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 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 Vsher 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 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 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
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 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 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 Vsher 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
last as as common as for any of the rest About 50 years before this was S. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage 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 â—o nec sacrificium pro Doâ—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 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 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 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 Expressimsoâ— the Anciâ—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 stâ—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 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