that Liberius subscrib'd not to the ArriaÌ„ Confession which St. Hierome * in Catalogo saith he did compelled indeed by Fortunatianus but yet he did it Fortunatianus in hoc habetur detestabilis quod Liberium Romanae urbis Episcopum profide ad exilium pergentemprinius sollicitavit ac fregit ad subscriptionem haeresios compuin Let her vindicate also Anastatius secundus from Nestorianisme which is charged upon him by * apud Chamier lib 3. de Canone cap. 10. Luitprandus Tieinensis Platina who saith upon the credit of common fame that he dyed a strange death either as Arrius or by a suddain stroak from the Divine hand Albo floriacensis Anastasins Bibliot hecarius Let her make an Apology for * condemnatus in sexta Synodo Honorius who was condemned by a Councell a better Apology it should be then that of Saunders who though Honorâ—us taught heresie yet denies the Roman Church to have erred with him and adds that though he might confirme heresie as a man yet he did it not as a Pope 3. The Church of Rome is guilty of Schisme in that she doth not only depart from the communion of such Churches as were Orthodox in the judgement of prime and pure Antiquity but hath forced a departure of all the reformed Churches from her except they would communicate with her in her abominations Schisme is theirs who cause it when the Orthodox departed from the Arrians the Hereticks caused the Schisme a forced separation maketh not them that in such a case seperate themselves guilty of schisme such rather as teach doctrines to the Catholique faith repugnant are Schismaticks and this imputation lyeth strong upon the Church of Rome in forcing the Canons of the Trent-Councell if then it be demanded for the conviction of the Roman-church to be Schismaticall first Whose company did she leave secondly From what Body did she go forth thirdly Where was the true Church which she forsook 1. To the first question we reply that she left the company of the Orthodox when she obstinately pernsted in her false doctrines 2. She departed from their Body not by locall separation but by refusing to communicate with them that reformed themselves which particular Churches are bound to do when they cannot do it which were the best course by a generall Councell This advice God himselfe giveth unto Judah by the Prophet Hosea though the tenne Tribes should continue obstinate Though thou Israell play the Harlot Hosea 4.15 yet let not Judoh offend though there were but two Tribes in the one Kingdome and tenne in the other yet notwithstanding the paucity of the one Church and the multitude of the other comparatively they were to reforme themselves that were fewer in case the other should remain in their Idolatry 3. And if it be thirdly demanded Where was the true Church which the Roman-church forsock we reply first what we said before that the guilt of schisme may be incurred by forcing others except they will defile themselves by joyning with those that have espoused dangerous errors in their superstition and Idolatry to depart from us and then secondly it 's conspicuous enough that she left her selfe as one may say I mean that the Lattine-Church obstinate and peramtory in the perilous opinions of some of her own communion when she publikely owned those doctrines and would no longer endure them that would not comply with her therein forsook the rest of her Communion who misliked and detested the said errors in heart before they had by the concurrent assistance of Princes and Prelates opportunity to shake off the Tyrany of the Bishop of Rome whose ancient priviledge and Primacy of order were that the only quarrell we would not deny and when the good Providence of God gave a fair opportunity they openly rejected what with grief of heart they groaned under and tolerated before As for that enquiry 1. By what generall Councell 〈…〉 Fathers 3. By what other Authority hath the Church of Rome been condemned written against or reproved We answer that the present opinions and practice of the Church of Rome are dondemn'd by Generall Councells the Usurpation of unlimited Power challenged by the Pope is censured by the sixth Canon of the famous Councell of Nice which giveth like Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch within their respective limits and bounds as the Bishop of Rome did exercise within his Precincts the worshipping of Images censured about twenty years before the Councell of Nice by the 36 Canon of the Councell of Elâ—beris Placuit picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere c. 'T is resolved that Pictures should not be in the Church lest that which is adored be painted on walls and whatsoever may be pleaded by the authority of the second Councell of Nice in the defence of Images yet it 's evident that the Canons thereof were not universally received because as soon as the newes of the Acts thereof came to the ears of the Fathers assembled by Charles the great two years afterward at Frankford they were rejected and refuted by those three hundred Bishops there convened If it should be demanded where is the Councell that hath condemned Rome since the seperation of the Protestants it is easy to reply that the obstinacy of the Pope and his Adhaerents obstruct the application of so good a Plaister to the wounds and breakings of the Church what fruit is like to come upon such a Convention as the Pope would agree to may appear by the transactions of the Trent-Assembly but the want of the sentence of a Generall Councell condemning the Church of Rome is no security to the Romanists that their Church is a safe Communion to those that are in it for dangerous errors and heresies arose in the Church before Constantine's time and such as were destructive to them that held them and yet they were not condemned by Generall Councells there having been no convenience for their meeting untill the Empire came into the Church 2. For the Fathers of the first five hundred years it is evident enough that they are against the present Church of Rome in all the Controversies disputed between the Romanists and the Protestants as might be quickly shown out of their writings were it seasonable to take the pains and then moreover to give an accompt to the third Enquiry where it is demanded By what other authority hath she been reproved We desire no more ample Authority than the Scriptures interpreted by the wisdome and constant consent of the Catholique Church The Romanists Reply to the Protestants Answer Sir YOu sent me some Catholique Quaeries with as you say Doctor Samwais's Answer to which take this brief Reply The Paper which you sent takes it for granted and the Dr. denies it not that the Church of Rome was once a most pure Church and proves her continuance thus This Church could not cease to be such but she must fall either by
that their Church is ae sure communion to those that are in it for dangerous errors and heresies arose in the Church before Constantine's time such as were destructive to those that held them and yet they were not condemned by Generall Councells there having been â—o convenience for their meeting untill the Empire came into the Church Reply We grant that the Church both can and has condemned arising heresies before there was any conveniency for a generall Councell for the Church either diffusedly or representatively that is either as she is disperst throughout the world and out of councell or as assembled in a generall Councell hath power to coÌ„demn arising heresies and her condemnation of them either way is security enough to her adherents I grant likewise that the want of the sentence of a generall Councell to condemn us were no security to us in case you could shew us otherwise condemned by the Catholique-church dispersed throughout the world but since you can neither do the one nor the other the Church of Rome and her adherents that have both for them are secure enough and you who have both against you are most insecure and I say further that seeing it hath been the custome of the Catholique-church to condemn arising heresies by general Councells ever since she hath had the conveniency of having them it is certain that the Quaerie by what generall Councell was she ever condemned is rationally put and you being not able to produce one leave it unsatisfied As to the Quaerie Which of the Fathers ever writ against her the Dr. answers that it is evident enough that the Fathers of the first five hundred years are against the present Church in all controversies disputed between the Romanists and Protestants Reply Sir We expect to see your evidence but never hope to see it produc'd As to the third By what Authority was she otherwise reprov'd the Dr. answers We desire no more ample Authority than the Scriptures interpreted by the wisdome and constant consent of the Catholique Church Reply Shew that the Scriptures thus interpreted do reprove the Church of Rome for till you do so I must needs averre that the Ouaerie is unsatisfied Now let us see how the Paper sent to Dr. Samwaies proves the church of Rome not to have fallen at any time into Schisme and to do this it puts the desinition of Schisme which see in the Paper then it proceeds If ever the church of Rome c. read what is said till you come to the Quaeries and afterwards the Quaeries This done let us see how on the contrary the Dr. hath prov'd the church of Rome guilty of schisme The Church of Rome saith he c. hath departed from the communion of the Orthodox Churches Reply Assigne them good Dr. otherwise you only give us words He goes on And hath forc'd a departure c. No good Doctor you voluntarily left her communion and so made your selves Schismaticks He proceeds The schisme is theirs who cause it Let that passe He holds on When the Orthodox departed from the Arrians c. Reply Strange the Orthodox departed from the Arrians this is quite contrary to St. John 1 Jo 2.19 who speaking of certain heretiques sayes Exierunt ex nobis they went out of us or departed from us which if true and certainly what St. John saith is true and withall that the Orthodox departed from the Arrians as the Dr. sayes then it evidently followes that the Orthodox were Arrians that is heretiques and the Arrians that is heretiques Orthodox for according to St. Iohn they are heretiques that depart but according to Dr. Samwaies the Orthodox departed from the Arrians therefore the Orthodox were heretiques and if so then the Dr. at unawares hath made himselfe an Arrian for I suppose he will say he is one of the Orthodox I wonder again the Dr. did not see the manifest contradiction he run into when he said the Orthodox departed for the Orthodox are they that do not depart from the Doctrine anciently received so that to say that the Orthodox departed is to say those that did not depart did depart which is plain contradiction in terminis Now he begins to answer the Quaeries If then saith he it be demanded 1. Whose company did she leave 2. FroÌ„ what body did she go forth 3. Where was the true Church which she forsook To the first he saith we reply that she left the company of the Orthodox when she persisted in her false Doctrines Reply He does not satisfie the Quaerie at all for he tells us not what Orthodox company she left he only sayes she left the company of the Orthodox because she persisted in her false doctrines but this is still to leave the Quaerie unsatisfied and according to his accustomed manner to assert things without proof I confesse if we would grant what he saith without proof he would need no more and might lawfully proclaim his victory To the second he replies That she departed from their body that is from the body of the Orthodox not by locall separation but by refusing to communicate with them that reformed themselves Reply You are still like your selfe that is constant in affirming without proof as for what you say of locall separation 't is frivolous to mention it since none was urged in the paper and as for the reformation we call it deformation till you evidence the contrary The text brought out of the Prophet Hosea is impertinent and so deserves no reply and as impertinent is the text which at the beginning of his answer he brings out of the Prophet Isaiah concerning the Church of Jerusalem which only proves that there were many in her who were fallen into sin but what is this to the church of Romes falling into heresie for it is one thing to fall into sin another to fall into heresie and we deny not but many of the church of Rome fall into sin That instance likewise of the church of Corinth is to as little purpose objected against us for it only proves that some not all did erre concerning the resurrection He may if he please but it is to as little purpose argue thus Other particular Churches as the Eastern have fallen into heresie therefore the Church of Rome at least may fall therefore for ought we know hath fallen I deny the consequence for it was only said to St. Peter and his Successors and the Church of which they were to be Pastours Thou art Peter or as the Syriack hath it Thou art a Rock and upon this rock will I build my Church and the gatos of hell shall not prevail against it To the third Which was the true Church which she forsook he sayes We reply what we said before that the guilt of schisme may be incur'd by forcing others Reply This is no answer for you do not tell us what true church she forsook and whereas you mention again her forcing you I reply as before that you
Sonns of the Church of England shall fail to attain that Constantly frame their lives according to her sound and Orthodox doctrine and that is no lesse than the certain salvation of your soul I rest Sir Your most humble servant P. Samwaies ERRATA Read c. but insert what is thus marked In the Epist amused page 3. line 6. in p. 10. l. 5. from ibid. l. 25. obstinate p. 16. l. 24. Latin p. 17. l. 8. condemned p. 18. l. 5. unlimited p. 23. l. 21. of Rome p. 29. l. 10. Reply p. 37. l. 7. debeitam in marg p. 38. spec alia ibid. recesse p. 41. l. 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. l. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. reasoning p. 42. l. 9. Bishops p. 45. l. 12. the ib. l. 20. Antecessores iÌ„ mar p. 48. Jacobasius ib. l. 16. vim in marg p. 51. diminish p. 52. l. 1. thought ib. l. 21. in marg ib. magnopere in mar p. 53. cred tum ib. Photius ib. l. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. Franofurdiensi iÌ„ m. p. 55 Hinemarus ib. l. 25. Pithaeus p. 56. habita in marg ib. dele ib. GermancruÌ„ Apostolici ibid. a p. 57. l. 20. Ex. 20.4 5. p. 58. l. 17 martyrib in marg p. 62. Quoniam in m. p. 63. Dominico ib. plebi ib. Chrysost p. 67. l. 8. Nyssen ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. quia in marg p. 76. duodececim in mar p. 78. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 79. l. 17. ancient p. 80. l. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in marg p. 83. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. sometimes p. 84. l. 26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in marg p. 87. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. any jurisdiction p. 89. lin 23. What other Errors of the Presse besides these here noted the Reader shall observe he is desired candidly to correct The Invalidity of the Church of Rome's Plea against her Apostacy Heresy Schisme as appears by a Protestants answer to certain QUAERIES c. The Romanist's Quaeries IT will not be deny'd but that the Church of Rome was once a most pure excellent flourishing and mother-Church This Church could not cease to be such but she must fall either by Apostacy Heresy or Schisme First Apostacy is not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ but the very name and title of Christianity White defence of his way P. 435. no man will say that the Church of Rome had ever such a fall or fell thus Secondly Heresy is an adhaesion to some private and singular opinion K. James in his Speech to the Par. or error in faith contrary to the generall approved Doctrine of the Church If the Church of Rome did ever adhaere to any singular or new opinion disagreeable to the common received doctrine of the Christ a world Whitaker in his Answer to Dr. Sanders 2. demon Reynolds in his 5. Con. I pray you satisfieme these particulars viz. 1. By what Generall Councell was she ever condemned 2. Which of the Fathers ever writ against her or 3. By what Authority was she otherwise reproved For it seems to me to be a thing very incongruous that so great and glorious a Church should be condemned by every one that hath a mind to condemne her Thirdly Schisme is a departure of division from the unity of the Church whereby the bond and communion helâ— with some former Church is broken and dissolved If ever the Church of Rome divided her selfe by schisme from any other Body of faithfull christians or brake communion or went forth the society of any elder Church I pray you satissie me as to these particulars 1. Whose Company did she leave 2. From what Body did she go forth 3. Where was the true Church which she forsook For it appears a little strange to me that a Church should be accounted schismaticall when there cannot be assigned any other church different from her which from age to age since Christ his time hath continued visible from whom she departed The Protestants Answer WE deny not the honour reputation and glory that was due sometime to the Roman-Church she was as other Churches in their integrity and during her continuance in that condition we deny her no title of commendation proper for her Such was the Church of Jerusalem of which notwithstaÌ„ding you may hear the Lord making this coÌ„plaint in the holy Prophet Isaiah Isa 1.21 22. How is the faithfull Citie become an harlot it was full of judgement righteousnesse lodged in it but now murtherers Thy silven is become drosse thy wine mixed with water We charge not this whole Church to have forfeited the good opinion the world had of her in any one instance of time for we believe generally of all Churches 1 Cor. 3.9 that they were God's Husbandry and God's Building as St. Paul speaks of the Corinthian-church and that salvation was to be found in them but withall we firmly believe that there were wicked factions in the Church that embraced and taught damnable errors 1 Cor. 15.12 some we know were among the Corinthians that denyed the Resurrection some among the Galatians that urged Circumcision Gal. 6.12 and if these factions had been so potent as to have excluded from their communion all that would not have approved their hereticall errors why those particular Churchs in respect of such a prevailing party might not be charg'd to have fallen by Apostacy Heresy and schisme I see no reason When therefore such opinions that were maintained before by particular men became the Sanctions and Lawes of the Roman-Church as the worshipping of Images the invocation of Saints and Angells the Doctrines of justification by workes Purgatory halfe-Communion Coâ—poâ—eall-reall presence merit of good workes c. then the Church of Rome might be said to have fallen by Apostacy heresy Schisme 1. By Apostacy from the purity of that holy Doctrine which sometimes by her Bishops and Ministers she taught for Apostacy doth not imply the renouncing of the Name and Title to Christianity only nor a departing from the whole Christian faith but a withdrawing from the sincerity and soundnesse of the profession which men have formerly made it hath a latitude in it which admits of degrees one may apostatize from a portion as well as from the whole Truth 2. By heresy also hath the Church of Rome fallen if to depart from the truth of Christian Religion in points at least grating upon the foundations if not fundamentall and to maintain them pertinaciously be heresy How far the Church of Rome is involved in the guilt of the Bishop of it concerns them especially to consider who contend that he is the Head not of that particular Church only but of the whole Catholique Church but if that Church may be said to be hereticall whose Bishop is guilty of heresy it will be hard for the Romish-Church to acquit her selfe froÌ„ this charge til she can prove
and that but of 19 Bishops Hence the Replyer conceiveth it not pertinently urged because the Quaries demand the censure of a Generall Councell I know the Cardinall doth upon this account deminish the Authority of the Fathers there asseÌ„bled but yet it plainly hence appears that restore the Canon to its genuine sence and it declares the present practice of the Roman-Church not to have been universally received nay to have receiv'd a check by Men though fewer in number then have met in following Synods yet reverenced for their antiquity being assembled 20 years before the Generall Councell at Nice and therefore to be had in estimation for their age And though Baronius in passion had accused this Councell of seeming vicinity to Novatianisme yet considering that (o) Cùm quae ab illÃs de eâ resunt statuta ab innocentio Rom Pontifice excutentur nemo sit qui accusare praesumat Pope Innocent had acquitted them that met there he would have none to presume to accuse them upon which words Binius concludeth that Baroniues though * Eam synodum legitimaÌ„ esse ab omni ecrote liberam that this Synod was lawfull and free from error As for the impertinency of alledging a Provinciall when an Oecummenicall councell was demanded let not the Replyer forget what the Quaeries propound and the answer will be proper enough for it was not only required by what General Councell hath Rome been condemned but also by what Authority was she otherwise reproved a Provinciall Synod hath authority inferior indeed to that of a Generall Councell but yet ample enough to checke the pretences of any new Doctrine that is defended as Catholique for what hath been censured though but by a provinciall Assembly so early in the Church cannot lay claime to that known Character of Chatholicisme in Vincentius Lyrinensis who admits not that to be such (p) In ipsà Catholicâ Ecclesiâ magnovere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ad emnibus reditum est advers haeres c. 3. which was not taught in all places at all times and by all Christians and therefore that must needs be destitute of Universality Antiquity and Consent that was disapproved by the Fathers of the Councel of Eliberis which may be esteemed the more for Hosius's sake a constant man against Idolatry who sate afterwards in the first Councel of Nice and was as devout in his conversation as his (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. Ep. p. 3. name importeth as Phosius observeth keeping his confession undefiled from Idol-worship moreover what veneration Pope Innocent's approbation gave this Assembly the Replyer I suppose will not think that any censure of his can take away The Replyer complaineth that proof is not made that the secoÌ„d Nicene Councell was not universally received what proof more Authentique then the Authority of the Synods of Eliberis and Frankford alledged by me I have given an accompt of the first already and for that of Frankford this puisne Replyer presumes I suppose without the Lycense of his Superiors to say that it neither rejects nor refutes the Nicent Canons but concurrs with the Nicent Councel that gives though not Latriam yet honorariam adorationem an honorary adoration to Pictures Two things are to be rejoyn'd tâ— this reply 1. That the Replyer's mistaken in saying that the Frankford Fathers rejected not the Nicene Canonâ— concerning Image-worship and secondly that the Nicene Canons establishing an Inferiour adoration to be given to pictures were not Cathelique Sanctions As to the First it is evident that the Replyer opposeth the judgment alwell of Bellarmine as of Baronius when he saith That the Fathers at Frankford rejected not the Canons of Nice Let him turne to his Binius and there he shall find that they both were mistaken in thinking that these Councels clashed but yet that they thought so What strength the Reasons of Binius carry against these two Cardinals I shall not enquire Sure I am that if Baronius be mistaken in his Opinion in this case he deserves little credit in other of his assertions For he affirmeth himself so farre from doubting of it (r) Tantum abest ne negemus Nicaenam secundam Synodum eandemque septi 〈…〉 Oecnmenicam dictam damnatam dici in Franâ— of urdienci Concilio ut etiam augeamus numerum testium id profitentium quidem haud dubiae fidei aut autoritatis Baron Tom. 9. p. 539 An. Chr. 794. n. 27. That he solemnly professeth by undeniable testmonies to put it beyond all question and so he doth as hath been lately observed by reverend and learned Dr. Hammond out of Walafridus Strabo Amalarius Finimarus Aâ—astatius and many others If these two learned Romanists have not in this case reputation enough to satisfie the Replyer I could send him to better witnesses to the Annalls set forth by Pythaus (s) Synodus habitu in Franconofuâ—t in quâ haeresis foeliciana coram Episcopis Germanorum Germaniarum Gal liarum Italorumque praesente magno Principe Carolo missis Adriani Apostolini Thcophylacto Stephano Episcopis tertio danata est Pseudo Synodus Graecorum pro adorandis imaginibus habita falso septima vocata ab Episcopis daÌ„natur Chamler de imag To 2. lib. 21. c. 14. p. 855. where it is said that in the year 594 there was a Synod called at FraÌ„kford where Foelix was condemned and the Pseudo Synod of the Greeks that established Image-worship being falsely called the seventh is cersured by the Bishops So the life of Charles the Great published by the same Pythaeus so Ado and others G. Cassander in his 29 Epistle to John Molinaeuâ— gives him an ample account of the 4 Books written by the authority and under the name of Charles the French King the whole Councell of Frankford consenting to the contents of them which were sent to the Pope against the decrees of the Councell of Nice It were the best course for the Replyer to do as the rest of his Masters doe in this dispute I mean not to say that the Assemby of Frankforde did not oppose the Fathers of Nice but to under-value the Authority of that Councell as confronting without just Authority the Canons of the second Nicene which they say was a Generall whereas this of Frankford was but a Nationall Synod I come therefore to the second thing that I propounded above to prove I mean that the Canons of the 2d Nicene Councell were not Catholique Sanctions that is the Canons that give religious worship to images were not rules of sound and wholesome doctrine In this enquiry I question neither the number nor the power of such as either called this Assembly or came to it though there lye a great prejudice against Councell opposed by not a few of the Greeks and by almost all the West the Councell of Ariminum was subscribed by all the Patriarchs yea by the Pope himselfe yet was of no
Authority but of perpetuall infamy through all ages after in the Church because it established Arianisme What therefore St. Augustine said in his dispute with Maximinus the Arrian Bishop when the first Nicene Councell might be pleaded for the Catholiques as the Councell of Ariminum was for the Arrians that may I say in the present controversy as to the second Nicene and the Councell of Frankford (t) Nec ego Nicenum nec tu debes Ariminense tanquam praedicaturus proferre Concilium nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illius detineris scripturarum authoritatibus non quorūque propriis sed utrique communibus testibus resi cum re causa cum caulâ ratio cum ratione concerter Aug. con Maxim Arian Episc lib. 3. p. 733. neither am I concluded with the Authority of this nor thou with that let matter with matter cause with cause reason with reason contest by the Authority of the Scriptures which are witnesses proper to neither parties but common to both If then we appeale to the Scriptures what more clear then the voice of God on Mount Sinai Exo 28.48 Thou shalt not make unto thy selfe any graven image or any thing that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth thou shalt not bow down thy selfe to them nor serve them c. This service God reserves to himselfe as we are taught Deut 6.13 exclusively to all creatures as we are informed by Christs recitation and weighty interpretation of the place Math 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve and Exo 34.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou shalt worship no other God The Papists here betake themselves to the distinction of Latria and Dulia none but God must be worshipped by the first but the second may be imparted to Saints and Angells The Replyer may learn if he know not that the chief words used by the Greek writers in the Scripture aswell the septuagint in the Old as the Evangelists and the Apostles in the new Testāent are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that these words are all us'd promiscuously as well for religious and divine as for civill worship even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for civill worship to man De 28.48 the septuagint read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Acts 20.19 St. Paul is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the same St. Paul maketh it the unhappinesse of the Galathians that they did sometimes give Dulia to what were not Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby we may see that Dulia if it be religious worship ought not to be given to such as partake not of divine nature but Divines should not contend about words the Catholiques agree and I think the Papists cannot deny it that the worship of God is distinguished from the worship of men in this that the one is religious and the other civill The first an Elicite Act of religion as the Schools speak the second an imperate flowing from it as the effect from the cause both of them species of Justice as Lactantius hath excellently observed (u) Primum justicize officiū est conjungi cum Deo secundum cum homine sed illud primum religio dicitur hoc secundum miscricordia vel humanitas dicitur Lactlib 6. c. 10. The first Office of Justice is to be joyned with God the second with man That first is called Religion this second Mercy or Humanity Well then admit the distinction of worship according to the difference first innocently assigned by St. Augustine into Dulia and Latria we scruple it not as long as those words are granted to be names of worship differing not only in degree but in kind or nature for seeing the Honour that we pay unto any Object ought to be proportionable to the excellency of that Object there must of necessity be the same distance between Divine Worship and Humane or Civil that there is between God and Man But in truth there is no Proportion between God and man and therefore neither ought there to be between Divine and Civill Worship (w) Colimus Martyres eo cultus dilectionis societatis quo in hâc vita coluntur sancti Homines Dei quorum Corad talem pro Evangelicâ veritate passionem paratum esse sentimus sed illos tanto devotius quantò securius postincerta ōnia superata quanto etiam fidentiore laude praedicamus jam in vita faeliciore victores quám in ista adhuc pugnantes at illo cultu quae Gracè latria dicitur latinè un◠verbo dici non potest cum fic quaedam proprie divinitati debita servitus nec colimus nec colendum docemus nisi unu◠Deum August contr Faust Manich. Lib. 20. C. 21. Et mox longè minoris est peccati ebrium redire à martyribus quà m vel je junum sacrificare martiribus dixi non sacrificare Deo in memoriis martyrum quod frequentissimè facimus illo duntaxat ritu quo sibi sacrificari novi Testamenti manifestatione praecepit quod pertinet ad illum cultum quae Latria dicitur uni Deo debetur St. August therefore that gave the first rise to the distinction of Latria from Dulia did not admit Dulia to be a religious Worship above civill worship such as is given to living men though he acknowledgd it an higher degree of Dulia that we give to the dead then what we give to the living because we honour them after their victory more securely But the Papists conceive thēselves under the notion of Dulia priviledg'd to consecrate Altars Temples Chappell 's to Saints all which St. August judged to appertaine to Latria and speaking of the excesse of Christians that were intemperate in the celebration of the Festivalls of the Martyrs he blames the Luxurie of such as were guilty but yet acknowledgeth it a crime far lesse then the Idolatry of such as with fasting sacrificed though even to the Martyrs themselves This devout Father would have detested the abuse of his own destinction into Latria and Dulia and much more abhor'd the doctrine of (x) Aquin p. 3. quest 25 Art 3.4 Aquinas and other moderne Romanists Who teach that the Image and the Grosse of Christ are to be adored with the same worship that Christ is adored with himselfe id est with Latria in its full extent had he lived to to see it (y) Greg. de Valent. lib. 3. de Idolat c. 5. apud Reynold de Idolat Ecclesiae Rom. lib. 1. c. 1. which veneration when Greg. de Valentia observed could not be attributed to a Creature without Idolatry he spake plainly that some kind of Idolatry was lawfull The Replyer grants that the Church of Rome were sufficiently condemned though not by a Generall Councell if the diffusive body of the Church did condemne her and this were easy to demonstrate from the first Ages of the Church which owned none of those doctrines that the Papists