Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

already advanced; for if the characters we have noticed were not such as are adapted for purgatory, the Romanists themselves being our witnesses, it follows that they did not go to purgatory. From this conclusion it follows again that the "prison" spoken of in the text cannot mean purgatory; and from these facts we have the further conclusion that, if the persons to whom Christ preached were not in any purgatorial prison, then the text does not teach that Christ went to purgatory at all. If at the time when Christ preached to these persons they were not in purgatory, so Christ himself could not be in purgatory when he preached to them.

Such is the logical and necessary deduction from our previous arguments, but we have also direct evidence from the plain and obvious declarations of Scripture, and it is well to show the weakness of a Papal error from every point of attack. The gospel informs us that the soul of Christ, on leaving the body, went immediately, not to the prison of purgatory, but to paradise. The dying Saviour said to the expiring penitent who hung by his side on the cross, "This day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Again, just at the moment of his departure, he said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." We ask, do these phrases comport with purgatory? Is the hand of his loving Father synonymous with the prison of purgatory? or is paradise identical with the doleful regions of limbo? It surely requires both the credulity and the perverted mind of a Romanist to receive such a conclusion. But the Holy Ghost has decided what paradise is. It is not the prison of purgatory, but the third heaven, the seat of the blessed, a region of glory and blessedness. "I knew a man in Christ," says an apostle, "whether in the body or out of the body I cannot tell, God knoweth, such a one caught up to the third heaven. . . . How that he was caught up to paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." 2 Cor. xii. 2,4. Now the third heaven, in the language of Scripture, is a region of glory

and blessedness. The first heaven is the atmosphere around us, in which the fowls of the air fly and where the clouds are suspended; the second heaven is the region beyond, where the sun, moon and stars revolve; and the third heaven is a place of glory and joy. That paradise and the third heaven are only different names for the same happy place is further obvious from Rev. ii. 7, where the reward of the righteous is expressed by admission to the enjoyments of the paradise of God. "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of Life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." And again, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of Life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." (Rev. xxii. 14.) If, then, the paradise of God be identical with the third heaven, it is evident that paradise cannot be synonymous with purgatory; and if Christ on the day of his crucifixion entered paradise, it is fatal to the Papal figment of his going to preach to imprisoned souls in purgatory.

The preceding arguments prove, we conceive, two things. 1, That the disobedient persons who perished in the Deluge never entered into any purgatory; 2, That neither did the Saviour enter into any such place. And hence it follows that the passage does not speak of such a place as purgatory, or of any individuals who had entered there. In fact, while the name of purgatory is not mentioned, neither is there any allusion to it, either as a place or state, in any form whatever. Thus the passage on which the Romanists rely as their chief foundation for the doctrine of purgatory is found, on examination, to give the notion no sanction. No doubt such reasons as those we have adduced prevailed with those writers of the Romish Church whom we have already quoted-Jerome, Augustine, Bede and Calmet, and they must prevail, we think, with every candid mind.

It will now be demanded, What, then, is the interpretation which we give of the passage? We believe that the persons who are designated

"spirits in prison" were those individuals who lived in the days of Noah and remained impenitent; that the preaching of Christ to them was the ministry exercised in the person of righteous Noah. Such being our views, we shall briefly show that they harmonize both with the passage itself and the usus loquendi, or the phraseology of the sacred writers.

66

That the persons referred to as being in prison were the antediluvian sinners who perished in the Deluge appears clear from the apostle's direct statement that they were disobedient when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing." Indeed, respecting this there is no controversy.

That Christ preached to these individuals is expressly asserted, and is, therefore, no matter of controversy; but there are two questions respecting the preaching of Christ which are material points in the controversy; namely, When did he preach to them? and, How did he preach to them ?

As to the period when Christ preached to them, this, we think, is decided by the preceding argument. That he did not preach to them in purgatory has been proved; for it has been shown that they never were in any purgatory. That they were preached to either in hell or heaven is not contended for even by our opponents. If, then, they were preached to by Christ, and yet that preaching did not occur either in heaven or hell, or in any supposed purgatorial state, it follows that it did not occur at all in the spiritual world, and must necessarily have transpired in the present world and during their existence in the time of Noah. This is in strict accordance with the text; for it asserts that the individuals in question were disobedient "in the days of Noah, while the long-suffering of God waited for their repentance." Since the apostle mentions, in the same breath, both their being preached to and their disobedience, does he not mean that both the privilege and their neglect of it were coin

cident in time and place? Is it not forced and unnatural to suppose him speaking of their disobedience as occurring at one period in the present world, and their privileges, ages after, in the spiritual world, in a fancied region called purgatory? To us the supposition seems simply ridiculous. In Holy Scripture, men's privileges and their character are always represented as coincident and contemporaneous; and indeed their character receives its complexion from their privileges. If privileges be improved their character is improved; but, if abused and neglected, their guilt and disobedience are enhanced. It would be thus with the antediluvians. If they had privileges, their character as disobedient" people would be aggravated thereby. Now as they are emphatically characterized as "disobedient," their neglect and abuse of privileges must have constituted that disobedience. Disobedience implies neglect, resistance and obstinacy. In reference to them the question arises, To what privileges were they disobedient ? What calls did they disregard ? What monitions did they neglect? What threatenings did they despise? What offered mercy did they reject? We presume they were those involved in the faithful and earnest preaching addressed to them. they were "disobedient" they must necessarily have disobeyed something. What could they disobey except the commands, calls, and invitations of Almighty God? And how could these calls, invitations, &c., be addressed to them except by vocal proclamation, and by public announcements of a divine message uttered by the living voice-the mode by which God in all ages has called men to repentance and obedience. To us it appears clear that the term "disobedient," by which the apostle has chosen to characterize those sinners, is one which suggests the fact of their resistance of those calls which were solemnly addressed to them at the time for their repentance and salvation. This view is supported by the reference the apostle makes, in the same passage,

If

to God's longsuffering and waiting in the days of Noah. If he waited their repentance he must have called them to repentance; if he exercised longsuffering, it implies that he long bore with their resistance to the divine message; and this aspect of the divine conduct towards them involves the employment of preaching and of every suitable means for their repentance and salvation. Hence we argue from the text itself, that the preaching of Christ and the disobedience of the people were coincident and contemporaneous facts; both took place "in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing."

We are aware that here the question will be pressed, How could Christ preach to them, seeing he was not then incarnate? We reply, he preached to them as the text itself represents, "by the Spirit," and, as other Scriptures tell us, through the instrumentality of Noah. Let us look at the passage and its connexion with the preceding verse, and we shall see, at least in one sense, how Christ preached to the antediluvians. The apostle, speaking of Christ's death, says,

He was put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." That is to say, it was the human nature which died, but it was the divine Spirit which raised him again. Then the apostle immediately adds "By which also," that is, by which divine Spirit," he preached," &c. So, then, the apostle does not tell us that Christ went in his human nature, or in person, and preached unto the individuals in question, but that he did this by the Spirit. Thus the passage explains itself. It informs us that by the agency of the same Spirit which raised his human nature from the tomb he preached to the antediluvian world in the days of Noah.

The view, thus naturally deduced from the passage itself, is elsewhere taught in Scripture narrative.

* Exal. Here we have the relative pronoun which, and the antecedent is the word πνευματι, which immediately precedes it.

For sacred history informs us that God's Spirit did powerfully operate upon the antediluvian race, and its operations are expressed by the peculiar phrase "striving with man." "And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not always STRIVE with man." (Gen. vi. 3.) Surely this language indicates some special and extraordinary operations of the divine Spirit upon the hearts of ungodly men; and aggravated must have been the disobedience of those who could continue to resist its gracious and powerful visitations.

But besides this influence of the Holy Spirit, inwardly grappling with human depravity and pressing upon the conscience the truths and duties, the promises and threatenings, of religion, there was the personal ministry of Noah. This just and holy man is emphatically designated "a preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter ii. 5); and when we consider the office he sustained, and the solemn revelation made to him of the coming deluge, we may easily imagine what would be the substance of his public appeals to a guilty world. We have before argued from the text itself that both the preaching and the disobedience referred to by St. Peter were coincident facts, and that the people's disobedience consisted in a high degree in their rejection of the divine message, but here we have a direct statement respecting the fact that Noah was a preacher of righteousness in that day and to that people.

We are aware it will be asked, In what sense can it be said that Christ preached, when the act itself was performed by Noah? We reply, Noah preached by the direct autho rity of Christ and under the influence of Christ's spirit. Noah was an ambassador for God, and the official acts of an ambassador are accounted as the acts of the sovereign from whom he receives his commission. Thus it was with the apostles, who said, "Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." If, then, the apostles spoke in Christ's stead, so did Noah, for he

preached by the same authority; if in the ministry of the apostles it was proper to regard the gospel as a message from Christ to mankind, so it was in the ministry of Noah; and hence the propriety of our interpretation of the passage: Christ preached to the antediluvians through the ministry of Noah.

It was the Spirit of Christ, then, which the antediluvians resisted, and the ministry of Christ which they disobeyed and rejected. Nor is there anything peculiar in the interpretation of this portion of the sacred writings. The same principle applies to other passages both in the Old and New Testament Scriptures. Indeed, so constantly was the agency of Christ exerted under the old dispensation that the influences commonly ascribed to God may in general and with equal propriety be ascribed to the Son. The murmuring and rebellion of the Israelites in the wilderness is spoken of by St. Paul as rebellion against Christ, "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents."-1 Cor. x. 9. The general inspiration of the prophets is ascribed to the spirit of Christ, as the apostle Peter states when he informs us that "The prophets who prophesied of the grace that should come, inquired and searched diligently what, or what manner of time, the SPIRIT CHRIST which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow." Noal himself was a prophet as well as a preacher of righteousness; and if it was the spirit of Christ which inspired other prophets and spoke by them to mankind, it must have done the same by Noah, for he was one of them; and if the rebellious Israelites are said to have "tempted Christ" by their sins, so the antediluvians may be charged with resistance to his ministration of mercy.

OF

There is another word or two which may require a brief explanation. The text states "that Christ went and preached" to the individuals in question, and this phraseology, it is thought by some, seems to in

66

dicate Christ's personal ministryan actual and personal going to them. We reply: the very same phraseology is used by the apostle Paul respecting Christ, in a case where his personal ministry was never exercised. We refer to Eph. ii. 17; but to show the connexion of the words, we give also the preceding verse. And that he might recon cile both (Jews and Gentiles) unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby, and CAME AND PREACHED PEACE to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh." Now here it is said that Christ after his death on the cross came and preached peace to the Ephesian Gentiles; but, we ask, did he do so in person? We have his history before us, but where shall we find a single record of such an event? The answer is, Nowhere! On the contrary, so far from going to preach to the Ephesian Gentiles, he expressly declared that his mission did not extend to the Gentiles. "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel;” nor were his disciples, in exercising their ministry prior to his ascension, allowed to go into the way of the Gentiles, but sent only "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matt. x. 5, 6; xv. 24). If, then, Christ in person never went and preached peace to the Ephesian Gentiles, in what sense can the apostle mean that he went and preached peace unto them? There is but one sense in which this can be interpreted, and it is this: He did it through the ministry of his apostles. He was their sovereign Lord, they were his ambassadors; and, acting under his authority, and preaching in his name, and blest by his abiding presence and influence, their official acts were virtually his own. Thus, then, the usus loquendi of the several writers again supports our interpretation. The phraseology used by St. Paul is substantially the same as that used by St. Peter, and as in the former case it refers not to Christ's personal ministry but to that of his apostles, so in the latter case it refers not to his personal ministry but to that exercised by his ambas

sador in the preaching of the venerable patriarch Noah.

It may be inquired, What are we to understand by the phrase, "The spirits in prison P" We reply, the phrase is capable of a two-fold sense, either of which is perfectly consistent with the general interpretation we have given of the controverted passage. It may refer to their disembodied state in the prison of hell, as the state in which they are now and were at the time of the apostle's writing of them. Dr. Macknight thus paraphrases the passage, "By which spirit also speaking in Noah (2 Pet. ii. 5) he preached to the persons now (spirits) in prison, who formerly were disobedient when the patience of God, once for all, waited for their reformation in the days of Noah." We see no objection to this view; but there is another sense equally consistent. The term “spirits" may be synonymous with persons, as the word "souls" is often employed both in the Old and New Testament without having any reference to the disembodied state. Thus the word "souls" is used in the next verse. Peter speaking of the ark in which some were saved, says: "Wherein few, that is, eight SOULS were saved." If, then, the word "souls" mean persons, without reference to their disembodied state, why may not the word "spirits" have the same meaning? Indeed, in several other passages the word "spi

A DESERVED REBUKE TO THE INHOSPITABLE.-The Rev. Mr. had travelled far to preach to a congregation at

After the sermon, he waited very patiently, evidently expecting some of his brethren to invite him to dinner. In this he was disappointed. One after another departed, until the church was almost as empty as the minister's stomach. Summoning resolution, however, he walked up to an elderly-looking gentleman, and gravely said, "Will you go home to dinner with me to-day, brother?" "Where do you live?' "About twenty miles from this, sir." 'No," said the man, colouring, “but

66

rit" seems to be applied to persons still in the body: "The spirits of just men made perfect," and God "the Father of spirits." (Heb. xii. 9-23.) See also Numbers xvi. 23, and xxvii. 16. Viewed in this sense, the prison in which these persons were held was the prison of their sins, holding them in the chains of unbelief, guilt and condemnation. This is a frequent metaphor of the state of degenerate men, and one with which all are familiar. David prays, "Bring my soul out of prison that I may praise thy name" and the object of the Saviour's ministry

was

"to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that were bound.” The spirits of antediluvians were bound in the prison of sin, and the object of Noah's preaching was to deliver them; but they rejected the divine message and continued in unbelief and disobedience.

We have thus given our views of this interesting passage. We have candidly looked every difficulty in the face, and carefully weighed every objection; and the result of our investigation has only added clearness to our previous conceptions and strength to our former conclusions. We flatter ourselves that our readers will see with us that the grammar, logic and theology of the passage lead to a conclusion opposed to the doctrine of purgatory.

you must go with me." "Thank you I will, cheerfully." After that time

the minister was no more troubled about his dinner.

THE DUKE OF LUXEMBOURG.— This illustrious man, on his deathbed, declared, "That he would then much rather have had it to reflect upon, that he had administered a cup of cold water to a worthy poor creature in distress than that he had won so many battles as he had triumphed for." All the sentiments of worldly grandeur vanish at that unavoidable moment which decides the eternal state of men.

« AnteriorContinuar »