order to their final admission into celestial glory: Hell, in the established ecclesiastical sense of the word, has no existence; and its place is forthwith occupied by a Purgatory of only temporary duration.

Such was the Purgatory, struck out by the inventive genius of Origen, and condemned with various other speculations by the second general Council of Constantinople.

Having thus annihilated Hell, and having thus supplied its place with a purgatory (which differs, however, not a little, in point of arrangement, from the accredited Purgatory of the modern Latin Church); Origen had next to undertake the somewhat arduous task of establishing his novel speculation by the authority of Scripture. This he attempted to perform, by adducing in evidence the well-known text from St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians. Mr. Berington, in his free abridgement (for translation it is not) of the passage from Origen which has been given in an accurate form by myself, would fain exhibit that Father, as speaking the received doctrine of the Church on the topic of Purgatory, and as expounding unhesitatingly the probative text of the Apostle according to its unvaried and universally admitted interpretation. But, in every way, such an exhibition of Origen is grossly inaccurate. The learned, though fanciful, Catechist of Alexandria gives us his own insulated private reasoning, not the doctrine of the Church which in truth he had

rejected: and, in the very midst of the passage (though Mr. Berington has been pleased to suppress the acknowledgment, not even so much as noting its omission by the common conventional mark indicative of non-continuous citation), instead of quoting the probative text with the full confidence of a man who knew that he was securely building upon its universally admitted exposition, he fairly owns that it is very difficult to be understood'. Confessedly, therefore, he would establish his novel speculation, of a Hell transmuted into a Purgatory, by a text so obscure, that he himself very creditably acknowledged (though his honest acknowledgment is suppressed by

1

* Ο τόπος ἦν δυσδιήγητος σφόδρα. Orig. in Jerem. Homil. xvi. Oper. vol. i. p. 155.

This acknowledgment is omitted by Mr. Berington, where, in my version of the cited passage, I have duly placed the mark of non-continuous quotation. Mr. Berington, in short, writes as follows.

But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood and hay and stubble. First, therefore, we suffer on account of our transgressions: and, then, we receive our reward.

Whereas, even according to his own slovenly version, he ought to have written.

But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood and hay and stubble-First, therefore, we suffer on account of our transgressions: and, then, we receive our reward.

Mr. Berington, without the slightest notice to his reader, has deliberately omitted Origen's acknowledgment of the obscurity of the text, where I have placed the mark

Mr. Berington) the absolute uncertainty of its import.

Nor is this all. At a subsequent period, and in his last and best production, Origen himself relinquished that interpretation of the text, upon which he was content to build his purgatorial hypothesis. In his Work against Celsus, he considers the text, as referring to God's providential punishment of sin in this world: arguing, with some acuteness, that we cannot legitimately deem the fire mentioned by the Apostle to be a literal or material fire, unless, what is a plain absurdity, we also deem the objects consumed by it to be literal or material wood and hay and stuble '.

Whether his final interpretation of the text be strictly correct, is nothing to our present purpose: the gloss of the more ancient Tertullian, who, by the wood and the hay and the stuble, understands erroneous doctrines, incapable, like the imperishable gold, of bearing the test of the figurative crucible,

1

Καταβαίνει γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἰδίου μεγέθους καὶ ὕψους, ὅτε τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ μάλιστα τῶν φαύλων οἰκονομεῖ—Ἐπὰν οὖν λέγηται πῦρ εἶναι καταναλίσκον, ζητοῦμεν' Τίνα πρέπει ὑπὸ Θεοῦ καταναλίσκεσθαι; Καὶ φάμεν, ὅτι τὴν κακίαν, καὶ τὰ ὑπ ̓ αὐτῆς πραττόμενα, καὶ τροπικῶς λεγόμενα ξύλα εἶναι καὶ χόρτον καὶ καλάμην, καταναλίσκει ὁ Θεὸς ὡς πῦρ. Ἐποικοδομεῖν γοῦν ὁ φαῦλος λέγεται τῷ προϋποβεβλημένῳ λογικῷ θεμελίῳ ξύλα καὶ χόρτον καὶ καλάμην. Εἰ μὲν οὖν ἔχει δεῖξαι ἄλλως νενοῆσθαι ταῦτα τῷ ἀναγράψαντι, καὶ σωματικῶς δύναταί τις παραστῆσαι ἐποικοδομοῦντα τὸν φαῦλον ξύλα ἢ χόρτον ἢ καλάμην· δῆλον, ὅτι καὶ τὸ πῦρ ὑλικὸν καὶ αἰσθητὸν νοηθήσεται. Orig. cont. Cels. lib. iv. p. 168.

is probably more accurate, while it is equally useless to the latin demonstraters of a future purgatory'. Be that, however, as it may, the cautious inquirer will now perceive, that, if the proof of the primitive belief in that Tridentine Article of the Roman Faith is to rest upon Origen: it will indeed rest upon nothing more substantial than a reed, not very strong even in itself, but fractured most unmercifully by the authoritative infallibility of the fifth Ecumenical Council.

IV. Yet, why need I press the question of evidence any further? It has been fairly given up, both by Barns and by Fisher, a Roman Presbyter and a Roman Cardinal, as a matter altogether hopeless.

Punishment in Purgatory, says Father Barns, is a doctrine seated in human opinion. Neither from Scripture, nor from the Fathers, nor from the earlier Councils, can it be firmly deduced. Nay, with submission to better judgment, the contrary opinion seems more conformable to them?.

1 Qui (Christus) futurus esset fundamentum credentium in eum, super quod prout quisque superstruxerit dignam scilicet vel indignam doctrinam, si opus ejus per ignem probabitur, si merces illi per ignem rependetur, Creatoris est: quia per ignem indicatur vestra superædificatio, utique sui fundamenti, id est, sui Christi. Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. v. § 11. Oper. p. 304.

2 Punitio ergo in Purgatorio est res in opinione humana posita quæ, nec ex Scripturis nec Patribus nec Conciliis, deduci potest firmiter. Immo, salvo meliore judicio, opposita sententia eis conformior videtur. Barn. Catholico-Rom. Pacif. sect. ix. litt. D, ad fin. Paralip. cited by Stillingfleet. The

Many, perhaps, says Cardinal Fisher of Rochester, are induced not to place so great a confidence in indulgences, because their use in the Church seems to be more recent, and because it has only very lately been found among Christians. To these I answer, that we cannot certainly determine with whom they first originated. Among the ancients, there was either no mention, or at least very rare mention, of Purgatory: and, to this day, the Greeks believe not in its existence'. Nor was the belief either of Purgatory or of Indulgences so necessary in the primitive Church, as it now is. While there

learned Prelate mentions also Alphonsus a Castro, Polydore, Petrus a Soto, Perionius, Bulenger, and Petrus Picherellus, as honestly making a similar confession. Among these, Picherellus says: There is no fuel to be found in Scripture, either to kindle or to maintain the fire of Purgatory. Picherell. de Missa. c. ii. p. 150.

'Thus determines the eminently learned Bishop Fisher of Rochester: let us now hear Bishop Trevern of Strasbourg.

ALL ANTIQUITY speaks of an intermediate place, where souls, before they enter into heaven, must be purified from the slightest stains of iniquity. Discuss. Amic. lett. xiii. vol. ii. p. 243. Note.

Dr. Trevern's comprehensive Toute l'Antiquité, even according to his own shewing, commences, not in the apostolic age, but with Cyprian and Origen, both of whom flourished about the middle of the third century: and, with respect to these two Fathers who are thus compelled to usher in ALL ANTIQUITY, Cyprian knew nothing of any doctrine of a Purgatory, and Origen's substitution of a temporary Purgatory in the place of an eternal hell was condemned by the fifth Ecumenical Council as an heretical and impious speculation.