spirits of the patriarchs and prophets before the coming of Christ were for this reason not worshipped and invoked, as we now worship and invoke the Apostles and martyrs, because they were yet shut up and detained in prisons below[3].”  Again, he says, “Because before {28} the coming of Christ the saints who died did not enter heaven and saw not God, nor could ordinarily know the prayers of suppliants, therefore, it was not customary in the Old Testament to say, ‘Holy Abraham, pray for me,’ &c.; but the men of that time prayed to God only, and alleged the merits of the saints who had already departed, that their own prayers might be aided by them.”

[Footnote 2:  The word Hell, signifying, in Saxon, a hidden-place, altogether corresponding in its etymology with “hades,” is now used for the place of torment called by the Hebrews “Gehennah;” and we must perhaps regret that the same Saxon word is employed to signify also the unseen region of departed spirits.  This circumstance has been the source of much difficulty and confusion.]

[Footnote 3:  “Nam idcirco ante Christi adventum non ita colebantur neque invocabantur spiritus patriarcharum atque prophetarum, quemadmodum nunc Apostolos et martyres colimus et invocamus, quod illi adhuc infernis carceribus clausi detinebantur.”—­Ingolstadii, 1601. vol. ii. p. 833.  “The last edition, enlarged and corrected by the Author.”]

Now let us inquire into this statement thus broadly made, and ascertain for ourselves whether the point assumed and the argument built upon it can stand the test of examination.  Is this argument such as ought to satisfy the mind of one, who would humbly but honestly follow the apostolic rule, “Prove all things:  hold fast that which is good?” Is this such an exposition as that the reason of a cultivated mind, and the faith of an enlightened Christian, can acquiesce in it?  Let it be examined neither with prejudice in its favour, nor with any undue suspicion of its soundness, but with candour and impartiality throughout.

It is not necessary to dwell at any length on the inconsistencies and perplexities involved in this assumed abstract theory with regard to the souls of the faithful who died before the resurrection of Christ, and which require to be cleared away before its advocates can reasonably expect to obtain for it any general acceptance among thinking men.  I do not wish to contravene the theory, far less to substitute another in its stead.  On the contrary, I am fully content, in company with some of the most valuable among Roman Catholic writers, following the example of Augustin [Aug.  De Pecc.  Orig. c. 23. tom. vii. p. 338.—­Quoted by De Sacy. 2 Kings (Vulg. 4 Kings) ii.], to leave the subject where Scripture has left it.  To the arguments {29} alleged, I would wish to reply independently of any opinion, as a matter of Christian belief, with regard to the place, the condition, and the circumstances of the