practice of the early Church, and no reasonable Christian will blame Dr. Johnson for the cautious manner in which he mentions his mother in his prayers; but in the hands of the Church of Rome this feeling was soon directed to the unscriptural object of delivering the souls of departed friends from purgatory, and the practice converted into a source of profit to the priesthood.-There is no necessary connection between praying for the dead and the belief in purgatory. The Greek Church for instance prays for the dead, without admitting any idea of purgatory. Prayers and oblations for the dead were probably established in England from the first, and a short form of prayer to that effect is inserted in the Canons of Cloveshoo; with regard to the latter doctrine, the Saxon homilists generally refer to the awards of a final judgement, though traditional notices exist, in which there appears to be at first an indistinct, but afterwards more clear reference to purgatory.-Later writers, and among the rest Alfred, adopted the popular notions of purgatory, which were still very different from the opinions on that subject established as articles of Faith by the councils of Florence and Trent."

Take again the following full statement of another writer, who seems, certainly, over-anxious to vindicate the purity of the foreign ultra-Protestants, against Romish assailants, and so is obviously free from bias. It is from the vindication of the learned Dr. Field', against a Romish controversialist, who it seems had set you an example which you have faithfully followed, "drawing me," Dr. F. says, "into the defence of that he knoweth I impugn."

"In the fourth place he saith: I accept the rule of St. Augustine, that whatsoever is frequented by the universal Church, and was not instituted by Councils, but was always holden, that is believed most rightly to be an Apostolical tradition. And that liberally I add, that whatsoever all, or the most famous or renowned in all ages (or at least in divers ages) have constantly delivered, as received from them that went before them, no man doubting or contradicting it, may be thought to be an apostolical tradition. Whence he thinketh he may conclude inevitably by my allowance that prayer for the dead may be thought to be an Apostolical tradition, many famous and renowned Fathers in divers ages mentioning Prayer for the Dead, and none disliking or reproving it. For answer whereunto I say; that prayer for the resurrection, public acquittal in the day of judgement, and bliss of them that are fallen asleep, in the sleep of death, is an Apostolical tradition, and so proved by the rule of St. Augustine, and that other added by me; as likewise prayer made respectively to the passage hence, and entrance into the other world: and hereof there is

1 Of the Church, App. p. 1, § 4, p. 750, sqq., where is much more on this subject.

no controversy between us and our adversaries; but prayer to ease, mitigate, suspend, or wholly take away the pains of any of them that are in hell, or to deliver men out of the supposed purgatory of Papists, hath no proof from either of these rules, as shall appear by that which followeth : and, therefore, this poor novice hath not yet learned his lesson aright, nor knoweth what it is he is to prove. But if he will be content to be informed by me, the thing he must prove (if he desire to gratify his new masters, and to maintain the Romish cause) is, that all the Fathers, or the most famous among them, from the beginning of Christianity, did in the several ages wherein they lived, teach men to pray for the deliverance of their friends and brethren, out of the pains of Purgatory; which, if he will undertake to do, he must bring some better proofs, than such as are taken from the mutual dependence and conjunction of Purgatory, and prayer for the dead, which yet principally he seemeth to urge. For many Catholic Christians (whom this gentleman must not condemn) made prayers for such as they never deemed to be in Purgatory. Neither did the ancient Catholic Church (as he fondly imagineth) in her prayers and oblations for the dead, intend to relieve souls temporarily afflicted in a penal estate; but in her general intention (whatsoever private conceits particular men had) desired only the resurrection, public acquittal, and perfect consummation and blessedness of the departed, and respectively to the passage hence, and entrance into the other world, the utter deletion, and full remission of their sins, the perfect purging out of sin, being in, or immediately upon the dissolution in the last instant of this life, and the first of the next, and not while the soul and body remain conjoined. This is strongly proved, because the most ancient amongst the Fathers, make but two sorts of men dying, and departing out of this world, the one sinners, the other righteous; the one profane, the other holy: so Dionysius in his Hierarchy; so Epiphanius against Arius; so Ambrose in his Book de Bono Mortis; and Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechism; and all of them teach, that the souls of the just are in a joyful, happy, and good estate, and present with God in an excellent sort, immediately upon their dissolution, and departure hence. The falling asleep of the holy ones,' saith Dionysius, 'is in joy and gladness, and immoveable hope, because they are come to the end of their combats; and again, they know they shall altogether be partakers of the rest of Christ, being come to the end and bound of this life: so that they are filled with holy joy and gladness, and with great delight and pleasure, enter the way of the most happy regeneration.""

And now I would venture to ask any Clergyman, I would even appeal to yourself, if a Parochial Minister, whether, when you have heard of the death of one of your flock, of whom you hoped well, your first impulse has not been to pray to God to make up to the departed whatever had been deficient in your ministrations? whether (as Luther did) you have not prayed

for the perfecting and increased blessedness of a departed friend or relation, even though you have subsequently checked yourself? whether you did not find a comfort from that prayer? and whether this dictate of human nature, warranted as it is by the early Church, and distinct from the Romish error, may not after all be implanted by the God of naturemay not be the voice of God within us? If this be but possible, is this a subject to be treated lightly? Are "prayer" and "the souls of God's departed saints" fit topics for a jest?

One word more on a connected subject; you represent the writers as dissatisfied with the changes formerly made in the services, and wishing to introduce others more conformable to the ritual of Rome. (p. 12.)

This (as I have already in part shown) is not so; for, first, you have (as is your wont) confounded the primitive with the Romish ritual: secondly, we never have, nor do we wish for any alteration in the liturgy of our Church; we bless God that our lot has fallen in her bosom,-that He has preserved in her the essentials of primitive doctrine and a liturgy so holy; and although I cannot but think its first form preferable, alteration is out of the question : THERE CANNOT BE REAL ALTERATION, WITHOUT A SCHISM: and as we claim to have our own consciences respected, and not to have any doctrines suppressed which the formularies of our Church now express, so, even if we had the power of change, would we respect the consciences of others, and not to urge upon our superiors, or seek for support in behalf of the restitution of that more ancient form, which we hold abstractedly the better.

The whole course of the Tracts has, as you know, and yourself reproach us with, been against innovation; how, then, is it honest in your assumed character, to give us the following advice ;

"You cannot be certain that those in authority would consent to those alterations which you regard as improvements; and you must not be hasty in urging them too far;"

as if we had ever had any such wish?

I may yet add another instance of the risk, which (for want of better acquaintance with our old divines) you run of involving unawares in your censures those giants of old times, against whom, for very shame, a modern should not open his mouth, while you think you are only attacking men of modern days like yourself, οἷοι νῦν βροτοί εἰσι.

Every system of theology, as indeed every tendency of mind, every good disposition, every performance of religious duty, has its dangers, the danger of degenerating; and so, of necessity, has Protestantism. One of the writers of the Tracts brought forward some of these in warning, especially the tendency to require too rigid argumentation, explicit proof, and not to yield to conviction until compelled. The Romanist is too easy of belief, believes on false grounds; the tendency of the Protestant is, to be over-difficult of belief, not to believe on sufficient and true grounds. This was illustrated by reference to the prevailing feelings in some quarters with regard to episcopacy; and it was shown, that the same principle would consistently extend not only to infant baptism, but to a case of "doctrine, of necessary doctrine, doctrine the very highest and most sacred, where the argument lies as little upon the surface of Scripture,where the proof, though most conclusive, is as indirect and circuitous as that for episcopacy, viz., the doctrine of the Trinity. Where is this solemn and comfortable mystery formally stated in Scripture, as we find it in the Creed? Why is it not? Let a man consider whether all the objections which he urges against the Scripture argument for Episcopacy may not be turned against his own belief in the Trinity. It is a happy thing for themselves that men are inconsistent; yet it is miserable to advocate and establish a principle, which, not in their own case indeed, but in the case of others who learn it of them, leads to Socinianism. This being considered, can we any longer wonder at the awful fact, that the descendants of Calvin, the first Presbyterian, are at the present day in the number of those who have denied the Lord who bought them?"

It certainly was not any common mind, which saw how a principle, now so commonly avowed in the instance of episcopacy, will, when carried out, ultimately affect men's belief in the highest doctrines of the faith: it was also popular ground to take, and a great temptation, to represent these writers, as weakening the evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity-and

you have fallen into it. I must own that I do not understand all which your words would insinuate; but the tone of triumph in which it is announced, implies that you have found, in your opinion, a weak point. You call it (p. 37, 38.)

"a noble passage, which we can never sufficiently admire ;"

you tell us,

"you can always triumphantly appeal to your own writings to prove that you have always maintained on abstract grounds, even when you were not assailing individuals, that the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly revealed in Scripture. We shall cite the passage we allude to, because we delight in transcribing truth, and because we would recommend our beloved children to have it engraven on the doors of their houses, as a public announcement of the orthodoxy of their faith, and the righteousness of their conduct."

But what, then, if this statement, for which its author is thus assailed, occur in the writings of those who have been ever regarded as great lights of our Church, and that, in relation to the same subjects? Your irony will reach rather further than you intended.

I will cite two only, Hooker and Bp. Beveridge.

Hooker then says (Eccl. Pol. i. 41.),

"There hath been some doubt, likewise, whether containing in Scripture, do import express setting down in plain terms, or else comprehending in such sort, that by reason we may from thence conclude all things which are necessary. Against the former of these two constructions, instance hath sundry ways been given. For our belief in the Trinity, the co-eternity of the Son of God with his Father, the Proceeding of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, the duty of baptizing infants; these, with such other principal points, the necessity whereof is by none denied, are notwithstanding in Scripture no where to be found by express literal mention; only deduced they are out of Scripture by collection."

Bp. Beveridge is much fuller, speaks upon the whole subject, and yet it would be difficult to point out any difference between his statements and those of the Tracts. The passage is part of the preface to his learned Essay on the Canons of the Primitive Church:

"Yet, indeed, this holy Scripture, although in those precepts which are absolutely necessary to the salvation of every man, it be very clear and plain to all; yet in things relating to doctrine and the outward discipline