precept when you spake of forbidding Priests to marry for your own Canonist calls the statute which inhibits Priests marriage Statutum Ecclesiae non ita generale Glos. in Decr. par 2. Causa 25. c. 3. Papa non potest contra generale Ecclesiae statutum dispensare sed contra statutum Ecclesiae quod non est ita generale sicut de continentia sacerdotum bene potest dispensare The Pope cannot dispense against a generall statute of the Church but he may against one that is not generall such as is that of Priests continency Pray learn hereafter to speak with your own Doctors or do not require all the world to follow their Doctrine And yet in truth even your own Church the Church of Rome or rather your own Popes the Popes of Rome did not make any such precept till Siricius his daies if you will again believe your own Gloss upon Gratian Par. 1. Dist. 84. cap. 3. descanting upon this very Canon of Carthage which you have urged for there saith the Gloss Dicunt quod olim sacerdotes poteraÌ„t contrahere ante Siricium They say that Priests might lawfully marry before Siricius his daies And again A tempore Siricii vocat Antiquitatem The Canon calleth that Antiquity which was from the time of Siricius 5. And whereas the Canon as it is alledged by him affirmeth that the Apostles taught this doctrine the same Gloss brings fresh fasting spittle to allay this quick-silver and the allay is good enough for the metall saying Apostoli docuerunt exemplo opere admonitione non institutione vel constitutione The Apostles taught it by their example deed or admonition but not by their doctrine or any constitution So far is it from truth in the judgement of your own Canonists which you averr so confidently That the Apostles themselves were the first that taught and decreed that Priests ought to abstain from wives And besides it is clear from the Apostles own writings that they neither taught it nor decreed it Else why did Saint Paul say to Timothy 1 Tim. 3. A Bishop must be blameless the husband of one wife if he were indeed to be blamed for having one And that he â—…ught to have his children in subjection if it were unlawfull for him to have any children Therefore the Apostles taught it not Again why did the same Saint Paul say to the Corinthians concerning this argument pro and con I speak this by permission and not of commandment 1 Cor. 7. 6. if the Apostles had given any command concerning it And v. 7. I would that all men were even as I my self but every man hath his proper gift of God if there had been any Apostolicall decree to force those who succeeded him in his calling to succeed him also in his continency for then sure he would not have wished but have commanded them to be as himself whereas on the contrary he only wisheth them to be as himself who have the Gift enabling them so to be therefore the Apostles decreed it not And the truth of both these was antiently attested by your own Gratians ordinary copies of this very Canon for so saith your new Glossator upon those words Apostoli docuerunt In vulgatis codicibus sequebatur Exempla quod est sublatum In the ordinary copies it was written The Apostles taught it by their Example but I have taken that away The addition of which word Example whether by Gratian himself or by any other being commonly received is a sufficient evidence that even the Church of Rome in those daies did not think that the Apostles had forbid Priests to marry by theâ—…r Doctrine and much less by their Decree 6. From the Apostles let us pass to the Church for you say for Priests to marry is contrary to the Churches precept But you do only say it and will never be able to prove it For the Greek Church in its most pure and flourshing age had a married Clergy insomuch that Gregory Nazianzene was born after his Father had officiated at the holy Altar let his own mouth witness it who brings in his Father thus speaking unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Naz. in carm de vitâ suâ Which is in plain English Thou hast not yet had thy life so long as I have had my Priesthood I hope you will not affirm that the Father because a Priest was the worse for having such a son when you cannot deny but the whole Christian Church hath ever since been the better for that he had him Again How came the first Council of Nice to be kept from determining for the forced continency of Priests by one single Paphnutius if so be the Apostles had so determined before or the Church had thought fit so to determine it after them Nay it is evident The Catholick Church determined there should be no such determination as appears from the forecited consent of the Nicene Fathers to Paphnutius his advice which is generally attested and approved by the Authors both of the Greek and Latine Church As by Socrates lib. 1. c. 11. Lat. By Gelasius Cycicenus lib. 2. de actis Concil Nic. c. 33. By Nicephorus lib. 8. cap. 19. By Cassiodorus hist. Trip. lib. 2. c. 14. By Gratian Par. 1. Dist. 31. cap. 12. And by Peter Crabbe in actis Concilii Niceni So that if you may have recourse but to one of these you shall little need to go either to Neteoricks or to Epitomists for the story as you did in your first Exception for Saint Augustines answer and in this for Siricius his words And yet I will add to these one more proof and that from the Council of Gangra whose Canons were put into the Code of the Catholick Church so often appealed to by the Fathers at Calcedon and placed together with the Holy Bible in the midâ—…t of their Council Concil Gangr can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any man make a dissention between married and unmarried Priests as if he ought not to take the Communion from the married Priest let him be accursed Now if the Church had made that distinction why should not the people make it But in truth the Church was so far from making it that she shewed it to be against her judgement to make it speaking no less reverently of the offerings of the married then of the unmarried Priests Or you may thus interpret the Canon If any man withdraw himself from a married Priest as if he ought not to communicate whiles such a Priest doth officiate let him be accursed It is plain here in the judgement of the Church for these Gangrensian Canons were admitted into the Code of the Catholick Church which yours of Carthage were not That the married Priests were as fit to serve at the Altar as the unmarried and if they were as fit to serve God why not as fit to serve the People and to content you And to shew you I
before yet was it not ratified and confirmed till then for that is an undenyable rule of her own Canonist Leges instituuntur quùm promulgantur firmantur quùm moribus utentium approbantur Grat. Par. 1. Dist. 4. cap. 3. Whence it follows That neither this Decree of Siricius nor any other of the like nature could properly be called a Prohibition till that time when it was first generally received imto Practice and that was not til the year 1074. a longtime sure after the Apostles And this same Truth is attested by Gratian in the first words of his 31. distinction Tempus quoque Quia nondum erat institutum ut sacerdotes continentiam servarent where your new Glossator is very much troubled to prove that Sacerdotâ—…s is put for Subdiaconi Priests for Subdeacons that so he may rather elude then expound the Text It doth therefore neerly concern you as a Trustee of Gods Truth not of any mans mistakes or insolencies and as a member and Minister of Christs Catholick Church to mitigate if not recall those words That the Apostles themselves were the first that taught and decreed that Priests ought to abstain from wives And those other For Priests to marry contrary to the Churches precept Siricius might well say is to be in the flâ—…sh because it is to be in a continuall state of sin and damnation unless you will say That the Apostles taught and decreed that in word which they have contradicted in writing that the whole Church wittingly and willingly sinned against their Decree for above a thousand years together by which means you may chance teach others to say and we now find many Schollars most ready to learn such a wicked lesson That for so long together Christ was without a Catholick and Apostolick Church For my part I dare not be so far an Accuser of my Brethren but sure I will never be brought to be so far an Accuser of my Mother 8. But least it may be thought that Sampsen-like you have smitten us poor Philistines hip and thigh and have carried away our Gates by the vertue and strength of the Council of Carthage I will now look after a Razor that shall very much endanger that lock wherein your great strength lyeth for I have yet only clipped it a little by Valerius his hand and must now labour to cut it off which I shall endeavour to do by cutting the Africane Church from the Catholick and that Council you have alledged from the Africane Church and that Canon you have alledged from the Africane Council I say therefore 1. That the Africane Church was but a particular Church and could not pass the sentence may not have either the repute or the authority of the Catholick Church And for this answer I have your own Cardinals precedent Bellar. lib. 2. de concil cap. 8. 9. Where that objection against the Popes being called Summus Pontifex which is brought from the 26. Canon of the Council of Carthage Ut primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps sacerdotum aut summus sacerdos aut aliquid hujusmodi sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus is by him thus answered Quùm hoc Concilium nationale fuerit non universae sed tantùm Africanae Ecclesiae leges tulisse potuit Itaque hoc Canone non prohibuit neque potuit prohibere ne Rom. Pontifex diceretur sacerdotum princeps vel summus sacerdos sed tantuÌ„ ne ita appellaretur ullus Metropolitanus Africae This Council being but nationall could not make Canons for the Catholick Church and therefore by this Canon could not prohibit the Bishop of Rome to be called an high Priest but only the Bishops of Africa to be so called Pray shew me a reason why this answer is not as good for the Priests of Europe as for the Bishop of Rome for all the world cannot make one National Church the whole Catholick Church no more then it can make a particular an universal or one corner of the South or West all the world 2. That second Council of Carthage scarce deserves to have the credit and cannot have the authority of the particular Africane Church First because for ought that can be collected out of the acts thereof there were not above seven Bishops present at it no more then were at a Collation with the Donatists v. Bin. Conc. Tom. 1. Col. p. 624. whereas Africa afforded above two hundred Bishops and they were all by their Canons strictly bound to be present at National Synods Secondly because there is a plain and a gross untruth set down in the first words of that Council as it is in the Latine Copy which only befriends your assertion for there it is said Gloriosissimo Imperatore Valentiniano Augusto 4. Theodosio viris clarissimis consulibus i. Whiles Valentinian the Emperour was Consul the fourth time and Theodosius with him these Bishops met at Carthage whereas it is evident by the Archives of Chronologie That Valentinian the Emperour never at all was Consul with Theodosius and it is as clear by the same Archives that when Valentinian the Emperour was Consul the fourth time Neotorius not Theodosius was his partner See Helvicus An. Christ. vul 390. So I shew you plainly we have a false Consul put upon the Council and I have some reason to suspect we have also a false Council put upon the Church For it is clear that this Council was not held in the year 390. when Valentinian was Consul the fourth time because Genedius who speaks first in it and was President of it was not taken by Aurelius to be his Coadjutor at Carthage till after Saint Augustine had been taken by Valerius to be his Coadjutor at Hippo as saith Binius Aurelius factum Valerii Hipponensis imitatus onus Episcopale in Genedium stranstulit And it is asserted by Helvicus That Saint Augustine was made Priest of the Church of Hippo but in the year 391. that is the year after this Consulage And sure he lived some years a Priest of that Church before he was made Bishop thereof perchance so many as to satisfie the custom of the Church but sure so many as to write full thirteen Books as appears by his Retractations lib. 1. cap. 14. notwithstanding his continual Preaching all that time For he was required and authorized by his Bishop to be a Preacher whiles he was yet a Priest which till his daies had not been known in the Africane Church and he preached both privately and publickly against the Donatists Manichaeans and Pelagians saith Possidius and sure the more time he spent in Preaching the less time he had for writing But to let pass collections and conjectures we see Genedius the President of this Council was not a Bishop till after Saint Augustine And Saint Augustine was not so much as a Priest till one year after the date of this Council so it is certain the Council hath a false date and it is possible we may have a false Council
Accordingly Binius is forced to confess That the second Council of Carthage though it was so in Title yet was not so in Truth but was such a second as had at least five before it Post quinque saltem anteriora hoc quod secundum appellatur habitum fuisse oportet Which he proves first from the Bishops names recited in the Acts of this Council Genedius Alypius Faustinus who were not Bishops till long after the year that Valentinian was the fourth time Consul Secondly from the very words of this very second Canon which you have alledged For that begins thus Quùm in praeterito consilio de continentiae castitatis moderamine tractaretur relating to a fore-past Council which fore-past Council saith Binius was that Africane Council celebrated the first year of Pope Coelestine which was the year 424. after Christ according to Helvicus A great distance sure from 390. And the 37. Canon of that Africane Council saith Binius is that which is here related to The like he affirms concerning Fortunatus his words in the third Canon Memini praeterito consilio fuisse statutum I remember in a fore-past Council it was ordained where saith the same Binius That fore-past Council was the forenamed Africane and Fortunatus reflected back to the tenth Canon of that Council But if this Council in which were so few Bishops and concerning which are so many uncertainties may deserve the credit and authority of the particular Africane Church yet sure it will be hard to prove That the words alledged by you deserve to have the credit or Authority of a Canon of this Council to that purpose for which and according to that sense in which you have alledged them 3. Wherefore thirdly I make bold to assert That this your Canon as you have applyed and urged it was no Canon of the Africane Council called the second of Carthage for the Fathers in Trullo Can. 13. do upon this very occasion of Priests continency cite that yery numerical Canon of Carthage with an addition of other words and in another sense saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We know that those who met at Carthage and took care of the grave and sober behaviour of Priests did say That at some proper and set times they should abstain from their wives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Propriis terminis à consortibus abstineant So that this and no other but this is the doctrine which the second Council of Carthage did say The Apostles had taught and antiquity had practised And this is no more then what we find in Saint Pauls writings Except it be with consent for a time that you may give your selves unto fasting and prayer 1 Cor. 7. 5. which though spoken generally of all married men yet may without any violence to the Text and with great zeal of and advantage to godliness be appropriated à fortiori to the married Clergy But for Priests total abstaining from wives you must find it in some other Canon or say the Trullane Fathers did either want Honesty in mis-citing this Canon or Learning in mis-understanding it or Iudgement in mis-applying it Whereas on the contrary they were so far from wanting any of these that they had moreover power and authority to have reversed it and would have used that power had they indeed found it a Canon of the Africane Church For they are so bold as plainly to reverse a Canon near of kin to it delivered in the Roman Church requiring married men if they were made Priests to promise they would after that time not co-habite with their wives And to assure us and all the world That these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning which in truth is all the controversie came not either by surreption or by mistake into their Canon The reason of this restriction is thus given in the ensuing words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oportet enim eos qui altari afsident quum sacra manibus tractant in omnibus continentes esse not bidding Priests contain from marriage at all times but only at such times as they were to administer the holy Sacrament This was certainly the sense of your second Canon of the second Council of Carthage or not only Greece did not understand carthage but also Carthage did not understand it self Whence Balsamon is so bold as to assert in plain terms That they of Rome and their accomplices were much mistaken who inferred from this or any other Canon of the Councils of carthage That Priests and Deacons might not have their own wives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But were bound to keep themselves single and unmarried vid. Bals. in Can. 3. 4. Concil 3. Carth. And he proves his assertion from the 70. Canon of the third Council of Carthage meaning the 73. as we commonly say the 70. when we mean the 72. interpreters where the injunction is plain That they ought to abstain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secundum proprios terminos At their proper or peculiar times viz. At the times of their Administration Nay yet more Aurelius who is said to have propounded this your Canon doth himself thus alledge or at least thus interpret it in the Greek Canons of the third Council of Carthage as they are entred and received in the Code of the Africane Church your own Binius being my witness For there Can. 25. he requires Priests to abstain from wives only at some proper times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Propriis terminis ab uxoribus abstineant v. Bin. Concil Tom. 1. edit Colon. p. 580. in alterâ editione quorundam Canonum Concilii tertii Carth. ex codice Africano But the Latine interpreter in Binius rendring these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secundum priora statuta priora instead of propria and Binius foâ—…lowing that reading in the 37. Canon concil Africani sub Coelestino Benifacio and preferring it as the better of the two in his notes upon Concil Carth. 5. sub Anastasio cap. 3. even contrary to the reading of that same Canon as it is in its own edition makes me suspect that the Africane Canons have not been derived to us so entire and incorrupt in the Latine copies as in the Greek wherein if I am mistaken you may well pardon my mistake because your own new Glossator upon Gratian hath presumed to correct the Latine Copy of this very Canon as he had found it in the Books then commonly received by the Greek Copy leaving out exemplo after Apostoli docuerunt as I shewed before for this one reason amongst others That he found it not in the Greek Copies I know Binius is of another mind so impossible is it there should be Unity where there is not Verity and saith concerning the carthage Canons That the Latine Edition is of a greater authority then the Greek translation But confessing two various editions of the Latine Canons Secundum propria statuta and priora statuta and not being able to shew any more then one translation
and must be the cause of eternal Dissention and Division in Christs Church 14. Religion orders a man only to God and that superstition which takes in Saints and Angels is for Babel not for Hierusalem because it confounds both the work and the Rule of Religion and is accordingly threatned and punished with confusion 15. Religious worshipping the Pictures of Saints and Angels is so gross Idolatry that you dare not let the people know the Commandement which forbids it 16. Images long kept out of the Churches of Christians Epiphanius his pulling down a veil with an Image at Anablatha unjustly if not unadvisedly rejected by Bellarmine as a false story 17. Images kept out of the Religion of Christians after they were admitted into their Churches The second Council of Nice opposed and confuted by the Latines not acknowledged for a General Council by the Greeks but most of all opposed and confuted by its own egregious falsities and falsifications discovered from its own Acts and affirmed by the testimony of Baronius 18. Interrogatories concerning Image-worship to be put into the Confessionals of the Romish Priests rather then of the people for that of the two they are the greater idolators The fourth Exception PAr 2. chap. 3. sect 2. pag. 193. speaking of us Catholicks you say The second Commandement is not of so great repute with them as to have any Interrogatory concerning it By the second Commandement nothing possible can be forbidden but only external Idolatry as internal is forbidden in the first Which moved Saint Augustine quest 71. in Exodum and all Catholick Divines after to reckon these two but as one Now in those negative words of the first Thou shalt not have strange gods before me is necessarily and positively included this affirmative Thou shalt have me only for thy true God Hence it follows that it is impossible for Christians whatever the Jews did well instructed in the first to offend through ignorance against the second What Interrogatories then are needful concerning it But I know you hint at our Pictures and Images of our blessed Saviour and his holy Saints But it must first be proved that Jesus Christ is a false God before the application of our Divine Worship through his Pictures unto him can be convinced of Idolatry And the same I say proportionably though in an infinitely inferiour degree of our Religious worship through the Pictures of his glorious Servants Saints and Angels The Answer 1. I Spake not of you Catholicks but if I spake of you it was of you Papists who by your own Cassander are not to be called Catholicks but false Catholicks Sunt quidam qui Pontificem Romanum tantum non Deum faciunt ejusque autoritatem non modò supra totam Ecclesiam sed supra ipsam Scripturam divinam efferunt Hos non video quò minus Pseudocatholicos Papistas appellare possis Cassander de officio pii viri There are some who make the Pope almost a God and extoll his authority not only above the whole Church but also above the holy Scripture These are to be called Papists and Pseudocatholicks that is to say false Catholicks Wherefore in the judgement of your own Cassander if you will needs be Papists you cannot be Catholicks 2. But in truth my intent was not so much to speak in condemnation of you Papists as in justification of us Protestants not so much in condemnation of your Church as in justification of our own But since you have taken it for a condemnation of your Church pray consider whether you may not take these particulars for the parts of that condemnation First that in your General confession Confitior Deo omnipotenti B. Mariae semper Virgini c. You suppose the blessed Virgin and the holy Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul and all the Saints departed equally present at your Confession with God to hear you if not equally powerful or merciful with him to forgive you whereas we who are taught only to say Omnipotens clementissime Pater Almighty and most merciful Father in our general Confession cannot be under the suspition much less under the danger of communicating to the creature either the presence or power or mercy of the Creator Secondly That in your particular and private confession you clog mens consciences with an absolute necessity of confessing every mortal sin though it be but only in thought For so saith your Laterane Council under Innocent the third cap. 21. Omnia sua peccata fideliter confiteatur Let him faithfully confess all his sins And though that of Trent afterwards seem to mitigate the matter sess 14. c. 5. saying Nihil aliud exigit Ecclesia à Poenitentibus quà m ut confiteantur omnia peccata mortalia quae post diligentem sui excussionem memoriae occurrent Yet Cardinal Bellarmine whom his fellow Jesuites will certainly follow and they are now your chiefest confessors saith plainly after a full debate of the cause Colligimus hinc necessarium esse confiteri omnia peccata mortalia etiamsi solâ cogitatione commissa sint lib. 3. de Poenit. cap. 7. § ex his so that t is to little purpose for your Council to say that t is necessary for the Penitent to confess all the mortal sins he can remember whiles your Champion and after him your Confessors say t is necessary for him to confess all the mortal sins he hath committed and spare him not so much as a thought which may easily be a mortal sin and yet is as easily forgotten as committed whence it was that your own Cassander called your auricular confession Carnifieinam conscientiarum in consult Art 11. the wrack of consciences to torment not to ease them For who can tell how oft he offendeth O cleanse thou me from my secret faults said the maâ—… after Gods own heart Psalm 19. If none can tell how oft he offendeth in word or deed much less in thought who is able to confess all his offences yet you say He must confess all or he can receive pardon of none And therefore as you leave the horrour of that question upon the conscience Who can tell how oft he offendeth So you take away the comfort of that prayer from it O cleanse thou me from my secret faults Thirdly That in your absolutions you remit the punishments of Purgatory for all the sins committed against God and man Remitto tibi omnes poenas Purgatorii propter culpas offensiones quas contra Deum proximum tuum commisisti This was the form of that Absolution which Dr. Harding brought over from Rome to bestow amongst those of his party in this Nation who would joyn with him in his dis-allegiance against Queen Elizabeth I meddle not with its vanity in absolving from Punishments which are not in being or if they were cannot come under the Churches absolution I meddle only with its Impiety that it turneth the gift of God into the instrument of Ungodliness For no credulous Papist
storie only dislikes it excusing Epiphanius from the Imputation of Heresie because the thing at that time had not been defined by the Church And indeed this storie is to be found in all the editions of Saint Hieroms works not only in that of Basil by Erasmus who saith in the argument thereof Hanc Epistolam Hieronymus in odium Johannis Rufini Latinam fecit But also in that of Antwerp 1579. where this is the argument Epiphanius intimus D. Hieronymi à quo epistola versa est amicus excusat se Johanniquod Presbyterum ordinarat in ipsius diocaesi ipso inconsulto postremò cur velum ad Ecclesiae fores pendens in quo hominis imago depicta erat sciderit rationem reddit This Edition no more doubts that Epiphanius excused the cutting of the vail then the ordination of the Priest to John Bishop of Hierusalem Nay yet moreover The edition of Marianus Victorius at Rome which Bellarm. confesseth to be purged from Erasmus his errours ab erroribus Erasmi purgata est hath not this part of the Epistle purged out of it but Victorius in his Annotation confesseth it to be as undoubted as the rest in that he seeks to elude it by this gloss That the storie was to be understod of the image of some profane man de Imagine hominis profani He is very bold in calling that the Image of a profane man which Epiphanius said was the Image of Christ or some Saint for so Saint Hierom from him Habens imaginem quasi Christi vel Sancti cujusdam yet not so bold as to deny that Epiphanius had thus dealt with that image Nay this story is also in Epiphanius his works Printed at Paris 1622. with Petavius his notes yet he makes not the least objection against it but by his silence rather seems to allow it as unquestionable because he was so well able yet not willing to question it But t is no wonder if Petavius in this dissent from Bellarmine one Jesuit from another for in it Bellarmine dissenteth from himself For whereas lib. de Script Ecclesiasticis in his Chapter of Saint Epiphanius he said Ad finem epistolae ad Johannem Hierosolymitanum videtur aliquid additum ab Iconoclastis At the end of his Epistle to John Bishop of Hierusalem something seems to have been added by the haters of Images In his Chapter of Saint Hierom he in effect denyeth any such addition for he saith concerning the second Tome of Saint Hieroms works In hoc etiam tomo nihil est dubium vel supposititium Also in this tome nothing is doubtful or supposititious and this Epistle of Epiphanius concerning the Image at Anablatha is in that very second tome of Saint Hieroms works By all which it appears that this passage concerning the Image at Anablatha may not be excluded out of Epiphanius his Epistle nor out of Saint Hieroms translation and that alone is enough to prove that in their daies Images were excluded out of all Christian Churches 17. But some very good men are not troubled that Pictures have got into Churches for the Lutherans still keep them there the main trouble is That they have got into Religion and therefore in the last place I am to prove That though they had with much ado got into the Churches of Christians yet they were a long time after kept out of their Religion For Image-worship was not dogmatized till the second Council of Nice which was not till the year 787. after Christ nor was it practised as soon as it was dogmatized but rejected presently after in the Councils of Frankefort under Charles the great and at Paris under his son Lodowick the one saying The determinations of those at Nice smelt of dreams and dotage Penè nihil est ibi quod non somnii vanitatem aut deliramenti hebetudinem redoleat Act. Conc. Franc. in lib. Carol. 3. c. 26. The other saying That Pope Adrian the first had done very indiscretly by whose importunity they at Nice had passed those determinations Hadrianus indiscretè noscitur fecisse in eo quod superstitiosè imagines adorari jussit Concil Paris tempore Ludovici in princip And Engilbertus an Abbot Chaplain to Charles the great was so bold as to send a full confutation of the Nicene Council concerning this Image-worship unto Pope Hadrian which he endeavoured to answer but had clearly the worst of the cause as well as of the Religion And t is worth our notice That though that part of the Greek Church assembled at Nice had yielded to the Pope in this particular being over-mastered by the impetuousness of Irene their Empress and overborn by the Authority of Theranus their Patriarch yet the Latine Church did long after stoutly oppose him for the Pope at that time was not Omnipotent in his own Diocess though now he would be so in all the world For besides the fore-named oppositions Jon is Bishop of Orleans in the year 820 though he writ of purpose in defence of Images yet he writ against their Religious worship following exactly the doctrine of the Council of Frankefort which chose the middle betwixt two extreams defining against the Iconoclasts that Images should be retained and against the Idolators That they should not be worshipped So Baronius hath registred his opinion An. 825. nu 62. Jonas ita non confringendas esse praedicavit Imagines ut tamen eas non esse venerandas asseruerit Wherein he agreed with his adversarie Claudius Bishop of Turine whom he would be thought to write against for though the Title of his Book was de cultu imaginum concerning the worship of Images yer the doctrine of his Book was against it for which cause saith Bellarm. He is to be warily read because he was in the same errour with Agobardus and the rest of the French divines of that age who denyed any religious worship to be due to Images So that not only Jonas but also all the other French divines in his time though they allowed Images to be in their Churches yet they would not allow them to be in their Religion Hic auctor cautè legendus est quoniam laborateodeÌ„ errore quo Agobardus reliqui ejus aetatis Galli qui negabant Sacris Imaginibus ullum deferri cultum religiosum Bellar. de Scr. Eccl. in cap. de Jonâ Aur. which I have declared the more at large because the same Bellarm. lib. de Imag. cap. 12. reckons this very Jonas amongst those holy men who worshipped images Sanctorum virorum qui imagines coluerunt shewing to all the world that he was not so candid a Divine as he was an Historian and that he pen'd mens Lives more faithfully then Gods Truths For this Jonas was so great an opposer of Image-worship that Baronius saith plainly of him and of Walafridus Sirabâ—… That they both receded from the common opinion of the Catholick Church and did shoot their bolts both against her practice and her doctrine Eos à Communi Catholicae
Ecclesiae sententiâ resiliisse atque adversus ejus usum atque doctrinam scripsisse spicula intorsisse Bar. An. 794. nu 62. So little could the second Council of Nice prevail at that time with the Latine Church for admitting images into their Religion And though of late years that Council hath been accounted the seventh Oecumenical by a faction amongst the Latines yet the Greeks themselves did not antiently so account it your own Baronius being my witness An. 863. nu 6. In reliquis omnibus Ecclesiis Patriarchalibus exceptâ Constantinopolitanâ sex tantum Oecumenicae Synodi in publicis confessionibus professionibus nominari consuêrunt In all the other Patriarchal Churches that of Constantinople only excepted The Grecians did usually make mention of no more then six General Councils in all their Confessions and Professions So it is plain they accounted not the second of Nice as the seventh General Council and if not they why should we who know that though the Bishop of Rome consented to it yet all the other Bishops of the Latine Church generally opposed it And truly it deserved to be generally opposed not only for setting up a false worship this of images but also for setting it up by egregious falsities and yet more egregious falsifications First I will give you a short view of their falsities our blessed Saviour had said Mat. 4. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve They thus qualifie the Greek Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 4. He doth put this Only to the word Serve not to the word Worship by false Logick distinguishing between two Synonomaes which signified one the same Religious worship unless we will blasphemously say That our Saviour did not fully confute the Devil who had used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his temptation saying All these things will I give thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if thou wilt fall down and worship me or unless we will add to this blasphemy yet another much more execrable saying That so as we do reserve our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Divine worship for God we may allow our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Religious worship to the Devil be not startled at the inference for if any may have Religious worship but God alone the Devil will quickly have his share of it for he can transform himself into an Angel of light 2 Cor. 11. 14. and therefore if we will give Religious worship to Angels we may soon be so deluded as to give it unto Devils and whiles we pretend to worship God may in truth be brought to worship the Devil Therefore this was so very false a device though it were intended for a distinction That no Divine can be in love with it but he that is contented to venter Gods glory and mans salvation and much more his own soul upon a piece of Sophistry Againâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 4. Those that call pictures or images Idols let them be accursed A false authority assumed to countenance a false divice taking to themselves power of cursing those whom God had blessed even the Apostles and Prophets and many holy men who have promiscuously used these two words Images and Idols However no Christian Divine can justly be condemned for disowning those who could find in their hearts to deliver men over to the Devil meerly for a Grammatical notion and that a false one too in the case for which it was alledged For though there may be a Grammatical difference betwixt an Image and an Idol yet a Theological difference there is not since he that worships an Image doth without all peradventures make that Image an Idol to himself Thirdly whereas the Council of Constantinople had made men take an Oath against images These infatuated Zealots determine it is better for a man to break then to keep that Oath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 4. T is better you should be perjured then keep your Oath for throwing down of images strange besotted Divines to make so much of an image so little of an Oath yet more strange besotted Casuists to advise a man rather to break his Oath then to break an Image for an Oath is sacred by Gods institution but an image is sacred only by mans imagination The one doth not only reach the conscience but also bind it the other though it doth reach the eye yet cannot reach the conscience Fourthly They define that Angels and separated souls are corporeal which is another falsity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 5. They are not quite without bodies though they have but thin bodies for only God is wholly without a body They were so afraid of losing their pictures that they had rather lose the Truth and not allow Angels and blessed Spirits to be incorporeal then not allow them to be pictured But Binius though not over modest yet is ashamed of this gross assertion saying Angelos Animas esse corporeas falsum est sed pingi posse judicio Ecclesiae receptum est T is false That Angels and souls are corporeal yet the judgement of the Church is That they may be pictured He hath mended the matter well by taking a falsity from a Council to put it upon the Church for the Church cannot judge that may be pictured which is not corporeal since lineaments must first be in the substance represented before they can truly be in the representation Therefore the picturing of Angels and immaterial Spirits is more fitly assigned to the practice of some men in the Church then to the Judgement of the Church and yet these men intended not an essential but an historical representation of those Spirits not to describe them in their substances but in their actions or performances or appearances Fifthly and lastly not but that more might be alledged but that I have already alledged too much of such absurdities when as a Jew had objected in his Disputation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am scandalized orgrievously offended at you Christians because you wâ—…rship Images Their answer is The Scriptures do not forbid us to worship Images but to worship 〈◊〉 as God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 5. As if they intended to be so false as to put a lye into the mouth of Truth it self making the same Commandement to speak contradictions whereof it is impossible both parts should be true For to limit an universal negative it to make it a particular affirmative and consequently so to deny or forbid in one thing as to affirm and command in another that is in truth to make it speak contradictions As for example Thou shalt do no murther limit you this universal negative by saying Murder not a Roman Catholick and it will follow that you may murder a Protestant whom you call an Heretick and so the same Precept shall forbid and allow murder that is shall speak contradictions So Thou shalt not steal
be erected to Angels because they may not be worshipped And what do Papists say less but that there is a God above the Angels although they worship them so that if the acknowledgement of a God above the Angels be a good proof that the Cherinthians did not 't is as good a proof that the Papists do not or at least should not worship Angels and in this particular we may all joyn hands and hearts together as fellow Protestants and our poor ejected Ministers may say to your great Triumphant Doctors We would to God that not only you but also all that hear you and us this day were both almost and altogether such as we are except these Bondâ—… For if you would turn Protestants with us in the True worship we should not need turn Papists with you in the Publick worship of Almighty God But till you have a True worship according to the three first Commandements we cannot envy your publick worship according to the fourth Thus you see Baronius his Proof is not so great as his clamor against Theodoret yet upon this proof alone doth he infer this Conclusion Angelos venerari non Haereticorum sed Catholicae Ecclesiae mos fuit The worshipping of Angels was a Custom not of Haereticks but of the Catholick Church Sure if it had been so the Greek and Latine Interpreters upon St. Paul to the Colossians would not so unanimously have condemned it For if this false worship had gotten generally into their practice it would also have gotten into their Doctrine as it hath since into yours which makes all your late writers so zealous for it and so copious in it particularly Baronius who had not the patience to stay longer then the sixtyeth year after our blessed Saviours Incarnation to find out this Custome and had the confidence as soon as he had found it to foist it upon the Catholick Church because he saw it was practised in his own And the like favour hath he shewed to all your other present corruptions whether in Doctrine or in Practice bringing them all into the first century of years after Christ that what their own grosseness diminished from their native Verity his wit and learning might add to their pretended Antiquity But concerning this your present corruption in Practice I mean the worshipping of Angels he concludes thus Id verò quà m purè Sanctè religiosè c. How purely how holily how religiously it hath been alwayes practised in the Church I have shewed in my annotations upon the Roman Martyrologie on the 8. of May I was big with expectation of some invincible arguments in his Martyrology till I had consulted it but there I found only some several Apparitions of St. Michael the Archangel no proof at all that the Church had worshipped him save only Baronius his own word authentical enough perchance with some of you as it was with Binius to bear down poor Theodorete but I hope not authentical enough with any to bear down St. Paul Therefore in vain doth your Goliah speak of Purity in that which St. Paul imputes to a fleshly mind then which nothing is more impure and of Holiness in that which St. Paul saith beguils us of our reward for unholiness it all can do â—…o more And of Religion in that of which St. Paul saith And holding not the Head for we cannot well say more of the greatest Irreligion And as vainly doth he impute that to the Catholick Church which is so full of Impurity Unholiness and Irreligion And this manner of arguing is without doubt good in it self for it makes humane reason subordinate to Divine Authority as to an Infinitly higher Reason labouring to prove what God hath commanded us to believe even that his Catholick Church is pure and Holy and because it is so admits not any such gross practice of Impurity unholiness For what is made sin in it self by Gods Word cannot by the wit oâ—… men be made holiness in Gods Church But if this manner of arguing were not good in its own nature yet it were good against Baronius who useth no other argument to confute Theodorets Authority but only his own deductions confounding those two Topicks which are so distinct in themselves even Humane Reason and Humane Authority proving the Cherinthian Haereticks did not worship Angels because he had found a reason why they should not whereas if he would indeed have acted the part of a true Historâ—…an or of a good Divine he should have conâ—…uted Theodorets Authority by some greater and better Authority But that he saw was impossible for him to do for the whole stream of Ecclesiastical writers run with a full torrent and tide against him and we may well guess he was very much put to his shifts when he was forced to put so strange a gloss as he did upon the Council of Laodicea for whereas the Fathers there said Can. 35. It becomes not Christians to leave the Church of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And to name the Angels sc. in their prayers as calling upon them instead of calling upon God for that were to be guilty of a secret Idolatry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to forsake the Lord Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in St. Pauls language was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not holding the Head Baronius is pleased to say That the Canon is to be interpreted of those false Angels which the Heathen worshipped falsorum Angelorum eorum nimirum quos venerarentur idololatrae venerationem prohibuit alludens fortasse ad Genii cultuÌ„ c. Bar. an 60. nu 23. He might as well have said that the Council made Canons for Heathens and not for Christians though they expresly say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It becomes not Christians to leave the Church of God And that they had forbid such men to leave the Church who were never of the Chuch had called them secret Idolaters who were most open Idolaters had required them not to forsake Christ who had never come near Christ and in one word had called that worshipping of Angels which was indeed worshipping of Divels Such dangerous Rocks are skillfull Pilots cast upon who will not stear by the Card of Gods Word but let their own phansie fill their Sailes for that is little better then a tempestuous wind called Euroclidon which will drive them up and down either in Adria or in Tiber till they have made Shipwrack of the Truth And if you think me overlavish in thâ—…s expression pray consider its a less immodesty in me to put a fancy upon your Baronius then t was in him to put a frenzy upon the Council Is not this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be a slave to a received opinion why should that man think to overmaster anothers judgement who can be contented to enslave his own 18. I now come to your last argument for praying to Angels which is this least we should ungratefully slight them contrary to Gods command Exod.
Church as appeares in that these words which are the 6 7 8. Canons of the second Milevitane Council in Binnius for the Western are the 115 116 117. Canons of the Council of Carthage in Balsamon for the Eastern Churches 17. Wherefore this being an undoubted Principle among all Christians for who can doubt that which comes to us Originally from the Scriptures and derivatively from the Catholick Church That all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God Rom. 3. 23. we cannot reasonably but only perversely deny this conclusion That no man can be justified by his own righteousnesse For having sinned he must needs be under the condemnation of sin and coming short of the glory of God in his duty or obligation he must also come short of his own glory in his merit of justification for his sin which makes him come short of righteousness must needs also make him come short of being reputed righteous For shall not the Judge of all the earth do right how then shall he acquit that man for righteous whom he knows to be a sinner we find he hath in effect given a contrary judgment already Hag. 2. 12 13. where this is the summe of his determination concerning two questions which neerly concerne this case 1. Whether a man that is unclean may contract purity from the touch of hâ—…ly things which he denies 2. Whether Holy things do not contract impurity from the touch of a man that is unclean which he affirmes and then makes this inference ver 14. So is this People and so is this Nation before me saith the Lord and so is every work of their hands and that which they offer there is unclean The same reason holds in us as in them The Jew was unclean by the touch of a dead body and so is the Christian. O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from this body of death Rom. 7. 24. The Jew by his uncleanness did pollute the holy things so doth the Christian even those holy works that proceed from Gods Holy Spirit and Grace The holy things by their Purity did not make him pure among the Jews who was unclean in himself so is it also among the Christians The best inherent righteousness we have from Gods Grace doth not purge away the impurity of that sin which we have from our selves therefore we must confesse that because of our Original and actual uncleanness every work of our hands and that which we offer to our God is unclean and consequently our works cannot justifie themselves much less can they justifie us And we find the same judgment of God confirmed likewise in the New Testament Luk. 17. where the Lepers pray heartily Jesus Master have mercy on us there 's one good work of piety and devotion they obey readily in going to shew themselves to the Priests as they had been commanded there 's another good work better than the former for obedience is better than sacrifice And one of them when he saw that he was cleansed turned back and with a loud voyce glorified God and fell down on his face at our Saviours feet and gave him thanks there 's many good works together one of devotion he glorified God another of zeal with a loud voyce a third of reverence he fell down on his face a fourth of humility at our Saviours feet a fifth of praise and thanksgiving he gave him thanks here is soul and body and all the powers and faculties of both wholly set upon good works yet our Saviour saith Arise go thy way thy Faith hath made thee whole v. 19. So is it also in the leprosie of our souls we are bound to pray heartily Jesus Master have mercy on us and to shew our selves to the Priests that is to use all the means of salvation which God hath appointed in the communion and by the Ministers of his Church yet when all is done if we will speak with our Saviour we must say to the Leper thy Faith hath made thee whole The good works may be acknowledged as adjunctâ—… but not as causes of the cure that must be attributed only to Faith in him who is the Physician of our souls For without doubt that holy ejaculation The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God though he be not clean according to the purification of the sanctuary is a prayer as needful now as it was in the dayes of Hezekiah or it would not have been left upon record for us 2 Câ—…ron 30. 19 It is the Lords Pardon not the mans preparation that makes him clean according to the purification of the Sanctuary and so Kimchi confesseth in his gloss upon those words ver 20. And the Lord healed the people that is saith he The Lord forgave their sin according to that of the Psalmist heal my soul for I have sinned against thee The Lord pardoned their sins that he might accept them and why should not we say that pardon and forgivenesse of our sins is the best ground and means of our acceptance with God For this is the only way to be clean according to the purification of the Sanctuary that is to be clean from all sin even to be made clean of which it is said The blood of Jesus Christ his Son 〈◊〉 us from all sin 1 Joh. 1. 7. If I haâ—… but one sin left upon my soul not washed away by Faith in his blood and the tears of my own repentance I shall not be clean enough to appear before the Throne of his Grace much lesse to appear at the bar of his justice I shall not be innocent enough to serve him much lesse to be judged by him I shall not be able to stand comfortably before his mercy and much less to stand confidently against his Judgement Therefore can I not hope to be saved by the first innocency that of obedience or of righteousness but only by the second innocency that of Faith and repentance And if any other man hath a better hope I pray God he may not find a worse salvation But surely God himself in his consultation how to save the Israelites concludes to do it not by their obedience but by their Faith and repentance Jer. 3. 19. But I said How shall I put thee among the children and give thee a pleasant land a goodly heritage There 's his consultation how to save them And I said thou shalt call me My Father and shalt not turn away from me there 's his conclusion to save them by their Faith and by their repentance By their Faith Thou shalt call me My Father and by their repeâ—…tance Thou shalt noâ—… tuâ—…n away from me that is not so turn away but thou shalt return again and therefore this promise is not to be interpreted of their obedience but of their repentance he that is most obedient in some cases cannot say he doth not turn away from God in other but he that is truly penitent can
of God And he gave them that liberty will you call that a hearing of Prayer Then say That hearing of Prayer is not an Act of Grace but of Vengeance for a liberty of doing mischief doth of it self tend to nothing but to the increase of damnation He that seriously considers Prayer to be an elevation of the soul to God will not easily allow it to be an engagement of the soul to the Devil 3. As for Gods hearing the good desires of naturall men that is also in my weak apprehension another exception against this generall Rule God heareth not sinners rather then an exposition of it So far am I from thinking that Aquinas intended to expound this rule by turning it into a question and much further was I from saying That he made a sufficient exposition of it For I must look upon all naturall men as God looks upon them that is as sinners so saith the Text most expresly God looked down from heaven upon the children of men to see if there were any that did understand that did seek God Every one of them is gone back they are altogether become filthy there is none that doth good no not one Psalm 53. 2 3. which is alledged by Saint Paul as a proof that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin Rom. 3. 9 10 11 12. That is They are all under sin as they are in themselves or as naturall men And therefore as such that is As naturall men or as sinners God heareth them not Hitherto I think the generall Rule is not expounded but excepted and though naturall men may in some respects have good desires yet as such I do not see how they can have good prayers Good desires may be from nature but good prayers are only from grace 4. You may take to your self what liberty you please in some other opinions but scarce in this because it may easily be made destructive of true Christianity For every Christian Divine is bound not only to believe but also to profess That none can properly be said to Pray but only a Christian. And that no Christians prayers whatsoever he be are heard by vertue of his own but only by vertue of Christs intercession The Catholick Church having taught us the belief of both these doctrines by her constant obsecration in all her prayers Through Jesus Christ our Lord And the Holy Ghost having taught it his For no man can say that Jesus is the Lord much less our Lord but by the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 12. 3. And he must not only say Our Lord but also Our Father that will truly pray that is he must draw near to God in the acknowledgement of Christs Communion and through the Faith of Christs intercession Our Father which art in heaven teacheth us both these Truths In that we call God Father we profess that we pray through his eternall Sons intercession for till he reconciled us we were enemies not children In that we call him Our Father we profess that we pray in his eternall Sons Communion who did graciously teach us to call him Ours because he had made him so Nor can any man say to God Our Father who knows not Christ nor any man that knows Christ truly say it but in that Communion whereof Christ is the Head If nature doth teach men to pray in faith of Christs intercession and in the acknowledgement of Christs Communion saying Through Jesus Christ our Lord then without doubt God may hear the Prayers which proceed from naturall men But if nature doth so indeed then am not I so much bound as I think and willingly acknowledge to Christ and his Church for teaching me to pray so And I had rather disown that is not embrace any mans opinion then disown the least part of my obligation to Christs Catholick Church which doth by me as Saint Paul did by the Galathians travaileth in birth of me till Christ be formed in me that I may offer to God such Prayers as proceed not from my nature but from his Grace and that not through my self but through Jesus Christ our Lord. And much more am I bound not to disown my obligation to my blessed Saviour by whose Grace I am enabled to pray and for whose sake God doth hear my Prayers In the merit of whose unspotted righteousness I offer and present my impure person in the righteousness of whose all-sufficient intercession I offer and present my imperfect prayers before the throne of the heavenly Grace as often as with my heart and not only with my lips I say unto my God Our Father which art in heaven For though men may number their prayers by their repetitions and by their beads yet surely God numbereth them by their sighs and by their grâ—…ans And it were to be wished that all men did likewise so number them having such an heavenly attention in their prayers as to be with Christ and such an heavenly affection as to be in Christ since it is requisite they should have their hearts in and with him in praying whose mediation they desire to have with their Prayers CAP. II. Of Priests Marriage 1. POpe Siricius blamed for speaking dishonourably of marriage and some Papists after him 2. To say that Priests marriage hath been forbidden by the Apostles or the Catholick Church is to accuse both of approving the doctrine of Devils 3. Christ allows of Priests marriage 4. The Popes of Rome did not attempt to forbid it till Siricius his daies 5. The Apostles neither taught nor decreed against it 6 For Priests to marry is not contrary to the Churches precept 7. Nine Popes of Rome the sons of married Bishops Priests and Deacons some in Europe some in Africa some in Asia shew that marriage was lawfull for all those orders of Clergy men in the Catholick Church till near nine hundred years after Christ. That the Prohibition thereof in the Church of Rome was not till the year 1074. by Pope Gregory the seventh 8. The second Canon of the second Council of Carthage rightly interpreted forbids Priests only the use of their marriage at some special feasts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being rendred secundum priora propria statuta speaks for the truth of the Greek Copies before the Latine The Pope in need of a Provinciall Councill to support his Decree 9. Abrahams being married a good instance for Priests marriage who need look for no better then his righteousness 10. God saying of all It is better to marry then to burn the Church may not gainsay it of Priests 11. The Trullane Fathers blame the Romanists aboout Priests Marriage yet their Canons confirmed by Pope Adrian who in this thwarts Siricius 12. Saint Paul allowed marriage to prevent the danger and not only the guilt of fornication The Church bound to follow his doctrine 13. Saint Pauls thorn in the flesh his poenall afflictions not his sinfull motions or his tribulations not his temptations in the flesh 14. Marriage better allowed
have not strained this Canon in my interpretations I assure you they are not mine but your own Authors The first is Gratians Par. 1. Dist. 28. c. 15. Si quis discernit Presbyterum conjugatum tanquam occasione â—…ptiarum quod offerre non debeat ab ejus oblatione ideo se abstinet Anathema sit The latter is the new Glossators upon Gratian in the edition authorized by Greg. 13. Si quis secernat se à Presbytero qui uxorem duxit tanquam non oporteat illo liturgiam peragente de oblatione percipere Anathema sit And he tells us That Dionysius exiguus had in effect so interpreted it before him 7. And this one single Canon might I alledge not only as the Jugement and Decree of the Catholick Church from the Code of her Canons but also as the Judgement of your own particular Roman Church from Dionysius and as the Decree of the same Church from Gratian But that both the antient Judgement and Decree of your Church are more clearly proved by the practice of it For in your very Church of Rome have heretofore been no less then nine Popes which were the sons of married Priests and Deacons whereas if Priests and Deacons marriage had been forbid by the Apostles or by the Catholick Church I might say They were the sins of Priests not sons and you might say They were very unfit Popes because very unfit successors for Saint Peter but more unfit Vicars for his master But so saith Gratian Par. 1. Dist. 56. cap. 2. Osius Papa fuit filius Stephani subdiaconi Bonifacius Papa fuit filius Jucundi Presbyteri Felix Papa filius Felicis Presbyteri de titulo Fasciolae Agapetus Papa filius Gordiani Presbyteri Theodorus Papa filius Theodori Episcopi de civitate Hierosolymâ Silverius Papa filius Silverii Episcopi Romae Deus dedit Papa filius Stephani subdiaconi Felix etiam tertius natione Romanus ex Patre Felice Presbytero fuit Item Gelasius natione Afer ex Episcopo Valerio natus est Item Agapetus natione Romanus ex Patre Gordiano Presbytero originem duxit complures etiam alii inveniuntur qui de sacerdotibus nati Apostolicae sedi praefuerunt See here are nine Popes named which were all the sons of married Clergy-men and yet Gratian concludes this Chapter saying These were not All divers more might be found if he had a mind to look after them yet these are enough to prove the practice of the Church of Rome for having married Priests till the year of our Lord 158 when Anastasius flourished who writ the lives of the Popes saith Bellarm. de script Eccles. with this emphatical asseveration Ut notum est denying Damasus cited by Gratian to have been the author of of that Book as well he might For Damasus lived in the year 367. So that very few of these men not above three at most had been Popes before his time for it is evident That Agapetus who is reckoned fourth in this Catalogue lived in the time of Justinian that is above 500. years after Christ For by his couragious answer he kept Justinian from embracing Eutychianism saying He thought he 〈◊〉 come to a Christian Emperour but he had found a Pagan persecutor the reason was The Emperour had laboured to perswade him to be an Eutychian And that Silverius who was this Agapetus his next successor may by the way be added to Gratians list for he was the son of Hormisdae not of Silverius Bishop of Rome I have no mind nor leisure to make any special enquiry after the rest and I need not For if you will consider this testimony seriously you will find in this one Catalogue not only Priests and Bishops of Rome to have been Fathers of Popes which is enough to prove the marriage of Priests allowed in that particular Church but also Theodorus Bishop of Hierusalem in Asia and Valerius Bishop of Hippo in Africa to have been Fathers of two of your antient Popes which is enough to prove the marriage of Priests then allowed in the Catholick Church that is to say not only in Europe but also in Asia and in Africa But I do intreate you to take special notice of Valerius Bishop of Hippo for he alone may very well make you misdoubt if not the truth yet the authority of your own alledged Canon since it is incredible that such a married Bishop should live at Hippo at the very same time in which such a Canon was made at Carthage against Priests marriages and neither confute the Canon having such a Learned Priest under him as Saint Augustine nor be confuted by it having so many enemies about him as the Donatists but however in that so many Fathers of your own Church have been the sons of married Priests it will be discretion in some of your Zealots hereafter to bestow better language upon the children of married Priests for fear they be constrained to reproach not only many of their own Popes but even the whole Church of Christ For so far doth your own Gratian justifie this Truth as to assure us That the marriage of Priests was lawful at that time in every Countrey over all the Christian world Dist. 56. c. 13. Quum ergo ex sacerdotibus natiin summos Pontifices supra leguntur esse promoti non sunt intelligendi de fornicatione sed de legitimis conjugiis nati quae sacerdotibus ante Prohibitionem Ubique licita erant in orientali Ecclesia usque hodie eis licere probatur When as therefore the sons of Priests as we we read before viz. cap. 2. which I alledged have been promoted to be Popes we may not think they were born to those Priests in fornication but in lawfull marriage for it was lawfull everywhere that is in all the Christian world for Priests to marry before the Prohibition and in the Eastern Church it is at this day proved to be lawfull So we see that the Clergy both of Eastern and Western Church did plainly shew by their Practice That the marriage of Priests was not prohibited by the Apostles or the Catholick Church and therefore generally used their liberty till some after-prohibition denyed the same to the Clergy of the Western Church And the new Glossator himself who confidently saith that Gratian was mistaken as to the Latine Church sheweth little reason for his own confidence because no pretence or proof for the others mistake till this Decree of Siricius which was not made till almost 400. and not generally ratified or received in his own Diocess till above a 1000. years after Christ For so Baronius himself hath recorded that in the year 1074. this Decree of prohibiting Priests marriage was forced upon the Bishops of Italy Germany and France by Pope Gregory the seventh after they had unanimously gainsayed and most earnestly deprecated and opposed it v. Bar. An. 1074. nu 37 38 39. Now if this Decree were not generally received in the Latine Church till then though it were made
of the Greek he hath unawares granted that the Latine Canons are not of so great certainty and should not be of so great authority as the Greek For one of Two cannot be so certain as One by it self Again profâ—…ssing that secundum priora statuta in the Latine is the better edition of the two Quaedam alia lectio melior habet secundum priora statuta he hath unawares granted it is the worse for that could not have been quaedam alia lectio if the other of propria statuta had not been before it and surely of two various readings the first must needs be the best because that was the Original according to the rules Id verum quod primum Id bonum quod verum Thirdly confessing secundum priora statuta to be the Original in that it was the better for else the Original was falfe and the variation from it was the true reading he hath as unadvisedly taxed the Greeks for mistaken Interpreters Graeci haec verba malè intelligentes vertêrunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if he mean these for the words ill translated secundum propria statuta the Greeks did not ill translate them for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth fairly and fully express those words But if he mean for the words ill translated secundum priora statuta then it is not credible the Greeks intended to translate them for they must have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they had read secundum priora statuta in the Latine copies and meaned to translate what they had read T is much more probable that the Greeks found secundum propria statuta in the Original Africane Canon which sure was penned in Latine for the Africane Fathers writ in Latine and Valerius Bishop of Hippo in Africa did therefore take Saint Augustine while he was yet but a Priest to officiate for him in the Pulpit contrary to the custom of that Church because himself being a Greek and not expert in the use of the Latine tongue could not Preach so well to the edifying of the Africane people as saith Possidius in the life of Saint Augustine And it is as probable That the Latines did at first read that same Canon secundum propria statuta as did the Greeks till some of later years sc. after the Prohibition of Priests marriage in that Church thinking priora statuta would better serve their turn then propria statuta not only because it took off the specification of time but also because it put on the face of antiquity ventured to shuffle that in for the other For it is evident that Gratian did read that very Canon secundum propria statuta concerning which Binius avoweth secundum priora statuta to be the better reading v. Grat. Dist. 84. cap. 3. But indeed Binius in this assertion is confuted not only by his own Latine interpreter in his own Councils in this very particular Canon upon which he hath passed this unwarrantable sentence but also in Balsamons Councils by Gentianus Hervetus if that marginal note be his upon the 13. Canon of Trullo Legerat interpres Graecus in Canone Carthaginensi secundum propria statuta And if that note be not his we have gotten a new author to confute Binius but we have not lost our old confutation For in the Latine translation which without doubt belongs to Hervetus we see not only that he so read but also that he so understood those words for he there thus interprets them Propriis terminis à consortibus abstineant Let them abstain from wives at proper and peculiar seasons or times that is At the times of their administration as saith Balsamon So that Binius sheweth more his animositie then his ingenuitie in his ensuing words Hac translatione nostri temporis haeretici caelibatum Clericorum impugnant quasi hujus Canonis authoritate Clerici ab uxoribus in ordine tantùm Vicis suae abstinere deberent reliquis verò temporibus iisdem maritali consortio cohabitare liceret For we say no more in this then Balsamon had said four hundred years before us your own Hervetus being his interpreter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vicis suae tempore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eo sc. tempore quo sacrificant Bals. Concil Trul. cap. 13. Nay we say no more in this then the whole Council in Trullo had said 600. years before Balsamon as hath been proved already in most express words yet in truth we have no reason to be angry with Binius for though he hath given us bad language he hath given us a good advantage for having said that secundum priora statuta was the better and therefore the antienter and truer reading of this Canon he hath not only justified our appeal to former Canons concerning this matter but hath also confuted his own new exposition of the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is this secundum proprias regulas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enim non tantùm significat terminum sed etiam regulam ac praeceptum For though we may admit that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie Regula yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have been an improper translation in Greek for secundum proprias regulas in Latine in which language the Canon was first penned because it would have been equivocal and therefore unexprâ—…ssive and uncertain But it must have been an impossible translation of these Latine words secundum priores regulas for all the world cannot make priores signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more then priority signifie property And yet he confidently avoweth that secundum priora statuta was the better reading of the two The upshot of all is this whether we look to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to the Latine secundum propria statuta for priora was a meer device I will not say a forgerie If we will look upon certainties not upon conjectures the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth import terminum temporis not terminum orationis a determination of time not of law and so likewise the Latine word statutum or the whole Greek Church did not rightly understand their own tongue and the Africane Church did not intend their Canon should be rightly understood wherefore I hope you will pardon this my Descant upon Binius because you see I have done it not to shew my self a Grammarian but a Divine not a bold Critick but an honest Church-man For I have followed that sense of the Africane Canon which I find given it not only by the Greek but also by the Latine Church And therefore this your Canon may not bear that sense which you have given it because it may not contradict all other Canons of the same Africane Church according to the judgement of all Greek and Latine Interpreters And yet this seems to me the best defence you have made for Siricius whereby you have taught us Protestants very ingenuously though very Covertly to believe That a Pope may need
the authority of a particular Church to defend his Decrees notwithstanding that some others of your profession would fain perswade the world That the Popes Decrees ought to be received and embraced as the infallible rules of the whole Catholick Church 9. Having done my weak endeavour to vindicate the Church I now come to vindicate my self and to make good my decarded instances As for that of Abraham if it reach not Siricius it must content me For if my salvation shall go no further then to be in Abrahams bosom my Religion may seek no further then for Abrahams righteousness And he must be to me a bold Dogmatist who would make me more righteous then my Father who am not righteous but for being his Son And if Saint Paul hath thought fit to argue from Abrahams faith to our faith sure I am not mistaken in my Topicks for arguing from Abrahams righteousness to our righteousness And yet I will give you a better precedent then Saint Paul for I find our blessed Saviour himself so arguing This did not Abraham John 8. 40. 10. As for my instance out of Saint Paul It is better to marry then to burn I think it doth prove Siricius a false Dogmatist for he saith It is not better to marry then to burn and I am sure that both parts of the contradiction cannot be true and dare not imagine That Siricius hath taken the true Saint Paul the false part For if for Priests to marry is to be in the flesh Then clearly it is better for Priests to burn then to marry notwithstanding Saint Paul hath said generally concerning all men It is better to marry then to burn And neither good Reason nor good Religion nor good Manners will allow any man to give an exception upon Gods general Rule or to distinguish where his Law doth not distinguish or to set up an Hypothesis against his Thesis by saying That is unlawfull for some particular men which he hath declared to be lawful for All men or to say That puts a man in the state of sin which God hath said is consistent with the state of righteousness For this is to give earth a Dominion over heaven to allow men a legislative power over God for he that in this manner judgeth the Law doth indeed condemn the Law-giver according to that assertion of the irrefragable Doctor Si enim aliquis effecit aliquid quod non sit determinatum in sacra Scriptura mortaliter peccat quia se constituit supra Deum Halensis Par. 1. qu. 68. num 1. art 2. Therefore I dare not say The Church hath determined that to be unlawful in Any which God hath determined to be lawfull in All For I am in love with that Rule in the Angelical Doctor which he hath improved out of Aristotle as he hath indeed all other Ethicks In his quae arbitrio Judicis relinquuntur viri boni est ut sit Diminitivus Poenarum 22. qu. 67. art 4. ad 1. In those things which the Law hath left to the Judges arbitrement it is the part of a good man to Diminish Punishments and if so Then much more to diminish not to encrease sins What an Heathen hath allowed to be the part of a good man pray let a Christian allow to be the part of his best Mother and not suppose the Church 10 cruel as to be willing to encrease sins when he may not suppose a good man so cruel as to be willing to encrease Punishment 11. This makes me follow the Trullane Fathers who thought it fitter Can. 13. to tax the Roman Church for making a Canon to keep married Priests from cohabiting with their wives then by consenting to such a Canon to bring themselves under the suspition of disparaging or disgracing marriage which God had instituted by his Law and both honoured and blessed by his presence For the whole Gospel say they cryeth aloud What God hath joyned let not man put asunder but if Priests that are married be in the state of damnation let us say not God but the Devil hath joyned them and their wives together and therefore man ought to put them asunder and so call marriage in them not Gods but the Devils institution The same Fathers urge further that of Saint Paul Heb. 13. 3. Marriage is honourable in all to prove it honourable in Priests for that was the whole matter then in debate And I desire you to shew me How in this enuntiation marriage is honourable in All the universal particle All doth signifie All but Priests And yet in another enuntiation Drink ye All of this the same particle All doth signifie none but Priests me thinks by this extraordinary kind of subtilty All is come to signifie None For All is none of the Clergy in one place and none of the Laity in another and in my dull sense the whole company of Christians are either Clergy or Laity I will yet further add the testimony of Adrian that I may oppose a Pope against a Pope both for the credit of this Council and for the truth of this cause For I find him in Gratian speaking these words Sextam Sanctam Synodum recipio cum omnibus Canonibus suis I receive the sixt holy Synod with all her Canons Gr. de consec dist 3. c. 29. He saith I receive the sixt holy Synod so the Council is good as to you who are so zealous for the Pope whatever it be to others He saith with all her Canons so the cause is good against you for this Canon is received among the rest And he that said all this lived above 800. years after Christ so your assertion is not good That the Apostles themselves were the first that taught and decreed that Priests ought to abstain from wives For if Pope Adrian could have alledged the least particle of an Apostolical decree against Priests marriage no doubt he would not have said He received all the Canons meerly for this one Canons sake which had been made of purpose to confute his own Church and Chair of both which he was not a little zealous meerly for following Siricius in being addicted to the contrary opinion chuse you which of the two Popes to follow Siricius or Adrian for both you cannot 12. But you say To burn doth not here signifie to be tempted but to fornicate I cannot think Saint Paul was so zealous to determine that which no man was yet so impudent as to doubt viz. It is better to marry then to fornicate for that is no more in effect then this It is better to be a man then to be a beast which surely was not the doubt concerning which the Corinthians had desired to be resolved Therefore I think this cannot be Saint Pauls meaning It is better to marry then to fornicate and I suppose you will think so too when you shall consider that from this interpretation I can justly make this inference That if Priests do fornicate first they may marry afterwards
in doing or in suffering because there is no proportion betwixt an infinite Justice and a finite satisfaction This considered may I not be as gross an Ebionite or Cherinthian by saying there is a necessity of penal satisfaction as if I say there is a necessity of legal observations for the expiation of sin do not both alike diminish and disparage the efficacy of Christs death Or may I think that the Church of Christ by using the power of the Keyes in retaining sins intends to retain where Christ remits to wiâ—… in the true Penitent to the undervaluing of Christs merit in purchasing remission of sins and Gods free grace and mercy in granting it and Gods holy Spirit in testifying it Therefore I must let the satisfaction enjoyned by the Church die with the Penitent and not be required of him after death unless I will suppose the Church both able and willing to bind where Christ hath loosed For if Christ loose not the sinner here I do not find upon what grounds to believe That he will loose him hereafter So that we see if satisfaction is to be made by the sinner All must go to Purgatory and for ought we can prove tarry there eternally And so Purgatory will in truth be Hell If satisfaction hath been made by Christ then none at all can justly go thither And so Purgatory will in truth be Nothing certain it is no other satisfaction was given for all the offences of the good Thief though he were not a Penitent till the hour of his death and with what colour of Truth can any Divine teach that God will not take this satisfaction and this alone for all other Penitents And yet this in Bellarmines acount is one of the two supporters of Purgatory the other is Venial sins which may also be shaken in good time In a word The Place the Time the Quality of Torment the manner of tormenting the Tormentor and the cause or end for which souls are said to be tormented in Purgatory are all uncertain and how can the torment it self be taken for a certainty For it is not any mans confidence can make that certain which is invested with so many intrinsecal doubts and ambiguities nor any mans arguments can make that credible which is not certain But besides the uncertainty wâ—… meet with in this temporary Tormentâ—… which will not suffer us to believe it wâ—… find it casts an uncertainty upon that eternal Torment which we confess our selveâ—… bound to believe For as you rightly sayâ—… Nothing is more certain amongst Christiaâ—… then what is de fide of Divine Faith So crave leave to inferr from that sayinâ—… Nothing is to be affirmed de fide of diviâ—… faith among Christians which is not ceâ—…tain unless we will labour to overthroâ—… the Certainty of the Christian faith Fâ—… to require men to believe an uncertaiâ—… equally with a certainty is to invite theâ—… to disbelieve a certainty since it is not possible they should have one and the same Divine Faith for uncertainties and for certainties And therefore to teach men to believe Purgatory which is uncertain is the ready way to make them not believe Hell which is most certain Nor is it to be wondered That Bellarmines certainties concerning this doctrine should be so much enfeebled by his own uncertainties concerning the same no more then it is to be wondered that the certainty of our Christian saith should depend not upon the wit of man but upon the word of God 7. For this doctrine of Purgatory is so far from being taught in the Word of God that if you should ask those Disciples who have been most and best instructed in the Word Have ye received the doctrine of Purgatory since ye believed They must answer you We have not so much as heard whether there be any Purgatory and yet the same men will plainly tell you They have heard there is an holy Ghost and have received him though your over-bold Peltanus would perswade the world That Purgatory is as expresly taught in the holy Scriptures as the Unity of God and yet that is a little more expresly taught then the Deity of the Holy Ghost though blessed be God the Scripture is very express in both these Doctrines But in the whole Book of God there is neither in words nor in sense neither explicitly nor implicitly any such thing as your Purgatory which we cannot say concerning any Article of the Christian Faith That the thing we are bound to believe is not so much as really or virtually named in all the Holy Bible For an sit is as truly a precognition in the object of faith as in the subject of any question by that Rule of the Apostle if reason will not serve How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard and how shall they hear without a Preacher Rom. 10. 14. We cannot believe what we have heard we cannot hear any supernatural truth unless God preach it and if he hath been the Preacher we may find the doctrine in his written Word which the most zealous defenders of this your doctrine durst not assert in former times For a very eminent Schoolman of our own Couâ—…rey Iohannis Bachâ—…nus lib. 4. dist 45. quâ—…unica answers all the Texts that were in his daies commonly alledged out of the Bible to prove Purgatory which were then but three though since they have swelled into a far greater number The first Text was that of 2 Mac. 12. To which his answer is Libri Macchabaeorum non sunt de Canone Bibliae ut dicit Hieronymus The Books of the Macchabees are not of the Canon of the Bible as saith Saint Hierom Nor doth your Cardinals new subtilty invalidate this answer Dico librum Maccha non esse Canonicum apud Judaeos sed apud Christianos esse I say the Books of the Macchabees were not Canonical among the Jews but they are among the Christians For the Christian Church had the Canon of the Old Testament from the Church of the Jews who not daring to make themselves a Canon took that which God gave them and therefore left out the Macchabees because they were not in the Ark that is to say not in that Canon which God had given them Nor hath God given the Christian Church power and authority to make that or any other Book Canonical which himself hath not made so for the Text is plain which saith To them were committed the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 2. Which words only shew a Trust of keeping not a power of making the Oracles of God either in Jew or Christian. The second Text then alledged to prove Purgatory was that of 1 Cor. 3. To which his answer is That the Apostle there speaketh of that fire which shall burn the world at the day of Judgement therefore that place will not prove such a a purging by fire as the Doctors suppose before the day of Judgement Benè probatur Purgatio ista conflagrationis in
the worshipping of Angels Ut harum detentae culturis animae sub fiâ—… mamento obligatae teneantur ne sc tendant ad suporiores caelos ad Deum omnâ—…um adorandum That such kind of worship place it upon what creature yoâ—… will detains the Soul here below and keep it from ascending into the highest Heaven that it may there worship the ever liviâ—… God Quod operâ efficitur inimici 〈◊〉 semper animas super terram humiliaâ—… detineat Religionem simulans quùâ—… fit maximum sacrilegium which is tâ—… Divels chiefest Policy to keep mens Soâ—… still groveling on the Earth and therefoâ—… such a kind of worship though it may preteâ—… to Religion yet is it in truth no better thâ—… sacrilege Maximum sacrilegium it is sacriledge in the highest degree because 〈◊〉 robs God immediately in himself not mediately in his tithes and offerings it robs him in his Glory and not only in his Patrimony And that you may not think the Latine Church had forgotten this Truth in her doctrine when many of her members had forsaken it in their practice I will here give you the Gloss of a very late Interpreter and that is of Jacobus Faber Stapulensis who saith thus upon the same Text Vocant hujus modi superstitiosi ad Religionem Angelorum privatas preces ritus sacrificia ea adoriuntur quae ipsi non viderunt quae ipsi non cognoscunt At quae monet Paulus vidit cognoscit Haec figurae haec Prophetae haec omnes Sancti Spiritus Sanctus manifestat proinde dat Colossensibus generale documentum abstinendi ab omnibus elementis mundi sive Gentibus tradita fuerint ad cultum daemonum sive Judaeis ad antiquas ceremonias sive superstitiosis ad dementationes magicas animarum ludificamenta quae universa corruptionem operantur His general meaning is this They who call us to superstition or to any false worship of Angels or the like call us to they know not what themselves But St. Paul who calls us to the true Religion or to the worship of God in Christ calls us to what he hath seen and known For all the Types and Figures Prophets in the Old Testament and all the Saints and the Holy Spirit both in the Old New lead us to this worship Therefore St. Paul gives a general rule to the Colossians and in them to all Christians of abstaining from all the rudiments of the World in matters of Religion 〈◊〉 from so many cheats and delusions and corruptions of their Souls and since the worship of Angels is not according to the Commandement of God it must come under the rudiments of the World oâ—… as St. Paul speaketh of a fleshly mind This interpreter doth in effect agree with the rest they all agree in this interpretation That St. Pauls main drift and purpose is to dehort us from all manner oâ—… superstition and to exhort us to 〈◊〉 Religion in the worship of God Yeâ—… your great Champion enters the lists onlâ—… against Theodoret challenging him of 〈◊〉 multiplicity of errors and mistakes anâ—… that justly saith his great admirer and 〈◊〉 he were a Saint his great Idolater Biniâ—… in his notes in Conc. Rom. 2. sub Sylâ—… Justam illust Card Baronis censuram noâ—… evadit but thus Baronius proceeds Sâ—… ergo errore semel lapsus in alium graviorem impegit ut diceret Canonem 35 Concil Laod. de his haereticis esse intelligendum qui Angelos colendos esse docerent quique in eadem regione Asiae Oratoria erexissent St. Michaeli Archangelo incautè nimis quae à Catholicis essent antiquitus instituta Haereticis quorum nulla est memoria tribuens Baron An. 60. num 20. But so he passeth from one errour to another saying That the Canon of Laodicea was to be understood of those Hereticks who taught that Angels were to be worshipped and who had in that Countrey erected Oratories or Churches to St. Michael the Archangel very unadvisedly ascribing that to Hereticks whose memorial was perished with themselves which had been anciently instituted by Catholicks Alas poor Theodoret what ill luck had he to be a Protestant to protest against the worship of Angels as taught and practised by Haereticks which saith this new Doctor was anciently taught and practised by Catholicks But St. Paul had as ill luck as he who had protested against the same worship long before And as long as that Protestation stands good we may very well claim him and own our selves in this case for very good Protestants and for better Christians And because it is impossible for any to be good Catholicks who willfully contradict St. Paul for such men are rather enemies then Servanâ—…s of Christ who reject his Authority we must say not that Theodoret unadvisedly ascribed that to Hereticks which had been anciently instituted by Catholicks for what Catholick did ever take upon him to institute the Truth and much less the false Religion but that Baronius unadvisedly ascribed that to Catholicks which had been fondly instituted by Haereticks But let us see by what arguments he confutes Theodoret. Sanè quidem nullum à Cerinthianis Haereticis erectum fuisse in honorem St. Michaelis Archangeli Oratorium ex nuper dictis satis superque liquet We have already proved that the Cerinthian Haereticks did erect no Oratory to St. Michael the Archangel Had he quoted any Scripture Fathers or Council Theodorete might have stood confuted but sure his own Ipse dixit may not stand against Scripture Father and Council as a good Confutation For all his proof to which he annexeth his satis superque liquet is only his own conjectural argumentation in these words Cherinthum Haereticos qui mundi creationem Angelis tribuebant non tamen sensisse eos adorandos Nam super Angelos virtutem esse divinam omnium supremam quam Deum dicerent omnes affirmabant Chernthius and those Haereticks who did attribute the creation of the world to Augels did not think the Angels were to be worshipped for they did all affirm that there was a supreme Divine Virtue which they called God above the Angels The whole proof consisteth of these two Propositions 1º That the Cherinthian Hereticks did not erect Oratories to Saint Michael the Archangel because they did not worship him 2º That they did not worship him or any of his fellow Angels because they did acknowledge a God above him and them This Advocate pleads well for the Cherinthians most abominable Haereticks but ill for his own clients For he would perswade us that the Papists are more stupid and more impious then were the Cherinthians more impious in that they worship Angels which the others did not more stupid in that not thinking the Angels made the World as the others did they have less reason to worship them But if he â—…ath not betrayed his Clients yet sure he â—…ath betrayed his cause For what do Protestants say more but that Oratories may not