for which they had the authority of the early Church, adhered to their first judgment. These same Reformers had at that time a clause in the Litany, which has since been excluded, praying against "the tyrannye of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities;" so that you could hardly accuse them of Papistry'.

The following is the part of the prayer omitted:

"We commend unto Thy mercy, O Lord, all other Thy servants, which are departed hence from us with the sign of faith, and now do rest in the sleep of peace: grant unto them, we beseech Thee, Thy mercy and everlasting peace; and that, at the day of the general resurrection, we, and all they which be of the mystical body of Thy Son, may altogether be set at His right hand, and hear that His most joyful voice, Come unto me, O ye that be blessed of My Father, and possess the kingdom which is prepared for you from the beginning of the world.' Grant this, O Father, for Jesus Christ's sake, our only Mediator and Advocate."

Now to this prayer neither Calvin nor Bucer objected that it was Papistical. On the contrary, Calvin says, in his letter to the Protector (Epp. p. 39. fol.),

"I hear that in the celebration of the Supper there is repeated a prayer for the departed, and I well know that this cannot be construed into an approbation of the Papistical Purgatory. Nor am I ignorant that there can be brought forward an ancient rite of making mention of the departed, that so the communion of all the faithful, being united into one body, might be set forth but there is this irrefragable argument against it, viz. that the Lord's Supper is a thing so holy, that it must not be defiled with any human addition."

Calvin argues further against the practice, 1st, as "not being founded on Scripture;" 2nd, as "not answering the true and lawful use of prayer."

Bucer, again, says, (Censura in Ordinat. Eccl. Opp. Angl. p. 467.)

"I know that this custom of praying for departed saints is very old, although there is no mention of it in the description of the Lord's Supper in Justin Martyr."

1 Cranmer had seen and written against the error of Purgatory even under Henry the VIIIth. "The necessary doctrine and erudition of a Christian man," A.D. 1543, is, in this respect, a decided advance beyond "The institution of a Christian man," A. D. 1537. (Comp. Formularies of Faith in the reign of Henry VIII., p. 210 and 375-7.)

And having gone over the testimonies from St. Cyprian, Tertullian, St. Ambrose, and Dionysius, he subjoins,

"But however old this Dionysius may be, and however great his authority, or that of the other holy fathers, yet we must prefer Divine authority to human, by how much God is greater than man.—Now Holy Scripture teaches neither by word nor example to pray for the dead. And it is forbidden to add or take away from it. Deut. iv. and xii."

Of Scriptural grounds Bucer adduces John v. 24, only, as opposed to this custom, arguing,

"That the common people would think that the departed yet lacked that peace, (and so the full mercy of God, whereby He forgives His servants their sins,) and that our prayers were needed to obtain that mercy. No occasion is to be given to this error, especially when we know with what a sea of more than heathen superstition, and with what plagues Satan has by this false persuasion overwhelmed religion."

It may have been on this ground, as Mr. Palmer conjectured, (English Ritual, tom. ii. p. 94-97.) that these prayers were omitted, as being so connected in the minds of the common people with the idea of purgatory, that their continuance would have involved the risk of propagating that cruel and pernicious error. If so, the Revisers of the Prayer Book, in abandoning their former ground, did wisely and charitably, and as the necessity of the times demanded; and although neither Calvin nor Bucer thought the practice legitimately connected therewith, yet the common people may then well have fallen into the mistake, since yourself, who are said to be a theologian, have now done so: for on this ground alone could you have selected this incidental mention of prayers for God's departed servants, as Papistical.

It may not be amiss to subjoin a few of the remarks of the learned Bp. Collier' on this our first reformed liturgy.

"This recommending the dead to the mercy of God is no innovation of the Church of Rome; but a constant usage of the primitive Church. To justify this reformed liturgy in this point I shall produce unexceptionable authority."

1 Eccles. Hist. of Great Britain, P. ii. Book iv. p. 257.

And having quoted Tertullian, St. Cyprian, the Apostolical Constitutions, St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and referred to the ancient liturgies, he subjoins:

"This custom neither supposes the modern purgatory, nor gives any encouragement to libertinism and vice: not to the latter, for St. Austin, with the apostolical constitutions, affirms, that unless a man dies qualified, he cannot receive any assistance from the prayers of the living. That the ancient Church believed the recommending the dead a serviceable office, we need not question; otherwise, to what purpose was it so generally practised? The custom seems to have gone on this principle, that supreme happiness is not to be expected till the resurrection; and that the interval between death and the end of the world is a state of imperfect bliss. The Church might, therefore, believe her prayers for good people departed might improve their condition, and raise the satisfactions of this period." And, again, having considered Bucer's objections:

"There is another text urged in favour of Bucer's opinions, 'Blessed are the dead, which die in the Lord from henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours, and their works do follow them.' But this place amounts to no censure, either of the primitive practice, or the reformed common prayer-book before us; for 'tis supposed by the ancients and the office last-mentioned, that the dead are discharged from the fatigues of this life, and their works follow them, and that they are happy on the main; however, it does not follow from hence, but that their condition may be improved, and that they may be served in some measure by the assistance of the living.--I have already observed, prayer for the dead does not imply purgatory; whence it follows, that though the Church of England condemns the Romish doctrine of purgatory, (Art. 22) we cannot thence infer her dislike of prayer for the dead."

With regard to your insinuation that those who approve of the primitive practice of praying for the dead, "will feel a new proof that the Church, which has retained this office, is alone worthy of their regard," Collier furnishes the answer, 1. That the Church of England no where restrains her children from praying for their departed friends, if this approves itself to their consciences. 2. That the terms of joining with the Church of Rome are so hard, her corruptions so manifold, that "supposing the Church of England was chargeable with the omission of a primitive usage, which is more than I affirm: 'tis more eligible to ahhere to her, than part with her communion upon so remarkable an exchange."

Since Rome has blended the cruel invention of purgatory with the primitive custom of prayer for the dead, (not to speak

now of her other corruptions,) it is not in communion with her that any can seek for comfort from this rite.

It would be well for the modern controversialist with Rome to weigh Bishop Bull's language on this subject, (Sermon iii. ed. Burton, and "Corruptions of the Church of Rome, in answer to the Bishop of Meaux' queries," t. ii. p. 260.) lest he involve himself in difficulty for want of making this distinction. Bishop Bull says,

"Prayers for the dead, as founded on the hypothesis of purgatory (and we no otherwise reject them), fall together with it :"

And with these he contrasts

"the prayers of the ancient Church, either the common and general commemoration of all the faithful at the oblation of the holy eucharist, or the particular prayers used at the funerals of any of the faithful lately deceased. The former respected their final absolution, and the consummation of their bliss at the resurrection, like as that our Church useth both in the office for the Communion, and in that for the burial of the dead, which indeed seems to be no more than that we daily pray for in that petition of the Lord's Prayer (if we rightly understand it), 'Thy kingdom come,'" &c.

Indeed, as Bishop Bull here implies, the very idea of an intermediate state involves in it a degree of prayer for God's departed servants; since, knowing them to be in a state of imperfect bliss until the resurrection, whenever we pray for the final "coming of God's kingdom," we do in fact (if we have any thought for the departed) pray at the same time for the perfecting of their bliss. And thus, in the service of the burial for the dead, when we pray God

"of His gracious goodness shortly to accomplish the number of His elect, and to hasten His kingdom; that we, with all those that are departed in the true faith of His Holy Name, may have our perfect consummation and bliss both in body and soul;"

this undoubtedly implies a prayer for the consummation of the bliss of the departed. And we, who so lose out of mind God's departed servants, have also almost lost the notion of the intermediate state. On the other hand, as Bishop Bull also points out, these prayers for the departed servants of God

exclude the false invention of purgatory. Bishop Bull writes

"In a word, let any understanding and unprejudiced person attentively observe the prayers for the dead in the most undoubtedly ancient liturgies, and he will be so far from believing the Romish purgatory on the account of those prayers, that he will be found to confess that they make directly against it. For (to omit other arguments) they all run (as even that prayer for the dead, which is unadvisedly left by the Romanists in their own canon of the mass as a testimony against themselves) in this form :For all that are in peace or at rest in the Lord.' Now how can they be said to be at peace or at rest in the Lord,' who are supposed to be in a state of misery and torment?"

I may add the following extract from the "Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem," which formed part of the devotions of Bishop Andrews'. As being an ancient liturgy, it of course expresses all which could be meant in this reference to "Ancient Liturgies."

"Grant that we may all find mercy and favour with all thy saints, who, from the beginning of the world, have pleased Thee in their several generations, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, and every just spirit made perfect in the faith of Thy Christ, from righteous Abel even unto this day; do thou give them and us rest in the region of the living in the bosom of our holy Fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whence sorrow, grief, and lamentation are banished away, where the light of Thy countenance shines continually; and vouchsafe to bring them and us to the full enjoyment of Thy heavenly kingdom."

I have dwelt the longer upon this subject, as being aware that you have reputed it a vulnerable point, and you have served your purpose well, by giving it a prominence, which it did not occupy in our Tracts, nor even in that one of our departed friend, wherein alone it was mentioned, and that but incidentally and of necessity. The object of his tract (and it was a very laudable one) being to point out the agreement as well as the antiquity of the existing liturgies, it would have been dishonest, wilfully to have suppressed any one point, wherein they so agreed. This, therefore, he stated; meanwhile he expressed no opinion on it, attracted no attention to it, but

1 See Dean Stanhope's translation, p. 47, ed. Christian Knowledge Society.