the prayers made for them, there was "great difference among the doctors;" and that so late as the eighth century, even the lawfulness of offering oblations for the dead, was a question; and hence, the Archbishop reckons it "a private conceit entertained by divers, as well of the elder as of the middle times, in their devotions for the dead," that "an augmentation of glory might thereby be procured for the saints;" quoting, as an example of this opinion, the words of Ivo Carnotensis, "It doth not seem idle if we make intercessions for those who already enjoy rest, that their rest may be increased;" where the notion, we may observe, though advocated, is not put forward with any confidence.

3

Here, however, as in other cases, this " private conceit" of divers antient doctors is solemnly laid down by our opponents as the doctrine of "the Church," and to it they have added as part also of " the Church's" doctrine, that the departed saints pray for us, for which they have even less to offer in the way of testimony than in the former case. And this is not the less remarkable from the fact that Archbishop Usher's whole discussion of this subject, in his Answer to the Jesuit, has been reprinted in the 72d. of the "Tracts for the Times," which shows that these statements of our opponents have been made in the face of evidence placed before them, that there was no patristical consent for them; an inconsistency which, however surprising, is in such cases by no means uncommon. But it is both surprising and uncommon that it should be said, in the face of the Archbishop's observations given above, "That the prayers of the living benefit the dead in Christ, is, to say the least, not inconsistent, as USHER SHOWS Us, with the primitive belief." Such an observation I would rather content myself with pointing out, than venturing to comment upon.5

2 Ib. p. 190.

1 Answer to the Jesuit, pp. 186, &s. 3 Ib. p. 168. 4 Tract 79, On Purgatory, p. 5. There is a painful want both of accuracy and of ingenuousness in the writings of our opponents. On this very subject, the observations of Dr.

Nor apparently is their doctrine, as to the nature of the intermediate state, so different to that of the Romanists as they would fain represent it to be. True, they blame the Romanists for making it a place of suffering, but they would have spoken more consistently if they had only blamed them for making it a place of so much suffering as they do, for it is but a question of degree with them, as the observations they have made in their Tract on Purgatory (Tract 79) fully show. They there admit that they hold with the Romanists, "that the great majority die in God's favour, yet more or less under the bond of their sins," because "after baptism there is no plenary pardon of sins in this life to the sinner, however penitent, such as in baptism was once vouchsafed to him," adding, “If for sins committed after baptism we have not yet received a simple and unconditional absolution, surely penitents from this time up to the day of judgment, may be considered in that double state of which the Romanists speak, their persons accepted, but certain sins uncancelled." And they then quote the case of David (2 Sam. xii. 13, 14,) as "a perspicuous instance of a penitent restored to God's favour at once, yet his sin afterwards visited," from which, if the case has any pertinency to the point in question, we are of course left to conclude that the uncancelled sins of believers may be visited by punishments in the intermediate state, and they may therefore well add, “So far then we cannot be said materially to oppose the Ro

Pusey, in his Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, (pp. 186 &s.) are wanting in candour, because they do not point out any distinction in the nature of the prayers offered for the dead except such as are "connected with the modern doctrine of purgatory," and then make use of Archbishop Usher's name, as if he had taken the same view with the writers of the Tracts, for whom this Letter was written as a defence. Again," Both Romanist and ultra-Protestant," he complains, " dogmatize about the state of departed souls." But what is the meaning of this complaint in a defender of the statements we have quoted above? Is it correct also to say that "the ultra-protestant . . . . decides peremptorily that the departed saints are already in full possession of the joys of heaven," when he must be perfectly aware of the freely conceded difference of opinion on this subject among those whom he calls ultra-protestants?

manists." (pp. 6, 7.) Doubtless they cannot.

And out

of these notions have arisen all the abuses to which the Romish Purgatory has given rise.

Nor is this doctrine of praying for the dead, that their happiness may be increased, that is, that the limitation placed to their happiness, in consequence of their sins, may be removed, or, that the punishment of their sins may be remitted, one of small moment; because it tends to encourage the living to hope that if only they are such as will escape the place of torment, they may obtain an increase of happiness in the intermediate state, by the prayers of the Church after their death; which, not to say that it is a hope altogether without foundation, is not unlikely to have a very injurious effect upon the Christian walk and conversation. As Bishop Morton says, "We are justly stayed from performing any such kindness, which, instead of showing love unto the dead, might seduce the living with deceivable hopes of succour after their death."1

To these "traditionary" doctrines Romanists add, among others, the doctrine of Christ's descent into hell, and that of the validity of baptism performed by heretics. The latter we have already considered, and shown to have been a controverted point in the antient Church.

Of the former, we say with Bishop Pearson, that when the Apostle, quoting Ps. xvi. 8-10, says that David there "spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption," (Acts ii. 25, 26, 27, 30, 31,) “from this place the Article is clearly and INFALLIBLY deduced thus: If the soul of Christ were not left in hell at his resurrection, then his soul was in hell before his resurrection; but it was not there before his death; therefore upon or after his death, and before his resurrection, the soul of Christ descended into hell." And he proceeds to quote Augustine (Ep. 99. al. 164. § 3.) as referring to this passage as a clear and undeniable proof of the doctrine. (On the Creed. Art. 5.)

1 Cath. App. ii. 8. p. 194.

2 See vol. i. pp. 330, &s.

There remain to be considered the cases that relate to certain matters of fact, and points that do not immediately belong either to the doctrines or rites of Christianity; namely,

(1) The Canon of Scripture.

(2) That Melchizedek's feast is a type of the Eucharist.

(3) That the Book of Canticles represents the union between Christ and his Church.

(4) That Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs, refers to the Second Person of the Trinity.

(5) The alleged perpetual virginity of the Mother of our Lord.

To the first of these we have already devoted a previous chapter. The second and fourth we have also considered in a former chapter, and shown that, so far from our being indebted to tradition for any certain testimony respecting them, the Fathers themselves were not agreed on the subject;1 which shows how easily men may deceive themselves in fancying consent of Fathers, where nevertheless it does not exist. As it respects the third, the sole question is, Has this book sufficient evidence for its being received as part of the Canon of Scripture? If so, it refers to religion, and has a spiritual meaning; which is all we "know with tolerable certainty about the matter," or need to know to show us what it is the allegory represents.

One point remains, viz., the alleged perpetual virginity of the Mother of our Lord.

It is with much unwillingness that I enter upon the discussion of this point, lest I should appear to any one to speak slightingly of one so highly honoured of God; and to whom, if upon earth, we should be disposed to pay higher reverence and respect, than to the most potent empress that ever sat upon an earthly throne. Far be it from us to speak with any degree of levity with respect to one so "highly favoured" of God, and whom "all generations shall call blessed."

See vol. i. pp. 360–363.

But, let me ask, what possible meaning can they have who connect this matter with religion? What possible bearing can such a point have upon faith or piety? How, moreover, was it ascertained? Will our opponents venture to assert that it was divinely revealed to the Apostles, and by them delivered to the Church? If not, who could know anything about it? for it is at least clear from Scripture, that Joseph took her to wife, and that they lived together as in that relationship; though he "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son;" (Matt. i. 25;) which words, by the way, notwithstanding the criticism which Basil proposes as a way of getting over the difficulty, are clearly rather favourable to the notion of union after that birth. But be that as it may, all that we protest against, and what we do earnestly protest against, is, the laying down such a point, as one that has any connexion with piety or religion in any way, when it has no more connexion with them than the colour of her dress. The blue hood with which she is generally depicted might as well be made an article of religious belief; unless, indeed, the authority of the primitive Father, Clement of Alexandria, shall prevail in favour of white, which he seems to think the only proper colour for Christians; 1 and so the blue (which, by the way, is one of those he particularly excepts against) be voted heretical. And this, forsooth, is one of the great recommendations of "tradition," that to it, as Mr. Newman reminds us, we are altogether indebted for this doctrine! Whether "tradition" has delivered it, we shall see presently. But wherein does the religion of it consist? Is it in the supposed honour thus done to the Mother of our Lord? I know not why the contrary supposition should be considered dishonourable to her, under the circumstances in which she was placed, as one living with Joseph as his wife. Or is it in the honour paid to certain Fathers, in our receiving whatever they deliver to us? If this is religion, we must add many

See his Pædag. lib. ii. c. 10. pp. 234, 5, and lib. iii. c. 11. pp. 285, 6. ed. Potter.