"Ye meu,

the passage before us is quoted and applied by Peter and by Paul, and the use they make of it will guide us in its interpretation. If the passage speak of purgatory at all, we shall surely find it here; for it is quoted by the apostles for the express purpose of showing its literal fulfilment in the person of Christ. Let us, then, carefully attend to the apostles' words; and, to obviate the charge of unfairness or partiality, we shall quote from the Roman Catholic version. Peter, addressing the Jews, says, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the Patriarch David; that he died and was buried, and his sepulchre is with us to this present day. Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne; foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up again, whereof we are all witnesses." (Acts ii. 29-32.) By the Apostle Paul also the passage is quoted in part, and applied in the following address to the Jews: "And we declare unto you that the promise which was made to our fathers, this same God hath fulfilled to our children, raising up Jesus, as in the second Psalm also it is written: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. And to show that he raised him up from the dead, not to return now any more to corruption, he said thus: I will give you the holy things of David faithful. And therefore in another place also he saith: Thou shalt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. For David, when he had served in his generation according to the will of God, slept; and was laid unto his fathers and saw corruption. But he whom God hath raised up from the dead saw no corruption." (Acts xiii. 32—37.) *

Here, then, we have two apostles quoting the passage, expatiating upon it, and showing its application and fulfilment. Therefore, if the words of the Psalmist had any reference to purgatory, these are the places where we should find it. But here again we search in vain for the doctrine. Not one word by either Peter or Paul about a middle state, or purgatorial fires, or venial sins, or souls visited by Christ in limbo, or rescued from suffering by his descent. On all subjects connected with a state or place corresponding to purgatory there is a perfect silence. The only application the apostles make of the passage in question is to prove that it referred not to David, but to the resurrection of Christ, and was fulfilled by that glorious event. From the evidence before us, then, it is conclusive that neither the text itself, nor the parallel passages in which the text is quoted, expounded, and applied, contain any reference to purgatory. Whatever may be the meaning of the passage, it affords no support to the Papal doctrine of a middle state of purgation.

Before we present our own explanation of the peculiar phraseology employed by the Psalmist, it may be proper to notice the several interpretations which have been given by others.

1. Some have imagined that the prophecy means that Christ should go literally into hell, and there suffer for a time the pains of the damned, in order to complete his atonement for sin. As the curse of sin extends to the future world, exposing the soul to the wrath of God in hell, the advocates of this opinion suppose that in order to our Lord's being a perfect substitute, a vicarious victim for sinners, it was necessary that he should place himself in the sinner's state in hell, and suffer for him there as well as upon earth. This view was held by Calvin and others.

To this erroneous opinion we reply: The worth and satisfaction of Christ's atonement is not to be estimated merely by the degree of his sufferings, or their duration, but as combined with the dignity and glory of his person; and he being infinitely glorious, the merit of his atoning work on earth is infinite, and there was no need for his sufferings in the future world. Besides, the notion is unscriptural. There is no part of the sacred volume which represents

* Rhemish version, Dublin, 1837, published by authority.

that Christ should suffer in the future world for sinners. On the contrary, the salvation of mankind is always ascribed to his passion and death on the cross. We are said to be "justified by his blood," and "reconciled to God by the death of his son." Moreover, the same scriptures affirm that the work of atonement was completed by his death on the cross. (Hebrews ix., 25-28; x., 12, 14.) When the Saviour was expiring on the cross, he exclaimed, “It is finished," and bowed his head and gave up the ghost. At that moment the atonement was completed, and his sufferings were ended. 2. Others have contended that Christ literally descended into hell, yet not to suffer there the pains of the damned, but to satisfy the law of death. This is the view held by Bishop Pearson in his work on the creed. He says, that as Christ appeared on earth in the similitude of sinful flesh, he went into the other world in the similitude of a sinner, and his soul went to hell, in order to satisfy the law of death.

This opinion is not so revolting as the former, but we strongly object to it as inconsistent and unscriptural, and we are of opinion that the good bishop was induced to adopt it more from the "creed" than the Scriptures. It could not be necessary for Christ to enter hell that he might satisfy the law of death, for that law he had satisfied by submitting to death. Nor did our Lord enter the other world, as the bishop states, "as a sinner." He died as a "sin-offering," but not as a sinner. He entered eternity as the beloved Son of God, who was well pleased with him for his righteousness' sake, and his perfect atonement on the cross. When dying, he commended his departing spirit into the hands of his loving Father; and to the expiring thief he said, "This day shalt thou be with me (not in hell but) in paradise.' It is remarkable that throughout the whole argument the good bishop never mentions the passage just quoted from the dying words of our Lord. The fact that Christ went directly to paradise on the very day of his crucifixion sets aside all the bishop's reasoning about the Saviour's going to hell to satisfy the law of death.

3. Another view held by some divines is, that our Lord descended into hell to take possession of the infernal dominions, and there to triumph over Satan and his angels. This is the view advocated by Richard Watson, and is founded partly upon the Psalmist's words, in Psalm xvi. 10, and upon those passages in Eph. iv. 8, and Col. ii. 15, where the apostle speaks of Christ spoiling principalities and powers, making a show of them, openly triumphing over them, leading captivity captive, &c. These representations, he thinks, imply a personal descent to the regions of the damned, and a public exhibition of personal triumph, &c. With all due deference to this able divine, we differ from his interpretation. We think the language in Psalm xvi. 10, "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell," does not comport with his being there in triumph. It seems to be rather expressive, either of a state of suffering, or at least of some disadvantageous state, from which he desired to be delivered; and he rejoices in the assurance that he should be delivered therefrom: "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell." Then, as to his taking possession of hell as a part of his dominion, it was not necessary that the Redeemer's soul should descend to that locality for such a purpose; for already his spiritual presence filled immensity. Christ is said to fill all things as Mediatorial Governor, and all worlds are put under his dominion, but we never suppose that this mediatorial dominion renders it necessary for his human soul to go to every part of the universe. Besides, it does not appear that Satan and all his angels were locally in hell at the time. Satan and myriads of his angels were on earth during the Redeemer's sufferings. Satan entered Judas and tempted the Redeemer in Gethsemane, and legions of those fallen spirits were going to and fro on the earth and walking up and down therein; so that to triumph over them personally and locally did not require the soul of the Redeemer to enter the regions of hell. Moreover, the time of the Saviour's triumph over the powers of darkness had not arrived before his

resurrection. Death was an enemy he had yet to vanquish, and, as Satan is said to have had the power over death, he could not as yet be vanquished. To triumph over these Christ's resurrection was essential. How, then, could he lead captivity captive, when as yet his body was a prisoner in the tomb? How could he spoil principalities and powers, and make a show of them openly, when as yet he himself was under the dominion of death and the grave? The grand event which was to declare him conqueror and proclaim the perfection of his triumph was yet wanting. When the resurrection took place there was a glorious triumph; it was then manifest to earth, to heaven and hell, that his atonement was accepted, and his power as the conqueror and destroyer of hell was proclaimed. ` Hell knew this and felt it; and saw in the risen Redeemer that all was lost, and their defeat completed. And when the Redeemer ascended on high he led captivity captive-his own body, once dead, was now alive and glorified, and death, hell, principalities and powers were spoiled and trampled in the dust.

(To be concluded in our next.)

MISCELLANEOUS ARTICLES, ANECDOTES, &c.

CONSIDERATIONS ON THE PREVAILING CUSTOM OF VISITING ON SUNDAYS.

MR. EDITOR, MY DEAR SIR,-I lately met with the following essay on Sunday visiting, published in the last number of the "Literary Magazine," July, 1758. This magazine was begun in May, 1756, and was avowedly supported by the pen of Dr. Johnson, but was discontinued as above, being succeeded by "The Grand Magazine of Magazines." If you think, from its intrinsic merit, that it deserves a place in our magazine, I shall be glad to see its sentiments more widely spread, Yours truly,

J. HORNER.

The sentiments here offered against the prevailing custom of profaning the Sabbath will probably be a satisfaction to every serious reader, and be productive of much good, especially as it is in everybody's power to reform one; and then his own conduct will be a tacit reproof to his acquaintance, who may probably, through his example, be induced to weigh these proceedings attentively, and no longer "follow a multitude to do evil." It is certainly a matter of importance to inquire, whether Sunday visits are justifiable on the principle of Scripture and of reason; as the conscientious observation of the Sabbath has of late years been so much disregarded, and it is now become the principal day of visiting

among persons of all ranks. The chief advocates for the continuance of such a practice should, methinks, defend it publicly, that their argu ments may be properly examined, if (in their opinion) such a custom can admit of any rational defence; and those who are sufficiently convinced by what is here advanced, should resolve to discontinue Sunday visits themselves, and discountenance them in others, as far as they can consistently with decency and prudence. That the number of such well-disposed persons may be daily increased is undoubtedly the hearty wish of everyone who is sincerely desirous of promoting the glory of God and the good of mankind.

Question. Whether it be right for truly serious persons to visit on Sunday?

The persons here mentioned are the truly serious. As to many people, it matters not whether they are at home or abroad. God is not in all their thoughts; they have no concern for their eternal welfare; they therefore are in every place altogether and alike unprofitable. But when we begin to discern the things that are excellent; when we sincerely desire to "obtain salvation, with eternal glory, by Jesus Christ," then,