Purgatory, By The Rev. M. Canty, P.P., Part 60.

Appendix Part 4.

II. In answer to the second reason by which the objection is sustained, that Jeremias could not have taken them away because the Chaldeans plundered and burnt the temple, we may remark in the first place that, as is evident from what we have just said, we are under no necessity of admitting that the prophet had not taken the precaution of having these invaluable treasures removed before the siege. It is a disputed point whether he had or not. But even though we may grant, for the sake of argument, that he had not removed them in the reign of Joachim, he could still remove them in the reign of Sedecias, after the capture of the city by the Chaldeans, but before the temple was consigned to flames. He stood high in favour with Nabuchodonosor, (Jeremias, xxxix. 11, 12.) and was restored to liberty by Nabuzardan, the com mander of the Babylonian army. If he asked leave of Nabuzardan, or his lord the king of Babylon, to remove them, he would be likely to obtain such a favour. Hence most interpreters think that Nabu-zardan gave him this leave, Eusebius (Præp. ix. 39.) cites Eupolemus as an authority to say that Nabuchodonosor, after taking the city, gave the Tabernacle and Ark to Jeremias.

III. We may grant in answer to the third point— that the tabernacle and ark no longer appear or are mentioned in Scripture after the captivity, unless in that passage of Machabees (2 Mach. xi. 8.) to which exception is taken—raised in favour of the objection, that they may have no longer found a place in the temple of Jerusalem ; but it does not follow from this that Jeremias did not conceal them. There is a difference of opinion, however, among Catholic interpreters as to what became of them. This difference arises from the different interpretations that are given to the seventh and eighth verses of the second chapter of the Second Book, where, after describing how the prophet had concealed the tabernacle and Ark, and how some of them who followed him came up to mark the place, but could not find it, the sacred writer goes on to say: " When Jeremias perceived it, he blamed them, saying: The place shall be unknown, till God gather together the congregation of the people, and receive them to mercy. And then the Lord will show these things, and the majesty of the Lord shall appear, and there shall be a cloud as it was shewed to Moses, and he shewed it when Solomon prayed that the place might be sanctified to the great God." This prophecy of Jeremias has been since lost. There is no longer any vestige of it to be found. It was in existence, however, as is evident from the quotation just given, in the age in which the writer of the Second Book of Machabees lived. There are three opinions founded on the different interpretations given to the text,

1. The first opinion holds that this revelation or showing- of the tabernacle and ark is to be under stood in a mystic sense of Christ. Nor is it unusual in the Scripture to take them in this sense. Thus, in the Apocalypse, (xi 19.) St. John, referring to Christ, says : " The ark of His testament was seen in His temple." Our Lord was the mediator in both Testaments, the Old and the New. He was in a special manner the true ark and the true tabernacle of the new covenant, " which," to use the words of St. Paul to the Hebrews, (viii. 2.) "the Lord hath pitched, and not man." St. Ambrose (Lib. 3, De Officiis. ch. 14.) receives the text in this sense, that is, in mystic reference to Christ. He is followed, in the twelfth century, by Rupert, the Abbot, who, after noticing the notion which the carnal Jews entertained on the point, which was, that there should be a congregation of the Jews on earth, at one time or other, and that the temple should be restored under such a cloud as overhung Moses when he received the law, continues thus : " But we after that time in which these things were written, after the victorious battles of the Machabees, know no congregation of the people of God, beyond that which the same Spirit who spoke in the Prophets draws to us from John the Evangelist: that Jesus was to die not only for the nation, but that he should congregate in one the children of God, who were dispersed. Then verily appeared the glory of God, the glory of the Son of God effulgent with the resurrection of the dead ; from that time the cloud, as it was manifested to Moses, when he received the law. . . . the cloud, I say, from that time is the same, that is, the blindness of the Jews. . . . Until that time it shall be unknown, says Jeremias, where are the tabernacle, and the ark, and the altar of incense. That is, it shall not be known by peoples or nations, of whom or of what kind they were the celestial resemblances."

2. The second opinion holds that the words of the text refer to the real tabernacle and ark of Moses, and that the revelation of these, which shall promote the conversion of the Jews, will be made at the end of the world, when Enoch and Elias shall return upon earth to do battle in the cause of God. The adherents of this opinion say that when Egesippus describes how when Pompey was going through the temple, viewing and admiring it, the cherubs and the tablets caught his eye, these were not the Mosaic cherubs and tablets, but other ones constructed in imitation of them. And when the altar of incense is said to have been used by the Jews after they re turned home from Babylon, this should be under stood to be an imitation altar, fashioned in resemblance to the old one. But if some think they discover in the triumphal arch of Titus at Rome the image of the ancient ark, this is to be treated as a mere illusion. They who decipher the figure in the arch in that sense, confound the table of the breads of Proposition with the Ark of the Covenant, which is a great mistake. Such is the opinion held, amongst others, by Richard of St. Victor.

3. There is a third opinion, however, which asserts that the unknown place of which the Prophet speaks was discovered when, as we read in the first chapter of the Second Book, the sacred author, after having told how the priests who were then faithful worshippers of God had hidden the fire from the altar in a certain valley unknown to all men, goes on to say that Nehemias sent some priests, descendants of those who had hid it, to seek for it, but that instead of finding it, they found thick water, with which they sprinkled the sacrifices. Then at once, to use the words of the author, " was a great fire kindled, so that all wondered." We may be pardoned if we here call the attention of the reader to how often in the economy of God water has been adopted as the instrument wherewith He displays His power, and dispenses His favours and graces to man. We need only cite as instances of this, Moses at the passage of the Red Sea, whose waters he divided, and at the Rock, from which he drew water; and Christian Baptism, in which God remits sin through the instrumentality of water. The thick water was found by Nehemias in the reign of Darius I., king of Persia, and son of Hystaspes. When it is said in the second chapter and eighth verse that " the majesty of the Lord shall appear" in a cloud as it did to Moses and Solomon, the patrons of this third opinion think that the time in which this was verified and the majesty of God really appeared was when, as we read in the first chapter and twenty-second verse, a great fire was kindled, and a cloud covered the sun, the altar, and the sacrifices, as was the case in the times of Moses and Solomon, Hence the congregation of the people prophesied by Jeremias was fulfilled when, after the captivity of Babylon, the Jews were brought together under Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes. Such is the third opinion, held by Menochius and others, who, to strengthen their position, allege that some erudite believe that the image of the ark is discernible in the Arch of Titus, which would go to show that the ark was among the objects found in the temple at the time of the siege of Jerusalem. Furthermore, they observe that, as a negative argument does not weaken the force of a positive one, their opinion is not weakened by the silence of Esdras and Nehemias, or the negative assertion of Josephus. Such is a fair summary of the different opinions held by interpreters as to what became of the tabernacle and the ark. Let the reader adopt whichever one of them he prefers. With either of them he will be able to meet the third argument—the non-appearance of the tabernacle and ark after the captivity—put forth to sustain the objection. He will see that it is a much debated question whether the ark and tabernacle were in the second temple. The opinion of those who hold the negative, how ever, seems to be the better established. For my part, I should be inclined to lean to the side of those who maintain that the ark and tabernacle found no place in the second temple. In this opinion the promises contained in the text referred to, and were verified in, that true ark of the Covenant, Christ, of whom the ancient material ark was a type. God, by having the ark and tabernacle concealed, wished to draw away the heart of the Jews gradually from sensible objects, and to elevate their minds to things of a more spiritual order. Hence this opinion seems to give more satisfaction. According to it, the prediction as to the appearance of a cloud, was fulfilled at the time Christ collected together his disciples, when the Father and the Holy Ghost bore testimony to Him in a bright cloud. There is no reason to expect that the ark and tabernacle shall be revealed at the end of the world, for the types of the old law have come to an end, and there is no need to restore them when all things are about to see their consummation.

They object also that an inspired writer would not be likely to ask pardon of his faults, as does the writer of the Second Book of Machabees. (xv. 38 and 39) " I will also here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired : but if not so perfectly it must be pardoned me."

In answer to this, we say that if due attention be paid to his words, the sacred writer does not ask pardon of the faults or mistakes he may have committed against truth, or in the subject matter of his narration; but only for any mistakes he may have committed in the form of his discourse, or for any want of elegance in expression there may have been. His words, as given in the Douay version, are: "If not so perfectly." ( In the Vulgate, "Si minus digne.") In other words, he asks to be pardoned if he may have inelegantly related some things. Hence the Douay annotator observes: "This is not said with regard to the truth of the narration, but with regard to the style and manner of writing, which in the sacred penmen is not always the most accurate." St. Paul (ii. Cor. xi. 6.) has a similar passage: " For although I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge." The Greek version also is in favour of this interpretation. The verse in the original Greek runs thus : " If in a frugal and middling style, this is as well as I was able." The inspiration, whereby the Holy Ghost assists and guides the writer, does not exclude natural ability or acquirement. The writer of the Machabees is not afraid that he has said anything erroneous, or in the least deviated from the truth, though he may be afraid that his language is not over polished. It may be, too, as Father Schouppe (Curs. Scrip. Sac., Tom. i, Diff. Lib. I and II Mack. p. 237, Quaest. 4.) observes, that the writer may have been unaware that he was inspired by the Holy Ghost. In this case, inspired by the same Spirit of God, he would, through humility, have asked pardon of any faults that may be in his style. If it may be questioned whether the inspired penman could be unaware that he was inspired, it can be replied that we have the authority of the Scripture itself to say that he could. We learn in the Gospel of St. John (xi. 51.) that Caiphas, though not aware of it, spoke under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,when he prophesied that Christ should die for the nation.

Another objection is raised from the first chapter and ninth verse of the Second Book, where the Encenia, or feast of the dedication of the altar, is called Scenopegia, or feast of tabernacles.

This objection is met by referring the reader to the sixth verse of the tenth chapter, where is explained the reason why the feast of the dedication of the altar is called Scenopegia. It is so called be cause it was celebrated for eight days, " after the manner of the feast of the tabernacles"

Finally, another portion of these books to which the infidel, the rationalist, and the Protestant object, is the fourth chapter and twenty-third verse of the Second, where it is said that Menelaus, who was raised to the dignity of High Priest, was brother to Simon the Benjamite, and, in consequence, of the tribe of Benjamin. But Josephus tells us he was the son of Simon II., and brother of Onias and Jason, and therefore of the race of Aaron and of the priestly tribe of Levi. Add to this, that a member of the tribe of Benjamin could not have been raised to the high priesthood, which, according to law, should be filled from the ranks of the tribe of Levi.

Our reply to this is, that, if we are to accept the word "brother" in the literal and obvious sense, there was an usurpation of the office of high priest in the person of Menelaus, who, being brother of Simon and one of the tribe of Benjamin, was by law ineligible for that dignity. By law no one but a member of the tribe of Levi could become high priest. Then the law was broken, and the office of high priest was usurped by Menelaus, if he were the real brother of Simon, who was a Benjamite. But some, after St. Thomas, meet the difficulty by saying that Menelaus was not the real brother of Simon. These are of opinion that he was called his brother either because he was his brother-in-law, or because he was his brother in resemblance, being like him in guilt. Against this opinion, however, it may be said that the testimony of Josephus, who contradicts himself (Aut. xii., 6, and xv. 3.) in other points, though not in this, is not sufficient to convince us that Menelaus was not the true brother in the flesh of Simon.

Purgatory, By The Rev. M. Canty, P.P., Part 58.

Appendix Part 2.

Antiochus Epiphanes

This happens in the present instance.
The incredulous insist on a greater difficulty which they have unearthed, and pretend to be convincing. The two books, they say, are at variance with regard t0 the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is related in the sixth chapter of the First Book that having been repulsed from the Persian city of Elymais he came to Babylon and died there of a broken heart on hearing of the destruction of his army in Judea. " He was struck with fear," the sacred text says, "and fell sick for grief," and he perished " with great grief in a strange land." But, on the other hand, in the first chapter of the Second Book he is said to have been stoned to death in the temple of Nanea (a Persian goddess taken by some for Diana, by others for Venus) which was in Persia: "He fell in the temple of Nanea." A little farther on in the sixteenth verse it is detailed how when Antiochus entered the temple " they cast stones and slew the leader and them that were with him, and hewed them to pieces, and cutting off their heads they threw them forth." These statements cannot be reconciled with each other. Antiochus could not have died in different places. The writer of one book contradicts the writer of the other. Furthermore, even the writer of the Second Book contradicts himself. As we have just seen, he states that Antiochus, with his followers, was cut in pieces in the temple of Nanea. Nevertheless, in the ninth chapter, unmindful or re gardless of what he had written before, he relates that -Antiochus was shamefully driven out of Persepolis (otherwise called Elymais), and put to flight, and then learning, when near Ecbatana, the defeat of his army in Judea, he was moved to anger against the Jews; ascended his chariot to proceed against them; fell from it, and died soon after. Now it could not be that the king died in two different places. He could not have died in the temple of Nanea, in Persia, and  "in the mountains about Ecbatana," which was the metropolis of Media.

The incredulous have relied very much on the above-quoted passages as offering sufficient reason to upset the authority of the Machabees. But in this they deceive themselves, for there is no contradiction in these texts. These can be easily reconciled. Antiochus, on attempting to plunder the temple of Nanea in Persepolis, or as it was likewise called, Elymais, was repulsed by the inhabitants of that city, but escaped with his life. Then seeking safety he turned towards Media. It was in this country, and, as the sacred text says, "about Ecbatana," which is supposed to be the modern Casbisa, that he heard of the defeat of his generals, Nicanor and Timotheus, and the ruin and slaughter of his army in Judea. On receiving this disagree able news he got into a rage, meditated revenge against the Jews, and instantly mounting his chariot to go to slaughter them in turn, he fell from it; the anger of God overtook him : worms swarmed out of his body, his flesh fell off, and he met with a miser able death. The sacred writer expresses it thus; " Then swelling with anger . . . without stop ping in his journey, the judgment of heaven urging him forward ... it happened as he was going with violence that he fell from his chariot." This wicked king died soon after.

They press their objection still further against us, and say, that if Antiochus were stoned and " hewed in pieces" in the temple of Nanea, he could neither return to Persepolis, in which stood the temple, nor hasten towards Judea. Yet in the first chapter of the Second Book Antiochus is said to have lost his life in that temple. In the thirteenth verse we read as follows: "When the leader (Antiochus) himself was in Persia ... he fell in the temple of Nanea, being deceived by the counsel of the priests of Nanea." The sixteenth verse says: " When Antiochus was come in : and opening a secret entrance of the temple, they cast stones and slew the leader, and them that were with him, and hewed them in pieces."

The first answer to be given to this is, that what is said in these verses is to be understood in a moral sense as including all those who entered the temple, with, however, a few exceptions. Thus nearly all who entered the temple were overwhelmed with stones and lost their lives. Among the few who escaped, however, was Antiochus. It is no obstacle to this interpretation, that the sacred text says he fell in the temple. It is not unusual with the Scripture to say that one fell, not only when he has perished but even when he has been routed and vanquished. In the fourteenth chapter and tenth verse of Genesis it is said that " The king of Sodom and the king of Gomorrha fell there." Still a little farther on, in the seventeenth verse, it is stated that "The king of Sodom went out to meet him" (Abraham). This shows he had not lost his life when the Scripture said of him that he fell there. Such is the answer to the objection, given by such writers as Natalis Alexander and Estius, to pass over so many others.

Another answer is supplied by others who hold that the Antiochus who fell in the temple of Nanea was not Antiochus Epiphanes, but Antiochus the son of Demetrius, who, as we read in the fifteenth chapter of the first book, though at first friendly to wards the Jews afterwards broke his covenant with them, and "was exceeding angry," and made war upon them.
There is another and a very simple way of getting over the difficulty. It is this: that it is not the inspired writer, the author of the first chapter of the Second Book, but the Jews of Jerusalem who speak and deliver their sentiment in the letter which they wrote to their brethren in Egypt. There is a parallel case in the discourse of Judith to Holofernes.

The language attributed to her in sacred writ was really addressed to Holofernes, but it does not follow that it is on that account the language of the Holy Ghost. The same is the case with the present letter which was written immediately after the cleansing or purification of the temple of Jerusalem. Hence it was written as soon as the first tidings of the death of Antiochus had reached Judea. By the report they received the Jews were misinformed as to the real circumstances of his death. It was bruited that he had been slain in the temple of Nanea at Elymais. In a short time the true circumstances of his death became known. It was then ascertained that he had escaped from that city and had been obliged to fly for his life ; that he had fallen sick at Ecbatana or somewhere else among the mountains near it, and that he had died there. Now all these circumstances were well known to the author of the Second Book of Machabees, for he has left them written with his pen. Still as he wished to give a faithful copy of the letter of the Jews, as it was, he did not like to change their account of the death of Antiochus. This he reserved for a future page of his history where he gives us a more exact account of the unhappy death of that monarch. What does all this prove ? It proves not the unscrupulousness or ignorance, but rather the scrupulous fidelity of the historian.

Perhaps we may observe in passing that the cruel persecution practised by Antiochus on the Jews was foretold by the prophet Daniel more than two centuries before. This prediction has been so literally and clearly verified that the faithless have been forced to say that the prophecies of Daniel were not written till after the reign of Antiochus. The rationalist and the infidel, however, can never upset the incontestable arguments by which the date of the book of Daniel is proved beyond the shadow of doubt.

Another objection raised against this history of the Machabees is that it contains some things that are opposed to the moral law.

1st. It would follow from it that we should pray for those who die in mortal sin.

2nd. It praises the act of Razias in committing suicide, whose example as we learn from St. Augustine (Lib. i. Contra Gaudontium, cap. 31.) was availed of by the Donatists and other heretics to excuse their homicides.

We answer by denying that it contains anything opposed to the moral law, at least in the sense of approving or applauding it. The Jews who fell on the occasion 1. to which reference is made, under whose coats were found the prohibited donaries of the idols of Jamnia, were either not guilty of mortal sin, or if they were, they repented for it before drawing their last breath. They may be excused from mortal sin through ignorance of the law which forbade them the donaries of idols, although this ignorance may have been attended by some negligence, not however grave, or through a certain cupidity of enriching themselves which may be no more than a venial sin. But if they knew the law prohibiting donaries and were consequently guilty of mortal sin, they may have repented for this at the last moment when they felt the avenging hand of God upon them. It would be a pious thing of Judas Machabeus to presume on their repentance and to have sacrifice offered up for their souls.
As to the second point regarding the conduct of Razias in depriving himself of life, authorities differ in opinion. St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Estius, Natalis Alexander, and many others, condemn the act of Razias as immoral. St. Augustine (Epist. 204, or 61 ad Dulcitium.) in particular says of it; "Although the man himself may be praised in the Book of Machabees, his act (in committing suicide), however, is related, not praised, and to be condemned (Judicandum) rather than imitated. ... It is written that he wished to die nobly and manfully, but whether was it therefore wisely ? . . .

These (to die nobly and manfully) are great things ; however they are not good. For all that is great is not good, since there are even evil things that are great. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill the innocent and the just.' If, therefore, this man was not innocent, why is he held up to us for imitation ? But if he was innocent and just, why is the slayer of the innocent and just, that is, of Razias himself, thought to be moreover worthy of praise ? " You will observe that this great doctor says that Razias is " not praised" in the Book of Machabees, and that he is " to be condemned rather than imitated." Hence evidently he is of the same opinion as those who condemn the act of Razias as suicidal. Though the Book of Machabees may seem to approve of self-destruction, the inspired author of that book did not intend to laud the deed of Razias, who struck himself with his sword, precipitated himself from the wall of his house, and tore out his own intestines, that he should not fall into the hands of the wicked and suffer abuses unbecoming his noble birth. The author in tended only to relate the fact as it happened and to note the opinion of the people, who in their way of thinking considered that this noble Israelite had acted with manly courage and devoted patriotism.

There are some who, although they look on the act of Razias as sinful in itself, excuse him from formal or imputable sin by reason of his in-culpable ignorance. They think that he acted bona fide, believing that it was lawful for him under the circumstances to take away his own life.

There are others who applaud his deed, because they are of opinion that he acted under the special inspiration of heaven. This inspiration is certain in the case of Samson, who, when he was brought to make sport for the Philistine lords, seized two pillars of the temple of Dagon as if to sustain himself, and pulled down the building, burying himself and three thousand Philistines in the ruins. St. Augustine (2 Lib. I, de Civit. Dei, cap. 21 and 25.) himself acknowledges that some virgins "who, to avoid the enemies of their chastity, cast themselves into the river or the fire," acted thus through divine impulse or inspiration. They who hold the same in the case of Razias are influenced by the following reasons:—

1. The sacred Scripture seems to praise, and even to applaud his act. The Book of Judges does not pass such eulogy on Samson, whose action no one attributes to any other influence than that of the Holy Ghost, as the author of the Machabees be stows on Razias. He is said to have died nobly and manfully ; but there would be nothing noble or manly in his conduct unless he were moved by the divine Spirit. For not only Augustine and Lactantius and all Christian writers of any note, but even pagan authors such as Aristotle, Euripides, and Virgil, consider suicide as a sign, not of a noble or manly, but of a weak and pusillanimous mind.

2. They who follow St. Augustine think that when it is said Razias died nobly and manfully, he is so praised, not according to the mind of the inspired writer, but according to the estimation of the people or of Razias himself. But they who hold that this man was inspired by God to act as he did, say that the construction of the text is adverse to the opinion of St. Augustine and those who follow him, and in favour of their own. There is no doubt that the wording of the text would induce one to agree with this assertion.

3. The good and holy life of Razias is another reason to show that he was inspired from above to turn his sword upon himself. He was a man of remarkable virtue and of great repute, " of good report, who, for his affection, was called the father of the Jews." The sacred writer continues his encomium on him thus: "This man for a long lime had held fast his purpose of keeping himself pure in the Jews' religion, and was ready to expose his body and life that he might persevere therein." One would be inclined to believe that such a worthy and pious man would not lay deadly hands upon himself unless he were inspired by Providence so to do.

4. They who are of this opinion say that the pious intention of Raziasin this deed would lead us to believe that he was impelled to it by God. His intention was, not" to fall into the hands of the wicked." He was afraid lest by blandishment, deception, threat, or torment he may be induced to do or say anything opposed to God or to the good of the people. 5. Finally, the pious prayer which he uttered with his dying breath favours the presumption that he was actuated by the inspiration of the Spirit of God. He died "calling upon the Lord of life and spirit to restore 'his bowels' to him again," and thus proclaiming his faith in the future resurrection of the body.

Thus far the diverse construction put upon the conduct of Razias by the various authorities who have written on or alluded to the subject. In such diversity of opinion it is not easy, nay, it is impossible to arrive at a certain judgment as to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the deed. Calmet, the learned French Benedictine—a great authority in interpreting the sacred Scripture—says that he adheres to the opinion of SS. Augustine and Thomas ; and while he would not entirely dare to condemn Razias, he would neither dare to vindicate him.
They also advance against the authority of this history that it is uncertain who the author of it was. Even they go so far as to say that the primary author of the second book was a pagan, for it seems to be an epitome of five books that were written by a Cyrenean whose name was Jason. This person, ac cording to them, must be a Gentile, for his country, Cyrene, where no Jews dwelt, would indicate that.

To this objection we say that we have already granted that it is not certain who was the author of the history. But this should raise no more objection to its authority than the uncertainty as to who were the authors of the books of Judith, Esther, and Job, raises against their authority. In the Scripture we do not attend to the identification of the writer or to his dignity; we attend to the divine assistance and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. It is this assistance and this inspiration that moved those whom God chose as amanuenses to write whatsoever he wished. But to find fault with the books of Machabees because they may contain some things that were taken from profane works, would be to find fault with many parts of the Old and New Testaments which contain citations from Gentile writers. Hence does St. Jerome ask (Epist. ad Magnum.) : "Who does not know that both in Moses and the volumes of the prophets some things have been taken from the books of Gentiles ? " He proceeds : "But even Paul the Apostle has used a short verse of the poet Epimenides in writing to Titus: 'The Cretians are always liars, ("Cretenses semper mendaces.")  &c. In another epistle also he lays down a senary of Menander: ' For evil conversations corrupt good manners,' ("Corrumpunt enim bonos mores colloquia prava.") and disputing among the Athenians in the Court of Mars he calls Aratus as a witness: ' For we are also his offspring.' ("Ipsius enim et genus sumus.") It is not against the authority of the Machabees any more than other books of Scripture that they may contain some things which were taken from profane authors; for a profane author could write some things which were true, and the Holy Ghost could impress on these the seal of His authority. Apart from this it may be observed, that although Jason may be a native or an inhabitant of Cyrene, there is no evidence that he was a Gentile and not a Jew. In fact, so far from there being any evidence in that direction, the presumption is altogether in favour of his being a Jew. What interest could a Gentile, who was naturally hostile to the Jews, have in writing five volumes in praise of their heroic deeds ? Besides this it is noted that there were many cities called Cyrene. There was a Cyrene in the island of Cyprus and another in Lybia. It is very likely that Jason, who described the heroism and bravery of the Machabees—from whose account of them some things in the Second Book seem to be taken—was from the Cyrene in Lybia. The Jews had a greater facility of travelling to this Cyrene than to the other, and had vastly more intercourse with it.

Hence it is that we read (The Acts of the Apostles, c. ii.) that on the sacred day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost was seen to descend upon the Apostles, among the witnesses of His miraculous effects on them—witnesses comprising representatives " of every nation under heaven " —were some persons from " the parts of Lybia, about Cyrene" During the heartless persecution to which they were subjected by the cruel Antiochus, many of the Jews were carried off to Libya. Jason may be sprung from one of these, whose place of exile was in the vicinity of, or, as Holy Writ has it, " about" Cyrene.

Another objection they raise is that the history of the Machabees disagrees with all the histories of the Greeks. In the first chapter and seventh verse of the First Book it is said that Alexander " called his servants the nobles that were brought up with him from his youth; and he divided his kingdom among them while he was yet alive" Yet Q. Curtius, Diodorus Siculus, and Justinus tell us that it was after his death that his kingdom was divided. This objection can be easily answered. There is no difficulty in reconciling the sacred writers with the profane ones.

1. "They found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews : so that all plainly saw that for this cause they were slain." n. Mach. xii. 40. The donaries were the votive offerings that were made to the idols and hung up in their temples. The Jews who were slain had taken away some of these donaries when they burnt the port of Jamnia. But this was contrary to the prohibition of the law, for it is expressly said in Deuteronomy: " Their graven things thou shalt burn with fire: thou shalt not covet the silver and gold of which they are made, neither shalt thou take to thee anything thereof, lest thou offend, because it is an abomination to the Lord thy God." VII. 25.

Purgatory, By The Rev. M. Canty, P.P., Part 56.

Objections Answered.

book of Maccabees (Codex Sinaiticus)

Against the books of the Machabees—the second of which is an authority to prove that more than a century and a half before the birth of Christ it was the custom among the Jews to pray for the dead— as well as against certain others of the Old Testament, which they term apocryphal, (Apocrypha is the term used to designate those books whose authenticity as inspired writings is not admitted.) Protestants advance the following objections:—

I. They assert that the books that were not formerly canonical could not afterwards become so, as this would need a new inspiration of the Holy Ghost of which there is no trace. But. they continue, the books of Machabees were not formerly canonical for they find no place in the canon of the Jews. From these premises they conclude that they should not be considered canonical at all.

To this objection we answer that Catholics deny the whole of it. They maintain that these, as well as the other books of Scripture, which were too in convenient for Protestants, and in consequence, rejected by them, have been always canonical though their canonicity were questioned by some. Thus it did not happen that the Church changed an uninspired book into one sacred and inspired by the Holy Ghost; but it did happen that the Church having investigated what tradition had to say in the matter and forming her judgment according to it pronounced this or that book to be inspired or apocryphal. She needed no new revelation for this any more than did the followers of Luther, when they voted the Epistle of St. James to be canonical, after it was rejected with scorn by that heresiarch. She can now form no different judgment of any book which was formerly held to be canonical or apocryphal by the principal churches and especially by the Roman one, " to which the Apostles Peter and Paul poured out the whole doctrine with their blood, and in which the Apostolic Tradition has been always preserved, and which is the mother and mistress of the other churches of the whole world."

According to this rule the book of Pastor and the Third and Fourth of Esdras are not numbered among the sacred books, though they were reputed to be canonical by some of the ancients. In harmony with the same rule it could happen that the truth of any book may manifest itself though it may have been somewhat hidden and obscure before, just as happened with regard to the fable of the Millennists which became obsolete, although at one time it had been supported by evidence that was not to be despised.

The strong point which our adversaries imagine they make against us is drawn from the fact that these books are not found in the canon of the Jews. This canon is attributed by all but universal consent to Esdras. It is evident that he did not, and indeed could not, enumerate the books of Machabees and the others, which Protestants consider apocryphal; for it is certain that some, among which are the Machabees, and very probable that all of them, were not written till after the time of that ardent Israelite. Regarding his canon, we should understand what Josephus (Lib. i, contra Appionem.) says, that the number of the books of Scripture were twenty-two, so arranged as to correspond with the number of letters in the Jewish alpha bet. We also learn from St. Jerome that each book was pointed out by its numerical letter.

Then the books of Machabees, like those of Tobias, Judith, and Ecclesiasticus, are not proto-canonical but deutro-canonical. Hence, although, as Josephus remarks, they may be held in less esteem by the Jews, either because there may have been formerly, or be cause there may be then a doubt entertained by some as to them, still they were held to be inspired by the wisest and most learned. Therefore do we find Josephus himself, (Lib. 2, contra Appionem.) when quoting this text of Ecclesiasticus, (Ch. 42, v. 14. The meaning of this text is that, generally speaking, we should apprehend less danger to our soul from the rudeness and injustice of men than from the familiarity and flattering kindness of women.) "Better is the iniquity of a man, than a woman doing a good turn," declaring that it is taken "from the law itself? In his little book on the martyrdom of the" seven Machabees the same author observes: " These things, which I have found in the records of the ancients and sacred writings of the holy Machabees, I have consecrated to posterity to be read for ever."

Let us abstract altogether from the fact that these books were not written when Esdras formed his canon, and we can securely place the authority of the Apostles against that of him. Beyond all doubt the Apostles, who were commissioned by Jesus Christ to teach all truths to the nations, were invested with as much authority as Esdras and the Jewish synagogue. The church of Christ has a stronger claim to our confidence, and exhibits more cogent titles to our obedience than the church of Moses and the Sanhedrim. Origen distinguishes between the authority of each when he says : "Though the church of the Jews place those books among the apocrypha, the church of Christ teaches them, and honours them as divine."

However there is no real contradiction between the Church and the Synagogue. The Church affirms the inspiration of the Machabees ; the Synagogue did not deny it.

Purgatory, By The Rev. M. Canty, P.P., Part 55.

ON THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE BOOKS OF MACCABEES.

THOUGH the doctrine of Purgatory can be proved otherwise from the scriptures, still it cannot be denied that the most direct and explicit proof in its favour is taken from the Second Book of Machabees. It is well then to lay before the reader the divine authority of the books of Machabees. The divine authority of the scriptures is that authority which they enjoy from this, that they have God as their author. They have not God as their material author, for they have not been materially written by Him; but they have Him as their formal author, because they have been inspired by Him. They have been written by men, under the inspiration of God. From this it follows, that there are two authors of the scriptures; one, the formal and principal, who is God or the Holy Ghost; and the other, or perhaps we should rather say, the others, the material, secondary, and instrumental, who are the sacred writers, who penned them. Their divine authority flows from their principal author, God, who inspired them. Hence it is rightly said to be founded on divine inspiration.

At the outset we must admit, that all the churches of old did not accept these books as a portion of the scriptures, or the inspired written word of God. They are not found in the canon drawn up by St. John Damascen, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Athanasius, the synod of Laodicea, Origen, or St. Melito, bishop of Sardis. St. Jerome, in his preface to the books of Solomon, goes so far as to say that, "The church indeed reads the books of Machabees, but she does not receive them among the canonical scriptures." Eusebius (In Chronico.) and Gregory (Lib. 19 Moral, ch. 13.) are of the same opinion. The latter very pointedly says: " We do not act irregularly if we offer testimony from books, which, though not canonical, are still published for the edification of the church." He made this observation before proceeding to quote from the First Book of Machabees.

The second admission we have to make is, that it is uncertain who were the authors of this renowned history of the Machabees. The two books were written by different hagiographers. This is evident: 1st, from the matter; for the Second Book relates many facts, though more at large and in a different manner, that were recorded in the First. 2ndly, from the style and phraseology. The First Book is full of Hebrew, while the Second is full of Greek idioms. 3rdly, from the chronology or computation of time, which is different in both. Although each of them follows the era of the Seleucidae, or, as it was also called, of the kingdom of the Greeks, still the First assumes the Jewish, whilst the Second assumes the Antioch or Alexandrian method. There was a difference of six months between the two.

It is not easy, however, to determine who the authors were. Some, among whom may be named Bellarmine and Nieremberg, think that John Hircanus, the son of Simon Machabeus,

(The meaning and derivation of the name Machabeus are uncertain. Some say it is derived from the initials of the words of Exodus xvii., : " Who is like to thee among the strong, O Lord"; which Judas Machabeus bore inscribed on his ensigns, 'or standards, when doing battle for his country. The initial letters of these words in Hebrew are, M. C. B.E.I.)

who was high-priest and leader of the Jewish people, and, according to Josephus, (Lib. 1.3, Antiquit. ch. 18.) skilled in the knowledge of future events, wrote the First Book; and that Judas Essenus, a man also of great weight among the Jews, wrote the Second one. Others think that the writers were some persons, whose names are unknown ; or perhaps the Machabees themselves, each of whom committed his own bravery and fidelity to writing. Hence St. Isidore (Lib. de eccles. offic. ch. 10.) says: "is by no means certain, who wrote Judith and Tobias, or the books of Machabees." Nothing certain then can be laid down as to their authorship. But it is quite different when we come to speak of their authority and divine inspiration.

Divine inspiration is the action of God, with regard to the man who wrote ; by which action, his writing is considered to have, and, de facto, has God for its author. By this action of God, man is moved to write, and is assisted in writing.

By canonical books, we understand those that are divinely inspired, and, as such, are known to us, and are therefore placed by the Church on the canon of scripture. On the other hand by apocryphal books, are meant those which the Church does not positively reject; but which she negatively excludes from the canon, as being of doubtful or obscure authority ; and on this account, though they may have been sometimes found in the volume or body of the Bible, still they are perceived as distinct from the other books, or are sometimes cast to the end of it.
The canonical books are divided into proto-canonical and deutro-canonical; that is, into canonical of the first and second order. This distinction does not import that they differ in authority, for each of them has the same authority ; but it imports that the books of the first class were always held to be canonical, whilst those of the second were sometimes the subject of controversy, and only in the course of time were manifestly placed on the canon.
Canon, taken in its strict and proper sense, is the same as a rule. Taken in connection with the divine books, the canon of sacred scripture means that collection and public catalogue of books, which arc held to be sacred and divinely inspired.

The canon of the Jews, containing only the books of the Old Testament, was first constituted by Esdras, and approved and received by the Sanhedrim, or supreme council of the Jews. That was in the fifth century before Christ. This canon of Esdras, contained twenty-two books. After his time other divine books were written, and hence, another canon should be constituted. The erudite in biblical science tell us there were, in the time of the Apostles, two canons or collections of scripture; one, belonging to the Jews of Palestine; and the other, to those of Alexandria. These latter were also called Hellenists. The collection of the Jews of Palestine comprised only those books that had been written in Hebrew. Still the Jews venerated certain other books as sacred. The collection of the Hellenists comprised also the books that had been written in Greek. In other words, the latter embraced all the Old Testament, as we now recognize it.

The canon of Christians, or of the Church, is that which Christians admit. It embraces the books of both Testaments, the Old and the New.

The two books of Machabees are truly canonical; that is, they are truly placed in the canon or list of inspired scripture. This proposition is proved in this manner :—
Besides the authority of the Church, which is the weightiest argument, there are two other arguments, viz., the teaching of the greater number of Fathers, and the unshaken authority of their teaching over that of those who hold a contrary opinion, which prove beyond all doubt the authority of the books of Machabees, as we shall just see.

I. The greater number of Fathers, who have alluded to these books, suppose their divine authority.

1. St. Clement, (Strom. I. 5, ch. 14, p, 705.) of Alexandria, one of the most ancient of the Fathers, who lived in the end of the second, and beginning of the third century, cites the Second Book of Machabees. He would not have done this, unless he believed it be authentic.

2. Origen, (Lib. 2, Periarchon.) giving expression to the tradition of the church, as well as to his own opinion, supposes them to be authentic. He says (Chap 2.): " But that we may teach from the authority of the Scriptures that these things are so, hear how in the books of Machabees, when the mother of the seven martyrs exhorts one of her sons to bear the torments, she says to him : I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them." Thus he quotes the Machabees as a portion of the Scripture: "from the authority of the Scripture? Again refuting the Valentinians, who pretended that no one had laid down his life for the cause of God in the old law, he presses them with this argument, which was so clear and so strong against them: " Let them read the books of Machabees, where with all earnestness a happy mother with seven sons received martyrdom. (Chap. 5, Epist. ad Rom)

3. St. Cyprian (Epist. 55, ad Cornel. Papam.) quotes from these books and expressly calls them "the divine Scripture" In another work (De Exhortatione Martyrii.ch. ii.) he draws facts from them to sustain his purpose. Encouraging the faithful by the example of those heroes to face death with courage in the cause of Christ; he holds up to our view "in the Machabees seven brothers, who were like each other by reason of their birth and virtues." He also adduces another example, taken likewise from the Second Book of Machabees (Chap.6, v 18 and following.)—that of the venerable and valiant Eleazar, who, though he had arrived " at the age of four score and ten years," chose to die rather than simulate the eating of forbidden food—in order to inspire the Christians with courage in suffering. He looks upon these books as a portion of Scripture, for, after quoting from them, he adds, that he has taken " these encouragements from the divine Scriptures" It shows his mind still more clearly in the matter, that he says by way of preface, that he in tends to strengthen the faith of the people " by the divine reading" ; which divine reading was taken also from the Machabees. He further tells us, that his resolve was, " to put forward only what God has spoken . . . and to suggest the divine precepts themselves as arms to those that fight," The opinion of this father is so clear, that Natalis Alexander (Propos. 2) says, that St. Cyprian considered the books of Machabees not less canonical than the other books of the Old and New Testaments, from which he composed his very encouragements to martyrdom.

4. Tertullian (Adversus Judaeos, ch. 4.) also is a witness in favour of these books. Proving against the Jews that the observance of the Mosaic Sabbath was of temporary obligation, he shows this to be manifest from the books of Machabees. " For even," he says, " in the time of Machabees they acted bravely in fighting for the sabbath. . . . Thence it is manifest that this precept obliged for a time and for the necessity of the present cause." Thus he mentions the Machabees by name. Not only this, but he even says, that the temporary observance of the sabbath, according to the law of Moses, was manifest from them. Now, if he looked upon them as apocryphal, he surely could not have considered that anything, any point or question in dispute, could have been manifestly proved from them.

5. St. John Chrysostom places full confidence in these books. He does not say in so many words that they are inspired, but he more than insinuates, in fact he shows, that this was his faith, for he wrote a special homily on the seven Machabees, in which he celebrates their praise and proclaims it to the world unto all time. This was nothing else than the act of a man who held these books for inspired.

6. Hegesippus, who lived after peace had been re stored to the Church by Constantine the Great, and died in the end of the fourth century, wrote a work on the destruction of Jerusalem, and, in his prologue to it, calls the discourse of the Machabees prophetic; which is the same as to call it sacred and divine. These are his words :—" The prophetic discourse dis misses in a few words the exploits of the Machabees."

7. St. Jerome, so erudite in the science of the Scriptures, so deeply versed in everything appertaining to them, has left it to us as his own opinion, that these books form a portion of them. This is quite apparent from his language, to which no other meaning can attach, at least as far as the First Book is concerned, from which he cites a fact; and, in doing so, calls it the Scripture. " The Scripture," he says, "relates that Alexander, king of Mace don, came
out of the land of Cethim." This departure of Alexander from Cethim, which, he says, the Scripture relates, is taken from the first chapter and first verse of the First Book of Machabees. Then he must have been of opinion, that this book at least was part of the Scripture. If at other times he may have given an opinion adverse to the canonicity of the two books, he expressed then, as he declares, (Lib. 2, Contra Rufinum.) not his own opinion, but the opinion of others.

8. Lucifer Calaritanus, (of Cagliari in Sardinia), a bishop, and legate of Pope Liberius, whose death happened in 371, in his book against the Emperor Constantius writes thus of Machabees: "The sacred Scripture speaks, saying in the First Book of Machabees: And he wrote to all his kingdom." (I Mach. i, 43.) He reckons the First Book of Machabees as sacred Scripture. When he speaks of the First Book, he evidently gives us to understand that there was a second one.

9. Quintus Julius Hilario, whom some take to be the same as Quintus Julius Africanus, and who, whether that be so or not, lived about the end of the fourth century, wrote a work on the duration of the world, in which he speaks in this way: ''Alexander the Great, of Macedon, from whose time the history of the Machabees runs over the years of the Greeks in the divine narration, slew Darius." Observe how he too concurs with the other fathers in calling the history of Machabees divine.

10. St Ambrose (Lib. 3, de Officiis. ch. 29.) in relating the history of Heliodorus, which he professes to have taken from the books of Machabees, says: " As we read in the books of Machabees." Again (Lib. 2, de Jacob, ch. 10, 11 and 12.) he recounts the story of Eieazar and the seven brothers, the Machabees, and extols their constancy and fidelity with all the richness of his eloquence. It is not easy to see what more he could have done to show his conviction as to the authenticity or canonicity of the books of which we are speaking.

11. St. Augustine (De Doctrina Christiana.) is perhaps, if this were possible, more undoubted and forcible in the matter. After laying down this rule that every one " in the canonical Scriptures should follow the authority of the greater number of Catholic churches "—which rule, no doubt, he must himself have observed—he gives us a catalogue of the books that were on the canon, and among these books he places the two of Machabees. This is the canon he has drawn up : " The whole canon of Scripture . . . is contained in these books: The five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, &c., also Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Machabees, and the two of Esdras." In his work on the City of God, (Ch. 36.) this holy doctor likewise says that the Church receives these books as canonical: ''The books of Machabees, which not the Jews, but the Church holds for canonical." In another book; (De Cura pro mortuis.) he makes mention of the sacrifice which Judas Machabeus had ordered to be offered up in the temple for the soldiers who had been slain in battle for the cause of their country; and from this proves the necessity and utility of prayers for the dead. But this sacrifice of Judas is related nowhere in Scripture but in the Machabees. No one in the present day could express his belief in the authenticity of the books of Machabees with more force or clearness than St. Augustine did.

12. Innocent the First numbers (Epist. ad Exupcrium.) them among the canonical books. The council of Rome, convened under Pope Gelasius, at which seventy bishops were present, asserts their genuineness and divine authority. The third council of Carthage in its forty-seventh canon does the same. This canon of Carthage was later on inserted in the Greek canon of Scripture. Therefore it must be taken to show the faith of both churches, the Latin and Greek, The definition of these councils was not only acquiesced in by the Latin, but even, in the course of time, was accepted by the Greek Church. (Matth. Petitdidier, in Dissertation, suis.)

II. The second point which remains to be proved is that the authority of the fathers, who hold the Machabees to be inspired, remains unshaken by the opinion of those who have taken a different view of them. The former, as we have just seen, are men who differ from each other in tribe, nation, and language, men of recognised ability and piety, whose authority would be of vast moment on any point. They are supported by councils whose acts have been accepted without question and revered by the whole Church of God. In the scale against them, the latter—those who are opposed to the Machabees —are of little or no account and of inferior authority. They do not belong to any of the greater churches. They do not come before us with the authority of a whole African church speaking through the mouth of the third plenary council of Carthage, or the still greater authority of a Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, addressing us through the council of Gelasius. Add to this that some of these witnesses that are adduced against us, such as Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, Melito, Leontius and others, omit the book of Esther altogether in their catalogue, whilst on the other hand John Damascen names the canons of the Apostles among the Scriptures of the New Testament. Again, Origen, Jerome and others leave the books of the Machabees out of their catalogue, whilst on other occasions, when the opportunity arose, they quote texts from them to confirm Catholic dogmas, and even extol them as sacred and divine. What are we to conclude from their mode of acting ? Either that in omitting the Machabees from their catalogue they followed the opinion of the Hebrews, on whose canon they did not appear, whilst, when following their own opinion, they held them to be canonical, or, if you prefer the alternative, that they were in doubt on the matter for a while until the judgment of the Church became more evident to them, when they fell in with the opinion of the great body of the fathers.

It is with truth then that the Council of Trent (Session the 4th.) in describing the books of Scripture which it obliges all Christians to accept under pain of anathema, recounts among them the two books of Machabees.

Protestants consider these books, as well as several other portions of Scripture, apocryphal; and though they are read in the Church of England, still, according to the sixth of her thirty-nine Articles, she says that she " doth read them for example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth not apply to them to establish any doctrine." To this we can say that the twentieth of the thirty-nine Articles states that the " Church hath authority in controversies of faith," and that the Catholic will apply these words and say that the Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, has decided that these books are divinely inspired, and consequently may be employed as well as any other portion of Scripture " to establish any doctrine." Again, in the sixth of the thirty-nine Articles, the Church of England says: " In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." Against this rule for determining what is or what is not Scripture of the English Church the Catholic will protest. He will say, in the first place, that it is a deceptive rule ; and, in the second place, that the Church of England herself has often notoriously violated it.

I. It is a deceptive rule. This is easily perceived when we reflect that the cruel persecutions of the first three centuries interfered with free intercourse between the numerous and far-scattered branches of the Church. This want of free intercommunication between the different portions of the Church rendered unavoidable doubts which may arise, for example, in Gaul or Spain, regarding any portion of the New Testament which was written in Asia or Greece, or any book of the Old Testament which was venerated in these churches. It was only when peace was restored to the Church, and her pastors could flock from all parts of the earth and go into a general council and compare what they had preached to their respective flocks, and, guided by the Holy Ghost, investigate step by step that tradition, which attributed any disputed book to the work of the Holy Ghost, it is only then, I repeat, they could trace with certainty its genuineness to its real origin, and authoritatively decide that it emanated from a divinely inspired pen, or had an apostle for its author. Then, though the book had been before doubtful , and as such, had not been inserted by some in the canon, as soon as the doubt was removed it was en rolled amongst the sacred books and received as genuine and divine. A variety of circumstances may have combined to prevent the true apostolical tradition on any particular book from being clearly ascertained. Once the reasons to establish the inspiration of the book are known and the doubt there by removed, why should there be any longer a difficulty in recognising the book as Scripture ? We have an instance to the point in the Apocalypse. In 361 the Council of Laodicea declined to inscribe it on its canon. A few years later when the tradition in favour of it became ascertained with more ac curacy and minuteness the third Council of Carthage recognised it as genuine. The Councils of Rome, Florence, and Trent have renewed this recognition. But according to the sixth Article of the Anglican church this book should be rejected since doubts have been entertained as to its canonicity. This rule then of the Protestant church must be rejected.

2. The Protestant church in these islands has often notoriously violated this rule which she her self drew up. She has received as Scripture many entire books, and portions of others, whose authenticity had been long the subject of grave debate in the Church. Eusebius, the historian, St. Athanasius, and St. Gregory Nazianzen not only doubt parts of the Book of Esther, which are admitted by the Anglicans, but even reject the whole of that history from their catalogue. It is well known that of the New Testament the last chapter of St. Mark, the twenty-second chapter of St. Luke, in which the bloody sweat is portrayed, the story of the woman taken in adultery, narrated in the eighth chapter of St. John, the epistle to the Hebrews, that of St. James, the second of St. Peter, with a part of the first, the second and third of St. John, and the Apocalypse, have been often the subject of doubt in the Church. And yet the Anglican church admits all these as inspired Scripture. Still, with contradiction in her lips she asserts in one of her Articles that "By Scripture is to be understood those
canonical books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." The truth is that the Protestant Church of England in laying before her followers a rule, according to which they should or should not, receive any book as Scripture, either acted according to caprice or sought the most expedient mode of upholding her novelties in doctrine. She did not respect the teaching of ecclesiastical history nor the decisions of the ancient Church. She cannot point out a single epoch in ancient history, or, much less, one sole council with which her canon of Scripture coincides. How different is the case with the Catholic Church. The books which she admits in the nineteenth, are those which the third Council of Carthage admitted in the fourth century.

The Machabees are rejected by Protestants be cause the second book (Ch. 12, V. 43 &c.) speaks of and recommends prayers for the dead—a practice which was disagree able to the reformers. They are distasteful also to the incredulous in general who are displeased to see there a family of priests rich in heroes ; and to find that the Jewish nation, whom they have learned to despise, have defended their liberty and their religion with a courage to which there is scarcely a parallel.

Purgatory, By The Rev. M. Canty, P.P., Part 54.

THE DUTY OF THE LIVING TOWARD THE SOULS IN PURGATORY. Part 2.

IV. We are bound to assist the souls in Purgatory on the title of kindred. Among those who prolong a weary existence in that dungeon, are many, who are united to us by the closest ties of flesh and blood, or of affinity. In that flame languish grandparents, parents, children, brothers, sisters, wives, and others, who were dearer to us than our right eye. Perhaps the sin for which they are tormented, may have been committed for our sake, or on our account. A father is tormented because he failed to discharge one of the first duties of a parent, in not correcting us ; or because he was over zealous in making temporal provision for us. A mother is tormented because she may not have trained her daughter to a strict sense of modesty; or may have a little encouraged her vanity. A son is punished, because he may not have paid that strict filial respect which was due to his parents; or, in the other extreme, may have obeyed them in things which were contrary to the divine law. A brother is punished, because he may have been the occasion of sin to a brother; or may have failed to correct him when he was wandering from the path of God. A wife is punished, because she had more at heart the interest of her husband, than that of her own soul, or of God. Others are tormented for other sins, committed on account of us, who are among the living. If we are bound on the title of common humanity, as we shall soon see, to assist those who are of the same nature as our selves ; how much more are we bound to assist those who are closely related to us ? Hence St. Augustine (Lib. de Cura pro mortuis, cap. 18, n. 22.) says : " More diligently, however, does each one do these things for his particular friends, that they may be done in like manner for him by his own." Then from the depth of the flame of Purgatory, there is perhaps crying out to you a father or mother, a brother or sister, a wife or some near and dear friend. The sin for which they are tormented may have been committed for your sake. You can easily offer for their liberation, the ransom, which is out of their own power. Will you be deaf and insensible to the sighs which they send forth from their bed of fire ? Will you be so ungrateful, as not to endeavour to free from these flames those whom you have delivered up to them ? Whilst you partake of the fruit of their industry, will you offer no share of it to them ? You would thus resemble those impious brothers, "that," as the prophet Amos (vi. 6.) says, "drink wine in bowls, and anoint themselves with the best ointments, and they are not concerned for the affliction of Joseph." Will you imitate those wicked sons of Jacob, who had no compassion for their brother, Joseph, whom they had cast into the pit ? If you act so toward the dead of your own kindred, the practice of the pagans would be enough to condemn you. Tertullian (Lib. de Corona militis.) tells us, that those pagans "performed the obsequies of dead relations with the greatest honour." The respect which they paid to their dead is calculated to condemn those Christians, who neglect to offer up a prayer, or per form any other pious work, for their dead relatives.

V. Finally, we are bound to assist the dead on the title of common humanity. They have the same nature in common with us. Therefore we should' display love for them. The writer in Ecclesiasticus (xiii. 19.)," ' says: "Every beast loveth its like: so also every man, him that is nearest to himself." They who are in Purgatory, and we, were formed out of the same clay, and by the same God. As they have the same earth for their mother, they have the same God for their father. They too were planted by the hand of God. Hence the prophet Malachias (ii. 10.) says : " Have we not all one father ? Hath not one God created us? Why then doth every one of us despise his brother ?" We are bound especially to assist our brethren when they are in those difficulties, in which it is easy for us to give them aid. The very saints in heaven, whose happiness is secure, do not forget us. They are solicitous for our happiness, and they continually offer their prayers to the throne of God, that we may arrive at the same haven of salvation, which they have reached. Why then should we not, in like manner, render aid to those other members of the Church, the suffering souls in Purgatory ? If the saints assist us, who are able to assist ourselves, why should we not come to the relief of those poor souls, who cannot in the least relieve themselves, or alleviate their sorrows ? He must be bereft of every feeling of humanity, who does not stir a hand to relieve those who are continually crying out to him, with a plaintive voice, in the words of the Psalmist, (Ps. xli. 2.) "When shall I come and appear before the face of God ? My tears have been my bread day and night, whilst it is said to me daily : Where is thy God ?" Let us listen to the instruction of St. Bernard: (Serm. de Diversis, 42.) " We owe them (the dead) compassion and prayer on account of the partnership of a similar nature, that the just Father may take away their misery, and change scourges into benefits, and thus at length may record them for the blessed joys of the city." Again encouraging us to show mercy to the dead, he draws this inference : " It remains that we should have compassion for them, to whom we have been united by humanity." In other words, St. Bernard would have us to be persuaded, that as the same nature is common to us and the dead, we should have compassion for them, and relieve them by prayers and good works. In doing this, we would only follow the pious and provident advice of St. Paul (Heb. iiii. 3.) who addresses us in the following manner: " Remember them that are in bonds, as if you were bound with them." Let us bury deep in our heart the advice of the apostle. Let us give all the succour we can to the helpless dead, who are composed of the same nature, who are formed of the same clay, and who have the same Father, with us.

From the very cradle of the Church, assistance has been rendered to the dead. The apostle (II Tim. I. 18.) prayed for Onesiphorus who, according to many authorities, was dead at the time : " The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day." It is stated in the Apostolical Constitutions,* that the Greek bishops, in performing the obsequies of the dead, prayed that God " may place them in the region of the just who rest in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with all those who from the beginning pleased God." Tertullian (Constit. Apost. Lib. 8, cap. -1o.)also says : " We make oblations for the dead on an annual day . . . Of these and other diciplines of this kind tradition is held out to thee as the author, custom as the confirmer, and faith the inspector." It is according to this universal and constant practice of the Church, that St. Ambrose offered up his fervent prayers for the souls of Theodosius, and Satyr ; and St. Augustine made continual remembrance of his pious mother, St. Monica. We should follow on the footsteps of those bishops and illustrious doctors, and continually offer our most fervent prayers to the throne of God for all the faithful departed, but especially for those who were our near relatives in the flesh.

And now I have finished the body of the work, which I had proposed to myself to do. Nothing remains, but an appendix, in which the divine authority of the books of Machabees is established. If this book may have strengthened the faith of any wavering soul on Purgatory, or may have induced any one to practise more devotion to the dead, I shall have been amply rewarded for the labour of writing it. I ask one request of the kind and gentle reader. It is this: that when I shall have departed this life, he may deign in his goodness to offer a prayer to God for my soul.

Purgatory, By The Rev. M. Canty, P.P., Part 53.

THE DUTY OF THE LIVING TOWARD THE SOULS IN PURGATORY. Part 1.

WE have seen in a preceding chapter that we, while in this life, can assist the dead. We shall now see whether, or not, we ought to assist them.
That we who are members of the Church militant ought on many accounts to render aid to the dead is easily proved.

I. The first argument is drawn from justice toward ourselves. We ought in justice to ourselves to relieve those poor souls. This is shown by two reasons :—

1. The first is, that in assisting those who are our brethren we merit to obtain similar assistance for ourselves one day. Hence St. Augustine says : "Every one does these things for his particular friends, that they may be done in like manner for him by his own." The Lord will show mercy to as if we show mercy to the dead. This is the spirit which it is said in the Book of Ruth : (I. 8.) "The Lord deal mercifully with you, as you have dealt with the dead."

This is only according to what our divine Lord, Jesus Christ, says in the gospel of St. Mark: (iv. 21.) "In what measure you shall mete, it shall be measured to you again." Those souls, that shall have been raised to glory by our prayers and other good works, will not forget their benefactors. They will not be unmindful of those who were the means of delivering them from affliction, and of hastening the day of their admission into the blessed kingdom of peace. If we be in distress; or worse, if we be in danger of straying away from God, they will cry aloud for us before His throne. They will say to the Most High, that, but for us, they should be still tormented with fire; and they will implore Him to have mercy on us, whether we be in this life or in Purgatory. Especially, if we be in danger of falling into sin, and losing our soul, they will exclaim with one voice, that but for us they should be this day tormented by fire. They will implore God to spare us. They will interpose between Him and us, as the people of Israel in ancient time interposed between king Saul and his son, Jonathan, to save the life of the latter : " Shall Jonathan then die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel" ? (I. Kings, xiv. 45.) Let us listen to the language of St. Bernard ; (Serm. 42, de Divers.) and, following his example, let us render all the assistance in our power to the helpless dead. Here are the remarkable and moving words of St. Bernard : " I shall rise therefore to assist them; I shall demand with deep mournful sounds, I shall implore with sighs, I shall intercede with prayers; that if by chance the Lord may so heed and judge, He may turn labour into rest, misery into glory, scourges into a crown." We should endeavour to imitate St. Bernard, and to render all the assistance we can to the suffering souls.

2. The second reason, to show that justice toward ourselves obliges us to assist them, is, that in assisting them we placate God, and render Him propitious to us. Whilst our masses, prayers, alms, and other pious works, will make satisfaction for the souls in Purgatory, they will be also a source of profit to ourselves. The satisfactions, that one makes for another, bring advantage to himself. Hence the angel Raphael, in his address to Tobias, (Tobias, xii, 12 & 14.) told him that, in reward of his good works toward his neighbour, the Lord had cured him: "When thou didst pray with tears, and didst bury the dead, and didst leave thy dinner, and hide the dead by day in thy house and bury them by night, I offered thy prayer to the Lord. . . . And now the Lord hath sent me to heal thee." Even a cup of cold water some times affords relief to our brethren. This is in truth a very trivial gift; and yet we have it from the sacred lips of Jesus Christ Himself, (Math. x. 42.) that the person, who gives it, "shall not lose his reward." Therefore the good works which we perform for the suffering souls, will be a well of grace and of merit to our selves.

II. We are bound to assist the .souls on the title of religion. They, like ourselves, have God for their father, Christ for their head, and the Church or their mother. They have the same rule of faith ; they hope for the same heaven; and they are clothed with the same robe of charity. Faith teaches us that the just who are today alive, the saints who reign with God in glory, and the souls who are suffering in Purgatory, form one Church, and one society-Hence, St. Augustine (Lib. 20, de Civit. Dei, cap. 9, n. 2) writes: "For neither are the souls of the pious dead separated from the Church which even now is the kingdom of Christ. Other wise neither should a remembrance of them be made at the altar of God." St. Chrysostom (Homil. 41, in cap. 15, Epist. I, ad Corinth.) also says: " Among martyrs, among confessors, among priests, we count the dead; for we are all one body, although some members may be more illustrious than others." Not only is it "a holy and a wholesome thought," but even it is meet and just, that they, who are members of one and the same society, should bear each other mutual aid. We ought then render to the dead that succour, which we should not think of denying to the living; especially when we know that, as St. Augustine (Enchir, cap. 110, n. 29.) observes, "it cannot be denied that the souls of the dead are relieved by the piety of the living." Let us exercise this piety in behalf of the faithful departed. Let us discharge the duty of justice to all, the dead as well as the living. Thus will we fulfil that sentence of sacred writ:f "A gift hath grace in the sight of all the living, and restrain not grace from the dead."

III We are bound to assist the suffering souls on the title of friendship and necessity. When our friends are in distress, we ought to come to their relief. For some sin, committed on our account, or in which we were participators, many of our friends are doubtless undergoing the dreadful ordeal of Purgatory. It may be, that it is the dearest friend we ever had—the boy who was our constant playmate at school; the young man who so often paced with us the halls of the college; or that other person in whose company we were so charmed to be—that is now languishing in the flames of Purgatory. That soul and mine were interwoven in friendship, as closely, as the soul of Jonathan was wedded in love to that of David : " The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." (I. Kings, xviii, I.) The laws of friendship demand, that we should remember our friends, and assist them when we are able. Therefore it is said in Ecclesiasticus, (xxxvii,6,) "Forget not thy friend in thy mind, and be not unmindful of him in thy riches." But the obligation of assisting a friend is correlative to his necessity. The greater his need, the stricter is our obligation of coming to his relief Hence the Scripture, which is ever warning us of our duty, which, like a faithful sentinel, is always keeping watch over the morals of the people, again says: (Ecclesiasticus, xxii, 28, 20.) "Keep fidelity with a friend in his poverty ... In the time of his trouble continue faithful to him." Then, if we lament the departure of our friend, if we shed a tear over his grave, let us not forget the duty which friendship entails, but let us come to his assistance. Thus, if we weep for a dear one, whose like we shall never meet again, let us resolve with St. Ambrose: (Ecclesiasticus, xxii, 28, 20.) "I have loved him alive, and there fore I shall follow him continually to the region of the living; nor shall I desert him, until with weeping and prayers I will lead the man, whither his merits call him, unto the holy mountain, where there is eternal life." Let us follow the example of the holy Doctor, and render all the assistance in our power to our deceased friends. On whom should we have compassion, if not on those dear companions, whom the Church represents as, in their distress, crying out to us in the plaintive verse of Job: (xix. 21.)' Have pity on me, have pity on me, at least you my friends, because the hand of the Lord hath touched me?"

Purgatory, By The Rev. M. Canty, P.P., Part 52.

THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED ON THE PART OF THOSE IN WHOSE FAVOUR SUFFRAGES ARE MADE.

Blessed Francis Venimbeni Celebrating Mass for souls in Purgatory

I. To receive suffrages the person in whose favour they are offered must be at the time in the state of grace.

It is hardly necessary to observe that one can be in the state of grace without being free from every venial sin. Besides it is a matter that has been doubted, whether the souls in Purgatory may have obtained the remission of all venial sins at the time of death. While some have denied, very many, with Suarez,(Sec. 7, n. 2.) have held that the guilt of venial sins is wiped off at the departure of the soul from this life.

Moreover, it may be observed that a person who is not now in the state of grace may owe temporal punishment for sins that were formerly forgiven him. This could happen in the case of one who, after having obtained the remission of former sins, has fallen again into mortal sin.

Having made those observations, we repeat that the person in whose favour suffrages are made must be in the state of grace to receive them. One who is in mortal sin cannot receive by suffrage the re mission of the temporal punishment to which his former sins, though afterward forgiven him, had rendered him liable. The first reason in proof of this is that the communication of suffrages is founded, as far as we are concerned, in the union of charity. One cannot communicate suffrages to an other, nor can the other receive them from him, unless both are united by charity. Suffrages cannot exist, or have effect, where charity is absent. This is what St. Thomas (Suppl. Q. 27, art, I.) meant when he said : "A dead member does not receive influence from other members." Secondly, the person who is in mortal sin is an enemy of God, and, as such, unworthy of any clemency, of any remission, whether of sin or of the punishment due to it. We can, it is true, pray that God may grant such a sinner the grace of con version ; that He may change his heart, and excite in him those congruous dispositions through which he may obtain the remission of his sins; but we could not, without sin, pray that he may obtain re mission of the temporal punishment whilst the fault itself remains. To pray thus would be to pray against the order of Providence, and, therefore, to commit sin. Thirdly, if we were to admit that the punishment could be remitted whilst the sin remains, we should likewise grant that Indulgences could be gained by those who are in mortal sin. But this is false. The sovereign Pontiff does not intend to grant Indulgences to such persons. He intends Indulgences, even particular ones, for those only who are contrite; but true contrition is repugnant with the state of sin. The Pontiff not only does not, but even could not, intend Indulgences for the enemies of God. Had he this intention, he would be acting contrary to the presumed will of our Lord Jesus Christ. This will is, not to relax His rights in favour of His enemies, nor grant them any advantage. It is evident then that it is necessary to be in the state of grace to receive profit from suffrages.

II. Suarez (Sect. 7.) says that venial sin must be forgiven before one can receive, by means of suffrage, the remission of the punishment due to it. He says that the punishment cannot be remitted before the sin, for as long as the sin remains it deserves punishment. He holds that no one except Christ could satisfy for venial sin, and that the most we could do would be to obtain grace for another by means of which he would dispose himself to receive, or would merit, the remission of his venial sins.

III. Another condition on the part of those who receive suffrages is involved in the question raised by theologians, whether baptism is necessary to render one capable of suffrages, or whether these can be made for catechumens who depart this life with contrition. Suarez is of opinion that the holy sacrifice, or that suffrage which works, or produces effect ex opere operato, cannot be offered for catechumens who have departed this life. Vasquez (Disp. 227, cap. 3 ct 4.) held the same opinion. He denied that Mass could be offered for catechumens, or those who were receiving instruction and preparing for baptism. De Lugo agrees with this opinion, which he says is unanimously held by theologians. He says (De Eucharistia, Disp. 19, Sect. 10, n. 166.): " It is the unanimous opinion of theologians that the fruit of satisfaction ex opere operato may not be communicated to such persons." By such persons he means catechumens, of whom he was speaking. The reason which he assigns for this opinion is that Baptism is the gate through which we can approach the other sacraments, or participate in their fruit. The holy sacrifice representing the fruit of the sufferings of Christ " inasmuch as it proceeds immediately from Christ it may be extended to all men even those who are not baptised; inasmuch, however, as it is applied by the Church and its ministers, it is communicated only to those who are members of the visible Church by Baptism, for it is to feed these that power is given to the Church." So De Lugo reasons.

On the other hand Bellarmine (De Missa, cap. VI.) holds that the sacrifice of the Mass may be offered for catechumens. He quotes Clement (Lib. 8, Constitution, cap. 18.) as teaching that the holy sacrifice was offered for catechumens by the Apostles. Bellarmine would seem to make a distinction, how ever, between catechumens who belonged to infidelity and those who belonged to heresy. While he would hold that Mass could be offered for the former, he holds that it would be unlawful to offer it for the latter, because this would be contrary to the law of the Church, (Cap. A Nobis, de sententia excommunicationis.) by which it is expressly for bidden to pray publicly for excommunicated persons. Amongst these heretics are ranked, for they are all excommunicated. Collet (De Sacrificio, cap. 8, art. I.) also distinctly says that the sacrifice can be offered for catechumens though they have no right to it. Dens (De sacrificio Missae, n. 12.) agrees with Bellarmine and Collet. He says : " The sacrifice of the Mass can be offered for catechumens and infidels, not only indirectly, v.g., by offering it for the propagation of the Catholic Church, but even most probably directly, that is for the good, either spiritual or even temporal, of the infidels themselves."

There seems to be no doubt that St. Ambrose would agree with the second opinion, and that he was accustomed to offer the holy sacrifice for the soul of Valentinian who was a catechumen. On the] other hand it is quite certain that St. Chrysostom is stoutly in favour of the first opinion, and that his custom was not to offer sacrifice for catechumens. He says (Homil. 3, in cap. I Epist. ad Philip, n. 4.) : " Catechumens are not worthy of this consolation, but are destitute of every aid except one. But what is this? It is lawful to give to the poor for them, and from this they receive some refreshment."

I have no doubt that opinion also would be equally divided with regard to those other suffrages which are called common, and are offered for the faithful, dead or alive, by the clergy, inasmuch as these are ministers of the Church. The same reasons could be advanced against and for offering these common suffrages for catechumens as are put forward above in regard to the sacrifice of the Mass.

We now come to particular or private suffrages. Particular suffrages are those good and pious works which are performed by the faithful inasmuch as they are private persons. It is held by theologians that these suffrages can be offered by each one out of his own satisfactions for catechumens who have had a pious death. Suarez (Disp. 47 Sect. 6, n. o.) himself is among those who hold this opinion. Three reasons are assigned to prove that catechumens are capable of private suffrages. First, because in their case we can have everything that is required for suffrage. There are three things required for this object, a union of charity, the intention of the person who offers suffrage, and the need of the person who receives it. All these conditions can combine in the case of deceased catechumens. Secondly, a catechumen can offer his suffrages, not only fora departed person who has been baptized, but even for another catechumen. With much stronger reason can a person who is baptized offer his suffrages for a catechumen who is dead. Finally, there is no need at all of Baptism for this effect. One can transfer his suffrages to another who is not baptized.

Purgatory, By The Rev. M. Canty, P.P., Part 51.

THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED, ON THE PART OF THOSE WHO OFFER THEM, FOR THE VALUE OF SUFFRAGES

Images from Jeweled Rose

THAT our suffrages may be of advantage to those for whom we offer them, theologians require certain conditions, as well on the part of those who offer them, as on the part of those in whose favour they are made. We shall in the present chapter speak only of the conditions required on the part of those who offer suffrages for others.

These conditions are three. First, that the person who offers the suffrage should be in the state of grace. Secondly, that he should intend by the work which he performs, to render assistance to an other. Thirdly, that this work should be such of itself, that it can be accepted by God as satisfaction.

I. It is necessary that he who offers suffrage for others, whether alive or dead, should be himself in the state of grace. This is positively laid down by Bellarmine, (De Purg. cap. XVII.) Suarez, (Sect. 8.) and many other authors. Bellarmine, for instance, says, (Cap. XVII.) that the one "who can assist souls by his suffrages is he who is just." The reason which he and the other theologians assign for this is, that when one is not just he cannot satisfy for himself; and that this being so, much less can he satisfy for another.

Some theologians, however, do not entirely agree with this doctrine. For example, Collet observes that it presents some difficulty if taken in the sense, that a work performed by the assistance of actual grace, but in mortal sin, is in no way at all satisfactory. Here are his precise words : (Cap. V. De modo adjuvandi animas defunctorum.) " But if it be understood in this sense that a work done in the state of sin, but by the assistance of actual grace, could be in no way at all satisfactory, then surely it contains no little difficulty, as is gathered from what is said in another work." Some theologians hold that a work performed with the aid of actual grace by one who is in mortal sin is satisfactory, not as they term it, de condiguo, or as a matter of justice, taking into account the order established by God; but de congruo, or as a thing that is suitable and becoming. However that may be, there are two things in which theologians in general agree;. First, that prayers said in the name of the Church, even by unworthy representatives or agents, have the force of impetration with God. Secondly, that Mass offered by one who may happen to be unworthy, and alms given by a just master or owner through a sinful servant or agent, for the dead, are profitable to these. Let us dwell a little on each of these points.

1. The prayers which are said in the name of the Church, even by unworthy representatives or agents, such as a Chapter—if you can suppose the whole of such a body to be unworthy—retain their impetratory virtue with God. The reason is, that such ministers or agents are but the representatives of the Church, and operate or pray in her name. When one becomes the representative of another, and acts in his name, his work borrows its value, not from his own worth or dignity, but from the worth or dignity of the person in whose name he acts. Sup pose a king to send a messenger or ambassador to ask a favour of the Pope, the worth or dignity of the petition does not depend upon the condition or rank of the messenger or ambassador, but upon the majesty of the king in whose name the petition is made. In granting such a petition the Pope would take into account, not the condition or rank of the person through whom it is presented, but the dignity and majesty of the king in whose name it is made So it is with the prayers that are said in the name of the Church. They derive their value not from the persons who say them, but from the dignity of the Church, which is holy and pleasing to God. Such prayers are accepted by God on account of the dignity and sanctity of the Church in whose name they are offered.

But though prayers offered up by unworthy agents or representatives in the name of the Church have the force of impetration, they are not thought by theologians to have any value by way of satisfaction or payment of debt. That a work may be satisfactory it must, as we have observed in a former page, be penal. Further, it must be penal in as-much as it is done by the person who in doing it suffers or endures labour. Thus it must be penal as far as it is the work of the person who performs it. The work which is done by a minister of the Church is not penal and has not the nature of a penal work inasmuch as it is its work, but relatively to the person who performs it. Therefore, when a person who is in sin performs a work in the name of the Church, though this work, as far as done in her name, has the force of impetration, it has not the force of satisfaction or payment of punishment.

Though impetration and satisfaction may be made by the same prayer, the reader will observe that there is a great difference between them. In as far as a prayer is a simple petition to God and an expression of the desires of the Church,it constitutes impetration. The Church forms one mystic body, and as such can speak through this or that member, through this r r that minister. This speech or discourse of the Church receives from her a certain force of impetration. But the same discourse or prayer, in as far as it is a penal work, constitutes satisfaction. Considered under this respect, that is as a penal work, prayer is not referred to the Church, nor, so to speak, said in her name. A penal work is not suffered or endured by the Church, but by the person who performs it.

Those suffrages which are instituted by the Church are not impetratory ex opere operato, or necessarily, in the sense already explained. They are impetratory only, as it is termed, ex opere operantis, that is, as the work of the person who performs them. But this is to be understood in the sense that the person who acts or prays is the whole Church, which acts or prays through the mouth of its minister. Though the Church impetrates through her minister, it could not be said in the same way that she makes satisfaction through him.

2. Mass offered by one who may happen to be unworthy, and alms given by a just master through a wicked servant, for the dead, are profitable to these by way of satisfaction. In this theologians agree, not only as to the sacrifice of the Mass, but also as to the latter kind of suffrages. In these cases the suffrages are profitable to the dead, because it is not the wicked agent or servant, who is merely a representative, but it is the lord or master himself, who offers them. Such suffrages are properly the works of the master, who is just. It would be a different thing if a superior should prescribe a work which would not be, properly speaking, his own, but that of the subject who would perform it. Let me suppose a bishop to command fasts or prayers to his subjects, these are, to speak properly, the works not of the bishop who commands them, but of the subjects who perform them. These works, fasting or praying, do not derive their merit from the prelate who prescribes them, but from the subjects who perform them. If these subjects be in sin their work does not avail as a suffrage. It is for this reason St. Jerome (Lib. contra Vigilantium.) observes that it is more advantageous to give alms to a poor person who is just, than to a poor person who is in sin. The prayers of the former for his benefactors are heard ; the prayers of the latter are not heard, at least in this sense that there is no reward due in strict justice to them. But it is quite a different thing when a subject, or servant, or other representative, acts in the name of his superior, or master, or some other person. For instance, when a servant gives alms out of the money or goods of his master, this is properly the work of the master and not of the servant, and it ought not to be vitiated by the malice of the servant.

II. The second condition required on the part of him who offers suffrage is that he should intend by his work or action to assist another. The fruit, or effect of the work, is the right of the person who performs it. But the right or goods of one person cannot without his consent be transferred to another. To transfer the right or goods of one person to an other is an alienation, which cannot take place with out the consent of the former. Hence it would seem that theologians agree with Suarez (Sect. 8, n. 23.) in the three following points:—First, that if a person who performs a good work gives away all the fruit of it, though he will merit for himself, he will not make satisfaction for himself or pay the punishment due of him. Secondly, if he bestows the fruit of his work, whether by way of suffrage or of impetration on one or two, these will receive it, but in a less degree if it be divided between many. And thirdly, that if a person makes no application of the fruit of his work to another himself alone will profit by it.

III. The third condition required on the part of him who offers suffrage for another is, that his work of itself may be such that it can be accepted by God as a satisfaction of temporal punishment. For that object it is necessary that the work which is performed may be of itself proportioned to the satisfaction. There are three works of this description which are commonly assigned by theologians. They are prayer, fast, and alms. Though these three are commonly assigned, yet you can scarcely imagine any virtue, the practice of which is not penal. The performance of every good work in general is penal to man. Hence there is no good work which cannot be performed in satisfaction for temporal punishment.