fain represent it to be. True, they blame the Romanists for making it a place of suffering, but they would have spoken more consistently if they had only blamed them for making it a place of so much suffering as they do, for it is but a question of degree with them, as the observations they have made in their Tract on Purgatory (Tract 79) fully show. They there admit that they hold with the Romanists, "that the great majority die in God's favour, yet more or less under the bond of their sins," because "after baptism there is no plenary pardon of sins in this life to the sinner, however penitent, such as in baptism was once vouchsafed to him," adding, "If for sins committed after baptism we have not yet received a simple and unconditional absolution, surely penitents from this time up to the day of judgment, may be considered in that double state of which the Romanists speak, their persons accepted, but certain sins uncancelled." And they then quote the case of David (2 Sam. xii. 13, 14,) as "a perspicuous instance of a penitent restored to God's favour at once, yet his sin afterwards visited," from which, if the case has any pertinency to the point in question, we are of course left to conclude that the uncancelled sins of believers may be visited by punishments in the intermediate state, and they may therefore well add, "So far then we cannot be said materially to oppose the Romanists." (pp. 6, 7.) Doubtless they cannot. And out of these notions have arisen all the abuses to which the Romish Purgatory has given rise.

Nor is this doctrine of praying for the dead, that their happiness may be increased, that is, that the limitation placed to their happiness, in consequence of their sins, may he removed, or, that the punishment of their sins may be remitted, one of small moment; because it tends to encourage the living to hope that if only they are such as will escape the place of torment, they may obtain an increase of happiness in the intermediate state, by the prayers of the Church after their death; which, not to say that it is a hope altogether without foundation, is not unlikely to have a very injurious effect upon the Christian walk and conversation. As Bishop Morton says,--" We are justly stayed from performing any such kindness, which, instead of showing love unto the dead, might seduce the living with deceivable hopes of succour after their death."1

To these "traditionary" doctrines Romanists add, among others, the doctrine of Christ's descent into hell, and that of the validity of baptism performed by heretics.

The latter we have already considered, and shown to have been a controverted point in the antient Church.

Of the former, we say with Bishop Pearson, that when the

1 Cath. App. ii. 8. p. 194.

2 See vol. i. pp. 260, &s.

Apostle, quoting Ps. xvi. 8-10, says that David there "spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption," (Acts ii. 25, 26, 27, 30, 31,)" from this place the Article is clearly and INFALLIBLY deduced thus: If the soul of Christ were not left in hell at his resurrection, then his soul was in hell before his resurrection, but it was not there before his death; therefore upon or after his death, and before his resurrection, the soul of Christ descended into hell." And he proceeds to quote Augustine (Ep. 99. al. 164. § 3.) as referring to this passage as a clear and undeniable proof of the doctrine. (On the Creed. Art. 5.)

There remain to be considered the cases that relate to certain matters of fact, and points that do not immediately belong either to the doctrines or rites of Christianity; namely,

(1) The Canon of Scripture.

(2) That Melchizedek's feast is a type of the Eucharist.

(3) That the Book of Canticles represents the union between Christ and his Church.

(4) That Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs, refers to the Sccond Person of the Trinity.

(5) The alleged perpetual virginity of the Mother of our Lord.

To the first of these we have already devoted a previous chapter. The second and fourth we have also considered in a former chapter, and shown that, so far from our being indebted to tradition for any certain testimony respecting them, the Fathers themselves were not agreed on the subject; which shows how easily men may deceive themselves in fancying consent of Fathers, when nevertheless it does not exist. As it respects the third, the sole question is, Has this book sufficient evidence for its being received as part of the Canon of Scripture? If so, it refers to reli gion, and has a spiritual meaning; which is all we know with tolerable certainty about the matter," or need to know to show us what it is the allegory represents.

One point remains, viz., the alleged perpetual virginity of the Mother of our Lord.

It is with much unwillingness that I enter upon the discussion of this point, lest I should appear to any one to speak slightingly of one so highly honoured of God; and to whom, if upon earth, we should be disposed to pay higher reverence and respect, than to the most potent empress that ever sat upon an earthly throne. Far be it from us to speak with any degree of levity with respect to one so "highly favoured" of God, and whom "all generations shall called blessed."

But, let me ask, what possible meaning can they have who

I See vol. i. pp. 282, 285.

connect this matter with religion? What possible bearing can such a point bave upon faith or piety? How, moreover, was it ascertained? Will our opponents venture to assert that it was divinely revealed to the Apostles, and by them delivered to the Church? If not, who could know anything about it? for it is at least clear from Scripture, that Joseph took her to wife, and that they lived together as in that relationship; though he "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son;" (Matt. i. 25;) which words, by the way, notwithstanding the criticism which Basil proposes as a way of getting over the difficulty, are clearly rather favourable to the notion of union after that birth. But be that as it may, all that we protest against, and what we do earnestly protest against, is, the laying down such a point, as one that has any connexion with piety or religion in any way, when it has no more connexion with them than the colour of her dress. The blue hood with which she is generally depicted might as well be made an article of religious belief; unless, indeed, the authority of the primitive Father, Clement of Alexandria, shall prevail in favour of white, which he seems to think the only proper colour for Christians; and so the blue (which, by the way, is one of those he particularly excepts against) he voted heretical. And this, forsooth, is one of the great recommendations of "tradition," that to it, as Mr. Newman reminds us, we are altogether indebted for this doctrine! Whether "tradition" has delivered it, we shall see presently. But wherein does the religion of it consist? Is it in the supposed honour thus done to the Mother of our Lord? I know not why the contrary supposition should be considered dishonourable to her, under the circumstances in which she was placed, as one living with Joseph as his wife. Or is it in the honour paid to certain Fathers, in our receiving whatever they deliver to us? If this is religion, we must add many more such notions to our articles of belief to be religious. Granting even that it is more honourable to the Mother of our Lord to suppose that she remained separate from her husband to the end of her life, what we inquire is, Of what moment is the knowledge of such a fact to us? No one, I suppose, will presume to say that it is a revealed fact; in which case I admit that the fact of its being revealed should be sufficient to prevent our asking such a question. But if it be not a revealed fact, then such a question may fairly be asked. Nor is it a matter of little moment that such points should be imposed upon Christians, as matters which they ought to believe; and of sufficient importance even to recommend "tradition" to us as being

ter.

1 See his Pædag. lib. ii. c. 10. pp. 234, 5, and lib. iii. c. 11. pp. 285, 6, ed. Pot

the only medium by which such truths can be made known to us They are a snare and a burthen to the conscience, which men have no right to impose under the sacred name of " the Church;' when they are in fact, or at least can only be traced to, the mere private fancies of individuals. Any one who will cast his eye over Gennadius's list of the doctrines of "the Church," will at once see how this name has been abused.

Nay more; how stand the testimonies of the Fathers on this point? The only Father that can be quoted on the subject, for the first two centuries and a half, is Tertullian; and he, instead of defending the doctrine, uses words which confessedly show that he believed the contrary. And what reply does Jerome give to Helvidius, when quoting Tertullian in favour of this opinion? This only;-"That he did not belong to the Church." But this is evidently no reply; because the errors that Tertullian had embraced, would have induced him to favour the doctrine of her perpetual virginity, if he had conceived himself to have had any ground for it. If there had been such a tradition, as Bishop Stillingfleet says, 66 one would think that one so near the Apostles as Tertullian was, might easily have learned such a tradition; and so great a friend to virginity as he was, while a Montanist, should not have been apt to believe the contrary." It is clear, then, that at that time there was at least no general agreement in favour of the point.

Origen, I admit, speaks as if he thought it probable, and more honourable to the Mother of our Lord than the contrary supposition; but not as if it was any part of religion; "Ir," he says, "there was no son of Mary, according to those who think soundly respecting her, but Jesus; and Jesus says, &c. . . .”*

This again shows that there was no consent in the Church at that time in favour of the opinion; though Origen, of course, thought that they took the right view who agreed with him. And this follows, also, from another passage, where Origen, having stated that some supposed that "the brethren" of Jesus were the children of Joseph, by a former wife, says," They who say this are desirous of preserving the dignity of Mary in perpetual virginity and I think it is reasonable that of men, Jesus should be the first-fruits of the pureness of chastity, and of women, Mary."s

1 Christum quidem Virgo enixa est semel nuptura post partum. De Monogam. c. 8. p. 529. See also De vel. virg. c. 6. et De carne Christi. C. 23.

2 De Tertulliano quidem nihil amplius dico quam Ecclesiæ hominem non fuisse. Adv. Helvid. § 17. Tom. 2. col. 225.

3 Rational Account, &c. Pt. 1. c. 6. p. 165. ed. 1165.

4 Ει γαρ ουδώς υἱος Μαρίας, κατα τους ύγιως περι αυτης δοξάζοντας, η Ιησους, φησι δε 1ησους τη μητέρι, κ. τ. λ. ORIG. Tom. i. In Juh. § 6. vol. iv. p. 6.

5. Οι δε ταυτα λεγοντες, το αξίωμα της Μαρίας εν παρθενία τηρών μέχρι τέλους βούλονται

And again, when meeting the strange notion that some had maintained, that Jesus denied Mary because of her having married Joseph after his birth, (which shows, at least, their view of the matter,) all that he ventures to affirm is, "Moreover they have no proof of what they assert, that she married after his birth;" though, by the good Father's leave, it is plain enough from Scripture that Joseph and Mary lived together, as far as external appearances went, as man and wife; and possibly it might have been better for all parties if they had been contented there to leave it, without indulging an idle and impertinent curiosity about a matter which no way concerned them. And, to my mind, this appears to have been the feeling of Basil himself. For, commenting on the text, "He knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son," he says that this affords a ground for supposing that after the birth of Christ she did not remain a virgin, and adds, "But we, ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT AT ALL OFFEND AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF PIETY, (for the virginity was necessary until her ministry in the fulfilment of the dispensation was performed, but what happened afterwards is not to be curiously inquired into, as if it had anything to do with the doctrine of the mystery,) yet, nevertheless, because the ears of the lovers of Christ do not like to entertain the idea that she who brought forth him who was God ever ceased to be a virgin, we think these testimonies sufficient." He then proceeds to remark that the word until (is) does not always denote a definite time, that is, limit what is spoken of to a certain time, quoting in proof Matt. xxviii. 20. "Behold I am with you alway, even until the end of the world;" and also to refer to the tradition that Zacharias was killed by the Jews because he placed the Virgin Mary among the virgins in the temple after the birth of our Lord, which, however, as the Benedictine editors themselves admit, does not show that she always remained a virgin, and which Origen himself does not quote as of any authority.* But the words with which Basil himself commences the subject

και οίμαι λόγον εχειν. ανδρων μεν καθαρότητος της εν αγνεια απαρχήν γεγονέναι τον Ιη Four, juvarxar de Thy Masiau. ORIG. Tom. x. In Matt. § 17. vol. iii. p. 463. 1 Porro quod asserunt eam nupsisse post partum unde approbent non habent. ORIG. In Luc. hom. 7. vol. iii. P. 940.

2 Τουτο δε ηδη υπονοιαν παρέχει, ότι μετα το καθαρώς ὑπηρετήσασθαι τη γέννησες του Κυ μου τη επιτελεσθειση δια του Πνεύματος του αγίου, τα νενομισμένα του γάμου εργα μη απαρ νησαμένης της Μαρίας· ήμεις δε, ει και μηδεν τω της ευσέβειας παραλυμαίνεται λόγω, (μέχρι γαρ της κατα την οικονομίαν υπηρεσίας αναγκαία ή παρθένια, το δε έρεξης απολυπραγμόνητον το λόγω του μυστηρίου.) όμως δια το μη καταδέχεσθαι των φιλοχρίστων την ακοήν, ότι ποτε εταυσατο ειναι παρθενος ή θεοτοκος, έκεινας ηγούμεθα τας μαρτυρίας αυταρκείς. BA815. Homil. in sanct. Christi generat. § 5. Op. ed. Ben. tom. ii. pp. 599, 600.

3 Epiphanius gives a different explanation of these words. See Adv. hær. in hær. 78. Antidic. § 20. tom. i. p. 1051.

This story is given by Origen as a tradition which had come to his ears,