makes Christians worshippers of God, because the Eucharistic food and drink have been truly offered in sacrifice.

The Apostle speaks here of a Jewish altar, a pagan table (by which he means a pagan altar), and a Christian table; of a Jewish sacrifice, a pagan sacrifice, and he contrasts them with the Eucharist; of a partaking of the victims offered by the Jews, a partaking of the meat and drink offered by Pagans, and of a partaking of the body and blood of the Lord. He speaks of one, the Jewish, passed; of another, the Christian, occurring; of the third, the Pagan, as likely to occur. He contrasts them all. He argues upon them, evidently "a pari." There must be some element of similarity running through them as the ground of comparison, and the foundation of argument. And this can be no other than that contained in the proposition, that the three equally involved the rite of sacrifice in the strict and literal sense of the word.

But let us look to the prophetic writings. They throw some light on this subject. "Christ is a priest for ever according to the order or rite of Melchisedech." So says St. Paul. To be a priest for ever according to a certain rite, is evidently to offer sacrifice for ever according to that rite. Now, what was the rite of Melchisedech? The Book of Genesis tells us, "But Melchisedech, the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God, blessed him "1 (Abraham). Is there anything in this inspired sentence which determines the rite of sacrifice which Melchisedech employed? I believe there is. Observe, he did not bring forth bread and wine because he was a king, but because he was a priest. Then he retained with him bread and wine, inasmuch as he was a priest. He had it in store, not inasmuch as he was a man, or a king, but a priest. The priest Melchisedech was distinguished from the man Melchisedech, and from the king Melchisedech, by the privilege of offering sacrifice. Retaining bread and wine then, inasmuch as he was a

1 Genesis xiv. 18, 19.

K

priest, was retaining it inasmuch as he was a man ordained to offer sacrifice. It is, therefore, natural to conclude that bread and wine were the matter of Melchisedech's sacrifice, and his rite was the rite of immolating bread and wine physically or morally. If, then, as St. Paul says, "Christ be a priest for ever according to the rite of Melchisedech," it requires no further process of reasoning to prove that the blessed Eucharist, in which he as principal priest immolates so as to place himself under the appearances of bread and wine, is truly and properly a sacrifice according to the strict meaning of the term.

1

After rebuking the Jewish priesthood because they offered "polluted bread upon His altar," and because they immolated animals, “blind, and lame, and sickly," the Spirit of God, by the mouth of the prophet Malachy, proceeds to reject the sacrifices of the Jews and to foretell a sacrifice among the Gentiles in the following terms:"I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of Hosts : and I will not receive a gift of your hand. For, from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of Hosts." The prediction is this :-After the rejection of the Jews and the call of the Gentiles, sacrifice shall be offered from the rising to the setting of the sun. This universal sacrifice, different from the Jewish sacrifices, which were contaminated by the physical imperfections of the victims, shall be unspotted and undefilable—“ a clean oblation." This interpretation of the passage goes on the assumption that the Vulgate reading is correct. The literal interpretation of the Hebrew word that is translated, "a clean oblation," is an "oblation of clean white flour." In either case the prediction of the prophet Malachy can receive no literal verification unless the blessed Eucharist be regarded as a sacrifice.

Then it is evident that there is not only sufficient mat

1 Malachias i. 10, 11.

ter for a true sacrifice in the blessed Eucharist, but that the circumstances of the case are such that no rational man can doubt of the fact of its being instituted and ordained as such.

WE should not expect to find in the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament a minute description of purgatory. It is remarkable that neither heaven nor hell are there described, except under 'general terms, which present but a partial idea of the joy or sorrow of these places of eternal abode. The inspired writers appear to have thought it sufficient to tell their disciples and the Church, that heaven is a place of eternal happiness, and hell a prison of everlasting fire. The Apostle will not even attempt to lift the veil that conceals the glories of that third heaven to which he "had been wrapped," and which he knew so well, but contents himself with telling the Corinthians that "neither eye hath seen, nor hath ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man what things God hath prepared for those who love him."

Religionists of a certain training complain that there is not a vivid and detailed picture of purgatory in the Gospels or Epistles. Some rejoice at the fact, and bring an argument against the doctrine from the silence of the Sacred Scriptures. In the event that the Scripture was totally silent on the existence of a place of temporal punishment in the next life, the argument would not be admissible as a negative one; but if the allusions to a middle state in the next life are almost as frequent and as clear as those to heaven and hell, it appears unreasonable, partial, and

bigoted, to object to receive the universally taught doctrine of purgatory,

We will make a supposition. Suppose there are texts in the New Testament which are of doubtful significance as regards the existence of purgatory. More than this: suppose that all the texts in the New Testament which appear to favour that doctrine are of such a nature that they can be explained in another sense, though they do not necessarily require such an explanation. In a word, suppose that they are as much for it as against it, would it be lawful to say in this case, purgatory existeth not? Would Would it be common sense?

Yet so

it be reasonable? argue most of those who are outside the Catholic Church. Purgatory is not painted for us in fixed and vivid colours in the Gospels and Epistles. Therefore, it existeth not. And, mind you, they so argue with tremendous odds against them, as will appear from the second part of this work. In the face of facts, which put it beyond all question that prayers for the dead were offered systematically in the third century, the reformers explain away the force of all the texts in the Sacred Scripture which in their obvious and literal signification convey to every rational mind the idea of a middle state beyond the grave. They appear to have made up their minds previous to all examination of the question that they will not, under any circumstances, admit the existence of purgatory; and from this gratuitous and dangerous resolve they are hurried to the fatal conclusion that all antiquity is wrong on this point-that the believers of the second and third century were wrong in the interpretation of texts that were obviously in favour of their practice of praying for the dead -that the texts themselves do not mean what they appear to mean;-whereas it should have been the contrary; and men of just and impartial minds should determine the interpretation of scriptural passages of doubtful meaning by the belief and practice of that portion of the Church which almost touched the time when divine wisdom spoke on earth.

All this is said in the supposition that the scriptural

passages commonly cited in favour of the existence of purgatory, are of very doubtful significance. Such, however, is not the fact-these passages are clear and intelligible; and if some one or two of them appear a little ambiguous and dark, the concentrated light of the whole of them dispels the gloom, for they lean upon and sustain each other.

If according to the Sacred Scriptures there be in the other life a prison where souls are detained for some time, not always; if there be sins that are remitted in the next life; if there be a possibility of going to heaven through sufferings and fire; if there be souls under the earth who bow the knee in reverential awe at the mention of the name of the Redeemer; if all these suppositions be verified in the words of the Redeemer and his inspired Apostles; if, in addition, friends of God in more ancient times distributed alms and had sacrifices offered for the dead; it will be reasonable to admit the existence of a middle state in the next world different from heaven, because on the way to heaven-different from hell, because transitory and terminable. If Silas argued so, what reply could be given him? If Timothy so taught from the "chair" of Ephesus, how could the "gainsayers" dispute the strength and conclusiveness of his words? Yet there would be found some to do so then as now. Profane men would be found to say, "The Scripture is not fairly quoted." Well, then, here is the Scripture as it fell from inspired, and more than inspired lips. Here are the texts which exhibit the different items of the broad affirmation that has been put forth. "Be at agreement with thy adversary" (the words are of the Redeemer) "betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest thy adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer and thou be cast into prison. Amen I say to thee, thou shall not go out from thence until thou repay the last farthing." As it is said "thou shalt not go out from thence until thou repay the last farthing," the natural inference is the last

1 Matt. v. 25, 26.