Gregory Nazianzen. "Let us commend to God our own souls, and the souls of those who, as men more advanced on the same road, have arrived before us at their resting place."—Orat. in Cæsar. fin.

Ambrose. "Therefore she is, I think, not so much to be lamented as to be followed with your prayers; she is not to be mourned over with your tears, but rather her soul is to be commended to God by your oblations."—Ep. ii. 8. ad Faustinum. Vid. also de ob. Theod., &c. &c.

Jerome. "Other husbands scatter on their wives' graves violets, roses, lilies, and purple flowers; but our Pammachius waters her holy ashes and reverend relics with the balsams of almsgiving; with such embellishments and perfumes he honours the sleeping remains, knowing what is written, As water quenches fire, so doth alms sin.'"-Ad Pammach.

Chrysostom. "The dead is aided not by tears, but by prayers, by supplications, by alms. . . . . Let us not weary in giving aid to the dead, offering prayers for them."-Hom. 41. in 1. ad Cor.

Again. "Not without purpose has it been ordained by the Apostles, that in the awful Mysteries a commemoration should be made of the dead; for they know that thence much gain accrues to them, much advantage."-Hom. 69. ad pop. Vid. also Hom. 32. in Matt. In Joan. Hom. 84. In Philipp. 3. In Act. Apost. 21.

Paulinus, writing to Delphinus, Bishop of Bordeaux: "Do thy diligence that he may be granted to thee, and that from the least of thy sacred fingers the dews of refreshment may sprinkle his soul."

Augustine. "We read in the book of Maccabees that sacrifice was offered for the dead; but though it were not even found in the Old Scriptures, the authority of the universal Church is not slight, which is explicit as to this custom, viz. that in the Priests' prayers which are offered to the LORD GOD at His altar, the commendation of the dead is included."-De Cur. pro mortuis, c. ii. et alibi.

Theodoret (Hist. v. 26.) mentions that Theodosius the younger fell down at the tomb of St. John Chrysostom, and prayed for the souls of his parents, then dead, Arcadius and Eudoxia.

Isidore. "Unless the Church Catholic believed that sins are remitted to the dead in Christ, she would not do alms, or offer sacrifice to God for their spirits."-De off. div. i. 18.

Gregory the Great. "Much profiteth souls even after death the sacred oblation of the lifegiving Sacrifice, so that the souls of the dead themselves sometimes seem to ask for it."-Dial. iv. 55.

Again: "They who are not weighed down by grievous sins, are profited after death by burial in the Church, because that their relatives, whenever they come to the same sacred places, remember their own kin whose tombs they behold, and pray to the LORD for them."

It is evident that the above passages go no way to prove the point in debate, being nothing more in fact than Ussher allows to be found in the early Fathers. They contain the musings of serious minds feeling a mystery, and attempting to solve it, at least by conjecture. They state that prayers benefit the dead in Christ, but how is either not mentioned, or vaguely, or hesitatingly, or discordantly. Accordingly, Bellarmine begins anew, and draws out a series of authorities for the doctrine of Purgatory expressly; and this certainly demands our attention more than the former. It contains such as the following:

For instance, Origen says that "he who is saved, is saved by fire, that if he has any alloy of lead, the fire may melt and separate it, that all may become pure gold."—Hom. 6. in Exod.

Tertullian speaks of our being "committed into the prison beneath, which will detain us till every small offence is expiated, during the delay of the resurrection."-De Anim. 17.

Cyprian contrasts the being purged by torment in fire, and by martyrdom.-Epist. iv. 2.

Gregory Nazianzen speaks of the last Baptism being "one of fire, not only more bitter, but longer than the first Baptism."In Sancta lum. circ. fin.

Ambrose speaks of our being "saved through faith, as if through fire," which will be a trial under which grievous sinners will fall, while others will pass safe through it.-In Ps. xxxvi.

Basil speaks of the " Purgatorial fire," in cap. ix. Isa.

Gregory Nyssen, of "our recovering our lost happiness by

prayer and religiousness in this life, or after death by the purgatorial fire."-Orat. pro Mort. Elsewhere too he speaks of the Purgatorial fire.

Eusebius Emissenus uses such determined words, as to require quoting. "This punishment under the earth will await those, who, having lost instead of preserving their Baptism, will perish for ever; whereas those who have done deeds calling for temporal punishments, shall pass over the fiery river and that fearful water the drops of which are fire."

Hilary declares that we have to undergo "that ever-living fire, which is a punishment of the soul in cleansing of sin."-In Ps. cxviii. Lactantius speaks to the same effect.—Div, Inst. vii. 21.

Jerome contrasts the eternal torments of the devil, and of atheists and infidels, with "the judgment tempered with mercy, of sinners and ungodly men, yet Christian, whose works are to be tried purified in the fire."-In fin. comment. in Is. In another place in a like contrast he speaks of Christians, if overtaken in a fault, being saved after punishment.-Lib. i. in Pelag.

Augustine has various passages in point, such as Civ. Dei, xxi. 24, where, speaking of believers who die with lighter sins, he says, "It is certain that these being purified before the day of judgment by means of temporal punishment, which their souls suffer, are not to be given over to eternal fire." Pope Gregory the first expresses the same doctrine, as do some others.

These instances are at first sight to the point, and demand serious consideration. Yet there is nothing in them really to alarm the inquirer whither he is being carried. I say this, that no one may be surprised at the deliberateness and over-patience with which I may seem to loiter over the explanation of them. First, then, let it be observed, were they ever so strong in favour of something more than we believe, it does not therefore follow that they take that very view which the Romanists take, nay, it does not necessarily follow that they take any one view at all, or agree with each other. Now it so happens neither the one or the other of these suppositions is true, as regards those passages, though they ought both to hold, if the Roman doctrine is to be

satisfactorily maintained. These Fathers, whatever they teach, do not teach Purgatory, they do not teach any one view at all on the subject. Romanists consider Purgatory to be an article of faith, necessary to be believed in order to salvation; or in Bellarmine's words, " Purgatory is an article of faith, so that he who disbelieves its existence, will never have experience of it, but will be tormented in hell with everlasting fire." Now it can only be an article of faith, supposing it is held by Antiquity, and that unanimously. For such things only are we allowed to maintain, as come to us from the Apostles; and that only (ordinarily speaking) has evidence of so originating, which is witnessed by a number of independent witnesses in the early Church. We must have the unanimous "consent of Doctors," as an assurance that the Apostles have spoken; and much less can we tolerate their actual disagreement, in a case where unanimity was promised us. Now as regards Purgatory, not only are early writers silent as to the modern view of Rome, but they do not agree with each other; which proves they knew little more about the matter than ourselves, whatever they might conjecture; that they possessed no Apostolic Tradition, only at most entertained floating opinions on the subject. Nay, it is obvious, if we wished to believe them, we could not; for what is it we are to believe? If, as I shall show, various writers speak various things, which of their statements is to be taken? If this or that, it is but the language of an individual: if all of them at once, a doctrine results, discordant in its details, and in general outline, if it have any, vague and imperfect at the best.

Now as to the passages quoted by Bellarmine, it will be observed that in the number are extracts from the works of Origen, St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, St. Jerome, and Lactantius. He introduces the list with these words, "Sunt apertissima loca in Patribus, ubi asserunt Purgatorium, quorum pauca quædam afferam," i. 10. "There are most perspicuous passages in the Fathers, in which they assert Purgatory, of which I will adduce some few." Will it be believed that in his second book these Fathers, nay, for the most part in the very extracts, which he has before adduced in proof of the doctrine, are enumerated as at variance with

it, and mistaken in their notion of it? He quotes a passage of Origen, (not the same) the very same two passages from St. Ambrose, the very same passage from St. Hilary, the very same from Lactantius, and a passage (not the same) from St. Jerome. Then he says, "Hæc sententia, accepta ut sonat, manifestum errorem continet; for" (he proceeds) "it is defined in the Council of Florence, &c." ii. 1. Next he observes, "Adde, quod Patres adducti, Origene excepto..... videntur sano modo intelligi posse." At length after he has given the two most favourable explanations assignable to their words, he adds of one of the two, "Sane hanc sententiam [quæ docet omnes transituros per ignem, licet non omnes lædendi sint ab igne] nec auderem pro vera asserere, nec ut errorem improbare." "The only alleviation of this strange inconsistency," says a work which has recently appeared, "is that he quotes not the very same sentences both for and against his Church, but adjoining ones." The work referred to, thus comments on Bellarmine's conduct, as throwing light upon the state of feeling under which Romanists engage in controversy. "A Romanist," the writer says, 66 cannot really argue in defence of the Roman doctrines. He has too firm a confidence in their truth, if he is sincere in his profession, to enable him critically to adjust the due weight to be given to this or that evidence. He assumes his Church's conclusion as true; and the facts or witnesses he adduces, are rather brought to receive an interpretation than to furnish a proof. His highest aim is to show the mere consistency of his theory, its possible adjustment, with the records of antiquity. I am not here inquiring how much of high but misdirected moral feeling is implied in this state of mind; certainly as we advance in perception of the truth, we all of us become less fitted to be controversialists. If this, however, be the true explanation of Bellarmine's strange error, the more it tends to exculpate him, the more deeply it criminates his system. He ceases to be chargeable with unfairness, only in proportion as the notion of the infallibility of Rome is admitted to be the sovereign and engrossing tenet of his communion, the foundation stone, or (as it may be called) the fulcrum of its theology. I consider then, that when he first adduces the aforementioned Fathers in