Notes On The Authorship Of Colossians

Colossians, the Epistle to the, was written by the Apostle St. Paul during his first captivity at Rome (Acts xxviii. 16), and apparently in that portion of it (Col. iv. 3, 4) when the Apostle's imprisonment had not assumed the more severe character which seems to be reflected in the Epistle to the Philippians (ch. i. 20, 21, 30, ii. 27), and which not improbably succeeded the death of Burrus in a.d. 62, and the decline of the influence of Seneca. This important and profound epistle was addressed to the Christians of the once large and influential, but now smaller and declining, city of Colossae, and was delivered to them by Tychicus, whom the Apostle had sent both to them (ch. iv. 7, 8) and to the church of Ephesus (ch. vi. 21), to inquire into their state and to administer exhortation and comfort. The epistle seems to have been called forth by the information St. Paul had received from Epaphras (ch. iv. 12; Philem. 23) and from Onesimus, both of whom appear to have been natives of Colossae, and the former of whom was, if not the special founder, yet certainly one of the very earliest preachers of the gospel in that city. The main object of the epistle is not merely, as in the case of the Epistle to the Philippians, to exhort and to confirm, nor as in that to the Ephesians, to set forth the great features of the church of the chosen in Christ, but is especially designed to warn the Colossians against a spirit of semi-Judaistic and semi-Oriental philosophy which was corrupting the simplicity of their belief, and was noticeably tending to obscure the eternal glory and dignity of Christ. With regard to its genuineness and authenticity, it is satisfactory to be able to say with distinctness that there are no grounds for doubt. The external testimonies are explicit, and the internal arguments, founded on the style, balance of sentences, positions of adverbs, uses of the relative pronoun, participial anacolutha, unusually strong and well defined. A few special points demand from us a brief notice. — 1. The opinion that this epistle and those to the Ephesians and to Philemon were written during the Apostle's imprisonment at Caesarea (Acts xxi. 27-xxvi. 32), i.e. between Pentecost a.d. 58 and the autumn of a.d. 60, has been recently advocated by several writers of ability, and stated with such cogency and clearness by Meyer, as to deserve some consideration. But to go no further than the present epistle, the notices of the Apostle's imprisonment in ch. iv. 3, 4, 11, certainly seem historically inconsistent with the nature of the imprisonment at Caesarea. The permission of Felix (Acts xxiv. 23) can scarcely be strained into any degree of liberty to teach or preach the Gospel — 2. The nature of the erroneous teaching condemned in this epistle has been very differently estimated. Three opinions only seem to de serve any serious consideration; (a) that these erroneous teachers were adherents of Neo-Platonism, or of some forms of Occidental philosophy (6) that they leaned to Essene doctrine and practices; (c) that they advocated that ad mixture of Christianity, Judaism, and Oriental philosophy which afterwards became consolidated into Gnosticism. Of these (a) has but little in its favor, except the somewhat vague term "philosophy" (ch. ii. 8), which, however, it seems arbitrary to restrict to Grecian philosophy; (6) is much more plausible as far as the usages alluded to, but seems inconsistent both with the exclusive nature and circumscribed localities of Essene teaching; (c) on the contrary is in accordance with the Gentile nature of the church of Colossae; (ch. i. 21), with its very locality — speculative and superstitions Phrygia — and with that tendency to associate Judaical observances (ch. ii. 10) with more purely theosophistic speculations (ch. ii. 18), which became afterwards so conspicuous in developed Gnosticism. — 3. The striking similarity between many portions of this epistle and of that to the Ephesians has given rise to much speculation, both as to the reason of this studied similarity, and as to the priority of order in respect to composition. The similarity may reasonably be accounted for, (1) by the proximity in time at which the two epistles were written ; (2) by the high probability that in two cities of Asia, within a moderate distance from one another, there would be many doctrinal prejudices, and many social relations, that would call forth and need precisely the same language of warning and exhortation. The priority in composition must remain a matter for a reason able difference of opinion. To us the shorter and perhaps more vividly expressed Epistle to the Colossians seems to have been first written, and to have suggested the more comprehensive, more systematic, but less individualizing, epistle to the church of Ephesus.

William Smith, A Dictionary Of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History, p. 168

Notes On The Authorship Of Ephesians

Ephesians, the Epistle to the, was written by the Apostle St. Paul during his first captivity at Rome (Acts xxviii. 16), apparently immediately after he had written the Epistle to the Colossians [Colossians, Ep. To], and dating that period (perhaps the early part of a.d. 62) when his imprisonment had not assumed the severer character which seems to have marked its close. This sublime epistle was addressed to the Christian church at the ancient and famous city of Ephesus, that church which the Apostle had himself founded (Acts xix. 1 sq., comp. xviii. 19), with which he abode so long (Acts xx. 31), and from the elders of which he parted with such a warm-hearted and affecting farewell (Acts xx. 18-35). The contents or this epistle easily admit of being divided into two portions, the first mainly doctrinal (ch. i.-iii.), the second hortatory and practical. With regard to the authenticity and genuineness of this epistle, it is not too much to say that there are no just grounds for doubt. The testimonies of antiquity are unusually strong. Even if we do not press the supposed allusions in Ignatius and Polycarp, we can confidently adduce Irenaeus, Clem. Alex., Origen, Tertullian, and after them the constant and persistent tradition of the ancient Church. Even Marcion did not deny that the epistle was written by St. Paul, nor did heretics refuse occasionally to cite it as confessedly due to him as its author. In recent times, however, its genuineness has been somewhat vehemently called in question. De Wette labors to prove that it is a mere spiritless expansion of the Epistle to the Colossians, though compiled in the Apostolic age: Schwegler, Baur, and others, advance a step further, and reject both epistles as of no higher antiquity than the age of Montanism and early Gnosticism. For a detailed reply to the arguments of De Wette and Baur, the student may be referred to Meyer, Einleit. z. Eph. p. 19 sq. (ed. 2); Davidson, Introd. to N. T., ii. p. 352 sq.; and Alford, Prolegomena, p. 8. Two special points require a brief notice : — ( 1 . ) The readers for whom this epistle was designed. In the opening paragraph the words iv 'E^eoy are omitted by a, B, 67, Basil, and possibly Tertullian. This, combined with the somewhat noticeable omission of all greetings to the members of a Church with which the Apostle stood in such affectionate relation, and some other internal objections, have suggested a doubt whether these words really formed a part of the original text. At first sight these doubts seem plausible ; but when we oppose to them (a) the over whelming weight of diplomatic evidence for the insertion of the words, (6) the testimony of all the versions, (c) the universal designation of this epistle by the ancient Church (Marcion standing alone in his assertion that it was writ ten to the Laodiceans) as an epistle to the Ephesians, (d) the extreme difficulty in giving any satisfactory meaning to the isolated participle, and the absence of any parallel usage in the Apostle's writings, — we can scarcely feel any doubt as to the propriety of removing the brack ets in which these words arc enclosed in the 2d edition of Tischendorf, and of considering them an integral part of the original text. — (2.) The question of priority in respect of composition between this epistle and that to the Colossians is very difficult to adjust. On the whole, both internal and external considerations seem some what in favor of the priority of the Epistle to the Colossians.

William Smith, A Dictionary Of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History, p. 248

Notes On The Authorship Of Titus

Titus. Our materials for the biography of this companion of St. Paul must be drawn entirely from the notices of him in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, the Galatians, and to Titus himself, combined with the Second Epistle to Timothy. He is not mentioned in the Acts at all. Taking the passages in the Epistles in the chronological order of the events referred to, we turn first to Gal. ii. 1, 3. We conceive the journey mentioned here to be identical with that (recorded in Acts xv.) to which Paul and Barnabas went from Antioch to Jerusalem to the conference which was to decide the question of the necessity of circumcision to the Gentiles. Here we see Titus in close association with Paul and Barnabas at Antioch. He goes with them to Jerusalem His circumcision was either not insisted on at Jerusalem, or, if demanded, was firmly resisted He is very emphatically spoken of as a Gentile, by which is most probably meant that both his parents were Gentiles. Titus would seem, on the occasion of the council, to hare bets specially a representative of the church of the uncircumcision. It is to our purpose to remark that, in the passage cited above, Titus is so mentioned as apparently to imply that he had become personally known to the Galatia Christians. After leaving Galatia (Acts xviii. 23), and spending a long time at Ephesus (Acts xix. I -xx. 1), the apostle proceeded to Macedonia by way of Troas. Here he expected to meet Titus (2 Cor. ii. 13), who had been sent on r. mission to Corinth. In this hope he was disappointed; but in Macedonia Titus joined him (2 Cor. vii. 6, 7, 13-15). The mission to Corinth had reference to the immoralities rebuked in the First Epistle, and to the effect of that First Epistle on the offending church. We learn further that the mission was so far successful and satisfactory. But if we proceed further, we discern another part of the mission with which he was entrusted. This had reference to the collection, at that time in progress, for the poor Christians of Judaea (viii. 6). Thus we are prepared for what the apostle now proceeds to do after his encouraging conversations with Titus regarding the Corinthian Church. He sends him back from Macedonia to Corinth, in company with two other trustworthy Christians, bearing the Second Epistle, and with an earnest request (viii. 6, 17) that he would see to the completion of the collection (viii. 6). It has generally been considered doubtful who the udsTtyot were (1 Cor. xvi. 11, 12) that took the First Epistle to Corinth. Most probably they were Titus and his companion, whoever that might be, who is mentioned with him in the second letter (2 Cor. xii. 18). A considerable interval now elapses before we come upon the next notices of this disciple. St. Paul's first imprisonment is concluded, and his last trial is impending. In the interval between the two, he and Titus were together in Crete (Tit. i. 5). We see Titus remaining in the island when St. Paul left it, and receiving there a letter written to him by the apostle. From this letter we gather the following biographical details: — In the first place, we learn that who was originally converted through St. Paul's instrumentality (i. 4). Next we learn the various particulars of the responsible duties which he had to discharge in Crete. He is to complete what St. Paul had been obliged to leave unfinished (i. 5), and he is to organize the Church throughout the island by appointing presbyters in every city. Next he is to control and bridle (ver. 11 ) the restless and mischievous Judaizers, and he is to be peremptory in so doing (ver. 13). He is to urge the duties of a decorous and Christian life upon the women (ii. 3-5), some of whom (ii. 3) possibly had something of an official character (ver. 3, 4). The notices which remain are more strictly personal. Titus is to look for the arrival in Crete of Artemas and Tychicus (iii. 12), and then he is to hasten to join St. Paul at Nicopolis, where the apostle is proposing to pass the winter. Zenas and Apollos are in Crete, or expected there ; for Titus is to send them on their journey, and supply them with whatever they need for it (iii. 13). Whether Titus did join the apostle at Nicopolis we cannot tell. But we naturally connect the mention of this place with what St. Paul wrote at no great interval of time afterwards, in the last of the pastoral epistles (2 Tim. iv. 10); for Dalmatia lay to the north of Nicopolis, at no great distance from it. From the form of the whole sentence, it seems probable that this disciple had been with St. Paul in Rome during his final imprisonment; but this cannot be asserted confidently. The traditional connection of Titus with Crete is much more specific and constant, though here again we cannot be certain of the facts. He is said to have been permanent bishop in the island, and to have died there at an advanced age. The modern capital, Candid, appears to claim the honor of being his burial place. In the fragment by the lawyer Zenas, Titus is called Bishop of Gortyna. Lastly, the name of Titus was the watchword of the Cretans when they were invaded by the Venetians.

Titus, Epistle to. There are no specialties in this epistle which require any very elaborate treatment distinct from the other pastoral letters of St. Paul. If those two were not genuine, it would be difficult to confidently to maintain the genuineness of this. On the other hand, if the Epistles to Timothy are received as St. Paul's, there is not the slightest reason for doubting the authorship of that to Titus. Nothing can well be more explicit than the quotations in Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, to say nothing of earlier allusions in Justin Martyr, Theophilus, and Clemens Romanus. As to internal features, we may notice, in the first place, that the Epistle to Titus has all the characteristics of the other pastoral epistles. This tends to show that this letter was written about the same time and under similar circumstances with the other two. But, on the other hand, this epistle has marks in its phraseology and style which assimilate it to the general body of the epistles of St Paul. As to any difficulty arising from supposed indications of advanced hierarchical arrangements, it is to be observed that in this epistle elder and overseer are used as synonymous (i. 5, 7), just as they are in the address at Miletus, about the year 58 a.d. (Acts xx. 17, 28). At the same time, this epistle has features of its own, especially a certain tone of abruptness and severity, which probably arises, partly out of the circumstances of the Cretan population, partly out of the character of Titus himself. Concerning the contents of this epistle, something has already been said in the article on Titus. No very exact subdivision is either necessary or possible. As to the time and place and other circumstances of the writing of this epistle, the following scheme of filling up St. Paul's movements after his first imprisonment will satisfy all the conditions of the case : — We may suppose him (possibly after accomplishing his long-projected visit to Spain ) to have gone to Ephesus, and taken voyages from thence, first to Macedonia, and then to Crete ; during the former to have written the First Epistle to Timothy, and after returning from the latter to have written the Epistle to Titus, being, at the time of dispatching it, on the point of starting for Nicopolis, to which place he went, taking Miletus and Corinth on the way. At Nicopolis, we may conceive him to have been finally apprehended, and taken to Rome, whence he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy.

William Smith, A Dictionary Of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History, p. 954-955

Notes On The Authorship Of Philemon

Philemon, the Epistle of Paul to, is one of the letters (the others arc Ephesians, Colossians Philippians) which the apostle wrote during his first captivity at Rome. The time when Paul wrote may be fixed with much precision. The apostle, at the close of the letter, expresses a hope of his speedy liberation. Presuming, therefore, that he had good reasons for such an expectation, and that be was not disappointed in the result, we may conclude that this letter was written by him about the year a.d. 63, or early in a.d. 64. Nothing is wanting to confirm the genuineness of the Epistle. The external testimony is unimpeachable. The Canon of Muratori enumerates this as one of Paul's Epistles. Tertullian mentions it, and says that Marcion admitted it into his collection. Origen and Euscbius include it among the universally acknowledged writings of the early Christian times. Nor docs the Epistle it self offer any thing to conflict with this decision. Baur would divest it of its historical character, and make it the personified illustration from some later writer, of the idea that Christianity unites and equalizes in a higher sense those whom outward circumstances have separated. He does not impugn the external evidence. But, not to leave his theory wholly unsupported, he suggests some linguistic objections to Paul's authorship of the letter, which must be pronounced unfounded and frivolous.

Our knowledge respecting the occasion and object of the letter we must derive from declarations or inferences furnished by the letter itself. Paul, so intimately connected with the master of the servant, was anxious naturally to effect a reconciliation between them. Paul used his influence with Onesimus (in ver. 12) to induce him to return to Colossse, and place himself again at the disposal of his master. On his departure, Paul put into his hand this letter as evidence that Onesimus was a true and approved disciple of Christ, and entitled as such to be received not as a servant, but above a servant, as a brother in the faith, as the representative and equal in that respect of the apostle himself, and worthy of the same consideration and love. He intercedes for him as his own child, promises reparation if he had done any wrong, demands for him not only a remission of all penalties, but the reception of sympathy, affection, Christian brotherhood. Such was the purpose and such the argument of the Epistle. The result of the appeal cannot be doubted. It may be assumed from the character of Philemon that the apostle's intercession for Onesimus was not unavailing. Surely n» fitting response to his pleadings for Onesimus could involve less than a cessation of everything oppressive and harsh in his civil condition, as far as it depended on Philemon to mitigate or neutralize the evils of a legalized system of bondage, as well as a cessation of every thing which violated his rights as a Christian. How much further than this an impartial explanation of the Epistle obliges us or authorizes us to go has not yet been settled by any very general consent of interpreters. The Epistle to Philemon has one peculiar feature — its aesthetical character it may be termed — which distinguishes it from all the other epistles. The writer had peculiar difficulties to overcome; but Paul, it is confessed, has shown a degree of self-denial, and a tact in dealing with them, which, in being equal to the occasion, could hardly be greater.

William Smith, A Dictionary Of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History, p. 735

Comments On The Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation Rendering Of 2 Peter 1:1

        "Simon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have acquired a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 1:1, New World Translation, emphasis added)

        "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 1:1, New American Standard Bible, emphasis added)

        The Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower Society has translated 2 Peter 1:1 in such a way as to avoid supporting the deity of Christ. Theological bias in this translation is made obvious as examples of the same type of Greek constructions are rendered correctly elsewhere in the same epistle:

        "In fact, in this way you will be richly granted entrance into the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 1:11, New World Translation, emphasis added)

        "Certainly if after escaping from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they get involved again with these very things and are overcome, their final state has become worse for them than the first." (2 Peter 2:20, New World Translation, emphasis added)

        "No, but go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen." (2 Peter 3:18, New World Translation, emphasis added)

        If 2 Peter 1:1 were translated in the same manner as the last three texts, then the Jehovah's Witnesses would have no choice but to admit that Jesus is God. 

For The Beauty Of The Earth

      For the beauty of the earth, For the beauty of the skies, For the Love which from our birth Over and around us lies: Christ, our God, to Thee we raise This our Sacrifice of Praise.

      For the beauty of each hour Of the day and of the night, Hill and vale, and tree and flower, Sun and moon and stars of light: Christ, our God, to Thee we raise This our Sacrifice of Praise.

      For the joy of ear and eye, For the heart and brain's delight, For the mystic harmony Linking sense to sound and sight: Christ, our God, to Thee we raise This our Sacrifice of Praise.

      For the joy of human love, Brother, sister, parent, child, Friends on earth, and friends above; For all gentle thoughts and mild: Christ, our God, to Thee we raise This our Sacrifice of Praise.

       For each perfect Gift of Thine To our race so freely given, Graces human and Divine, Flowers of earth, and buds of Heaven: Christ, our God, to Thee we raise This our Sacrifice of Praise.

     For Thy Bride that evermore Lifteth holy hands above, Offering up on every shore This Pure Sacrifice of Love: Christ, our God, to Thee we raise This our Sacrifice of Praise.

     For Thy Martyrs' crown of light, For Thy Prophets' eagle eye, For Thy bold Confessors' might, For the lips of Infancy: Christ, our God, to Thee we raise This our Sacrifice of Praise.

     For Thy Virgins' robes of snow, For Thy Maiden Mother mild, For Thyself, with hearts aglow, Jesu, Victim undefiled, Offer we at Thine own Shrine Thyself, sweet Sacrament Divine.

Hymn published by Fol­li­ot S. Pier­point

Jesus Christ Is The Word That Became Flesh

        "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

        The Apostle John places an emphasis on flesh as polemic against the Gnostic idea that everything pertaining to the physical or material world is inherently corrupt. Docetists maintained that the the body of Jesus Christ was not real but illusionary. According to that view, the suffering He underwent on the cross was only apparent. In contrast, John expresses the true humanity of Christ. Consider also these statements from other writings by the him:

        "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world." (1 John 4:2-3, emphasis added)

        "For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (2 John 7, emphasis added)

        During the Old Testament, God dwelt in the tabernacle and the temple (Exodus 25:8-9; 40:34-38; 1 Kings 8:10-11, 27). In the New Testament, this concept finds its place in Christ taking on human flesh. The glory of God fully shines through Christ.

        Just as God the Father is not a father to Christ in the same sense of a parent to child relationship, the Son is not a son of God in the same sense as we are sons of God. There exists a unique relationship between God the Father and God the Son. Our special status as sons of God is given to us by adoption. We cannot become divine.

        The phrase "full of grace and truth" should be understood in light of its Old Testament backdrop of God's relationship with Israel (Exodus 34:6-7). Christ has the same characteristics. He is loving, merciful, and just.

        Christ took on human flesh so that He can experience suffering and death. His divinity enabled Him to pay an infinite debt of sin. That is something which we could never do.

Early Church Evidence Against Transubstantiation

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,-of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle...Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.”

Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 1.6

Purgatory Revisited: A Critique of Catholic Claims

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to rebut a number of arguments made in defense of the Roman Catholic dogma of purgatory as well as attempts to answer objections to it. Each excerpt from the author is cited in bold and followed with critical commentary:

          "...the sacrifice of Christ is no longer there for one "who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified"; such a one can "throw away [one's] confidence" and "shrink back" and be "destroyed" (Hebrews 10:28-39). The only thing such a sinner looks forward to is judgment, for "the Lord will judge his people" (cf. Romans 2:5-10). We are to keep faith and endure to the end to be saved, "so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised" (cf. Matthew 24:13; 2 Peter 1:10f)."

          The text from Hebrews addresses people who knowingly and willingly reject the atonement for sin that God has provided in Christ. It is about persevering in the faith, not purification of souls after death. The author of Hebrews addresses an audience who professes Christ, without providing specific commentary on how things work in the afterlife. The text from Matthew is descriptive, not prescriptive, in nature. The text from 2 Peter simply gives us a picture of what takes place in sanctification. It does not concern the instance of justification before God.

          "...the final step into heaven would require us to be perfectly purified and made completely holy through Christ’s grace, since the church in heaven, where "nothing unclean can enter" contains holy and perfected people (cf. Matthew 5:48; Hebrews 12:14, 23; 1 Thess 5:23; Eph 5:26f; Rev 21:27). So we DO "need to be purified" according to Scripture (cf. Mal 3:2-3; 1 Peter 1:6-9; 1 Cor 3:12-15; Hebrews 12:29), and Christ's one sacrifice is the application of that final purification and sanctification necessary for heaven -- which Catholics call "purgatory."

          Certainly, we must persevere in faith. It is true that nothing impure can enter heaven. However, the point of contention is whether good works are to be seen as meritorious. Christians are forgiven of their sins by God and covered in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. In this sense, He already sees us as perfect in His sight. Purgatory is something created by Roman Catholicism to meet a need that does not exist. This place exists only in the minds of people who choose to believe in it.

          "There is no evidence in Scripture of the infamous mantra “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” (some say it is implied in 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 which actually reads: "we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord" -- RSV). There is often desire to be away from the body and be with Christ, but what believer wouldn’t desire this?"

           In context, Paul sets forth a contrast between an earthly "tent" that is subject to destruction and an eternal "tent" prepared for us by God (2 Corinthians 5:1). He is speaking in reference to our bodies. He speaks of the believer's longing to be "clothed" with a glorified body rather than being "in this house" (2 Corinthians 5:2). Paul says that we shall not be "naked," but clothed in heavenly glory (2 Corinthians 5:3). We are troubled in our mortal bodies, but will put on life and immortality at the final resurrection. This context is full of contrasts between the temporal and eternal realms. We walk by faith, not sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). Paul clearly sets up a twofold division between absence and presence here (2 Corinthians 5:6-8). It is, therefore, ignorant to assert that this "famous mantra" has "no evidence in Scripture."

          "...If this argument is turned around on the Protestant who uses Church history, it hurts him even more. What about those prayers for the dead? Of course they are depicted as being in a place of happiness! They were going to heaven! Nowhere does the Catholic Church deny this. There is also the Latin used, which Webster says only refers to “refreshment” or to “refresh.”

           The view of purgatory that has been a tradition of Roman Catholicism for centuries is that it is a place of intense suffering to satisfy divine justice. According to this view, it is anything but pleasant. In Catholic theology, purgatory exists for people to make atonement for the remaining guilt of venial sin committed during their earthly lives. Purgatory has been described as a sin purifying fire. For example, the Douay-Rheims Challoner Version has this excerpt in its Table of References, "Purgatory, or a middle state of souls, suffering for a time, is proved by those many texts which affirm that God will render to every man according to his works: so that such as die in lesser sins shall not escape without punishment..." It is from this point of view that authors like Webster have critiqued the dogma of purgatory. Catholic apologists who describe purgatory in terms of peace, bliss, and excitement are not representing historic belief. Moreover, primitive writers such as Clement of Rome and Polycarp refer to Christians as being in heaven without even the slightest hint as to the existence of purgatory.

Of Inequality

Plutarch somewhere says that he finds no such great difference between beast and beast as between man and man. He speaks of the mind and internal qualities. I could find in my heart to say there is more difference between one man and another than between such a man and such a beast; and that there are as many degrees of spirits as steps between earth and heaven.

But concerning the estimation of men, it is marvellous that we ourselves are the only things not esteemed for their proper qualities. We commend a horse for his strength and speed, not for his trappings; a greyhound for his swiftness, not his collar; a hawk for her wing, not for her bells. Why do we not likewise esteem a man for that which is his own? He has a goodly train of followers, a stately palace, so much rent coming in, so much credit among men. Alas, all that is about him, not in him. If you buy a horse you see him bare of saddle and cloths. When you judge of a man, why consider his wrappings only? In a sword it is the quality of the blade, not the value of the scabbard, to which you give heed. A man should be judged by what he is himself, not by his appurtenances. 

Let him lay aside his riches and external honours and show himself in his shirt. Has he a sound body? What mind has he? Is it fair, capable, and unpolluted, and happily equipped in all its parts? Is it a mind to be settled, equable, contented, and courageous in any circumstances? Is he-

 A wise man, of himself commander high, Whom want, nor death, nor bands can terrify, Resolved t'affront desires, honours to scorn, All in himself, close, round, and neatly borne, Against whose front externals idly play, And even fortune makes a lame essay? 

Such a man is five hundred degrees beyond kingdoms and principalities; himself is a kingdom unto himself. Compare with him the vulgar troop--stupid, base, servile, warring, floating on the sea of passions, depending wholly on others. There is more difference than between heaven and earth, yet in a blindness of custom we take little or no account of it. Whereas, if we consider a cottage and a king, a noble and a workman, a rich man and a poor, we at once recognise disparity, although, as one might say, they differ in nothing but their clothes. 

An emperor, whose pomp so dazzles us in public, view him behind the curtain is but an ordinary man, and peradventure viler and sillier than the least of his subjects! Cowardice, irresolution, ambition, spite, anger, envy, move and work in him as in another man. Fear, care, and suspicion haunt him even in the midst of his armed troops. Does the ague, the headache, or the gout spare him more than us? When age seizes on his shoulders, can the tall yeoman of his guard rid him of it? His bedstead encased with gold and pearls cannot allay the pinching pangs of colic!

The flatterers of Alexander the Great assured him he was the son of Jupiter, but being hurt one day, and the blood gushing from the wound, "What think you of this?" said he to them. "Is not this blood of a lively red hue, and merely human?" If a king have the ague or the gout what avail his titles of majesty? But if he be a man of worth, royalty and glorious titles will add but little to good fortune.

Truly, to see our princes all alone, sitting at their meat, though beleaguered with talkers, whisperers, and gazing beholders, I have often rather pitied than envied them. The honour we receive from those who fear and stand in awe of us is no true honour.

"Service holds few, though many hold service." Every man's manners and his mind His fortune for him frame and find.

Of the Inequality that is Between Us, Michel de Montaigne 

The World's Greatest Books (Philosophy and Economics), Vol. XIV, p. 68-70