|
(Continued from page 35.)
The Bishop proceeds to the next point: “He suffered
under Pontius Pilate,” declaring his belief, beyond all possibility of
contradictions, that the eternal Son of God did suffer for the sins of
men. Now in the preceding section he asserts that the divine nature did
not and could not suffer, but only the humanity; and though the divine
nature was joined to the human, it suffered as little by the sufferings
of the humanity as if it had not been united to it; therefore the Son of
God, which was the divine nature of
<<86>>the compound Jesus Christ, did not
suffer, and the Bishop contradicts the truth which he affirms to be
beyond contradiction.
He says in the preceding section that the two
natures each kept their respective properties distinct, without the
least mixture or confusion. The Bishop refers to several occurrences
which he calls types of the crucifixion:—Isaac carrying the wood for the
sacrifice; the brazen serpent in the wilderness; the paschal lamb. I
wonder he did not discover that the two young men who attended Abraham
were types of the two thieves between whom Jesus was crucified. As to
the command that “Ye shall not break a bone thereof,” concerning the
paschal lamb, which he pretends alluded to and was fulfilled in the
crucifixion,—is it probable, or indeed possible, that a man should be
suspended by nails inserted through his hands and feet, without one of
the many minute bones of which those parts of the human frame are
composed being broken? Or is it likely the spear head of the Roman
soldier entered the side of Jesus without fracturing a rib?
The Bishop speaks of Jesus “cancelling the law of
commandments by nailing it to his cross.” Now what is meant by this
sentence I have often heard it asserted that Jesus had abrogated the
law, though in contradiction to what he himself declared; but this was
explained as the ceremonial part of the law, not the moral precepts; but
the Bishop declares he cancelled the law of commandments, which must be
the whole of the law. In the following section, commenting on the words,
“was crucified, dead,” he explains that the eternal Son of God did, in
our nature, which he took upon him, really and truly die. His soul was
actually separated from his body, although neither soul nor body was
separated from the divinity. Here he can only be speaking of the mortal
frame of Jesus, from which the soul was separated by death at the
crucifixion. The divinity, the eternal Son of God, had nothing to do
with the death of the humanity. The two natures kept their respective
properties distinct, without the least mixture or confusion; it is
therefore a fallacy to say that the divinity did really and truly die,
because the humanity, which was distinct from it, did die. The fact that
the divine nature did suffer and die is repeatedly denied in the course
of the “Exposition,” as frequently is the distinctness of the two
natures affirmed, which makes it impossible that the divinity could feel
the suffer<<87>>ings of the humanity. Yet it is asserted that the Son of God
died for the remission of the sins of mankind. The Bishop refers to the
wonderful events said to have taken place at the tune of the
crucifixion, asking why did the sun put on mourning? why were the graves
opened? why were the rocks rent? but because the God of nature died.
This again points to the divinity, and can by no means be applied to the
humanity, in the frame of Jesus, which alone died.
The note (e) in this section is a remarkable
instance of unmeaning phraseology. In the following section, the Bishop
takes great pains to prove that the body was to be buried, such being
the custom among the Jews. This point does not appear in itself of much
importance, but is used to prove the resurrection, showing that the body
was laid in the sepulchre and watched, to which we shall refer in the
sequel, but now pass to the dogma, “He descended into hell.” This
article, the Bishop tells us, was first inserted by the Church of
Aquileia, about four hundred years after the death of Jesus, into what
is still called the Apostles’ Creed. The Bishop explains what he
understands and believes by these words, for it appears we must not take
the meaning of the dogmas of Christianity from the natural meaning of
the words in which they are enounced in the creeds. The subject which
was being treated on, as appears from the text and the Bishop’s
Exposition, was “the only begotten and eternal Son of God;” but in this
section the Bishop calls it “Christ,” and says that, his sufferings
being finished on the cross, his soul went to the place where the souls
of men are kept for their sins. Now by using the word Christ, and
referring to his death, we must understand that he is speaking of Jesus,
and that it was his soul that descended into hell, and not the Son, in
contradiction to the positive words of the creed. It appears that, in
assuming human nature, the Son assumed the soul as well as the body of
Jesus, which were made use of afterwards,—the body to suffer stripes,
the ignominy and the agony of the cross, and the soul to go to hell; all
which, by the constitution of Christianity, was to be performed by the
Son personally. In the notes appended to this Exposition, we are given
the different opinions which have been broached on this article. The
writers all seem to have considered the words to have a metaphorical or
figurative meaning, and not to be understood literally; but the Bishop
considers their explana<<88>>tions absurd, and unsupported by any authority,
and embraces the opinion that the soul of Christ did really descend or
pass into hell, and for the purpose of appearing there in the similitude
of a sinner, as he had appeared on earth in the similitude of sinful
flesh; averring that by his descent into hell all those who believe in
him are secured from going there, and that as Satan, who had possession
of those regions, had no power over him, so he would not be able to
exercise any over the souls of those who believed in him. Though the
Bishop in his Exposition speaks of the soul of Christ, from the sequel
it would seem he means the divinity, since he assigns to it the power of
preserving souls from Satan. In that case “the only Begotten” is called
the “soul of Christ.” Or would he have us to understand that the soul of
the Divinity was separated from his body? The words of the creed are
very explicit. Speaking of the Son, it says “He descended into hell.”
The Bishop’s exposition of the meaning of those words involves them in
inexplicable confusion.
In commenting on the following words—“The third day
he rose again from the dead,” he affirms that “the eternal Son of God
did not long continue in a state of death, but did revive and raise
himself by reuniting the same soul which was separated, to the same body
which was buried, and so rose the same man.” From this we learn that the
divinity was the soul which was separated by death from the body of
Jesus. Now as it is believed that the soul is contained in the human
body, it follows that the eternal Son of God, who was reunited to the
body of Jesus, from which it had been separated, had been and was again
contained within the frame of Jesus. The Bishop, in explaining how we
are to understand the fourth article—“He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead and buried,” points to the twofold nature of the
second person of the Trinity, and reprobates the supposition that the
divinity could suffer, saying that, although the divinity was united to
the humanity, it suffered as little as if if had not been united; or, in
other words, that the divinity did not suffer at all. But here in the
fifth article he confesses that the eternal Son of God did die, and
continued for a certain space of time in a state of death; that the
humanity also was dead and was resuscitated by the revival and return of
the soul, namely, the eternal Son of God. He also asserts that the said
soul rested <<89>>in the grave on the Sabbath day. It is not easy to discover
what it was that rested in the grave. It could not be the divinity, and
in the preceding section he maintained that the soul of Christ descended
into hell.
In the notes he supports the truth of the descent
and resurrection on the third day, by the boast attributed to Jesus:
“Destroy the temple, and in three days I will build it up;” (a boast he
might safely make without any fear of being called upon to realize
it;)—and by his assertion, Matt. 12:40, that he would be three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth. This last promise, or prophecy,
is among the greatest difficulties the Christians have to surmount.
There is no room for metaphorising or typifying; the words are clear.
Three days and three nights: now Jesus was buried towards evening on the
Friday, and according to Matt. 28:1, had risen when it began to dawn
towards the first day of the week, when “the pious women came to anoint
him,” a space which could scarcely exceed thirty-six, or at most forty
hours. The Bishop has recourse to several expedients to remove this
difficulty, beginning with the observation that the two expressions
above quoted, as well as “After three days I will rise again,”—Destroy
the temple, and in three days I will build it up,” “must be interpreted
so as they may be reducible to the more general and constant phrase of
his rising on the third day.” This is a very convenient method of
removing a difficulty by interpreting the contradictory words so that
they may agree.
(To be continued.) |
