), and especially in Blessed Augustine (Serm. de Jacob et Esau 4, alias 44; Tract. 45 in Johann; in Psal. 36 et 128; Serm. CCC or 1 in Solemn. Martyr. Machab. tom. VIII, p. 850; Retract. 1, cap. 13, in t. 1 opp. fol. 1, 9, E). In this last passage Blessed Augustine says precisely the following: Res ipsa, quae nonc Christiana religio nuncupatur, erat et apud antiquos, nec defuit ab initio generis humani, quousque ipse Christns veniret in carne, unde vera religio, quae jam erat, coepit appellari Christiana. Cum enim eum post ressurrectionem ascensionemque in coelum coepissent Apostoli praedicare, et plurimi crederent primum apud Antiochiam, sicut scriptum est, apellati sunt discipuli Christiani. Propterea dixï haec est nostris temporibus Christiana religio; non quia prioribus temporibus non fuit, sed quia posterioribus denominari coepit.
The Epistle of the Orthodox Bishops of the First Council of Antioch to Paul of Samosata, in Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1840, I, 237. See the same idea in Justin Martyr (Dialog. cum Tryph. c. 60), in Clement of Alexandria (Paedag. 1, cap. 7; Cohortat. ad gent. cap. 1; Strom. 1, cap. 26, 27, 28), in Tertullian (adversus Jud. cap. 1, 2, 9), in St. Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 4, cap. 21, 22, and 26), in St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. Lect. 10), in St. Basil the Great (against Eunomius, bk. 2), in St. Chrysostom (hom. 5S in Genes, p. 454), in St. Ambrose (de fide 4, c. 5), in St. Athanasius the Great (orat. II, p. 260–261), in Blessed Augustine (De moribus Eccles. 1, cap. 28), and others.
Nos et cavsam differentiae Testamentoram et rarsum unitatem et consonantiam ipsorum reteremus (Иrin. contra haer. III, 12, n. 12).
Et tamen sic concedimus separationem istam (legis et evangelii) per reformationem, per amplitudinem, per profectum, sicut fructus separatur a semine, quum sit fructus ex semine, sic et Evangelium separatur a lege, dum provchitur ex lege, aliud ab illa, sed non alienum, diversum, sed non contrarium (Tertull. contra Marcion. IV, II; cf. Irin. contr. haer. IV, 34, n. 2).
Deus, Blessed Augustine observes (on Ps. 73), se utriusque testamenti voluit esse auctor, ut et terrena promitteret in veteri, et coelestia in novo.
Alia sunt, says the same teacher of the Church (on the same Ps. 73), sacramenta, dantia salutem; alia promittentia Salvatorem: sacramenta novi testamenti dant salutem; sacramenta veteris testamenti promittebant Salvatorem... Mutata sunt sacramentä facta sunt faciliora, pauciora, salubriora, feliciora. This idea occurs quite often in this renowned teacher. Vid. de doctr. Christ, c. 9; contra Faustum XIX, c. 13, et epist. 118 ad Januarium.
With the exception, however, of many truths of faith, such as those concerning God, His attributes, His relation to the world, and so forth…, and all the truths of love, which retain their full force in the New Testament as well.
Here it would be necessary first to demonstrate the authenticity and reliability of the books of Holy Scripture, on the basis of which, chiefly, we shall have to judge the divinity of the Christian faith in both its aspects: but since the sources of Orthodox Theology, Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, are intended to be discussed in a separate part of the present work, in which, naturally, something must be said about the authenticity of Holy Scripture as a source, we shall, to avoid repetition, refrain from discussing this subject here. We console ourselves with the thought that it will be addressed in this same work, and not in some other, though somewhat later than would be desired in the present instance.
It must be added that the ancient Hebrews strictly distinguished the word sheol from the word kever — grave. And when speaking of the place or cave where the bodies of the dead were buried, they always used the word kever (see in the original Gen. 23:4, 6, 9; Ex. 14:2; Num. 11:34; Job 5:26; 10:21; 21:32; Ps. 48:19; Ezek. 37:12–13, and elsewhere). But when speaking of the place to which souls depart after death, they used the word sheol (see likewise in the original Ps. 15:10; 14:8; 9:18–19; Sir. 48:5; Kings 17:17–22; 3 Ezra 4:35, 41–42; 7:32). The Seventy translators, all of them Jews, likewise strictly observed this distinction, and always rendered the Hebrew sheol by the Greek ἄδης, and the Hebrew kever by the Greek μνημεῖον, μνῆμα, or ταφὴ, τάφος.
Notes on the Book of Genesis, pp. 112, 123, and 154, St. Petersburg, 1816.
Thus in the Targum of Onkelos on this passage, according to the Latin translation, it is said: quin inimicitiam ponam inter te et inter mulierem, inter semen filii tui et inter semen filiorum ejus. Et erit, quando erunt filii ipsius mulieris servantes prae cepta legis, operam dabunt, ut percutiant te ad caput tuum. Quum autem reliquent praecepta legis, studebis, ut mordeas eos in calcaneis ipsorum. Verum erit illis medicina, tibi autem non erit medicina; quia medicinam adhibebunt calcaneo in dicbus regis Messiae. The same is repeated in the Jerusalem Targum, attributed to Jonathan: ...verum est remedium filiis mulieris, tibi vero serpenti nullum erit remedium; quando quidem futurum est, ut ipsi aliis incolumitatem praestent in calcaneo, in fine extremitatis dierum, in diebus ejus, nimirum regis Messiae. It must be remembered—1) that Onkelos and Jonathan are the oldest of the Jewish paraphrasts, the former covering only the Pentateuch, the latter the Prophets and, in the opinion of some (Zanz– Die gottesdienstlichen Forträge der Juden, Berlin. 1832, cap. 5, Targnmin. s. 61–83, and others), also the Pentateuch (the Jerusalem Targum); 2) that, according to the assurance of the Talmud, Jonathan received his paraphrase by tradition from Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (see the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Megillah, fol. 5), while Onkelos, according to the belief of the rabbis, composed his paraphrase, as it were, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Tur Orach Chayim § 145, Ordinance on the Reading of the Law, fol. 59, Medzhibozh 1818); 3) that the Jews to this day still hold both paraphrases in honor, print them together with the sacred text, and every Jew is obligated to read these paraphrases once a year.
Vid. Petri Huetii Demonst. Evang. propos.VllI, p. 7, pag. 569. Lips. 1703.
Notes on the Book of Genesis, pp. 128, 303, 323–325, 463–465, and others, St. Petersburg, 1816
An Outline of Church-Biblical History, p. 86, St. Petersburg, 1827.
Ibid., pp. 84–85.
See above, note 20.
Among the patriarchs, the following are known to have had the gift of prophecy: Enoch (Jude v. 14), Noah (Gen. 9:26–27), and Jacob (Gen. 49).
Non recedet virga de Juda et legislator de inter-pedes ejus, donec veniat Schiloh, et ei obedientia populorum.
Various opinions on this famous prophecy, from the holy Fathers of the Church and certain later interpreters, are collected and examined in Huet: Veteris testamenti cum Novo parallelismus, cap. IV (in Scripturae Sacrae Curs. complet. tom. II, pag. 265–304, Paris 1842).
In the Samaritan it reads: non auferetur sceptrum de Juda et dux de vexillis ejus, donec veniat Paeificus, et ad ipsum congregabuntur populi. See Bibl. Polyglot. Waltonian, 1684–1687.
See Raymund Martini—Pugio fidei adversus Mauros et Judaeos, cum observationibus Jos. de Voisin et introductione Carpzowii, p. 11, cap. IV: Probatio, quod Messias jam venit, per prophetiam Jacobi. It may be noted in general that this work, written as far back as the thirteenth century, contains a great deal of importance against the Jews, and is still very highly regarded by scholars to this day.
Ibid., and also in Thesauro Ugolini tom. XXV, pag. 970.
The Arabic translation: non praeteribit virga de Juda, et legislator de sub imperio ejue, donec veniat is, cui est, et ad quem congregabuntur populi. The Syriac translation: non deficiet sceptrum de Juda, et expositor de inter-pedes ejus, donec veniat is, cujus illud est, et ipsum expectabunt gentes.
In the Targum of Onkelos it reads: non auferetur babens principatum a domo Juda, neque scriba a filiis filiorum ejus, usque in saесиlum, donec veniat Messias, cujus est regnum: et ei obtemperabunt populi. In the Jerusalem Targum, attributed to Jonathan: non deficient reges de domo Juda, neque periti doctores legis de filiis filiorum ejus usque ad tempus, quo veniet rex Messias, cujus est regnum: et ei subjicientur tandem omnes reges terrae. Quam pulcher est rex Messias, qui surrecturus est e domo Juda!
See the preceding note.
See above the full texts in note 136.
This observation alone completely undermines all the attempts of the more recent rabbis, who wish to apply Jacob’s prophecy, contrary to the opinion of all their forefathers, not to the Messiah but variously to Saul, to Jeroboam, to Nebuchadnezzar, and so forth.
See Bibl. polyglott. Waltonian.
Hence the opinion of some of them, that ad-ki here means after that…, deserves no credence whatsoever.
Mazzochi, Specilegium Biblicum tom. 1, dissert. YIII, par. 1, sect. III, Neapoli. 1762; Christiani Schoettgenii, Horae Hebraicae et talmudicae tom. II, lib. 2, pag. 145, Dresdae et Lipsiae 1742
It is worth citing here the tradition found in the Midrash, one of the oldest parts of the Talmud, where the Jews themselves confessed that precisely at this time, according to Jacob’s prophecy, the Messiah ought to have been expected. There it is related that “the members of the Sanhedrin, when the right of capital jurisdiction was taken from them, about forty years before the destruction of the temple (that is, almost in the very year of our Savior’s death!), clothing themselves in sackcloth and tearing their hair, cried out: woe to us, woe to us: the scepter has long since departed from Judah (Gen. 49:10)—yet the promised Messiah has still not come”. Medrasch Habbi Mosche Haddarschan super Genes. Conf. Talmud Hierosol. Sanchedrin distinct. Dine Mamanoth.
If, finally, one admits that writing was invented in the most distant ages, and perhaps even by Noah himself (see in the Journal of the Ministry of National Enlightenment for 1843—Seyffarth’s idea of the Semitic alphabet), or even by Adam himself (see in Annales de philosophie Chrétienne, Paris 1830, № 5, Origine de l’écriture, rapportée à Adam): then it may very well be agreed that among the Jews, as some scholars suppose (Calmet, in the preface to the Book of Genesis), brief family records could have existed even before Moses, concerning notable events among the people, theophanies, miracles, the number of years of the patriarchs’ lives, their memorable sayings, and the like, and that these records could have been accessible to Moses. The Book of the Just, mentioned by Joshua (10:13; cf. 2 Sam. 1:18), apparently contained the history of the ancient patriarchs.
More on these testimonies can be read in Hugo Grotius: de Verit. Relig. Christ, lib. 1, cap. 8; in Daniel Huet: Démonst. Evangél. proposit. IV, and others.
A great many discussions on this subject have been published in the journal Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne, of which we shall indicate here only a few: 1) Traditions sur Noé et sur l’Arc-en-ciel, conservées parmi les nations de l’Orient; 2) Traditions sur les événements, racontés dans la Bible, conservés chez les peuples de l’Orient, by Stolberg (year 1834, tom. IX, nos. 50 and 52); 3) Identité du déluge d’Yao et de celui de la Bible (1837, tom. XV, no. 89); 4) Monument hiéroglyphique, rappelant le souvenir du déluge, conservé chez les Aztèques du Mexique, by M. Bonnetty (ibid. no. 90); 5) Des patriarches antérieurs à Ty-Ko ou Noé…, dont les listes sont conservées en Chine, et qui se succèdent du père en fils… etc. (1838, tom. XVI, nos. 91 and 92); 6) Géographie historique de l’Arabie, ou preuves patriarcales de la religion révélée, by Forster (1845, tom. XI, no. 66), and others.
This idea is clearly expressed by St. Chrysostom (on Matthew, homily 1, n. 1, in Russian translation, part I, pp. 1–3, Moscow, 1843).
The most exalted mystery of the Trinity of Persons in God was also known in the Old Testament (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Ps. 32:6; Is. 6:3, and elsewhere); but for particular, all-wise purposes, as many of the holy Fathers thought, this mystery still remained then very much veiled. See Gregory the Theologian, in the Works of the Holy Fathers III, pp. 126–127; Epiphanius, Haeres. 74, n. 10; Chrysostom, On the Incomprehensible, against the Anomoeans, homily 5, in Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1842, I, art. 27; Isidore of Pelusium, Letters, 143.
We speak here against the opinion of certain modern Jews, expressed, for example, in Histoire des instit. de Moïse et du peuple hébreu, par Salvador, Paris, 1828, tom. III, liv. IV.
“Omnia, quaecunque memorantur in Lege, Prophetis et Hagiographis, indicant Sapientiam, hoc est, Christum”. Vid. apud Huetium—Demonstr. Evangel, propos. VII, pag. 557, Lips. 1703. “The prophets, all without exception, prophesied chiefly of the days of the Messiah”—the Talmud says this too. Vid. — De l’harmonie entre l’Eglise et la Synagogue, par Drach, tom. 1, pag. 57, Paris, 1844.
Joseph. Flavii Antiquit. lib. XVIII, cap. II; Pugio fidei – Raymundi Martini. Lips. 1687, praef. cap. III, IV, V.
See Schmidt – Rédemption du genre humain, annoncée par les traditions et les croyances religieuses, figurée par les sacrifices de tous les peuples; also Mémoires de l’Académie des inscript., tom. XXXI, pag. 81 and further pag. 207; Biblioth. univers. tom. XX, art. Religion, Genève, 1822. In particular the testimony of Tacitus (Hist, lib. V, cap. 13), the testimony of Suetonius (In Vespas. cap. IV, tom. II, ed. Tavr. 1824), the testimony of Plutarch (de Iside et Osiride, Opp. tom. II, pag. 369, Paris, 1624). Quapropter, the last of these says, et antiquissima haec descendit ex tbeologis et legislatoribus tum ad poëtas tum ad pbilosophos opinio (namely concerning the Mediator between the two principles) quae nullo certo auctore habet principium; persuasionem autem firmam et indelebilem, neque in sermonibus tantum, neque in traditionibus, sed in mysteriis et in sacrificiis et apud barbaros et apud Graecos multis in locis pervulgatam… et caet.
See The Significance of the Tabernacle in “An Outline of Church-Biblical History”.
St. Chrysostom, in his commentary on Isaiah chapter 1, says that the ceremonial ordinances 'ου προηγουμένως ἐδὸθησαν, ἀλλ' ὥστε παιδαγωγίαν γινέσθαι τῆς ἄλλης ἐντεῡθεν ἀυτοις (Ἰουδᾶίος) πολιτείας…, and further: τὸ θῦσαι, καὶ θυμίασμα προσενεγκειν, καὶ τηρῆσαι σάββατον, καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα πάλιν, ὀυχ ῖνα ἀυτὰ ταῦτα γίνηται άπλῶς, ἀλλ ἵνα ἐκ τε τόυτων μελέτης, τῆς τῶν δαιμόνων ἀπάγωνται θεραπείας. The same is expressed by Eusebius (Demonstr. Evang. lib. 1, c. 6) and many Fathers of the Church (see in Hist. eccles. Natalis Alexandri tom. 1). Ante offensam, Blessed Jerome likewise observes, Decalogum tantum accipere Israëlitae; post idolatriam vero et blasphemiam multiplices legis caeremonias (Commentar. in cap. 28 Ezechielis).
More on this subject can be read in Hooke—in the work: de vera religione, part. de legis Judaicae divina origine et natura (see in vol. 2 of Theolog. Cursus Compl., Paris, 1839), in Alexander Noel—in the History of the Old Testament (see discourse 3 on the fourth age of the world), in Alexander Natalis—in Church History part 1, and others.
The spirit and merit of all these laws are examined in detail by Michaelis in the work: Mosaisches Recht, in 4 parts, 1679–1775, and by Salvador in Histoire des instit. de Moïse et du peuple Hébreu, Paris, 1828.
This very idea is expressed by many holy Fathers in their commentary on Ezekiel chapter 20, and especially on its verse 25. Excerpts from them together can be seen—in Natalis Alescandri Hist. Ecclesiast. T. 1.
Diodor. Sicil. fragm. (apud Phot. Biblioth. cod. 244); Strabo, Rerum Geograph, lib. XVI. 'Ἐφη γὰρ ἐκεῖνος (Μωαῇς) καὶ ἐδίδασκεν, says this last pagan writer, ὡς ὀυκ ὀρθῶς φρονοῦσιν ὸι Ἁιγύπτιοι θηρίοις ἐικάζοντες καὶ βοσκὴμασι τὸ θεῖον, ὀυδ' ὁι Λίβυες, ἕυ δ' ὀυδ' ὁι 'Ἐλληνες, ἀνθρωπομόρφους τυπδυντες. 'Ἐιη γὰρ έν τοῦτο μόνον Θεὸς τὸ περιἐχον ἠμᾶς ἅπαντας καὶ γήν καὶ θάλατταν… Τὁυτσν δἡ τὶς ἄν ἐικὸνα πλἄττειν θαῤῤήσειε νοῦν ἔχων ὸμοιαν τινὰ τῶν παρ' ήμῖν, ἀλλ' ἐὰν δἕι πᾶσαν ξοανοποιῑαν τέμενος ὰφορίσαντας κὰι σηκὸν ἀξιὸλογου τιμᾶν ἔίδους χωρίς…
Moses, quo sibi in posterum gentem firmaret, novos ritus contrariosque caeteris mortalibus indidit: profana illic omnia, quae apud nos sacra; rursum concessa apud illos, quae nobis incesta… et caet. Tacitus. Hist. lib. V, cap. 3; cf. Juvenal. Satyr. XVI, 95–100.
Brunati, Critique des auciennes législations paiennes et défence de la législation Mosaïque (In Demonstr. Evangeliqu. T. XIV, pag. 457, Paris, 1843).
Such, for example, is the Egyptian tradition of Moses preserved by Artapanus. Vid. apud Evsebium – Praeparat. Evang. IX, cap. 27.
Ordinary historians do not write history in this way: Josephus, for example, was silent in his Antiquities of the Jewish People about Judah’s incest with Tamar, about the Israelites’ worship of the golden calf, and about their debaucheries with the daughters of Moab (Num. 25).
Contra Apion. 1, cap. 31.
Praeparat. Evangel. IX, cap. 27.
Apud Evsebium, Praepar. Evangel. IX, cap. 8.
Hist. Natural. XXX, cap. 2.
Apud Joseph. Flan. Contra Apion. II, cap. 6.
Apud Origen. Contra Celsum. 1, n. 26.
A defense of each of Moses’s miracles was presented by Glaire in the work: Les livres saints vengés, tom. 1, Paris, 1845.
Antiquit. XI, cap. 8; XIV, cap. 10
See in Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1831, XLI, 290: the prophecy of Moses concerning a prophet like himself.
This prophecy of Moses concerning the Jews is examined with full thoroughness in Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1831, XLI, 183.
As Blessed Augustine already observed, De civit. Dei XVII, cap. 5.
All these testimonies are cited and examined in Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne, tom. XI, n. 49, pag. 40, et tom. X, n. 59, pag. 321–333, under the title: Le miracle de Josué attesté par le témoignage de différents peuples. Also very notable are the historico-geological considerations of one scholar, confirming the historical reliability of this miracle. See Éléments de Géologie, mis à la portée de tout le monde, et offrant la concordance des faits géologiques avec les faits historiques, tels qu’ils se trouvent dans la Bible… par L. A. Chaubard, Paris, 1833, pag. 284–303: Déluge de Deucalion, Cataclysme du temps de Josué.
A detailed examination and defense of all the other prophetic miracles against objections can be found in the book: Les livres saints vengés by S. B. Glaire, Paris, 1845, tom. II, chap. 6, 7, 8.
Those who wish, however, can find a detailed examination of these prophecies—1) In many articles of Khristianskoe Chtenie, such as: a) the Old Testament prophecies concerning the present state of the Jews, 1831, XLII, 281; b) a survey of the Old Testament prophecies on the fall of Babylon, 1832, XLIII, 313; c) a survey of the Old Testament prophecies on Nineveh, 1832, XLVI, 252; d) a historical examination of the Old Testament prophecies on Tyre, 1835, I, 63; e) an explanation of the prophecies on Egypt and their confirmation by historical events, 1840, III, 72; f) on the prophecies relating to the Moabites and Ammonites, 1841, III, 290; 2) in Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne—les prophéties, confirmées par les découvertes des voyageurs modernes les plus célèbres, 1832, tom. V, n. 25, 26, 27, and in many other works.
As proof one may cite: D. Huetii, Veteris Testamenti cum Novo parallelismus in iis, quae ad Messiam pertinent, placed in Script. Sacr. Curs. Complet. tom. II, Paris, 1842.
Even if we accept the present Hebrew reading of this passage: and the Holy of Holies shall be anointed, we arrive at the same idea. The Holy of Holies was, in the Jewish temple, the innermost part, in which God dwelt above all else: the Messiah, in a mystical sense, could most fittingly be called by such a name—for it was foretold of Him that the Spirit of God would rest upon Him and fill Him with all His gifts (Is. 11:2–3), that He would even be called Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us (Matt. 1:23), and that in Him, indeed, as the Apostle expresses it, dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9). The Archangel, in foretelling to Daniel that the visible temple of Jerusalem, together with its Holy of Holies, would be destroyed, could naturally, by way of contrast, point to a new, mystical Holy of Holies, which would be anointed and become the dwelling-place of God—that is, to the Messiah.
Rab. Manass. lib. de termino vitae pag. 175. This last point, concerning the Jews who took up arms under Vespasian and Titus, is confirmed by Josephus as well. De bello Iud. IV, c. 6, § 2; conf. Arch. X, cap. 11, § 7.
Mardachai, Scemen Amischa Aftarà 1, fol. 12.
See apud R. Martinum—Pugio Fidei, par. II, cap. 3, § 16; also apud Schoettgenium—Horae Hebraicae, Dresdae, 1742, tom. II, lib. 2, pag. 264 and further.
Talmud—Meghillah, fol. 3, 1. “Why did heaven forbid Jonathan to translate the Hagiographa?” Answer: “because in them the time of the Messiah’s coming is revealed”. Rashi observes in the same place: “this time is fixed in the book of the prophet Daniel.” Vid. apud Schoettgenium—Horae Hebr. tom. II, lib. 2, pag. 264.
As the starting point of the weeks, this year is taken by: St. Chrysostom (Against the Jews, homily V, no. 16, in Russian translation, St. Petersburg, 1850), also by Julius Africanus, Blessed Theodoret, Zonaras, Bede, and many others. See Tirini Chron. Sacr. pag. 29.
This is evident from the following considerations: a) Thucydides says that Themistocles fled to the Persians shortly after Artaxerxes Longimanus’s accession to the throne (Thucid. lib. 1), while Eusebius places Themistocles’ flight in the 4th year of the 76th Olympiad (Chron. ex vers. Ieron.); b) Diodorus Siculus testifies that Cimon, son of Miltiades, won a victory over the Persians in the 3rd year of the 77th Olympiad (Diod. Sicul. lib. XI), while, according to Eusebius’s account, this victory took place in the 4th year of Artaxerxes’ reign (Chronic.); c) it is known that Xerxes attacked the Greeks in the 1st year of the 75th Olympiad, and in the 6th year after this made Artaxerxes Longimanus his co-regent.
This year is obtained by multiplying 75 Olympiads by 4, that is, by the number of years in each Olympiad, and by subtracting the product, with the addition of the 3 years of the 76th Olympiad, from 776, as the span of time elapsed from the beginning of the Olympiads to our era.
The 1st year of the 7th Olympiad is the 1st year from the founding of Rome. Consequently the 3rd year of the 81st Olympiad is the 299th year from the founding of Rome.
In Talmude tract. Sanhedrin cap. XI.
In citat. Sanhedrin fol. 95.
Conciliator, par. III, pag. 184.
Devarim rabba sect. 1, fol. 250. Conf. Raym. Martin. Pug. fidei, pag. 176–383.
Without doubt, Ezekiel in his prophecy foretells not of David himself, but of one of his descendants: for David had already been in the grave for more than four centuries—meanwhile it was the Jewish custom to call renowned descendants by the names of renowned ancestors.
Thus, for example, the most ancient paraphrast, Jonathan ben Uzziel, translated the words of the prophet Jeremiah, and I will raise up for David a righteous Branch (offshoot or descendant), as: “and I will raise up David — the Messiah of the righteous”; and likewise Ezekiel’s prediction, and I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David, he translated with the same words, “and I will raise up David — the Messiah of the righteous”.
See De l’harmonie entre l’église et la synagogue—par Drach, tom. II, pag. 66–69, Paris, 1844. Also in Huet—Demonstr. Evang. Propos. VII, cap. 25, and in Hengstenberg—Christologie, Th. III, Seit. 302–311.
It is true that some of the Jews applied Micah’s prophecy either to Hezekiah the king, or to Zerubbabel. But a) the Prophet’s words — whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting — cannot apply to either one; b) neither one was born in Bethlehem: Hezekiah the king was, of course, born in Jerusalem, which was the permanent residence of the kings of Judah until the Babylonian captivity, and where all of David’s descendants had until then been born; while Zerubbabel was born in the Babylonian captivity, to which his grandfather Jeconiah was carried away in the 18th year, when Zerubbabel’s father Shealtiel was not yet even born to him (4 Kings 24:8–15), and where both Jeconiah himself and all his children were to die without seeing their homeland (Jer. 22:26–28); c) Hezekiah was born long before Micah’s prophecy was uttered: for Micah already prophesied in Hezekiah’s reign (Jer. 26:18); d) neither Hezekiah nor Zerubbabel was ever king of all Israel, nor did either of them perform the deeds which the prophecy ascribes to the Ruler of Israel.
These very titles alone, which the prophet gives to the future child, indisputably show that the prophecy cannot be applied either to Hezekiah, or to another son of Ahaz, or to a son of Isaiah himself, as some of the more recent Jews wish.
Such as: Eusebius of Caesarea (Demonstr. Evang. lib. VII), St. Basil the Great, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Blessed Jerome, Blessed Theodoret, Procopius, and others (see their commentaries on Isaiah chapters 7, 8, and 9, also on 11 and 12 and following).
Such as, for example, David Kimchi.
Sacred history of that time presents no small number of similar examples. Thus Baasha, when he became king over Israel, killed all the house of Jeroboam, and left nothing that breathed of all that belonged to Jeroboam (1 Kings 15:29); Zimri, when he sat upon the throne, killed all the house of Baasha, and his kinsfolk, and his friend (1 Kings 16:11). The same fate befell the seventy sons of Ahab at the hand of Jehu (2 Kings 10:1–8), and was prepared by Athaliah for all the royal seed in Judah (2 Kings 11:1 and following), and so forth.
This is shown with full thoroughness by Drach, who examines, in order, all the passages indicated, and compares the use of the word alma with two other synonymous but not identical words: na’arah and bethulah (De l’harmonie entre l’église et la synag. tom. II, p. 135–167, Paris, 1844).
All their proofs, and the refutation of these proofs, can be seen in the same place in Drach (pp. 111–134).
Many other objections against the passage under consideration, from both Jews and rationalists, are refuted by the same Drach (ibid. pp. 173–206).
Irin, adversus heeres. III, 27, 7; Tertull. adversus Judaeos cap. 9, and others.
For example, Rabbi Moshe ha-Darshan, in the Midrash, one of the parts of the Talmud, in explaining the words of the psalm: truth shall spring out of the earth (from the Hebrew: shall arise) and righteousness shall look down from heaven (Ps. 84:12), writes the following: “Rabbi Yudan said: this is our Salvation (Savior), which shall arise from the earth through the direct action of God, and then the two (that is, truth and righteousness) shall be joined together. But why is it said: shall arise, and not: shall be born? Because the manner of His (the Savior’s) birth will not be like the birth of earthly creatures, but wholly different from them in every respect…” In the same Midrash, on the book of Genesis ch. 37, v. 22, it is related: “Rabbi Berechiah said: the Holy God said to the Israelites: you complain to Me: we are orphans, we have no father (Lamentations, Jer. 5:3); whereas even the Redeemer, whom I shall raise up for you, will have no father. For it is written: Zech. 6:12; Is. 53:2; Ps. 109:3…”. And in a third place, on the book of Genesis ch. 41, v. 1, the same Midrash asserts that “as the fall came about through a virgin, so through a virgin also shall the rising come”. Other passages of this kind are presented by Drach in the work: De l’harmonie… tom. II, pag. 37–50.
For example—1) in Baba Batra, one of the tractates of the Talmud (fol. 79 vers.), it is written: “Rabbi Samuel, son of Nachmani, said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: the Messiah bears the very name of God; for it is written: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, Jehovah our righteousness” (Jer. 23:6); 2) in Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 21: “the Messiah is called by the name of God; for it is written: this is his name, and he shall be called, Jehovah our righteousness”; 3) in Midrash Rabbah on Lamentations (fol. 68, col. 2, edit. Amster.): “what is the name of the King Messiah? Rabbi Abba, son of Kahana, answered: Jehovah is his name; for it is written: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, Jehovah our righteousness”.
See, among others, the commentaries on this psalm by David Kimchi, Aben-Ezra, Ibn Veggai.
in Midrash Tehillim on this psalm: “the circumstances of the King Messiah and his mysteries are set forth in the text of the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. In the text of the Hagiographa—for it is said: the Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand (Ps. 109:1), and further: the Lord has sworn, and will not change his mind: you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (v. 4)”. In Moshe ha-Darshan on Gen. ch. 18, v. 1: “in the time that is to come, the Holy God, blessed be He, will seat the King Messiah) at His right hand—for it is written: the Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand”. Rabbi Obadiah Sforno on Psalm 109: “the holy Psalmist composed this psalm contemplating the Messiah, and said: the Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand”. Many other passages, see in Raymund Martini—Pugio fidei, par. III, distinct. III, c. II, pag. 641–660.
Talmud. Tract. Succa fol. 52. Zohar. in Numer, fol. 94, col. 376; Medrasch-Rabba in Genes. 15, 2. Medrasch-Thehillim et Medrasch-Valkut in Psalm. 2.
See above, note 207.
Huet.– Demonstr. Evangel, proposit. VII, n. 15.
Ibid. Cf. Iustin. Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 121.
Chrysostom, On Repentance, homily VI, n. 4; Ambrose. Epistol. XLIV Horentiano, n. 15; Lactant. Divin. instit. IV, cap. 20.
Justin. Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 41; Chrysostom, Against the Jews, ch. V, n. 12; Jerome. epist. ad Pavlianam 1 de studio script.; Augustine. De civilate De: XVIII, cap. 35, n. 3.
See above, note 207.
Tract. Talmud. Babyl. distinct. Chelek.
Jalkut Chàdach, fol. 154, col. 4, numer. 29, Tit. Nechamoth. There are many other similar passages in the Talmud (see apud Raym. Martinum, Pugio fldei…, par. III, distinct. III, cap. 16). We cannot but cite here one more of them, the most remarkable: “The Holy One, blessed be He, it is said in the Midrash of Rabbi Moshe ha-Darshan on Gen. ch. 1, v. 1—entered into the following covenant with the Messiah, saying to Him: Messiah, My righteous one! The sins of men shall lay a heavy yoke upon you; your eyes shall not see light, your ears shall hear terrible reproaches, your mouth shall taste bitterness, your tongue shall cleave to your palate…, and your soul shall grow faint from grief and sighing. Do you consent to all this? If you take all these sufferings upon yourself, it is well; but if not, I shall this very moment destroy sinful mankind. To this the Messiah answered: Master of the universe! I gladly take all these sufferings upon myself, only on this condition, that You, in my days, raise the dead, from the first man Adam until now, and save not only them alone, but also all those whom You purposed to create and have not yet created. To this the Holy and blessed God said: yes, I consent. In that instant the Messiah gladly took all the sufferings upon himself, as it is written: and he, because he was afflicted, opens not his mouth: he is led as a sheep to the slaughter, and so forth (Is. 53:7 and following)”.
See St. Chrysostom on Matthew, homily 1, no. 5, pp. 12–14, in Russian translation.
For example, Rousseau in Emile, liv. IV, tom. III.
More on the spirit and meaning of the various parts of Orthodox worship can be read in The New Tablet.
Do bello Judaico III, cap. 8, § 9; IV, cap. 10, § 7.
Lib. do termino vitae pag. 17е. Cf. note 180.
Histor. lib. V, cap. 13.
Vita Vespasiani – cap. 4.
Tom. II, pag. 449, 899, 435, edit. Mangey.
De bello Judaico III, cap. 28; IV, cap. 31.
De excidio Hierosol, lib. V, cap. 44.
Sallust, in Catelin. Confer. Ciceronis orat. III in Catelin. pag. 692, 696, edit. Graevii.
See the article: on the magi who came to worship Jesus Christ, in Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1831, XLIV.
See in Geschichite der Religion Jesu Christi von Stolberg, Th. 1, Beylage V: Spuren früher Ueberlieferung … bei den Völkern, seit. 395, Wien, 1817.
An Outline of Church-Biblical History, p. 440, St. Petersburg, 1827.
Buchanan. Christian, recherches, mémoire de Vansittart sur Afghans…
Essai sur les Juifs de la Chine et sur l’influence, qn’ils ont ene sur la litterature de ce vaste empire avant l’èro Chrétienne,– par l’abbé Sionnet.
Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, 1 Jahrgang, seit. 207 and following.
1) Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1841, II, 108; on the divinity of the Christian faith, proved from the person of its Founder; 2) Réflexions diverses sur Jésus-Christ, ou caractirès divine de Jésus-Christ dans за doctrine et dans ses oeuvres, par d’Aguesseau (Démonstr. Evangel, tom. VIII, pag. 841).
1) on the miracles of Jesus Christ, Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1835, II, 57; 2) on the certainty and reliability of the Gospel miracles, Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1838, II, 184; 3) Albert Guil. Melchioris – apologia pro miraculis Christi et expositionibus patrum allegoricis…, Franeck. 1731; 4) Mich. Iilienthalii – Wunderwerke Jesu, als ein überzengender beweis, dass er der wahre Messias sei, Regiom. 1748; 5) Philosophische Vertheidigung der Wunder Jesu und seiner Apostel von Joh. Christoph. Gräffe, 1812.
See A Survey of the Rabbis’ Testimonies concerning Jesus Christ, in Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1835, I, pp. 287–299.
Γίνεται δέ κατά τοῦτον τὲ χρὄνον Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ὰνὴρ, ἔιγε ἄνδρα ἀοτὄν λέγειν χρή. ὴν γὰρ παραδὄξων ἔργων ποιητὴς, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶνήδονῇ τ’ἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὐς μὲν Ἰουδάιους, πολλούς δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἐλληνικοῦ έπιγάγετο. ὅ Χριστὸςὂυτοςἦν. καὶ ἀυτὸν ἐνδέιξει τῶν πρῶτων ἄνδρῶν παῤ ἡμῑν, σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου, οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οῗγε πρῶτον αὐτὄν ἀγαπήσαντες. ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ήμέραν πάλιν ζῶν, τῶν θέιων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία θαυμάσια περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρηκότων. ἐις ἔτι νῦν Χριστιανῶν ὑπό τοῦδεὡνομασμένων ὀυκ ἐπέλιπε τὄ φῦλον. Antiquit. Judaic, lib. XVIII, cap. 3.
Bk. 1, ch. 10.
Demonstr. Evangel, lib. III, cap, 5.
Church History, bk. III, ch. 9.
Catalog. Script. Eccles. – Josephus.
Isidore of Pelusium, bk. IV, letter 125.
Sozomen, Church History, bk. 1, ch. 1.
Cedrenus, Compend. Hist. pag. 169; Nicephorus Callistus, Hist. lib. 1, cap. 39.
Antiquit. lib. XVIII, cap. 1; lib. XX, cap. 5 et 8.
Ibid. lib. XVIII, cap. 5.
Ibid. lib. XX, c. 9. See also in Origen, lib. 1 contr. Celsum. cap. 47, and Eusebius, Church History, bk. II, ch. 23.
A defense of this testimony of Josephus against the various objections that have appeared in modern times, and which are, in general, rather weak, can be found in the following works: 1) Stelzig, Illustre Flavii Josephi Judaei testimonium de Christo, Bamberg, 1770; 2) J. Vernet, Traité de la vérité de la religion Chrétienne, tom. IX, Lausanne, 1782; 3) Böhmert, Ueber des Flavius Jos. Zeugniss von Christo, Leipzig, 1823; 4) The Testimony of Flavius Josephus concerning Jesus Christ, in Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1834, I, pp. 176–198.
The first time, when he relates the crucifixion of the Savior: “you (pagans) can learn all this from the acts drawn up under Pontius Pilate (ἐκ τῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου γενομένων ἄκτων)”; the second time, mentioning the Savior’s miraculous healings and His raising of the dead: “that He did all this you can learn from the acts drawn up under Pontius Pilate”. Apolog. 1, cap. 35 et 48.
Having spoken of the eclipse of the sun at the time of the Savior’s death, Tertullian remarks: eum mundi casum in archivis vestria habetis, and then, having mentioned Christ’s resurrection and other miracles, expresses himself still more plainly: ea omnia super Christo Pilatus, et ipse iam pro sua conscientia christianus, Caesari tum Tiberio nunciavit. Apolog. adversus gentes cap. 21.
Church History, bk. II, ch. 2.
Commentary on 2 Corinthians, homily XXVI, p. 528, Moscow, 1843.
Church History, bk. VII, ch. 3 and 4.
See the passage indicated above. That such a custom existed among the Romans is proven also by the well-known report of Pliny the Younger, who was governor of Bithynia, to the emperor Trajan in the year 104 A.D., concerning the persecution of the Christians. Relat. ad Trajanum Epist. lib. X, 97; also in Tertullian’s apology, cap. 2.
Church History, bk. IX, ch. 5.
Tiberius, cujus tempore nomen christianum in saeculum introivit, annunciatum sibi ex Syria Palaestina, quod illic veritatem illius divinitatis reclamaverat, detulit ad senatum cum praerogativa suffragii sui; senatus, quia non ipse probaverat, respuit (Tertull. Apolog. adv. gentes cap. 5). How the senate could act in this way, the same Tertullian explains: vetus erat decretum, ut neque Deus ab imperatore consecraretur, nisi a senatu probatus (Ibid.). Eusebius likewise says: τὸν δὲ Τιβέριον ἀνενεγκεῖν μὲν τῆ σογκλήτῳ, ἐκείνην τ' ἀπώσασθαι φασὶ τὸν λόγον, τῷ μὲν δοκεῖν, ὃτι μὴ πρότερον αὐτη τοῦτο δοκιμάσασα ἦν, παλαιοῦ νόμου κεκρατηκότος, μὴ ἄλλως τινἀ παρὰ ρωμάιοις θεοποιεῖσθαι, μὴ ουχὶ ψὴφῳ καὶ δόγματι συγκλήτου. Hist. E. lib. II, cap. 2.
Thalus Histor. Syriaca. lib. III.
Quarto anno ducentesimae secundae olympiadis, magna et excellens inter omnes, quae ante eam acciderant, defectio solis facta. Dies hora sexta ita in tenebrosam noctem versus, ut stellae in coelo visae sint, terraeque motus in Bithynia Niceae urbis multas aedes subvertit (Phleg. Olymp. lib. XIII).
See in Origen. contra Celsum lib. 1, n. 28, 38, 67–68
“Est quoque alia sanctior et venerabilior historia, quae perhibet, ortu stellae cujusdam... descensum Dei venerabilis ad humanae conservationis rerumque mortalium gratiam. Quam stellam cum nocturno itinere inspexissent Chaldaeorum profecto sapientes viri, et considoratioue rerum coelestium satis exercitati, quaesiisse dicuntur recentem ortum Dei, repertaque illa majestate puerili, veneratos esse et vota Deo tanto convenientia nuncupasse”.
See in Евсев. Praeparat. Evangel. lib. V, cap. 1.
Arnob. adversus gentes lib. 1, pag. 25.
See in Eusebius. contra Hieroclem.
See in St. Cyril of Alexandria, adversus Julianum lib. VI.
A collection of similar pagan testimonies concerning the Gospel events can be found in very many writers, such as: Eusebius—Demonstr. Evangel., Huet—Demonst. Evang., Houtteville—La religion Chrétienne, prouvée par des faits, Dominique de Colonia—La religion Chrét., autorisée par le témoignage des anciens auteurs païens, Addison—De la religion Chrétienne, Bullet—Hist. de l’établissement du Christianisme, tirée des seuls auteurs juifs et païens, and others.
1) Die göttliche Sendung Jesu aus seinen Weissagungen erwiesen, von Dr. Sandermann, in Frints theol. Zeitschrift, 1821, IX Jahr, 11, B. I. H; 2) Jesus, der göttliche Prophet…, von Stäudlin, Göttingen, 1824.
Antiqu. XX, cap. 2; de bello Judaico II, cap. 23.
See in Origen. contra Celsum lib. I, n. 17.
Flavii Antiqu. XX, cap. 5 et 8.
Tacit. Hist. I, c. 2; Plin. Hist. Nat. II, c. 84 seu 86.
Antiqu. XX, cap. 3.
Joseph. Flav. De bello Judaico VI, c. 46.
Tacit. Hist. I, c. 2; Plin. Hist. Nat. II, c. 84 seu 86.
Joseph. Flav. De bello Judaico VI, cap. 31; Tacit. Hist. V, cap. 13.
De bello Jud. V, cap. 13.
De bello Jud. lib. VII.
Hist, Eccles. III, cap. 5.
Flav. De bello Jud. V, cap. 12.
Lib. V, cap. 27
Flav. De bello Jud. Lib. VI, et VII.
Lib. VII, cap. 1.
Lib. VI, cap. 45; V, cap. 27.
Lib. VI, cap. 45; VII, cap. 2.
Chrysostom, Against the Jews, on the fact that Jesus Christ is God, no. 16; Isidore of Pelusium, bk. IV, letter 74, and others.
1) The History of Christ’s Resurrection, Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1833, II, p. 19; 2) The Proof, Marks, and Consequences of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, ibid., p. 42; 3) Les témoins de la résurrection de J.-C., examinés et jugés selon les règles du barreau, par Scherlock, trad. de l’anglais. The Hague, 1732; 4) Humfredi Ditton – Veritas religionis Christianae ex resurrectione Jesu Christi, demonstrativa methodo comprobata per Georg. Franck. Presburg. 1811; 5) Observations de Gilbert West sur l’histoire et sur les preuves de la résurrection de Jésus-Christ, trad. par l’аbbé Guenée, Paris, 1757.
Iustin. Dialogue with Trypho, no. 108.
“Had the Apostles wished to steal the body, says St. Chrysostom, they would not have stolen it naked—not only so as not to bring dishonor upon it, but also so that, in undressing it, they would not wake those who might rise up and seize them. And to remove the grave-clothes from the body was difficult, and required much time for this, because the myrrh had stuck to the body and the clothes like an adhesive substance”. Homily on the Gospel of Matthew XC.
See Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1835, II, pp. 297–312: The Thoughts of the Teachers of the Church on the First God-wise Bearers of the Gospel Word.
Annal. lib. XV, cap. 44.
Epist. lib. X, epist. 97.
This is precisely how the ancient pastors of the Church explained this event as well, for example St. Chrysostom (in Acta Apostol. hom. XI, n. 2), Blessed Jerome (Comment. in Isaiam lib. VIII, cap. 68), Blessed Augustine (de civit. Dei lib. XXII, cap. 8, n. 1), and others.
See in Origen. contra Celsum lib. I, n. 6, 38, 68; II, n. 14.
In Jerome. contra Vigil.
In Cyril of Alexandria, adv. Julianum lib. X
La religion Chrétienne, démontrée par la conversion et l’apostolat de Saint Paul, par Littleton, trad. de l’anglais par l’abbé Guénée. Paris, 1754.
Justin. Apolog. 1, n. 67; Tertull. de praescr. haer. cap. 28.
1) The Thoughts of the Teachers of the Church on the Miraculous Spread of the Gospel Preaching, Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1835, IV, 174; 2) On the Miraculous Spread of the Christian Faith, Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1836, III, 164.
Igitur, primo correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens, haud perinde in crimine incendii, quam odio humani generis convicti sunt… et caet. Tacit. Annal. lib. XV, cap. 44.
Plinius II ad Trajanum. Epist. lib. X, epist. 97.
Defatigatus sum puniendo et neci tradendo Gallilaeos, qui nobis veniunt sub nomine Christianorum... Illi vero non cessant ad caedem sese patefacere… et caet. Tiberiani ad Trajanum de Christ, relig. relatio (Vid. apud Coteler. Patr. Apost. tom. II, pag. 181).
Origen. contra Celsum lib. 11, n. 46.
Lucianus Alexander, seu Pseudomantis, n. 25: dicens, atheis plenum esse et Christianis Pontum… et caet.
Καὶ ταῦτα σύμπαντα διὰ τὴν ὀλέθριον πλάνην τῆς ὑποκένου ματαιότητος τῶν αθεμίτων ἀνθρώπων ἐκέινων ἐγίνετο, ἡνίκα κατὰ τὰς ψυχὰς ἀυτῶν ἀπεπολάζε, καὶ σχεδὸν ἐιπεῖν τὰ πανταχοῦ τῆς ὀικουμένης ἀισχύναις ἐπιεζε. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. lib. IX, cap. 7.
Παρὰ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις φανρὸν εΐναι πέποιθα, τούς δεσπότας ήμῶν Διοκλητιανὸν καὶ Μαζιμιανὸν τούς ἡμετέρους πατέρας, ἡνίκα συνεῖδὸν σχεδὸν ἅπαντας ἀυθρώπους καταλειφθέισης τῆς τῶν θεῶν θρησκείας τῷ εθνει τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐαυτούς σομμεμιχόντας, όρθῶς διατεταχέναι πάντας… Ibid. cap. 9.
Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 117.
Irenaeus, contra haeres. lib. 1, cap. 10, n. 2.
Apolog. cap. 3 seu 37. Tertullian expresses these thoughts just as boldly and decisively in his other works as well (ad nationes lib. 1, cap. 1; ad Scapulas cap. 5 versus finem).
For example, Clement of Alexandria (Strom. lib. VI, cap. 18), Origen (in Genes. homil. IX, n. 2), Cyprian (de unitat. Eccles.), Minucius Felix (Apolog. n. 9 et 33), Arnobius (adversus gentes I, cap. 55; II, cap. 5, 12).
Livius, lib. XXV, cap. 1; XXXIX, cap. 16: Cicero do natura deorum lib. III, cap. 19.
See above, notes 298, 299, and 300.
Tertullian, in his Apology.
— 1) On the Beneficial Effects of the Christian Faith on Mankind, Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1834, III, 164; 2) On the Beneficial Influence of the Christian Faith on Mankind in Religious Respects, Khristianskoe Chtenie, 1841, IV, 88.
See, for example, the Life of the Venerable Anthony the Great.
See the Great Menaion Reader, the Prologue, the Paterika.