ON THE WORD PARACLETOS. TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S SIR, MAGAZINE. OUR correfpondent Mr. Ludlam, in his effay on the word ПAPAKÁнTOE as used by St. John in his Gospel and first Epiftle, has endeavoured to perfuade us, that whether we confider the common acceptation of the word in prophane authors, or the offices of the Son and Holy Spirit as defcribed in the fcriptures, we fhall not find any ground for that fenfe of the word, which is adopted by our tranfla tion of the Gospel of St. John. He obferves that this word and its correfponding term in all languages, means a perfon called in to afford help to fuch as are in need of affiftance-that as the word to affift is plainly taken from the proximity of fituation, the nearness of place (adfifto) which is necessary to those, who are to afford the help wanted, it should seem, the perfon called in, is rather, more than likely to be a neighbour-that this word as applied by St. John to the Redeemer, is properly and literally tranflated, not a comforter, but an ad-vocate, an affiftant, a helper-that the first followers of our Lord, would think that the other Paraclete promised them, would make good to them the benefits, which they expected from his prefence, or benefits fimilar to those which they received from him-that our Lord's whole endeavour appears to have been to apply and illuftrate the predictions of their prophets-that he afforded his countrymen all poffible affiftance to remove their ignorance and their prejudices relative to the converfion of the Gentiles-that as our Saviour laboured to overcome the prejudices of the Jews with regard to the converfion of the Gentiles, fo the Holy Ghoft beflowed miraculous information upon the Apoftles-that the Holy Ghoft that other Paraclete performed the fame OFFICE, and exactly in the fame WAY-that he afforded his affiftance, &c.-that in both cafes, the affiftance was equally necessary, manifeft and important, &c. &c. Permit me, Sir, to offer your correfpondent a few remarks on these points. Our Our Lord, by speaking to the Apostles of fending another Paracletus, appears to have intimated that he himself had been previously confidered by them in that light-and by fpeaking of fending that other to the Apofiles in particular, we feem to have reafon to think that he had been particularly a Paracletus to them. But, in what fenfe? Or rather, in what fenfe principally? Mr. Ludlam fays "Whatever were the advantages which the Apofiles enjoyed, in confequence of our Lord's prefence, and on which they fet fo high a va lue, as, it appears from their extreme grief under the apprehenfion of lofing them, they did, they could not be of a fpiritual nature." But, is not this rather a bold negation? Ifaiah hath these remarkable words recorded in his prophecy. "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gofpel to the poor: he hath fent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of fight to the blind, to fet at liberty them that are bruised-to preach the acceptable year of the Lord." Now where shall we find any words more fpiritual or more comfortable than these? These our Lord read in the Synagogue of Capernaum, and immediately added "This day is this fcripture fulfilled in your ears."-In the fame Synagogue he afterwards difcourfed of "eating his flesh and drinking his blood" and added-" Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raife him up at the last day." Was this too, certainly not of a fpiritual nature? When he affured Martha that her brother fhould rife again, he added "I am the refurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet fhall he live: And whofoever liveth and believeth in me fhall never die." And to convince her that he really was fo, he raised Lazarus from the grave, and thereby gave a third proof of his having a dominion over death. Ought we now to take it for granted, that all this was certainly not of a fpiritual nature? His two difcourfes at Capernaum had, we find, fuch an effect on the twelve, that they faid "To whom should we go? Thou haft the words of eternal life." Of course, they must have thought that his difcourfes were of a spiritual nature, and fuch as they could not expect from any other Teacher. The benefits then which the Jews received from our Lord, appear to have been of a spiritual nature, and no lefs confolatory than fpiritual. Should your correspondent be inclined to doubt the latter point as having a tendency to fhew the fallacy of his conclufion, he might be referred to that remarkable address of our Lord to the Jews, which is recorded by St. Matthew," Come unto me, all ye that labour, and are heavy laden, and I will give you reft. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me: for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye fhall find reft unto your fouls," and reminded that he forgave fins.-Now as the Apoftles certainly appear to have received information of a fpiritual kind and highly confolatory-and-as "Jesus certainly meant that the other Paracletus fhould convey to them benefits fimilar to thofe, which they received from him," they would therefore, of course, think that this other Paracletus, whom God would fend to supply the lofs they should fuftain by their Lord's departure, would make good to them the benefits, which they expected, (or rather had experienced) from his prefence," viz. by becoming a comforter as well as an inftructor. After having made this very bold negation, your correspondent would have it believed that the advantages, at the thoughts of lofing which, the Apoftles grieved extremely, were no other than thofe "which were to be derived from that information, relating to his person and offices, which he was defirous of enabling them to attend to and collect”—that is -it fhould feem by what immediately follows, the advantages of understanding better the ancient prophecies. But did our Lord in thofe places alluded to, viz. John v. 39. 46. and Luke xxiv. 27. refer the Apoftles to the fcriptures? In the verses alluded to in St John, our Lord referred the unbelieving Jews to the fcriptures, and to thofe fcriptures only which had at that time been fulfilled. The Apostles furely, who had followed him as the Meffiah from the beginning, who would not defert him when almoft all the other difciples did, who had followed him from Galilee to Judea at the hazard of their lives, and, who had unanimously declared that they would fooner die with him than deny him, cannot be fupposed to have stood in much need of this advice at the last paffover-and especially those three pillars who were with him in the holy mount; who, it feems (however fure the word of prophecy may have been according to Mr. L's. fuggeftion) had, in the opinion of fome, at that time one moft remarkable prophecy made pretty much more fure "when there came to the Lord Jefus Chrift from the excellent glory fuch a voice "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." The other words alluded to, viz. thofe Luke xxiv. 27. were used after the refurrection, and relate chiefly to that that event, of which the Apostles were fully convinced before the Paracletus was fent, and were not spoken to the Apof tles, if to any one Apoftle, and confequently, if these may be preffed into the fervice, why fhould not thofe other words in the fame chap. v. 45, 46. be adduced as a counterpoise. "Then opened he their understandings that they might understand the fcriptures. And faid unto them-Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remiffion of fins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerufalem."-Or thofe of St. Matthew-" Go ye therefore and teach all the nations, baptizing them, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft. Teaching them to obferve all that I have commanded you.' After the Apoftles had had their understandings opened to apprehend the true application of the prophecies, and the will of God concerning Gentiles, why fhould we be expected to believe that the Holy Ghoft was promifed to be fent only to convince them of these matters? He, no doubt, could, and he, no doubt, did, bring all things to their remembrance, and guide them into all truth, but whether he performed the fame OFFICE exactly in the fame WAY, may be rather a queftion with fome. However neceffary it may have been that he should be fent in order to produce that fort of conviction, he does not seem to have been fent for that purpose only, even by the teftimony of our Lord-who not only faid to the Apostles, at the fame time, that he was to convince the world (but not the Apoftles) of fin, because they believed not in him-but also of a righteousness and judgment-Nor for that purpose above any other. Having now difcovered fomething like a reason for withholding our affent to Mr. Ludlam's decifion on this point, Let us fee if the affiftance of the Holy Spirit was not rather more neceffary for other purposes-and for the purpose of comforting the Apostles than that affigned. Previously to the time when the other Paracletus was promifed, our Lord had been conftantly employed in doing acts of the most beneficent nature, to all those who defired to be benefitted by him, both of his own country and parts circumjacent-To have had the honor of being the intimate companions of a perfon fo eminently useful to their whole race, muft have been no little comfort to the twelve amidst all the evils of life. To this honor they had been admitted above all the rest of their countrymen, and under a conviction too that that he was the King of Ifrael and the Son of God. They had been confirmed in this perfuafion by a voice from Heaven. They had alfo been convinced that he, and he only, had the words of eternal life.-They had not only been convinced of this, they had alfo been eye witneffes, feveral times, of his poffeffing the power of conferring it, by raifing the dead, and above all, his and their friend Lazarus. These confiderations, it seems, and fuch confiderations as these, had fo powerfully wrought on their minds, as to make them refolve while in Galilee, on accompanying him into Judæa, even at the hazard of their lives, and to declare to him while in Judea their readiness to die rather than to deny him. Can it then be fuppofed that they were not under fome pretty confiderable degree of confternation when he fo unexpectedly apprifed them that they were very fhortly to be deprived of his company, and by the treachery too of one of their own fraternity, and that he was about to go they knew not whither, and appeared to be "troubled in fpirit" at the thought of what was about to happen? And can it be fuppofed that they were so much lefs difturbed in mind at the thoughts of lofing the company of a perfon fo full of majefty, of beneficence and power, than they were of lofing his inftructions concerning former prophecies relating to his title, or on the converfion of the Gentiles?-or rather-can it be fuppofed that all their confternation arose principally and almost entirely from the latter motive? especially when it is confidered that the recalling of Lazarus from the grave had happened but a few days before, and that no mention of nor allufion to former prophecies, or to the converfion of the Gentiles, was made by either party during all the last converfation-that the fubject of converfation at that time was the unexpected departure of their Lord, who himself appeared troubled at it, who began the converfation with recommending it to his friends not to be troubled, who, in the course of it, repeatedly fpoke of the cause of their prefent forrow, and apprifed them of future fufferings of the moft alarming forts, and concluded it with a repetition of his declaration that they would have to undergo great tribulation? Their grief furely appears to have arifen from an apprehenfion of Hofing benefits of a moft unufual fort which they had been experiencing a long while-and from an expectation of having to undergo various fufferings. Notwithstanding all the wonderful works which their Lord had performed, they perceived that his life was ftill fought after by their rulers-and they had |