THE Performance of any good Offices for the Dead, even to their Bodies, their Bones, their Memories, their Wills, &c. hath always been reputed a very commen­dable thing among all civilized Nations; and what­ever hath been acted to the contrary, barbarous, and inhumane; and the only Neglect of such Offices by such as were under any special Obligation, of evil consequence; as if Mankind had some secret sense that Separate Souls were sensible of the Kindness or Unkindness of those who survived them, and had some power to gratifie or revenge the Kindness or Injuries, especially of their Re­lations, and such as they had any special Interest in in their Life­time. And if such inferior Offices to their Bodies and Memories have been so reputed, much more may such good Offices, as Prayers for the Souls departed, deserve commendation. And ac­cordingly it hath been always commonly practised, by all Nations, Gentiles, Jews, Mahometans, and Christians; and that without any known Beginning: but very probably by Tradition from the common Concern­ing Matters transmitted from them, and received and conserved by the Gen­tiles. See Mr. Dodwell's 2d Letter, § 8. Parents of Mankind, being very agreeable to Nature, and confirmed by Apparitions.

And certainly this is a thing so innocent, so free from all appea­rance of Evil, so desirable both for ones self and their Friends, that it is very strange that any, especially good People, should be per­suaded, nay frighted from it; and much more that any should so presume, upon their own Opinion and Conceit, as to offer to per­suade [Page 2]them so contrary to the Practice of the whole World in gene­ral, and of the whole Catholick Church, without clearer Evidence in so obscure a Case, as is that of the middle State of Souls to us Mortals: which is not to be believed could ever have been with­out some secret Energy of those Powers of Darkness, which have effected greater Mischiefs than this by the same Instruments.

It is the Practice of the Jews at this day, and has been so without any known beginning: was so before our Saviour's time, as appears by the Book of Maccabces, and their ancient Form of Prayer, which, 'tis said, they used in the Captivity, still extant in their Talmud; and never was reproved by our Saviour, or any of his Apostles, or of the Primitive Christians.

It is the Practice of the whole Catholick Church at this day, and of all Christians, except such as according to the unanimous Senti­ments of the Ancients are gone, and are, out of it; and hath been so without any known beginning, in their most solemn Worship; so that no Church can be assigned where they, who scruple at it now, could have had Communion without it: And never was op­posed, contradicted, or questioned by any one of any Reputation in the Catholick Church; or by any one at all for near 400 years.

The first, who is known to have questioned it, was Aerius, in the time of Epiphanius, a Presbyter, a frantick, proud, conceited Man, discontented because he could not get a Bishoprick, and thereupon, 'tis probable, quarrelled not only at divers Practises of the Church, but at Episcopacy it self: an ill Man by the Judgement of all; and Epiphanius and St. Austin reckon him in their Catalogues of Hereticks for his Opposition of this Practice especially.

The next, whose Testimony is produced in this Cause, is one Stephanus Gobarus, and obscure Scribler, and a confessed Heretick, even by Ʋsher, who alleadgeth his Testimony, as well as by Photius, from whom he takes it, and who gives this Character of his Book, that it seems a Work of much Labour, but little Profit; and a Study rather of Applause and Vain-Glory, than any great Useful­ness. It was a Collection of the different Sentences of the Fathers in divers points of Doctrine, and alleadged to prove such a Diffe­rence of Opinions in this Case, and what was the true Sentence of the Church. A special Witness, and to much purpose! an He­retick to prove the true Sentence of the Church! and a vain­glorious Person, who, out of Ostentation of Parts and Learning, seeks for Differences in the Fathers, and sets himself up for a Judge! [Page 3]which he might, if he had pleased, have done also in the Scripture it self. But after all he doth not so much as declare his Opinion in the principal Question in this Case, but only in a by-point. A poor Cause that stands in need of such Supports!

If we set him aside, as well we may, who is neither a competent Witness of the Sentence of the Church, nor doth declare his own in this Case, we find not another in near 700 years after Aerius, till Peter de Bruis, and one Henricus, a runagate Monk, who took up a Trade of Preaching, and spent what he got in Gaming, and on Harlots: They denied also the Baptism of Infants, the Chri­stian Sacrifice, Publick Churches, &c. against them Petrus Clunia­censis, a Man eminent for Learning and Sanctity, wrote, and St. Bernard preached, and confirmed his Doctrine with so great a Miracle, as convinced Multitudes, who had been seduced by them.

After these arose one Waldo, a Citizen of Lions, very rich, but unlearned, who probably had a Zeal for God, but not according to Knowledge, and attributing too much to his own Opinion, procured certain Books to be written in his own Language, and distributing his Estate among the Poor, took upon him the Apo­stolick Office of Preaching, and began the Sect, called after his own Name, Waldenses; and from their Place and Quality, The Poor of Lions. Among other Heterodox Opinions, (whereof some were peculiar to their own Sect, and disallowed by all others) this of rejecting Prayers for the Dead was one.

The Apostolici of that time, I suppose, were not a distinct Sect, but the same, who assumed that Name. And the Albigenses, who in the next Century encreased very much, till by the secular Power and force of Arms they were suppressed, seem to have been a Branch of the same Root; however, in this particular they agreed, as they did in most others.

Since those, I know not any Sect which hath arisen, and which questioned or contradicted Prayers for the Dead, till those which have sprung out of what is called the Reformation: For I do not find that Wickelif, and his Followers here, the Lollards, or John Huss, or Hierom of Prague, who carried his Books and Doctrines into their own Country, and were all three Men of Parts and Learning, ever opposed Prayers for the Dead, tho' among the Opinions attributed to Huss, one is, that there is no Purgatory Fire; which is denied by others, who yet are for Prayers for the Dead. But by all the several Sects of the later Reformers, since Luther began, [Page 4]they have been questioned, opposed, and left out of their Publick Prayers.

Only here in England, in the first Liturgy, composed by English Clergy, in the Reign of King Edward 6. which I therefore call The True English Liturgy, the ancient Prayers for the Dead were retained, both in the most Solemn Office of the Daily Sacri­fice, and at Funerals: But these and other principal Parts of the Liturgy were soon after new-modelled in a clandestine manner by Cranmer, Bucer, and other Foreigners, and Calvinian Sectaries; and craftily imposed upon the Church and Nation: And the Abuse is continued to this day.

This is the true Original and Succession of all the Opposition which hath ever been made to this Practice, of all Mankind in general, and of the whole Catholick Church of Christ; by Hereticks, Sectaries, and Schismaticks, and the meanest of all those; not a Man amongst them of any Eminence for Piety, or any Virtue, or so much as Parts or Learning: much less any Man of Note in the Church: much less any Church, Party, or Part of the Catholick Church, who were, or who continued in Communion with The Catholick Church, or any Particular Catholick Church, as they anciently distinguish'd them from the Assemblies and Associations of Hereticks, and Schis­maticks in the same City. It is very observable, wonderful, and a great Evidence of unquestionable or undeniable Truth, that in so many Ages, when there had been so many so considerable Parties of Hereticks and Schismaticks, and so malicious, spiteful, and in­raged, as many of them were against the Church, that none of the most considerable of them should ever seek to advantage their Cause by such a Question; which doubtless they would not have failed to have done, had they apprehended any color of Truth or Advan­tage in it: that none in all the Parts of the World should ever oppose it but such an obscure, inconsiderate and inconsiderable Generation of People, till the late Reformers sprung up, who thought they could never reform enough, or pick quarrels too much, till they had brought that, which might have been a consi­derable Cause, if well laid and managed, to an indefensible brable. Amongst them indeed there have been many Men of sufficient Learn­ing; but, but few of that Ingenuity, Impartiality, freedom from Prejudice, temporal Interest, or Fear of Displeasing, and of that Generosity, as to assert the Truth plainly, without respect of Persons or Parties: and those few have been very much born down [Page 5](among us especially) by the Violence and Headiness of Parties and Factions. Yet such is the Power and Evidence of Truth in this Case, that it hath found Advocates amongst the most learned of all Parties.

Of this I think it not improper to produce an instance or two in this Place: The first shall be an eminent Person both for Learn­ing and Virtue, Bishop Forbes, the first Bishop of Edenburg, pro­moted by King Charles 1. who is reported to have said of him, That he had found out a Bishop, who deserved that a See should be made for him. In his Considerationes Modestae, Controversiâ de Purgatorio, cap. 3. §. 17. coming to speak of Prayers and Obla­tions for the Dead; Sed hic primum, &c. But here first, saith he, is to be reproved the Opinion of some rigid Protestants, who do altoge­ther censure and condemn Prayers for the Dead; because they find no Precept or Example of such Prayers in the Old or New Testament. Cer­tainly even those, who are most against it, dare not deny that it is a most ancient Custom, and most (universally) received in the whole Church of Christ, that in the Publick Prayers of the Church Commemoration should be made for the Dead, and Rest be prayed for to God for those who died piously, and in the Peace of the Church. And having cited divers of the Ancients for it, he adds: This most ancient Custom was full of Piety, and most truly did Cassander say, ‘ This was always fixt in Note. Then this was a­greed among All. All Christian Minds, That the Spirits of those, who being initiated in the Sacrament of Christ, departed this Life in the Confession of his Name, with signification of Repentance, should be commended to the Mercy of God, that Remission of Sin, Eternal Rest, and a Part with the Elect, might be intreated for them. This second part is so ci­ted in Ʋsher, p. 246. as is apt to lead the Reader into mistake, as if they were not a­greed in more than the Author did intend. And altho' concerning that State of Souls, for which those things were profitable, it was neither sufficiently manifest, nor agreed among all, yet all judged this Office, as a Testimony of Charity toward the Deceased, and a Profession of Faith concerning the Immortality of Souls, and Resurrection to come, to be grateful to God, and profitable to the Church.’ Then he saith, This most An­cient and Ʋniversal Custom of the Church very many and most learned Protestants do not disallow; and cites the Apology of the Augsburg Confess. Chemnicius, Mentserus, Luther, Gerard, Ʋrbanus Regius, Vor­stius, Vossius, Dr. Field, Bishop Andrews, and passing over in silence very many others, as he saith, he recites the Words of the Liturgy of Edward 6. both in the Office for the Communion, and that for Burials; laments that such most ancient and pious Prayers should, by the Persuasion of Bucer, and others, be expunged; and wisheth that the Church of England, which hath shewed great Moderation [Page 6]in many other things of less moment, had rather conformed her self in this business, as also in some others, to the most ancient Custom of the Universal Church, than for some Errors and Abuses, which had by degrees crept in, plainly rejected it, and wholly taken it away, to the great Scandal of almost all other Christians.

I need add no more after this Learned and Apostolick Bishop, only, in short, take notice of what Ʋrbanus Regius saith, that None reject it but Epicureans and Sadduces; and Vorstius, that No Good Man can dislike it; and Bishop Andrews, that There is little that can be said against it; and conclude this matter with the Words of the learned and famous Hugo Grotius; The use of Praying for the Dead, received through all Churches of the East, no less than of the West, ought not to be condemned. And after some reasons for it, and something con­cerning the Jews, he adds, The Ancient Liturgies are not to be con­demned, since Christ himself did never reprehend the Prayers for the Dead, commonly used among the Jews; of which there is a Form extant in the Talmud, made, as is believed, in the Babylonian Captivity, and mentioned in the second Book of the Maccabees.

It will be replied, That as great a Man, and of the Church of England, as any of those, hath written against it, the famous Ʋsher, Arch-Bishop of Armath. It is very true he hath, and imployed and strained all his Learning, all his Parts, and all his Skill, and a little too much, to oppose it; and all to very little purpose for his own Cause, but to very good purpose against it: For it is a great Evidence and Demonstration of what Bishop Andrews truly said, That there is little that can be said against what this great Man takes such pains to oppose. The sole Question between him and his Ad­versary was, Whether the Fathers of the first 400 or 500 Years held that Prayer for the Dead is both commendable and godly? as appears by the Challenge, which was in those very Words, and no other. How, and where, doth he answer this plain Question? His Title of that part of his Answer is general, Of Prayer for the Dead. He saw well enough how little he had to say to that plain Question; and therefore resolved to take more Liberty, to say something of the mat­ter of his Title, tho little or nothing to the Question. He spends three score and ten pages upon the general matter; but, if I mistake not, not ten lines directly and closely to the special Question. To use his own words p. 170. He al­leadgeth in­deed a num­ber of Autho­rities to blear Mens Eyes with all; which being narrowly look­ed into will be found nothing at all to the purpose. Which is to abuse, not so much his Adversary, as his Reader, with a spe­cious appearance of an Answer, which, in truth and reality, is nothing to the purpose. That which comes nearest to the purpose [Page 7]is what he saith, pag. 246. ‘ These Two Questions, saith he, must necessa­rily be distinguished: Whether Prayers and Oblations were to be made for the Dead? and, Whether the Dead did receive any pe­culiar Profit thereby? In the latter of these, he (the Reader) shall find great Difference among the Doctors: in the former, very little, or none at all.’ This is indeed to the purpose: but his Resolution of the former Question, tho' very true, is a plain Confession against him­self. For if they be agreed that Prayers and Oblations were to be made for the Dead, then certainly they held that that was com­mendable and godly; which is all that his Adversary did affirm then, and that I do principally assert now: for what I have to alleadge farther, is but a Consequence of that. And his Resolution of the latter Question is manifestly false, and a disingenuous Asser­tion: for if among so great a number of Doctors in so many Years he could have assigned five, or six, or ten, who had really differed in that point from the rest, (which those few he cites rightly un­derstood did not) had that been a Great Difference? And if some Authors do say, that some, or that many, in their time, were doubt­ful in the point, is that a sufficient proof that it was still a Question in the Church? when they name not one Person in particular, much less any Doctor, nor tell us so much as of what quality they were, who had those Doubts. When a Difference is Great, there must be some proportion between the Contenders: and where a Question is continued, there must be some Disputes, Contention, or Debates. But if Peoples secret Doubts must be taken for Questions in the Church, that is the ready way to bring all Religion into question: and it is not to be doubted but such dealings in Controversies hath had its share in producing this growth of Scepticism and Atheism of late. That such a Man as this should put Colours upon Causes; should hold up Contentions; should be so addicted to Parties, as in fa­vour to them to confirm People in Opinions, which if false are mischievous, and if true of little Advantage, and contrary to so great Authority as is on the other side; and so expose his Judg­ment or Integrity, is a great Unhappiness to himself, and a Scandal to others.

It is possible, what others may have observed in this great Man (for 'tis a scurvy thing to be ingaged in an ill Cause) may have taught them more Wisdom; for, for ought I can find, as well in the Controversial Writings of late, as in the Disputations at the University, the Old Cause, An Preces pro Defunctis sint Licitae? is [Page 8]quite deserted, and that Question is turned into another, An Preces pro Defunctis antiquitus usurpatae inferant Purgatorium Papisticum? It is well Men have learned so much Wisdom for themselves, as to mend their Cause so far as that; and it is to be wished, that they may also learn so much Honesty, as to undeceive the People, and restore to them, for themselves and their Friends, the Comfort and Benefit of that ancient Catholick Practice. Mr. Thorndike, one of the learnedst Persons this Church hath produc'd, and a late Bishop of St. Asaph, have done well to do what they could, and restore it upon their own Tomb-stones, tho' they could not do it in the Church: and if all who believe well, would but do so well, as pro­fess what they believe, which certainly they ought to do, we should soon see the Truth revive and flourish beyond Expectation; and so, much of our Contentions abated.

Thus concerning the Persons who have opposed this Practice, and set up themselves against the Authority of the whole Catholick Church. I come now to consider the Opposition it self, their Allega­tions and Reasons. Such is the Wit of Man, and the Subtilty of Sa­tan, that scarce any Truth is so evident, but they can find out some specious Appearances to set up against it. But such is the Mercy and Wisdom of God, that he hath provided sufficient means for Dire­ction for all such as keep within the Bounds of Humility and Obe­dience; that is, in Subjection not only of their Wills, but also of their Intellects and Understandings, to his Orders, Ordinances and Prescriptions, the very Business of their Lives in this World, for Preparation for another. And to such, besides the Common Means, he will kindly vouchsafe a special Guidance sufficient for their Circumstances. Of the Danger our Saviour and his Apostles have given to all fair Warning, and great Caution; acquainting us with the End, why the most Wise and Gracious God permits it, for Tryal and Exercise; the Danger and Subtilty of the Ministers of Satan, such as should deceive, if it were possible, the very Elect; the special Marks to know and avoid them, viz. Their Fruits, spe­cious Pretences, (Sheeps Clothing,) and Distraction and Disagree­ment among themselves, crying, Here is Christ, and There is Christ; and special Directions, Believe them not, Go not out after them. All this Provision hath the Devil attempted to undermine, partly by raising real Scandals and Offences, and partly by strongly repre­senting Imaginary ones. But against all this Humility and Charity will fortifie us; and the Grace, special Guidance and Mercy of [Page 9]God will preserve us, if we be careful to continue in those Graces. It was Pride, and Arrogance, and Discontent in Aerius, which gave the [...], &c. Epiphan. p. 905. a. Devil Advantage to instigate him to the first Opposition of such a Catholick Practice. It was Pride, Vanity, and Ostenta­tion of Parts, by which he set Gobarus to work to shew his Learn­ing and Acuteness in finding out Differences of Opinions among them, who perhaps in many of those things differed no more than the Writers of the Sacred Scriptures seem to do. For I do not find that he made any special Opposition against this Practice. But I doubt it was not imaginary, but real Scandal and gross Abuses of a good Practice, by which Waldo and his Followers, and the Albigen­ses, were moved to oppose all without Distinction: tho' there seems to have been in him, with a Zeal for God, but without Know­ledge, a Mixture of Pride and Conceitedness. And it was real, and not imaginary Scandal, by which Luther was at first moved to oppose Indulgencies, and his Followers at first to oppose even this innocent and commendable Practice. But in such Men as Ʋsher and Bucer, it was the Reputation of the Cause they had espoused in gross, and Compliances with the Times, and their particular Interests, by which they were moved. But let us but carefully follow our Saviour's Admonitions and Directions, wisely distinguish the Ingredients of the Composition of Truth and False­hood, and honestly imbrace, hold fast, and own the Truth, when we have the Opportunity, and we shall not want sufficient Light and Evidence to find it.

The specious Appearances set up against this Catholick Practice of the Church of Christ are these: 1. That there is no Scri­pture Authority for it. 2. That the Ancient Practice was to Pray for all, such as were at Rest. 3. That the Ancients were not agreed in their Opinions concerning the State of Se­parate Souls, or the general Intention of the Church in those Prayers.

To detect the Fallacy, Falsity, and Impertinence of these Alle­gations, as briefly as may be: To the first, I say, it is a meer Fal­lacy, and grounded upon a false Supposition, that nothing is to be admitted in Doctrine or Worship but what there is Scripture Au­thority for, if it be understood of a special Authority; and their usual Pretences of not Adding, or Diminishing, are to be understood of those particular Parts or Books of the Scripture, as is plain by the Additional Writings and Practices of Holy Men afterwards. 2. It [Page 10]is inconsistent with the Tradition of the Doctrine, and Institutions of the Gospel, and of the Ordinances of the Apostles, which were all by Word and Deed, without Writing, as the Common Laws of this Nation were at first settled: and much of what was writ­ten, was written upon special Occasions, and much with that Bre­vity and Conciseness, by the special Providence of God, as was sufficient for them for whom it was intended, and yet so as should need an Authentick Explication to preserve the Authority of the Catholick Church. 3. It is contrary to the express Directions of the Scripture, to contend for the Doctrine once delivered to the Saints, in general, and to hold the Traditions they had received, whether by Word, or Epistle, &c. And if it be understood of a general Authority, the Allegation it self is false: For it is contrary to all those Scriptures, which declare the Authority of the Church, and require Obedience to Superiors: And either way it is contrary to the Sentiments, Testimony, and Practice of the Ancient Chri­stians, who, in Questions of Difficulty and Contests with Hereticks, always inquired, not only what was written by the Apostles, but also, or principally, what was delivered by them to the Churches, which they founded, in all Parts of the World, of which the Ca­tholick Church doth consist, which the Scripture it self stiles the Pillar and Basis of Truth, 1 Tim. 3.15. v. Grot. not only for the Sense and Meaning of the Scripture, as Lawyers, with good reason do, when in doubts about the Construction of Writings they in­quire how the Usage hath gone; for in that case the Writing is the Principal Evidence: but in this case, what was delivered to the Churches, which were compleatly and plainly instructed and ordered by the Apostles, was the principal Inquiry, and the Scriptures but an accessory Evidence, as our Year-Books are of the Common Law, in Questions concerning the Common Law. But I doubt not but there was a special Providence in it, that so much was written, and no more, and that it was written in such a manner. Lastly, This hath been the Practice and Pretence of Hereticks and Schisma­ticks, in all Ages, to the intent with the better colour to set aside the Authority of the Catholick Church, that they might so make way to set up their own private Opinions and Conceits in the Place thereof; but never more grossly, nauciously, and scandalously, than by some of the Principal of the late Reformers, Calvin especially, on the one side, inculcating and crying up The Pure Word of God, The Pure Word of God; and on the other, abusing it, by straining [Page 11]wresting it to serve their own turns, and eluding and evading what is plainly contrary to them; which is now past all doubt, not only by the Confessions of Mr. Baxter and Le Blank, but the many of all Parties, who have deserted divers of those Assertions, which were so hotly contended for under that specious Pretence: a plain Evi­dence and Demonstration that they were no better than their Pre­decessors in that Pretence. But besides all this, what I am now doing, if I be not much mistaken, will be a particular demonstra­tion of the Truth of what I say.

To the other two Allegations, I say, they are both impertinent to the Question under consideration here; which is only concerning the Matter of Fact and Practice; I do not say that they are impertinent to the Subject in general, to be considered upon other Occasions; but to this special Question: and therefore to insist upon them in this Case, instead of directly answering to the Question, is fallacious, captious, and an abuse to the Reader, to impose upon him, distract him, and withdraw him from the proper Question. There might be Difference in Forms, and various Intendments, and all consistent. Certainly there was no such Difference or Variety either of Forms or Intendment, as there is this day amongst Protestants of both, in their greatest Solemnity of the Sacrament. But if the matter of Fact be certain, it may be in the Power of the Church to order the Form, and at Liberty for every one to construe the Intention, or make his Inferences or Observations for his own Use, as well as of the Scripture. And the Matter of Fact is granted by the very Allegation: Nor indeed is it much denied by any Men of Learn­ing. Scio esse pervetustam hanc precandi pro piè defunctis consuetu­dinem, saith Bucer in his Censure; and after he had a little indea­voured to put off Tertullian, S. Cyprian, and Dionysius, he adds, Sed sit hic quantumvis vetustus Dionysius; Et sit hujus atque aliorum S. Patrum authoritas quantumlibet magna: attamen nostrum est tanto anteferre omni humanae authoritati divinam, quanto Deus omni homine major est, & sapientia, & nostri charitate, docendique nos omnia pro­pensione. Jam or are pro Defunctis nullae docent Scripturae, sive verbo, sive exemplo. Et vetitum est quicquid his adjicere vel detrahere, Deut. 4. & 12. Solet nobis objici, says Peter Martyr, Ecclesiam semper pro De­functis orasse; quod quidem non inficior; sed assero illius facti, neque Verbi Dei, neque Exempli, quod desumitur ex Sacris literis auctoritatem habere, in 1 Cor. 3. fol. 45. Ed. Tig. 1579. Verum est quod Papistae aiunt, says Bullinger, Dec. 4. Ser. 10. Veteres orasse & sacrificasse [Page 12]pro Defunctis: Scio quid Doctor Ecclesiae Insignis Augustinus, quid Elo­quentissimus Chrysostomus, aliique viri vetusti ac clari hac de re scriptum relinquerunt: Sed quaero num hi rectè fecerunt? Scio damnatum fuisse Aerium, quod hujusmodi Orationes & Oblationes improbaret. Afferunt secundum Maccabaeorum librum: Sed is nihil probat, cum non sit Cano­nicus: Adjiciunt & Traditionem Apostolicam: Sed mihi id non videtur; nec illi unquam in scriptis ita praecipiunt. This is the Sum of the Case, and honestly said; and therefore I shall conclude this part with it.

Such is the Folly, Passion, and Inconsiderateness of Men, that they many times bring such Causes to Tryal, as upon their own shewing, and hearing their own Evidence only, appears to all in­telligent and indifferent Persons to be against them. And such I believe will this Cause of these Men appear to be to all competent Judges, without more a do. Notwithstanding, for the more plain and full Conviction and Satisfaction of such as are less intelligent and more scrupulous; and that those Honourable Persons, to whose Consideration I present it, may themselves judge of the Evidences, which extort these Confessions from such as would elude them if they could, I will produce so much as is sufficient for the purpose: and that I be not tedious, I will forbear all that, which would prove it to have been a true Catholick Practice of the whole Church for above 1200 years last past, and confine my self to the time allowed and approved by the Church and State of England, that is, the time of the first four 1. Of Nice, Anno 325. 2. Constant. Anno 381. 3. Ephesus, Anno 431. 4. Chalced, Anno 481. general Councils, and that preceeding to the time of the Apostles; that is, from that to the Year of our Lord 451.

As for the succeeding Ages, to this day, that it was observed all along per totum Orbem, and therefore believed to have been de­livered by the Apostles, as the most ancient Writers upon the Church Offices affirm, I presume no Man will deny; and therefore I shall only mention one Observation concerning those Ages: I have made all the Search that possibly I could, both by Manu­scripts and printed Books, to discover the most ancient Forms of celebrating the Holy Eucharist in the Latin Church: and tho' I have met with divers Variations in other parts, yet I never could dis­cover any Alteration in that that is the principal part, and as Dr. Barlow, late Bishop of Lincoln, says, the most innocent part of the pub­lick Office, called The Canon of the Mass, since Gregory the Great, nor indeed by him [...] believe the whole Canon is not of less Antiquity than Gelasius, or S. Ambrose, if not much ancienter, divers particulars of it being found in more ancient [Page 13]Authors. It is not long since a very Reverend and Learned Bishop, since deceased, speaking to me of it, said, it was a Noble piece of Antiquity; and Dr. Barlow hath left under his hand a just Censure of one who cut that part out of an ancient Missel at Oxford, for an ignorant half learned Fellow. This alone is an ample Evidence of the Practice of all the Latin Churches for these Ages; which, from thence, I shall indeavour to trace back to its Original.

S. Austin and S Paulinus both lived within the time prescribed, and died 20 years before the last of the said four Councils, about An. 431. S. Augustin was a Person of great Natural parts, acquired Learning, Piety, Holiness, and of great Authority and Reputation in the whole Catholick Church, especially in the Latin Church, of which he is reckoned one of the chiefest Doctors. He had in his younger time taught Rhetorick at Rome, and afterward at Millan, so that he was acquainted with the World, as well as with Books, and every way as well qualified to bear his Testimony in the Case as possibly could be. S. Paulinus was a Person of great Quality and Estate, in great Esteem with the Emperor, and of so great Devotion, that, imbracing our Saviour's Counsel, he Sold all, distributed it to the Poor, and pious Uses, and betook himself to a strict Religious Life in Poverty, after he had been preferred to great publick Offices; he was a Man of Parts and Learning, and well acquainted with the Western parts, especially Italy, France, and Spain; and for his great Virtues and eminent Sanctity was, by the Importunity of the People, made Bishop of Nola in Campania: so that he also was every way qualified for another Witness in this Case: and these two I suppose sufficient for their time, especially for the Latin Church.

S. Paulinus in an Epistle to St. Augustin says as much as need to be in few Words; that Vacare non posse, quòd universa pro Defunctis Ecclesia sup­plicare con­s [...]evit, ap Aug. de Cura pro Mort. pr. It cannot be in vain that the Ʋniversal Church is accustomed to pray for the Dead. Not the Church, but the Ʋniversal Church; not only did at that time, but was accustomed so to do; that is, time out of mind, without any known beginning. And what was it accustomed to do? Not barely to commemorate, but to pray and supplicate for them. Ʋniversa pro Defunctis Ec­clesia supplicare consuevit. As ample a Testimony, I think, as can be expressed in so few words.

S. Augustin in confirmation of this alleadgeth the Book of Mac­cabees, and addeth, Sed etsi nusquam in Scriptu [...]is ve­teribus omni­no legere [...]ur, non parva ta­men est Uni­versae Eccle­siae, quae. in h [...]c consue­tudine claret, Authoritas; ubi in pre [...]i­bus sace [...]do­tis, quae Do­mino Deo ad ejus altare funduntur, locum suum habet etiam Commendatio Mortuorum, S. Aug. de Cu­ra pro Mor­tuis, c. [...]. But altho' we did no where at all read this in the ancient Writings, yet is not the Authority of the Ʋniversal Church, [Page 14]which is clear in this Custom, a small matter, when in the Prayers of the Priest, which are poured out to the Lord God at his Altar, the Com­memoration of the Deceased hath also its proper place. In this Testi­mony are divers things observable, and very considerable: 1. The Authority of the Universal Church, not of a Particular Church, of a City, of a Province, of Hippo, or Africa, but of the Universal Church, which, however manifested or declared, is no small matter. 2. But in this it is declared, in the most Solemn Acts of the Church, her most Solemn Address to Almighty God at his Altar. So that here is the greatest Authority that is among Mankind, and that most solemnly declared. 3. It is no new Resolution, but a Custom, Consuetudo Ʋniversae Ecclesiae, an ancient Custom, and a universal Custom, which he elsewhere upon another occasion expresseth in this manner: Hoc à Pa­tribus tradi­tum Universa observat Ec­clesia, ut pro eis, qui in Corporis & Sanguinis Christi Com­munione De­functi sunt, cum ad ip­sum Sacrifi­cium suo loco commemo­rantur, ore­tur, & pro il­lis quo (que) id offerri com­memoretur. S. Aug. de verb. Apost. Ser. 32. c. 2. This being delivered from the Fathers (à Patribus tra­ditum) doth the Ʋniversal Church observe, that for them who are departed in the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are remembred at the Sacrifice it self in their place, Prayer be made, and it be commemorated that that is offered for them also. Not only for the Living, but for the Dead also, and in their proper place. 4. This Custom and Tradition was not only for a general Commemora­tion, but for a special Commendation.

And here, because this excellent Person hath written much, and therefore affords more observable matter than is ordinary in any one Author, I will indeavour out of him alone to present the ho­nest and ingenuous Reader with a Scheme of the whole Custom and Practice of the Ancients, whereby he will the better understand their Testimonies, and decern the Fallacies, Evasions, Cavillings and Shufflings of the Adversaries of it. What was done by them on behalf of the Deceased was either Publick or Private: What was done in Private, was Prayers, such as S. Augustin offered for his Mother in his Confessions, lib. 9. cap. 13. Fasting, and Alms, &c. What was Publick, was done either by the Relations or Friends of the Persons deceased, and that was presenting their Oblations, whether ordered by the Deceased, or freely offered by their Friends on their behalf: Which, if they departed in Communion of the Church were received, otherwise rejected, unless they were in the State of Penitents, and were surprized in such case as the Priest should have absolved them, if he could have been present: or what was done by the Bishop or Priest, with the rest of the Clergy and People: And this was either a general Commemoration pro [Page 15]omnibus in Christiana & Catholica Societate defunctis, as he speaks de Cura pro Mat. c. 4. for all departed in the Christian and Catholick Society, (or Communion) without any particular recitation of their Names, or a more particular Memory of them by Name with others; or a more special Commendation of a particular Person at his Death; and, besides certain other days, upon their Anniversa­ries. And these were all performed at the Altar, and with the Holy Sacrifice, except that at his Death, in case that happened after the Priest had eaten, and then by some Canons it was to be performed solis Orationibus, with Prayers only; but other­wise, & Orationibus & Oblationibus; that is, with Prayers and Sa­crifice both, for that is there to be understood by Oblationibus. And as S. Augustin did intend all this in what he saith of the Uni­versal Custom by Tradition from the Fathers, so did he believe that the Souls departed were benefitted by them all. For his words immediately preceeding those before-recited out of his Serm. de Verb. Apost. are, Orationib. vero S. Eccle­siae, & Sacri­ficio salutari, & Eleemo­synis, quae pro eorum spi [...]itibus e­rogantur, non est dubi­tandum mor­tuos adjurari, ut cum eis misericordius agatur à Do­mino, quam eorum pec­cata merue­runt. It is not to be doubted that the Dead are helped by the Prayers of the H. Church, and the Salutary Sacrifice, and the Alms which are distributed for their Spirits, that the Lord should deal more mercifully with them than their Sins have deserved. This was one End and Be­nefit of those Commemorations and Prayers; and therefore was not only comprehended in the general Intendment of the general Commemorations, but was expressly prayed for both in the Com­mon Prayers and in the more special Commendations, as we shall see further hereafter; but this does not exclude Others; of which, I think fit to take notice of one in this place, which is mentioned by S. Austin and others, and which concern two Articles of our Creed, but little understood or consider'd amongst us. It is in his Book de Civ. Dei, lib. 20. cap. 9. in these words: Ne (que) enim piorum ani­mae mortu­orum sepa­rantur ab Ec­clesia, quae e­tiam nunc est regnum Christi. Alio­quin nec ad altare Dei fi­eret corum memoria: in communione Corporis [...] Christi. Nor are the Souls of the Pious deceased separated from the Church, which even now is the Kingdom of Christ: Otherwise, neither at the Altar of God should Memory be made of them in the Communion of the Body of Christ. In these words is couched one general Intendment of the Church: For as the Holy Rite of the Eucharist was intended not only for the Peculiar Solemnity of the Churches Address to God here upon Earth, with the Memorials of our Saviour's Passion, the great Propitiation for the Sins of the World, but also for Communion between our Head and the Members of his Mystical Body here upon Earth, and also between the Members of his whole Mystical Body themselves; so the Church in that Holy Solemnity hath always performed Acts [Page 16]of Communion, not only with the Head, but with all his Members, both present, in external Communion, and Participation of the sanctified Creatures; and with all absent, whether in the Body, or out of the Body, by Commemorations, Thanksgivings and Prayers. And because they were in several States, they were accordingly re­membred distinctly, in order, which is what S. Augustin expresseth suo loco. This Communion was by the ancient Christians reputed a matter of very great Importance, and accordingly they were equally careful, whose Oblations they did receive, and whose Names they did remember, whether Living or Dead: and those who were ejected, or rejected or refused, were looked upon as out of Communion, and excluded from all the Privileges of the Church, both on Earth, and also in the separate State, according to our Saviour's Promise. It was then believed, that the Souls departed, which should be saved, were all indeed with Christ, but not at the Right-hand of his Father; but some before the Throne; some upon Mount Sion; some in the Holy of Holies; some in the Temple, but not in that place; some in Paradice, in Abraham's Bosom, in the Third Heaven, in very different Mansions or Re­ceptacles: as one may be said to be with the King, who is with him in foreign Parts, tho' but in his Army, or at his Court, tho' never admitted into his Presence Chamber; and that by some the Church here upon Earth her self received much Benefit; but o­thers received Benefit by her Communion and Prayers, and stood in need of it. Nor ought we to think that these two Articles of the Holy Catholick Church, and the Communion of Saints, were put into the Summary of the Christian Faith and Profession, and in the Order they are, but for special and weighty Reasons; and indeed such as are little taught, or understood, or regarded amongst us in this Age.

S. Augustin hath many Testimonies concerning this matter of Fact and known Practice of the Church in these distinct Orders of Commemoration of the Dead, so plain, that the Arch-Bishop himself could not but confess that in the Church Service there was made a several Commemoration; first, of the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs, after one manner; and then of the other Dead, after another, pag. 194. and one or two he cites in the Margin, but was so wise as not to recite the words. It is Serm. 17. de Verbis Apost. Ideò (que) ha­bet Ecclesia­stica discipli­na quod fide­les noverunt, cum Marty­res eo loco recitantur ad altare Dei, u­bi non pro ipsis oretur, pro caeteris autem com­memoralis defunctis o­retur. Injuria est enim pro Martyre ora­re, cujus nos debemus ora­tionibus com mendari. And Tr. 84. in E­vang. Johan. This hath the Church Discipline, which the Faithful know, when the Martyrs are recited at the Altar of God in that place, where Prayer [Page 17]is not made for them; but Prayer is made for others, who are commemo­rated. For it is an Injury to pray for a Martyr, to whose Prayers we (our selves) ought to be commended. And Tr. 84. in Evang. Johan. Ad ipsam mensam non sic eos com­memoramus, quemadmo­cum alior, qui in pace requiescunt, u [...] et [...]am pro eis or mus, s [...]d magis, ut crentipsi pro nobis; ut e­orum vesti­giis adhae [...]e­amus; quia impleverunt ipsi charita­tem, qua Do­minus dixit non posse esse majo­rem. At the Table it self we do not so commemorate them, as others who rest in Peace, that we should also pray for them, but rather that they pray for us, that we may tread in their Steps; because they themselves have ful­filled that Charity, than which our Lord saith there cannot be greater.

And here I cannot but take notice of the Partiality and Disin­genuity of this magnified Man in this place; for it is a Scandal and Offence to me. Having cited the words of S. Augustin in Euchrid. ad Laurent. cap. 110. Cum sacri­ficia sive alta­ris, five qua­rumcunque Eleemosyna­rum pro bap­tiz [...]tis defun­ctis omnibus offeruntur; pro valdè bo­nis gratia­rum actiones sunt; pro val­dè malis, et­si nulla sunt adjumenta mo [...]tuorum, qua [...]icun (que) vivorum con­solationes [...]u [...]t. That the Oblations and Alms usually offered in the Church for all the Dead that received Baptism, were Thanksgivings for such as were very Good; Propitiations for such as were not very Bad: but for such as were very Evil, altho' they were no Help for the Dead, yet were they some kind of Consolations of the Living. He calls this a Private Exposition; not only (as he pretends) because it is not to be found in the Writings of the former Fathers; but also because it suiteth not well with the general Practice of the Church, which it intendeth to interpret, p. 194. If it had not been in the Writings of any of the former Fathers, had not the notorious Practice of the Church, which he often mentions with special notes of the Notoriety of the matter of Fact, been sufficient, and much more than any thing mentioned dogmatically by others, tho' more ancient? But be­sides that is false: for we shall see it hereafter attested by Cyril of Hierusalem; and not by the by, but in a professed Description, and Explication of the Greek Liturgy; which shews the Agreement of all, both Greek and Latin Churches. And therefore it is but reasonable that the honest Reader be admonished to beware of this Author, how he trusts him: for he is a partial and crafty Writer; of which other instances may be produced.

But perhaps it may not only do right to S. Augustin, but be a Satisfaction to the Reader, to see him more fully declare his mind, which he doth in the words precedent, to this effect: Neque negandum est Desu ctorum animas pietate suorum viventium relevari, cum pro illis sacrificium Media [...]oris offertur, vel Eleemosynae in Ecclesia fiunt. Sed e [...]s haec pro unt qui cum viverent, ut haec sibi postea prodesse possent, meruerunt. Est enim quidem vive [...]di modus, nec tam bonus, ut non requirat ifta post mo [...]tem; nec tam malus, ut ei non prosint ista post mortem. Est vero talis in b [...]no, ut ista non requirat; & est rursus talis in malo, ut nec his valeat, oum ex h [...] vita transi [...] ­rit, adjuvari. Quo circa hic omne meritum comparatur, quo possit post h [...]nc vi­tam releva [...]i, quisplam, vel gravari. Ne­mo autem se speret quod hic neg­lexerit cum obierit, apud Deum pro­moreri. Non igitur ista quae pro de­functis com­mendandis frequentat Ecclesia, il [...]i Apostolicae sunt adversa sententiae, qua dictum est; Omnes enim astabimus an­te Tribunal Christi, utre­serat unus­qu [...]s (que) secun­dum ea quae per corpus ges­sit sivebonum, sive malum: quia etiam hoc meritum sibi quisque cum in cor­pore vi [...]eret comparavit, ut ei possent ista prodesse. Non enim omnibus prosunt, & quare non omnibus prosunt, nisipropter differentiam vitae, quam quisque gessit in corpore? Cum ergo sacificia &c. Nor is it to be denied, saith he, that the Souls of the Deceased are relieved by the Piety of their living Relations, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is offered, [Page 18]or Alms given in the Church for them. But to those are these things pro­fitable, who, when they lived, merited that these things might be profitable for them afterward. For there is one sort of Life neither so Good, that it might not need those things after Death; nor so Evil, that they cannot profit after Death. But there is such in Good, that it may not require them: and there is again such in Evil, that it cannot be helped by these things when this Life is ended. Wherefore here is all Merit acquired, whereby any one can after this Life be relieved, or grieved. But let none hope that he may obtain of God after he is Dead what he hath neglected here. Wherefore those things, which the Church doth frequently use for Recommending the Dead, are not contrary to the Sentence of the Apostle, where it is said, We must all stand before the Judgment-Seat of Christ, that every one may receive according to those things which he hath done in the Body, whether it be Good, or Evil; because even this Merit every one acquired for himself when he lived in the Body, that these things might profit him. For they do not profit all. And why do they not profit all, but by reason of the Difference of Life which each lived in the Body? When therefore Sacrifices, whether of the Altar, or of whatever Alms, are offered for all the Deceased, who were baptized, &c. as before recited by Ʋsher. More to like purpose may be seen in his Book de Cura pro Mortuis, cap. 4. and cap. 18. where he adds, Sed quia non discernimus qui sint, oportet ea pro regeneratis omnibus facere, u [...]nullus eorum praeterm [...]tatur, ad quos haec beneficia possint & debeant pervenire. Melius enim su­pererunt ista eis, quibus nec obsunt, nec prosunt, quam eis deerunt quibus prosunt. Diligen­tius tamen facit haec quis (que) pro necessariis suis, quod pro illo fiat similiter à suis, p. 294. b. 2. to 4. But because we do not distinguish who they are, (who are profited by them) we ought to do these things for all the Regenerate, that none of them be pretermitted, to whom these Benefits may and ought to come. For it is better that they should be superfluous as to them, who are neither helped nor hurt by them, than be wanting to those whom they may benefit. Yet every one doth these things the more diligently for his (deceased) Re­lations, that the same may be done by his Relations (surviving) for him­self. The same he hath qu. 2. ad Dulcitium: and more to like pur­pose, Serm. 32. de Verb. Apost.

To the Testimonies of these two Eminent, Holy, Learned Bishops of the Latin Church, I will add the Testimonies of two or three Eminent Bishops of the same Age in the Greck Church, concerning the Practice and Custom of the Church in their time, and the Ages [Page 19]precedent, even to the Apostles, in this Case. The one is S. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, a Man as eminent for his own personal Worth, as for the Place he held. He hath much concerning Prayers and Oblations for the Dead; but much of it by way of Exhortation: and therefore to be as brief as may be, I will select principally what concerns the Practice and Original, which he refers expressly to the Ordination of the Apostles, and Directions of the Holy Spirit. But first for the common Practice of the People: Hom. 32. in Mat. [...]. Why after the Death of any of thy Family dost thou call the Poor together? Why dost intreat the Presbyters to pray for him? Thou wilt say, That he may obtain Rest. And dost thou then weep and lament for these things? Secondly, S. Chry­sostom's Advice, Hom. 61. in Johan. [...]. But if a Sinner, and who hath often offended God, dieth, is he to be bewailed? or rather, not at all, since that cannot do him any good. But these things are to be performed for him, which may do him good; viz. Alms and Oblations. And con­cerning Alms, he presseth it much, Hom. 21. in Act. pag. 605. And, Thirdly, for the common Office of the Priest, in his Sixth Book de Sacerdotio, cap. 4. [...]. What manner of Man ought he to be, who interceeds for the whole City? What, do I say for the City? for the whole World, and prays to God that he will be propitious to the Sins of all, not only of the Living, but also of the Dead? Then that these things are of Apostolical Authority, Hom. 3. in Phil in the Moral. Exhorting People to pray themselves, and to intreat the Prayers of others, and to give Alms continually for their deceased Friends: [...]. Will this, saith he, give any Relief? and then answers: Hear God thus saying, I will protect this City for my own and for my Ser­vant David's sake. If the Memory only of a righteous Man avails so much, where Works are also done for the Dead, what cannot they do? and then goes on: These things were not in vain constituted by the Apostles, that in the venerable and tremendous Mysteries Memorial should be made of those who were departed. They knew much Benesit would [Page 20]accure to them by it, and much Advantage. For at that time, when all the People stand with their hands lifted up, and the Company of the Priests, and that venerable and awful Sacrifice, present, how shall we not please or appease God praying for them? And that indeed for those who de­parted in the Faith; But the Catechumens are not deign'd this Consola­tion, but are destitute of all help, one only excepted. But what is that? Why, Alms may be given to the Poor for them: and hence they receive some Refreshment. For it is God's Will that we should mutually help one another. And to the same purpose, Hom. 69. ad Pop. Antioch. Lastly, and that this was by the Direction of the Holy Spirit, he is express, Hom. 21. in Act. [...] Not in vain are Oblations for the Dead; Not in vain Prayers; Not in vain Alms: For all these things did the Spirit Order, willing that we should mutually help one another.... Doubt it not, the Fruit will be pleasant: It is not a light thing that the Deacon calls out, (to pray) For those who are departed in Christ; and, For those who offer for their Memories. And the same he saith also, Hom. 41. in 1 Cor. 15. and adds: [...] For if Commemorations were not made for them, not so much as this would be said: For our Matters are not Stage-Plays. Far be that. For these are done by the Ordination and Disposition of the Spirit. Let us therefore afford them help, and perform their Commemorations, &c. The Propitiation proposed is com­mon to the World: therefore do we then confidently pray for all the Wor­thy, and name them with Martyrs, with Confessors, with Priests: for we are all one Body, tho' some Members more splendid than others.... Why dost thou grieve and lament so much? Favour may be obtained for the Deceased. And that he himself formed a Liturgy, which is at this day in use in the Greek Churches, is affirmed by the Greeks, and cannot with any good reason be denied; and tho' 'tis likely there may be some Alterations or Additions in it, yet what relates to this matter is so confirmed by this, and by more ancient Authority, that it cannot reasonably be questioned.

The other is S. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, the Metropolis of the Isle of Cyprus, a Man of good Reputation for Ability and Piety, and particularly studied in all the Doctrines and Practices of the Church, and the several Heresies contrary thereunto. In him we have a double Testimony, that of Aerius, and his own, in a Book of all the Hereticks and Heresies. In that of Aerius, is observable, [Page 21]1. The Matter of Fact and common Practice, viz. commemorating the Names of the Dead, and Praying for them. 2. [...] The End for which it was done, viz. That they might be benefitted by the Par­don of their Sins at the Prayers, &c. of their Surviving Friends and the Church. Both these he opposeth; and that is a Proof of both; and by the Testimony of an Adversary; which is reputed the most convincing. 3. The Opposition, without any denial or que­stion of the Antiquity or Universality of the Practice or Observa­tion, or of the Tradition of either the Practice, or the Intention and Doctrine: which, if he had had any colour or pretence for it, he would certainly never have omitted: but he is able to say no­thing against either the Practice, or Benefit of it; but, If it be so, it is in vain to be pious; it would be sufficient to get People to pray for the Pardon of ones Sins after his Death. In all these respects is the Opposition of Aerius a very considerable Testimony of both the Practice and Intention, and consequently of the Doctrine of the Church in this case. But because our great Man useth his utmost Skill, and very grossly, to evade and elude these Testimonies, I will here present them both intire, according to his own Translation, with Notes of the Pages where most of the distracted Parcels may be found in his Book, that the Reader who hath a mind to entertain himself with a Prospect of his Ingenuity, may the more plainly discern it.

The Objection of Aerius: For what reason do you commemorate after Death, the Names of those that are departed? He that is alive prayeth, or maketh Dispensation (of the Mysteries) what shall the Dead be profited hereby? And if the Prayer of those here do altogether ( [...]) profit them that be there; then let no body be Godly; [...] let no Man do Good; but let him procure some Friends, by what means it pleaseth him, either by persuading them by Money, or intreating Friends at his Death; and let them pray for him, that he may suffer nothing there; and that those inexpiable Sins, which he hath committed, may not be required at his hands. p. 238.

Epiphanius his Answer and Testimony: As for the reciting of the Names of those that are deceased, what can be better than this? What more commodious, and more admirable? that such as are present do believe that they who are departed do live, and are not extinguished, but are still Being, and Living with the Lord: and that this most pious Preaching [Page 22]might be declared, that they who pray for their Brethren have hope of them, as being in a Peregrination, p. 240. But the Prayer also which is made for them doth profit, altho' it doth not cut off All their Sins. ( [...] here answers to [...] in the Objection.) Yet, forasmuch as whilst we are in the World, we oftentimes slip both unwillingly, and with our Will; it serveth to signifie that which is more perfect: For we make a Memorial, both of the Just, and for Sinners: For Sinners, intreating the Mercy of God; of the Just, both the Fathers, and Patriarchs, Pro­phets, and Apostles, and Evangelists, and Martyrs, and Confessors, Bishops, and Anchoretes, and the whole Order; that we may sever our Lord Jesus from the Rank of all other Men, by the Honour that we do vnto him, and that we may yield Worship unto him, [while we thus judge, p. 240. That] our Lord is not to be compared unto any Man; tho' a Man live in Righteousness a thousand times and more: for how should that be possible? considering that the one is God, the other Man; and the one is in Hea­ven, the other in Earth, by reason of the Remains (or Reliques) of the Body yet resting in the Earth. [p. 242. Except those, who being raised from the Dead, entred together into the Bride-Chamber, as saith the Holy Gospel, &c. But forbearing these things, I return to what I was about.] The Church doth necessarily perform this, having received it by Tradition from the Fathers: And who may dissolve the Ordinances of his Mother, or the Law of his Father? p. 237. [ as Solomon saith, Hear, my Son, the Words of thy Father, and reject not the Laws of thy Mother; declaring by this, that (our) Father; that is, God, the Only begotten, and the Holy Spirit, hath taught (us) both in Scriptures, and without Scripture: But] our Mother, the Church, hath Ordinances settled in her, which are inviolable, and may not be broken. Seeing then there are Or­dinances established in the Church, and they are well, and all things are admirably done; this Seducer is again refuted. p. 237. This is the Answer of Epiphanius: the words inclos'd in Crochets are not in Ʋsher.

To this we may well apply what he saith before concerning Easter, the Observation of which was another thing, which Aerius quarrelled at: But who knows these things best? This seduced Fellow, who is but newly sprung up, and now living amongst us; or they who were Witnesses before us; and who held the same Tradition in the Church before us, which they had received from their Parents, and their Parents had learned from their Ancestors; as the Church to this day observes the true and sincere Faith, which it received with the Traditions from the Fathers.

In all this we may observe, 1. The Practice of the Church, both in the General Commemorations, and in the Prayers, agreed on both Sides. 2. The End and Intendment of the Church, that it was the Profit and Benefit of the Deceased, also agreed. 3. The Question between them, Whether the Prayer of the Living could profit or benefit the Dead, as the Church intended? 4. That this was what Aerius did principally deny: and therefore, that the Practice was reasonable, as a necessary consequence. 5. His only reason was, that it would make Piety and good Life needless. 6. Epiphanius his Answer, 1. from Reason; 1. as it is a seasonable and excellent De­claraction of the Faith and Hope of the Church; 2. as an Act of Cha­rity, for the Benefit of the Deceased; 2. from Authority, as received in the Church by Tradition from our Saviour, and the Holy Spirit.

And now, how does our great Man elude this? Epiphanius, saith he, doth not Name this, ( viz. That Prayers and Sacrifice profiteth not the depa ted in Christ,) an Heresie. 2. Nor doth it appear that himself did hold that they bring such Profit to the Dead as these Men Dream, pag. 236. 3. He doth not at all charge him with for­saking the Doctrine of the Scripture, or the Faith of the Catholick Church, but with rejecting the Order, p. 237. 4. Aerius his Argu­ment would have been in force indeed, if the whole Church had held, as many did; That the Judgment after Death was suspended until the General Resurrection, and that in the mean time, the Sins of the Dead might be taken away by the Suffrages of the Living: But he should have considered, as Gobarus (as great an Heretick as himself) did that the Doctors were not agreed upon the Point, p. 238.5. It was a fool­ish part in him to confound the Private Opinion of some, with the Common Faith of the Universal Church. 6. That he reproved this particular Error, he did well; but that thereupon he condemned the General Practice of the Church, he did like himself, headily and per­versly, ibidem. As to the first of these, I must refer the Reader to [Page 24] Epiphanius himself, for the Character he gives of the Person and Opinions of Aerius, a very Vile man, a thorough-pac'd Arian, and who exceeded Arius himself in his new Opinions, which he imputes to the operation of the Devil; though he doth not particularly name them Heresies, yet, it is plain, he and S Austin too accounted them such; and, of the rest, the Reader may judge by what is here laid plainly before him.

S. Ephraem was not much before these; but because he was neither Greek nor Latin, but a Syrian, and a Man of Parts and extraordinary Sanctity, greatly esteemed by the most excellent Persons of that time, and of so great Reputation, that his Writings were read publickly in divers Churches after the Holy Scriptures, I cannot pass him by without taking notice of his Testament, his Discourse to his Disciples upon his Death-Bed: wherein he tells them he is Dying, and desires to be mentioned in the Commemoration of their Holy Prayers; and bewailing his Sins, and declaring his Sense of the terrible Judgment of God, he doth admonish, exhort, and strictly enjoyn them to re­member him constantly, after his exit and passage, in their Prayers: and after some Admonitions to them, and account of himself, he again desires to be remembred in their Prayers. Then he strictly forbids his being Buried under the Altar, or in the House of God, all Solemn Pomp, and Funeral Orations and Encomiums; and all cost of rich Vestments, of Grave Cloaths, of Spices, of Odors, of Candles, and the like; but desires that all that Cost may be bestowed upon the Poor; and for himself; that in the place of all such Pomp and Funeral Orations, they will accompany him with Psalms, and help and assist him with their Prayers, and Bury him in the Church­yard, where the contrite in heart are Buried. Then he bids them come near and imbrace him, for his Spirit fails him, and again in­treats them diligently to make Oblations for him; and prettily re­presents the Communion of Saints, by a Simile of the Sympathy of things in Nature, the Wine which flowers in the Cellar, when the Vine Buds in the Vineyard, and the like: And tells them, that the Oblations of Priests under the Law were effectual for those who were slain in their Sins: and how much more the Priests of Christ under the New Testament! And gives great caution, that when they come to his Memory, (I suppose he means the Thirtieth Day, which he expressly mentioned before and his Anniversaries) ne quis­quam in Sancta peccet; that none commit any thing unmeet for holy things, (by any Excess): but that the Vigil be kept atten­tively, [Page 25]and reverently, and humbly, and holily, and purely: for it would be a miserable thing for him, if by occasion of his Me­mory, he should be accountable to his God for their inordinate Actions. Thus this Holy Man: an Instance equal to a very ample Testimony of the Practice in those parts.

About the same time was S. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem. He in his Mystagogick Catechism concludes all with a Description and Scheme of the Liturgy then in use; wherein, after mention of the Holy Trisagium Hymn, [...] Therefore, saith he, do we recite this Seraphick Theology delivered to us, that in that Coelestial Hymnody we may communicate with the supra-mundain Militia, (the Heavenly Host:) and thus by such kind of Hymns sanctisying our selves, we pray the most benign God that he will send out his Holy Spirit upon the proposited (Elements) that it may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ. For certainly, whatever the Holy Spirit doth touch, it is sanctified and transmuted. Then after that Spiritual Sacrifice, that unbloody Worship is done, (that is, after the Consecration and Oblation in Commemoration of the Passion of Christ) over that very Host of Propitiation do we obsecrate God for the common Peace of the Churches; for the Tranquility of the World; for Kings; for their Armies and Confederates; for the Sick and Affli­cted; and, in sum, for all who need Help. We commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us: First, the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that God at their Prayers and Deprecations would accept ours: Then we pray for the Holy Fathers and Bishops deceased; and, lastly, for all who are deceased amongst us, believing it to be a very great Help to the Souls, for whom the Obsecration of that tremen­dous Sacrifice, which is placed on the Altar, is offered.

I will add but one instance more for the flourishing times of the Church, and so comprize the whole time of the four first General Councils from first to last. Eusebius in his 4th Book of the Life of Constantine describing the Martyrium of the Apostles, built by him at Constantinople, adds, chap. 60. ‘All these did the Emperor [Page 26]dedicate, that he might consign to Posterity the Memory of our Saviour's Apostles. But he had another Design in his Mind when he built this Church: which was at first concealed: but in the end it became known to all. For he had designed this place for himself after his Death, foreseeing, by a transcendent Alacrity of Faith, that his Body after Death should be made Par­taker of the Apostles Apellation, that even after Death, he might be esteemed worthy of the Prayers, which should be performed there in Honour of the Apostles, believing that their Memory would be useful and advantagious to his Soul.’ And afterward describing the Solemnity of his Funeral, chap. 71. he saith, that ‘ a vast Number of People, together with those Persons, consecrated to God, not without Tears and great Lamentation, poured forth Prayers to God for the Emperor's Soul; thereby performing a most grateful Office to this pious Prince. And herein also God de­monstrated his singular Favour towards his Servant, because after his Death, — agreeable to his own most earnest Desire, the Ta­bernacle of his thrice blessed Soul was vouchsafed a place with the Monument of the Apostles; and that it might be joined with God's People in the Church; and might be vouchsafed the Divine Rights, and Mystick Service; and might enjoy a Commu­nion of the Holy Prayers.’

This was but 12 years after the Nicen Council, and a great and most illustrious instance of the common received and settled Pra­ctice of that time. And here, before I proceed further, it is fit to consider, how far the continuance of that wicked and shameful Abuse by Cranmer, put upon the Church of England in his clan­destine Corruption of the True English Liturgy; I say, the Conti­nuance of it to this day, whether by supine Negligence, or base Compliance with a Faction of Sectaries, be consistent with that Profession of Reverence to Antiquity in general; and to those first four General Councils in particular, which is made by all who pretend to be genuine Sons of the Church of England? with their use of the Constantinopolitan Creed in the most solemn Office, so fouly deformed, contrary to the Publick Office at that time used in the Church, and attested by S. Cyril, Bishop of Hierusalem, who was present at that Council, and a principal Man there? How consistent with the Statutes of most ancient Colleges in both the Universities, and the Oaths taken by so many Scholars for the Observance of them? How consistent with the Belief of One [Page 27]Holy Catholick Church; and of the Communion of Saints? with that Reverence and Respect, which the Holy Scriptures require should be paid to the Body of Christ, the Depository of Christian Verities, and the Pillar or Monument and Basis of Truth? with that Reverence, and Honour, and Esteem, which all true and ge­nuine Christians cannot but have for so many glorious Saints as flourished in the Church of Christ, and all agreed in this pious Practice for more than 1200 years from the time of Constantine, who himself was none of the least, being converted in an extraor­dinary manner by special Vision from our Saviour, and the Truth thereof confirmed by very remarkable Victories, and afterward so great a Promoter of Christian Piety, that he was, as Eusebius re­lates, partaker of the Apostles appellation, being called [...], in the Offices of the Greek Church, and deservedly: How it can be consistent therewith, and with Christian Modesty, to set up a Calvin, a Bucer, a Cranmer, an Ʋsher, like little Idols, above all; and not rather an undeniable proof of the very Spirit of Hereticks and Schismaticks.

Mr. Life Ap­pendix, p. 55. Baxter's Questions in another Case, not unlike this, may very properly be proposed to our modern Opposers of this Catholick Pra­ctice: Would they have held Communion with the Catholick Church for a Thousand Years together? Or would they not, if they had lived in those times? If they would, then why not with us, who are of the same Judgment? Was it a Duty then? And is it unlawful now? If they would not in all those Ages have held Communion with the visible Church, what would they have done but separated from the Body, and so from the Head, and cast off Christ in all his Members, and taken him to be a Head without a Body, which is no Head; and so no Christ? What would they have done, but denied his Power, and Love, and Truth, and conse­quently his Redemption; and his Office? Hath he come at the end of 4000 years since the Creation, to redeem the World, that lay so long in Darkness? And hath he made such wonderful Preparations for his Church, by his Life and Miracles, and Blood and Spirit? &c. and promised, That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; and that his Kingdom shall be an Everlasting Kingdom, and his Dominion endureth from Generation to Generation; and yet, after all this, shall he have a Church, (even as the Seekers say) but for an Age or two? Thus Mr. Baxter; and very good: but if this be good in the Case of Baptism of Infants, why not as good in the Case of Prayers and Oblations for the Dead? which, I think, hath as good [Page 28]Evidence of Apostolical Original as that, or the Lord's-Day, or Episcopacy, or a good part of the Scriptures of the New Testa­ment: And if they stand all upon the same Foundation, why should they not stand or fall together?

There is also an Assertion of St. Augustin 's, which deserves to be here considered in this Case; That Quod uni­versa tenet Ecclesia, nec in Consil [...]s institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi Au­thoritate A­postolica tra­ditum rectis­simè credi­tur. cont. Do­nat. l. 4 c. 24. what the Ʋniversal Church doth hold, and was not instituted in Councils, but always retained, is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no other than Apostolical Au­thority. For as this is a Practice which none did ever pretend was instituted by any Council; so amongst all, who have written con­cerning the Original, or first Invention, or Introduction of things, none has ever assigned any Original of it in the Catholick Church later than the Apostles; or in any part of the Catholick Church, later than of the rest of Christianity it self. So that could we trace it no further back than the time of Constantine, it would be unreasonable to believe, that the whole Christian Church, so largely spread over the Face of the Earth, and planted by so many several Persons at first, and in Places so divided and remote one from another, should so unanimously agree in such a Practice, did it not proceed from some Common Cause; which could be no other than the Mutual Agreement of all the Apostles in it. Nostra qui­dem Scripta cur ignibus meruerunt dari? Cur im­maniter Con­venticula di­rui? in qui­bus Summus oratur Deus, Pax cunctis & venia po­stulatur, Ma­gistratibus, Exercitibus, Regibus, Fa­miliaribus, Inimicis, ad­huc vitam de­gentibus, & resolutis cor­porum vi [...] ­ctione. lib. 4. suo. fi.

But tho' this might be sufficient, yet have we further Evidence to trace it, even through the more troublesome times of the Churches, so near to the Apostles, that no Man, without Dispa­ragement to his Judgment, or his Honesty, can question its Ori­ginal to be indeed Apostolical. For tho' those troublesome times have left us so few Monuments of the Primitive Christianity, in comparison, that all will hardly equal the Writings of some one of the Writers of after-Ages; yet among those few have we what is sufficient. Arnobius, an eminent Professor of Rhetorick, who had been a bitter Enemy against the Christians, even in the time of Persecution under Dioclesian turned Christian, and wrote Seven Books against the Gentiles: in the fourth of which he expostulates with them in this manner: Why have our Scriptures deserved to be cast into the Fire? Why our Meeting-Places to be cruelly destroyed, in which the Great God is prayed to, Peace and Pardon is besought for all; for Magistrates, Armies, Kings, our Familiars and Enemies; for those yet living, and those released from the Bond of their Bodies? Where he speaks of Prayers for these last, as as common as for any of the rest. About 50 years before this was S. Cyprian Bishop of Car­thage, [Page 29]a Person of great Worth, and most deserved Reputation in the Church, and at last a Holy Martyr. He in his LXVI Epistle (with his Collegues in Council) tells the Clergy and People, to whom he wrote, that their Predecessors, upon religious Conside­ration, as a necessary Provision, had decreed, That no Christian Brother at his Departure should name a Clergy-Man for Guardian, or Executor; and that if any one should do this, there should be Si quis hoc fecisset, non offeretur pro [...]o, nec sacri­ficium pro Do [...]mitione ejas celebre­tur. Neque e­nim, &c. no Offering for him, nor Sacrifice celebrated for his Departure; for he doth not deserve to be named at the Altar of God in the Prayer of the Priests, who would call away the Priests and Ministers from the Altar: And therefore since one Victor, Contra for­mam nuper in Concilio à sacerdotibus datam. contrary to the Order lately made in Council by the Priests, had presumed to constitute a certain Pres­byter for a Guardian, Non est quod pro Dormitione ejas apud vos fiat Oblatio, aut Depreca­tio aliqua no­mine ejus in Ecclesia fre­quentetur. there should no Oblation be made among them for his Departure, or any Deprecation commonly used in the Church in his Name, that the Decree of the Bishops religiously and necessarily made might be observed by them, and Example given to others, &c. This Prohibition of those things to be done, by way of Punishment, is a plain Evidence of what was accustomed, and should have been done, if there had been no Prohibition: and an Evidence not of a single Person, but of a Council: and not of Matter of Opinion, but of plain Matter of Fact; and that so notorious, as was well known to all, and of such Importance in the Opinion of all, as the Prohibition was adjudged a competent Punishment for such a Crime, as they all thought no little one: It was a kind of Excommuni­cation.

Another fifty years before this lived Tertullian, a Man of very great and universal Learning, very acute Parts, and very strict for Discipline, and for the Orders of the Church. He mentions this Practice in divers of his Writings, not only as common and usual, but also as delivered by Tradition, and so well known, and unquestionable, as to be it self an undeniable Instance and Proof of unwritten Traditions. This he doth in his Book de Corona Mi­litis, § 3. where, amongst the Instances which he alleadgeth for proof of the Authority of unwritten Traditions, this is one: Oblationes pro Defunctis, pro Natalitiis, annua die facimus. We make Oblations for the Dead upon the Annual day of their Departure; which the Ancient Christians called their Natalitiae, or Birth-Days. And after all concludes, Harum & aliarum ejus­modi disci­piinarum si Legem expo­stules Scri­pturarum, nullam inve­nies: Tradi­tio tibi prae­tenditue au­ctrix, Con­suetudo con­firmatrix, & Fides obser­vatrix. If of these, and other Matters of Discipline, you seek for a Rule of Scriptures, you shall find none: Tradition is al­leadged for the Author, Custom for the Confirmer, and Faith for the [Page 30]Observer. But of Traditions in general he hath other Discourses elsewhere: and of this particular Tradition, which he does but only mention here, as an instance of Fact not to be denied, we have farther mention in other of his Writings; In his Book de Monogamia, against second Marriages, speaking of the Custom of the Widow's praying for her deceased Husband; he says, Et pro ani­ma ejus orat, & Refrigeri­um interim adpostulat ei, & in prima Resurrectio­ne Consorti­um; & offert annuis diebus dormitionis ejus. § 10. ‘She prays for his Soul, and intreats for Refreshment for him in the interim, and Consort in the first Resurrection, and offers (for him) on the Annual days of his Departure.’ Again, in his Book de Exhortatione Castitatis, he thus upbraids him who had had several Wives: Et jam re­pete apud Deum pro cujus Spiritu postules, pro qua Oblatio­nes Annuas reddas. Sta­bis ergo ad Deum cum tot Uxoribus, quot illa o­ratione com­memoras? & offeres pro duabus, & commemo­ras illas duas per sacerdo­tem de Mo­nogamia ob pristinum de virginitate sanctitum, circumda­tum virgini­bus & univi­ris? & ascen­det sacrifici­um tuum ii­bera fronte? & inter cete ras volunta­tes bonae mentis po­stulabis tibi, & uxori ca­stiatem [...] § 11 ‘Say before God for whose Spirit thou dost pray, for which thou dost make thy Annual Oblations. Wilt thou therefore stand before God with so many Wives, as thou dost in that Prayer remember; and offer for two, and comme­morate those two by a Priest once married, by reason of the an­cient Sanction of Virginity, incompassed with Virgins, and once married Women? And will thy Sacrifice ascend with Confidence? and amongst other Habits of a good Soul, wilt thou pray for Chastity for thy self, and thy Wife?’

This, I think, is plain, and full for the common Practice, both in private, and in publick by the Priest at the Altar; and for the Tradition. But it is objected, that Tertullian, when he wrote these Books, was a Montanist, and wrote them against the Church. And it is as easily answered, that it is not Matter of Opinion, but Matter of Fact, for which they are here alleadged: and it is cer­tain he was no Fool; which he must have been, if this had been the Practice of the Montanists, and not of the Church. But for the Readers better Information, and more ample Satisfaction, that the Objection is a meer Scarecrow, and serves only to discover the Disingenuity and Inconsiderateness of the Objectors, he must know, ‘That Montanus, (and his Companions) Alcibiades and Theodotus, were at first looked upon, in the Opinion of most Men, as Pro­phets: For very many Miracles of Divine Grace at that time wrought in many Churches made most Men believe that they also were Prophets.’ Euseb. 5. Hist. 3. So that if Tertullian did believe this, it was no more than what most others did. But what more specially inclined him to favour Montanus was this: He was a Man of great Austerity and Strictness in Matters of Discipline, Penance, Fasting, Chastity, Suffering, &c. which were things which Montanus asserted, and highly pretended to: And that which fixed [Page 31]him in his Opinion of Montanus, was some unhappy Contests which arose between him and the Roman Clergy, about some of these things, which gave him that Offence, that he not only reflects upon them in his de Corona Militis; Novi & Pastores eorum, &c. but after­wards in his other Writings frequently calls them Psychici, Animal or Sensual Man. And this, which is observable in his Writings, is also affirmed by S. Hierom. This was his For as to what relates to the Rule of Faith that is, to the Prin­cipal Do­ctrines of Re­ligion, Ter­tul. and the first Monta­nists were of the same Opi­nion with the Church, &c. saith Du Pin p. 82, 83. Montanism. And what is this to the Prejudice of his Testimony concerning Prayers for the Dead? It is so far from that, that it is the greatest Con­firmation and Amplification of it, that this Practice and Tradition was no part of Montanism: for nothing could have been a greater Prejudice to the Church of Rome against it, and it had certainly been condemned by them: nor peculiar to the African Church; but the known Practice of the Catholick Church, and of the Roman Church in particular: quite contrary to what the Objectors would persuade us. But such Infatuations are the greatest of Men subject to, when they will obstinately persist in the Maintenance of an ill Cause. We may here therefore fix, upon as good ground as can reasonably be desired, this Practice and Tradition of the Catho­lick Church.

And now it is time to consider how much we are short in our Evidence of the Apostles Age; and from what Original this Practice did in truth proceed. It is agreed that St. John wrote his Gospel about the beginning of the second Century; and that Tertullian fell to the Sect of Montanus in the beginning of the third. Vid. Du Pin, p. 44. and p. 70. And S. Hierom informs us, that he lived to a great Age, usque ad decrepitam atatem; and that after he had continued usque ad mediam aetatem a Presbyter of the Church, invidia postea & contumeliis Clericor. Romanae Ecclesiae ad Montani dog­ma delapsus. After hav­ing continued in the Church 40 or 45 Years, he se­parated from it in the be­ginning of the 3d Centu­tury, &c. saith Du Pin, p. 70. So that he lived the greatest and best part of his Life in the same Age wherein St. John wrote his Gospel, and did live some time. And here comes, as seasonably as unexpectedly, to my hand, at the very instant that this is at the Press, a Book of a learned Opponent; who seeing this too plain to be dissem­bled, and supposing that he can otherwise evade the force of this Evidence, presents us with a plain Confession of the Mat­ter of Fact; Of the Si­byls, l. 2. c 23. David Blondell: ‘I make no difficulty (saith he) to affirm, that it might be practised some time before the Year 200, in as much as Tertullian, the most ancient of all those that say any thing of it, numbred it even then among the Customs [Page 32]received in his time, writing in the Year, 199.’ Oblationes pro Defunctis, pro Natalitiis, annua die facimus, &c. and recites also the other two Testimonies, only in that de Monogamia, mistakes the Husband for the Wife, and then adds: ‘From the things which this great Person, the most Ancient, and most Learned of all the Latines, that we have remaining, does advance, as to Matter of Fact, concerning the Oblations, which were publickly made, and the Employment of the Priests, the only Ministers of the publick Service, as a thing Ordinary, and grown into Custom, it is manifest, that Praying for the Dead was, in his Time, used, not only by particular Persons, but also in the Body of the Church, and that the Liturgies thereof were full of it.’ Thus we see, not only by plain Proof, but also by the The same is confessed by John Dalle, since recom­mended to me, as one who hath written learnedly on this Subject: but I find not any thing in him added to Blendel, but such Pride, Arrogance, Insolence, Con­tempt, and re­proachful Ex­pressimso [...] the Anci [...]nt Holy Christians & Martyrs, as cannot but be very offensive to any true Christian Spi­rit being most apparently the common Spi­rit and Geni­us of all wick­ed and obsts­nate Here­ticks, leading to Atheism and Ap st [...]cy, and as contra ry to the Pare Word of God, which they pretend, as to the true Spi­rit of Christi­anty. Confession of a learned Adversary, that this was not only a Practice in the Church when Tertullian wrote, but a Received Custom in his time, and there­fore of some standing before; and of such standing as he knew no other Original of it but Apostolical Tradition: and for such doth he alleadge it; and not only so, but for an unquestionable Proof of such unwritten Traditions; as this Author also confesseth and asserts. cap. 24. p. 142. And what other Original could it have in that little time, and such a Man as he have been ignorant of it? And had any other been known, could He have been guilty of so great Weakness, as to have alleadged this for an unquestionable Proof in such a Case, if he had had so little Honesty?

But we have here a learned Man, who under pretence of detect­ing an Imposture, presumes, by his Learning, to impose upon the World. How well he hath used his Learning in other Matters, some Learned Men of the Church of England, I think, besides others, have sufficiently shewed; and how far his Judgment is to be relied upon. In this I shall shew the like in a word. He would perswade that not only Tertullian, but the whole Church of Christ, hath been imposed upon in this Matter by a counterfeit Sibyl, written between the Years 138 and 151. and of Tertullian saith positively, ‘That he relied upon no other Hypothesis than those proposed by the Author of the pretended Sibylline Writings.’ But in these few words there is no less than at least one notorious Fallacy, and two Falsities: a Fallacy in the word Hypothesis: for he relied not upon any Hypothesis, but upon the received Custom of the Church: And that he did rely upon, as is confessed: But he did not in the least rely upon any thing at all of the pretended Sibyl: Nor hath this [Page 33]Champion produced, I think, any one Proof that either Tertullian, or any other of the Ancient or Modern Christians, did at all rely upon any such Authority for that Practice: but all unanimously relied upon Tradition from the Apostles. His whole Book is full of Fallacy and Deceit, and of the very Spirit and Genius of an Heretick, who makes no scruple to abuse the whole Church of Christ, and the most Excellent Persons in it, to maintain his own Principles. It is certain, that divers of the great Truths of Chri­stianity were known to the Gentiles long before, and received by Tradition from the Common Parents of Mankind; but received as Articles of Faith by Christians upon the Authority of Christ and his Apostles: And such was this, which he fathers upon an Impo­stor, and pretends the Church received it from him; without any Proof of either, whereas, if he was a Christian, it is much more likely that he received the Hypothesis from the Practice of the Church at that time; and is therefore rather an Evidence of it. Other matters of this Book have been considered by learned Men of our own Country; and I think I need say no more of this with any regard to him.

But as to the Practice, besides all this positive and Affirmative Evi­dence, I do deny that any competent Evidence can be produced, among all the Churches of the World, of any where the Christian Religion was planted without it, or where it was introduced by any particular Person, upon any special Occasion, at any different time, after the first planting of Christianity there, in all those Ages since the Apostles; being verily persuaded that no such thing can be produced, but what will strongly confirm and illustate the con­trary Evidence; like Mr. Ʋsher's Flourish with his most ancient Manuscript Missals, wherein the Commemoration of the Dead doth no where appear, which yet were but two in all, if not all but one mentioned by two several Authors, and that no compleat Missal nei­ther, but only Liber Sacramentorum, an Abstract, and it self at last not to be found, as his expression, habebatur, seems to imply: a good Argument of the Agreement of all, or most others in that particular, that so industrious a Searcher into ancient Records and Monuments of Antiquity, of that kind especially, could neither see nor hear of any other, either at home or abroad, wherein it was not. Such another Exception may perhaps be met with, which may serve to confirm the general Rule; but not any thing considerable, I believe, to any other purpose. Certain it is, it must [Page 34]either have been settled in all those several Places in the World, where Churches were planted, together with the rest of the Chri­stian Doctrines and Institutions; and then it must have proceeded from the same Founders, who agreed as unanimously in this, as they did in other necessary things; of which sort this may there­fore be concluded to be one: or it must have had a several distinct particular Introduction by it self, in all or most of those several Places, and be derived from several Authors, Originals, Occasions and Times: and then the Accounts of its special and particular Introduction, in all probability, would have very much varied in several places, at least have remained upon Record, or by Tradi­tion in some. But not a word of any such thing, can I find, that was ever heard of in any part of the World; but a Unanimous A­greement in all, both in the Practice continued by Custom, and Original by Tradition from the Apostles.

And thus much for Proof à posteriori, from Evidence of Matter of Fact; which I think enough to satisfie any reasonable Man of competent Ability, and to convince any Man of Modesty and Sin­cerity: yet because simple genuine Truth is always consistent with all that is such, it may, ex abundanti, gratifie an honest ingenuous Reader to observe briefly the Ʋniversal Agreement of this Catholick Practice of the Church of Christ, 1. With common Reason, and the Nature of things: 2. With the common Sentiments of the Primitive Christians concerning the middle State of Souls: 3. With divers plain Texts of the Holy Scriptures: And 4. with the com­mon Practice of the Jews in and before our Saviour's time, never reprehended by him, or any of his Apostles, and therefore al­lowed by all, and indeed practised by them: and, on the contrary, the Inconsistence of the obstinate Opposition with Truth and Justice in divers respects.

As for Common Reason: The Universe is of vast and uncon­ceivable extent; in it we see are many great Bodies, Orbs, and Re­gions; the Life of Man upon this of the Earth is very short; the Time from the Resurrection of our Saviour to this is near 1700 years, and how much more it may be to the General Judgment no Mortal knows; in the mean time the Souls of Mortals go out of their Bodies in infinitely various States of Purity and Impurity: And certainly it is most reasonable that there should be, not only one general Distinction of Souls, but moreover many distinct Places, States, and Conditions, wherein the separate Souls are disposed, [Page 35]according to their several Qualifications, when they go out of the Body. And as that curious Observer of the Works of Nature, as well of the Holy Scriptures, the late Lord Chief Justice Hale, speak­ing of towardly Plants by Death transplanted into another Region, a Garden of Happiness and Comfort, adds: ‘And possibly by con­tinuance of time, as they received Improvement and Perfection here, so in that other Region they add to their Degrees of Perfe­ction, and are promoted to farther Accessions, and Degrees, and Stations of Happiness and Glory, till they come to the State of Spirits of just Men made perfect.’ Now in all these Varieties of States is there nothing capable of receiving Benefit by the Prayers of the Living? Is there no Communion of Saints between those in the Body, and those out of the Body? But if there be, how can it better be exercised or expressed than in the solemn Offices of the Church?

For the Common Sentiments of the Primitive Christians, because it would be too long to recite so many Testimonies in this place, and they are collected already to my hand by Sixtus Senensis and others, I need but refer the Reader to them. But this also is confessed and asserted by Blondel and Dalle; but they would have us believe that they received them from an Impostor, a Counterfeit Sibyl, a ground­less, impudent and impious Calumny.

The Agreement with plain Scriptures is observable in that expression of our Saviour concerning the Sin which shall not be forgiven, neither in this World, neither in the World to come, Mat. 12.32. and that which agrees with this, of being cast into Prison, and not coming out by any means, till Payment of the last Farthing, Mat. 5.25. Prisoners of Hope, Zechar. 9.11, 12. Sins blotted out when the times of Refreshing shall come, Act. 3.19. Such as shew the Incertainty of many Souls in their separate State, even such as were Professors of a high Form in this World, of what their final Doom shall be at that Day, as Mat. 7.22, 23. and 25.44, 45. &c. And the Recompence of Rewards at that day, 2 Thess. 1.6, 7. 1 Cor. 5.5. Luk. 14.14.2 Tim. 4.8. &c. Which if our confident Opposers had sufficiently considered, one would think they should not have presumed to make so light of that middle State, as for the main­taining of Parties to deprive so many Souls there of all Benefit they might receive by their surviving Friends here; which many Appari­tions, even among Protestants, do frequently signifie.

The Practice of the Jews I have noted already, and shall add only here, That in Discourse lately with one of them, he assured me that the Form they now use for that purpose is generally believed by all to have been composed by Ezra and the Great Congregation. I there also remembred an instance of the Practice of the Apostles themselves in St. Paul's Prayer for Onesiphorus, in such a Form as is hardly to be met with for any Person living, however proves it not in vain to Pray for any Person, of whom there is Hope, but not Certainty, till that day. So that tho' our great Man, with more Considence, I doubt, than Conscience, and without any Proof or Reason at all, doth positively affirm him then living, p. 210. he gets nothing at all by it.

Thus we see in this a Universal Agreement in all things: but, on the contrary, if we examine the Obstinate Opposition of it throughout, we shall find nothing solid and consistent in it; neither with Truth, nor Honesty, nor any good Con­sequence: but a plausible Pretence of the Pure Word of God to cover an impure Inclination and Desire to set aside the Authority which God instituted, and set up themselves and their own Conceits in the place of it. 2. Inconsistent with it self; first, denying or cavilling at the Antiquity or Universality of the Practice; and then, when they thought they had found out an Evasion, confessing that, which they could no longer for shame deny, and betaking themselves to their new In­vention: 3. Inconsistent with the Sincerity, Simplicity, and Ingenuity of the Gospel, in their shameless Shuffles, Cavils and Evasions; of which I have noted divers, and many more might be observed; but there is one not to be omitted here; their alleadging the Writings of Epiphanius, Chrysostome, Augustin, and o­thers, against not only their own, but the confessed ancient Practice of the Church in their time, in this Case: Inconsistent with that Modesty, Respect and Decency which the Gospel requires toward all, in their Censuring as delirous, not only some particular Persons, but generally all the most Holy, Ancient Christians, in what was their common Sentiments, and is believed by the most learned of the Church of England to be plainly taught in the Holy Scriptures: 5. Inconsistent with that Reverence and Regard that Christians should have for the Honour of the Church of Christ, his Promises to it, and Care of it, in so foul and scandalous an Imputa­tion, as that they received their common Notions of the present State of separate Souls in the other World from an Impostor; which, was not their Impudence therein as notorious as it is groundless, and destitute of any proof at all, might prove a Tentation to unsettled Souls, to suspect all to be no better: And for other Consequences, it is plain they lead the way to all others to reject their own usurped Authority with the same Ease and Impudence that they do that of the Church of Christ; and to set up their own Conceits against theirs, and pretend Scripture for it; and so to an endless Course of Separations, Schisms, Sects and Confusions; and, in conclusion, set up that Authority over others, which they themselves in the mean time reject; as by their Synod of Dort, and others in France appears: And besides all this, it is much to be feared, that they lead multitudes of Souls into that miserable Security and Presumption, wherewith our Saviour hath acquainted us that many will find themselves deceived at that day, Mat. 7.22. And therefore if these be not pertinacious Schismaticks and Hereticks, speaking per­verse things to draw away Disciples after them, and therefore carefully to be avoided, I know not who are; or what so many Cautions in the Scripture to that purpose do signifie.