remembrance of the Lords Passion Theoph. These are pitiful shifts the words rather imply Christians should often drink of the Cup in remembrance of their Savior And the very next Verse confutes this conceit of Bellarmin wherein Paul puts the condition as often both to eating and drinking ver 26. For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come And withal while you triumph in S t Lukes relation where the command of Do this is expres'd only when our Savior gave the Bread you do not consider that S t Matthew relates our Saviors charge when he gave the Cup Matth. 26 27. Drink ye all of this And S t Mark records Mark 14. 23. He gave the Cup to them and they all drank of it Phil. To whom did Christ give this command Drink ye all of this Theoph. To the Disciples who did eat the Passover with him and sup'd with him and after Supper he Instituted the Holy Sacrament and gave the command to observe it Phil. But these Disciples were the twelve Apostles as is manifest from S t. Lukes relation Luke 21. 14. When the hour was come to keep the Passover he sat down and the twelve Apostles with him Now we grant that the Apostles and the Bishops and Priests their Successors must receive in both kinds but not the People Bellarmin reasons thus a Ibid. Dedit selis Apostolis eo dixit s 〈…〉 Apostolis bibite ex hoc omnes He gave the Cup only to the Apostles and therefore only to them he said Drink ye all of this Theoph. By this subtilty you altogether exclude the People from being concern'd at all in Christs command to receive the Sacrament for to whom he said Take eat this is my Body to them he said Drink ye all of this 〈◊〉 that is as you say only to the Apostles Upon what account therefore do ye administer the Lords Body unto the People Phil. To this you have b Ibid. Etsi non dedit non prohibuit Bellarmins Answer Although he did not give the Sacrament unto the People he did not for bid it should be given to them Theoph. So neither hath he forbidden the Cup should be given to them But I pray hear what one of your own Benedictine Abbots Pâ—sâ—hafius in his Book De corpore Christi c. 15. as Bellarmin quotes him saith as a Comment upon those Words c 〈◊〉 ex hoc omnes tam ministri quam reliqui credentes Drink ye all of this All as well Ministers as other Believers Hear what another of your own side saith upon the Text and Bellarmins Comment d Gerardus Loriâ—hius de Missa publica proroganda There be some false Catholics that fear not to stop the Reformation of the Church what they can These spare no Blast he mies least that other part of the Sacrament should be restor'd to the lay People for say they Christ spake Drink ye all of this only to the Apostles but the words of the Mass be these Take and eat you all of this Here I would know of them whether this was spoken only to the Apostles then must Lay-men abstain likewise from the element of Bread which to say is an Heresie yea a pestilent detestable Blast hemy It is therefore consequent saith he that both these words Eat ye Drink ye were spoken to the whole Church Phil. It seems the Doctors vary in their Opinions But the Truths of God and the Canons of the Church depend not upon the humors of Men and private Interpretation Theoph. You seem all along to take Bellarmin's Words for Truth his Answers for Oracles And do you now except against private Interpretation But what say you to that Argument wherein e Ibid. De hoc argumento Lutherus triumphaâ— Bellarmin observes Luther so much to triumph The Blood of the New Testament was shed for the People as well as for the Apostles and our Savior gives the Cup unto all for whom he shed his Blood nay and for that very cause bids them drink all of it Matth. 26. 27 28 For this is my Blood of the New Testament which is sâ—ed for many for remission of sins If Christs Blood was shed not only for the Apostles but for many for remission of sins the Cup ought to be given not only to them but to many others Who dares say saith Luther that Christs Blood was not shed for Laiks and therefore who should dare to with-hold the Blood of the New Testament from them Phil. As you have taken the Objection out of Bellarmin so you may his Answer a Ib. Si sanguis Domini dandus esset omnibus pro quibus susus esi dandus esset Turcis Judaeis Ethnicis c. That if the Blood of Christ must be given in the Sacrament to all those for whom it was shed then it must be given to all men Turks and Jews and Ethnics For his Blood was shed for all men as he proves from the Text 1 John 2. 2. And he is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world Theoph. This is a Cavil The Sacraments are the Seals of the Church und appertain only to Church-Members and when Turks and Jews and Pagans shall be converted and receiv'd into the Church of Christ they shall partake of her Tresures I am amazed to see your Learned Champion make such irrational Replies but his baffled Cause will afford no better Phil. Do not conclude him foil'd before you have tried his strength Theoph. It is my design thro-out to examine his Objections and Answers and I have hitherto found them so inconsiderable that I am almost confident for the future Phil. Keep your confidence to your self and produce your Reasons Theoph. I have one Argument more to urge for the Communion to be receiv'd by all in both kinds from our Saviors words John 6. 53. Verily verily I say unto you except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood ye have no life in you This Text the Bohemians most insisted upon in the Council of Basil when their Delegates there desired the Cup might be allow'd them And Aeneas Sylvius b Hist. Bohem. cap. 35. Literarum doctrinâ morum praestantiâ juxta clarus relates how Petrus Dresensis a School-master in Prague repaired to the Preacher of S t Michaels Church by name Jacoballus eminent for his Learning and Conversation asking him How interpreting the Holy Scripture to the People he had not so long taken notice of a grand Error which would ruine the Church in giving the Sacrament only in one kind whereas our Savior in S t John hath said expresly Vnless ye eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood c. Hereupon this Learned Preacher search'd the Fathers and finding the giving of the Cup unto the People approv'd especially by Dionysius and Cyprian he earnestly exhorted the People
existit sub specie panis sang sub specie vini vi verborum a 〈…〉 vi naturalis connexionis concomitantiae c. By the words of Consecration the Bread is chang'd only into the Body of Christ and so the Wine into his Blood but then by a natural connexion and concomitancy each kind includes the other The Body and Blood and Soul and God head of Christ are inseparable Theoph. But why did Christ Institute the Sacrament in both kinde if to receive in one kind be as beneficial to the Soul Phil. The Essence of the Sacrament b Lib. 4. de Euchar. c. 22. Species panis vini nâ—n tam essentiales quam integrales partes sunt as Bellarmin shews is communicated in one kind to wit the Body and Blood of Christ but as to the integrity both are necessary Theoph. You shall never find a School-man without a nice Distinction to salve the matter However hereby you acknowledg the Sacrament in one kind to be maim'd and imperfect wanting one of the integral parts But I will not intangle the Discourse with such Niceties You know our Blessed Savior expresseth one end of the Sacrament That in remembrance of him it should be given and received And Paul shews in what regard chiefly Christ is commemorated in the Sacrament as he was Crucified For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye shew the Lords death till he come 1 Cor. 11. 26. Now you all grant that the representation of Christs death is made by both kinds in the Sacrament The Bread and Wine apart represents Christ Blood separated from his Body Breaking of Bread signifies how Christs Body was wounded and bruis'd and broken So Paul renders the words of Christs Institution 1 Cor. 11. 24. This is my Body which is broken for you and therefore the Sacrament should be given in both kinds for a sensible representation of Christs death Phil. The Church holds the commemoration of Christs death exactly in the Sacrifice of the Mass and this belongs only to the Priest who of necessity must consecrate Bread and Wine and receive both for this very reason That he may so represent Christs death and offer up his Body and Blood in Sacrifice his Body as crucified and his Blood shed So a great Doctor of our Church c Lib. 6. Advers haereses Mem. Dominicae mortis agit Sacerdes in altari non pop quaprop Sacerd. quoties celebrat non consecrat unam si eciem sine alterâ c. Alphonsus de Casiro The Priest commemorates Christ death upon the Altar and not the People receiving the Sacrament And therefore saith he the Priest of necessity must consecrate both kinds and receive them because altho Christ is wholy contain'd in one kind yet by one he is not signified and represented for the Species of Bread only signifies and represents his Body and that of Wine his Blood c. Theoph. We will not examine this new Doctrine of Alphonsus and the Schools touching whole Christ in each Species c. but we will take his Concession That one kind doth not signifie or represent whole Christ and his Death and Passion and therefore such as are bound to remember and shew the death of Christ his Sacrifice upon the Cross and the Work of our Redemtion by his Blood shedding they must of necessity receive the Sacrament in both kinds apart Phil. What will you conclude thence seeing he hath told you that the Priest is concern'd and not the People to hold the remembrance of Christs death in the Sacrament which he daily performs in the Office of the Mass Theoph. But what care we what Alphonsus hath told us or any of your New Doctors seeing S t Paul affirms the contrary For writing to all the Saints of the Church of Corinth he expresly tells them As oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye shew the Lords death till he come And doubtless as all Christians are concern'd to keep a thankful remembrance of Christ and of his Passion so we must do it as he hath appointed by receiving the Sacrament in both kinds for only so as you have heard his Death and Blood-shedding is represented to the Life The Elements apart shewing how his Blood was separated from his Body breaking of Bread shewing how his Body was bruis'd and broken In this respect we may believe S t Paul said to the Galathians That even before their eyes Jesus Christ had been evidently set forth crucified among them Gal. 3. 1. Phil. This suits Bellarmines Observation well that the People may see Christs Death represented in both kinds upon the Altar and one separate from the other and so hold the commemoration of his Passion altho they do not communicate in both kinds and he observes the Eye is the quicker sense to affect and raise our Meditation rather then the Touch or Tast Theoph. Notwithstanding the subtle Observation of your Doctors you shall give us leave to follow Christs direction to receive the Sacraments in both kinds in remembrance of him and we will believe the Apostle That by eating this Bread and drinking this Cup we shew the Lords death and not by seeing the Wafers and the Cup upon the Altar And withal the Sacrament is call'd the Lords Supper wherein he Feasts our Souls with his Flesh that is Meat indeed and with his Blood which is Drink indeed Now to complete a Feast there must be Meat and Drink Esculenta Poculenta And one of your Doctors saith a Franciscus à Victoria de Euch. qu 87. Non est perfecta refectio sub unica specie Vnder one kind of the Sacrament is no perfect refection Phil. These things hold in Natural Food and Refections but not in Spiritual Hunger and thirst in Grace are not distinct Appetites but have the same Objects as Blessed are they which do bunger and thrist after righteousness Matth. 5. 6. And we read how our Blessed Savior entertain'd the multitudes in the Wilderness with the Loaves without Wine or Water Theoph. Those are pretty subtleties for Jesuits but our Blessed Savior Instituting his Sacraments for all Believers as well Idiots as Learned design'd to confirm their Faith in Spiritual Truths by sensible Signs and therefore chose those two Elements of Bread and Wine to represent unto us that as these naturally nurish the Body so should his Body and Blood exhibited in the Sacrament in a Spiritual manner nurish the Soul And therefore you would do well to leave the Signs and the Sacrament complete and not deprive your ignorant People of such Helps Representations Your own School-men acknowledg the Sacrament to be maim'd and imperfect as to the Sacramental part and the signification without both kinds a Part. 3. qu. 80. Art 12. Exparte Sacramenti convenit quod utrum que sumi 〈…〉 in utroque perfectio c. Nullo modo debet corpus sumi sine sane Tho. Aquinus determines That in regard to
receive them Phil. A negative Argument out of Scripture holds not good because it is not express'd in the Relation that our Savior said This is my Body and that our Savior did consecrate the Cup as well as bless the Bread Because these things are not express'd you cannot therefore conclude they were not don Theoph. Now I have brought you where I desired you say a negative Argument out of Scripture is not of force If I should grant it was the Sacrament which our Savior gave to the Disciples at Emaus How would you prove they receiv'd it only in one kind the Bread which he gave them How will you prove he did not bless and give the Cup to them Only by your negative Argument because the Holy Scriptures speak nothing of it which way soever you turn the wind this Knot will hold you fast By this way which you have first shew'd we answer several Arguments of your Doctors out of Scripture and in many places of Scripture say they the Sacrament is describ'd by this character of breaking Bread as in this passage of S t Luke and some others in the Acts of the Apostles Now from this denomination they would infer that they receiv'd the Sacrament in one kind We say no but that one part is put for the whole by the Figure Synecdoche breaking of Bread is express'd and drinking of the Cup is implied and understood Phil. By such Figures when it shall serve your turn you may make a strange supplement to the Holy Scriptures if they do not express what you would have them it shall be understood however Theoph. You shew'd the way Neither had I enter'd upon this digression but that you excepted against a negative Argument out of Scripture when I did prove that Christ gave not the Sacrament unto the two Disciples because he did not say This is my Body and did not bless the Cup both which your Doctors account necessary to the Sacrament Your answer was That we must not conclude these things were omitted by our Savior altho they are not recorded by the Evangelist but whatever you think of it we are sure many of your own Doctors are of our Opinion That breaking of Bread c. at Emaus was no Sacramental action but blessing and giving common Bread at that Meat to the Disciples So Lyra upon the place a Sicut consueverat ante passionem He bless'd the Meat before they eat as be usually did before he suffered Dionysius Carthusianus b Accepit panem benedixit nan autem in corpus conv sicut in coenâ c. He toâ—k Bread and blessed it and gave to them but he did not change it into his Body as in the Lords Supper but after the custom of blessing the Meat instructing us before Meals to say Grace So c Pro more sibi familiari c. Jansenius Concord c. 146. He blessed the Bread after his usual manner And afterwards he tells us That some were of the opinion that our Savior under the Species of Bread did give unto them his Body d Ea sent non est certa nec multum verisimilis but that Opinion is not certain nor very probable Phil. We are not concern'd in the Opinion of some Doctors S t Augustin's Testimony will out-weigh them all Theoph. You have heard That S t Augustin came not home to your purpose he speaks mystically and by his side you would walk in a mist But I proceed to shew the practice of the Church in the Apostles time It is manifest That the Saints at Corinth received in both kinds according to S t Pauls direction 1 Cor. 11. 23. He first declares Christs Institution of the Sacrament in both kinds and adds his command even for the Cup which you observ'd was not in S t Lukes relation Do this as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me S t Paul after gives a general Rule for all Christians Let a Man examine himself and so let him eat of the Bread and drink of the Cup ver 28. And afterwards declares the danger of unworthy receiving But he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself ver 29. You see there is no evasion he speaks to all the Saints and enjoins eating and drinking together And who are you that you should separate them Phil. d Lib. 4. de Eucha c. 25. Fcclesia Cor. utobatur utrâque speie Bellarmin doth acknowledg that the Church of Corinth did receive the Sacrament in both kinds because Paul either from Christs Example or for some other Reasons had declared it lawful for them so to do but he never taught them it was necessary Neither did he urge the Precept of Christ which you so much insist upon Drink you all of this Theoph. But he added another Precept to the Cup which S t Luke omitted This do as often as ye shall drink it in remembrance of me But you are put to this pitiful shift when we prove the practice of the Apostles and of the primitive Times to give the Cup in the Sacrament to the People to answer That it is lawful and may be allowed but it is not necessary to give the Cup whereas our Lord Christ his Example in the first Institution of the Sacrament delivering it in both kinds his command Drink ye all of this S t Pauls relation of another Precept This do as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me And the signification of Christs death in the Sacrament whereunto you confess both kinds are necessary to be receiv'd asunder all these do imply a necessity and command in the judgment of all who are not blinded with prejudice and interest However my business at present is to shew the practice of the Church in the Apostles time to receive the Sacrament in both kinds and Bellarmin acknowledgeth it so in the Church of Corinth and a Annotatione 27. in 6. Johannis Antiqua consuetudo tempore Apostolorum sub utraque spei c. in hac assertione nulla controversia Cardinal Tolet in other Churches It was the antient custom in the Apostles daies in the Church to take the Communion in both kinds And he adds in this Assertion there is no Controversie and his Proofs for it are many Phil. But Tolet's b Non minus antiqua Ecclesiae consuetudo sub unâ solâ specie modo sub una modo sub utraque second Assertion comes home to our purpose It was no less antient custom of the Church to communicate under one kind even in the Apostles time somtimes under one and somtimes under both and his proofs you will find very considerable Theoph. We value not his confident Assertion wherein he exceeds all his Fellows But what are his Proofs Phil. He shews how our Savior himself gave the Sacrament in one kind unto the two Disciples at Emaus Theoph. A baffled proof as I believe your self will acknowledg seeing many of your
commanding as Whatsoever we do either in word or deed to do all in the name of our Lord Jesus giving thanks to God and the Father by him Theodorets Comment is g Deo Patri gratiarum actionem emittite per ipsum non per Angelos Offer up to God your sacrifice of praise by Him not by the Angels Again we find not one syllable either in Theodoret or the Council of Laodicea concerning Simon Magus or his heresie but only those Christians which did worship and pray to Angels To conclude this Answer It is the miserable device of the Schools to shift off evident unanswerable arguments with obscure and srivolous distinctions giving no reall satisfaction either to them selves or others So in the point of Image worship They did not give to them the worship of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which apparteins only to God but an inferior worship call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or if any were so bold to maintaine That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is due to the Cross or the Image of Christ yet it is in a relative and inferior manner So here the Council condemns not all Veneration of Angels but only such as is due to God Whereas the circumstances you have heard prove the contrary The Councel forbids Invocation of Angels as Intercessors for us to the supreme Deity Phil. You will never I see receive any satisfaction from us I proceed unto the two Eminent Fathers of the Latin Church Bellarmin urgeth That prayer of S. Jerom in the end of his Epitaph or Panegyrick upon Paula a Vale ô Paula Cultoris tui ultimam senectutem orationibus juva Farewell ô Paula and assist with thy praiers the extream old age of thy worshipper Theoph. From other evident passages of that Father we conclude This to be a Rhetorical Apostrophe and not the judgment practise of S. Jerom to pray unto the Saints departed For in his book against Vigilantius he first asserts That Martyrs are not to be worshipt b Quis aliquando Martyres adoravit Whoever worshipt them Phil. Althou they are not worshipt as God yet we may pray unto them Theoph. Praier is a part of religious worship due to God if you mean only civil requests such as one Christian makes to another to remember him in his praiers we would not deny it to the Saints in Heaven could we be assur'd that they do hear us But to proceed Jerom doth not bring one syllable to assert the Invocation of Saints altho if his jugdment had inclin'd the ballance that way he had occasion given by Vigilantius whose Assertion was That while we live we may pray one for another c Post mortem nullus audet pro aliis deprecari but none praies for other after death Against this Jerom riseth with great indignatien If the blessed Apostles and Martyrs while in the flesh could pray for others how much more after they are crown'd d Postquam cum Christo esse cepermt minus valebunt shall they prevail less with Christ now they are with him This is somewhat for their Intercession but not for their Invocation Nay in his funeral Oration upon Nepotian dedicated to Heliodorus Jerom saith expresly e Quicquid dixero quia ille non audit mutum videtur Whatsoever I say of him t is but silence seeing he heareth not And in the close of the Oration he saith f Cum quo loqui non possumus de eo loqui nunquam desinamus Seeing we cannot speak to him or with him let us never cease to speak of him now making praiers to the deceased is speaking to them and not of them Phil. If I should multiply Replies to your answers we should never conclude I hast unto the testimony of S. Augustin Bellarmin quotes 3 places out of this Holy Father to prove the Invocation of Saints a Tract 84. in Joannem Non sic Mart. ad Mensam commemoramus c. We do not so commemorate Martyrs at the Holy Table as we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them but rather that they may pray for us .. And the second place is like unto it De verbis Apostolorum Serm. 17. b Injuria est pro Mart. orare cujus nos debemus Orat. commendari It is an injury to pray for a Martyr unto whose Praiers we should be commended Theoph. In these two parallel passages S t Augustin shews That the Commemoration of the Martyrs at the Altar in the time of Divine Service must not be construed a Praier for them for that would be an injury to them but rather a tacite recommendation of the Congregation unto their Praiers and Intercession Here is no Invocation exprest but only a recommendation implied and so they are dubious and imperfect proofs and in the first he speaks only comparatively That Martyrs should rather pray for us then we for them And yet withal I must acquaint you That Epiphanius a Primitive Bishop who did much oppose the growing Superstition of Worshipping Saints and Images both by his Writings and Actions c Heresi 75. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. be expresly tells us We pray for Martyrs and for the whole Order of Blessed Saints c. That so we may distinguish the Lord Christ from all generations of Men. Phil. Make what use of your Observations you please I pass to the third Testimony which Bellarmin brings from S t d Lib. de cura pro Mortuis c. 4. Nisi ad hoc ut dum recolunt ubi sunt c. Augustin I do not see what advantage to the dead is the care of their Friends to bury them near the Tomb of some Martyr unless herein That whilst they remember where the Bodies of their Friends do lie they may commend them unto those Saints as Patrons to be assisted by their Praiers Theoph. Notwithstanding this Testimony we shall willingly be tried by this Book concerning S t Augustins Judgment in the point of Praying to the Saints And I will therefore give you a short account of the whole Book In the beginning S t Augustin shews how he was consulted by Paulinus a Bishop whether it was any advantage to the Dead to be buried in the Temple or near the Monument of a Saint or Martyr The occasion was given by a Pious Matron Flora who was very importunate to have her Son Cynegius buried in the Temple of S t. Felix Hereunto S t Augustin answers That it is no part of our Misery if our Bodies should not be Interr'd but expos'd by the Tyranny of Persecutors unto the Fouls of the Air or to the Beasts of the Field For saith he our Blessed Savior saith expresly That after Man hath kill'd the Body he can do no more not hurt the person after death And when the Bodies of Martyrs were not permitted Burial it was no part of their Infelicity but only shew'd the cruelty of Tyrants That so Christians who
contemn'd death might learn much more to contemn their Burial He shews That Funeral Solemnities are a Magis sunt vivorum solatiaquam subsidia Mortuorum rather comforts to the living then assistances to the dead And then coming near unto the Question touching the advantage of being buried in a Martyrs Temple He answers in those words which Bellarmin cites I see not how such a provision can benefit the Person deceas'd unless herein That whil'st his Friends remember where his Body lies Interr'd they may be apt to commend him to the Patronage of that Saint for assistance with God Phil. This plainly proves the particular Invocation of Saints departed Theoph. Have patience and S t Augustin in the next Chapter will shew what he meant by this recommendation The pious Mother saith he did desire her Son should be buried in the Martyrs Temple believing that so his Soul should reap some benefit from the Martyrs merits And then he immediatly adds b Hoc quod ita credidit suppli catio c. This belief of hens was a kind of Praier and if any thing did profit her Son This was it You plainly see how doubtfully the good Father speaks concerning the benefit of burial near a Martyr and how he expresly interprets praying to the Saint to be our believing that by his Merits we shall reap some advantage to our Souls He proceeds in that Book to shew That altho there have bin appearances of Ghosts complaining That their Bodies did lie unburied yet these things may come to pass by Divine permission thro the Ministry of good or evil Angels the Spirit departed knowing nothing of the Apparition He gives an Instance of an Executor who after his Fathers decease was much distressed with the demand of a great Debt which was supposd to have bin paid but having no Discharge to shew it was like to lie upon him Mean-while his Father appears to him and directs him to the place where he should find the Acquittance and a full discharge of the Debt Now by this Apparition Men may be apt to conclude That the deceas'd Father understood and compassionated his Sons condition and came to his relief and yet saith S t Augustin All this might come to pass by Divine Providence without his deceased Fathers knowledge And gives an Instance of himself appearing to a Friend of his in his Dream whilist himself knew nothing of it Eulogius was to read a solemn Lecture before a great Auditory in Carthage upon Tullies Rhetoric and one obscure passage there was which he did not well understand and was very solicitous how to interpret it And lo the night before saith S t Augustine as Eulogius declares I appeared to him in his Dream and shew'd him an apposite sense of the Words This is in the 11 th Chapter of the Book In the 13 th Chap. he concludes That of such Apparitions whether of Persons living or defunct are made to others themselves being altogether ignorant thereof And he concludes farther That there is no commerce between the living and the dead for otherwise saith he my most deer Mother would have often appear'd to me and manifested her care and love for God forbid That I should think she is become cruel by her state of Happiness And if our Parents and nearest Friends have no communion with us after death How should others thay are Strangers S t Augustin goes on to tell us That the Children of Abraham expresly say to God Isaiah 63. 16. Surely thou art our Father altho Abraham be ignorant of us and Israel acknowledge us not That Josiah was gathered to his Fathers that his eyes might not see the evil which should be brought upon Jerusalem 2 Kings 22. 20. implying That after death he should not know it Therefore saith he b Ibi sunt spiritus defuncti ubi non vident quae hic aguntur c. The Souls of dead Men are where they do not see what things are done here below And how then can they see their own Tombs And whereas Abraham did know Moses and the Prophets and their Writings when he directed Dives his Brethren unto them He might know them saith he by their own Relation after their decease In the 15 th Chapter he concludes fully c Fatendum est Nescire Mortuos quid hic agatur We must confess that the dead do not know what is here done unless somthing may be made known to them by the relation of Angels or persons lately deceas'd And whereas saith he at the Shrines and Monuments of Martyrs Miracles have bin wrought and Martyrs themselves have appear'd to the living yet they might not themselves know that they did appear as we read That Ananias appear'd to Saul in Damascus himself knowing not of it until the Lord acquainted him therewith The Lord said unto Ananias Acts 9. 11 12. Arise and go into the street which is called Strait and enquire in the House of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus for behold he Praieth and hath seen in a Vision a Man named Anaâ—ias coming in and putting his hand on him that he might receive his sight At length he concludes d An ista fiant Dei nutu per Angelicas potestates in honorem c. Such Miracles at the Shrines of Martyrs may be done by Gods permission thro the Ministry of Angels and Holy Powers in honor of the Saints and for the benefit of Men the Saints themselves being enter'd into the highest rest and attending unto more excellent things being sequestred from us and praying for us Phil. S t Augustin acknowledgeth you see that the Saints and Martyrs do pray for us Theoph. Yes in general as he expresseth it in the 16 th Chap. e Ipsis in loco suis meritis congruo ab omni mortalium conversatiens remotis c. They being remov'd from the society of Mortals in a place suitable to their merits and yet in general praying for the indigency of poor Supplicants As we pray for the dead with whom we are not present neither know we where they are or what they do Thus have I given an account of S t Augustins Judgment out of this Book to shew That he did not believe the Saints departed knew our conditions or that Praiers were to be made to them That which he mentions concerning the Praiers of the living for the dead that will fall into consideration hereafter Now as this excellent Father is voluminous so are there scattered in his Works many other Passages to take us off from the Invocation of Saints That even at their Shrines we ought not to pray to them but to God a Lib. 8. De civit Dei cap. ult He tells us That whatsoever Religious Obsequies are used in the Temples and Places of the Martyrs they are Ornaments of their Memory That we may give thanks to God for their Triumph and may encourage others to their Imitation from the renewing of their Memories