Catholicks who had no Exceptions to the Matter or Form of it And in short to say the Truth the Abuse and Corruptions of the Publick Liturgy in these two particulars Of Prayers for the Dead and the Christian Sacrifice to mention nothing more are so gross and notorious that they alone are sufficient to make the Church of England inexcusably Guilty of Schism and justly obnoxious to Excommunication which may be the Enchantment it seems to lie under and unsafe for any pious Person after notice to hold Communion with it so that it seems not only expedient and prudent for the State to consider these Matters for otherwise nothing is to be expected from these Bishops but absolutely necessary And so I leave it with Your Lordships Your Lordships most Humble Servant Of the Practice of Prayers for the DEAD In the Christian Church 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 Life-time 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 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 't is 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 't is 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 Vsher 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 vain-glorious Person who out of Ostentation of Parts and Learning seeks for Differences in the Fathers and sets himself up for a Judge 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
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 Vsher 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 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 't is 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 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
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
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-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
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