in c. Sicut praecepta Legis humanae ordinant hominem ad quandam communitatem humanam Ita praecepta legis divinae ordinant hominem ad quandam communitatem seu rempublicam hominum sub Deo Ad hoc autem quod aliquis in aliquâ communitate beâ—…è commoratur duo requiruntur Quorum primum est ut benè se habeat ad eum qui praeest communitati aliud autem est ut benè se habeat ad alios communitatis consocios comparticipes oportet igitur quòd in lege divinâ primò ferantur quaedam praecepta ordinantia hominem ad Deum inde alia quaedam praecepta ordinantia hominem ad alios proximos simul convenientes sub Deo As the praecepts of humane Laws do order men to a Communion or Common wealth amongst themselves so the Precepts of divine laws do order men to a Communion or Common-wealth under God Now that a man may be fit to live in any Communion two things are required The first is that he behave himself well towards the Head of that Communion the next that he behave himself well towards his fellow-members and co-partners in it Accordingly in the Divine Law first we meet with precepts teaching a man his duty towards his God after these we meet with other precepts teaching him his duty towards his neighbours who together with himself do live under the government of that same God Nothing can be spoken either more plainly or more punctually to shew that the Decalogue as the Rule of Justice is the gâ—…ound of Christian Communion That whosoever desires to be of that Communion must first learn his Duty towards his God the Head of it then his duty towards his neighbours his fellow-members in it That these Duties are as distinct as their objects taught in two several distinct orders of precepts some concerning God others concerning his neighbours And that all save God alone are to be accounted as his neighbours in this Communion as all living with himself under one and the same Head which is God From which premises we may well inferr this conclusion That what Duty belongs to the Head only may not be practised towards any of the members without a confusion of Gods Order a violation of Gods Law and an invasion of Gods Right which must needs be highly displeasing to all the true members of this Communion whether in heaven or in earth who all agree in nothing more then in honouring their Head and therefore cannot but detest whatsoever shall tend to his dishonour for since himself hath said I am the Lord that is my name and my glory will I not give to another Isa. 42. 8. we may be ashamed must be afraid of giving that Glory to Saints and Angels which God will not part withall for if he deny the gift how dare we give that 's to give in sin there 's reason for our fear If he will not give it they will not take it that 's to give in vain there 's reason for our shame For as in mens natural so in Christs mystical Body all the members alike are made to serve the Head and in order to the Head it is that they serve one another So that there is not one member which will not neglect to serve it self and much more its fellow-fellow-member when it should serve its Head Let God but have the same priviledge among Christians as without doubt he hath the same right for they are that body whereof he is the Head and no man will hereafter so misplace his devotion so mispend his time so mistake himself as to be worshipping of an Angel or a Saint whiles he should be worshipping of God I will not ask With what faith I can say I believe in an Angel instead of I believe in God or to which Article of the Creed this Religious worship as you call it is reducible that it may be done in faith though what is not of faith is sin more then exceeding sinful in our Prayers for in that I have proved this worship cannot be without fâ—…lly I have sufficiently proved it cannot bâ—… with faith Nor will I ask how it is agreeable with our Lords most holy Prayer the pattern of all sound prayers for me to say Our Brother instead of Our Father which art in heaven though if I pray out of Christs Communion who will not cannot joyn with me in saying Our Brother but will and doth joyn with me in saying Our Father I cannot pray in hope because I must also pray without Christs Intercession through which alone God heareth my prayers for having proved that this worship cannot be with faith I need not prove it must be without hope I only ask How this worship can be with Charity I mean that Charity which hath God only for its immediate object since Faith Hope and Charity are three Theological vertues no less inseparable from themselves then they ought to be inseparable from our souls And if this worship may not be with Gods Charity why should my Charity be with this worship If it love not God why should I love it and if it love another instead of God how doth it love God Sure I am God himself hath determined in a case very like this That They who embrace a false worship do hate the true God Exod. 20. 5. Visiting the iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me And how can good Christians with any conscience do that which may come under the least temptation or suspition of hateing God Wherefore this false worship must needs so trouble and startle true Believers as to be the cause of division and dis-union for ever in the Church of Christ dividing man from man to the worlds end because it divides man from God for whose sake and in whose name and love we ought to follow and embrace the Christian Communion For the same Voice which calls us to Communion in worshipping first calls us to Religion in the worship nor is it possible for any man to shew a Text which saith O come let us worship there 's the Communion which doth not likewise say worship God there 's the Religion Thus saith the man after Gods own heart and therefore nearest his mind O come let us worship and fall down and kneel before the Lord our maker Psal. 95. 6. So establishing publick as also establishing true and forbidding false worship For Rectum index sui obliqui he which saith O come let us worship and fall aown and kneel before the Lord our maker doth by the rule of contraries likewise say Let us not worship nor fall down nor kneel before any that is not our maker Wherefore since you have most shamefully violated this command you were best to let your repentance follow yout shame that your shame may not fore-run your confusion Put then your own translation into your practice come with your Venite adoremus
imputativè tantum suum Christus sanctificavit populum Arg. 10. True righteousnesse not Imputative and If Christ sanctified his people not truly but Imputatively whereby He supposes Imputative to be not True Then say that St. Paul did forsake a True for a false righteousness because he forsooke an inherent righteousnesse for an imputative But take heed that in saying so you do not only injuriously callumniate St. Paul chosing to be justified by an Imaginary righteousness but also impiously blaspheme your Saviour by supposing all that he did and suffered for sinners to be made theirs only by Imagination And consequently That Justification is but matter of phansie not of reality which the holy Scripture ascribes only to Imputed righteousnesse For the Text doth plainly say Abraham believed God and it was counted or imputed to him for righteousness Rom. 4. 3. And again v. 5. His Faith is counted for righteousnesse anâ—… v. 6. David describeth the blessednesse of the man unto whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works and again v. 22. It was imputed to him for righteousnesse He that shall consider these Texts and say Imputed righteousnesse is a meer fiction will scarce be able to wash his hands from charging the Holy Ghost with teaching a Fiction and may easily keep the Holy Ghost from washing his heart from the guilt of that charge Pereâ—…ius durst not so thwart the Text cap. 4. ad Rom. disp 2. but saith of Abraham as St. Paul had taught him That though he was just and holy yet his faith not his holinesse was imputed to him for righteousnesse Abraham licet is justus jam esset sanctus propter fidem tamen non propter opera Justitia dicitur esse imputata What a vast difference is here betwixt Two men not only of the same Church I mean of Rome but also of the same order I mean of Jesuits Bellarmine being a zealous Disputant strives to bring the Holy Ghost to his Position Pererius being a judicious Commentator strives to bring his exposition to the Holy Ghost For doubtlesse he had observed the Hebrew words Gen. 15. 6. to which St. Paul here related to be these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Imputavit illud ei in justitiam And he that is the Lord imputed it to him for righteousnesse So the Jewish Doctor Solemon Jarchi who best understood his own dialect glosseth those words He that is â—…oly and blessed imputed it tâ—… Abraham for purity and Justice or righteousnesse because of the Faith through which he had believed him If Abraham were made just by imputed righteousnesse then so also are the sons of Abraham therefore said the Prophet Look untâ—… Abraham your Father Isa. 51. 2. exhorting all the sons of Abraham after the pattern of their Father to trust in Christ as saith our Church in the contents nay as saith Gods holy Spirit in the Text Foâ—… St. Paul argueth from Abrahams Justification to ours That as he was not so we cannot be justified by inherent but by imputed righteousnesse For God is alwaies like himself not one to Abraham another to us therefore as He justified Abraham so He justifieth us And Aquinas gives a demonstrative reason for it saying Tota Ecclesia quae est mysticum corpus Christi computatur quasi una persona cum suo capite quod est Christus 3. par q. 41. art 1. c. The whole Church which is the mystical body of Christ is computed but as one person with its Head which is Christ Abraham the Father of the faithful and all his children are members of one and the same mystical body therefore they have all but one and the same righteousnesse whereby to be justified And Christ is the Head of that mysticall body therefore they all have His righteousness imputed to them for their Justification To set up another righteousness for this is to set up another Head and to set up another Head is to destroy the Body The righteousnesse of the Head is communicated and may be imputed to all the members of his Body because Head and Body make but one Person But the righteousnesse of one member is not communicable and may not be imputed to another member because all the members make several persons forasmuch as the Body whereof they are members is not natural but mystical so we have in the judgment of Aquinas great reason to believe the imputed righteousnesse of Christ but none at all to believe the imputed righteousnesse of the Saints For the Head hath but the members have not a communicable righteousnesse For though the Head and all the members make but one Person mystical yet the members make several distinct persons naturall and several distinct persons as they have their subsistencies so they have their properties and operations both alike incommunicable Each member hath its own righteousness not possibly to be communicated to another because it is confined to its own subject and therefore not truly imputed to another because it is not communicated This is a kind of imputed righteousness which is a meer figment or a fiction but 't is a righteousnesse both taught and imputed by man not by God even in the superfluous or superabunant righteousness of the Saints put into the treasure of the Church if we may believe your Authors to be communicated to those that want merits or satisfaction of their own either merits of their own working or satisfaction of their own making This imputed rightousnesse of man is in truth a meer fiction both in regard of the imputation and in regard of the righteousnesse First In regard of the imputation for it is againg the nature of Justice that one mans righteousness should be imputed for the satisfaction of another mans unrighteousnesse without his consent that is to be satisfied but God hath nowhere declared much less promised his consent to receive such satisfaction So that the imputing one mans righteousnesse to another must needs be vain because God may be thought not to accept it nay more it must needs be sinfull because man may be thought to prescribe if not to extort Gods acceptance And if there be vanity and sin in the imputation we must say there is fiction in it for having its very being in Vanity and sin it cannot have a real but a meer imaginary or fictitious being Secondly This imputed righteousness of men is a meer fiction in regard of the righteousnesse it self For it supposeth the righteousness of the creature to make condigne satisfaction to the Justice of the Creator which is impossible because the one is finite the other is infinite Nay yet farther to heighthen this impossibility at least in our conception though not in truth it supposeth the righteousness of the creature not only to satisfie for its own but also for anothers unrighteousnes whereas it is the opinion of some of the best Scholemen even of Bernard Scotus and Gabriel if we may believe Vasques That no creature can have a righteousnesse adequate
then prohibited the Roman Clergy in the judgement of their own Authors The second Exception PArt 2. chap. 1. sect 2. pag. 128. You reprehend Pope Siricius as saying in effect that to marry is to be in the flesh I could not meet with his own words only I find in Bellarmine lib. 1. de clericis cap. 19. Siricius prohibet cum uxore commercium iis qui sunt in sacris Hitherto he is not to be blamed For the whole Africane Church in the second Council of Carthage Can. 2. thus decrees Omnibus placet ut Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi vel qui Sacrameâ—…ta contrectant pudicitiae custodes etiam ab uxoribus se abstineant ut quod Apostoli docuerunt ipsa servavit antiquitas nos quoque custodiamus So that the Apostles themselves were the first that taught and decreed that Priests ought to abstain from wives Neither doth your instance of Abraham Isaac and Jacob urge Siricius There was no precept in the Law of nature nor in the Mosaicall Law forbidding Priests to marry as there hath ever been from the very Apostles in the Evangelicall Law in which for Priests to marry contrary to the Churches precept Siricius might well say is to be in the flesh because it is to be in a continuall state of sin and damnation Neither doth your other instance 1 Cor. 7. 9. urge him viz. It is better to marry then to burn For Burn there doth not signifie to be tempted but to fornicate according to the precedent words if they cannot contain let them marry which yet is more express by the words in the second verse To avoid fornication let every man have his wife Saint Paul himself had great temptations of the flesh 2 Cor. 12. 7 8 9. for which he prayed thrice that they might be taken from him but did neither marry nor fornicate to avoid them but contented himself with this Divine Answer My grace is sufficient for thee And this hath and will be still sufficient to the worlds end for millions of good men to undertake the office of Priesthood without needing either to marry or burn especially if they will do as he did not only assiduously pray but also Castigocerpus meum in servitutem redigo 1 Cor. 9. 27. The Answer POpe Siricius his doctrine concerning marriage is plain enough in his Epistle ad Himarium Tarrac recorded by Binius Tom. 1 concil and cited by me as his first degmaticall Epistle because so I find it theâ—…e in which speaking of married Priests he expresly applyeth to them Saint 〈◊〉 words They that are in the flesh cannot please God which being applyed to them in regard of their marriage and not of their Priesthood concerns them as married men and not as married Priests even as he that saith A blaspheming Priest ought to be disdained sheweth that disdain belongeth to the man not to the Priest For in a blaspheming Priest it is the man not the Priest is the blasphemer though as a Priest he is the greater sinner by blaspheming So in a married Priest it is the man not the Priest who is married and therefore if a married Priest be said to be in the flesh his being in the flesh must be ascribed to him from his marriage not from his Priesthood for it may be ascribed to all other married men as well as to him This is the doctrine concerning marriage which I blamed in Siricius as I found it had flowed from his own pen And it is to small purpose it seems that Bellarmine hath endeavoured so long after to furnish him with a little better Ink For even from his new proposition which he puts upon Siricius That Priests may not have commerce with their wives you infer this conclusion That for Priests to marry is to be in the flesh only you annex some new propositions to make your conclusion sound the better though it is impossible to make it good and they are these That for Priests to marry is contrary to the Churches order and to the doctrine and decree of the Apostles and to be in a continuall state of sin and damnation 2. I am very sorry that your zeal to excuse Siricius hath in effect made you accuse both the Church and the Apostles of Christ For it is an high accusation against both to say that they have forbid Priests to marry since Saint Paul expresly reckons this among the doctrines of Devils Forbidding to marry 1 Tim. 4. speaking in generall of the prohibition in whomsoever it forbid marriage whether in Priests or in any other men And now by the help of this Text I have found out a fit subject for your abominable praedicate To be in a continuall state of sin and damnation For none is truly in a continuall state of damnation but only the Devil or they that are led captive by him at his will which cannot justly much less charitably be said of any sort of men meerly for using that liberty which neither Christ nor his Church hath denyed them especially if they use it as doubtless they should and I hope they do not for an occasion to the flesh but as the servants of God that they may with the lesser distraction if not with the greater devotion attend his service Wherefore though this doctrine of forbidding Priests marriage may not be disliked by you as you are a Papist because it came from a Pope yet pray let it not be approved by you as you are a Christian because it first came from the Devil And it were to be wished that those of your party who desire to be thought of a purer mould then all mankind besides would so labour from henceforth to make us poor sinners more then Angels for it is more to put off then not to put on the flesh as not to make themselves little less then Devils by calumniating Gods own holy institution and shooting such thunderbolts as may well be thought to come from the Prince of the air but sure cannot come from the God of Heaven 3. For he hath spoken in a still small voice He that is able to receive it let him receive it Mat. 19. 12. And again by his Apostle Nevertheless to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife 1 Cor. 7. 2. If God say every man for you to say the Church hath said not a Clergy-man is to accufe the Church of that which she hath taught you daily to pray against even of the contempt of Gods Word and Commandement For Christ who spake the one by himself the other by his Spirit is Head of the Church and therefore it is monstrous and prodigious to affirm that the Church which is his body hath spoken otherwise For sure the body cannot have a voice without the Head and Christs Church is such a Body as will not have a voice without and much less against her Head 4. Therefore you should not have said The Churches precept but your Churches or rather your Popes
Aquinas his exposition of them which was for praying to Saints He falls into this absurdity to say that at that time this Invocation was both in the custome and in the faith of the Church Tum in consuetudine tum in fide fuisse receptam which though Bellarmine be zealous to affirm concerning the Invocation of Angels yet he is not so hardy as to affirm concerning the Invocation of Saints A Tenent that creates their contradictions cannot invite our assent may not have our belief And the rather because Hieronymus Osorius a Bishop but not a Jesuit of their own Religion if at least the Religion of Jesuits may be called the same with the Religion of the Bishops in the Church of Rome in his Paraphrase upon Job gives us a quite contrary exposition of these words saying Denuntia quaeso alicui praestanti viro testimonium animadverte an sit aliquis qui tecum sentiat Ad quem enim ex Sanctis hominibus adibis qui tuae sententiae suffragari audeat Declare now to some excellent men your testimony and observe if there be any that hath the same thoughts with you For unto whom amongst all the Holy men can you go that will dare to be of your opinion This man was trained up in the Invocation of Saints as well as Bellarmine yet could not see how to ground it upon this Text For he expounds it not of Saints in Heaven but of Saints on Earth as Abenezra had expounded it before him Ex cujus ore sanctorum qui in terrâ sunt talia unquam audisti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Saints which are on earth out of whose mouth among all the Saints which are on the Earth did you ever hear such things But we may very well grant the words are rather to be understood of Holy Angels then of Holy men because he had spoken of the Angels a little before yet even so Bellarmines inference will not be made good that it was then the custome to call upon the Holy Angels for their Patronage tunc fuisse consuetudinem invocandi patrocinium Sanctorum Angelorum For the context will then require this sense as it is delivered by the most judicious and learned Mercerus Voca Angelorum aliquem eum inclama an vero eorum vel minimus tibi respondebit te suo sermone alloquio dignabitur Nullum sanè reperies Vides quantum à Deo distes quum ne Angeli quidem longè Deo inferiores te sint allocuturi si ad eos clames ob distantiam quae inter te est illos Call any one of the Angels and cry unto him and see if the meanest of them will answer thee or vouchsafe thee one word of discourse Thou will find none Thou seest then how far thou art distant from God when not so much as his Angels who are so far below him will answer thee if thou call to them because of the distance which is betwixt them and thee This is most probably the meaning of the words from the context for Eliphaz had a little before debased the excellencies of the Angels in regard of God and now comes to debase the excellencies of men in regard of the Angels all the scope and intent of his discourse tending to shew the emptiness and vanity of the Creature that so he might make Job humble himself before his Creator as hath been shewed a little before sc. Paragraph 3. 4 5 6. out of your own Pineda 11. But we must take to us the whole Armour of God that we may be able to withstand the assaults of men so furiously assaulting us and so watchfully besetting us To the Law and to the Testimony if others speak not according to that word 't is because there is no light no truth in them I ask then Doth this Invocation of Saints agree with the analogie of Faith in the Apostles Creed or with the analogie of righteousness in Moses his Decalogue I trow not For the one teacheth me to believe in one God the other not to call upon him in whom I have not believed and cannot believe And 't is clear that Invocation of Saints is against the whole current of devotions derived to us by the Spirit of God through the channel either of the Old or of the New Testament For there is scarce any prayer in either which our Saviour Christ who hath taught it us doth not pray with us for if he do not 't is in vain for us to pray since God heareth not our prayers but for his Intercession And therefore the Invocations that are used in the Psalms a peculiar Book of Prayers and Praises made by Gods own Holy Spirit for the use of his Church and constantly used by it in all ages are generally first spoken in the Person of Christ as appears in that he applied to himself very many of them as my God my God why hast thou for saken me Psal. 22. 1. and Into thy hands I commit my spirit Psal. 31. 6. and being first spoken in the Person of Christ are the more strongly recommended to all good Christians as composed by his Spirit sanctified by his lips and impowered and strengthned by his Intercession For Christus realis and Christus mysticus Christ personally and Christ mystically considered do constitute but one Communion of Saints He is the Head they are his Body and therefore they must pray in sin for in Schisme if they pray not to him as their Head for that is not to pray in Christs Communion as also in vain because in sin if they pray without their Head for that is not to pray in Christs Intercession Wherefore it being an undoubted truth that Christ was made obedient to the whole Law for man it necessarily follows that praying to Saints cannot be a duty of the Law but we must say That Christ the eternal Son of God prayd to Saints that is the Creator to the Creature And if it be not a duty of the Law how can it be command in the Prophets since they are but expounders not enlargers of the Law How in this Prophet Job whose book was penned in Hebrew by the Law-giver himself and only in Arabick by Job as saith your own Bellarmine de Script Eccl. cap. de Job because it is the judgement of the Catholick Church that Moses was the first Ecclesiastical Writer or the first Amanuensis and penneman of the Holy Ghost which by the way is another argument to prove that Bellarmine did not could not believe this Text of Holy Job was to be interpreted as a command Ad aliquem Sanctorū respice Look to one of the Saints but as a question or expostulation Ad quem sanctorum respicies To which of the Saints wilt thou look for without doubt so great a Scholar could not believe That Moses did bid us to do that in Job which he did forbid us to do in Exodus For the Commandement which saith Thou shall have no other Gods
practice have divâ—…rted the principal streams of affiance and love from Him who had the only right unto them and turned them upon those unto whom neither so great honour is due nor so undue honour can be acceptable Sands Survey of Religion cap. 4. Jesu God heal their Tongues that preach such Blaphemy instead of Divinity heal their Hands that write it heal their Ears that hear it and much more heal their Hearts that believe it and their Lifes that practise it that though thy Truth hath been outfaced by their Lyes yet their miracles may be outvied by thy Power and their Souls saved by thy Grace and Mercy For all the miracles they can falsly attribute to thy Saints as if by their own power and holiness they could heal the Body to make us go to thy Servants for help when we should go only to Thy self are nothing in comparison of that great miracle of thy power and greater miracle of thy mercy whereby thou art pleased to heal the Soul I have been the longer upon this Argument as I was upon the former because the false Invocations and Adorations used by you have given others just occasion to depart from you even those who were under your own jurisdiction and much more those who were not For as he that kicks against Heaven stricks up his own Heels so a faction in your Church of late years kicking against Gods authority could not stand so fast as to keep their own nor is it any reason you should expect others to be dutiful to you according to the fift contrary to that duty which they ow to God according to the four first Commandements 16. But though others of your party argue much in this case from Authority yet you think fit to argue from reason saying Now since God puts this great Trust in them with us ought not we to put them in Trust by reverently commending our selves unto them no saith Reason to which you have appealed much more no saith Religion from which you have started First no saith Reason For that teacheth us to invocate none that is not All-present to hear our request All-merciful to receive it All-sufficient to grant it and Almighty to fullfil it and therefore to Invocate no creature which hath none much less all of these Secondly no saith Religion And first the Religion that is in Heaven I heard the voyce of many Angels round about the Throne and thousands of thousands saying with a loud voyce Worthy is the Lamb which was slain to receive power and riches and wisedome and strength and honour and glory and blessing Revel 5. 11 12. This is the Religion you must practise in Heaven and why should you practise any other in Earth since you are taught to pray Thy will be done in Earth as it is in Heaven you may safely take the crowns of the Saints and Angels and cast them before the Throne giving glory and honour and thanks to Him who was dead but now liveth for ever and ever for so they do themselves Revel 4. 9 10. But never was it seen in Heaven That any Saint or Angel did make so bold as to take the Crown off from our Saviours Head to place it upon his own There this is the only dialect Thou art worthy O Lord to receive glory and honour and power for thou hast created all things and for thy pleasure they are and were created v. 11. And the dialect should be here as 't is there so saith the Psalmist O come let us worship and fall down and kneel before the Lord our Maker as if he had said before no other but only Him to whom we can truly say For thou hast created all things and for thy pleasure they are and were created Therefore secondly no saith the Religion that is in Earth that likewise answers no to your quaere Ought we not to put them in trust by reverently commending our selves into them And surely we ought not For that very Apostle who hath written most concerning the benefit and the assistance which the heirs of Salvation have by the Angels Hebr. 1. 14. forbids them to worship Angels for fear of endangering their inheritance Col. 2. 18 19. Let no man beguil you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of Angels intruding into those things which he hath not seen vainly puft up by his fleshly mind and not holding the Head c. where the Apostles full intent and scope is to dehort the Colossians from the worshipping of Angels first from the dangerous effect of it no less then the loss of eternal life Let no man beguil you of your reward 2. from the vain pretences for it viz. the obedience or submission we owe to them as to our Patrons and the need we have of their Patronage the first hath a shew of humility but 't is such as God never commended in a voluntary humility The second hath a real guilt of curiosity for 't is such as God never taught intruding into those things which he hath not seen 3. From the wicked and ungodly causes of it and they are two Pride of heart vainly puft up by his fleshly mind and Ignorance of Christ as Head of the Church And not holding the Head from which all the Body by joynts and bands having nourishment ministred and knit together increaseth with the increase of God Angels are a part of this Body as well as men and this Head gives life to them as to us As all is Neighbour that is not God in the Law so all is Body that is not Head in the Gospel The question is as unanswerable if asked of St. Michael or St. Gabriel as of St. Peter or St. Paul Is Christ divided was Paul crucified for you or were ye baptized in the name of Paul 1 Cor. 1. 13. Is Christ divided from himself that He should not be the Head of Angels as well as of men or is Christ divided from his Body on Earth more then from his Body in Heaven Hath he put that part of his Body to convey life and motion and nourishment to this or doth he not convey life and motion and nourishment to both parts immediately by Himself Was any Angel crucified for us or were we baptized in the name of any Angel Was St. Paul a lover of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Chrys. in denying this honour to the Apostles and can we be lovers of Christ in giving this honour to the Angels Is it more lawful for us then it was for him to give the honour of the Head to any part of the Body or can we look for a reward of our service if we serve any of the Body instead of the Head Let no men beguil you saith He of your reward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no man make you so run as not to receive the Prize or so run that you may not obtain you may lose the Prize by running out of the race as well