object in citing this scrap from the Council of Florence, or to see how it either proved Mr. S. wrong, or set him right. But looking on a little further, the whole matter is explained. The key to unlock this marvel, will be found in these terrible words, "Those who die under venial sins are in purgatory." For it must be remembered that however closely united are the Doctor and the Church of Rome on the main point, there is yet this small difference between them. The Doctor divides mankind at death into two classes, the righteous and the wicked; the former he sends direct to heaven, the latter, straight to hell; whereas the Church of Rome divides them into three classes, sending the eminently righteous to heaven, the incorrigibly wicked to hell, and leaving a third class, who die under venial sins, which she sends to another place called purgatory. Now which of the two theories is nearest the truth, we shall not attempt to decide; it being a matter in which we are not particularly interested, we leave it to be settled by the infallibility of their respective holinesses, the Doctor and the Pope. The very sight however of the word "purgatory," and especially, the being obliged to speak it, and write it, were sufficient to curdle the Doctor's brains; and the odious idea once in his head, there is room for nothing else, it takes entire possession of all his faculties and affects all his senses. He sees its vile abominations painted on every object, and snuffs its offensive odor in every breeze. He can see no distinction between the Catholic doctrine of an intermediate place, and the dogma of a Roman purgatory. He can understand nothing of the different degrees of perfection in man, as existing in his present state, his intermediate state, and his glorified state; nor yet can he find any happiness for the souls of the righteous, short of the highest heavens. He therefore resolves to make all who maintain the Catholic doctrine of an intermediate state, say what they will to the contrary, tho rough-going, rank purgatorians. He says,*

*

"The only difference between our high churchmen, and the Oxford divines, and the Dublin Doctor Todd, is simply this, the latter have got considerably the start of the former. They have been both or the same descent; and are both in full career of descent to find their level. Hence there is scarcely even a degree of visibility between the high church doctrine and the more ancient fiction of purgatory."

Now we cannot but think that the Doctor is here again a little inconsistent in placing Mr. S. at all in the rear of any in this "descending course," having just said in a note-“Thus, our Rector actually avows his faith in the Popish Limbus of the Fathers." As we have here the Doctor's direct and unqualified assertion for this "avowal" of Mr. S. with the pages of his sermon referred to as proof, those, not acquainted with the Doc

*Chris. Intel. Dec. 7th, 1839. No. I.

tor's mode of quoting writers, or his object in giving references, would naturally expect to find on those pages the evidence of the truth of this assertion. We can assure our readers, however, that neither on those pages, nor in any part of Mr. S.'s little work, is there a syllable that can be tortured into even a shadow of justification for this wilful and deliberate untruth. But let Mr. S. speak for himself in this matter. In the appendix to his sermon, pp. 55 and 6, he says,

"One of the charges brought against the author of the sermon, is that old, hackneyed, and clumsy one of "rank Popery," and intended, as is supposed, to convey the idea, that, because he maintains the true doctrine of an intermediate state, he must, of course, hold the erroneous one of purgatory; as if an intermediate state, and purgatory were one and the same thing! But what is the object of this cry of Popery? And why is it so frequently raised against the Church? The writer has often asked himself these questions, yet has never been able to find a satisfactory answer. Does the cause of truth demand it? Surely not, for this holy principle is always injured and grieved by such 'gross and uncharitable imputations.' Can it be done merely for effect? This he is unwilling to believe, as such a purpose is altogether unworthy of generous and noble minds. Besides, such a purpose must necessarily defeat itself; and the writer is very much mistaken in the intelligence of the present generation, if this stale charge-and disingenuous as it is stale-be not altogether too late in the day, to gain the least credit with those who think at all for themselves, or to bring much of reputation, for either sagacity or prudence, to those who venture to make it. We have already seen that there is necessarily no connection between the doctrine of an intermediate state and that of a Roman purgatory-have seen, indeed, that one is directly the opposite of the other. We know that our probation ceases with death; and that having once entered either of the mansions of Hades, the invisible place of departed souls, there can be no change in our situation from one of these mansions to the other. Our Lord hath put this matter at rest, by the parable of Lazarus and the rich man; these were both in Hades, yet in very different regions of it, and forever separated by an impassable gulf. There is not, therefore, a semblance of plausibility for attempting to fix upon an intermediate state the character of a purgatory. Besides, they who contend that the souls of the righteous go, at death, immediately to heaven, ought to be aware that, in this doctrine, they are in close alliance with that very Church which they affect so cordially to reprobate. They should know that the Church of Rome was the first to declare authoritatively the doctrine that the souls of the righteous pass, at death, immediately into glory. And they should know further, that this doctrine was established by that Church, for the unquestionable purpose of laying a foundation for the subsequent establishment of the doctrine of invocation to saints. The Church of Rome, well aware of the utter impossibility of bringing the Christian world to believe that prayers to departed saints could be of any avail, so long as these saints were supposed to be in an intermediate and imperfect state, laboured long and strenuously to establish the doctrine, that saints pass, at death, immediately to heaven; supposing that having them there seated in glory, around the throne of God, they might the more easily be made the objects of adoration and worship. was not, however, till the fifteenth century, that the Church of Rome succeeded in carrying her favorite doctrine in relation to the state of departed saints. At the council of Florence, held in 1439, and when a union was formed between the Greek and Roman Churches, the doctrine, that the souls of the righteous go, at death, into the full fruition of God, was for the first time established. The language of the decree of this council, in relation to this matter, is, 'The souls of those who have never sinned since their bap

It

tism, or of those who having fallen into sins, have been purified from them in their bodies, or after their departure out of them, enter immediately into Heaven, and see purely the Trinity.' *

Verily, the charge of Popery comes with an ill grace from those who maintain that Paradise is heaven, that the souls of the righteous pass, at death, immediately into glory, and who are themselves thus closely leagued with the Romish Church, in support of her most erroneous and dangerous doctrines."

Yet, with all this, and much more, in full view before him, Doct. B. could again and again charge Mr. S. with maintaining a purgatory, could cite the council of Florence, against the fact, that the Church of Rome was the first to declare authoritively the doctrine that saints go immediately to heaven, and finally, to crown his wilful misrepresentation, and cruel injustice, with deliberate untruth, could declare that Mr. S. "had actually avowed his faith in the Popish Limbus of the Fathers!" Oh shame, where is thy blush!

But as these self-contras pervade the whole of the Doctor's review, and become more and more prominent, and put on a more and more fearful character as we proceed, we will pass on to his Creed.

NOTE.-Since writing the above, a friend has put into our hands the Chris. Intel. of May 9th, 1840, containing a "Reply to the Rev. Dr. Brownlee," from the pen, it is said, of a Rev. Prof. in the Theological Seminary of the R. D. C. in N. Brunswick. From this we may learn something of the estimation, in which the Doctor is held by his own brethren. As the author seems to have a good knowledge of the Doctor's character, we give the following miniature picture, which is supposed to be an admirable likeness.

"All acquainted with his habits of thought and the "curiosa felicitas" of his style, must have_recognized the foot of Hercules before completing the second paragraph. It is personal, and bitter, of course. The Doctor is an admirable specimen of a numerous class in the present day, who cannot estimate the force of the plainest argument on the plaines subject, until they call up a lively conception of the man, woman, or child, who uses it-who never look at truth, or falsehood, in the abstract, but only as impersonated in some iudividual whom they make their idol or their victim as the caprice of the hour inclines. Deprive them in debate of a visible and tangible adversary against whom they may raise the war-whoop and brandish the scalping-knife, they become tame and insipid at once. I do not believe that there is a page of my friend's polemical writings which is not sullied with this vice, nor that he has ever had an opponent, who did not retire from the field discomfited far more by the virulence of his abuse than the potency of his logic."

*DuPin. Eccle. His. Vol. IV, p. 45, Lon. Ed.

Doctor Brownlee vs. His own Creed.

Under this head we shall make but a single specification. This, however, will embrace the main point, and chief source of all the Doctor's difficulties in this matter-his hair splitting quibble about state and place, or his attempt to make a distinction where there is no difference. The Doctor contends stoutly for an intermediate state, but then, as stoutly denies an intermediate place—a distinction, unknown to the best theological writers, unintelligible to common sense, and unexisting but in the dark mysteries of metaphysical subtilty. That, in denying an intermediate place, the Doctor is against his own creed, might be made to appear-indeed has been made to appear, by an appeal to the Liturgy, Psalms and Hymns, and especially, to the Confession of Faith of the R. D. Church. Mr. S. in the Appendix to his sermon, has clearly proved that, by a fair and reasonable construction of those Standards, they are decidedly against the Popish doctrine of sending souls, at death, immediately to heaven. We will, however, pass all these by, and confine ourselves to a single phrase, in one of the articles of the Apostle's Creed"He descended into Hell." This Creed, as a minister of the R. D. Church, the Doctor is supposed to acknowledge; and, if he be not an Apollinarian, we suppose he will admit, that the language-He descended into Hell, is predicated of the human soul of Christ. From the place and connection these words hold in the Creed, it would seem there could be no doubt that they refer to the action of the soul of Christ, during the interval, between his death and resurrection, and while his body lay in the tomb. And this being true, they certainly affirm a real local motion of the soul of Christ;-and what is more, a motion, so far as language has any meaning, directly the opposite of that which took place after his resurrection. And if real local motion be denied to the words-" He descended into Hell," we see not but it must be denied also to those-" He ascended into Heaven." The Creed then, affirms that the soul of Christ, between his death and resurrection, really and truly descended into Hell.

"It is evident," says Bishop Horsley, "that the descending into hell, is spoken of as an action of the Lord, but as an action performed by him after he was dead and buried, and before he rose again. This, therefore,

was an act of that part of the man which continues alive after death, that is, of the soul separated by death from the body, as the interment must be understood of the body apart from the soul. The dead body could no more go into hell than the living soul could be laid in the grave. Considering the words, therefore, as they stand in the Creed, as the Church now receives it, they seem as little capable of any variety of meaning, and almost as little to require explanation, as the word buried."

The soul of Christ, then, according to the Creed, actually descended into hell. And supposing that the Doctor will admit hell to be a place, we see not but he will be compelled to admit also, that the soul of Christ, during its separation from the body, was not only in a state, but a place-was indeed in hell. Now the word hell, as used in the Creed, must mean Gehenna, the place of final and complete torment, or heaven, the place of final and perfect bliss, or some other place. That the word hell, as here used, means the place of torment, even the Doctor does not believe; for he says distinctly Christ never went there. And we take it for granted, that he will not contend that hell, in the Creed, means heaven; for, besides the wickedness of imputing such absurdity and nonsense to this universally acknowledged symbol of faith, it would, as has been aptly suggested, sound a little odd, to say hell was heaven, and heaven was hell; or in repeating the creed, to say-He was dead and buried, he descended into heaven; and the third day, he rose again, and ascended into hell. If, then, the word hell, as used in the Creed, does not mean hell, the place of torment, nor yet heaven, the place of happiness, it must, Doctor Brownlee to the contrary notwithstanding, mean some other place. And pray, what place can that be, but that happy and blessed region of Hades, called Paradise, even "the glorious country of the soul," where Christ went, in company with the penitent thief, on the day he was crucified; where the souls of all the faithful go, and where, during their separation from their bodies, they are in joy and felicity,' waiting, in sure and certain hope, the consummation of their bliss, at the great and last day." Doctor Brownlee, then, receiving the Apostle's Creed, yet denying an intermediate place, must stand convicted of opposition to his own Creed. But it is not in relation to an intermediate place only, that the Doctor is against his own Creed. He denies that Christ went to hell at all. In his "Revised and corrected specimens of Divine Truths,"* and in answer to the question in the Creed" Did he (Christ) not then descend into hell itself?" Answer" Not at all; for while he was dead, his body was in the grave, and his soul in heaven." It is, therefore, doing no injustice to the Doctor, to set him down, as against his own Creed, and the acklowledged Creed of the Church of which he is a minister. It may not be amiss to remark here, that, as these "Revised and corrected specimens of Divine Truths," bear not the impress of authority, there is no evidence that they have the sanction of the R. D. Church. Perhaps the Doctor has revised and corrected a little too much to be in harmony with the standards of that Church. From a slight comparison, we should think this not an improbable fact.

*Phil. Ed. 1837, p. 45.