« AnteriorContinuar »
satisfied with that information, and do not make it include other things, which it may be convenient to involve in it, when they are not there. This view of our Lord's reasoning makes it even already utterly inefficient to silence and confound His adversaries. It represents His argument as nothing better than smoke discharged at their creed, instead of an iron bolt to shatter it in pieces.
2nd Objection. Here is another difficulty. There was proof given, according to Mr. Barnes, that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were still in existence, though dead, which he explains and qualifies by adding, “ their souls were alive." Now this is all very well so long as the commentator's ideas about what a soul is are accepted as true ; but its aspect is changed the moment we demand, Are his notions on that point correspondent with Scripture ? To such a test they must come.
What the Bible doctrine of soul is, ample evidence has already been provided ; very simple, truly, is its teaching, and very intelligible : “ The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man BECAME A LIVING SOUL (Gen. ii. 7). There is no need for a multiplicity of phrases to describe such a soul; no amplifications about essences, principles, vital sparks, entities, immaterialities and invisibilities; a soul meets your senses when you behold a man, or when you survey yourself. The truə doctrine cannot be more exactly delivered than in the words of Milton, who was not merely a sublime poet, but an independent thinker, and a faithful and devout student of his Bible :
“Man is a living being, intrinsically and properly one and individual, not compound and separable; not, according to common opinion, made up and framed of two distinct and different natures, as of body and soul, but the whole man is soul, and the soul man ; that is to say, a body or substance, individual, animated, sensitive and rational ” (Treatise on Christian Doctrine, vol. I., pp. 250, 251).
To the soul-man the words were addressed, “Dust thou art, and unto dast shalt thou return;" and when the living became a dead soul, we are unable to discover what was to be set free and continue in the exercise of consciousness in some other world. To Sheol—the grave—the soul of the first man went, there to rest in dreamless slumber ; just as the soul of Jesus, or the soul-man Jesus, whose nature followed the Adamic type, after making “His soul”-Himself, His complete humanity-a
sacrifice for human guilt, descended into the gloom, where no thought arises, no praise echoes; whence He came forth on the third day, the Conqueror of Death and the Fountain of Immortality.
3rd Objection. This view—the popular one-represents the Resurrection as of comparatively insignificant moment. It relates merely to the raising of the “dead body; " that is, the “ dead body," as contradistinguished from the soul. What is worthy of notice is, that in the whole narrative, or, in modern phraseology, report of the debate, the words soul and body do not occur. Yet the annotator was forced to call on them for service in his commentary. It would not do to be content with saying the Patriarchs were alive; that sounded rather strong, and hence it is changed and modified into souls—“their souls were alive," for, in the imagination of orthodoxy, souls cannot die. Again, it would hardly pass to affirm that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were to be resurrected, inasmuch as that also sounded rather unguarded, and hence in turn it is
modified into body ; "the bodies of the dead," for bodies can die, and, of course, are capable of resurrection. All of which, we submit, is a chase of words and a dance of ideas, instead of a plain statement, the Patriarchs are dead, and the Patriarchs are to be resurrected. Does the Bible cause this whirling, placing and displacing, combining and dissevering, fencing and saving ? No; the system of theology demands it, because it lacks the directness and simplicity of truth, though pious men constructed the fabric and set it up for homage in the most sacred temple.
The Sadducees understood our Lord to inculcate the raising of dead men to life; a truly grand conception, and, if needed at all, an inexpressibly momentous necessity. With orthodoxy, however, the dispute is not concerning men, but the humblest part of men, which they can lose and be men still; which they can be deprived of, and enter on the most exalted functions of their nature quite unimpaired, nay, with a perfection unknown in this sublunary term of being. Does that representation not reduce the value of resurrection to the lowest possible standard, and render the language of Scripture in relation thereto inexplicably exaggerated ?
Take this as a specimen of how the Resurrection—not without reason we may be assured—is spoken of, and grandly magnified by the inspired writers: “And if Christ be not raised your faith is vain; ye are yet in
Then they also which are fallen asleep in "—the faith of * Christ are perished” (1 Cor. xv. 17, 18). In harmony with the Old Testament, Paul says the dead saints are asleep, not awake ; and he testifies further, that unless there be a resurrection they have perished. Not gone to endure excruciating agonies for ever, surely ? Perish means to lose life, not to have it preserved in unutterable woe : it is equal to death ; à going out of being. Perished is the negation of suffering pain ; for mortal disease or injury causes men ultimately to perish ; but the anguish is over so soon as the consummation is reached, that is, when the sufferers have perished.
But comes forward an orthodox Christian, and energetically protests that men cannot perish in that sepse. To which our answer is : Friend, we prefer the Apostle of the Gentiles to you, and he avers men can perish, yea, perish utterly; and, for ourselves, we accept his deliverance with unwavering trust. If he intended to communicate this information, “ They also who have fallen asleep have "gone to endless torment, could he not easily have so expressed himself? He was familiar with the Greek language and skilled in composition; and, infinitely better than that attainment, was guided by the Spirit of God, whose merciful aim is to instruct men, not to lead them astray. That point being understood, we now see the immeasurable interest vrapt up and preserved in a resurrection. It is a question of life or no life beyond the tomb. Without a resurrection such as Christ promises, and on which the entombed saints relied, those who have fallen asleep wake no more. All is over with them, and it will soon be all over with each of us. Our faith is vain, our hope is vain ; we have believed and confided in a myth; the grave is our eternal prison.
You object, says some one, to the commentator's phrase, “ dead body ; " do you not know that substantially the language is common in Scripture? We are not ignorant of the fact, nevertheless we maintain
that the compiler of the Notes, like thousands besides, employs the words in a wrong sense. Ordinarily in theological productions body is used in contradistinction from soul, while the Volume recognises no such difference, as is admirably expressed in the passage from Milton quoted above. In such examples as these, “Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body” (Phil. iii. 21); “It is sown a natural"--or animal -—" body, it is raised a spiritual body (1 Cor. xv. 44); in these and all similar verses the essential idea is that of personality, or unity, introducing no distinction of parts. Making a distinction of parts, is a work of the purest theological fiction. The first we have transcribed is equal to this : Who shall change us from a low corruptible mode of living into one resembling His own; the second is equivalent to this: We are buried natural, or soulical persons, we shall rise-return to life-in a new type of humanity called the spiritual.
(To be continued.)
THE MAN OF SIN.
2 THESS. ii. 1-8.
HE question next requiring an answer is as follows:
(3:) Do facts bear out the idea that the bishop of Rome has opposed and exalted himself against all civil or ecclesiastical rulers, or both ? Keeping in mind that we have endeavoured to show that “ all that is called God or that is worshipped” is capable of being understood in the limited sense of human rulers, it is a fact well known to all who have paid any attention to Church history, that the bishops of Rome have not only claimed universal authority over civil rulers, which is perhaps as much as the language of the apostle requires, but they have actually been permitted, in many instances, to put this claim into actual operation among the States of Europe. In his « Dissertations on the Prophecies," Thomas Newton, D.D., Bishop of Bristol, states tbis fact in a single sentence, which may serve as a summary of what we shall find detailed in the pages of history. The bishop says that the pope bas exalted himself not only above inferior magistrates, but likewise above bishops and primates, exerting an absolute jurisdiction and uncontrolled supremacy over all; not only above bishops and primates, but likewise above kings and emperors, deposing some and advancing others, obliging them to prostrate themselves before him, to kiss his toe, to hold his stirrup, to wait barefooted at his gate, treading even upon the neck, and kicking off the imperial crown with his foot,” &c.
This comprehensive summary of Bishop Newton, however, must not be accepted even on his authority. We must inquire of the historians who have written the civil and ecclesiastical annals of Europe for the purpose of ascertaining the real facts of the case. Pursuing this course, we might try to ascertain the accuracy of the statement that the bishops of Rome claimed, and even to a large extent exercised, supremacy over the civil rulers of Europe in their political relations.
We must here premise that this pitch of power was not reached at once; that, in fact, it had, like the tide, a flow and an ebb. It was not till the 13th century of the Christian era that this tide of papal supremacy reached high-water mark; although for several centuries before and after that period it maintained a greater or less degree of ascendancy. We shall glance, therefore, at several facts in the history of Europe during the period named, so as to put the main count in the charge beyond the possibility of dispute.
The general fact of papal supremacy over the civil power is patent to the reader of European history. Guizot, in his " History of Civilisation in Europe"-treating generally of the period between 5th and 12th century-says, “ By a tendency natural to human ambition and pride, the church endeavoured to establish for the spiritual power not only independence, but supremacy over the temporal power.” And he represents the “spiritual power" as reasoning. " How! I have right and sway over what is most lofty and independent in man-over his reason, his inward will, his conscience—and shall I not have right over his outward, material, and fleeting interests ? I, who am the interpreter of justice and truth, shall I be debarred from regulating earthly matters according to justice and truth?" And, mentioning the monopoly of mentality possessed by the church, he says, “The spiritual power thus finding itself at the head of the whole activity of the human brain, naturally fell into a self-assumption of the general government of the world."
The late Henry Hallam, in his “ View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages,” says,
“ The noonday of papal dominion extends from the pontificate of Innocent III., inclusively to that of Boniface VIII. ; or, in other words, through the thirteenth century. Rome inspired during this age all the terror of her ancient name. She was once more the mistress of the world, and kings were her vassals." The first-named pope's claims were thus expressed in his own words : “As the sun and the moon are placed in the firmament, the greater as the light of the day and the lesser of the night, thus are these two powers in the church-the pontifical, which, as having the charge of souls, is the greater; and the royal, which is the less, and to which the bodies of men only are entrusted.” Hallam, from whom this quotation is extracted, says of it, “ Intoxicated with these conceptions (if we may apply such a word to successful ambition) he thought no quarrel of princes beyond the sphere of his jurisdiction." The second-named Pope (Boniface VIII.), nearly a century later, in a constitution termed "Unam Sanctum," promulgated in a church council held at Rome, declares that “the church is one body, and has one head. Under its command are two swords, the one spiritual, the other temporal; that to be used by the supreme pontiff himself; this by kings and knights, by his licence and at his will. But the lesser sword must be subject to the greater, and the temporal to the spiritual authority. He concludes by declaring the subjection of every human being to the see of Rome to be an article of necessary faith.” Hallam mentions that “another bull pronounces all persons of whatever rank obliged to appear when personally cited before the audience or apostolical tribunal at Rome," "since such is our pleasure, who by divine permission, rule the world."
“But the epoch,” remarks Hallam, " when the spirit of papal usurpation was most strikingly displayed was the pontificate of Innocent III.
In each of the three leading objects which Rome has pursued, independent sovereignty, supremacy over the Christian Church, control over the princes of the earth, it was the fortune of this pontiff to conquer.” It may be remarked in passing that it was this Pope who established the Inquisition. In Chambers' Encyclopædia, Innocent is thus spoken of: “ His pontificate is justly regarded as the culminating point of the temporal, as well as the spiritual supremacy of the Roman see ; and it is freely avowed by the learned historian of Latin Christianity, that if ever the great idea of a Christian republic, with a Pope at its head, was to be realised, 'none could bring more lofty or more various qualifications for its accomplishment than Innocent III. Accordingly, under the impulse of his ardent but disinterested zeal for the glory of the church, almost every state and kingdom was brought into subjection."
Leaving these general historical statements regarding the time of Innocent III., we must begin our more detailed evidence at an earlier period. It was chiefly during the pontificate of Gregory VII. (more than a century earlier) that the way had been prepared for what was accomplished by Innocent III. Hallam puts the relations of both these popes, and a subsequent one, very forcibly thus : “As Gregory VII. appears the most usurping of mankind till we read the history of Innocent III., so Innocent III. is thrown into shade by the superior audacity of Boniface VIII.” In Chambers' Encyclopædia Gregory VII. is termed “pre-eminently the historical representative of the temporal claims of the mediæval papacy ;” and in Cassell's Biographical Dictionary, he is described as a man of extraordinary abilities and sagacity, fired with the greatest ambition for the exaltation of the Holy See, proud and impetuous, and devoid of any strong religious character.
He strove to subject the Church Catholic to the will of the Pope, and to exempt clerics and cburch property from civil control.
He endeavoured to make all kingdoms fiefs to the pontiffs; and to form an episcopal council to meet annually at Rome, which was to take charge of all the kings and peoples of the world. He was unable to succeed in this owing to the opposition of William the Conqueror and Philip I. of France. But though he failed in this great attempt, he wrought a mighty change in the political state of Europe, abridging or annulling the rights of kings and emperors,” &c. He was, according to Hallam, " by far the most conspicuous person in the eleventh century.”
Christopher William Koch, Professor of Public Law in the University of Strasburg, in his “ History of the Revolutions of Europe," gives a concise yet clear account of this portion of papal history in connection with European politics. This work is written in a tone of moderation and candoar, and has been highly commended by eminent authorities, both French and German, and affords a convenient means of stating the facts of the case. I shall
, therefore, quote a few extracts from it. “A new and powerful monarchy rose on the ruins of the German Empire, that of the Roman pontiffs, which monopolised both spiritual and temporal dominion; and extended its influence over all the kingdoms of Christendom. This supremacy, whose artful and complicated mechanism is still an object of astonishment to the most subtle politicians, was the work of Pope Gregory VII., a man born for great undertakings, as remarkable for his genius, which raised him above his times, as for the