ENTITLED FIAT LUX. 159
nor of any of the ancient rabbins. Indeed, here and there one of them seemed to have dreamed with Origen about an end of the pains of gehenna ; and some of the latter masters, the cabahsts espe- cially, have espoused the Pythagorean metempsychosis: but for the purgatory of the Pagans and Papists, they know nothing of it.
On these testimonies he tells us, " that this opinion of the soul's immortality, and its detention after death in some place ' citra coelum,' is not any new thing freshly taught, either by our Saviour or his apostles, as any peculiar doctrine of his own, but taken up as granted by the tradition of the Hebrews, and supposed and admitted by all sides as true; upon which our Lord built much of his institu- tions." Gallantly ventured, liowever ! I confess, a man shall seldom meet with prettier shuffling.
Purgatory, it seems, is the doctrine of the soul's immortality, and detention in some place " citra coelum." Who would ever have once dreamed of this, had not our author informed him ? This it is to be learned in the Roman mystery: the doctrine of purgatory is the doctrine of the soul's immortality! Never was doctrine so foully mistaken as that hath been; but if it be not, yet it is of the " deten- tion of the souls in some place 'citra coelum.'" It is indeed; but yet our author knows, that in these words as bad, if not a worse fraud than under the other is couched. It was the opinion of many of the ancients that the souls of the saints that departed under the Old Testament enjoyed not the blessed presence of God, but were kept in a place of rest until the ascension of Christ. And this our author would have us to think is the doctrine of purgatory ; he him- self, I hope, enjoys the contentment of believing the contrary. But he tells us " that our blessed Saviour and his apostles were not the first that taught this doctrine," — that is, of purgatory; as though they had taught it at all, or had not taught that which is inconsistent Avith it, and destructive of it, which is notorious that they have. And for the traditions of the Hebrew church; as that was none of them, so I believe our author knows but little what were. But he takes a great deal of pains to prove, though very unsuccessfull}'-, that " the Jews did believe that the souls of those that departed be- fore the resurrection of the Messiah did not enter heaven ;" as though that was any thing to his purpose in hand. But he is, as I said, mar- vellous unsuccessful in that attempt also. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man prove only that Lazarus' soul was in Abraham's bosom ; that Abraham's bosom was not in heaven, it doth not prove. Peter, in the second of the Acts, proves no more than that the whole person of David, body and soul, was not ascended into heaven; the not ascending of his soul alone being nothing to his purpose. But what he cannot evince by testimonies, he will win by dint of argu-
IGO ANIMADVERSIONS ON A TREATISE
ments. " The Jews," saith he, " could not beheve what God had never promised ; but heavenly bliss was none of the promises of Moses' law, nor were they ever put in hope of it for any good work that they should do." It seems, then, that which was promised them in Moses' law was eternal life in some place " citra ccelum/' or '"' citra culum," until the coming of the Messiah ; for this he would fain prove that they believed ; and that rightly. This I confess is a rare notion, and I know not whether it be " de fide" or no; but this I am sure, that it is the first time that ever I heard of it, though I have been a httle conversant with some of his great masters. But the truth is, our author hath ver}^ ill success for the most part when he talks of the Jews ; as most men have when they talk of what they do not under- stand. Eternal life and everlasting rewai'd, the enjoyment of God in bliss, was promised no less truly in the Old Testament than under the New, though less clearly: and our author grants it, by confessing that the estate of the saints in rest " extra caelum," to be admitted thither upon the entrance made into it by the Messiah, was promised to them, and believed by them; though any such promise made to them, or any such belief of them, as should give us the specification of the reward they expected, he is not able to produce.
" The promise of heaven is made clear under the New Testament; yet not so," he tells us, " but that, in the execution of this promise, it is sufficiently insinuated that if any spirit issue out of his body not absolutely purified, himself may indeed, by the use of such means of gi'ace as our Lord instituted, 'be saved, yet so as by fire,'" 1 Cor. iii. I think I know well enough what he aims at, but the sense of his words I do not so well understand. Suppose a spirit so to issue forth as he talks, — seeing we must not believe that the blood of Jesiis purges us from all our sins, — who or what is it then that he means by '"' him- self ? " Is it the spu'it after it is departed, or is it the person before its departure ? If the latter, to what end is the issuing forth of the spuit mentioned ? And what is here for purgatory, seeing the person is to be saved by the means of grace appointed by Christ ? If the former, as the expression is uncouth, so I desire to know whether purgatory be an instituted means of grace or no? and whether it was believed so by Virgil, or is by any of the more learned Romanists? I think it my duty a Uttle to retain my reader in this stumbhug passage. Our author having a mind to beg some countenance for purgatoiy from 1 Cor. iiL, and knowing full weU that there is not one word spoken there about the spuits of men departed, but of their trials in this life, was forced to confound that li^ing and dead means of grace and punishment, things present and to come, that somewhat might seem to look towards purgatory, though he knew not what. Nor doth he find any better shelter for his poor purgatory, — turned