PRESBYTERIANISM AND CATHOLICISM.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXIV, Issue 1, 1 May 1896, Page 6

PRESBYTERIANISM AND CATHOLICISM.

(A Reply to the Rev. J. Dickson, Presbyterian Minister, Temuka, by Rev. Father Lemenant des Chesnais, S.M.)

LECTURE VII. in Reply to Rev. J. Dickson.

PURGATORY.

Is Purgatory a Figment.

If we are to believe the Rev. J. Dickson, it is : there is no intermediate state, and he is so certain of it that he says to his congregation : "I feel I owe you an apology for seriously discussing, at the close of the nineteenth century, the doctrine of Purgatory." REPLY. My dear Mr. Dickson, do not be so alarmed ; there are still more than four hundred millions of Christians — Roman Catholics, Greeks, Ritualists of the Church of England and others — who firmly believe in Purgatory; those who deny it are, in comparison, a small fraction, so, you see, the question, after all, is worth examining, but allow me to tell you that you owe to your congregation, to your readers, whom you have deceived, and to me, for not answering any of the solid, nay, unanswerable proofs I had given in order to show the universal belief in, and the existence of, Purgatory, an apology. You are to be censured and condemned by every intelligent and well educated person for not having kept your word, and notwithstanding your apology, not seriously examined the question of Purgatory. You are so full of your preconceived ideas that you cannot imagine that one who thinks differently from you, or your favourite Calvin, can be right. A lover of the truth, as }uu profess to be, should weigh the arguments of his adversary, examine facts, compare authorities, and not sick to his opinion, even when manifestly proved to be wrong. The Rev. J. Dickson's First Statement. " Taking for his text : ' And I heard a voice from heaven, saying : Write, blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from

henceforth. Yea, saith the spirit, that they may rest from their labours, and their works do follow them ' (Rev. xiv., 13). Then commenting on the text, he says : ' But, my friends, it was a voice from heaven who said " write," as if he said 'don't leave it to the mists and haphazards of tradition,' write that Purgatory is a figment, that the dead in Christ aie happy from henceforth, ' that instead of being tormented they rest from their labours,' and that so tar from their being able to do anything tor themselves or needing the help ot any in an intermediate state, their works, already finished at death, will " follow them " to witness for the genuineness of their faith in Christ and Christian life at the judgment bar of God.' '' REPL\. What has this text to do with Purgatory? All Catholic theologians and all the Fathers admit that the just who die in the Lord are blessed, that they rest for ever from their labours and their works. There is not a dissenting voice on thib point, but this is not the question ; the thing we have to examine is not if the martyrs and those who die without any stain or indebtedness, great or small, to the Divine Justice, are at once admitted to the bliss of paradise, but if those who, although purified from their grievous offences, died with the guilt of small sins, or have not sufficiently satisfied for their grievous sins (forgiven as to the guilt and eternal punishment), are at once admitted into heaven or have to undergo purification before they are permitted to enjoy the beatific vibion. You are affirming what has to be proved, when you declare that " Purgatory is a figment,'' and " that there is no intermediate state between heaven and hell." When you quote the text of St. John as proving there is no Purgatory, you are guilty of perverting the Scriptures, that is, of misinterpreting them with a view to persuade your congregation and readers that your erroneous opinion is contorm ible to the word ot God, whereas it is not, as 1 shall show you. When St. John said : " Write ' Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from henceforth. Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours, and their works do tollow them'" (Rev. xiv., 13). The apostle did not say that all who die are in that condition ot

justice necessary to be admitted, at once, to heavenly bliss. This text refers to the martyrs and their very souls, who are so pure at the moment of death that they have nothing to account for, no satisfaction to make for the p.ist, and being spotless and immaculate, are fit to enter the court of paradise and enjoy eternal rest. This leaves perfectly undecided the state of those who die guilty of small offences, or otherwise have still to satisfy for the past, having neglected to do so in the present life, when they had grace and opportunity to do it. It is wrong to abuse the Scriptures and make them say that which they do not say. Most members of your congregation could not see the false application you made of your text, in order to prejudice them against the divinely revealed dogma of Purgatory, and this aggravates your guilt. Again, the Apocalypse was among the apocryphal books, as you call them, as well as the Book of Macchabees which you reject. They were all declared canonical and inspired at the same time and by the same authority. If you deny the infallibility of the Church, what proof have you that the Apocalypse is authentic, veridic and inspired, since it is only through the Catholic Church it has been preserved and declared canonical ? Lastly, you are guilty of deceiving your hearers when you give them to understand that the apostle received a command to write all about the state of the dead and not leave it to the mists and haphazards of tradition. The Scriptures, as I have shown you before, suppose the existence of apostolical traditions and command us to observe them. Why, in spite of their clear, positive testimony, are you always telling falsely your people not to believe in tradition ? The good works of the just are not only, as you assert, "witnesses for the genuineness of their faith," they are, furthermore, the ground of their reward, of the bliss they shall enjoy for all eternity, since, as I have shown you from many passages of the Bible, God will reward every one, not only because they have believed in Him or in Jesus Christ, His beloved son, but because believing in Him they have served Him faithfully and obeyed Him and His Church which He has set up to teach us and lead us to heavenly bliss. If you cannot refute the proofs I have given you on this point and still persevere in your false opinion and teach it, you are

guilty of blasphemy and leading to perdition those who, think ing you a man of God, b-lieve what you tell them. Calumnies ani> Misrepresentations of the Rev. J. Dickson. Alluding to my lecture "on Purgatory," the Rev. J. Dickson thus qualifies it : " Our friend, however, blazons it before the world, and champions it against all comers. And how does he prove it ? He does not prove it at all." REPLY. I could never have imagined that an honourable gentleman, still less so a clergyman representing the belief of a large and influential number of our fellow -colonists, could have been guilty of such a vile and wilful calumny. Had my rev. friend examined my proofs one by one, as I do his statements, and tried to refute them, I should find no fault with him. He thinks it more expedient to totally ignore what I have advanced on the authority of the greatest, most holy, and learned men that ever existed, and to misrepresent me to his congregation and readers as an ignorant and foolish man who advances a ridiculous opinion without the shadow of any solid argument to substantiate it. My lecture on Purgatory has gone before the public ; I beg of all lovers of justice and fair play to attentively read it and judge if my rev. opponent can be exonerated from being a malidous perverter of truth and a criminal slanderer of his adversary's honest arguments. Summary and Explanations of my Lecture on Purgatory. Definition of Purgatory : " Purgatory is a place or state of temporary expiation where souls leaving this world with sanctify ing grace and in friendship with God, yet with the guilt of small sins or without having sufficiently satisfied the Divine Justice for the sins of their former life, whose guilt and eternal punishment had been forgiven, finish their expiation and get pertectly cleansed and purified in order to become fit to enter heaven and appear before the Divine Majesty."

Continued on page 21.

Continued from page 6.

Proofs of th« Existence of Purgatory.

First proof. — Until the fourth century all Christians, both of the east and of the west, believed in it. Can my rev. friend show that this statement is inexact ? If it be true, is it not a proof of Divine institution ? If there is any true Christianity, must it not have existed among those trained by the apostles and their immediate disciples ? Can their unanimous agreement about any point of doctrine, although they lived in different places, spoke different languages, had been taught by different apostles and missionaries, be explained otherwise ? When, in the fourth century, Aerius denied Purgatory and the efficacy of prayers for the dead he was refuted by St. Augustine, and all the Christian world applauded the holy and learned doctor of Hippo for his able vindication of the Catholic doctrine. Does not this show that in the days of St. Augustine every Christian believed in Purgatory and prayers for the dead? (S. Aug. L., 11., De Haeres, c, iii.) St. Ephrem, the friend of St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, and Thodoret defended also the dogma of Purgatory and prayers for the dead. St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamina and Doctor of the Church, who spent part of his life in studying the sacred Scriptures, refutes the error of Aerius as novelty contrary to the received tradition of the Church (Refutatus a S. Ephraem Syro. et a S. Epiphanio hoc praecipue argumento, quod nova esset ipsius doctrina, et contra receptam Ecclesiae Traditionem," Knoll. Aug., Turin, 1868., t. vi., Pars, v., c. ii., art. 2). Does not also this prove that tradition — that is, the testimony of the early Fathers, apostolical institutions, prayers, liturgies, etc. — was the means adopted to confute heretics? If we were not to consult the Fathers, how could we know the apostolic teaching ? The Catholic Church has always professed to admit of no other doctrine except that taught by Jesus Christ and His apostles. She has ever condemned as heretics those who have attempted to change this apostolic revelation (see Tert. Praes., cap. xxxvii., Vincent de Lerins, Commonit. vi.). Every novelty in matter of religion has always energetically been opposed by her, irrespectively of the rank, power, or quality of the innovator, because she is jealous to preserve pure and intact the integrity of Christian revelation, which no man on earth can have a right in any way to alter. Did not St. Paul himself tell his disciple Timothy to avoid every novelty ? (I. Tim. vi.) If we are to avoid every novelty, must we not always follow antiquity ? The mission of the Church and Catholic Doctors is not to innovate, but simply to elucidate, to explain in more precise terms what was believed from the beginning and can never be altered. The explanations may be new, but not the doctrine. Those explanations — like the light of the sun, which increases from aurora to mid-day — may become brighter and brighter by the studies and explanations of doctors and scientists, but their teaching must always be the same and perfectly unalterable. Neither Pope, nor Bishop, nor anyone else can make new dogmas or any innovation to the teaching of Jesus Christ and of His apostles. The only way to convince heretics that their doctrine is false is tradition, and this is why they have always been opposed to it, because the moment one studies the customs, liturgies, rituals, and writings of the Fathers of the first centuries, he perceives at once that the systems of the various sects now existing are all modern innovations, contrary to the apostolical doctrine and practice of the early Christians. In order to bring about the contemplated union of Christendom, the necessity ot tradition is to be admitted by all. Aerius, the unfortunate Armenian priest we have spoken ot, was the first author of Presbyteriantsm. Disappointed at not having been elected Bishop of Sebaste, he attacked his Bishop, tried to prove from St. Paul (Tim. iv., 14) that a priest was as much as a Bishop. However, he was confounded by St. Epiphanius (Haeres. lxxv.). He was shown that the word " presbytery " meant the place in the Church reserved for the priest — that is, the sanctuary where no layman was admitted (I. Tim. iv., 14) — that the presbytery signified the assembly of the priests, not of the laity. Although bishops are called fresbyttrs or elders, every presbyter or elder was not a bishop. The word " Episkopos " signifies overseer, inspector, president, senator. St. Peter gives this title to our Lord Jesus Christ : he calls Him the " Pastor and the Bishop of our souls " (I. Pet. ii., 25). In the Acts, the apostles are called " Bishops " (Acts 1., 20). They declare that bishop-, are chosen to watch o\ei the Church of God and to govern it (Act-, w., 28). " lake heed to yourselves and to the whole Hock wherein the Holy (ihost has placed you bishops, to rule the Church ot GoJ, which He has purchased with His own blood." This text shows that the episcopate or prelacy, denied by Aenu> and the Presbyterians of the sixteenth century, is a Divine institution they are appointed by the Holy Ghost, not by the people ; they are the rulers and tjovernors ot the Church not laymen or simple priests. Bishops alone from the time td the apostles had the power to ordain priests. St. Paul writes to Titus " For this cause I left thee in Crete that thou shouldest ordain priests " fTit. i., 5). From the earliest times bishops presided at the meetings of the priests and were called pontiffs, princes and angels of the Church, etc., which appellations were never given to priests or laymen. By Divine right bishops have a pre-eminence and

authority over priests (Con. Trid. Sess. xxiii., can. 6, 7). In the early Christian Churches, bishops had a throne in the sanctuary, whereas priests sat on low benches round about him. When the proud innovator Aerius tried to attack prelacy, everyone was shocked at his impious novelty ; he found no followers and had to hide himself in the forests and mountains to avoid public indignation. Will the Rev. J. Dickson still pretend that the belief in Purgatory and Prelacy are modern inventions ? If he be a lover of truth, should he not abjure his errors, undeceive his congregation, and return to the Church of his fathers, of the apostles and martyrs — the holy Catholic Church ? Second proof of Purgatory. — From the condemnation of Aerius in the fourth century until the twelfth, the dogma of Purgatory was universally admitted by all the Christians both of the East and of the West. Then an apostate monk renovated the error of Aerius and was refuted by Peter de Cluny. This apostate monk was Peter de Bruis ; this monster profaned churches, cast monks in prison, threw down altars, burned crosses, cruelly tormented priests. Violence and crime are the characteristics of all innovators. Being condemned by authority, they admit of none except their own. The study of the lives of reformers in all ages is the best proof that they were only the instruments of the infernal spirit, not animated by the Holy Ghost. This is why their followers tell their people not to study their lives except in books written by them, and to accept their doctrine without enquiry as absolutely certain. Investigate the origin of any error, and you have, in a great measure, refuted it. For three centuries the Press in Germany and in English-speaking countries has been exclusively in the hands of the reformers, and they have maliciously and criminally omitted whatever was injurious to the character of the reformers and falsified the most authentic documents. However, now people can have access to public libraries in Germany, France, Holland, Prussia ; they can examine public manuscripts and legal documents. If people could realise how they have been imposed upon and deceived by their would-be pastors and historians, soon the re-union of Christendom would be effected, and they would shudder to associate with such abominable men and perverters of evangelical purity. The more one studies the Catholic Church, the more one loves and admires it and is proud to belong to it, because, at all times and places, she has defended truth and condemned wickedness. Let people get rid of their preconceived ideas, of the prejudices of their childhood, let them (in good faith) seek for truth and pray to God to help them — and their conversion is certain. Ministers of false sects know it ; this is why, although divided among themselves, they all by fair or unfair means try above all things to inspire their flocks with a horror of the Catholic Church, dissuade them to read Catholic books, to speak to a Catholic priest. Is not this an evident proof that they teel they are wrong — deceiving their congregations — and that everyone would abandon them if only they knew the truth ? (See Peter, Cluniac, Epist. ad Episc. Arel.). Third proof. — The testimony of Martin Luther, who in his disputation at Leipsic, in 1519, declared that he " firmly believed and was not afraid to confess it, that he knew there was a Purgatory, and that he was easily persuaded that the Scriptures mentioned it, that the souls detained in it are assisted by our prayers and good works." Does not this show that Martin Luther, when afterwards he denied Purgatory, did so contrary to his conscience and through expediency, to justify his system of salvation by Faith alone without works, which system is contradicted throughout the whole of the Scriptures, as I have amply and clearly shown, and more proofs ot its falsity I am prepared to give at any time. Third proof of Purgatory. — Iho testimony of the Jews. It is certain that at least five hunched years before Christ the Jews believed that alms given tor trie dead were profitable (Tob., iv., 18). In the seventh chapter of the Book of Ecclesiasticus the Jews were recommended to make offerings for the dead. " A gift hath grace in the sight ot all the living, and restrain not grace from the dead " (Eccles., vii. 37). Even if the Book ot the Macchabees were not, as it is, canonical and inspired, it is a testimony of the Faith of the Jews, who still believe to-day, as the Rev. J. Dickson may ascertain from any Jewish rabbi, that " It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins (ii. Macchab., xii., 46). Where have the Jews tound this doctrine that it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead ? Everyone knows they could not have borrowed it from the Chaldeans or any other pagan nations, because they had a horror of them, especially from the return of the captivity, and were iorbidden to adopt any of their customs or practices (Baruch., vi., 3). If this beliet was erroneous, how is it that the prophets who lived after the captivity never warned them against it? That the apostles and the early Christians, far from speaking against it, confirmed it 1 For the canonicity and inspiration ot the Books of the Macchabees, see Natalis Alexander and Dom Calmet. Objections of the Rev J. Dickson Against the Text of the Second Book ot the Macchabees. " What could you expect from a lecture," he says, " founded on a text taken from 11. Macchabees, xii., 46 ? Here it is : " It is a good and wholesome thought to pray tor the dead that they may be loosed irom their sins." Would

you believe it? This is a total mistranslation of the origin.i Greek. To get it, two sentences have had to be run into one ; the word " sin " made " sins " and two important words, a verb and its predicate, entirely left out. Refering to the idea of a future life, the writer says : The thought is holy and pious out of which he (Judas Macchabeus) made the atonement over the slain to be released from the sin." What sin ? Why the sin referred to before, by which some Jews appropriated offerings made to idols, contrary to law, and were found slain in battle. And who were the persons to be released from the sin ? The people who committed it and were gone to their account? No, the people who lived after them, and did not want to be made partakers with them in the sin. Hence the sacrifice and prayers offered up, and not for the dead but for the living, just as David sacrificed and prated to stay the plague sent for the numbering of the Israelites (1. Chron., xx., xx 7-27)'7 -2 7)' Judas Macchabeus had doubtless such precedent in view. The dead men had been idolators, and are said in this same book of Macchabees to have been slain by the just judgment of God. They were guilty of what our friend would call "a mortal sin," and so in his estimation, as in that of the Jews, would not be considered fit subjects for prayer at all. The text really disproves the doctrine ot Purgatory by teaching that this world is the place in which men are to be delivered from the guilt of sin. 1 ' REPLY. The Rev. J. Dickson asks : " What could you expect from a lecture founded on a text taken from 2 Macchabees, xii., 46." The lecture is not founded on the text of the Book of the Macchabees referred to ; apart from it we have ample and conclusive proofs of the dogma of Purgatory. Many of these proofs were clearly stated in the lecture I gave on that subject. Why does the Rev. J. Dickson, contrary to truth, deliberately mislead his too credulous congregation, for we have abundantly si own how untrustworthy the utterances of the rev. gentleman are, and we shall realise it directly still more forcibly. The Books of the Macchabees were declared canonical and inspired by the sixth Council of Carthage, in 419, at which 218 bishops and two legates ot the Roman Pontiff were present. From that time the two first Books of the Macchabees were recognised universally as inspired, both in the East and in the West, and were quoted as such by all the Fathers. These two Books were inserted before the decision of the sixth Council of Carthage in the Alexandrine version of the LXX., in the Coptic, Ethiopian, Svriac Armenian, Slavonic, and Sinaite versions. Before they were called " Anti-LeGoumcnoi," that is controverted " ; ever since, they were styled " Omologoumenoi, that is admitted by all. The Council of Trent has confirmed the decision of the Council ot Carthage. The reformers of the sixteenth century were the first to call them Apocryphal, because they contained doctrines contrary to their errors. Is their testimony, simply from a mere human point of view, to be compared wiih th.it of the Fathers of the sixth C ouncil of Carthage, who examined the question "ex professo," and whose decision wa 3 endorsed and approved of by all the doctors and Churches both oi the East and of the West, that is, by more than four hundred millions of Christians, and was never contro\erted since except by an insignificant fraction of reformers? We have shown before that the Vulgate version ol St. Jerome is, according to all those who have studied sacred hermeneutics, Protestants as well as Catholics, the most ace urafe of all, unique, unrivalled, and that it is contormable to the old Greek and Hebiew versions. See (Prcsb) tenanism and Catholicism. Lect. 1., canon ot the Script). See also (Michaehs Supplem ad lex Hebiaic, p. 992, Bibhotheca Orient, t. \\i., n. 211. Brunatti, Dissertat Bibhcarum. ni., p. 73., Mediolani, IS3S; Thenius in suis commentariis, etc. Therefore I was perfectly justified to quote the Book of the Macchabee-. Now for the forged text : Who is guilty of forgery, lor my rev. friend ? Let us see — The Forged Text of the Macchabees. With a boldness and an unscrupulousness which is inconceivable, the Rev. J. Dickson says : " Would you believe it ? This is a total mistranslation of the original Greek. To get it two sentences have had to be run into one, the word ' sin ' made ' sins,' and two important words, a verb and its predicate, entirely left out " REPLY. The Protestant versions of the Bible were made to suit the doctrines of the reformers. In the first version of Luther, Emser found one thousand egregious mistakes. See (Kmser. Motives for which the translation of Luther must be foi bidden to the common of the faithful. Leipsic, 1523 in 4to. Annotations on the Translation of the New Testament, Dresde., 1524, in 4to). Buccr, although a friend of Luther, says : " That he committed many manifest blunders in his translation of the Scriptures (Lutheri lapsus in vertendis et explanandis Scriptures manifestos esse et non paucos Bucer. dial, contra Melancht). Zwingle pronounced it " a corruption of the word of God " (Trevern, 1., 129. Amicable discussion). Of the version of Basle made by Oecolampadiu-,, Be/.i sa^s- "it was impious in many parts (Ibid., i., 12/. note). Our lev. fnend has a great esteem lor Calvin's. A learned Protestant minister, Dumoulin, qualifies it as "making violence to the

text and making, besides^additions of his own " (Hist, of the Rcf., Spalding, i., p. 367-^S). King James' version also abounds with perversions of the original text. The modern version still retains several perversions affecting doctrines. See (Archbishop Kenrick, Theol. Dog. i., p. 427-428). This is sufficient to show what little reliance can be placed on the various Protestant versions. Before accusing Catholics of perverting the text of the Macchabees quoted above, my friend should have examined whether it was not Protestants who had been guilty of the perversion he unhesitatingly attributed to Catholics, following only his prejudice and instinctive aversion for everything Catholic. We shall show him that Protestants, not Catholics, are the authors of the perversion of the text, and teach him to be more reserved in his affirmations. If we had not an infallible authority to tell us which are the true Scriptues and which translations of the Scriptures are accurate, we could never be certain in reading the Bible that we are reading the word of God. The authority of the Bible would be a mere human one on which it would be madness to risk our salvation. The best proof of this is the very aversion my friend has for certain authentic books of the Bible and the I way he interprets and translates those he considers as authentic. Who could settle whether he is right or wrong ? Yet the most important dogmas of Christianity rest on the way this dispute is settled. To see the truth of this, common sense is sufficient. When in point of law there is a controversy you have to show, first, the existence of the law ; next, by the opinion of the most eminent jurists and the decisions of celebrated tribunals or courts, to determine the exact meaning of the text of the law ; lastly, to declare whether in the given case the law is for or against the claimant. In matters of religious controversy, Protestants claim, without proof or examination, that they have the genuine text of the Bible, that they have the exact translation of it, and although the greatest authorities contradict their statement, they pretend that they have alone the exact meaning of it notwithstanding their glaring contradictions both about what is the true Bible, what is the true translation of the Bible and what is the right meaning of the most important passages of the Bible. If, in secular matter, anyone was to argue as they do, would he not be considered as insane and fit to be removed to a lunatic asjlum ? This shows how prejudice of education and early associations and training warp the judgment of otherwise prudent and sensible persons. Let us get rid of our prejudices. Let our separated friends examine things impartially ; soon they will perceive the bright light of truth shining before them and return to the religion of their ancestors — the Holy Catholic Church. One-sided evidence is no evidence at all ; this principle of common law should ever be remembered by the opponents of the Catholic Church, who condemn her without hearing what she has to say in her defence, but take it for granted that her enemies must be riorht and it would be sheer loss ot time to listen to her defence. As many Protestants, like my friend, have a decided objection to the two first books of Macchabees, I will briefly answer the difficulties which have been raised against them. As many Protestants, like my friend, have a decided objection to the two first books of the Macchabees, I will briefly answer the difficulties which have been raided against them : Objections auaixst the Books 01 the Macchabees. First Objection. — They contain historical errors. I REPLY. All the facts concerning the Jews related in them have al\va)S been acknowledged to be historically correct. The only setious difficulty raised is about the division of the kingdom of Alexander. Quintus Curtius relates that he left his kingdom to the most worthy — to Perdiccas. The Macchabees (I Macchab. i, 1 7) state that he divided it among his generals. The account of the Macchabees is the accurate one. Egypt fell to the lot of Ptolemy Lagus ; Nicanor obtained Syria; Cassander retained Macedonia ; Thrace and Bithynia fell to Lysmachus. Although this partition took place after the battle of Ipsus, yet it happened in confirmation of the prophecy of Daniel who, 200 years before, had foretold that the empire of Alexander would be divided into four kingdoms, among persons of his posterity (Daniel viii and ix), and that none of them could be equal to him in strength and power. The Macchabees affirm this fact : where is the contradiction ? Second Objection.— They encourage and praise suicide. REPLY. Nothing of the kind. They relate that an old man named Razias, tearing to fall into the hands of his enemies, who wanted to force him to apostatise, killed himself in order to avoid falling into their hands. The Bible praises Razias for his love for his country and for his faith ; it nowhere praises his suicide nor encourages anyone to imitate him in that respect. His pure intention may have exonerated him from formal guilt, but to say that the Book of the Macchabees relating this tact approves and encouraged suicide is a criminal perversion ol tiutli and gioss misrepresentation (see Vigourcux Manuel Bibl, t. 11, n. s<>3-57/)-'l'iiiKD Objl.( tion. — Contradictory account of the death of Antiochus. Where is this contradiction to be found? The Second Book of the Macchabees relates the death of Antiochus IK. or

the Great ; the others that of Antiochus IV., surnamed Epiphanes. Of course the two are quite distinct and different. In one place it is said that the city of the latter wanted to •plunder was Elymais ; in another it is said it was Persepolis. The truth is that in the original copy of the Greek manuscripts of the first book no name is mentioned, and the word Elymais must have by mistake been inserted by the copyists. Persepolis is the real city he wanted to take. The Forged Text of the Septuagint. I have before me the Greek Text of the Old Testament, according to the Septuagint and the Alexandrine manuscripts, edited at Oxford, by the Typographic Academy m. dccc. xlviii. The text runs as follows :—": — " Considering that the best grace is laid up for those who sleep in piety, holy and pious is the thought. Wherefore, he made reconciliation for the dead that they might be delivered from sin." The Rev. J. Dickson's Forged Translation. " The thought is holy and pious out of which he (Judas Macchabeus) made the atonement over the slain to be released from sin." The Rev. J. Dickson studiously leaves out the words :—: — " Considering the best grace is laid up for those who sleep in piety," because, later on, he will try to make out that the soldiers of Judas Macchabeus did not die in piety but in a state of mortal sin, and, to prove his rash assertion, he does not blush to corrupt the Scriptures. Instead of the genuine text : " Holy and pious is the thought by which he made a reconciliation for the dead that they might be delivered from sin," my rev. friend makes the Scriptures say : " Holy and pious is the thought out of which he made the atonement over the slain to be released from the sin." The atonement was for the dead, not for the living, as the Rev. J. Dickson gratuitously declares ; it was not to make a reparation for the sin of the dead but to have them released from sin, " not from the sin," as he incorrectly translates. The Vulgate Translation. " Et quiaconsiderabat quod hi gui cum piietate dormitionem acceperant, optimam haberent repositamgratiam. Sanctaergo et salubris est cogitatio pro defunctis exorare ut a peccatis solvantur." Douay Translation. " And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness had great grace laid up for them. It is, therefore, a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins." Reply to the False Interpretation of the Rev. J. Dickson. Judas Macchabeus thought his companions " had fallen asleep with godliness," or, according to the Greek, "that they had slept in piety." He did not, therefore, as the rev. gentleman would have it, consider that they were idolators. " The dead men had been idolators." They had taken idols among the spoils, but they were not guilty of idolatry, and, although in doing so they did wrong, there is nothing to show that their fault was a grievous one. Certainly they hated idolatry, and they died for their country and for their faith. Grotius himself admits that it is very probable that they not fully advert at the unlawfulness of what they were doing. Even if they did, may they not have repented at the last moment, and have obtained pardon. Judas, who believed that their death was the punishment of the violation of the Law of Moses for which they fought and died, thought that they could not be lost, and he is praised for thinking well of them and praying for them. The Bethsamites, who were struck dead for imprudently looking at the ark, did not probably commit a mortal sin, but God made an example of them to show the respect we should have for holy things. Many more examples of the kind 1 could relate, but it is not necessary. The Sacrifice of King David. " Hence the sacrifice and prayers offered up, not for the dead but for the living, just as David sacrificed and prayed God to stay the plague sent for the numbering of the Irsaelites '' (I. Chron. xx, 17-27). REI'LY. How, my dear Mr Dickson, can you make such an error of judgment ? David had offended God in numbering the people through vanity to know how many men in Israel from Dan to Bersabee were able to fight ; this sin was punished by a pestilence. In order to obtain a cessation of the terrible scourge lie built an altar in the threshing-floor of Oman, and he offered a holocaust and peace-offering. And God heard his prayer, and He commanded the Destroying Angel to put up his sword again into the sheath (I. Paralip, xxi). The sin of David was a personal one ; he, being the guilty person and the cause of the plague, had to make satisfaction for his sin which had been Visited so terribly on his people : what has that to do with the dead ? How, according to the strictest rules of logic, can an inference be drawn from this fact against the dogma of Purgatoryj? There is no parity between this sacrifice and the one of Judas Macchabeus. In the Bible it is stated that his sacrifice was for the dead, and he is praised for his charity towards them, and the inspired writer declares " that it is a holy and a

wholsome thought to pray for the dead that they may be delivered from sin," according to the Septuagint ; or " that they may be loosed from sins," according to the Vulgate. Is it fair in argumentation to draw false conclusions from wrong premises ? And when this is done by a minister of the Gospel to induce his people into error, and abuse the confidence they place in him as a preacher of truth, is it not most criminal and inexcusable Will my rev. friend still maintain and continue to teach that the text- of the Second Macchabees xii, 46, disproves the doctrine of Purgatory by teaching that this world is the place in which men are to be delivered from the guilt of sin? Here again there is another blunder ; the question is not about the remission of the guilt of sin, but about the temporal punishment or satisfaction God requires after he has forgiven the guilt and eternal punishment. That God requires such a satisfaction as we can offer, in order to impress us with a horror for sin and that we should suffer for it, though a less punishment than the one we deserved is evident from the Holy Scriptures. The very fact my friend has adduced shows it. David believed in expiatory sacrifices for sin. When the satisfaction we could and should have offered to God in this life has been neglected, then, according to Catholic teaching, it has to be made into the next before the soul can enjoy the bliss of paradise, even though it died in a state of friendship with Him, This is the state of the .question. In my fifteenth lecture I clearly demonstrated by solid proofs the reality of this intermediate place or state of purification between heaven and hell. Why did not my friend carefully examine those proofs ? Why, if he did not find them conclusive, did he not try to refute them one by one ? He could not do it, and therefore he finds it more expedient to pander to the prejudices and ignorance of his congregation and readers, and simply deny Purgatory as " a figment," and by sarcasm (the weapon of those who have no solid reason to object) turn it to ridicule. Fifth proof of Purgatory. — The universal belief of all nations at all times and in all places. Hear how the Rev. J. Dickson misrepresents this solid proof. "He dives into poetry," says he, alluding to my historical proofs of this universal belief in a middle state, "and into heathenism." I thank our friend very much for his quotations from Virgil, and Homer, and Plato, and Zoroaster, and the Mahomedan Alkoran, for this just reminds us to where the doctrine of Purgatory originally came from i.e., heathendom." REPLY. Your logic is at fault again. The dogma of Purgatory was revealed by God from the beginning, as I observed in my fifteenth lecture. It wasa nterior to paganism, as Monotheism was anterior to Polytheism. Paganism only disfigured and transformed it by adding to it ridiculous fictions. The universal agreement of all nations, learned philosophers, historians, poets at all times and in all places of the world, about a middle state of purification after death for small offenders, cannot, as I said, be satisfactorily explained without a primitive Divine revelation, which in process of time became confused, like many other revealed truths, and was shrouded in fictitious fables, through which, however, the fundamental original revelation may be olearly discerned by an observant eye, just as we discern the flood of Noah in the traditions of ancient nations, and even in the Maori legends of New Zealand. It does not follow, therefore, according to sound logic, that, because Pagan nations believed in a middle state, the origin of Purgatory is to be found " into heathendom," no more than it follows that v.g. prayer is a pagan custom because all heathen nations prayed to their false gods. lam afraid my friend wants to go through his course of logic again. In this same fifteenth lecture, I remarked that the innate sentiment we have that we can hold communication with our departed friends, and if they are inatemporarystateof sufferings, help them, can come only from our Creator, and must, therefore, be founded on truth, otherwise God Himself would deceive us and lead us into error, which is inadmissable. Now, history in hand we have shown, and we can show more fully, if necessary, that all nations, whether barbarian or civilised, not only ignorant persons but the wisest and most learned as well, offered prayers and sacrifices for their departed relations and friends. Let me ask my rev. friend, what would be the meaning of those prayers and sacrifices if they did not firmly believe that by them they could help and assist them ? Is not this a strong confirmation of the dogma of Purgatory and of the communion of saints ? If it is not, what is it then? There are hundreds of truths believed by Protestants, nay, by Presbyterians, which were also admitted by pagan nations. Would it be right for me to infer that they are pagan notions and false supe stitions, which should be reprobated and abandoned ? Such, however, would be the only thing to do, if the argument of my Rev friend had any value at all. He told the people ot New Zealand, in the Weekly Press of March 26, " There is a chaos, not unanimity, among the heathen on the subject of Purgatory ." There is no chaos, nor want of unanimity, among the heathen on the subject of Purgatory; I challenge my rev. opponent to produce his proofs, but there is a chaos, a want of unanimity on the nature, duration, and torments of Purgatory, which is quite different? We maybe certain of the existence of a thing, and be ignorant of many circumstances about it. We know there are such things as com.-ts nppe ring to us from time to time; astronomers are

not agreed as to their nature and properties, are we, on that account, to deny them ? Is it not equally absurd on the part fof my friend to tell intelligent people that heathen nations did not agree about the nature and torments of Purgatory, although they all believed in it ? Therefore, Purgatory does not exist, it is "a figment," a heathen superstition? Sixth proof of Purgatory.— The testimony of all the Doctors of the Church and the most learned theologians both of the East and of the West from the time of the Apostles. This unanimous testimony of the brightest intellects, of the wisest and most learned and holy men that ever lived does not impress the Rev. J. Dickson ; of course he is wiser, more learned, better informed than all of them ; the mendacious Calvin is more worthy to be believed than all the greatest luminaries of the world ; they are all wrong, and he only is right. The rev. gentleman expresses his surprise at my diving into the Fathers ; but were they not the witnesses of the faith of the age they lived in? If, from the time of the Apostles they all give the same substantial evidence on any given point of religion, docs it not show Apostolicity ? How can we pass a judgment in a case when we have not heard the depositions of the witnesses? If their evidence agreed in all important particulars, would the judge be right to ignore it, or to pronounce against it, as if it had no significance, although those witnesses should be prudent, learned and well informed? The evidence I gave in my lecture on the existence of Purgatory, is perfectly unassailable. If all the Fathers were wrong from the Apostolic times until the Reformation, as their opinion is the faithful echo of the faith of Christian people. In all ages and places until the Revolution of the sixteenth century, we have either to declare that the reformers were wrong, or that Christianity is a failure and an imposture, which it would be madness and the height of impiety to attempt to prop up. My friend knows this, and this is why, like all impostors he profits by every opportunity to prejudice people against tradition and aginst the Fathers lest they should be converted and return to the Church in wbich true Christianity and salvation are to be found. Seventh proof of Purgatory. The testimony of the Scriptures.— When the Patriarch Jacob said, " I will go down to my son into hell, mourning " (Gen. xxxvii., 35). He did not mean that he would go to the hell of the damned] to be with his beloved son, whom, he thought, had been devoured by a wild beast, but the underground place, called Limbo, where the souls of the just were detained until Christ should open to them the gates of paradise. When Samuel appeared to Saul being evoked by the Pythoness of Endor, he did not come from the hell of the damned, but from the place of abode of the just. Does not this show that the Ancient Jews believed in a middle place between heaven and hell? (See i. Kings, xxviiij. Also the text ot the II Book of the Macchabees xii. 46. And the sacrifices offered by the Jews for the dead (see about the sacrifices of the Jews for the dead, book Mahzor, published by Gembrad 1567). The Patriarch Tobias advised his son to make offerings for the dead (Tob. iv. 17). He, therefore, believed that these offerings were pleasing to Gjd and profitable to the dead. By this offering, commentators of the holy Scriptures generally understand alms given to the poor that they might pray for the dead (see Bergier. Theolog. Diet, prayers tor the dead, 1823). In the Mischna there is mention of the prayers the Jews ottered for the dead. Is it not said in the Bible that nothing defiled can enter heaven ; what would become of those who have only small faults to account tor--' Could we, for a moment, imagine that they are sent to the hell of the damned, and to be deprived for ever of the vision ot God and the bliss ot Paradise >' It you say that God takes no account of small sins, you contradict the Scriptures which affirm that we shall have to give an account, even of an idle word. If you pretend tnat, notwithstanding their small sins, the just are at once admitted to heavenly bliss, you contradict the text which says that nothing defiled sh ill enter heiven. Again, in that case, where would be the difference between those who die without any sin at all, and those who die guilty of hundreds of wilful though small offences'' This -.how, how reasonable the dogma of Purgatory is. When St. Paul says that some shall be saved yet so as by fire, does he not allude to the purging pains of Purgatory? (1. Cor. iii,). Let us sum up our evidence: 1. The dogma of Purgatory was universally believed by all Christians of the East and ot the West from the Apostles till the fourth century, when it was denied by Aerius, who was condemned and avoided by all as a criminal innovator and had no followers. 2. From the fourth till the twelfth century and from that time to the Reformation, no one ever attempted to call it into doubt. 3. Even at present more than four hundred millions of Christians believe in it, and have never had any doubt about it. 4. The text of the second book of the Macchabees is a proof of the belief of the Jews at that time in Purgatory and prayers for the dead. The objections wof the Rev. J. Dickson are of no value. His translation is a forgery of the original text, and the conclusions he draws from it are groundless. 5. The sacrifice of King David and that of Judas Macchabeus were of a quite distinct character; one was tor the living, the other for the dead, but both show the necessity of satisfying for sins committed. 6. The universal consent all nations at all times and in all places, of the learned as well as of the illiterate, about the existence of a middle state

between heaven and hell for the punishment of small offenders, shows that they had received this notion originally by a Divine revelation. 7. The testimony of all the Fathers and Doctors of both Oriental and Western churches about the existence of Purgatory and the efficacy of prayers for the dead, is a proof of the apostolicity of this universal belief. 8. The Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, in many places, suppose the existence of Purgatory. 9. The dogma of Purgatory is perfectly in accordance with reason and God's justice and mercy. Other false innuendoes of the Rev. J. Dickson answered. P'irst False Innuendo.— "That the Apostolic constitutions are a glaring forgery." Referring to me, he says :— " He quotes also from the Apostolic Constitutions, and, would you believe it, these have been declared by all competent scholars to be a glaring forgery of a later century (see Harnack, Lightfoot, etc.). REPLY. The Apostolic Constitutions are so called, not because they were written by the Apostles, but because they contain regulations of apostolic origin. They are generally attributed to St. Clement. They are divided into eight books and contain many precous regulations on the duties of Christians, liturgy and ecclesiastical discipline. Whiston, with great erudition, has tried to demonstrate that these Constitutions are genuine and authentic and most venerable (see Whiston, essay on the Apostolic Constitutions). They certainly contain many invaluable documents about the early Christian liturgies and many points of discipline established by the Apostles. The most severe critics admit that the fifty canons they contain are certainly, at least, of the third century and anterior to the Council of Nice. Mosheim thinks that they were written already in the second century (see Mosheim, Dissert, sur 1, Hist. Eccles. t. ii. p. 163). In another place he fixes the date of their apparition in the third century. The truth is that they were not all written at the same lime. Some portions were written in the second century, others a little later on. Unfortunately this remarkable work was adulterated by the Anans (see Council of Trullo, can. 2). Therefore, although it is most ancient and may be quoted, in many cases, as a witness of the Faith and customs of the early Christians, its evidence would not be perfectly conclusive except it were corroborated by other testimonies and solid proofs, as, for instance, in what they say about prayers for the dead, which, as we have shown, (see Lett. xv. on Purgatory), is confirmed by all the Apostolical liturgies I and the testimony of the ancient Fathers. The Apostolical Constitutions are not a forgery. There is a controversy about their compiler, and the alterations made by the Arians take away a great deal of their value, yet, when corroborated by other certain apostolic evidence, they are most precious and give us a clearer idea of the Faith and practice of the primitive Church. Therefore, my rev. friend and the authors he quotes are guilty of misrepresentations when they say that they are "a glaring forgery. 1 ' Second False Innuendo.— "That St. John Chrysostom flouted the very idea of Purgatory." " I read the other day," he says," a most beautiful sermon of Chrysostum, ' the golden-mouth orator,' born 347, a.d., on the Cross and Christ's promise to the theif — ' To-day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise,' in which he points out that to j leave this world was, according to the greatest of all teachers, to go and be with Himself in Paradise the same day, and in ! which he flouts the very idea of Purgatory." RU'LY, There, jou are at it again. You seem to stumble at every step , you sec all things through the coloured glasses of prejudice, and you cannot perceive them in their true light. St. John Chrysostom does not " flout the very idea of Purgatory " as you pretend, he simply declares that our Blessed Lord promised to the good and penitent thief, on account of his sorrow and the confession he tmde of his guilt, and of the Divinity and innocence of our Saviour, that he would enjoy the bliss or Paradise, that is, the sight ot His Divine glory tint very day, which was verified when, alter His death, our Lard went down into Limbo and consoled him and all the just by the sight of His giorified soul. This text shows the existence of a middle state, since our Blessed Lord did not enter heaven in body and soul before the day of His ascension, and none could be admitted in it before Him, This is how by your false conclusions and interpretations you are continually leading your ! people astray and teaching them error instead of truth. This should show you the necessity of an infallible Church to guide us in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and of the writings of the Fathers. No man, no matter how clever, ! could, in the short span of his existence, acquire a fairly complete and accurate notion of the Christian revelation if left unassisted. In religion, more than in any other science, we want a safe and prudent guide, let your ceaseless blunders open your eyes and make you more prudent and wise for the future. Hear now how St. John Chrysostom speaks of Purgatory and prayers for the dead. Since you have the works of the learned •md saintly prelate, whom you style " Chrysostum," as if he were no more than an ordinary man, kindly look for the funeral oratio.i ot the E.nperor Thjodo^ius, and there you will read

this prayer of the great Doctor, which, I hope, will edify you and convert you if you are really in good faith :—": — " Give perpetual rest, O Lord, to Thy servant Theodosius. Give him that rest which Thou hast prepared for Thy saints. Him I have loved ; wherefore I follow him in the regions of the living, and I will never cease praying for him and weeping over him until, by these my prayers and tears, I have introduced him into the mountain of the Lord, where there is eternal life.'' Did not the golden -mouthed Doctor believe in the power and efficacy of prayers for the dead ? Did he not believe in Purgatory? Did he not hope, through his prayers and tears to prevail upon God to admit Theodosius to heavenly bliss ? Could anything clearer be desired ? And you are not ashamed to tell people that he did not believe in and even " flouted the very idea of Purgatory." Is not this perversion of truth most disgraceful ? If this does not satisfy you, take his homily on the one hundred and eighteenth Psalm, " The fire wherein sins of inadvertency and fortuitous sins are cleansed is quite differentfrom the fire which torments the demons (Ser. iii. n, 17). For the sake of brevity I say no more. I have given only the substance of the original text, which is much longer and more forcible, as you may ascertain it by reading attentively the passage I have pointed out to you. Third False Innuendo.— " That Purgatory make a man's salvation depend on the freaks of a fellow man." " Did God ever intend," says the Rev. J. Dickson, •' that a man's salvation should depend on the freaks of a fellow man ? " REPLY. This is how, by sarcasm, you ridicule the most holy things — a much easier way than to answer solid arguments. Our salvation depends on our fidelity to Divine grace, our good works, the intention we had in performing them, the fervour with which we acquitted ourselves of them, the liveliness of our faith, the firmness of our hope and our charity, Salvation is a personal work ; everyone will be rewarded or punished according to his deeds. " The Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then will he render to every man according to his works (Matth. xvi., 27). The salvation of the holy souls in Purgatory is certain and secure; it does not " depend," as you imagine and give your hearers and readers to believe, "on the freaks of a fellow man." Their glory in ' heaven will be in proportion to the fidelity with which they have served God on earth, the sacrifices they have made for Him, the virtues they have practised, the temptations they have overcome, the pains, tribulations and afflictions they suffered for His sake, not one of them will be forgotten, not one will remain without its special and eternal recompense. However, if, in spite of their great, nay, almost innumerable merits, at the moment of death they still have some small defilements or debts to pay, these will have to be acquitted ; they will have to be thoroughly cleansed and purified in order to be fit to appear before the Divine Majesty and be crowned with heavenly bliss. The time and nature of their purification will be in exact proportion to their carelessness in making satisfaction on earth, when it was in their power to do so. In His kind providence Almighty God, in order to encourage us not to forget our dear departed friends and relations, declares that, in case they were in need, He would listen to our supplications for them. Is not this doctrine most beautiful, consoling, and profitable both for the living and the dead? Does it not admirably shew how God blends justice and mercy together? If those we pray for are in heaven already, and consequently not in need of our suffrages, will they not be delighted to see how we think of them and remember them ? Will they not plead and intercede for us ? Will not Jesus Himself be very thankful to us and reward us, since He has said, " Whatever you do to the least of My brethren, you do it unto Me? " Are not these holy souls His beloved friends, his faithful and loyal servants? If we, on earth, wicked as we are, are grateful for a service rendered to a friend or relation, how could Jesus not be pleased and thankful to us for the regard we have tor His most dear and intimate friends ? Fourth False Innuendo. — That the inscriptions in the Roman catecombs show that the early Christians of Rome did not believe in Purgatory, When I visited Rome a few years ago I noticed in these underground caverns, ca\erns once occupied by the Christians of Rome, such inscriptions on the tombstones of the dead as these — "Died in God," "in Christ," "in peace," "resting well in peace," etc. This shows clearly that this doctrine of Purgatory, like the other doctrines associated with it, was utterly unknown, or, if known, not believed in, by the Romans of the first few centuries REPLY. Your Presbyterian spectacles have again deceived you. We believe that the martyrs who shed their blood for Christ go straight to heaven, without passing through the purging flames of Purgatory ; hence the inscriptions on their tombstones are expressive of the rest and bliss they now enjoy for the confession of their Faith and of the Divinity of our Blessed Lord in spite of the most cruel persecutions and frightful torments. To coucludc therefrom that the early Christians of Rome either knew nothing of Purgatory or did not believe in it, is nonsensical, and displays on your part a great ignorance

of Christian antiquity and Catholic belief . On other tombs are often found expressions implying the belief in Purgatory and tfee efficacy of prayers for the dead, such as : " Give to .all who are buried in this place perfect rest." The words " rest * " cooling refreshment," " refrigerium," are.'in the language of the Catholic Liturgy, emblems of the solace given to suffering souls by the prayers of the faithful, or their final admission into heavenly bliss. This form of prayer for the dead occurs frequently, and may still be seen on the tombstones of the Christians of Rome and other places (see Muratori Lit. Rom, Vet. i, col. 749-760). Very often this prayer is expressed by the optative, as : " May thy soul rest in jpeace " " In refrigerio anima tua" (see Diet, of Christ., Antiq., by Martigny, Paris, 1889; Fabretti, p. 547 ; Gruter, 1057). Sometimes the name of the dead is expressed, and the prayer, " May you rest in peace " added, as in the following instance : " Antonia, may our sweet God refresh thy soul" (Boldetti, p. 418). Another frequent prayer found on tombstones of the early Christians is : " Give refreshment, O Lord, to the soul of . . " " Refrigera Deus animam," etc. For the future, rev. sir, do not be so positive in your assertions ; your innumerable mistakes should teach you humility, prudence, and charity. Of your lectures it might be truly said what you falsely say of Purgatory : " Fie ! let the story to the winds ; communicate it on some lonely shore to the playful waves; whisper it to the babbling brook. I will not hear it, because it is not true."