The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 3 · Chapter 3 (2 of 3)

The Grounds of Protestant Religion · Part 3 · Chapter 3 (2 of 3)

p. 573Your third Testimony is, of S. Cyril of Hierusalem, which you would make us believe, is so full and clear, that no Catholick could express his own, §. 11.or the Churches belief of this mystery, in more full, plain, and effectual terms: Neither shall I here stand to dispute the reasons on which those Mystagogical discourses under his name are questioned, but proceed to the consideration of the Testimony it self. Which lyes in these words, He that changed water into wine by his sole will (at Cana in Galilee) doth he not deserve our belief, that he hath also changed wine into blood? Cyril. Catech. Mystagog 4.Wherefore let us receive with all assurance of Faith, the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Seeing p. 574under the species of bread the body is given, and under the species of wine his blood is given, &c. knowing and holding for certain, that the bread which we see, is not bread (though it seem to the tast to be bread) but the body of Jesus Christ; likewise that the wine which we see (though to the sense it seem to be wine) is not wine for all that, but the blood of Jesus Christ. This testimony you have patched together out of several places in that Oration, very warily leaving out that, which would sufficiently clear the meaning of S. Cyril in the words you cite out of him. For it is evident, that his design is to perswade the Catechumens (from whom the mysterious presence of Christs body in the Sacrament was wont to be concealed) that the bread and wine were not meer common elements, but that they were designed for a greater and higher use to exhibit the body and blood of Christ to believers. And therefore he saith expresly, Do not consider them as meer bread and wine, foreign. Id. ib.for they are the body and blood of Christ, according to his own words. By which it is plain he speaks of the body and blood of Christ, as sacramentally, and not corporeally present; for he doth not oppose the body and blood of Christ, to the substance of bread and wine, but to meer bread and wine, i. e. that they should not look on the bread and wine as naked signs, but as signa efficacia, and that there is a real presence of Christ in and with them to the souls of believers. And this is it which he saith, That they ought not to make a question of, since Christ said, This is my body, and this is my blood. For if he could by his will turn the water into wine, Shall we not believe him, that he can change his wine into his blood? And after adds, That under the symbols of bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ is given, that thou mayest be a partaker both of his body and blood. You render this under the species or form of bread and wine in Cyril it is foreign, in that which is the figure or representation of the body and blood of Christ; for foreign is not taken in your sense for the external accidents, which you call the species, but for that which doth figure or represent;Catech. Myst. 5. Theophil. in Mirc. 14. for in his next Catechetical discourse he calls the bread and wine, foreign, the figure of the body and blood of Christ, and this Theophylact, and those who assert Transubstantiation, deny that the bread and wine are foreign. For, where there are foreign, there must be foreign, which must answer to them; if Cyril therefore makes the bread and wine to be foreign, he must make the body and blood of Christ to be the foreign, and consequently they cannot be the very body and blood of Christ in your sense. This foreign and foreign here have the same signification, and are the same with foreign, and so when he saith, foreign, his meaning cannot be, under the accidents of bread and wine the body and blood of Christ is present in your sense, for he speaks of such a presence as hath relation to the receiver, and not to the elements; for he saith, VnderUnder the type of bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ is given to thee. For otherwise it had been far more to his purpose to have said absolutely, that under the species of bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ is substantially present; but, when he saith, only that it is given to the receiver, it doth not belong to such a corporeal presence as you dream of, but to such a real and spiritual presence, whereby believers are make partakers of the body and blood of Christ. And therefore Cyril is in this well explained by that of Tertullian, Hoc est corpus meum, id est, figura corpus mei, This is my body, i. e. the figure of my body, …which is the same with foreign; and by that of S. Austin, Non dubitavit Dominus dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum daret signum p. 575corporis sui, Christ did not scruple to say, This is my body, when he gave the figure of his body: Comment. in Psal. 3.Ps 3And elsewhere speaking of Judas his being present ad convivium in quo corporis & sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendavit & tradidit, at that Supper in which Christ commended and delivered to his Disciples the figure of his body and blood. So that hitherto there is nothing in the testimony of Cyril, importing Transubstantiation. But it may be you think, there is more force in it, where he saith, That we must not believe our senses, that that which we see is not bread, though it seem to the tast to be so, &c. As to which I answer, That this place of Cyril must be explained by that which went before it, wherein he said, That we must not judge it to be meer bread, and meer wine. For, although sense be a sufficient judge of that which it sees and tasts, yet it cannot be a judge of that which is exhibited by that which is seen and tasted; therefore, though to the tast, it seems to be nothing but common bread and wine, yet they ought to believe that it is the communion of the body and blood of Christ. So that this is not to be understood of the elements themselves, but of the mystical and sacramental nature of them. And, as Cardinal Perron hath observed, It is an usual thing, for the greater Emphasis sake, to deny that to be, which is meant only respectively; or to express the affirmation and denyal of some qualities, by the affirmation or denyal of the substances themselves: as in that of Tully, Memmius semper est Memmius, for one; that in S. Ambrose, Ego non sum ego, for the other: and in many other instances to the same purposes, in which he saith, Though the substance seem to be denied, yet only some quality is understood by it. So when Cyril here saith, That bread is not bread, &c. he means not by it any alteration of the substance of it, but that it is not that common bread which it was before, and as our sight and tast judge it still to be. And what he saith here of the bread in the Eucharist, he said the same before of the Chrism, where he compares them both together. For (saith he) do not think that to be meer oyntment; for as the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Spirit, foreign. Cyril. Mystag. 3. p. 235.is no longer bread, but the body of Christ; so this holy oyntment, is no longer meer, or common oyntment, after it is consecrated, but a gift of Christ, and the Holy Spirit; being effectual through the presence of his divine nature. May not you then as well prove a Transubstantiation here as in the Eucharist, since he parallels these two so exactly together? And so elsewhere he speaks concerning Baptism, C…tech. Illum. 3.That they ought not to look on it as meer water, but as spiritual grace; so that he means not a substantial change in the Eucharist, any more than in the other, but only relative and sacramental.

Neither can any thing more be inferred from your testimonies out of your last Authour S. Ambrose, §. 12.Ambros. de…is q…i i…itian…ur. c. 9.there being nothing at all in the words you produce, which implies any substantial change in the elements; for, although it be only sacramental, yet it may be truly said, It is no longer that which nature hath framed it (viz. meer bread and wine) but that which the benediction of consecration hath made it to be: which I grant to be the body and blood of Christ, but not in your gross and corporeal sense.Ch…y…ost in Act. hom. 23. So S. Chrysostome saith of Baptism, That its virtue is so great, it doth not suffer men to be men; Will you therefore say, it transubstantiates them? But you add further out of him, that he saith, The force of benediction is greater than that of nature, seeing by that nature it self is often changed? And so we assert too, that the p. 576force of benediction far exceeds that of nature, which can so alter common elements, as by the use of them, to make us partakers of the body and blood of Christ. Your last words are out of the counterfeit S. Ambrose, which are only general,De Sacrament. l. 4. c. 4. viz. this bread, is bread before the words of the Sacrament, but when consecration comes, of bread, it is made the flesh of Christ. This we deny not, but the dispute is about the sense in which it is made so, whether by a substantial change of the bread into the body of Christ: and that this cannot be this Authour's meaning, appears by those known words which are used by him, speaking of the efficacy of Christs power in the Sacrament, whereby he can make, ut sint quae erant & in aliud commutentur, that they might be what they were, and yet be changed into something else. And, although a great Controversie hath been raised about the reading of these words, yet this reading is not only justified by many Authours of competent Antiquity, but by two MSS. in the K. of France's Library, besides many others elsewhere, and all editions, but that at Rome, and others which follow it. So that this Authour plainly asserts, that the substance of the elements does remain still, and therefore can only be understood of a sacramental change.

Thus I have, to satisfie you, examined your testimonies in behalf of Transubstantiation; but whereas you referr me for more to Bellarmin and other Catholick Authours, I shall referr you for Answer to those no less Catholick Authours, though no believers of Transubstantiation, who have taken large and excellent pains in answering what they have brought; either from Scripture or Antiquity. But you, having done your best in the latter, come at last to the former; but so pitifully manage your business as to Scripture, that it had been more for the interest of your cause, you had never medled with it. For you only say, That the words of Scripture, taken in their proper and litteral sense, do evidently shew, that the only substance which is delivered in this Sacrament, is the body of Christ, and that the substance of bread is no more there. And all this comes only from hence, because Christ saith, This is my body, which you parallel with one, pointing to a hogshead of wine, saying, This is wine; and with one holding up a purse full of mony, saying, This is gold: who if they intend to speak truth, must signifie, that the only liquor contained sub propriâ formâ, in the hogshead is wine; and all the mony in the purse, gold. But how weak this is, will easily appear, 1. That you take it for granted, that the expression of Christ is not at all figurative, but of the same nature with those Propositions you mention, whereas it is largely proved, from the nature of a Sacrament, from many parallel expressions in Scripture, from evidence of Antiquity, Sense, and Reason, that these words of Christ cannot be otherwise than figuratively understood. 2. You suppose that Christ must speak of the individual bread, when he said, This is my body, as our parallel instances are of such individuals as are pointed to. But Bellarmin will tell you, That if Christ had spoken of the bread, when he said, This is my body, absurdissima esset locutio, it had been a most absurd speech. And Vasquez saith, If the Pronoune Hoc, This, should relate to the bread, Vasquez. disp. 180 c. 9 n. 91.he confesses, that by virtue of those words, there could be no substantial change made in it; for the bread must remain still. So that by the confession of your own Authours, your parallel is absurd, and destructive to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

The third errour of a General Council confirmed by the Pope, which his Lordship insists on,§. 13. is, That of administring the B. Sacrament to the Laiety under one kind only. Of this he had spoken. before; and thither you p. 577referr us for your Answer; but I purposely omitted the handling it there, because it comes in more properly in this place. There his Lordship hath these words: To break Christs Institution is a damnable errour, P. 259.and so confessed by Stapleton. The Council of Constance is bold, and defines peremptorily, that to communicate in both kinds is not necessary, with a non obstante to the Institution of Christ; and although Bellarmin answers, that the non obstante only belongs to the time of receiving it after supper, yet his Lordship shews from the words of the Council, that the non obstante must relate to both clauses foregoing, and hath as much force against receiving under both kinds, as against receiving after supper. Yea, and the after words of the Council couple both together, in this reference; for it follows, & similiter, And so likewise, though in the Primitive Church, &c. And a man by the definition of this Council may be an Heretick for standing to Christs Institution, in the very matter of the Sacrament: And the Churches Law for one kind may not be refused, but Christs Institution under both kinds may. And yet this Council did not err; no, take heed of it. But all this cannot perswade you, That the non obstante relates to any thing but to the receiving after supper: which I much wonder at,P. 250. since the design of the Decree of the Council was not to determine so much concerning the time of receiving, as the kinds in which it was to be received. Now to have said point-blank, that, notwithstanding the Institution of Christ to the contrary, they decreed that the Sacrament should be received in one kind only, would have been too plain and gross: and therefore they fetch it about with a compass, and put in something not so much controverted then, the better to disguise the opposition between their Decree and Christs Institution. But yet by the adding the administration in both kinds to the time of receiving, and the non obstante following both,Licèt Christus post coenam instituerit, & suis discipulis administraverit sub utrá que specie panis & vini, hoc venerabile Sacramentum; tamen, hoc non obstante, non confici debet post coenam, nec …ecipi nisi à jejunis; similiter, quod licèt in Primit…v… Eccl…siâ Sacramenta reciperentur sub utra que specie à fidelibus, tamen haec consuetudo, ut Laicis sub specie panis tantum suscipiatur, habenda est pro lege, quam non licet repro…are: & asserere hanc esse illicitam, est erroneum, & p…rtinaci…è… ass…rentes sunt arcendi tanquam haereti…i. Concil. Constant. Sess. 13. and the decree being against that which is acknowledged to have been done by Christ, nothing can be more evident, then that the sense of the Decree implyes a non obstante to Christs Institution. For otherwise, To what purpose do they say, Although Christ administred the Sacrament in both kinds, and although the Primitive Church so received it, if they did not intend to decree something contrary to that administration and the practise of the Primitive Church? Therefore, whether by the meer form of words the non obstante doth relate to Christs Institution or no, is not material, since the Decree it self is directly opposite to it. Although therefore they did not put receiving in one kind immediately after the non obstante (which is that you object) as they do, not consecrating after supper, and receiving fasting, yet the force of it reacheth to what follows after: as not only appears by the connexion And likewise, but chiefly by the scope of the Decree it self. For the Proctors of the Council, Henricus de Piro, and Johannes de Scribanis, in their …uthentick Instrument, never exhibited any Controversie at all concerning the time of receiving, but only concerning the Communion in both kinds, because, they said, there was an ill custome (so the observing Christs Institution was call'd) for some Priests to give the Cup to the Laity, therefore they desired the Council, &c. So that it appears, this bringing in the time of receiving, was only the artifice of the contrivers of the Decree, that they might with less noise and clamour thwart the plain Institution of Christ. And accordingly it appears by the title of the Decree, that the intent of it was to forbid the giving p. 578the Sacrament to the people in both kinds, and so Carranza delivereth the Canon it self.Carranz Sum. Con. p. 415. Praecipimus sub poenâ excommunicationis, quòd nullus presbyter communicet populum sub utrâque specie panis & vini. Indeed, in the late editions of the Councils by Binius, a complaint is supposed to be made concerning the celebrating the Sacrament after Supper by some which he seems to take out of Cochlaeus, Concil. Tom. 7. p. 2 p. 1042.as appears by his notes; but in the Instrument it self nothing appears of that nature, and since the Decree contains nothing against that custom as well as the other; it seems probable, that this was made use of the better to bring on the other. But, whether it were so or no, is not very much material; for however the Council confessing that Christ did so administer it, and that it was the custom of the Primitive Church, their prohibiting of it doth in its own nature imply a non obstante to the Institution of Christ.

§. 14.But this is that you stiffly deny, in saying, That neither the Decree of the Council, P. 271.nor the practise of the Church in administring under one kind is contrary to the Institution and ordination of Christ. For, say you, to shew this, the Bishop should have made it appear that Christ did so institute this Sacrament of his last supper, that he would not have one part to be administred without the other, or that he would not have one part to be taken without the other. And it cannot be proved that Laymen are bound to receive in both kinds, from those words, Drink ye all of this; For if this were a command and not a Counsel, it was given to the Apostles who all drunk of the Chalice. So that the state of the Question is this, Whether the Primitive Institution be universally obligatory to all Christians or no? For you suppose, that either it was only a Counsel, or else it had particular reference to the Apostles. For the clearing therefore of this Question, there are but two wayes whereby we can judge of the obligatory nature of such Institutions; either by an express declaration of the will of the first Institutor, or by the Vniversal sense of the Church concerning the nature of that Institution. And if these two appear evident in this present case, you will have no cause to question, but the communion in one kind is a violation of the Institution of Christ. There are two wayes whereby we may judge what the will of the Legislator is: First, by an express positive command. Secondly, by an unalterable reason on which the Institution is founded. Now that both these are clear in the case of Communion in both kinds I now come to manifest. First, by a positive command. For although we grant a difference between an Institution and a command, in this respect, that the Institution properly respects the thing, and a command the person; and that an Institution, barely considered as such, doth not bind all persons to the observance of it; as we say, Matrimony is Instituted by God, but do not thence assert that all persons are bound to it, but yet take an Institution as it referrs to persons, and so it is aequipollent with a command. And so Christs Instituting that all who believe should be baptized, is of the nature of a command to that purpose. But here is a great difference to be made between such things as were done at the Institution, and such things as were Instituted to be done afterwards. Thus Christ washed his Disciples feet, administred after Supper, and only to twelve; but it doth not follow that these circumstances must be still observed, because though they were done then at that celebration, yet Christ doth not Institute or appoint the doing of them, when ever that Sacrament should be administred afterwards. For we are to consider, that though there were some things peculiar to the first Institution, yet the main of it was intended for the p. 579Church in all following times. Or else we must make the celebration of the Eucharist it self to be a meer arbitrary thing. Which if it be not, there must lye an obligation on men for the participation of it; now this obligation must suppose a Law, and therefore we have gained this, that the Institution of the Eucharist doth imply a command for its observation in the Church. So that this action of Christ was not meerly a matter of Counsel, but there is something in it perpetually obligatory: Because it was not a peculiar rite appropriated to the present time, but intended for the future ages of the Church. This being proved in the General, that there is a perpetually obligatory command, implyed in the Institution; we are now to enquire, How far this command extends? Whether it extended only to the Apostles, or else to all believers? That it was administred then to the Apostles only is granted, but the Question is, In what capacity it was administred to them, Whether only as Apostles, or as Believers? and that must be judged by the intention of the Institution, Whether it were of that nature as to respect their Apostolical office, or else some thing which would be common with them to all other Believers to the worlds end? If it were only and wholly proper to the Apostles, there can be no reason given, why the Institution of the Sacrament should continue after their times: neither could any other but the Apostles have any right, either to administer or to receive it. It follows then, that this Sacrament was not instituted meerly for the Apostles; if not for them meerly, then what was contained in the Institution doth concern others as well as them. Now there are four things commanded in the Institution, Take, eat, drink ye all of this, and, This do in remembrance of me. If the Institution doth not meerly respect the Apostles as such but others also, then some of these things at least must extend to others too considered as Believers. And if some, why not all of them? Were the Apostles considered as Believers, when they were bid to take and eat? and as Apostles, when Christ said, drink ye all of this? What reasonable pretext can be imagin'd for such a groundless fancy? If they were not considered as Believers, when Christ said take, eat; by what right can any Believers take and eat? if they were then, so were they likewise afterwards, when Christ said to them, Drink ye all of this. As far therefore as I can possibly see, you must either admit the people to drinking all of this, or else deprive them of their right of taking and eating. And if you did speak consistently, you must say, that the peoples being admitted at all to the Eucharist is an act of favour and indulgence in the Church, but not necessary by any command of Christ, the Eucharist being administred to the Apostles and not the people; and therefore it being indulgence to admit them at all, it is in the Churches power to admit as far and to what she pleases. This is the only rational way I can imagine, whereby you may defend the excluding the people from the Cup: But this you dare not say; and therefore are put to the weakest shifts imaginable to reconcile it with the Institution of Christ.

Some therefore say,§. 15. That all these are words only of invitation and not of command, and that they only give a right, and not oblige men to do it. But if these be only words of invitation, what precept is there any where extant for the celebration of the Eucharist? That they are an invitation we deny not; but we say they are such an invitation as imply a duty to come, too. When a Father bids his Children come and sit down at Table, take and eat their meat: this is an invitation, but such as by reason of the authority of the person carry a command with them. So it is here, Christ p. 580invites to come, to take, eat, and drink; but so that it implyes a command that men should come; or else it must be wholly left at mens liberty, so that it is no sin for men to neglect or refuse to come. And if the Institution of Christ only gives men a liberty to take, eat, and drink, without any obligation to these things as a duty, How comes the administration of the Eucharist at all to become a duty, since there are no other words of command then what are contained in the Institution? Which others being sensible of, they most unreasonably distinguish between Taking and eating, which they make an absolute command, and, Drinking all of this, which they say is only a conditional precept: and the reason they give, is, because St. Paul saith, 1 Cor. 11.25.1 Cor 11:25This do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me; and so, say they, Do this, doth not imply a command for the doing it, but only the relation which that action hath to the death of Christ when they do it; for those words, as oft as you do it, do suppose it not to be simply necessary, but only shew, when they do it, to what purpose it should be done. But if there be any weight in this, it will as well hold still concerning the participation of the bread, as well as the cup; for, as the Apostle saith This do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me, so he adds in the words immediately following, For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, Ver. 26.ye do shew forth the Lords death till he come. If therefore it notes only the relation of the action to its end without a command for performance in the one, it must do so in the other also. And so all the Sacrament will be a meer matter of liberty in the Church, whether men will observe it or no. But Bellarmin with wonderful subtilty hath found a command for the one and not the other;De Eucharist. l. 4. c. 25. which is, That in Luke after the bread, Christ saith, This do in remembrance of me, but omits it wholly after the cup; Luk. 22.19.Luke 22:19by which, saith he, we are to understand, that Christ commanded that the Sacrament should be administred to all under the species of bread, but not under that of wine. And this he is so transported with, That in a rapture he admires the wonderful providence of God in the Scripture, who by this means hath taken away all possibility of evasion from the Hereticks. So it should seem indeed, when even his Brethren the Jesuits can scarce hold laughing at this subtilty. Since, St. Paul puts that expression, This do in remembrance of me, not after the bread, but after the cup. And therefore may we not more justly admire at the Providence of God in thus suffering men who will not see the truth under a pretence of subtilty, to infatuate themselves. And although it be added here, As oft as ye do it, yet both Vasquez and Suarez ingenuously confess, that contains under it a command for the doing it.Vasquez. in 3. Thom. c. 2. dispat. …13. For saith Vasquez, Qui praecipit ut opere aliquo commemoratio fiat alicujus beneficii accepti, ex modo ipso praecipiendi praecipit etiam ut fiat opus ipsum. Quis hoc non videat? He that commands that by something to be done a commemoration should be made of a benefit received; from the manner of commanding it, he doth command that very action to be done. Suarez in 3. Tom. 3 disp. 71. sect. 2.Who doth not see this? And Suarez saith, those words, Do this, or with that addition, In remembrance of me, or with that condition, As oft as ye do it, ad eundem sensum referuntur, come all to the same purpose. So that still it follows, if there be a command for one, there is for the other also. But yet there is a subtilty beyond any of these; which is, That Christ in those words in Luke after the distribution of the bread, Hoc facite, Do this, did make the Apostles Priests; and therefore, although they did receive the bread as believers, yet they received the cup as Priests, and so that belongs only to the Priests and not to the people. What will not these men prove which they have a mind to! But it is their unhappiness, that their own subtilties p. 581do them the most mischief, as appears by these things consequent from hence; which are repugnant to their own principles. 1. That Priests not consecrating, ought to receive the Cup, as well as those that do. For it is plain, that the Apostles did not consecrate now, but only receive; and therefore this belongs to them as receiving, and not as consecrating. And by the same reasons that Priests not-consecrating may receive, others may receive too. 2. That if they were made Priests by those words, after the distribution of the bread, then they have no power to consecrate, but only the bread. For the words are, Hoc facite, Do this, i. e. that which Christ had then done. Otherwise, if those words be taken with reference to the Cup, then if the Apostles received the bread as believers, they received the Cup so too: for these words, Do this, must not relate to their receiving, but to their power of consecration. 3. If this be taken generally, Do this, and so giving them a power to do all that Christ did, then it will amount to a precept for all who administer to follow Christs example in the Institution. And therefore, as he did administer, the Cup, as well as the Bread, to all that were present, then all others will be bound to do so, if their power of administration be derived from these words, Do this, and they referr to the whole action of Christ. But I know what Answer will be here given, That these words relate to the Sacrifice, and not to the Sacrament, Hoc facite, implying their power of sacrificing, as to which they say, both elements are necessary, but not to the Sacrament. But 1. Not to enter on the Dispute about the Sacrifice; if both elements be necessary to it, then it was great reason that the words makeing them Priests, should come after both elements, and therefore it cannot in reason be deduced from those words which are spoken only after the bread. 2. If these words relate to the Sacrifice, and not to the Sacrament, By what authority do they administer the Sacrament? What other words are there to give them a power to do the one distinct from them, whereby they pretend a right for the other. 3. There is no evidence at all from Antiquity, that Hoc facite hath any respect to the Eucharist as a Sacrifice, or to the making the Apostles Priests. And so much is confessed by Estius, viz. that neither is this exposition found in any ancient Writer, nor is it suitable to our Saviours purpose. For, he saith, it is not absolutely said, Estius in l. 4. sentent dist. 12. sect. 11.Facite, but, Hoc facite, i. e. that which ye see me do, do ye likewise. So that still, by virtue of these words, those who do receive authority to administer, are bound to follow Christs example, and that as he did administer in both kinds to all who were present, so ought they to do likewise. But there is one Exception yet more left, which is the last Reserve, viz. that although it be granted to be a command, that the Cup should be administred to all, yet it is only a positive command, binding in the general; but yet it is of the nature of all affirmative precepts, that though it alwaies binds, yet not at all times, but only in case of necessity, of which necessity the Church is the most competent Judge; and therefore if the Church do not think it necessary, then the obligation ceases. To which I answer, 1. That upon this ground it will be in the Churches power to repeal or suspend all divine positive precepts as well as this. For the reason of this will hold for all others, which is, that they do not oblige, as they speak, ad semper, but only semper, i. e. not at all times, though they never cease to oblige. And therefore on this ground, for all that I can see, the Church may as well repeal the use of Baptism, or the Eucharist it self, as the communion in both kinds; all being of of an equal nature, as affirmative precepts. But, Is it possible to imagine p. 582that Christ appointing positive Institutions in his Church, and giving precepts and plain directions about them, should yet leave it in the power of any men to reverse, alter, suspend the obligation to the performance of those commands? Did not he foresee all cases of necessity, when he first appointed these things, and, if notwithstanding that, he makes a plain command, for the observance of them; What can such a pretended power in the Church signifie, but an authority to alter or repeal what she pleases in the Laws of Christ? 2. There is a great deal of difference between the nature of the obligation of affirmative precepts, and the prohibiting the use of something positively commanded. For, although positive precepts do not bind at all times, yet that reaches only to the thing it self, and not to the mode of performance. Thus we say, That the Eucharist being a positive Institution, doth not oblige men at all times to be partakers of it; but if on that account any Church should undertake to forbid the celebration of it, this were a direct violation of the Law it self, and not an Interpretation of it in regard of circumstances. And what ever obligation of this nature there is, it respects the whole duty; But it doth by no means follow, that therefore in the celebration the Church may declare what may be used, and what not. For the manner of performance in case it be performed at all, is absolutely commanded; it is only the performance in general, which is of the nature of a positive precept. Thus we say, Men are not bound to pray at all times, though they be alwaies bound to pray; but in case men do pray, they are indispensably bound to pray as God hath required them to do it. So we say here, That men are not bound at all times to administer, or receive the Eucharist; but, in case they do, they are indispensably bound to receive it according to Christ's Institution. So that this of communion in both kinds, relates to the manner of a positive precept, and is not a distinct positive precept by it self; and therefore is indispensably by any authority of the Church. Besides, your Church doth not meerly suspend the exercise of this in case of necessity, but forbids men the doing it, which is a direct and wilful violation of the Institution of Christ. And therefore the Question is not as it is strangely perverted by some of you, Whether it be necessary at all times to receive the Cup (although even that be true in case of receiving at all) but, whether it be in the Churches power at all to prohibit the receiving it; and this we say, and are ready to make good to be a presumptuous violation of the Laws of Christ, and an usurping an Authority which may as well extend to all positive Institutions. And thus I hope I have made that appear, which you say his Lordship should have done, viz. that Christ did so institute the Sacrament of his last Supper, that he would, not have one part to be administred without the other, nor one part to be taken without the other.

The same I might also at large shew, from the Reasons of this Institution, that they do equally belong to the people,§ 16. as well as the Priests, and that those reasons are of a nature as unalterable as the Institution it self; whereby I should have shewed the vanity of your distinction of the Eucharist into a Sacrament, and a Sacrifice, and the absurdity of your Doctrine of Concomitancy; but that would be too large for our present design; and that which you give me not sufficient ground to enter upon, since the obligation is sufficiently cleared from the Institution it self. I therefore proceed to shew, that the Primitive Church did alwaies understand the Communion in both kinds to be an indispensible part of the Institution of Christ. Which one would think were evident enough from S. Paul, in his bringing p. 583the Corinthians back to the Primitive Institution, as that unalterable Rule which they were to observe. For if, because of some ill customs which had obtained amongst them, he tells them, This is not to eat the Lords Supper; How much more would he have said so,2 Cor. 11.20.2 Cor 11:20 if there had been an mutilation of the parts of it? And all along in his discourse he supposes Christs Institution to be the indispensable Rule which they ought to observe; That which I have received of the Lord, I delivered unto you: not, certainly, to leave it in their power, Whether they would observe it or no, but to shew them, what their duty was, and what they ought unalterably to observe. Else he would never have told them so much of the danger of unworthy receiving, in eating the Bread, and drinking the Cup of the Lord unworthily; For, Can we possibly think, that the rudeness of their access to the Lords Table was so great a sin, and the violation of his Institution to be none at all? The Apostles were such strangers to the Doctrine of Concomitancy, that still both eating and drinking were supposed then, even by the most unworthy receivers. There were then no such fears of the effusion of the blood of Christ, or the irreverence in receiving it, and much less of the long beards of the Laity; which are the worshipful reasons given by Gerson and others, why the people should not be admitted to the use of the Chalice. I do verily think the Apostles had as much care to preserve the due reverence of the Sacrament, as ever the Councils of Constance or Trent had; but they thought it no way to preserve the reverence of the Sacrament, by shewing so little to Christ, as not to observe his Institution. But you very kindly grant that which you knew was impossible to be denied, viz. That in ancient times, when, you say, the number of Christians was small, P. …90.it was the ordinary custom for all that would (the Laity as well as others) to receive the Eucharist in both kinds; but, say you, we averr, this custom proceeded meerly out of free devotion, and not out of any belief, that it was absolutely necessary so to do, by virtue of Christs precept. It is no great matter what you averr, since you averr so monstrous a Doctrine of Transubstantiation, as confidently as you do this, and with much alike reason. For I have shewed already, that the Institution of Christ in reference to this, is perpetually obligatory, and that the Apostles look upon that as an unalterable Rule, and therefore your averring signifies nothing, when you never offer to prove what you averr. But, I pray tell me, By what means would you understand what precepts are perpetually obligatory, which are not clear to our present purpose? If positive command, immutable reason, universal practice of the Church may prove any thing so, we have all these plain and clear for Communion in both kinds. And not the least suspition or intimation given, that they looked on it as a matter of free devotion, but of indispensable necessity. But, What mean you in saying, When the number of Christians was small, they received it in both kinds? Do Christs Institutions vary according to the numbers of Communicants? Hath not Christ the same power to oblige many as a few? or, Do you think the numbers of breakers of his Institution make the fault the less? But, When was it the number of Christians was so small? Only in the Apostles times, or as long as the custom lasted of communicating in both kinds? Do you think the number of Christians was so small in the Primitive times? If you do, you lamentably discover your ignorance in the History of those times: Read the Christians Apologies over, and you will believe the contrary. But, Did this small number continue in the time of the Christian Emperours, even till after a thousand years after Christ? For so long the Communion in both kinds continued p. 584so inviolably, that neither you, nor any before you, are able to produce one Instance of a publick and solemn celebration of the Eucharist in the Church wherein the People did not communicate in both kinds. And, Could a matter so indifferent as you suppose this to be, meet with no persons all this time, who out of reverence to the blood of Christ, should deny giving it to the People? Nothing then but an unmeasurable confidence, and a resolution to say any thing, though never so false or absurd (if it tend to the interest of your Church) could make you say, That communion in one kind was alwaies, even in the first five or six hundred years, allowed publickly as well in the Church, as out of it. Than which, if you had studied it, you could scarce have uttered a greater untruth; and in which there are such multitudes of your own party bearing witness against you. And Bellarmin is so far from helping you out in it, that he is extremely at a loss to offer at any thing which hath any tendency that way. But before we come to consider the Instances and Exceptions you make, we must somewhat further see, what the practice and sense of the Church was, that we may the better judge, Whether communion in both kinds were looked on as a matter only of free devotion, or as something necessary by virtue of Christs Institution. And for this I shall not insist on those multitudes of Testimonies, which manifest the practice it self, but briefly touch at some few, which more directly prove, that what they did, was, Because in doing otherwise, they should have violated the Institution of Christ. To pass by therefore the Testimonies of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, all clear for the practice; the first I insist on, is that of S. Cyprian against those who gave water in the Chalice, instead of wine; for, whosoever doth but read the very entrance of that Epistle, will soon find that he looked on Christs Institution in all the parts of it as unalterable. For (saith he) although I know, that most Bishops do keep to that which agrees with the truth of the Gospel, Quanquam sciam Episcopos plurimos, Evangelicae veritatis ac Dominicae traditionis tenere rationem, nec ab eo quod Christus Magister & praecepit & gessit, bumanâ & novellâ institutione dec…dere; tamen quoniam quidam vel ignorant…r vel simpliciter in calice Dominico sanctificando, & plebi ministrando, non hoc faciant quod Jesus Christus, Dominus & Deus noster, sacrificii hujus Auctor & Doctor, fecit & docuit; religiosum pariter ac necessarium duxi, has ad vos literas facere, ut si quis in ist… errore adhuc teneatur, veritatis luce perspectâ ad radicem at que originem traditionis Dominicae revertatur. Cyprian. Epist. 63.and what our Lord hath delivered; and do not depart from that which Christ our Master hath commanded and practised: yet because some, either through ignorance, or simplicity, in sanctifying the Cup of our Lord, and delivering it to the people, do not that which Jesus Christ our Lord and God, the Authour and Teacher of this Sacrifice, did and taught; I have thought it a necessary part of my duty to write to you, that if any one continue in that errour, he may, by discovering the light of truth, return to the root and fountain of our Lords Tradition. I insist on this Testimony, not only for the clearness of it, as to the custom of giving the Cup to the people; but especially for the evidence contained in it, of the unalterable nature of the Institution of Christ. For that he looks on as the great fault of them who ministred water instead of wine, that they therein departed from the example and precept of Christ. Now there cannot be produced any greater evidence of any obligation as to this, than there is as to the giving the Cup it self. For here is Christs example and institution equally as to both of them, and that in the same words, Drink ye all of it. If that were such a departing from the Institution to alter the Liquor, Would it not have been accounted as great, to take away the Cup wholly? For afterwards he adds, If men ought not to break the least of Christs commands, How much less those great ones which pertain to the Sacrament of our Lords Passion, and our Redemption? or to p. 585change it into any thing, but that which was appointed by him? And if not to change the matter, certainly neither can it be lawful to order the administration otherwise than Christ appointed. I know Bellarmin saith, The parity of reason will not hold, De Euchar. l. 4. c. 26.because this is to corrupt the matter of the Sacrament: but S. Cyprian doth not insist on that as his reason, but the departing from the Institution of Christ, and this is done by one as well as the other. But he adds, That there was a precept for that, Do this. And so, say we, was there as plain for the other, Drink ye all of this. So that the parity of reason is evident for the one as well as the other. Upon the same ground doth Pope Julius afterwards condemn the using milk instead of wine, because contrary to Christs Institution; and so he doth the dipping the bread in the Chalice: From whence we inferr, that they looked on Christs Example and Institution in the administration to be unalterable. But most express is the Testimony of Pope Gelasius, who finding some, from the remainders of Manichaism, did abstain from the Cup, gives express order, That they who were infected with this odde superstition, either should receive the whole Sacrament, Comperimus quod quidam, sump…â tantummodo corporis sacri portione, à cal…ce sacri cruoris abstineant. Qui proculdubio (quoniam nescio-quâ superstitione docentur obstring…) aut Sacramenta integra percipia…, aut ab integris arceantur; quia divisio unius & ejusdem mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire. Apud Gratian c. Comper. de Consecr. dist. 2.or abstain wholly from it; because the dividing one and the same mystery, cannot be done without great sacriledge. To this, Bellarmin tells us, two Answers are commonly given; one, That these words are meant of Priests; another, That they relate only to those superstitious persons; but both of them are sufficiently taken off by the reason assigned, which is not fetched either from their Priesthood, or Superstition, but only from the Institution of Christ, that it would be sacriledge to part those things, which Christ by his Institution had joyned together. Thus we see, the sense of the Church is clear, not only for the practice, but the command too; and the sinfulness of the violation of it. Although to you one would think it were wholly needless to prove any more than the Vniversal Practice, since the Tradition of the Church is equal with you, with an unwritten word; but that is, when it makes for your purpose, and not otherwise. For in this case, though the Institution be express, the universal practice of the Church for at least a thousand years unquestionable; yet because it contradicts the present sense and practice of your Church, all this signifies nothing at all with you. So true is it, that it is neither Scripture nor Antiquity, which you really regard,Cusan. ep. 27. but Interest and the Present Church. And what Cusanus, like a downright man, spake out in this case, is that you must all at last take sanctuary in, That the Scriptures must be interpreted according to the current practice of the Church; and therefore it is no wonder if they be interpreted at one time one way, and another time another way. And though this seem a very great absurdity, yet it is no more than is necessary to be said by such who maintain things so contrary to Scripture, and the practice of former ages of the Church.

But you are so far from thinking this contrary to the practice of the Church in former ages, that you say, Not only in S. Thomas his time, §. 17.P. 289.but in all times of the Church, it was both publickly allowed, and commonly by some practised even in Churches, to receive under one kind only. Cassander de Comm…n. sub utrâ… p 1025, 1027.1039. op. Paris. Barns Catholico-Rom. Pacif. sect. 7. lit. 8.A bold Assertion, and which is confidently denied by very many of your own Communion. For not only Cassander often confesses, that for above a thousand years after Christ, no instance can be produced of publick Communion in one kind: But Father Barns acknowledges not only that Communion p. 586in both kinds, is much more agreeable to Scripture, Fathers, and the Vniversal Church, but that per se loquendo jure divino praescribitur, taking it in it self, it is commanded by a Divine Law. But I know these men are too honest for you to own them, but as to the universal practice of the Church it is confessed by,Rua…d. Tapp…r. Tom. 2. p 328. Alphons. à Castro. haeres. 38. Lindan. Panopl. l. 4. c. 56. Ruardus, Alphonsus à Castro, Lindanus, and many others. But we need no more than your S. Thomas himself, even in that very place, where you say, He rather makes for you, than against you; for, when he saies, that Providè in quibusdam Ecclesiis observatur ut populo sanguis non detur, It was a custom providently observed in some Churches, not to give the Sacrament in the form of wine to the Laity; He thereby shews indeed, that in his time about A. D. 1260. this custom did in some places obtain, but yet so, that the universal practice had been to the contrary;Aquinas. p. 3. qu 80▪ Art. 12. for so much is confessed by him in his Commentaries on S. John, where his words are, secundum antiquam in Ecclesiâ consuetudinem omnes sicut communicabant corpori, ita communicabant & sanguini, quod etiam adhuc in quibusdam Ecclesiis servatur. According to the anceint custom of the Church, all did communicate in both kinds, which as yet is observed in some Churches. Now, Whether the universal practice of the Church in former times, or the practice of some Churches in his time, were more agreeable to the Divine Institution, we may appeal to Aquinas himself, who elsewhere gives this account, Why the elements of bread and wine, were made use of, and delivered severally,Aquinas. c. Gentes. l. 4. cap. 61. Bonavent. l 4. dist. 8. Art. 2. q. 2. Alensis. p. 4 q. 6. memb. 3. Art. 2. That they might denote a complete refection, and fully represent the death and passion of our Saviour. On the same accounts, Bonaventure and Alensis make both kinds necessary to the Integrity of the Sacrament. And the latter (who was Master to the two former) saies expresly, That whole Christ is not contained sacramentally under either kinds; but his flesh under that of bread, and his blood under that of wine. Than which nothing can be more destructive to the Doctrine of Concomitancy. And it is learnedly proved by Pet. Picherellus, P. Picherel. de Missâ▪ c. 4.that the bread was appointed to represent not the body in its compleat substance, but the meer flesh, when the blood is out of it, according to the division of the Sacrifices into flesh and blood; from whence it appears, that the Sacrifice of Christs death cannot be represented meerly by one kind, and that whole Christ is not contained under one, in the administration of it. And therefore Alensis rightly determines, that the res Sacramenti cannot be perfectly represented by one kind;Alens. p. 4. q 31. memb. 1. and thence sayes, He that receives but in one kind, doth not receive the Sacrament perfectly. No wonder therefore that he tells us, That some religious persons in his time (when the contrary custom,Alens, p. 4. q. 53. memb. 1. through the superstition of people, had somewhat prevailed) did earnestly desire that the Sacrament might again be received in both kinds. Thus we see, when this custom did begin, reason and argument was still against it, and nothing pleaded for it, but only some superstitious fears of some accidental effusions of the blood of Christ. But you are the man, who would still perswade us, That Communion in one kind was not only publickly allowed, but by some practised even in Churches in all times of the Church. And therefore in reason we must give attendance to your impregnable demonstrations of it. For otherwise, say you, How is it possible that the Manichees should find liberty and opportunity to communicate amongst Catholicks in Catholick Churches, without being perceived, since they never drank wine, nor communicated under the form of wine? as 'tis certain they frequently did in S. Leo's time, and after. But you have very unhappily light of this for your first proof, which is so evident against you. For Leo, who mentions the Manichees communicating in Catholick p. 587Churches, tells the Catholicks, What way they might discern them from themselves, viz. that though they received the bread, yet they refused the wine; by which, saith he, you may discover their sacrilegious hypocrisie, Quum ad tegend…m infidelitatem suam nostris audeant interesse mysteriu, tam sacramentorum communione se temperant, ut interdum tutius lateant, ore indigno Christi corpus accipiunt, sanguinem autem redemp…ionis nostrae haurire omnino declinant Quod ideo vestram volumus scire sanctitatem, ut vobis hujusmodi homines & hisce manifeslentur indiciis, & quo…um deprehensa fuerit sacrilega simulatio, notati & prod…ti à sanctorum soc…etate, sacerdotum autoritate pellantur. Leo. Sermon. quadrages. 4.and by that means they may be expelled out of the society of Catholicks. You were therefore very ill advised, to make choice of this for your argument, which makes it plain, that all Catholicks did receive in both kinds, and that the Manichees might be thereby known that they did not. And if it were the custom for the Catholicks sometimes to receive in both kinds, and sometimes not, (which is all the shift Bellarmin hath) and the Manichees not at all, this could be no note of distinction between them; for, although the Manichees might not receive at one time, they could not tell but they might at another. Now Leo's intention being, to give such a note of distinction, that they might not receive at all among them, it evidently follows, that all the Catholicks did constantly receive in both kinds, and that they were only Manichees who did abstain from the Cup. For that Story which Bellarmin insists on, and you referr to, of the woman, who being a Macedonian Heretick, yet pretending to communicate with the Catholicks, had the bread which her Maid brought with her, and which she took instead of the Eucharist, turned into a stone in her mouth, upon which she runs presently to the Bishop, and with tears confessed her fault, as we take it wholly upon the Faith of Sozomen, from whom Nicephorus transcribes it,Sozom. hist. l. 8. c. 5. Niceph. l. 13. c. 7. so I cannot imagine what it proves for your purpose, unless it be, that they in whose mouths the bread turns into a stone too, will hardly have patience till the Cup be administred to them. For so both Sozomen and Nicephorus relate it, that immediately upon her feeling it to be a stone, she ran to the Bishop, and shewed him the stone, acknowledging with tears her miscarriage. But besides this, you bring several Instances from the Communion of Hermites in the wilderness, of travellers on their journeys, of sick persons in their beds, and private Communions in houses, and lastly, little Children in the Church, and at home in their Cradles, which communicated in form of wine only. And, Are not all these invincible proofs, that there was a publick, solemn administration of the Communion in one kind publickly allowed in Churches in all times? When you can prove that the Communion of Hermites was in the Church, or that they did not receive as well the wine as the bread in the wilderness, or that such Communion was approved by the Church: That the Communion of Travellers was not meer Communion in Prayers, as Baronius and Albaspinaeus assert, without any participation of the Eucharist at all;Baron. An. 400. n. 67. Albaspinae. observat. l. 1 c. 3 or if it were, that it was only a participation in one kind (against which Albaspinaeus gives many reasons:) That the Communion of the sick was without wine, when Justin Martyr saith,Justin. Martyr. Apol. 2. Euseb. hist. l. 6. c. 36. Hieron. ep. 4. Nazianz. Or. 11. Albaspinae. obs. cap. 4. l. 1. Durant. de r… tib. Eccles. l. … c. 55.Sir 50 That both bread and wine were sent to the absent: when Eusebius tells us, That the bread given to Serapion, was dipt; when S. Hierom saith of Exuperius, That he preserved the blood in a glass for the use of the sick: That Private Communions were without wine, since Gregory Nazianzen saith; his Sister Gorgonia, preserved both the symbols of the body and blood of Christ; and Albaspinaeus confesses, that one might be carried home as well as the other; or that these were approved by the Church, since Durantus saith, That the use of Private Communions coming up by persecutions, were abrogated afterwards; and are expresly condemned by the Council of Caesar-Augusta about the year 381. and the p. 588first Council of Toledo, about A. D. 400. Lastly, that the Communion of Infants was only in one kind either in the Church or at home, or that this Communion of Infants which the Council of Trent condemns, was a due administration of the Eucharist: When I say you have proved all these things, the utmost you can hence inferr, is, only that in some rare cases, and accidental occasions, Communion in one kind was allowed of. But what is all this to the proving that the stated, solemn administration of the Eucharist in one kind was ever practised, much less allowed, within a thousand years after Christ. And yet if you could prove that, you fall short of vindicating your Church, unless you add this, which you never so much as touch at, viz. That it was ever in all that time thought lawful to forbid the celebration of the Eucharist in both kinds. Prove but this, which is your only proper task, and I say as his Lordship doth in another case, You shall be my Apollo for ever.

We proceed to a fourth errour, which is the Invocation of Saints defined by the Council of Trent. §. 18.As to which, that which his Lordship saith may be reduced to three things,P. 276. 1. That those expressions of the Fathers which seem most to countenance it are but Rhetorical flourishes. 2. That the Church then did not admit of the Invocation of Saints, but only of the commemoration of Martyrs. 3. That the Doctrine of the Roman Church makes the Saints more then Mediatours of Intercession. To these three I shall confine my discourse on this subject, and therefore shall follow you close in your Answers to them. For the first, When you are proving that the Fathers expressions were not Rhetorical flourishes, you would fain have your own accounted so. For, say you, How can it seem to any that duly considers it, P. 290.but most extreamly partial and strange to term so many exhortations, so many plain and positive assertions, so many Instances, Examples, Histories, Reports and the like, which the Fathers frequently use, and afford in this kind (and that upon occasions wherein dogmatical and plain delivery of Christian Doctrine and truth is expected) nothing but flourishes of wit and Rhetorick? And after, you call these meer put-off's, as before you had said, That when any thing in the Fathers is against us, then it is Rhetorick only; when against you, then it is dogmatical and the real sense of the Fathers. But these are only General words, fit only to deceive such who believe bold affirmations sooner then solid proofs. This is a thing must be tryed by particulars, because it is on both sides acknowledged, that the Fathers did many times use their Rhetorick, and that such things are uttered by them, in their Panegyrical Orations especially, which will not abide a severe tryal.De Missâ. l. …. c. 10. Sixtus Sen. bibl. Annot. 152. l. 6. Basil. ep. 64. Theodoret. dialog. 3. Doth not Bellarmin confess that St. Chrysostome doth often hyperbolize, and Sixtus Senensis say as much of others, that in the heat of their discourses they are carried beyond what they would have said in a strict debate? But who are better Judges of these things then the Fathers themselves? Are they not the men, who have bid us distinguish what comes from them in a heat, from that which they deliver as the Doctrine of the Church? Have not they told us, that the popular Orations uttered in Churches are no rules of opinion? Have not some of them, when they have seemed extream vehement and earnest, at last come off with this, That they have been declaiming all that while? Witness St. Hierome against Helvidius; and if you make not use of the same rule to put a favourable construction on his Books against Jovinian, Vigilantius, Ruffinus and others, you will as little be able to excuse him from strange Doctrines, as from intemperate heats. What put-off then is it for us to say, that St. Basil in p. 589his Oration on Mammas, and the forty eight Martyrs; that S. Gregory Nazianzen in his Panegyrical Orations on St. Basil, St. Athanasius, St. Cyprian, his sister Gorgonia, St. Gregory Nyssen in his commendation of Theodorus, do make use of their Rhetorick in Apostrophe's to the persons whom they praise, without any solemn Invocation of them? What is there herein unsuitable to their present purpose? Is it any more then Oratours have commonly done? What strange thing is it then, that those great Masters of Rhetorick should make use of their art to raise the people, not only to a high esteem of their persons, but of those vertues which rendred them so illustrious. Might not such expressions by way of Apostrophe be still used by such who are furthest from the Invocation of Saints? although by their example we are taught how dangerous it is to indulge Rhetorick too much in such cases. But as though they foresaw the ill use would be made of them, they add such expressions as sufficiently tell us, they made no solemn Invocation of them; foreign, and the like. Had these persons a mind to deliver a Doctrine of Invocation of Saints, who speak with such hesitation and doubt as to their sense of what was spoken? (For it is a groundless shift, to say, that those expressions imply an affirmation and not doubt.) That which we say then, is this, That the Doctrine of the Church is not to be judged by such Encomiastick Orations, wherein such Rhetorical flourishes are usual; and when you bring us their plain and positive assertions, we will by no means give you that Answer, That those are flourishes of wit and Rhetorick. But his Lordship very well knew, how far you were from any such dogmatical assertions of the Fathers in this point, and that the most plausible testimonies which you had were taken out of those three great Oratours in their Panegyricks in praise of their Friends, or of the Martyrs; and therefore it was he said, Though some of the ancient Fathers have some Rhetorical flourishes about it, for the stirring up devotion (as they thought) yet the Church then admitted not of the Invocation of Saints. That is it we stand on, that no such thing was admitted by the Church, if we should yield that any particular (though great) persons were too lavish in their expressions this way; must these be the standard which we must judge of the Doctrine of the Church by? We must consider the Church was now out of persecution, and ease and honour attended that profession of Christianity, for which such multitudes had endured the flames; and the people began to grow more loose and vain then when they still expected Martyrdoms: This made these great men so highly commend the Martyrs in their popular Orations, not to propound them as objects of Invocation, but as examples for their imitation. Thence they encouraged them to frequent the Memoriae martyrum, that by their assemblies in those places they might revive something of that pristine heat of devotion, which was now so much abated among them. But the event was so far from answering their expectation, that by this means they grew by degrees to place much of their Religion, rather in honouring the former Martyrs and Saints then in striving to imitate them in their vertues and graces. And from the frequenting the places where the Martyrs were enshrined through the pretence of some extatical dreams and visions, or some rare occurrences which they say happened at those places, they began to turn their real honour into superstitious devotion, which at last ended in solemn Invocation. To which no small encouragement was given when such persons as S. Hierom and others, were so far from putting a stop to the growing evil, that though they confessed many miscarriages committed, p. 590yet they rather sought to palliate them and make the best construction of them, still hoping that this zeal in the people to the honour of the Martyrs would promote devotion among them; whereas it sunk gradually into greater superstitions. This I take to be the truest and most faithful account of those first beginnings and tendencies to Invocation of Saints, which appeared in the latter end of the fourth Century.

§. 19.For before that time we meet with nothing that can bear the face of any positive and plain assertions, instances, examples, histories, or reports tending that way. Which is so clear, that Cardinal Perron after the best use of his wit and diligence to find out something to this purpose within the three first Centuries, at last confesses, that in the Authours who lived nearer the Apostles times no footsteps can be found of the Invocation of Saints. But when he gives this account of it, That most of the writings of that time are lost, it makes us see what poor excuses bad causes will drive the greatest wits to. For are not the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius and others still extant, who were pious and learned men? And is it possible that such men should all of them conceal such a Doctrine as this, which would so easily appear in the face of the Church? But it is well we have the confession of so great a man for the best ages of the Church; and not only so, but he acknowledges withall, That there is neither precept nor example for it in the Scripture. Eckius in Enchirid. cap. 5. Salmeron …n 1 Tim. 2 disp. S. Peres. de Tradit. p. 3.1 Tim 2Which others not only assert, but offer to give reasons for it, for the Old Testament: Because the Fathers were not then admitted to the beatifical vision: and for the New Testament, Because the Apostles were men of such piety and humility, that they would not admit of it themselves, and therefore made no mention of it in their writings; and withall, Because in the beginning of Christianity there would have been a suspicion, that they had only changed the names of Heathen Deities, and retained the same kinds of worship. These for the new Testament we admit of, not as Rhetorical flourishes, but as plain and positive assertions which contain a great deal of truth and reason in them. So that here is a confessed silence as to this Doctrine throughout all the story of Scripture, and for three hundred years and more after Christ; and in all this time we meet with no such assertions, instances, examples, reports, and the like, which tend to establish this new Doctrine. But in stead of this, we meet with very plain assertions to the contrary, back'd with strong and invincible reasons; and herein not to insist on those places in Scripture which appropriate Invocation to God only, and that in regard of his incommunicable attributes of omnisciency, and infinite goodness and power, which are the only foundations given in Scripture for Invocation; nor to mention those places, where all tendencies to such kind of worship of any created Being, are severely checked; and wherein an Inferiour and relative worship is condemned on this account, Because all worship is due to God only; and wherein that very pretence of humility, in not coming to God, but through some Mediatour is expresly spoken against; nor to inlarge how much this Doctrine of Invocation of Saints is injurious to God, by giving that worship to creatures which belongs only to himself, and how repugnant it is to Divine wisdom, that prayers should be made to Saints for them to intercede with God, when they cannot know what those prayers are till God reveals them; nor how dishonourable it is to Christ, both in regard of his merits and intercession; nor how great a check it is to true piety to put men to pray to them, whom they can have no ground to believe do hear or regard their p. 591prayers, and in the mean time to take them off from their serious and solemn addresses to God. Not to insist, I say, on these things, because I design no set discourse on this subject, which hath been so amply handled by so many already; I shall only discover the sense of the Primitive Church in this particular by two things, the one of which takes in the first three Centuries, and the other extends a great deal farther: From which I doubt not, but to make it evident how farr the Invocation of Saints was from being received then. The first is, from the Answers given to the Heathens, when it was objected against the Christians that they did worship dead men and Angels. I confess, some have been so subtle as from hence to inferr that they did it; or else, say they, the Heathens would never have charg'd them with it.Bellarm. de Sanctor. Beatit. l. 1. c. 13. But they who read the Christians Apologies will find farr more unreasonable things than this laid to their charge, and I hope they will not say, there must be an equal ground for all the other imputations also. But it seems they more believe the Heathens Objections then the Christians Answers, who utterly disavow any such thing. The first mention we find of any such imputation, is in that excellent Epistle of the Church of Smyrna to the Church of Philomylium concerning the Martyrdome of Polycarpe, wherein they tell us; how some suggested to Nicetas, that he should desire the Proconsul that Polycarp's body might not be granted to the Christians; Lest, say they, they should leave to worship Him that was Crucified, and worship him; to which they return this excellent Answer. They are ignorant that we can never be induced to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of all who shall be saved of the whole world, foreign. Apud Euseb. hist. Eccles. l. 4. c. 15. ed. Vales.Sir 50:4or to worship any other for him being the Son of God we adore. But the Martyrs as the Disciples and followers of the Lord, we love worthily for their exceeding great affection toward their own King and Master, of whom we wish that we may be partners and disciples. Can any thing be more express then this is, to shew what difference they put between Christ and the Martyrs? Not that they worshipped one as God with an absolute direct worship, and the other as subordinate intercessours, with a relative and indirect worship, as you would have told them; but they worship'd Christ and none but him, because he was the Son of God; but for the Martyrs they loved them indeed, but they worship'd them not at all, for so much is implyed in the Antithesis between that and their worship of Christ. So that these words are exclusive of any kind of worship which they gave to the Martyrs; for they were so far from giving them that worship which belonged to the Son of God, that they only expressed their love to them, without giving them any worship. And in the old Latin translation of this Epistle, of which there are two MSS. extant in England; when they say, They can worship none else but Christ, it is there rendred, Neque alteri cuiquam precem orationis impendere, Nor impart the supplication of prayer to any other. As the late learned Lord Primat Vsher hath observed;Answer to the Jesuits Chall. p; 426. which utterly destroyes the Doctrine of Invocation.