Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

members, or however deficient in popular talents its ministers may be, provided the ministers and members are "full of faith and of the Holy Ghost." The first Christians had no places of worship. Not many of the great and wise, mighty and noble, had they in their Churches; nor many "eloquent orators" in their ministry; yet they "turned the world upside down," "and much people was added unto the Lord." The prosperity of a Church does not depend on the locality of its place of worship, the beauty of its sanctuary, the talent and respectablity of its members and the popular gifts of its ministers: but upon the Spirit of the Lord of Hosts. It is very often the case that the most splendid edifices, the most fashionable congregations, and the most illustrious preachers have least of the Spirit of God, and are well-nigh destitute of spiritual prosperity. In fact, we dishonour Christ by ever expecting prosperity from secondary causes; it is, therefore, no wonder that he withholds the desired blessing, when we do not look to him from whom prosperity cometh. Churches that are in a low state do not rely upon Christ for prosperity, do not pray to him aright for prosperity, do not believe that he will prosper the work of their hands; therefore Christ withholds the spirit of grace, and all is darkness, coldness, death. A Church will never prosper till the ministers and members can say from the heart, "Our eyes are unto thee, O Lord, and our expectation is from thee. Our help is in the name of the Lord, who made heaven and earth"-will never prosper, until the ministers and members are fully persuaded that God will "arise and have mercy upon Zion!"-will never prosper, until all cry in mighty faith, "Save now, we beseech thee, O Lord; O Lord, we beseech thee, send now prosperity." Unbelief cuts the sinews of effort and shuts the ears of Christ to our prayers; therefore, while we as Churches do not, and will not, believe in Christ for prosperity, he cannot, and he will not, do "many mighty works" among us. Lord, increase our faith."

66

PURGATORY.

CHRIST'S DESCENT INTO HELL DISPROVED.

THE doctrine of purgatory has no better foundation than certain crude notions embodied in heathen mythology, and the vague speculations of heathen philosophers. Indeed, like many other dogmas of Popery, it has been imported direct from heathenism; but to give it colour and plausibility, a few obscure texts of Scripture, and ambiguous phrases from some ancient symbols of the Christian faith, are tortured into its service. Thus the passage in Psalm xvi. 10, and the phrases which speak of Christ's descent into hell, contained in the so-called Apostles' and Athanasian Creeds, are quoted as sanctioning the doctrine of purgatory. Dr. Milner asserts that purgatory" is evidently the place mentioned in the Apostles' Creed: He descended into hell.' We shall now inquire what authority this doctrine has, either in the Apostles' Creed or in the passage on which that clause in the creed is supposed to be founded. We observe,

[ocr errors]

1. This creed is only of human authority. True it bears the name of "The Apostles' Creed;" it is honoured with this title in the "Book of Common Prayer." This designation implies that the apostles themselves were the authors of the formula; that they either wrote it for the guidance of men or delivered it orally; and that thus emanating from apostolic authority, it has been handed down from their times to our own.

Now this is either true or false. If true, it invests the creed with inspired authority, and every part of it is as binding on our conscience as any

portion of the sacred volume; for as the apostles, in their official capacity, wrote and acted for the instruction of the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it follows that their official teachings are to be regarded as having equal authority with the Holy Scriptures. If, then, the title of this creed be authentic, the creed is one of the most sacred and interesting documents which have come down to our times. Every sentence is endorsed with inspired authority, and commands our unqualified assent. In this case, our first duty is to ascertain its teachings, and our second duty is, without the least reservation, to embrace all its doctrines. Such are the claims assumed by the title prefixed to this creed, and in this character it is doubtless regarded by myriads both in Papal and Protestant Churches. But if this title be false, what then? If it be an historical fact that this creed never was framed by the apostles, but compiled at different periods since apostolic times, and by different men, who had no claim to inspiration, what then shall we say? If this be the case, its title is a deceptive misnomer. It is a grave offence against truth and religion, and approaches the sin of adding to the word of God, so solemnly denounced in that admonitory clause which concludes the canon of holy writ. (Rev. xxii. 18.)

What, then, is the fact? Everyone conversant with Church history knows that this formula, as it now stands, had no existence in apostolic times, but is the production of different ages. Most of its doctrines are undoubtedly divine; and some of its phraseology bears a high antiquity, bordering even upon apostolic times; but there is no evidence that any creed, consisting of an exact and uniform set of phrases, was in use in apostolic days; and there is abundant evidence that a considerable part of this formula is the offspring of later ages. We have before us the creeds of Ignatius, Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian and Gregory Neocæsarea,* which are the only ones extant of those which were known within the first three centuries of the Christian era; and yet they are all different from one another, and are all different from the one which was afterwards compiled and called the Apostles' Creed; for, indeed, this creed, as a distinct formula, had no existence during that period. Some of its doctrines were expressed in those creeds already named, yet with diversified phraseology. The evidence is decisive that the apostles never wrote the creed, and the title it bears is spurious.

2. Whilst the title of the creed is false, and the formula itself of mere human authority, that clause which speaks of Christ's descent into hell is one of the latest additions which were made to this confession of faith. There were, indeed, two clauses which had no place in any of the confessions of faith existing up to the fourth century; those clauses were the communion of saints, and the descent into hell. When we enter the fourth century of the Christian era we find many confessions of faith, but in not one of them is any mention made of the descent of Christ into hell, until we come towards the middle or close of that century. Thus, in that important document the "Nicene Creed" (A.D. 325), adopted by the English Established Church, and used in her liturgy, there is no allusion to Christ's descent into hell. True, there is this clause in the Athanasian Creed, but this was written afterwards. Bishop Pearson, as much distinguished by candour as by varied and extensive erudition, has thoroughly investigated the antiquity and authority of the Apostles' Creed; and as the result of his elaborate researches, he not only admits that the clause relating to Christ's descent into hell has no place in the creeds we have already named, but further states "it is not contained in those creeds which were made by the councils of

Ignat., Epist. ad Tralles., p. 52; Amsterdam, 1646. Irenæus, lib. i., c. 2, p. 35, 36, et lib. 3, c. 4, p. 172; Genev., 1580. Tertullian de Præscrip. advers. Hæret. p. 73, et de Virg. Veland, p. 385; Paris, 1580. Origen, Com. in Johan, tom. 32, p. 397, vol. 2; Rothomagi, 1668. Cyprian, Epist. lxxvi. § 6, p. 248; folio, 1593. Gregor. Neocæsar. Dr. Cave in his "Apostolici," p. 127.

Ephesus or Chalcedon; not in those confessions made at Sardica, Antioch, Seleucia, Sirmium, &c. It is not mentioned in several confessions of faith delivered by particular persons: not in that of Eusebius Cæsariensis, presented to the Council of Nice!* not in that of Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, delivered to Pope Julius ;† not in that of Arius and Euozius, presented to Constantine; not in that of Acacius, bishop of Cæsarea, delivered in to the synod of Seleucia; not in that of Eustathius, Theophilus and Silvanus, sent to Liberius. There is no mention of it in the creeds of St. Basil, Gelasius, Damasus, Macarius. It is not in the creeds expounded by St. Cyril, by St. Augustin, by Maximus Taurinensis; nor in that so often interpreted by Petrus Chrysologus; nor in that of the Church of Antioch,§ delivered by Cassianus; neither is it to be seen in the manuscript creeds set forth by the learned Archbishop of Armagh. Indeed, it is affirmed by Ruffinus, that in his time it was neither in the Roman nor the Oriental creeds. It is certain, therefore (nor can we disprove it by any acknowledged evidence of antiquity), that the article of the descent into hell was not in the Roman or any of the Oriental creeds." He further observes, "The first place we find it used in was in the Church of Aquileia; and the time we are sure it was used in the creed of that Church was less than

four hundred years after Christ.Ӧ Such is the candid acknowledgment of the learned prelate, and his concession is the more valuable as it is that of a divine whose Church has adopted the creed in her liturgy, and whose writings have so copiously expounded and illustrated that document. So much, then, for the authority of the creed itself, and for the period when the clause respecting Christ's descent into hell made its first appearance. It is clearly proved that the title of the creed is spurious, that the creed itself is of mere human origin, and that the article respecting the descent into hell was not found in any confession of faith until late in the fourth century. The attempt, therefore, to put forth this clause to the world as of inspired authority is a dishonour to the Christian Church and the cause of truth, and has been an occasion of many grievous errors.

3. Not only is the creed a human compilation, and the clause respecting Christ's descent into hell one of the latest innovations, but the meaning of that clause has ever been uncertain and diversified. Popery claims it as a proof of purgatory: but as a mere human production it can be a proof of nothing except the opinion held by its authors, and what this opinion was it is now difficult to determine. The clause can be no proof that the apostles held the doctrine of purgatory; for they were not the authors of the clause. Nor can this clause be a proof that the Papal doctrine of purgatory was held at all during the first three centuries; for the clause was not inserted in the creed until towards the close of the fourth century. If we even admit that the clause does refer to purgatory, the fact that the clause formed no part of any creed whatever until the close of the fourth century is presumptive evidence, at least, that the doctrine was not held till then; and if not held till then, it is necessarily an innovation, a human invention, a corruption of Christianity, and not an element of the gospel of Christ and his apostles.

But we are not prepared to admit that the clause was originally intended to express the doctrine of purgatory. Facts, we think, prove the contrary. We have already stated that this remarkable clause was first introduced into the Aquileian Creed; but what purpose did it serve there? Two facts argue that it was intended to express, not the doctrine of purgatory, but the mere fact that Christ's body was laid in the grave, and that he entered into the state of the dead. First, in the Aquileian Creed, there were not

*Theodoret. Hist. Eccles., lib. i., cap. 12. + S. Epiph. Hæres., lxxii., § 10. Socrat. Hist. Eccles., lib. i., cap. 26; lib. ii., eap.; 40; lib. iv, cap. 12. Tract de fide in Asceticis. Ruffin. in Symb. ¶ Pearson on the Creed, p. 353.

§ De Incarn., lib. vi.

F

the two clauses we have in the creed now: one expressing that Christ was buried, and another that he descended into hell. The clause that he was buried was omitted in that creed; but the clause expressing the descent into hell was inserted in its stead. Thus, then, the matter stood. Formerly the creeds expressed Christ's burial without any allusion to a descent into hell; but the first time we find the phrase respecting Christ's descent into hell mentioned in the creed, we find the burial is omitted. The descent, therefore, stood in the place of the burial, and appears to have meant the same thing. Bishop Pearson remarks, "It appeareth, therefore, that the first intention of putting these words into the creed was only to express the burial of our Saviour, or the descent of his body into the grave.' Another fact corroborative of this view is that the words themselves used in the Aquileian Creed did not literally express either purgatory, or the hell of the damned, or any region in the spiritual world. The words were, He descendeth to the lower parts,* agreeably with what the apostle says, in Ephesians iv. 9, 'He descended first into the lower parts of the earth;" that is, he was laid in the grave, from which he arose by the power of his Godhead.

66

That other meanings were afterwards attached to these words in the creed we admit, and that many vague notions were held by the ancients we also admit; but those notions were mere human opinions, which, of course, have no authority, and which, from their extreme vagueness and diversity, can have but little weight with us. Some thought that Christ descended into the hell of the damned, and that he delivered many of them from their torments; some believed that he went there and delivered all the damned from their misery, and took them to heaven; and others, regarding hell as meaning the common receptacle for human souls, maintained that all the righteous who had died before Christ were in an inferior place and state of happiness, and that he went to these after his death and raised them to a superior world of glory, to reign with him at the right hand of God. These and other conflicting views, the dictates of fancy or speculation, were entertained and advocated. But it was long after the period when the article of the descent into hell first made its appearance in the creed, that the doctrine of purgatory was established in the Church. Certain vague and heathenish notions on this subject were gradually introduced, and about the close of the sixth century Pope Gregory gave the doctrine his countenance and support, when it rapidly gained adherents, and, after a time, found a general reception in the Latin Church; especially as various fictitious miracles, visions and revelations had been resorted to in order to secure its belief. In this way the doctrine gradually crept into the Church, and at last became confirmed by the Council of Florence in the year 1439.

We have thus met Dr. Milner's theory by historic facts, and those facts prove that the doctrine of purgatory derives no support from the confession of faith called the Apostles' Creed; and indeed, if that creed did sanction the doctrine of purgatory, its sanction could neither prove the doctrine to be true nor invest it with any authority; for the historic facts adduced prove that the creed was never made by the apostles, and that the clause in question respecting Christ's descent into hell was not inserted in the creed until near the close of the fourth century. So far, then, as the testimony of the creed goes, it is against the doctrine of purgatory, and proves it to be an innovation upon the faith once delivered to the saints.

It now devolves upon us to examine the passage in Psalm xvi. 10, upon which, it is alleged, the clause in the creed is founded: "For thou wilt not

*Descendit in, or ad inferna.

+ Κατέβη πρῶτον εις τα κατώτερα μέρη τῆς γῆς. The Latin word inferna itself is derived from the Greek word Ega, the earth or ground, the place where the dead body is laid.

leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." Here we come to the standard of truth. The writings of uninspired men, whether ancient or modern, are open to debate and question; but the word of God is decisive. All its teachings we are bound to receive with confidence and gratitude.

That this passage refers to Christ, and has received its accomplishment in him, is attested by inspired authority. Peter, quoting the text, expressly applies it to our Lord : "For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved. Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." (Acts ii. 25-27.)

But while the direct application of this prophecy to Christ leaves no question as to the Divine Person intended, a great variety of sentiment has obtained as to the precise meaning of the words "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell." Some of these views may be stated.

The first is that maintained by Papists, who adduce this passage in support of purgatory. But how this text can be a proof of purgatory we are at a loss to conceive.

Purgatory is said to be a middle state, where the souls of men who have departed this life in venial sin make satisfaction by suffering certain pains, and in time become purified and fitted for translation to heaven. But this passage speaks of hell. There is nothing said either about a middle state or a middle place. Purgatory is not so much as named, nor is there anything implied which answers to that place. There is nothing said about venial sins or mortal sins, nothing about human souls being purified or making satisfaction by penal suffering. However often we read the passage, and however closely we investigate its meaning, we can find nothing which answers to purgatory, or a middle state of penal satisfaction. Besides, the Romanists do not pretend that purgatory is for Christ, but for mankind; yet here the only being spoken of is Christ. It will not be contended that his soul needed purgation; nor is there any reason assigned in the text, nor can any reason be deduced from it, why Christ should go to any middle state or place called purgatory. It is most unfortunate for the Papistical doctrine, that its advocates should seek to prove it from a text which says nothing about it.

It is admitted as a general rule in biblical criticism, that the meaning of a passage is not to be summarily decided by a detached sentence, but is to be gathered from the context, which unfolds the scope and design of the writer. If, then, the doctrine of purgatory be intended, we shall undoubtedly find some intimation of it in the context. We therefore most readily challenge a reference to the context. Let the whole psalm be read, and to afford the Papist every advantage he may desire, let it be read in the Douay version, published with the imprimatur of twelve Romanist bishops and one archbishop. We have examined over and over the entire psalm. but there is not a word about purgatory. In the text we find the word hell, and an important prediction of Christ's resurrection, and in the verse following we read of heaven; but, from the beginning of the psalm to the end, not a syllable respecting the distinction between venial sins and mortal sins, nor about souls being purified by penal suffering, nor a middle state or place of existence. And we can only say, that he who is capable of finding the smallest allusion to such a doctrine in this psalm, must be endowed with the extraordinary faculty of seeing that which is invisible, and of finding that which has no existence.

There is yet another method of ascertaining the meaning of the sacred writings-namely, that of observing the sense in which a passage is quoted, and the use to which it is applied, by another inspired author. In this way many obscure texts of the Old Testament are elucidated and explained. Now

« ZurückWeiter »