THE COMING APOSTASY
Moses,
before his people had entered the land of promise, was inspired to foretell
their falling away from Jehovah, the God of their fathers. And thus, the Lord Jesus, at the sending
forth of his Gospel into the world, foresaw and foretold that declension from
it, and open rejection of it, which have yet to be fulfilled. Of these intimations, none is perhaps
more plain and full than that offered to our notice in the first Epistle of Timothy (3: 14).
“These things I write unto thee, hoping to come unto thee
shortly. But if I tarry long, that
thou mayest know how to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church
of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And confessedly* great is the mystery of
Godliness. God was manifest in the
flesh, was justified in the spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the
Gentiles, was believed on in the world, was received up in glory.”
[* See Greek.]
“But the
Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the
latter times some shall apostatize from the faith, giving heed to seducing
spirits, and to doctrines of devils,
speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,
forbidding to marry [and commanding] to abstain
from articles of food, which God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving, by those who
believe and recognize the truth.
For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be cast away, if it
be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and
prayer.”
“If thou put
the brethren in remembrance of these
things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the
words of the faith, and of the good doctrine, whereto thou hast attained.”
“But refuse the profane and old‑womanish fables; but
exercise thyself unto godliness. For bodily exercise is profitable in some
small degree; but godliness is
profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that
which is to come”: 1 Tim. 3: 14 ‑ 4: 8.
This
passage has been commonly supposed to be fulfilled by Romanism, and still
continues to be applied to it.
Without in the least desiring to palliate the destructive doctrines of
that corrupt church, I yet feel persuaded, that another form of evil is here
presented, and would briefly offer some of the stronger proofs in this place;
reserving others to the more minute examination of the prophecy further on.
1. A conclusive proof
that Romanism is not the evil thus
depicted by the Holy Ghost, arises from the fact, that the Church of Rome holds
every article of the faith which is mentioned by the Apostle.
It believes that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, that he died,
rose, and ascended, with every other point of the faith that Paul has specified
as that mystery of godliness, from which the apostates of the latter day should
fall away.
2. The abstinence from marriage and articles of food here supposed, is
essentially connected with the apostasy foretold; so that if any leave the
faith, they must abstain from both; and those only who abstain from both, leave the faith. It is the listening to and receiving
these principles of abstinence, that produce the apostasy. Wherefore, if any marry or use articles of
food indifferently, they have not departed from the faith. But this is not true of the
great body of Romanists; therefore they have not apostatized from the Christian
faith. And if now it be said, that
at least it has its fulfilment in the monks, and nuns, and priests of the
Romish church, for these abstain from both marriage and meats, I answer ‑
First, these do not forbid marriage, but promote it in the case of others. And secondly, as noted above, they
maintain all the articles of the faith as exhibited by Paul. Therefore theirs is not either the
abstinence, or the apostasy contemplated by the Holy Ghost.* Much less
do they forbid either marriage or meats as
things evil in themselves, which is the ground of the objection
and abstinence supposed in the text.
[*
I would briefly throw into this note, some objections to Mede's interpretation of the passage. He makes “spirits” equivalent to doctrines, and supports
the views by quoting 1 John 4: 1. But the passage is quite against
him; for the trial there supposed is a personal one; a trial which cannot be made of doctrines.
How could
transubstantiation be asked to confess if Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh? (2) He makes (with others in
the present day), “doctrines of devils,”
to be “doctrines concerning demons," and then interprets the phrase
of the Romish adoration of saints. Against which I
object ‑ First, that in the other instances in which the Greek word ...
is found in construction, it does not take the signification he supposes. Thus “doctrines of Men,"
(Col. 2: 22) signifies “doctrines taught by men.”
And in the 2nd Epistle to Timothy, we have “Thou hast fully known the doctrine of me” (2. Tim. 3:
10), which signifies, “doctrine taught
by me," not
“doctrine concerning me”.
Secondly,
the word “demon” never in the New Testament
has a good sense; but the equivalent expression is always “evil spirit.” And by Augustine, Clemens Alexandrinus, Minucius Felix, Origen, Tertullian,
Julian, Josephus, Eusebius, with others of the fathers, they are regarded
as evil beings.
Thirdly,
the personal apostasy from the faith here mentioned,
supposes previous personal profession of it, and afterwards entire abandonment
of it for some other faith or infidelity. But Romanists never
have fallen away to any other faith; and as to their opinions concerning
fasting and celibacy, since the Christian faith does not consist in these
things, and is consistent with them, the holding them is not apostasy.
Fourthly,
the Greek word ... cannot be rightly translated “By
the hypocrisy of liars.”
(1) The sense of ... for ... is uncommon, and not to be resorted to
without necessity. (2) The absence of the article shows, that
the phrase ... is to be taken adverbially.
If it meant, “through the hypocrisy
of liars” ‑ it would have been ... (3) The Greek word
... being an adjective, it cannot be fairly connected with a substantive not
implied in the context, but must take as its substantive ... that has just
preceded. If men were intended, the
Greek word ... must have been expressed.
(4) As to the sense, this introduces unnecessarily a new class of
deceivers: and men are made the means of the apostates’ giving heed to
evil spirits, while it is not said that the liars themselves depart from the
faith. Can it be supposed, that all
these obliquities of construction, and syntax, and meaning of words, must meet
to give us the true sense of the passage before us?]
I
would now consider the prophecy before us in its real bearing, and show the
heresy against which it is levelled.
With all the early Christian writers, I interpret it of the
Gnostics. These were persons who
sought to incorporate Christianity with their false philosophy. Hence Paul’s caution, “Beware lest any man
spoil you through philosophy and vain
deceit:” Col.
2: 8. They attempted to
explain the origin of evil by their own understanding, unenlightened by divine
grace, and God’s Holy Word.
It is not wonderful then that they erred.
(1)
They maintained that matter was eternal, and the cause of evil, and that the
Supreme God was not the Creator.
(2)
From the Supreme God, who dwelt far from matter, there flowed forth, at
different times, various beings inferior to himself, whom they denominated
Aeons. This view of theirs explains
Paul’s twice repeated caution to Timothy and Titus, to give no “heed to fables and endless genealogies:” 1 Tim. 1: 4; Titus 3: 9. The epithet “endless” shows that not the Jewish, but the Gnostic genealogies were in
question, for the Jewish genealogies were bounded, on the one hand by the known
pedigree of Abraham, and on the other by their own times. The Gnostic
genealogies of their Aeons had no limit but their fancy; and hence some sects
supposed thirty Aeons, some three hundred and sixty-five, and others might, if
they would, have made thirty thousand.* To these Aeons, they gave the
names of the Word, Light, Life, Truth, the Only-Begotten. All these names, St. John, who wrote
against the Gnostic heresy, claims for Christ Jesus. They believed that one of these Aeons or
Emanations from the Deity (which became gradually more and more unlike their
parent), meeting with matter, produced the creation, moulding the materials to
the best of his ability, but being deficient in power, or knowledge, or
goodness, he became the author of evil, both natural and moral.
[*
I should therefore conclude (because the Jewish genealogies were not subversive
of the faith of Christian converts, nor were they foolish) that what is here
said of ‘endless genealogies’ may
very probably relate to their successive generations of Aeons.”
3. The Creator (or Demiurge, as they called him) was then an
inferior and evil being. He was
also the God of the Jews the giver of the Law and of the Old Testament.*
[*
As many may not have seen the origin of evil truly stated, and as it is deeply
entwined with the present subject, I give a brief statement of it in this note.
There
is One Being who is in every respect perfect and infinite, unchangeable,
eternal. He is the parent and
author of all good: without his bestowal and sustaining there is no good. Good then is something of a positive kind: it has a real existence,
out-flowing from God and maintained by him. Of good, God is the efficient cause. Evil, on the other hand, is negative.
It is a want of excellence and cannot flow from the Being of
perfection. As it does not come
from God, it can only spring from the creature, for there is no other
source. Wherever God works there is
good; wherever he ceases to work, and leaves the creature to itself, there is
evil. Hearing is good; sight is
good; they are positive excellences,
and therefore from God. But
deafness and blindness are evils: they are the want of the positive excellences
above-named. In a statue, if we saw
half of the face beautifully finished, and the other rough and shapeless as it
was hewn, we should say ‑ and say rightly – ‘The beauty and positive excellence of the finished side are
owing to the skill of the artist.
The roughness and shapelessness of the other side are due to the fact
that the artist has not exerted his skill on that side.’ Evil then has a deficient cause, which lies in the creature.
This
defect of necessity belongs to
the creature. Once there was a time
when nought existed but God. Then
there was nought but perfection and positive good. God might have continued this for ever,
had it pleased him. But he
determined to create beings for his glory.
Now, if creatures be made, they must be dependent on their Creator: and if dependent, they must be
liable to fall, if he uphold them not. If a creature be formed, it must of
necessity be limited and changeable. God alone is and alone can be
infinitely perfect and unchangeable.
An infinitely perfect and unchangeable creature is a contradiction of
ideas. It must contain therefore
within itself a reason of its liability to change from good to evil, which is
called passive power. This liability to fall does not spring from God, and
cannot be removed from a creature by any decree or power of God. It is the glory of God, that
steadfastness in goodness belongs to Him alone. The difference arises from difference of
nature, and manifests the unspeakable gulf
that lies between Creator and creature.
All good in the creature springs from God's positive will, and it may be
maintained in goodness for ever, if it please God: but the tendency to fall away must ever remain.
Any
moral being, created finitely perfect, if God try him in equity, that is, give
him only what is required to make him accountable, and suspend the
communication of his out-flowing grace - will assuredly fall. The creature’s tendency to fall,
if left free to his own will, will certainly display itself by sinning. The germ of corruption is in every
creature: if not kept back by sovereign grace, it will show itself by open
sin. But in every natural act of
sin there is something which comes from God, and is good. Thus in Adam’s eating of the
forbidden fruit, his beholding the tree, his reaching forth his hand and taking
and tasting, and swallowing it, were all,
as physical acts, good: the evil lay in the wrong
manner and motive of the acts: and this was sin, which was entirely his
own.
Thus
every moral being is equitably free to evil: sovereignly
necessitated to good. To make God the cause of evil is the fearful overstatement of those who discern not whence comes
evil. To make man the cause of good, arises from ignorance of the natures of the Creator and
creatures. And Manicheeism or Gnosticism errs
on this very point, in not discerning the true origin of evil. Its imagination of two Gods, the one the
author of good, the other the author of evil, is seen to be foolish, as soon as
we discern that evil has no necessary existence, and therefore is not self existent or eternal, as God
(the author of good) is. Thus also
we are able to discern how everything can be foreknown and foretold by
God. Everything is either good or
evil. If good it can be certainly
foreknown, for it depends upon God’s own acts of power: if evil, it
springs certainly from the creature, and has a cause which can certainly be
foreknown, even his passive power or liability of change to evil. Thus the astronomer can calculate with
absolute certainty long beforehand both the light and the darkness of an eclipse; he can tell
that wherever there is a hindrance to the light, there will be darkness, and
can measure its extent and he knows that the rest will be light.
As matter sprang out of nothing at the
pleasure of another, so if left to
itself it would again cease to be. God is, and tends to be.
The creature is, but tends not to be. So is it with the
holiness of the creature. How humbly should we wait for all good from the
Giver of every good and perfect gift!]
4. Christ was the Son of the Supreme and Benevolent God, who came to deliver
men from the tyranny of the Creator, the God of the Jews.
5. Hence it followed, that Christ, according to their theory, was neither
born nor died. For how could he,
who came to deliver men from the dominion of matter, voluntarily take upon himself that
hateful thing, the cause of sin?
And as he had not a real body, he was not properly a man, and did not
die much less rise again. The
resurrection, the atonement, and the general judgment were therefore denied.
6. From the same principles it likewise flowed naturally, that they
accounted marriage, and wine, and animal food, evil. Denying atonement, they rejected
animal sacrifice as unworthy of a benevolent God, and refused therefore to take
away life themselves. And against
marriage ‘they spoke impiously under the pretext
of continence, and blasphemed the creation and the Demiurge, the One Almighty
God, and taught that marriage was not to be received, and that men should not
introduce into the world others to be wretched as themselves nor supply death
with food.’* The practice that
resulted from such awful principles was of different kinds.
[*
Clem. Alex. Strom. Lib. iii 6. P.
531. Ed. Potter.]
Some
lived lives of austerity and self-infliction, attempting to subdue the body and
wear it out, that the soul might be free from the chains and pollutions of
matter. Others ran to frightful
lengths in licentiousness; affirming that knowledge was everything, and that
souls purified, as theirs were, by the true knowledge of God, could not be
defiled by any action, however seemingly evil it might appear to those who were
still in ignorance.
Some
have thought that the accounts given by the fathers of their lives and
practices are not to be trusted; but the New Testament describes men of just
such characters as the ecclesiastical writers of the day testify the Gnostics
to have been. Paul declares some to
be magical deceivers (2 Tim. 3: 13)* as Simon of Samaria was, and as many of the
Ephesians had been: while we also find travelling exorcists there attempting to
dispossess a demoniac by the name of Jesus: Acts 19. Titus is warned against men whose very “mind and conscience
was defiled, who professed that they knew God [whence they took the title of Gnostics]
but in works they denied him, being abominable, and disobedient, and to every
good work reprobate:” Titus 1: 15, 16. They were patrons of fornication and of
every evil lust (2 Peter 2). And it seems probable, from the
apostle’s words, “by reason of whom the way
of truth shall be blasphemed,” that the Gnostics really were
guilty of some prodigious acts of wickedness, which came to be imputed to the
true believers (1 Peter 2: 12-15). The Lord Jesus rebukes Thyatira for
doctrines upholding uncleanness and idolatry: Rev.
2. Covetousness and
hypocrisy are also imputed to them.
[*
“The seducers were evidently men who dealt in
magic.”
7. From the same principles it followed that they admired and praised the
evil-doers of the Old Testament, as those who had manfully resisted the evil
Creator or God of the Jews; and Cain and Korah, and Balaam and Judas, were the
patterns they sought to follow.
8. It was the natural consequence of the same doctrines, that when
Apostles came, publishing, either by word or by their writing, the truth, that
they denied the correctness of their teaching. Paul and others were, to their eyes, Jewish teachers, who, through prejudices of
early life, had misunderstood their Master; they were the scientific
and philosophical, who were able to detect the truth, and discard error in the
mixed form in which it was presented by the half-taught. It was against this system, rather than
Romanism, that both
With
this view we shall find not only the Epistles to Timothy to be in accordance,
but the Gospel and Epistles of St. John, the Epistles to Titus, the Hebrews,
and Colossians.
But
let us examine more closely the prophecy which has been above quoted.
In
it the visible church is set forth as appointed to be “the pillar and ground of the truth”. It was the pillar of the truth, as
supporting it, and bearing inscribed upon it, as it were, the doctrines
authorized of God. It was the
ground of the truth, as staying and steadying it against the adverse blasts of
error. This testimony to the truth
it gave in two ways; first, by the sacred rites it publicly celebrated; and
secondly, by its very constitution.
In
baptism it testified the death and resurrection of the Great Founder of the
church, and the hope of the believer, as consisting in resurrection. And in the Lord’s Supper it
presented the emblems of blood shed, and of his body bruised for sin, thus
witnessing the reality of his incarnation and death. But, moreover, it upheld, in the most
solemn way, that wine is a good creature of God, fit to be partaken of by the
faithful, in direct opposition to the Gnostic doctrines of old, revived, alas!
in our own day.
By
the very constitution of the church, moreover, the lawfulness of marriage was
upheld; for its elders and deacons, and widows (or deaconesses) must all either
be married or have once entered that state. Thus against deadly error, the Lord in
his mercy set a double fence, to keep his flock from the Destroyer.
2. God “was
justified in the spirit”.
“In the spirit”, stands exactly
opposed to “in the flesh” and we
may not unnecessarily alter the form of expression. I regard then the phrase as referring to
the human spirit of the Lord Jesus; the flesh and the spirit being opposed to
each other more than once: thus - “For though I
be absent in the flesh, yet am I with
you in the spirit:” Col. 2: 5; 1
Cor. 7: 34.
The doctrine affirmed then will be that Jesus being
laden with the imputed sin of man, was under it accounted guilty, and gave up
the ghost. That in that state, as a
disembodied spirit, he was justified, or declared to have paid the penalty, and
to have made atonement for sin. And
thus taken, the sentiment runs parallel with that of Peter.
“For Christ also once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
that he might bring us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but alive in the spirit, in which
he went and preached even to the spirits in prison:”1 Pet. 3: 18,
19.
Thus
then Paul would give another contradiction to the Gnostic doctrine, that Christ
did not die. Some of the Gnostics
pretended that Jesus was a mere man,
on whom the Christ (a mighty
aeon) descended at the time of his baptism; at which time (and not before), he
became, by the union of the two, Jesus Christ. But all held that the
Christ left Jesus before the crucifixion, and some forged
the story, that Simon the Cyrenian was changed into the likeness of Christ, and
suffered in his stead. In
opposition then to this falsehood, which denied the atonement for sin, Paul
affirms most strongly Jesus’ death for human trespasses, and that
acquittal passed upon him while a separate spirit [soul] in Hades.
3. “Seen of angels.”
This
is commonly interpreted of the angels beholding our Lord during his career on earth:
of their singing praises at his birth, their ministering to him after his
victory over Satan, and their attendance upon him in
[* “Came in unto (i.e., had sexual relationship with) the
daughters of men” R.V. (Gen. 6: 4):
and the result - ‘the Nephilim.’]
If
rightly apprehended the matter, the three first of these mysteries are directed
against the Gnostics; and three last against the Jewish teachers of the
law. But whatever be the view taken
by the reader, certain it is that not one of the foregoing mysteries is denied
by the Church of Rome, but all are fully admitted by it. The Holy Ghost testifies, not in
symbolic prophecy, but in express words, and those not to Paul’s mind
alone, but in the assembly of the
saints, that from these fundamental articles of the Christian faith some shall
apostatize. They will once have
been Christians, professing these foundation truths, but will afterwards
abandon and deny them, professing another and contrary belief.
-------