Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

tyr and Tertullian composed their treatises on the resurrection, with these views.

SEC. 28. Opposition to this grosser theory.

The Gnostics could not admit, at all, the doctrine of a resurrection; because it contravened one of their fundamental principles, that of the incurable malignancy of matter. They, of course, anticipated rewards and punishments only for the soul. The Alexandrians, Ĉlemens(1) and Origen, (2) adhered indeed to the prevailing doctrine of a resurrection of the body; but they discardded the idea, that the entire human body, with all its parts and members, would be restored to its former condition; and maintained, that God would bestow on men more refined bodies, better suited to their elevated state. In this they were influenced by the Platonic notions, that the body is a shackle to the soul,(3) and that human souls existed before the creation of this material world.

(1) Paedag. II. c. 10. and III. c. 1, 4. (2) de Princip. Prooem. Sec. 5. p. 48.-contra Cels. V. 590 594 &c. and Lib. VIII. p. 777 &c. and Lib. II. c. 2, 3, 10. (3) Clemens Alex. Strom. IV. p. 569.

SEC. 29. Subsequent history of the doctrine.

The opinions of the Gnostics was again advanced by the Manicheans ;(1) but was absolutely rejected by the church. On the other hand, the grosser theory, (which however was detached from its connexion with Chiliasm,) and the more refined theory of Origen, both held their place in the church, for a long time ;(2) until, Epiphanius (3) and Jerome, (4) in their controversy with John bishop of Jerusalem and Rufinus, pressed closely the letter of the creed, that the same bodies with all their former parts and members, would be raised again. Even Augustine(5) finally declared himself of this opinion; and the opposite opinion sunk more and more into disrepute, till at length the Emperor Justinian (6) proscribed it. Yet subsequently, all disagreements in the explanation of the doctrine were not entirely at an end.(7)

1) Theodoret. Epit. Haer. Lib. I. c. 26. (2) Münscher's Handbu. vol. IV. p. 438 &c. (3) Ancor. § 89–102. Haeres LIV. § 63 &c.

(4) Adv. errores Joannis Hieros.ad Pammach. Opp. Tom. II. p. 118, &c. Epitaph. Paulae, ad Eustoch. Opp. Tom. I. p. 117. Apol. contra Rufin. L. II. Opp. II. p. 145. (5) Enchirid. ad Laurent. c. 85, 87, 89-91. de Civitate Dei. XXII. c.13-21.

(6) Mansi, Concil. Tom. IX. p. 400, 516. Münscher, 1. c. p. 449 &c.

SEC. 30. The intermediate state.

The inquiries respecting the resurrection, and the commencement of the future retributions, unavoidably brought up the question, What is the state of the soul, when it is separate from the body? In answering it, the early fathers combined the old notion of a region of shades, with the doctrine of recompense after death. All souls, said they, pass immediately, after death, into the lower world; where the good, severed from the others, enjoy a foretaste of blessedness, and the bad have a foretaste of punishment; until the time of full retribution, after the resurrection. Yet the souls of martyrs, have the privilege of going, immediately after death, to heavenly bliss. The place of residence for good souls, that died after Christ's day, was different from Abraham's bosom, or the residence of the souls that died before Christ, out of which, however, Christ had removed them.

Reference. Irenaeus. adv. Haeres. II. c. 34. V. c. 5, 31. Justin Martyr, Dial. p. 107, 178, 200. Tertullian, de Anima. c. 7, 43, 55,58. de Resurrect. c. 17, 43. Apologet. c. 47. de Monog. c. 10, contra Marcion. IV. c. 34. Origen, Opp. Tom. I. p. 35, 106, 213, 434, 696 &c. Tom. II. p. 222, 372, 496 &c. Hippolytus, Opp. ed Fabric. Tom I. p. 220.

Treatise on the belief of the Fathers respecting the state of

souls after the present life: (in French,) by Dav. Blondel. Charenton, 1651, 4to.

[ocr errors]

S. I. Baumgarten, Historia doctrinae de statu animarum separatarum; Halle, 1754, 4to.

Jo. Aug. Dietelmair, Historia dogmatis de descensu Christi ad inferos. ed. 2. 1768. 8vo.

J. S. Semler, Observatio historico-dogmatica, de vario et impari studio veterum in recolenda Historia descensus Christi ad inferos; Hal. 1775. 4to.

Dogmatis de descensu I. C. ad inferos Historiam biblicam atque ecclesiasticam, composuitI. Clausen. Hafn. 1801.8vo

SEC. 31. Subsequent modifications.

As martyrdoms became less frequent, the privilege of immediate admission to the world of glory, was extended beyond the class of martyrs, to persons of distinguished piety, particularly to ascetics and monks. And now, Augustine(1) fell upon the idea, that the place of other souls, which were destined to glory, but were not quite fit for it at leaving the body, was a place of purgation. As preparing the way for this idea, it had been customary, from the earliest times, to pray for the souls of the dead ;(2) and various early fathers had mentioned a purifying fire; which, however, they placed in the process of the general judgment, or subsequent to it.(3)

(1) de Civitate Dei. XXI. c. 13, 24, 26. contra Julian. VI. c. 15. § 45, and Opp. Tom VI. p. 127, 128, 180, 181. (2) Tertull. de Monog. c. 10. contra Marcion. III. c. 24. Epiphan. Haeres. LXXV. § 3, 7. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. XXIII. § 9, 10. Chrysost. in Ep. ad Philip. Homil. III.--in Ep. I. ad Cor. Homil. XLI.

(3) Methodius; in Photius, Biblioth. Cod. 234, p. 923. Lactantius. Instit. div. VII. c. 21.

SEC. 32. Purgatory fully established.

The theory advanced without assurance by Augustine, was held up as certain, by Caesarius(1) of Arles, and Gregory(2) the Great. According to them, the souls which had been guilty of venial sins, but had not done adequate penance for them in this life, would suffer, according to the degree of their guilt, a longer or shorter time, after

death,in a fire of purgation; and then would pass into the place of the blessed. The anguish of these souls, moreover, may be mitigated, or curtailed, by the prayers and the good works of the living.

[ocr errors]

(1) Homil. VIII. extant in the Biblioth. max. Patr. Tom. VIII. p. 826-28. and in Opp. Augustini, Tom. V. Append. Serm. CIV. p. 185.

(2) Dialog. Lib. IV. c. 39, 40, 55.

SEC. 33. Hell.

Hell, (Gehenna,) or the place of the damned, was totally distinct from the fire of purgatory. On the duration of helltorments, there was not perfect uniformity of sentiment. Some, as Arnobius,(1) and perhaps Justin Martyr, supposed the punishment would end, in the annihilation of those who suffered it. Origen (2) allowed to the damned a hope of their reformation and salvation; and this idea is seen to glimmer, even in the corrupt translation of his writings by Rufinus. The similar views of Gregory(3) of Nyssa, in many of his declarations, cannot be construed away. Also the Antiochian fathers, Diodorus(4) of Tarsus, and Theodore(5) of Mopsuestia, believed in the termination of future punishment. Jerome insisted, indeed, on the eternal punishment of all who rejected christianity; but he allowed wicked christians to hope for a release. By far the greater part of the fathers, however, declared themselves believers in the eternity of the torments of all the wicked ;(6) and the zeal of the Emperor Justinian caused the ideas of Origen on this subject, to be anathematized.(7)

p.

(1) adv. Gentes. Lib. II. p. 52, 86. (2) de Princip. L.II. c. 3, 5, 6,10. Lib. III. c. 6, 8, and Opp. Tom. I. p. 231. Tom. II. p. 113, 115, 230. Tom. III. 667. Yet he would conceal this doctrine from the people, as being corrupting: contra Cels. L.III. p.499. L.VI. p. 650. L.V. p. 598, 599. and Opp. Tom. II. p. 688, 889. Tom. III. p. 267.

(3) Orat. catech. c. 8, 26, 85.

(4 and 5) See Assemann, Biblioth. Orient. T. III. P. I. p. 323, 324.

(6) Justin Martyr, Apol. II. p. 48, 60, 74. Dial. p. 141,223. Tatian, Orat. ad Graec. p. 254 &c. Theoph. ad Autol. p. 346. Irenaeus, adv. Haer. V. c. 27. Tertullian, Apologet. c. 48. de Resurr. carnis c. 35. de Testimonio Anim. c. 4. Minucius Felix, Octav. c. 35. Cyprian, ad Demetr. p. 196. Lactantius, Instit. div. VII. c. 21, 26. Basil the Great, Opp. Tom. II. p. 507. Tom. III. p. 553. Cyril of Jerus. Cat. IV. § 30. XVIII. §19. Hilary of Poictiers, Comment. in Matth. c. V. § 12. p. 635. Chrysostom, ad Theodor. lapsum. I. c. 6. Opp. T. IV. p. 559. Augustine, in many places; e. g. Enchir. ad Laur. c. 111, 112. de Civitate Dei. XXI. passim. Pelagius, Symbol. in Walchii Bibl. symbol. p. 195. Cyril of Alexand. de Exitu animae &c. Opp. Tom. V. P. II. p. 409. Theodoret, in Isai. Opp. T. II. p. 396. Gennadius, de dogmat. eccles. c. 9. Fulgentius of Ruspe, de Remiss. peccat. L. II. c. 13 &c. Cassiodorus, de Anima. c. 12. Gregory the Gr. Moral. IX. c. 38, Dialog. IV. c.

44.

(7) Mansi Concil. IX. p. 399, 518.

References. I. A. Dietelmaier, Commenti fanatici àroxaTasασews TaνTWV Historia antiquior. Altorf. 1769, 8vo. J.Fr. Cotta, Historia succincta dogmatis de poenarum infernalium duratione. Tubing. 1774.

Hos. Ballou. (History of the doctrine of universal salvation :) Boston, 1827. 12mo.

SEC. 34. Doctrine concerning the Church.

With the doctrine of the glorious kingdom of Christ, and the rewards and punishments there to be expected, the early christians connected the doctrine of the church, as being the present kingdom of Christ, and the institution which was preparatory to the future state of glory. Though the society of christians was spoken of by Jesus, as being one; yet this unity had reference solely to a moral oneness. Moreover, the first christian communities were bound together, only by their feelings of brotherly love, and by their acts of kindness. Ignatius, however, pressed upon christians, to adhere closely to their respective Bishops.

« PoprzedniaDalej »