dogma; for there is another view in which the phraseology of this text is incompatible with the Papal doctrine of purgatory. If the Romanist supposes that our Lord, by excepting the sin against the Holy Ghost from forgiveness in the world to come, intimates that some sins are not excepted from forgiveness in the world to come, it will follow, on the same principle, that all other sins may be pardoned in the world to come. For the sin against the Holy Ghost is the only sin he has excepted; and if that sin, which is here formally excepted, is the only one unpardonable in the world to come, then it follows that all others may be pardoned in the world to come. On this principle it follows that the hell of eternal misery is for none except those who sin against the Holy Ghost! This is the legitimate conclusion which flows from the principle of the Papist's reasoning; and while it is contradicted by the whole tenor of Scripture, it is contradicted also by the Papist's own doctrine of purgatory. He does not admit that all other sins, except the sin against the Holy Ghost, may be either forgiven or expiated in the world to come. On the contrary, he maintains, as we have shown before, that all who die in mortal sin go direct to hell, to be punished everlastingly; that all such are excluded not only from heaven, but from purgatory itself, and consigned to hopeless, irrevocable and eternal misery. Thus, the text is incompatible with any principle of argument which would torture it in favour of purgatory. It inflexibly refuses to yield its assent to the Papal fiction.

The true meaning of the passage we believe to be simply this: that the sin against the Holy Ghost should never be forgiven-that those who committed it should be totally and for ever excluded from the divine mercy. What that particular sin was, it is not our object to investigate at length. We believe it was a wilful and determined resistance of the evidence afforded by the Saviour's miraculous works, and a malignant ascription of those works to a diabolical agency, as when the Pharisees said of Christ," He casteth out devils by the power of Beelzebub, the prince of devils." This sin involved such determined resistance to the clearest evidence, and such an audacious insult to the truth, the love, and the majesty of the Holy Spirit, as excluded men for ever from the divine mercy, and led the Redeemer himself to declare that it should never be forgiven.

The phrase "Neither in this world, neither in the world to come," is supposed by some commentators to refer to the two dispensations-the Jewish economy which existed then, and the Christian economy which was soon to be established. The original will bear this construction, but we think the words were used merely as a strong negative expression, and intended to express emphatically that forgiveness was never to be obtained. This phrase was used as a proverbial expression among the Jews, and it was intended to indicate emphatically that a thing should never take place, when it was said, "It shall not be either in this world or in the world to come." We have, however, a more weighty reason for regarding the proper meaning to be that which we have stated-namely, the fact that it is supported and borne out by parallel passages. The Scriptures are the best and safest interpreters of their own meaning; and when the same thing is asserted in various forms in other passages, there can be little difficulty in ascertaining the true sense intended. Thus, in the preceding verse, our Lord utters the same solemn truth in the form of a simple negative, "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.' In the Gospel by Mark, the same awful truth is given in another form, expressing both an exclusion from pardon and an exposure to eternal damnation. "He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is subject to eternal damnation."* (iii. 29.) In Luke the same awful truth is expressed by a simple negative: "And whosoever shall speak a word against

* The word "voxós is feebly rendered in our translation by the word "danger." The meaning of the word is bound, liable, obnoxious, subject to punishment.

the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but to him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven." (xii. 10.) These parallel passages preclude all doubt as to the true meaning of our Lord's words. They show that he intended most emphatically to declare that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is a sin for which there is no forgiveness, no hope of mercy. Thus the Papal figment of purgatory finds no countenance in the passages we have considered.

The fact is, the dogma of purgatory was not originally based on this scripture; but after it had become established as an element of Papal theology, Papal commentators and doctors, eager to find some scriptural countenance for their notion, availed themselves of every peculiar phrase or turn of speech which a perverse ingenuity could torture into their service. Hence we find that early Fathers of the Church neither gave this passage the modern Papal application, nor intimated that any such use was made of it by other writers. Hilary remarks, that Christ in this passage" condemns. the perverseness of the Pharisees with marked severity, promising the pardon. of all sins, but withholding indulgence or mercy from blasphemy against the Spirit. For whereas other words and deeds are freely pardoned, the denial of God in Christ is shut out from mercy."* Ambrose remarks that "whosoever shall not receive the remission of sins in this world, will not be in heaven." Jerome, in his commentary on this passage, gives precisely the same interpretation as Protestants in general, affirming, “Whosoever shall ascribe the works of the Saviour to Beelzebub, the Prince of the Devils, and shall say that the Son of God hath an unclean spirit, his blasphemy shall at no time be forgiven." Chrysostom, in his homily on this text, asserts, "Your blasphemy will be unpardonable, and ye will suffer punishment both here and hereafter."§ These comments are substantially the same as the interpretation which we have given of the passage. From the whole argument we think it will be evident to every unprejudiced mind, that the notion of purgatory derives not the least sanction from this portion of Scripture: and the fact of its being adduced in favour of the doctrine reveals the consciousness which Romanists must feel of the extreme weakness of their cause. Although Cardinal Bellarmine quotes this passage in favour of purgatory, yet, in concluding, he confesses, "Non sequi secundum regulas dialectorum"-the doctrine does not logically follow from this passage.

SURELY THIS INIQUITY SHALL NOT BE PURGED FROM YOU TILL YE DIE.-ISAIAH XXII. 14.

Another passage sometimes quoted in favour of purgatory is Isaiah xxii. 14. "Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die, saith the Lord God of Hosts." Much prominence, however, is not given to this portion of Scripture, nor great stress laid upon it by the Romanists; and this fact may be regarded as indicating a feeling that it is not much calculated to strengthen their cause. As there is here no mention made of purgatory, nor even of a future world, Papal doctors find it a difficult task to extort from it even an indirect inference in favour of the dogma; yet, because it is here declared that one specified instance of iniquity should not be purged from certain Jews until they died, it is argued that the iniquity should be purged from them after death. This, however, is a conclusion without premises-an inference without analogy, example, or any description of evidence to give it the least shadow of probability. The principle on which this inference is drawn is this: that anything which God says he will not do in this world we are authorized to expect he will do in the next; or what he declares shall not transpire at one period shall take place at another; than which

* Hilar. Pictav. comment. in Matt. xii. 31, col. 671. Paris, 1693. + Ambros. de Bono Mortis, cap. ii., sec. 5, tom. i., col. 391. D. Paris, 1686. Lib. ii., tom. iv., col. 49, 50. Paris, 1706.

§ Tom. i., p. 475. Paris, 1636.

mode of reasoning nothing can be more puerile or absurd-nothing more indicative of ignorance respecting the phraseology of Scripture. To show its palpable absurdity, let it be applied in a few instances. In one place God says to his Son, "Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Are we then to infer that after Christ's enemies are subdued he will no longer sit at his Father's right hand? The same particle is used in both passages. Our Lord says, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law of God. Are we, then, to suppose that after the heavens and earth have passed away God's nature will change, and the principles of his government will be abrogated? The same phraseology is applied to human transactions. Paul, writing to Timothy, thus exhorts him: "Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine, and neglect not the gift that is in thee." Are we, then, to suppose that after Paul should come to him he was to give up reading, exhortation, and doctrine, and neglect the gift that was in him? Puerile and superlatively ridiculous as these inferences are, they are precisely such as Popish Doctors draw from the passage under consideration, when they contend that, because God declared concerning some wicked Jews that their sins should not be purged till they died, therefore they should be purged after death.

A moment's consideration of the context will show that the sin which these Jews had committed, the judgment denounced against them, and the period of its fulfilment, are such as totally exclude the possibility of the application of the words to purgatory in any shape or form. These Jews were not ordinary transgressors, but openly licentious and daring rebels against God. They were characters habitually revelling in the practice of what the Church of Rome denominates "mortal sins." They were persons openly and notoriously wicked, such as the Church of Rome herself consigns at once to hell without the benefit of her purgatory. When God admonished them, they despised him; when he commanded them to humble themselves by repentance and fasting, they insulted him by feasting and banqueting. (Verses 12, 13.) And such, indeed, were their crimes, that Jehovah solemnly denounces his judgments against them, and declares that his vengeance should pursue them even unto death. Unconcerned at the solemn message of the Almighty, they contemptuously and presumptuously said, one to another, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." (Verse 13.) Then the prophet immediately adds, And it was revealed in mine ears by the Lord of Hosts, Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die, saith the Lord God of Hosts"—that is, he would cause his visible displeasure to rest upon them to the latest period of life; his judgments should pursue them until not one should be left on the land of the living. Seeing, then, it is maintained by the Church of Rome that only the pious, and the godly, such as fear God and obtain forgiveness in this life, are admitted to purgatory, it is evident that, on her own principles, the doctrine can derive no support from this portion of Scripture.

66

THE PARABLE OF THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS.-LUKE XVI. 19—31. Another passage adduced by Papal divines is that containing the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke xvi. 19-31. Bishop Milner asks, "What place must that be which our Saviour calls Abraham's bosom, where the soul of Lazarus reposed among the other just souls, till he by his sacred passion paid their ransom? Not heaven, otherwise Dives would have addressed himself to God instead of Abraham; but evidently a middle state."*

This is a remarkable piece of theology, one every way worthy of a Roman prelate. It is a kind of literary curiosity. The place which the learned bishop has chosen for purgatory is singular enough— place of comfort and

* Milner's "End of Controversy," letter iv., p. 369.

enjoyinent, a place where Lazarus reclines on Abraham's bosom, in an attitude of peace, contentment, satisfaction and honour. On earth he received "evil things"-poverty, affliction and degradation-but in purgatory his condition is amazingly improved; he is " comforted," honoured and blessed. What a different place is the purgatory of Milner from the purgatory of Catholic divines in general! Delahogue, whose theological writings are used as a class-book at Maynooth College, says that "theologians commonly believe that souls are tortured in some kind of fire." The Romish Catechism maintains that "the punishment of purgatory surpasses all temporal punishments of this life." And Cardinal Bellarmine asserts that "the Fathers constantly teach that the punishments of purgatory are most excruciating, and that no pains of this life are to be compared with them." With such contradictions before us, the question need scarcely be put, Which of these authorities is true?-but, rather, is it not presumptive that they are all false together? This is certain if the testimony of Milner be true, purgatory is a place of so much blessedness that we cannot distinguish it from heaven itself, and none need fear admission to its happy abode, much less pay for masses to be delivered from its pains.

The purgatory of Bishop Milner is remarkable as a place frequented by holy angels; for we are informed by the Saviour that "when Lazarus died, he was carried by angels to Abraham's bosom." Now the common description of purgatory is that of a fiery prison or gloomy dungeon, where devils in odious forms are the tormentors of human souls, but that of Dr. Milner is a peaceful Elysium to which angels soar, and is known by the mild and attractive designation of " Abraham's bosom"-a name indicative of neither fires, smoke, nor furies, but of paradisaical peace, honour and enjoyment.

It is remarkable, too, that Bishop Milner contrives to put the most illus. trious patriarch, Abraham, in purgatory. Other Papal writers tell us that purgatory is for imperfect characters, who leave the world with stains and defilement, unfitting them for immediate admission to heaven; but Dr. Milner selects the noblest pattern of faith and obedience furnished in the Old Testament, and consigns him to purgatory with the rest. When the penitent thief expired, though he found mercy at the eleventh hour, his spirit was admitted at once to paradise; but Abraham, the father of the faithful and the friend of God, after walking with God for nearly a century, is unceremoniously sent to the regions of purgatory. Really, this bishop seems to know the destiny of the patriarch much better than the inspired writers do; for they uniformly speak of not only Abraham, but also his less eminent descendants, Isaac and Jacob, as being in the kingdom of heaven. If, therefore, we believe the Scriptures, we must reject the bishop's reasoning as puerile, and his purgatory as a fiction.

The reason which the bishop assigns for his believing the abode of Abraham and Lazarus to be purgatory is also remarkably sagacious! What is it? He says, had they been in heaven, Dives would have addressed himself to God instead of Abraham; therefore they were evidently in purgatory. That such a reason may satisfy Dr. Milner's mind we do not for a moment question, for he seems to possess an enormous capacity for credulity; but men of common minds will hardly deem the conduct of the rich man in praying to Abraham and not to God a conclusive evidence of a purgatory. Indeed, if the Papal custom of praying to saints be a good one on earth, why should the bishop think it strange in Dives praying to a saint when in hell? Was not the conduct of Dives perfectly orthodox? Is it not sanctioned by the bishop's own example? Dives saw the patriarch when he prayed to him, but Romanists pray to saints whom they never see! On the principles of Romanism, Dives was perfectly right in praying to a saint, and deserves the bishop's commendation for a practice so tho* Delahogue, de Pœnitentia, p. 394. + Catech. ad Paroch., p. 74. Lugd., 1579. Bellarm. Opera, tom. 2; de Pargat. lib. 2, cap. xiv.

Colon. 1628.

P

roughly orthodox and proper. It is worthy of notice that the only instance of praying to saints recorded in the whole Bible is that of Dives praying to Abraham. If, therefore, the Romish doctors want Scripture example for their practice, here it is, though it is the only instance, and they have to go to the bottomless pit to find it. If they will have such infernal patronage we are sorry for them; and the poor success of the rich man's prayers to Abraham affords them but small encouragement to follow his example.

We may safely dismiss the bishop's remarkable comment on this parable, by observing: First, the design of the Saviour in contrasting the eternal condition of Dives and Lazarus was not to show that one was in hell and the other next door to it-in purgatory-but to show that while the one was in hell the other was in heaven. Secondly, the state of comfort and enjoy. ment realized by Lazarus proves him to be in heaven, and is totally incompatible with the doleful regions and excruciating pains of purgatory; and, thirdly, the Scriptures repeatedly and expressly speak of Abraham as being in heaven: Our Lord himself has declared, "I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven." (Luke viii. 11.) These facts exclude the possibility of the Papal bishop rationally appropriating this parable to subserve the cause of purgatory.

66

"AND THERE SHALL IN NO CASE ENTER ANY THING THAT DEFILETH," ETC. REV. XXI. 27.

Another passage urged on behalf of purgatory is contained in Revelation xxi. 27" And there shall in no wise enter into it (the new Jerusalem) anything that defileth, neither worketh abomination, or maketh a lie; but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." Here again, however, no direct evidence is adduced, but, as usual, we are presented with an inference. It is urged that, inasmuch as it is asserted that nothing that defileth shall enter the new Jerusalem, and as no one, except apostles, martyrs, and those who die immediately after baptism, can leave the world without some stain or defilement, there must be some place in which the soul is purged from its stains, and made meet for glory. If this reasoning were sound, surely, in connexion with such a statement as the one before us in this passage, there ought to be at least some intimation that there is such a place as purgatory, where this purification can be effected for us. Indeed, this passage, which speaks so plainly of the state of souls in the eternal world, and which so pointedly excludes all from heaven but those who are free from all defilement, is one of the most likely places where some intimation should be found respecting a purgatory, if there be such a place. To declare that nothing that defileth can enter heaven, and yet, if there be a place of purification, to leave us without a single intimation of its existence, is by no means probable. Yet in vain do we search the passage through for a hint of such a place. The same ominous silence prevails here as elsewhere. Neither here nor in any other part of Scripture can we find any mention or hint of the place which the Romanist regards as so necessary for our purification. Heaven and hell are constantly spoken of, the invisible world is constantly laid upon to our view, the eternal state of the righteous and the state of the wicked are presented in almost every page of the New Testament, and especially in the book of Revelation; yet this purgatory is never seen, never mentioned, never hinted at. Is not this marvellous, if there be a purgatory? Indeed, the constant silence of Scripture respecting a purgatory can only be rationally accounted for by the fact that no such place has existence.

But let us look at the premises on which the Romanist concludes that the existence of a purgatory is rational. He says that none but apostles, martyrs, and those who die immediately after baptism, leave the world without some stain of moral defilement, and therefore a place of post mor