Lord are received only by faith and the faithful, or that the communion of our Lord's body and blood is only a spiritual communion, finds no countenance either in the Scriptures or the fathers and doctors of the Church. Passages enough may be cited to prove the necessity of faith to a good communion, enough to prove that the reception of the body and blood of our Lord is a spiritual or sacramental reception, as distinguished from the gross carnal reception understood by the unbelieving Jews, or the reception with their natural species or sensible properties; but these passages are in strict accordance with the Catholic faith, and teach only what the Church teaches and always has taught.

From Transubstantiation the learned jurist passes to the consideration of Purgatory:

"This brings me to another usurpation, the strange doctrine of Purgatory. Until the Council of Trent, three centuries since, a Roman Catholic was not required to receive it as an article of faith, but the sale of masses, pardons, and indulgencies, to raise funds for Rome, had been so extensive that the Church of Rome was then compelled, under the pressure of the Reformers, to endeavor to sustain itself by adopting Purgatory as an article of faith.

"You rest Purgatory on St. Peter's 1st Epistle,* in substance as follows That Christ died for our sins, but enlivened in the spirit, preached to those spirits that were in prison. To my mind this verse is made clear by the verse which follows, in which 'spirits' are spoken of as disobedient in the time of Noah, in consequence of which only eight souls were saved. St. Peter speaks, also, in his second Epistle, of being in this tabernacle,' of putting off this tabernacle himself, as his Lord Jesus had shown him.' He speaks of those who walk after the flesh, in the lust of uncleanness, as servants of corruption, for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.' The exposition of the verses you cite, is, to my mind, perfectly easy. In the time of Noah, those spirits imprisoned in the flesh, were disobedient, and all perished, except the eight souls saved with Noah. But in the days of the apostles, our Saviour having put off the flesh, appeared in his spiritual nature to his disciples, who were spirits still in the prison of the flesh, and preached to them in their prison, and by his baptism, previously conferred, and his resurrection and ascent into heaven, where he has power over all, saved them as God saved Noah and his associates in the ark.

* 1 Peter 3: 18, 19.

+2 Peter 2: 19.

"This is my exposition as a jurist, and I expound the passage as I would a deed, by the context, and other deeds of the grantor."pp. 33, 34.

The assertion that no Roman Catholic was obliged to believe the doctrine of Purgatory prior to the Council of Trent is simply false, as is also that about the sale of masses, pardons, indulgences, &c. No such sale was ever authorized by the Church, or could be effected without the grossest violation of her doctrine and discipline. If individuals without and against her doctrine and authority had done it, she would not be responsible, but there is not a particle of evidence that any one ever has done so. We make this statement with a full knowledge of the charge brought by Luther and his adherents against Tetzel; but that charge did not go to the extent of Mr. Derby's, and besides, it was never proved, and never at any time rested on any better authority than that of Luther himself, which is none at all. Indeed it is worse than none, for the fact that Dr. Martin Luther makes a charge is prima facie evidence that it is false. To any man who knows the Catholic doctrine of pardons and indulgences the charge is ridiculous and absurd. The learned jurist puts the cart before the horse, in supposing the doctrine of Pur-` gatory was adopted in order to justify the practice of granting indulgences. The practice presupposes the doctrine and never could have obtained without it.

Mr. Derby says he gives his exposition of 1 Pet. iii. 18, 19, "as a jurist," and that he expounds it as he would a deed. If so, we shall beg to be excused, if we have a deed to be expounded, from employing him to expound it. We have known all along that he was a poor theologian, and we begin now to suspect that he is hardly a better jurist. In my Protestant days I understood the text as I do now, and the doctrine of Purgatory always seemed to me, supposing the truth of Christianity, a very reasonable and necessary doctrine. If it comes to private interpretation I shall not yield to Mr. Derby, since for nearly twenty years I was a Protestant Minister, and he even in the estimation of Protestants is only a layman.

Mr. Derby tells us (p. 34), that the Greek or Eastern Church, meaning the Schismatic or Non-United Christians of the Greek rite, does not believe the doctrine of Purga

tory. This is about as true as his statement that that church is established in Austria. There are Schismatists of the Greek rite in Austria, no doubt, and there may be Greek Schismatists who do not believe the doctrine of Purgatory; but we know the Greeks believed it in the fifteenth century and subscribed to the definition of it by the Council of Florence in the Act of Union. Difference on that subject has never been one of the causes of separation or one of the obstacles to re-union.

Mr. Derby tells us again (ibid.), "that Eastern and Western Bishops differed principally, if not entirely, on the question of Easter day, when the two churches separated." Does he mean the principal, if not the entire difference between the East and the West, at the time of the separation, was on the question of Easter-day? Or does he mean they differed at that time almost entirely on that question? Let him mean either, his statement is untrue, for whether he speaks of the earliest, of the latest, or an intermediate separation, there was no difference on the question as to the time of keeping Easter. Pope St. Victor, near the close of the second century, excommunicated certain Asiatic bishops, or at least threatened to do so, but the Eastern Church was never at war with the Western on that question. There is even now no difference between the East and the West as to the time when Easter ought to be kept, there is only a difference as to the manner of computing the time. This difference has been occasioned by the introduction, long since the last separation, into the West of the Gregorian Calendar or New Style, which the East has hitherto refused to adopt, preferring, as some one says, "rather to disagree with the stars than to agree with the Pope." Mr. Derby does not seem to be better as a historian than he is as a logician, theologian, or jurist.

"You think," he says to his son (ibid.), "that Purgatory has been admitted by the fathers. If so, when and where ?" Is Mr. Derby really so ignorant of the subject on which he speaks with so much confidence, as actually to imagine that his demand cannot be answered? Were we proving the doctrines of the Church we would bring forward authorities enough to the contrary of his assertion to make even him blush for his ignorance and recklessness.

NEW YORK SERIES.-VOL. II. NO. II.

12

"St. Augustine certainly knew of no such admission, and could not convince himself of its truth; he says, that such a thing may be after this life, is not incredible.' But what means this,' he adds, and what sins be there which so prevent men from coming into the kingdom of God that they may notwithstanding obtain pardon by the merits of holy friends, it is very hard to find, and very dangerous to determine. Certainly, I myself, notwithstanding great study and travail in that behalf, could never attain to the knowledge of it.' Again, he says, 'For such as every man in this day shall die, even such on that day shall he be judged.' "And to this effect elsewhere."*-pp. 34, 35.

The work

Mr. Derby is unfortunate in his references. St. Augustine wrote no work entitled, De Comitate Dei. intended is, most likely, De Civitate Dei, but I do not find in that the alleged passages. Epistolæ 80, if it means Epistola 80, does not contain them. Hom. 11, in Apocalyps. refers to a work not by St. Augustine. So also does Ad Petrum, Cap. 3. In Johan. 49, contains nothing bearing on the question. The first two passages are the only ones of importance, and these I do not recollect in my reading of the works of the Saint, and I am unable to find them by means of the very full index of the Benedictines. Something the Saint may have said has most probably, by miscitation, misapplication, or mistranslation, or all these at once, been worked up into them, but that they express as they stand his doctrine on the subject is absolutely impossible, for that St. Augustine held the doctrine of Purgatory, and held it too as a tradition of the fathers, is undeniable. Mr. Derby's mistake, whether original with him or copied by him from some of his Protestant friends, has probably been occasioned by the fact that St. Augustine denies that all punishments after death are purgatorial, or that faith alone, prayers of the Saints, and alisdeeds can avail those who have died in sin. This he may have understood, more Anglicano, to be the denial of Purgatory; but the Saint himself did not so understand it. After telling us that prayers for the devil and his angels, or for those who have died infidels and impious, will not be heard, he adds, " pro defunctis quibusdam, vel ipsius Ecclesiæ, vel quorumdam piorum exauditur oratio; sed

* De comitate Dei, Epistolæ 80, Hom. 11, In apocalyps. Ad Petrum, Cap. 3, In Johan. Tract. 49.

pro his quorum in Christo regeneratorum, nec usque adeo vita in corpore male gesta est, ut tali misericordia judicentur digni non esse; nec usque adeo bene ut talem misericordiam reperiantur necessariam non habere. Neque enim quibusdam veraciter diceretur, quod non eis remittatur neque in hoc sæculo, neque in futuro, nisi essent quibus, etsi non in isto, tamen, remittetur in futuro."* This is sufficient to prove that St. Augustine held the doctrine of Purgatory. But he says again, "Non sunt prætermittendæ supplicationes pro spiritibus mortuorum ; quas faciendas pro omnibus in Christiana et Catholica societate defunctis etiam tacitis nominibus quorumcumque sub generali commemoratione suscepit ecclesia." He says this in answer to those who thought it a damage to the dead not to have known sepulchres, on the ground that it might prevent prayers from being offered for the repose of their souls.

To the same effect, he says in another place, "Proinde pompa funeris, agmina exsequiarum, sumptuosa diligentia sepulturæ, monumentorum opulenta constructio, vivorum sunt qualiacumque solatia, non adjutoria mortuorum. Orationibus vero sanctæ Ecclesiæ, et sacrificio salutari, et elecmosynis, quæ pro eorum spiritibus erogantur, non est dubitandum mortuos adjuvari; ut cum eis misericordius agatur a Domino, quam eorum peccata meruerunt. Hoc enim a patribus traditum universa observat Ecclesia, ut pro eis qui in corporis et sanguinis Christi communione defuncti sunt, cum ad ipsum sacrificium loco suo commemorantur, oretur, ac pro illis quoque id offerri commemoretur. Cum vero eorum commendandorum causa opera misericordiæ celebrantur, quis eis dubitat suffragari pro quibus orationes Deo non inaniter allegantur? Non omnino ambigendum est ista prodesse defunctis, sed talibus qui ita vixerint ante mortem, ut possint eis hæc utilia esse post mortem."

What could Mr. Derby have known of the matter, when he represented St. Augustine as doubtful and unable to convince himself of the truth of the doctrine of Purgatory? These extracts are decisive, and we could adduce several

*De Civitat. Dei, Lib. xxi., cap. 24.

† De Cura pro Mortuis, cap. iv.

Serm. clxxii. de Verbis Apostoli. Edit. Gaume Fratres.