The Greek Church before the Council of Florence, Against the First Reason.

Perform'd this Christian Duty to Souls departed in the sence already set down. This is not an Opi­nion, pick'd out of some single Writer, or war­ranted without any Tradition. It is the general Pra­ctice of their Church, Authorized in their Liturgies, and acknowledg'd in their publick Offices and De­votions.

The Liturgy, which is Ascrib'd to St. Chrysostom, prays, That the Souls departed, may change their [Page 9] Sins, into Pardon; their Pain, into Rest; their Griefs and Weepings, into Joys and Jubilees of never end­ing Satisfaction. The Words are already mention'd in the foregoing Chapter.

S. Basil's Liturgy on Whit-sunday Feast, S. Bas. Precat. tertia in Pen­tacosten. [...]. uses the same Language. O GOD, Who vouchsafest on this per­fect, and all-saving Feast, to receive the Suffrages and Supplications made for the Detained in Hell (or place of Purgation,) We earnestly hope You will import to these Imprison'd, Freedom from Griefs, which encompass them, and Consolation. Hear us abject and miserable Creatures praying to Thee: Give Rest to the Souls of thy Ser­vants, before our dayes departed, in a bright place, a flourishing place, a place of Cheerfulness; where there is no more any pain, sorrow and sighing; and seat their Souls in the Tabernacles of the Just, and of Peace, and Forgiveness.

In the Paracletica, the Greek Church thus sings. In Paraclet. [...]. From Tears, and Bewailings, which are heard in Hell, deliver thy Servants O SAVIOUR. Hell is an usual Word, which signifies the Place of the Damned, and expresses likewise the Middle State of Souls. Thus the Word Prison expresses the Place, where Hainous Malefactors are detained; and signifies also the Goal, into which, those, who commit only Petty Faults and Misdemeanors, are conducted. We cannot here by the Word Hell, understand the everlasting Con­finement: The Greek Church holds the Wicked and [Page 10] Impious without Redemption. Nor can the Damned be called the Servants of Christ, Deliver thy Servants, O Saviour. They are his greatest Enemies.

In Offic. Exeq. in Euchol. Goar. p. 526. [...].In the Office, they pray; O let the Soul, Lord, of thy deceased Servant [N] enjoy rest in a place of brightness, a place of pleasantness and delight, whence all pain, grief, and anguish, are banish'd: Forgive, as a clement and merciful God, whatever offence may be by him committed in word, deed, and thought.

In Officio Fun. the Priest prays, that our B. Lady would intercede to God, In Offic. Fun. ibidem, pag. 572. [...]. pag. 577. [...]. to free the Deceased from bit­ter Torments.— Afterwards he says, With a doleful Voice we beg the Creator of all things to release the De­ceased, and take pitty on him.

Nich. Athena­rum Metro­polis, in Offic. Ol. S. in Ora­tionibus. [...].In Officio Olei Sancti, they pray, O God, Give rest to the soul of thy Deceased Servant: Ease him of Evils; deliver him from darkness; take him out of Prison, and lodge him where the Just inhabit: Loose his Chains; save him from stripes; lead him out of Prison and Darkness, and associate him with your Elect.

Against the Second Rea­son.The Greek Church in the Council of Florence,

Ratifies what we have deliver'd concerning Prayers for the Dead. The Council call'd, and assembled; [Page 11] the Latines forthwith proposed the Question of Purga­tory, or place where the Dead are tormented, and help'd by the Prayers of the Faithful; The Greeks gave this Answer: The Greeks truly hold, Conc. Gen. Labbei Paris. pag. 27. [...]. That in the World to come there is pain, sorrow, and a place of pain, but no Fire. The Greeks then never disputed the being of Purgatory, where Souls departed undergo pain, and sorrow. And the Latins believe no more. For,

In the Last Session, the Procession of the Holy Ghost agreed too, on both sides, all embroils untangled, and disturbances quieted, the Debate of Purgatory was moved again, and resolved by both Churches, the Latin and Greek joyning jointly together, that there were Three States of the Dead; of Saints in Heaven; of the Wicked in Hell; and of a middle State of Souls in a place of Torments, viz. of those Christians who had sinn'd, repented of it, and confess'd, yet had not performed Works of satisfaction; [...]. & pag. 515. in Def. Conc. [...]. for which Prayers and Alms are offer'd and given. In this Sence Joseph Patriarch of Constantinople confess'd a Purgatory of Souls. And all the Greeks, except one or two, sub­scrib'd to the Definition of the Council, worded after this manner. If truly penitent, they died in the Love of God, before they satisfied by worthy fruits of re­pentance, for what they committed and omitted, their souls, after death, are to be purg'd in Purgatory pains, and that they may be reliev'd in these pains, the suffra­ges of the Faithful living, holy Sacrifices, Alms-deeds, perform'd according to the Church's Institution, are bene­ficial to them.

Against the Third Reason.The Greek Church after the Council of Florence,

No doubt carried home, what She had alwaies profess'd and subscrib'd to in the Council. Paludanus asks, How does the Synod prove Souls to be purg'd after Death? Palud in Discep. pro Conc. Fl. [...]. And An­swers, first, From our own Practise; and after, From the Testimonies of the Holy Fathers. And the very Liturgies that they formerly had in Esteem, the Greeks now reverence. The publick Prayers they Antiently offer'd, are the same which they now-a-daies pour forth.

Missa S. P. Joan. Chry­sost. Pag. 28. [...].The Priest prays thus in the Mass, which the pre­sent Greeks now say in Rome, for the Dead; O GOD, that the soul of thy departed servant [N] may enjoy Rest, and obtain Pardon; seat it in the place of Light, where no sorrow, nor bemoanings are heard; place it where it may wait on the splendor of thy Countenance.

Gabriel Severus assures us, that as the well-meaning Greeks alwaies did, so do they at present pray with in­tent to free the Detained in a middle State of pain and sorrow. Gab. Sever. Philadelphien. de Purg. [...]. The Apostles, says this Greek, and who suc­ceeded them, the Prelates, and Priests, and the whole Order of Orthodox Persons, pray'd like servants with de­jected minds; and now pray GOD for the faithful Ortho­dox [Page 13] deceased Christians, that they may be freed from their Torments, and obtain Pardon of their Sins.

I end this Chapter with the misfortune of Marcus Eugenicus. For, what is worse, Georg. Sch. ult. sess. conc. Florentini. [...]. said Georgius Scholarius in the Council of Florence, What is worse, than that one man, of what Dignity soever he be, should oppose an OEcumenical Synod, which represents the Ʋniversal Church of GOD.

The Greek Church then alwaies held Prayers for the Dead, as part of a Christians duty; and this too, with intent to free those Christians who had sinned, but repented, yet had not perform'd Works of satis­faction, from a Middle State of souls, a Prison of confinement, tears, sorrows, sighings, pains, darkness, evils, stripes, chains, and bitter torments. If this be not to pray with design to deliver souls departed out of Purgatory, I know not what it means.

Petrus Venerabilis

Writing against the Petrobrusian Hereticks; thus exhorts all Christians out of the Book of Maccabees [Page 25] to pray for the Dead. The Faithful Jews pray'd for the heinous Offences of their Dead; that, what they had Committed, Ep. 2. cont. Petrob. Cap. 5. Rogant fideles Judaei pro delictis tam gravi­bus defunctorum, ut quod fecerant, oblivioni traderetur, & non rogabunt fideles Christiani pro defunctis in spe bona fidelibus eundem Deum, ut eis nondum plenè laxata Peccata remit­tantur? Rogaverunt hoc illi adhuc in tempore irae, & non rogabunt hoc isti in tempore gratiae? might totally he forgiven; and the faithful Christians will not pray for their faithful piously departed, that their sins not fully remitted, may by the same GOD be Pardon'd? The Jews pray'd in the time of An­ger; and Christians are negligent in the day of Grace? Is not this to pray with intent, as Roman Catholicks do, that God will remit to souls departed, their sins? And what follows will not give you leave to doubt that this pious Devotion was be­liev'd the duty of Christians in those dayes. Ibidem. Qui bona vivorum Mortuis, qui digni sunt prodesse dene­gat, ad com­munis fidei laesionem per­tinere cognos­cat. Let him, continues this Venerable Writer, that denies the good Works of the Living to be advantagious to the Dead, who deserve them, know that he makes a Breach in Faith.

S. Bernard

Calls them, who deny this pious Doctrine, Here­ticks, and Hypocrites. Is it not, says this Saint, Super Cantica Ser. 66. pag. 762. Non sufficit haereticos esse, nisi & hy­pocritae sint. Mortuos viventium frau­dantes auxilijs, non credunt ignem Purgatorium restare post mortem. sufficient for them to be Hereticks, unless they be Hypocrites too. They are Here­ticks, because they Defraud the Dead of help from the Living, nor do they believe that there remaines after Death Pur­gatory Fire. As Hypocrites, they make a fair shew, and pretending to follow the pure Word of God.

S. Isidore of Spain

Says, Because sacrifice and prayers are offer'd thorow the whole world for the rest of the Faithful Deceased, S. Isid. Hisp. l. 1. de Offic. Eccles. c. 18. Sacrificium pro Defunctorum fidelium requie offerri, vel pro eis orari, quia per totum hoc Orbem custoditur, cre­dimus quod ab ipsis Apostolis tradi­tum sit. Hoc enim ubi (que) Catholica tenet Ecclesia; quae nisi crederet fide­libus defunctis dimitti peccata, non pro eorum spiritibus vel Eleemosy­nam faceret, vel Deo sacrificium of­ferret. we believe this Custom comes from the Apostles themselves. For the Ca­tholick Church every where observes this; Nor would She give Alms, or of­fer Sacrifice for Souls Departed, unless she believ'd the Faithful De­ceased, receiv'd pardon of their Sins. Nothing can be more fully exprest for Roman Catho­licks. First, Prayers are offer'd for the Faithful de­ceased. Secondly, For their Rest, and Remission of their Sins. Thirdly, The Catholick Church thorow the whole world practis'd the same. Fourthly, 'Twas believ'd Apostolical Tradition. And shall a pretended Reformer start up, without any warrant of a new Revelation from Heaven, and banish this Pious Devo­tion, and contradict the whole Church of God, and teach contrary to what the Blessed Apostles deli­ver'd.

S. Gregorie the Great,

Eminent for Learning and Piety, and with whom the whole Church of Christ communicated in Reli­gion, page 6. the Discourser of his own accord gives up as one of ours, so would he if he were just, give us all the Fathers.

The Council of Calcedon,

Or the Fourth General, which the Religion by Law Establish'd reverences, approves of the same Doctrine, Recording to Posterity what was laid to Dioscorus's Charge, who was condemn'd by the Synod. Amongst others of the Accusations, which were brought against him, we find that he was impeach'd, and said to have dispos'd of a great summ of Money, contrary to the Deceased's desires, who gave it with intent to be pray'd for. Conc. Calc. an. 451. Tom. 4. Conc. Lab. Pag. 401. Act. 3. [...]. But no body, says the Acts of this OEcu­menical Synod, is ignorant of the business of the Renowned Peristeria of Happy Memory. For She Com­manded in her last Will and Testa­ment, a considerable summ of Mo­ney to be given for her Soul to Mo­nasteries, Hospitals, Alms-Houses, and to the Poor of the Aegyptian Province. And yet by the disposal of Dioscorus, things were so Or­der'd, That as much as lay in him, even Incense was not offer'd from the Sacrifice to GOD, in Remembrance of the most Illustrious deceased Peristeria. The Acts take Notice, First, That this Lady gave Money, with intent, that after her Death, the Prayers of the Faith­ful should benefit her Soul. In Bulla pii Pont. This is our Article of Faith, which obliges us firmly to hold, that the Dead are help'd by the Prayers of the Living. Secondly, This was the Practice of the whole Church, because [Page 28] spoken of with approbation in an OEcumenical Council, and no body, say the Acts, was ignorant of it. Thirdly, The hinderance of this Devotion was look'd upon as a great Crime. 'Twas laid to Dioscorus's Charge, In as much as lay in him, Sacrifice was not offered for the Deceased.

Theodoretus,

Who liv'd at the same time that this general Coun­cil was assembled, gives us another confirmation, not of a private Person, praying in his Oratory for the Soul of his deceased Friend, but of the Emperor Theo­dosius, prostrating himself before the Reliques of St. John Chrysostom, Theod. l. 5. Histor. c. 36. [...]. and praying for the Souls of his de­ceased Parents, Arcadius and Eudoxia. His looks, sayes this Historian, and eyes fix'd on the Tombe of this Holy Man (St. Chrysostom) he let tears fall for his Parents, and he beg'd that he (the Saint) would obtain pardon for them, of their faults contracted through ignorance. For long before this, his Parents were dead, and he was left very young, and an Orphan.

St. Austin

Is so clear in this Controversy for Roman Catholicks, that Calvin had not confidence enough to deny it. These are the Saints words: St. Aug. Serm. 34. de verbis Apostoli. O­rationibus S ^t. Ecclesiae, & Sacrificio salutari, & eleemosynis quae pro illorum spiritibus erogantur, non est dubitandum mortuos adjuvari ut cum eis miseri cordiùs agatur à Do­mino, quam eorum peccata meruerunt. Hoc enim à Patribus traditum universa obser­vat Ecclesia; ut pro eis, qui in corporis & sanguinis Christi communione defuncti sunt. cum ad ipsum sacrificium loco suo commemorantur, Oretur. Funeral Pomps, atten­dance of Obsequies, rich constructure of Monuments are [Page 25] [...] [Page 26] [...] [Page 27] [...] [Page 28] [...] [Page 29] some Comfort to the Living, and no Relief to the Dead. But it is not at all to be doubted, that the Prayers of the holy Church, the wholesome Sacrifice, and Alms-deeds given for the deceased, are beneficial to the Dead, that God might deal more mildly with them, than their sins have deserv'd. For this which was delivered by our fore-Fathers, the Ʋniversal Church observes, to pray for those who are departed in the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their place at the Sacrifice. Thus S. Austin. And thus Ro­man Catholicks. We pray for the Faithful deceased; S. Austin prays for the same; for those who are departed in the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ: We pray with intent, that God may ease their Suffe­rings, so did S. Austin, That God might deal more meekly with them than their Sins have deserv'd. We look upon this as part of our Christian Duty; so did S. Austin; For this which has been deliver'd by our fore-Fathers, the Ʋniversal Church observes.

Nor is this Learned Father contented here. He reckons the opposite Errour, He­retical. The Aerian Hereticks, De Haeres. num 53. de Aerio. Aëriani ab Aerio quodam sunt nomi­nati, qui cum esset Presbyter doluisse fertur quod Episcopus non potuit or­dinari, & in Arianorum haeresim lap­sus, propria quoque dogmata addi­disse nonnulla, dicens, orare vel offer­re pro Mortuis oblationem non opor­tere — contra ista sentit Ecclesia Ca­tholica. sayes he, take their Name from Aerius, who being a Priest, was griev'd that he could not get a Bishoprick, and being fallen into the Arian Heresy; he added some of his own peculiar Doctrines, saying, We ought not to pray, nor offer sacrifice for the Dead.— The Catholick Church teaches the contrary. This Aerius is the first Man we read of, who deny'd Prayers for the Dead. In what sense he deny'd them, S. Austin declares, viz. in the sense opposite, to what the Ʋni­versal Church observ'd. Now the Universal Church [Page 30] pray'd, as this Holy Father observes, with intent to ease the Deceased in their Sufferings, That GOD might deal more meekly with them, than their Sins deserv'd.

S. Hierome

Vindicates himself from Origen's Error, in which some would involve him, In Proverb. cap. 2. Mor­tuo homine in­iquo nulla erit ultra Spes. Heu misere hanc senten­tiam pertran­sijt Origenes qui post uni­versale extre­mum (que) judi­cium vitam credit omni­bus impiis & peccatoribus dandum. No­tandum au­tem, quod et­si impiis post Mortem spes veniae non est sunt tamen qui de levioribus peccatis, cum quibus obligati defuncti sunt, post Mortem absolvi possunt; vel poenis videlicet castigati, vel suorum precibus, & eleemosynis, Missarumque celebrationibus; sed haec quibuscunque fiunt, & ante judicium, & de le­vioribus fiunt erratis. writing thus upon this passage of the Proverbs; The Wicked Man dead, all Hope is ended; ah Misery! Origen over-look'd this sentence, who believ'd, that Life would be given, after the last and universal Judgment, to all the Wicked and Sinners. What follows is the Belief of the Church, which S. Hierome stamps with a Notandum. But take Notice, sayes he, although there be no Hope of Pardon after Death for the Wicked; yet there are some, who may be absolv'd after Death, from lesser Faults, with which they dyed ingag'd, viz. expiated either by Pains, or Prayers of their Friends, or Alms-deeds, or saying of Masses; but these things, for whomsoever they are perform'd, are done before (the Last) Judgment, and that too, for lesser Offences.

If you ask what anciently were the Devotions for the Dead; you have here Prayers, and Alms-deeds, and saying of Masses prescrib'd; a word, which is so disagreeable to the fondlings of New Religions. If you would know why the Dead are detain'd in a middle State, S. Jerome tells you, because, when they [Page 31] dyed, they were involved in lesser Faults. If you urge on, and say, they do not suffer there; this Fa­ther replyes, their Faults are expiated by suffering Pains.

Had the Discourser seen this evident Testimony, sure he would not have triumph'd, that in S. Jerome there was no mention of those, Pag. 23. & 24. who depart this Life in a state of Charity, to be punish'd in Purgatory, or a middle state of Souls; sure he would not have vaunted, that if he did not with Rufinus, accuse him of being involv'd in the Error of Origen; yet Bellar­min himself cannot deny him to have been charg'd with an Opinion not very much differing from it, viz. that All Catholick Christians, shall in the end be saved, af­ter they have been tryed and purifyed in the Fire of the last Judgment. Rather than he will have a Fa­ther without Error, he will be twice injurious to him. When I find any passage of a Father dubious, or hard to be understood, I straightway compare it with clearer and easier, about the same matter, and so gather its meaning. Thus if I should read in S. Jerome, that all Catholicks shall in the end be sa­ved after they are purifyed, or, that Christians, if they be overtaken in their sins, shall be saved after Punishment: I straightway suppose, if these sins be mortal, they have repented of them; and that all Catholicks, whom God has order'd to be tryed and purifyed, shall after be saved. Now, these cannot be all Catholick Christians, generally speaking, but only those who depart this Life in Charity, which is compatible with lesser, or venial Faults. And these are to be purg'd, not at the day of Judgment, but before this dreadful day. This is not my Opi­nion, 'tis S. Jerom's own interpretation; in the end [Page 32] of the foregoing Testimony; but, by whomsoever Pains are undergone, or Prayers offer'd, they are done before Judgment; and that too for lesser Offences.

S. Epiphanius

Charges Aerius with the same Error, which we have read S. Austin imputed to him; that he opposed, men­tioning the Names of the Dead; asking to what purpose they did it? He that is alive, prayeth, or offereth the Sacrifice; What shall this advantage the Dead? But if the Dead are indeed profited thereby, then let no man from henceforth trouble himself to live well, only let him oblige his Friends, or give Money to per­sons to pray for him, that none of the inexpiable sins he hath commited may be required of him. This is the Case of Aerius in the Discourser. Disc. p. 53. Can any Re­former Argue better against the Church of Rome, than this Heretick does against S. Epiphanius. Aerius asks to what purpose they pray for the Dead, S. Epi­phanius answers to benefit them.

Aerius presses forwards, if Prayers profit the Dead, let no man endeavour to live well, only let him give Money to be Pray'd for, That none of those inexpi­able Sins he hath Committed, may be required of him.

S. Epiphanius replyes, that these Prayers do not extinguish all sort of Faults. They only purify the stains of smaller Offences; which this Father calls Slips, of the Perfect. But for the most part, says he, they therefore profit us, because when we enjoy'd this [Page 33] World, we wilfully, S. Epiph. haec 75. pag. 911. [...], &c. yet with relu­ctancy fail'd, an evident sign of a more perfect Condition. We do therefore make Commemoration of the Just, and of sinners (of whose Salvation we have some hope.) For sinners we implore Gods Mer­cy. For the Just, we honour our Saviour Christ. Here are Pray­ers manifestly offer'd for Expiation of Sin, not for notorious Crimes; for these, no expiation can be made in the World to come. They were offer'd for smaller Faults, with which the Sinner laden, depar­ted, and for which he suffers in a middle State, and therefore Gods Mercy was implor'd for him.

Lastly, S. Epiphanius assures us, the Answer he gave, was that of the Church, unalterable; and therefore not to be call'd in question by a private Reformer. And I say, pursues this Father, Ibidem Num. ult. [...]. the Church necessarily performs this (Christian Duty) who receiv'd it, deliver'd to Her from Her Ancestors. But can any one break the Order of his Mother, or Law of his Fa­ther? In Salomon 'tis written, Hear O Son, the Words of thy Father, and do not despise the Law of thy Mo­ther; declaring, That the Father, who is God, His only begotten Son, and the Holy Ghost, have taught us by the written and unwritten Word; and that our Mo­ther [Page 34] the Church, has some Laws in her own Hand, which neither can be dissolv'd nor broken. From these Laws establish'd in the Church, which are laudable ones, and full of administration, this Impostor is convinc'd. Language, which I heartily wish the Pretended Re­formers would learn to speak!

S. Chrysostom

Is very copious in his exhorting Christians to pray for the Dead. I'lle content my self with one single passage, Hom. 3. in Ep. Phillip. Edit. Etonae P. 20. [...]. but so plain a one, that none but a Roman Catholick could have spoken it. Not in vain, sayes he, is it Enacted by the Apostles, that in the dreadful Mysteries Commemoration be made of the Dead. They (the Apostles) knew very well, how much profit, from hence, and benefit accrews to their Souls. For when all people stand (at their Devotions before the Altar) with lifted up Hands, and the Quire of Priests, and the dreadful Sacrifice, exciting Veneration, how shall we fail to appease GOD, in praying for them? And this truly is to be understood of those who departed in the Faith.

S. Chrysostom says the Dead are help'd by the Pray­ers of the Living, much profit from hence accrews to them: And the Reformers deny it. St. Chrysostom says the Pain hereby, which the Dead suffer, is allevi­ated, [Page 35] how shall we fail to appease God in praying for them? And is not his Anger attended with Punishment? And the Reformers hold it a fond Invention. S. Chry­sostom says, this pious Custom receiv'd its authority from Apostolical Tradition, not in vain Enacted by the Apostles: and the Reformers contradict it. S. Chrysostom admonishes us, that these Prayers only belong to them who die with hopes of Salvation, They are said for those who departed in the Faith: Disc. pag. 65. And the Refor­mers explicate him corruptedly of the Damned. O wonderful Piety of Reformers! Rather than they should not be cruel to their Dead, they labour to pervert the Writings of the Fathers: Yet I cease to be surpriz'd, why they exclude the Dead from their Prayers, when I consider how they banish Christ from their Altar, and abolish the dreadful Sacrifice.

Eusebius Caesariensis

Speaks of the earnest desire, which Constantine the Great had, to be pray'd for after Death, who took care, that his Corps should be intomb'd near the shrines of the Blessed Apostles, whether all pious Peo­ple resorted to perform the Devotions for the Dead, to GOD and his Saints. He chose, says Eusebius, Lib 4. de vita Const. c. 60. [...].— this place of Reposal with an incredible Cheerful­ness of Faith, foreseeing that he should share after Death in their Prayers, which were said in honour of the Apo­stles, [Page 36] —believing that their Remembrance would exceed­ingly profit his Soul; nor was he frustrated of his ex­pectation. An innumerable Multi­tude of People with the Priests of God, Ibidem Cap. 71. [...]. not without Lamentation, and with many tears, offer'd Prayers to God for the Soul of the Empe­ror. These Prayers were offer'd with intent to relieve the Emperor's Soul; Constan­tine believ'd, that the Intercession of the Apostles to God for him, would profit his departed Soul exceedingly. And this must be to free him from the confinement of a middle state. It could not be that of the Damned in Hell, Eusebius had never such an impious thought of Constantine. It could not be that of Heaven; the blessed Apostles there, were to interceed for him. It must then be that of Purgatory, wherein, if detain'd, the Emperor believ'd that the prayers of the Faithful would relieve him.

There is no reason in the world to understand this Third State after death, of the Discoursers place of Sequester which was fill'd with quietness, nor of the Millenary Kingdom, which abounded with delights. Eusebius was never accus'd of these errors, nor ought he to be taxed with these Opinions. And what re­moves all doubt, is that he speaks of the Third State above mentioned, not as an Opinion, but delivers it as the custom of the universal Church. This is veri­fied by the devotions of the people of the whole Em­pire, who pray'd to God for the Soul of the departed Emperor. Nor could it be less than the Sentiment of the first Ʋniversal Council, because it was that of Con­stantine, and Eusebius, who both sate in this Synod among the Nicean Fathers, of whom Constantine re­ceiv'd most of his instructions.

Arnobius

Tells us, how Christians labouring under Persecu­tion, were not permitted the reasonable Exercise of their Religion; which made them thus to complain; Why should our Chappels be so outragiously thrown down, Lib. 4. Adu. Gent. Pag. ult. Cur im­maniter Conventicula dirui (merue­runt) in quibus summus oratur De­us, pax cunctis & venia postulatur, Magistratibus, Exercitibus, Regibus, Familiaribus, Inimicis, adhuc vitam degentibus, & resolutis Corporum vinctione. in which Prayers were offer'd to our sove­raign God, peace and pardon was implor'd for all, for Magistrates, Armies, Kings, Friends and Foes, whether alive or dead? This is exactly what the Council of Trent has defin'd; Sess. 22. Can. 3. Prayers offer'd for the living and the dead, for their sins, pains and satisfactions. Did not Christians anciently pray for one another, that they might be absolv'd from their sins and satisfa­ctions? And why must not the Dead share in these Prayers? Arnobius affirms, they pray'd for all, whe­ther alive or dead? Why do you divide them? And these dead were in pain or inquietude, because they pray'd for peace. They were in sin, because par­don was implor'd for them. If this be not to pray for Souls in Purgatory, the Discourser has forg'd a new one of his one.

Tertullian

Exhorts Widows to be mindful in their Devotions of the souls of their deceased Husbands, after this manner, De Monoga­mia. Pro a­nima ejus o­ret, & refri­gerium inte­rim adpostu­let ei, & in primà Resurectione consortium, & offerat annuis diebus dormitionis ejus. Let her pray for his soul, and beg now for him, ease or refreshment, and his company in the first Resurrection, and let her see sacrifice be offer'd yearly for him, on the day of his departure.

Here are Prayers offer'd with intent to free the dead from pain and anguish. We pray, for what is wanting. Now Tertullian exhorts Widows to pray for ease for their Husbands; therefore they wanted ease, and so were in pain. He exhorted them to pray for refreshment; they wanted then refreshment, and so were in anguish.

This ease or refreshment was not beg'd for them in the Millenary Kingdom, Disc. pag. 47. Tertull. Refri­gerium inte­rim adpostu­let ei. Disc. pag. 4. of which the Discourser would understand the first Resurrection. For Tertullian exhorts them to beg this refreshment now for the Dead, before the first Resurrection. Nor can this be expoun­ded of the Discoursers place of sequester. Here, nei­ther Ease nor Refreshment was wanting: And of this, Tertullian speaks no where.

And this Exhortation of praying for the Dead, was grounded on the then Universal Practise of the Church. Had it been otherwise, the Writers of those times, would have reply'd, 'twas a Novelty which Tertullian brought into the Church, and so have silenc'd [Page 39] him. Thus they opposed with all their might, the Error of Montanus, towards which, I know Tertullian was at this time much inclin'd. But what has the rigid Er­ror of the Montanists, which allow'd of no Repen­tance in this life for the relapsed into grievous and notorious sins, to do with this pious custom which ex­tends devotion even after death, to Souls departed? And what is considerable, those Books which Tertul­lian wrote, when he could not be censur'd of the suspition of being a Montanist, deliver the same do­ctrine. Thus he says, in his Book, Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitijs annuà die fa-, cimus. de Corona Mili­tis, and third Chapter, that we offer sacrifices for the dead, and keep the anniversary of their Birth. Obla­tions and Anniversaries ought not to be confounded; Oblations are for the Faithful not yet fully purg'd, Anniversaries in honor of the Saints. 'Tis S. Gregory Nazianzen's Explication: Some, says he, we perform, S. Greg. Nazian. Orat. in laud. Caesarij. Alia quidem persolvimus, alia vero dabimus, anniversarios Honores, & Commemorationes offerentes. and some we give. We perform Anniversary Ho­nors, we give Commemorations, (or Oblations, when Commemoration of the dead is made). With what intent these Ob­blations were made, Tertullian teaches us elsewhere, for lesser Faults, for which the dead are imprison'd, he (GOD) will cast thee into the infernal Goal, Tertull. de Anima c. 35. Ille te in Carcerem mandet infernum, unde non dimitteris, nisi modico quo­que delicto, mora Resurrectionis, ex­penso. whence thou shalt not go forth, until the smallest Fault be expiated in the delay of Resurre­ction. And finally, Tertullian af­firms this middle state, or prison, where smaller Faults are to be expiated, before the detained go to Heaven, into the delay of Resurrection, to be part of what the Church believ'd, in these Words, If you ask a Command for this in Scripture, [Page 40] there is none to be found. Lib. de Coron. Mil. c. 4. Traditio tibi pretendetur auctrix, con­suetudo confirmatrix, fides observator. Tradition (from the Apo­stles) has increas'd this into a Precept; Custom confirms it, Faith observes it.

Dionysius Areopagita

Makes mention of Three States of Men after death.

De Hierar. Eccles. tom. 1. c. 7. Edit. Pa­ris, 1644. Pag 352. & 357. [...].The First are the Wicked, who die miserably, and go straightway to Hell, and for whom the Priest ne­ver prays at the Altar: For the Wicked deceased, he never prays.

The Second State is of the Just, who go straight­way to Heaven, and of these he recounts two de­grees. Some liv'd a divine Life upon earth, others not so fervent in Charity, a holy Life: both after death enjoy the sight of God. The Prelate prays for neither. They want not his Prayers. For both of them he gives Thanks to God, Ib. pag. 352. [...].— who leads here a divine, says S. Denis, and most holy Life, as much as 'tis possi­ble for man to imitate God, shall in the next World enjoy divine and happy Rest. And whose Life is infe­riour [Page 41] to this divine one, yet likewise holy, he will re­ceive equal recompence for his Merits. The blessed Pre­late giving Thanks for this divine Justice, goes on with the holy Sacrifice. Thus the Roman Catholick Church holds prayers offer'd with reference to the Saints, a Thanks-giving to GOD.

Besides these Two States, we find mention of a Third. This cannot be Hell; the place admits of Mercy. It cannot be Heaven, the detained are not yet fully purg'd from sin, or lesser Faults. And it is for the remission of these, that the Prelate prays. The Prayer of the Holy Prelate implores the Divine Goodness to pardon the deceased of all his sins commit­ted by humane frailty, Ib. Parag. 3. [...]. and to transfer him into the light and region of the Living; and to seat him in the Bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in a place, where there is no more any pain, sorrow, or sighing.

S. Maximus in his exposition of this passage, S. Max. in Di­onys. [...]. calls these Faults of human frailty, little Sins; and these are those venial Offences, which accompanyed the dead to Purgatory, there to be expiated, before the detained change sorrow, grief, or weeping, into joy, and eternal felicity; and of which the Church of ROME begs pardon in her Prayers for Souls de­parted.

And lest succeeding Ages should be forgetful of the dead, or oppose this pious Devotion of the Faithful for them, S. Denis guided with a Prophetick Spirit, left in few words, Three strong Motives, which are of themselves proper to remind the Forgetful of this [Page 42] duty, and able to convince any unbyas'd Under­standing of it.

First, he says, That this Doctrine is divinely re­veal'd.

Secondly, That it is grateful to Heaven.

Thirdly, That these Prayers will prove effectual to relieve the Dead.

Ib. Pag. 357, [...]. The holy Bishop, concludes this ancient FATHER, asks, what is divinely promis'd, what is accep­table to God, and what will certain­ly be granted? And after this, can any one pretend to be exempted from praying with intent to help Souls departed in a middle state of pain, sorrow, and sighing; or of Purgatory, where lesser Faults are ex­piated.

This is the sense the Greeks gave of Dionysius Areo­pagite, and they understood his Language. Mich. in Ep. ad Nilum Mona. [...]. You have, says Michael Glyca, chiefly Dionysius the Great, banishing the Opinion (of no mid­dle State); and openly teaching, what sins may, and what may not be pardon'd. For discoursing of those who died in Sin, he adds this, if they be small, they receive help from Good Works, which are done for them, if they be notorious Faults, GOD has concluded against them. And Gabriel Seve­rus a Greek Schismatick, writing against the Latins, about the being of real Fire in Purgatory, which is no matter of Faith, declares the Greeks agree with the Latins: In as much as we (the Greeks) likewise affirm, That the Souls of those who piously departed, [Page 43] are help'd in those places, in which they are kept, Gab. Tract. de Purgat. adu. Lat. [...]. and set free by Alms-deeds, and Prayers, which are offer'd for them, as Dionysius Areopagite says.

The Discourser apprehended very much the pressing of this ancient Father's Authority, and therefore would have us doubt of his Works, and calls him, the pre­tended Dionysius. But the two Greeks above-menti­ned call him the true Areopagite; so does S. Gregory the Great; S. Greg. hom. 34. Evang. Conc. 6. Gen. Act. 5. Relatio est aliud Testimo­nium è Codicillo S. Dionysij Episco­pi, Atheniensis & Martyris. Apud Niceph. l. 15. c, 14. S. Greg. Naz. orat. 42. in Pascha. so does the sixth OEcumenical Coun­cil. Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem, who Liv'd at the Time of the fourth OEcumenical Synod, af­firms the same. S. Gregory Nazi­anzen makes use of this Authority. Dionysius Alex­andrinus Commented upon him in the Third Age, as S. Maximus assures us. And the Monotholite He­reticks citing his Authority, 'twas explicated by the Fathers of the Church, as that of Dionysius. And I think these grave and weighty Authorities will easily sink down the light Pretension of a Discourser.

The Maccabees:

And the day following, Judas came with his Com­pany, to take away the bodies of them that were over­thrown, and with their Kins-men to lay them in the Se­pulchres of their Fathers. And they found under the Coats of the slain, some of the Donaries of the Idols that were in Jamnia, from which the Law forbideth the Jews: therefore it was made plain to all, that for that cause they were slain. All therefore Blessed the just Judgment of our Lord; who had made manifest the hidden things. And turn'd to Prayers, they beg'd of him, that the Sin committed, might be perfectly blot­ted out.

Then Judas exhorted the People to keep them­selves from the like Sin, made a Collection among them of a considerable summ of Money, and sent it to Jerusalem, to offer Sacrifice for the Sin, well, [Page 45] and religiously thinking of the Resurrection. Edit. Sixti. [...]. For unless he hop'd that they, that were fallen, should rise again, it would seem superfluous and vain to pray for the Dead. After considering, that there is an excellent Reward laid up for those, that die piously, which was a Holy, and Godly Thought; he therefore made an Expiation for the Dead, that they might be Absolv'd from their Sin.

This is so plain and easy, that I cannot ima­gin, how any one, except he wilfully will mistake, should understand it otherwise, than in the Roman Ca­tholick Affirmation.

The Sin, questionless, that they committed, (whom GOD permitted to be cut off by the Enemy) was mortal. The Law forbad to covet, Deut. 7. Josh. 7. or take any thing appertaining to Idols. They were commanded to destroy it; and therefore because this People had taken the Donaries of Idols, they were slain, says the Text.

Judas and his Company, hop'd that their fellow-Souldiers repented, before they died, of their grie­vous Sin. There was sufficient Ground for this: They fought in defence of their Country, and their Religion: For these, they bravely Ventur'd their Lives. As therefore the Justice of GOD punished their Crime, by permitting them to be kill'd; might not their surviving Associates hope the Divine Good­ness would recompence the venturing of their Lives for GOD's Honour and Glory, by Repentance, before [Page 46] Death surpriz'd them? His Mercy exceeds all other of the Divine Attributes. At least, this makes the case dubious: And in ambiguous things, a favou­rable Interpretation is approv'd of: For who knows the sense of the Lord, or who was His Counsellor? If this be not satisfactory, what follows will convince you; for it is certain, That Judas order'd Prayers to be offer'd for the slain, because he hop'd they repented of their Sin: Considering, says the Text, That there is an excellent Reward, laid up for those that die godlily, he therefore made an expiation for the Dead, Is not a godly Death, a mark of Repentance?

These Prayers, order'd by Judas, were offer'd as an Atonement for the Sin of the deceased: That this was his design, is apparent. No body can dis­pute the being of a Sacrifice among the Jews, which was offer'd for Sin. The Law of Moses in Numbers and Deuteronomy, frequently makes mention of such a one: And all the Tribes forthwith after the Battle, agree­ing in a general Collection of a summ of Money, to be sent upon this Account to Jerusalem, demon­strate, that this Sin-Offering was extended to, and allow'd of for the Dead. Two Motives excited Ju­das hereunto. First, the Resurrection to Life; For unless he hop'd that they that were fallen, should rise again, it would seem superfluous and vain to pray for the Dead. And Secondly, the Pardon of Sin; after considering, continues the Text, That there is an ex­cellent Reward laid up for those that die godlily; he therefore made an Expiation for the Dead, that they might be absolv'd from their Sin.

By Sin, for which Prayers were offered, is meant the remainder of mortal Sin, the Guilt which infers an Obligation to some temporal Penalty, this is evi­dent: [Page 47] Judas hop'd that the Slain died godlily, or re­pented: but he could not be of this perswasion, un­less he likewise believ'd, that the Fault of their no­torious Crime, was pardon'd; For Repentance, car­ries along with it Forgiveness. Whensoever you shall invoke my Name, saith the LORD, I will hear you. Now besides the Guilt of eternal Damnation which follows the Fault of grievous Offences, as the sha­dow does the body, both standing, or perishing together, there can nothing remain, to which the Title of Sin may be given, but the Guilt which infers an Obligation to temporal Punishment. 'Tis then this Guilt which is here call'd Sin, for which Judas, (after the hope of Pardon and Repentance of the Fault, as the Text affirms; Considering, That there is an ex­cellent Reward laid up for those that die godlily, who re­pent of their Sins, and are pardon'd) therefore made an Expiation for the Dead, that they might be absolv'd from their Sin. This is further confirm'd, in these other Words of the Text; And turning to Prayers, they beg'd of God, That the Sin Committed, might be perfectly blotted out: The Sin then, was before blot­ted out, the Fault pardon'd, but not perfectly blot­ted out; the Guilt, which deserv'd some temporal Penalty, remain'd to be expiated: For had they deem'd it had been before perfectly blotted out, they would not have beg'd of God, a perfect Forgiveness: This had been already Granted. There was then, some Penalty that remain'd, of which they beg'd for­giveness. But the Pain of Sin, is, ordinarily speaking, only compleatly satisfied with pain. Nor can any one hope to be perfectly pardon'd of Sin, according to the rate of God's ordinary Providence, without entire satisfaction; which if not paid now, must here­after be compensated.

This is exactly what Mr. de Meaux Writes of the Roman Catholick Belief in this point, in his ex­cellent Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church, Exposit. pag: 17. Sect. 8. which all Christendom approves of: Those who depart this Life, says this Venerable Prelate, in Grace and Cha­rity, but nevertheless, indebted to the Divine Justice some Pains which it reserv'd, are to suffer them in the other Life. This is what Oblig'd all the Primitive Christians to offer up Prayers, Alms-deeds, and Sacri­fices, for the Faithful, who departed in Peace, and Communion of the Church, with a certain Faith, that they might be assisted by these means. This is what the Council of Trent proposes to us to believe, touching Souls departed in Purgatory, Sess. 25. de Purg. without determining in what their Pains consist, or many other such like things, concerning which, this Holy Council de­mands great Moderation, blaming those who divulge what is uncertain, or suspected.

And to finish; This passage of Holy Scripture, out of the Second Book of Maccabees, is so strong and convictive in behalf of praying for the Dead, that our Adversaries can have nothing at all to say for themselves, but with a strange Boldness, to deny these Books to be part of the Bible: Yet the old Editions of Scripture in English, which were prin­ted near the Beginning of the Pretended Reformation, give them, without distinction, their proper place in the Bible. What private Revelation the Reformers have had since, to displace them, and cast them out, they never told us. The Discourser indeed, gives us this Reason for it, that they were never receiv'd by the Jews as Canonical,

That we may well understand the Meaning of this Objection, it will not be amiss to speak here, of Two [Page 49] Canons of a Bible, which the Jews used. The First Canon of the Bible was composed by Esdras: This is generally allow'd of. The Second Collection was more ample, and encreas'd by the superaddition of many Books to the former. This was more rarely spoken of in ancient Times, because less common. 'Twas compil'd sometime before our Saviours com­ming, with the addition of those Books which were Written after the Collection of the First Canon. Lib. 2. Cont. Appion. Jo­seph the Jew, assures us of such an addition made, where he cites the Text of Ecclesiastick, as part of their Scripture, which Book is not found in the Col­lection of the First Canon of the Jews, and was writ­ten near Two Hundred Years after it. This suppos'd, I am of the Discoursers mind, that the Books of Maccabees, were not by the Jews acknowledg'd as part of the First Collection of Canonical Scripture: they were written near Three Hundred Years after the First Collection made by Esdras. But can the Discour­ser prove to me, that these Books were not by the Jews receiv'd as part of the Second Collection of Ca­nonical Scripture?

If the Discourser (notwithstanding this reasonable Distinction) remains unsatisfied, and still scruples their Authenticness, and continues to say, that the Jews did not receive them as Canonical; Ile humour him in this, and grant him what he asks. But are we Jews? If the Jews did not, the Church of Christ, receiv'd them as Canonical Scripture.

S. Jerome 'tis true, says, In Praef. Sa­lom. that the Church did not look upon them, as part of that Canonical Scripture, which was contain'd in the First Canon of the Jews, and which was universally receiv'd from the begin­ning by all Christians: So did S. Gregory the Great. Lib. Moral. 19. c. 13. [Page 50] Neither of them deny the Maccabees to be part of that entire Canon of Scripture, which the Church of Christ appprov'd of, and read in their dayes. In this entire Canon of Scripture, Canon 47. Sunt autem Canonicae Scripturae Maccabaeorum Libri duo. the Third Council of Carthage, which all well-meaning Christians alwayes look'd upon as Orthodox, number'd the Maccabees: So did Innocent the First, Head of the Universal Church of Christ upon Earth, in his Letter to Exuperius, Bishop of Tholouse. S. Austin in express Words says, That the Jews do not receive the Books of Maccabees as Canonical, S. Aug. l. 18. de Civit. Dei. c. 37. Maccabaeo­rum Libros, non Judaei, sed Ecclesia pro Canoni­cis habet. but the Church does. And in the Second Age, the Valentinian Hereticks asserted, That the Bible no where patroniz'd it to be lawful to venture their Lives for GOD ALMIGHTY's sake: And Origen instanc'd that Famous Example of the Mo­ther and seven Sons, who died upon this Account, out of the Second of Maccabees, as part of Holy Scri­pture, and confuted them. Reasons, without excep­tion, that if the Jews did not, Christians number'd these Books with the rest of Canonical Scripture.

In S. Matthew

We read an other Confirmation of this Truth, where Christ himself says, Chap. 12. v. 32. That the Sin against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, neither in this World, nor in that to come. I cannot chuse here but take Notice, how wittily the Discourser Reasons upon the World to come. He will have the World to come, to be in this present World, and not to be, till this [Page 51] World end. Thus he delivers himself; They (Ca­tholicks) suppose, That the World to come, Page 19. must sig­nify the time between every mans Death, and the Gene­ral Resurrection. The World to come, cannot be, till this World end (i. e.) till the time be, That Purga­tory shall be no more, which now is in this Present World. I expected the acuteness of so sharp a Wit, could have distinguished between Life, and Death; this World, and the next; especially, when Scripture had done it before him. We therefore, following the distinction which Scripture gives, understand by this World, this present Life, which all Mankind, more or less enjoys; and by that to come, the State of Man after Death, a middle State, where some Sin is to be expiated.

'Tis certain that by this passage, neither in this World, nor in that to come, is meant, that the Sin against the Holy Ghost, in which Man dies, is ne­ver to be forgiven: For if it were ever to be for­given, certainly it would be pardon'd in this World or that to come; for no other place can be assign'd, where Pardon is to be expected: S. M. c. 3. v. 29. And thus S. Mark interprets the Phrase, He hath not Forgiveness for ever, and shall be guilty of an eternal Sin.

From hence Roman Catholicks infer, That there are some Sins not eternal, to be pardon'd in the next World; and if to be pardon'd, without dispute in a middle state of Souls, for whose delivery, Pray­ers are offer'd by the Faithful living. Our Reason is, because Scripture assigns this World, and that to come, as the only two places, where Sin may be pardon'd, saying, That the Sin against the Holy Ghost shall in neither of them, or never be pardon'd. Let those, sayes S. Bernard, who deny Purgatory, ask [Page 52] of him, S. Bern. super Cantica Serm. 66. Quaerant ergò ab eo, qui dixit quoddam pec­catum esse, quod neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro remitteretur; Cur hoc dixerit, si nulla manet in fu­turo remissio purgatione peccatis? who said there is some Sin, which shall neither be forgiven in this World, nor in that to come; Why did he say this, if there remain in the World to come, no forgiveness, or purgation of Sin?

S. Isidore of Spain is more ex­press; Lib. 1. de off. Eccles. c. 18. Nam & cum Dominus dicit, qui peccaverit in Spiritum sanctum non remitteretur ei, ne (que) in hoc saeculo, ne (que) in futuro, demonstrat quibusdam illic dimitten­da peccata, & quodam purgatorio ig­ne purganda. For when our Lord says, whosoever shall sin against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this World, nor in that to come; he demonstrates, that Sin is forgiven to some there, and expia­ted in a certain Purgatory Fire. And to the same Words of CHRIST, S. Austin gives the like Interpreta­tion; S. Aug. Civit. Dei, l. 2. c. 24. De De­functis quibus­dam vel ipsius Ecclesiae, vel quorundam piorum exau­ditur Ora­tio; — ne (que) enim de qui­busdam veraciter diceretur, quod non eis remittatur, neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro, nisi essent, quibus, etsi non in isto, tamen remittetur in futuro. For some Souls departed, the Prayers of the Church, or pious Persons are heard; —for otherwise it would not be truly said of some, that it should not be forgiven them, neither in this World, nor in that to come, unless there were some, to whom, if not in this, it shall be forgiven in the World to come.

And I am of opinion, if the Discourser will but seriously consider our Saviours own Words, that he will acknowledge some Sins to be pardon'd, in this Life, and some after Death. I shall instance only one Example, somewhat of the like nature to [Page 53] convince him. If some of the Discoursers Compa­nions should tell him, that he had a Law-suit in hand, and that he was certain never to win it, nei­ther at the Kings-Bench, nor Court of Chancery; I am perswaded the Discourser, or any man of sense, would infer from this Person's talk, that Law-suits were pleaded both at the Kings-Bench, and in Chancery: And why will he not infer from these Words of our Saviours, Some sins shall never be pardon'd, neither in this World, nor in that to come; that there are some sins, both pardonable in this World, and in that to come? And if there be some sins there to be forgiven, I suppose he will allow of some Pain there to be suf­fered; for all sin deserves some Punishment: And 'tis upon this account the Roman Church prays for the Dead, that their pain may be eased, and sins for­given.

S. Paul 1 Cor. c. 15. v. 29.

Makes use of two Arguments to verify the Resur­rection of Man, Devotion perform'd for the Dead, and the exposing of his own Life, which was in danger, preaching this ineffable Mystery, which is the Foundation of Christian Religion: Otherwise, says the Text, what shall they do that are baptised for the Dead, if the Dead rise not at all? Why also are they baptised for them? Why also are we in danger every hour? I expect here the Discourser will exclaim a­gainst the hardness of this passage. I am somewhat of his opinion; 'tis so difficult, that if I were a Re­former, I could make no sence of it.

Mark 10. Orat. in S. Lumina.This Word Baptism, as hard as 'tis, S. Mark inter­prets to be pain or austerity: And S. Gregory Nazi­anzen calls Purgatory Fire, the last Baptism: But let the word Baptism signify whatever affliction the Dis­courser shall please to assign, Penance, or Prayer, it will still Literally be true, that it is performed to be­nefit the Dead: For if the Dead are not hereby hel­ped, why does S. Paul urge again so earnestly? Why also, to what end, are they baptised, or afflicted for them? If this Devotion profit not the Dead, might not we answer the Apostle, and say, to no end at all: And so void and silence his pressing Forwardness. Far be it from me, Divine APOSTLE, to con­tend against thy Testimony!

S. John,

The beloved Disciple of Christ, speaks of Two states of Sinners after Death: He speaks of those, who we know depart in mortal, or deadly sin: For these he forbids us to pray. They are without Re­demption, abandon'd by God. S. John speaks of an other sort of Sinners, whom we know by outward signs of Repentance, die not in deadly sin: For these he does encourage us, if he do not command us, with confidence to pray. And this is, says the Scripture, Ep. Catho. 1. Chap. 5. v. 14. the Confidence which we have towards him, that whatsoever we shall ask according to His Will, He heareth us. He that knoweth his Brother to sin, a Sin not to Death; let him him ask, and Life shall [Page 55] be given him, sinning not to Death. Here is Encou­ragement for us to pray for those, who die with Re­pentance: And Two strong Motives excite us here­unto.

First, We are encourag'd thus to pray; because we ask, What is according to GOD's Will: And

Secondly, God will hear us, pardon the Delinquent, and give him Life everlasting. The Text continues, There is a sin to Death, for that I say not, that any man ask. Here is an Inhibition to pray for any, of whom we have no signs, no Hopes of Repentance at their Death.

I do not expect here that the Discourser will deny S. John speaks of Praying for the Dead. The Text is too plain against him. And what is convincing, neither the Church, nor any Man is disswaded here from praying for any Sinner yet living, nor for the Remission of any Sin in this Life. I know the Montanist Hereticks held some sins not pardonable. But the Church of Christ before the Death of any Sinner, prays, and is often heard, for the sins of Hereticks, Jews, Turks, Apostates, or what other In­fidels, or ill-Livers soever in the World: so long as Life is, all have hopes of Pardon. But S. John speaks here of a Sinner, now placed in such a state, that Prayer for him will not be available; therefore he speaks of praying for the sins of the Departed. Of these, some die without repentance. These we are not to pray for: Others duly repent; for these, we are encouraged to pray, and God will hear us, and give them Life everlasting.