they could merit and sin; and lastly, he denied it for the purpose of denying other doctrines connected therewith.

The Lutherans drew up, and presented their Confession of Faith to the Emperor Charles V, at Augsburg, in June, 1530, and the same having been answered by some Catholic divines, Melancthon wrote its apology or defence, in the name and by the appointment of the principal Lutherans. In the apology is the following passage:

"Touching what is objected against us, concerning oblation for the dead, having been practised by the Fathers; we own they prayed for the dead, and we hinder none from now doing it; but we do not approve of the application of the Lord's Supper for the dead, in virtue of the action, ex opere operato.

"Unjustly do our adversaries bring against us the condemnation of Aerius, who they say was condemned for denying that the Mass was offered up for the living and the dead. This is their custom, to adduce the ancient heretics against us, and to compare our doctrine with theirs. St. Epiphanius testifies that Aerius taught that prayers for the dead were unprofitable. We do not uphold Aerius, but we contend against you for your doctrine of the Mass," and so forth.

In this it is plain that the Lutheran apologists for the Confession of Augsburg did not rank praying for the dead amongst Popish errors, nor agree with the heresy of Aerius, whose heresy consisted in denying the utility of those prayers.

Amongst the decisions made by King Henry VIII, as head of the English Church, and subscribed to by Thomas Cranmer, as Archbishop of Canterbury, whose signature followed that of Cromwell, the King's Vicar-General, was a full approbation of the custom of praying for the dead, "as consistent with the due order of charity to pray for them, and to make others pray for them in exequies and masses, to give alms for that end," and so forth. This subscription was made in 1536. Two years after, the English Church subscribed another document approving of prayers for the dead.

In 1557, a confession of faith drawn up by Calvin was carried to Worms, by Beza and Farel, and presented to the princes and states of the Augsburg Confession there assembled: in which the Calvinists of France subscribe to all the doctrines of that confession, save that of the Eucharist, and amongst them of that praying for the dead.

Grotius, a Protestant, distinctly shows from evident principles that it is confessed by Mestresat, by Spanheim, and by Calvin, that there must be purification of the soul after death; for he shows that they avow that no soul is pure at any moment of life, nor at the time of death;

that nothing polluted can enter into the kingdom of heaven, and that as Spanheim says, the soul cannot be presented to God till it be without spot or wrinkle, all holy, pure, and unblamable; and upon the question whether this purification takes place, if I may so say, during the moment of death, or at a subsequent period, Spanheim says we cannot be certain. The Catholic has learned from the testimony of God, given by ages and by nations, exhibiting his early revelations, that it frequently is deferred, and that the soul undergoes punishment, which may be alleviated by prayers and suffrages of the faithful; and hence they pray for the repose of their deceased brethren.

I shall here transcribe evidence from Bishop Milner's excellent work, The End of Controversy, Letter xliii, 3.

"I should do an injury, Rev. Sir, to my cause, were I to pass over the concessions of eminent Protestant prelates, and other writers, on the matter in debate. On some occasions, Luther admits of Purgatory, as an article founded on Scripture. 38 Melancthon confesses that the ancients prayed for the dead; and says, that the Lutherans do not find fault with it. 39 Calvin intimates that the souls of all the just are detained in Abraham's bosom till the day of judgment. 40 In the first Liturgy of the Church of England, which was drawn up by Cranmer and Ridley, and declared by act of Parliament to have been framed by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, there is an express prayer for the departed, that 'God would grant them mercy and everlasting peace. 41 It can be shown, that the following Bishops of your Church believe that the dead ought to be prayed for: Andrews, Usher, Montague, Taylor, Forbes, Sheldon, Barrow of St. Asaph's, and Blandford. 42 To these I may add the religious Dr. Johnson, whose published meditations prove that he constantly prayed for his deceased wife. But what need is there of more words on the subject, when it is clear that modern Protestants in shutting up the Catholic Purgatory for imperfect just souls, have opened another general one for them, and all the wicked of every sort whatsoever! It is well known that the disciples of Calvin, at Geneva, and, perhaps, every where else, instead of adhering to his doctrine, in condemning mortals to eternal torments, without any fault on their part, now hold that the most confirmed in guilt, and the finally impen

38 Assertions, art. 37. Disput. Leipsic.

30 Apolog. Conf. Aug.

40 Instit. 1. iii, c. 5.

41 See the form in Collier's Ecc. Hist., vol. ii, p. 257.

42 Collier's Hist.-N. B. The present Bishop of Exeter, in a sermon just published, prays for the soul of our poor Princess Charlotte, as far as this is lawful and profitable.'

itent shall, in the end, be saved: 43 thus establishing, as Fletcher of Madeley observes, 'General Purgatory.' 44 A late celebrated theological, as well as philosophical writer of our own country, Dr. Priestly, being on his death-bed, called for Simpson's work On the Duration of Future Punishment, which he recommended in these terms: 'It contains my sentiments: we shall all meet finally: we only require different degrees of discipline, suited to our different tempers, to prepare us for final happiness. 45 Here again is a general Protestant Purgatory: and why should Satan and his crew be denied the benefit of it? But to confine myself to eminent divines of the Established Church; one of its celebrated preachers, who, of course, 'never mentions hell to ears polite,' expresses his wish, 'to banish the subject of everlasting punishment from all pulpits, as containing a doctrine, at once improper and uncertain;' 46 which sentiment is applauded by another eminent divine, who reviews that sermon in the British Critic. 47 Another modern divine censures 'the threat of eternal perdition, as a cause of infidelity.' 48 The renowned Dr. Paley (but here we are getting into quite novel systems of theology, which will force a smile from its old students, notwithstanding the awfulness of the subject) Dr. Paley, I say, so far softens the punishment of the infernal regions, as to suppose that 'there may be very little to choose between the condition of some who are in hell, and others who are in heaven!' 49 In the same liberal spirit, the Cambridge Professor of Divinity teaches, that 'God's wrath and damnation are more terrible in the sound than the sense! 50 and that being damned does not imply any fixed degree of evil.' 51 In another part of his lectures, he expresses his hope, and quotes Dr. Hartley as expressing the same, that 'all men will be ultimately happy, when punishment has done its work in reforming principles and conduct.' 52 If this sentiment be not sufficiently explicit in favor of Purgatory, take the following from a passage in which he is directly lecturing on the subject: 'With regard to the doctrine of Purgatory, though it may not be founded either in reason or in Scripture, it is not unnatural. Who can bear the thought of

Encycl. Art. Geneva.

"Checks to Antiom, vol. iv.

"See Edinb. Review, Oct., 1806.

Sermons by the Rev. W. Gilpin, Preb. of Sarum.

"British Critic, Jan., 1802.

Rev. Mr. Polwhele's Let. to Dr. Hawker.

"Moral and Polit. Philos.

Lect., vol. iii, p. 154

51 Ibid.

Vol. ii, p. 390. It is to be observed, that the doctrine of the final salvation of the wicked is expressly condemned in the 42d Article of the Church of England, A. D.,

1552.

dwelling in everlasting torments? Yet who can say that a God everlastingly just, will not inflict them? The mind of man seeks for resource; it finds only, in conceiving that some temporary punishment, after death, may purify the soul from its moral pollutions, and make it, at last, acceptable even to a Diety, infinitely pure.'

1953

The following is an extract from the declaration of the wife of James II, who became a Catholic, when she was Duchess of York, and is dated St. James's, August 20, 1670:

"After this, I spoke severally to two of the best bishops we have in England, 54 who both told me, there were many things in the Roman Church, which it were very much to be wished we had kept: as confession, which was no doubt commanded by God. That praying for the dead was one of the ancientest things in Christianity; that, for their parts, they did it daily, though they would not own it; and afterwards, pressing one of them very much upon the other points, he told me, that if he had been bred a Catholic, he would not change his religion; but that being of another Church, wherein he was sure were all things necessary for salvation, he thought it very ill to give that scandal, as to leave that Church wherein he had received his baptism."

In this letter I have closed my evidence, and shall make a few comments upon the subject in my next. 55

CHARLESTON, S. C., Nov. 19, 1827.

To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America.

My Friends, I now proceed to sum up in a general view the arguments upon which we found the doctrine of the existence of Purgatory and the utility of prayers for the souls therein detained.

It is conceded by our opponents that it was the prevailing belief of all Christendom in the tenth century. If it had not been derived from the Saviour and his Apostles, it must have been introduced into the Christian Church at some intermediate time: the Christians of that age stated that they did receive the doctrines from the founders of their religion. We have the prima facie evidence on our side: to des83 Vol. iv, p. 112.

Sheldon of Canterbury and Blandford of Worcester.

The extent to which the doctrine of prayers for the dead has been revived in the Protestant Episcopal Churches of Britain and the United States, within the last few years, is well known to all.

troy which our opponents must show when and by whom our doctrine was invented, if it was an invention: this they have never seriously attempted: therefore upon this single ground we would claim as proved that it was a part of the original deposit of the Apostolic faith. I say they have never attempted to show when and by whom the doctrine was invented, because although they might put forth vague assertions which refer to one or more centuries, every unbiassed mind will perceive that this is no evidence.

It has sometimes been said, that innovations make their way gradually and imperceptibly. I shall show that such could not have been the case in this instance; for, if at present the belief or disbelief of this tenet is considered important amongst Christians, we may fairly assume that it was always so considered: and if now the difference of belief upon this subject is a cause of separation and of contention, such difference would have been so at all times; and my assumption is supported by three facts. When the innovators of the sixteenth century denied the truth of our doctrine, it caused general and violent commotion, and the authors of the change can now be clearly pointed out, their history told, and all the circumstances accompanying the division which ensued are matters of history: so it happened when the Petrobrussians in the twelfth century denied the truth of our doctrine: so also when Aerius in the fourth age denied the utility of prayer for the dead: in each of those cases the name and residence of the innovator can be given, and the precise period of his innovation. If our doctrine be an innovation, why are not its authors known, why is not the date of their existence pointed out?

When changes take place in doctrine the novelty is not at once adopted by an entire church, nor by a whole nation: and even let us suppose that it should take place gradually and insensibly in one church or nation, it could not be at once and noiselessly introduced into all the churches and all the nations of Christendom. We should then find nation and church opposed to nation and church, and yet our opponents do not exhibit one particle of testimony to show that such was the case, whilst they require of us to believe without evidence that they from whom the doctrine was received were innovators: and they are pleased to call us foolish and besotted and priest-ridden, for not acting against the very first principles of sound reason.

We have seen that the doctrine was taught by the Koran which was compiled in the seventh century, chiefly from the writings of the Jews and the Christians, and therefore it could not be a subsequent innovation of the Greeks, who separated from us in the ninth century; nor