4thly, It is maintained that, by this sacrifice so offered, an additional refreshment is obtained for the souls of the dead in the intermediate state.

This is a question which more immediately concerns the point we have next to consider; to which, therefore,

most precious body and blood of Christ to the receivers. Then the Holy Eucharist is fully consecrated, and energetical for all the divine purposes of the institution; so that now it is a full, perfect, and proper sacrifice of the body of Christ broken, and of his blood shed. All Christians, the whole Catholic Church, the whole communion of saints, are concerned in it, for thereby God the Father is propitiated for the whole mystical body of Christ, living and departed, as it is a sacrifice united to the one great sacrifice, of which all the legal sacrifices were but types."1

66

There is one more point, however, to which I would here direct the reader's notice, in order to show him to what such views lead. In the eucharist the minister confessedly is to follow the example of our Lord when he instituted it, and consequently, if the one offers a true propitiatory sacrifice to God in it, so did the other. But Scripture tells us that Christ was once offered," and that "by his one offering he hath perfected, &c." This, when pressed home, was an argument not easily to be evaded, and accordingly the great defender of the views of our opponents, Mr. Johnson, found himself compelled to take refuge in the assertion that our Lord's sacrifice was made in the eucharist. "Our Saviour," he says, "laid down his life when by a free act of his will he did give his body and blood to God in the eucharist." (Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. p. 69.) And against the sacrifice of the cross it is pleaded (I quote from Dr. Waterland) that to suppose it “is to render the sacrifice of Christ a bloody one indeed; so bloody as that it cannot be reconciled to purity of any sort, till killing one's self be esteemed a virtue." (Unbl. Sacr. part ii. p. 70.) And thus speaks Dr. Brett, "He could not offer himself a sacrifice in any other manner than by symbols or representations; for had he in any manner put himself to death, he might have been too justly accused of self-murder." (Brett's Answ. to plain Acc. p. 66.) I forbear offering any remark upon such statements, except to remind the reader that these are two of our opponents' most favoured witnesses, and their works on the list of the Library of AngloCatholic divines. The reader who desires to enter further into the matter may consult Dr. Waterland's Appendix to his "Christian Sacrifice explained" in the 8th vol. of his Works. He will do well also to consult his "Sacramental part of the eucharist explained," and "Distinctions of Sacrifice," in the same volume. He will there see also some just observations upon that approximation to the doctrine of transubstantiation which some of our opponents' favourite witnesses had shortly before that time broached, and which I need not say have been revived by their admirers of the present day, but into which it would be beside our present subject to enter.

I Hon. A. Campbell's "Essay upon the Holy Eucharist," in his Treatise on the Middle State, pp. 307, 8. Lond. 1721. fol. See, also, Brett's Dissert. on the prim. Liturg. p. 121; and L'Estrange's All. of Div. Off. p. 183. ed. 1690.

we refer the reader; and we shall there prove that the prayers for the dead, made by the antients, were (to use the language of Bishop Morton,) only "thankful congratulations for their present joys, or else testimonies of their hope and desires of their future resurrection, and consummation of their blessedness, both in their bodies and souls."1

Such prayers were always made at the celebration of the Eucharist, and most properly; for at what time could we more appropriately introduce such supplications, than on such an occasion; and hence it was that the Eucharist came to be often celebrated in the primitive Church at the burial of the dead, when these prayers might be considered as having a peculiar reference to the person whose body had just been interred; and so in our own Church, in the time of Queen Elizabeth (a. 1560), a form for the "celebratio cœnæ Domini in Funebribus, si amici et vicini defuncti communicare velint," was issued by royal authority. And hence the term "oblations for the dead," frequently to be met with in Tertullian and Cyprian, meaning celebrations of the Eucharist (which was called the oblation) with a particular reference to a person deceased, in which, probably, was offered a thanksgiving for the blessings vouchsafed him during life, and a prayer that he might attain a happy resurrection, and find mercy at the day of judgment, and be admitted to that perfect state of happiness which then awaits the just.

There remains for our consideration one more doctrine for which it is said that we are indebted to tradition; viz.

That there is an intermediate state, in which the souls of the faithful are purified, and grow in grace; that they pray for us, and that our prayers benefit them; words, whose meaning is so elastic, that it is difficult precisely to know what the doctrine intended to be conveyed by them is, as they might be understood so as to include almost the whole Romish doctrine of Purgatory.

As this is a matter of no little interest and importance,

Cath. App. ii. 8. § 2. p. 190.

2 Wilk. Concil. iv. 217. or Sparrow's Collection of Articles, &c.

and there may be mistakes in both extremes respecting it, we shall devote a few pages to the consideration of it.

In the first place, however, I must repeat the remark, that any teaching upon this subject, which depends upon patristical statements for its authority, is as uncertain and unauthoritative as are those statements. All which we receive as certain on the point, is grounded upon the declarations of Scripture; and however little Scripture may be supposed to have revealed respecting it, with that little we must rest satisfied, as all that can be certainly known respecting it; nor has our Church, as far as I am aware, laid down anything respecting it, which Scripture does not teach. It is a point, however, in which men may differ somewhat in opinion; and one may see more, and another less, in Scripture; and consequently the faith of men may vary in extent, inasmuch as Scripture has not spoken so clearly on this point, as on those that are more essential to us. There are, nevertheless, limits which Scripture will not allow us to pass in our notions on this matter; limits which the Romanists have grievously transgressed; and therefore it is very necessary to define and limit the meaning of words used in common. The Romanists, when they speak of the doctrine of the intermediate state, mean their tenet of purgatory; and it is to be feared that the doctrine which our opponents hold on this subject, is not sufficiently dissimilar; while, nevertheless, the doctrine that there is an intermediate state in which the souls of the just are, between their death and resurrection, different from that in which they will be placed after the day of judgment, is, in my belief, clearly deducible from Scripture; and that, by long residence in such a state, such souls attain a higher degree of sanctification than they had upon entering it, seems to be a truth that necessarily flows from the acknowledged character of that state. Moreover, if the dead in Christ await the period of the resurrection and judgment to be put in possession of that heavenly inheritance in which they will again enjoy communion with the Father, then is there no

impropriety in the Church on earth praying that both the faithful on earth, and those in the intermediate state, may be hereafter put into the possession of that inheritance; and this, in a sense, is praying for the dead; and appears to be what some of the antients, who adopted that practice, meant; but vastly different in meaning to the Romish notions on the subject.

I will now endeavour to show that the doctrine of the intermediate state may be proved from Scripture.

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory," saith our Lord, "with all the holy angels, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. And before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them, &c. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, &c." (See Matt. xxv. 31, et seq.) Is it not apparent from this passage that the righteous do not "inherit the kingdom" until after this sentence at the day of judgment? It cannot surely be said that the righteous come from the possession of that kingdom to be placed at the bar only to be sent back to it?

And this is still more apparent from a passage of St. Peter, where, speaking of the promised inheritance of the saints, he calls it "an inheritance . . . reserved in heaven for you who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time," adding, " Be sober and hope to the end, for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. i. 4, 5, 13.)

Indeed, that the saints should be brought up to judgment after having been put in possession of the promised inheritance, or, which is equivalent, that they should be put in possession of that inheritance before judgment is passed upon them, seems to render the judgment nugatory and useless. And the notion of a particular judgment at the time of death, which some have entertained, has, as far as I am aware, no support in Scripture. On the

contrary, judgment is, I think, always connected with the final day of account. "He that rejecteth me," saith our Lord," and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John xii. 48.) The notion of any other judgment than that which is to take place at the last day is a mere figment of the imagination.

Moreover, the period of the resurrection and judgment is the period everywhere pointed out in the Scriptures as that to which our eyes should be directed as the day of reward. "When thou makest a feast, call the poor, &c., and thou shalt be blessed, for they cannot recompense thee; for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." (Luke xiv. 13, 14.) "Who will render to every man according to his deeds. To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life. But unto them that are contentious . . . indignation, &c. In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." (Rom. ii. 6-16.) "That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Cor. v. 5.) "To you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels," &c. (See 2 Thess. i. 7, et seq.) "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing." (2 Tim. iv. 7, 8.) "When the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." (1 Pet. v. 4.) "The nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name," &c. (Rev. xi. 18.)

Now these passages, and many others of like import might be added to them, seem clearly to show that the

VOL. II.