that Evangelical command So let your light shine c. § 7. Of Confirmation 1. THE Sacrament of Confirmation is more worthy then the Sacrament of Baptism for as it is done by greater Priests viz. Bishops which cannot be done by less so also it is to be had and held with greater veneration and reverence 2. That Confirmation does excel Baptism in regard of its effecting grace to well doing 3. That the Sacrament of Confirmation does confer Grace making us acceptable ex opere operato and indeed more then Baptism does 4. In which the fulness of the Holy Ghost is conserred viz. ex opere operato 5. The matter of this Sacrament is Chrisme oâ—â—unction which they call the Chrisme of Salvation 6. That by this holy Chrisme made of Oyle and Balsom and smeered on the forehead in form of a Cross the sevenfold Spirit of Grace is given 7. For that the holy Spirit is given to us by Oyle as it was given to the Apostles in the form of fire 8. That he will never be a Christian that is not by Episcopal Confirmation Chrismated 9 Instead of Imposition of hands the Bishop gives him that is confirmed a boxe on the eare to confirm him forsooth and to drive away the Divel § 8. Of the Eucharist 1. IN the Sacrament of the Eucharist they teach and urge the corporal presence of the flesh of Christ As if that Sacrament were instituted to nourish bodies and not souls 2. And that the body and blood of Christ is made really present in the Sacrament by Transubstantiation or conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the very body of Christ and of the whole substance of the wine into his very blood 3. That this Transubstantiation is made by reciting the Sacramental words Hoc est corpus meum This is my body And therefore they call these operative words 4. That these words are to be muttered with a low murmuring as if Christ had spoken them Magically to inchant the Bread and not to instruct his Disciples 5. Thus they expound them This i. e. under these figures is my body and yet they urge the litteral sence or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6. That the body of Christ is made of the Bread in the Eucharist as Wine was made of water 7. And yet that the Priests when they make the Body of Christ of the Bread do not produce it as some will have it but do change the substance of the Bread into the very pre existing body 8. That after the words of consecration the meer accidents and indeed all the accidents of the bread and wine do remain 9. That not so much as the first matter doth remain after the change of the bread 10. That the substance of the bread is consumed and ceaseth to be and yet is not anihilated 11. That the substance of the bread ceasing the substance of the body of Christ succeeds and is contained under the accidents of the bread 12. That those accidents are not in any subject nor do they subsist of themselves but are upheld by God after a supernatural manner 13. That they are in somewhat else but do not inhere in it 14. That the body of Christ does remain in the host as long as the accidents of bread remain uncorrupted 15. That as long as the body of Christ is in the host It is accompanied with Angels 16. That in the corruption of the species there is matter substituted by God in that very instant in which those species cease to be and in which something else is Generated 17. That the subject of these Accidents is quantity which also it self is an accident and which they feign to subsist without a quantum that hath dimensions 18. That the Elements of the Sacrament of the Eucharist do not nourish if taken in a great quantity without a Divine Miracle And therefore neither do they nourish the mice that take a small quantity without a miracle 19. But as they take away the substance of the Bread and Wine and so with that the substance of the Sacrament so they rob the Body of Christ of almost all the essential properties of a true body by this fiction of Transubstantiation 20. And as they feign the Accidents of bread in the Sacrament without the substance of it so they must needs feign the substance of Christs body without the Accidents of it 21. Many do teach the presence of Christs body affirming that one and same body of Christ undivided does exist upon innummerable Altars and every where whole 22. That the body of Christ being in many places at once and yet not in the space between is not discontinued or divided from it self in respect of its proper substance or quantity but only is divided from it self in respect of place 23. That one and the same body of Christ being in heaven and on earth yea in innumerable places on earth at once is indeed visible and palpable in heaven but on earth invisible and beyond all our senâ—es There it is limited and circumscribed here t is unlimited there it has its Dimensions here t is free from all dimensions 24. Moreover they teach an Oral and Capernaitical Manducation of the flesh of Christ for they say the body of Christ in the Eucharist is really and sensually touched broken and eaten 5. Yea that wicked men receiving the Sacrament of the Altar do chew the body of Christ and break it with their Teeth 26. And upon the same account is the very body of Christ devoured by Mice and Doggs if they chance to eat the host 27. By reason of this Mystery of Transubstantiation they call the Sacrament or consecrated host their Lord and God 28. That the Mass Priest when he makes the Sacrament or as they themselves speak the Body of Christ he is the Maker of his Maker 29. The Priest does adore the consecrated Host and does offer it to others by lifting it up to be adored 30. And for the same end they keep it and carry it in solemn Procession that it may be publikely adored 31. That the Eucharist when it is carryed to the sick is to be adored by all those that meet it those that do adore it are to have indulgences those that don't adore it are to be counted Hereticks and are to be persecuted with fire and sword 32. By this Bread-worship they commit great idolatry whilst that they adore a peice of Bread with the worship of Latria which is onely due to God 33. In honor of this Breaden-God they celebrate the feast of the body of Christ 34. Although they confess Christ did administer this venerable Sacrament with both Elements of Bread and Wine and though they acknowledge this Sacrament was received of the faithful in the Primitive Church with both Elements Yet they determine that it is to be communicated to the Laity in one kind or Element onely and forbid the Priests giving it to the people in both kinds upon
infallible while our sufferings prove us Heretical 4. Is it not ambition and desire of Rule that is the very cause which they contend for What 's the unreconcileable quarrel so much as that all the world will not be subject to them And yet the sufferings of these men prove them infallible If one Butcher Henry the third of France and another Henry the fourth and others would blow up the English Parliament with Gunpowder is the Pope infallible if some of these be hanged Or what if some of them have suffered from infidels Are not others as ready so to suffer as they and have suffered as much as they The next mark that he layes down is Victory over all sorts of enemies But is it over their minds or over their bodies that they mean If the first who must be judge of their victories but themselves I never heard any of them plead their cause but in my judgement they had the worst There iâ— no party but may turn divers others to their opinions Mahomet hath got far more followers in the world then Christ and Heathenism than either If Papists can turn all these why do they suffer themselves still to be confined to so small a part of the world And if it be victory over mens bodies that they mean I say the like Have not the Turkes a larger Dominion than the Pope Have they conquered the Great Turk the Great Mogol the Grand Cham of Tartary c Are we not as infallible as they on this account when we conquer them It seems then when Papists are so industrious to enlarge their Dominions to destroy their enemies by Poysoning or stabbing Kings or other means it is that they may have a further Testimony of their infallibility The last mark which the Jesuite mentioneth is the conversion of Infidels But 1 If that be a sure Mark we are infallible as well as they For we have been means of converting Infidels And so have the Greek Churches and others that disown the Popes infallibility 2. If that Argument be good then it was not only the Apostles but all that converted Infidels at the first or after preaching of the Gospel that were infallible which sure they never pretended to 3. If it will prove any body infallible it s liker to prove them so that did convert any Infidels then the Pope that onely gives them leave or order to do it 4. Let them not boast too much of their conversions till we have a better character of their new made Christians and a better report of their means of conversion then Acosta and other of their own Jesuites give us who have been eye witnesses of the case To cut men off by thousands or millions and force the rest to Baptism as cattle to watering when they have nothing of a Christian but the name and that sign and some forget the name it self this is not a conversion much to be boasted of Nor must they think that all are Christians that the King of Spain conquereth for love of their Gold and Silver Mines The Apostles did not convert Infidels by an Army but by the word and miracles but it is the King of Spaines souldiers that have been the effectual preachers to work the conversions that you have most to glory in If the Jesuit had put his proofs into well formed Arguments what stuff should we have had So much for the Answer to Chilling worth and the new Fundamentals of the Romish faith by which they can prove their Pope infallible without being beholden to Scripture for its help And I marvaile not at their contempt of Scripture-Testimony to them unless there were more or more appearance for them then there is Having considered the Papists proof of their infallibility I shall next though it be more then the cause obligeth me to say somewhat to prove the Negative and so proceed to my second Argument against them Argu. 2. If the common senses of sound men or their sensible apprehensions be infallible then the Pope with his pretended General Council is fallible But the common senses of sound men are infallible Therefore c. I know not how we should come neerer hand with a Papist nor to plainer dealing then to argue from common sense And as to the Antecedent Either sense is infallible or it is not If it be I have that I seek If not then mark what follows 1. Then no man can be sure that the Christian Religion is true For the proofs of it all vanish if sense be not infallible If you plead the Miracles of Christ and his Disciples no man was sure that he saw them If you plead the death and Resurrection and Ascension of Christ no man was sure he saw them and therefore could give no assurance of it to another All the Disciples senses and the worlds senses were or might be for ought we know deceived Nor are you sure that any writings or traditions came down to us from the Apostles For the eyes of the Readers and the ears of the hearers might be deceived 2. And then most certainly the Pope himself and all his Clergy are fallible For they cannot be sure of that which the Apostles and following Church were not sure of Nor can they be sure that in reading and hearing their eyes deceive them not And I take it for granted that the Pope and his Clergy do use their senses and by them receive these matters into their intellect Nay if sense be fallible no man in the Church of Rome can tell whether there be any such place as Rome or any such person as the Pope at all or ever was Nay what else can any man be sure of I suppose you will marvail why I bestow so many words on such a point But you see what men we have to deal with When all the quarrel between us must be issued by this point whether common sense be infallible For if it be we infallibly carry the cause Yea whether it be or be not as shall appear I come next therefore to prove the consequence and that I do thus The judgement of the Pope and his pretended General Council is directly contradictory to the apprehension or judgement of common sense therefore if common sense be infallible the Pope and his Council are fallible The consequent is unquestionable the Antecedent I prove by this known Instance Common sense takes it to be bread and Wine that remaineth after the words of consecration The Pope and his Council say it is not Bread nor Wine that remains after the words of consecration therefore the judgement of the Pope and his Council is directly contradictory to the apprehension of common sense For the first I appeal to the senses of all men that ever received the Eucharist Whether seeing feeling smelling and tasting do not as plainly take it to be Bread and Wine as they do any other Bread or Wine at their own tables and whether they can see or taste or smell
that Christs body admitteth of augmentation and either daily or weekly receiveth new made parts or else that he hath new bodies made daily 15. Also it followeth that a creature either the Baker or the Priest may make God or make his Saviour at least instrumentally which is a horrid imagination 16. It followeth that either Christs body hath the accidents of colour taste dimension c. which are there sensible or else that those Accidents have no subject which is a contradiction 17. It followeth also that Christ hath not indeed a true humane body if it be such as is before implyed 18. And it followeth that the body of Christ is part of it condemned hated of God and tormented by the Devil Because his body was turned into the bodies of many millions of wicked men which must be so condemned hated and tormented 19. Also it followeth that the Scriptures are not true which tell us that the heavens must receive him in that humane nature which ascended from earth till the times of the restitution of all things Act. 3.21 and that he shall come again to judge the world 20. Lastly it will follow that a man must not trust his sences that though my eyes my smell my taste my feeling tell me that this is Bread and Wine yet they are all deceived and not mine only but all the senses in the world to which they are objected And if that be true 1. What reason have I to trust any Papist living For all my good opinion of him must be ultimately resolved into something that I see or hear of him And it seems I am uncertain whether I see or hear him indeed or not 2. And then how can I tell that I or any man is sure of any thing For if the senses of millions in perfect health may be all deceived in this why not in other things for ought we know 3. And then how can any Papist tell that the Bread is turned into Christs body If he say because the Church or the Scripture saith so How knoweth he that but by hearing or seeing and therefore for ought he knows his senses may be deceived when he thinketh he heareth or readeth such a thing as well as when he thinketh that he seeth feeleth smelleth and tasteth Bread and Wine And is there not need of very strangely cogent evidence now to impell them to believe against the concurrent vote of Scripture sense and reason And what is the ground of their contrary belief Not the Ancient Church unless they willfully or negligently deceive themselves for the stream of antiquity is full against them so full that its hard to believe that any of them that 's verst in antiquity can truly think that antiquity is for them if they have but the common reason of men to understand what they read What is it then that bringeth them to this belief Is it the Scriptures That 's not likely because they make so light of it and swear to take it in the sence of the Church or ancient Doctors in which last they are here and oft most desperately forsworn It must be then upon the Authority of the present Church that is the Pope and his Clergy that they entertain this hard belief That is The Pope and his Clergy believe it because they say it themselves and the rest believe it because the Pope saith it And is it truely possible that any man should have so good a conceit of himself yea or any other think so well of him as to believe unfeignedly so great a thing upon so weak a ground Can the Pope therefore believe it because he doth believe it Or is it not too probable that thousands of them are of that Belief which Melancthon sometime told them of very smartly You Italians saith he Believe Christ is in the Bread before you Believe that there is any Christ in heaven while they pretend to a faith above men that is to believe Impossibilities upon the Popes credit I wish they prove to have the common belief of Christians and that in heart they do not as once one of their Popes did account the Gospel but a commodious fable But let us suppose that indeed it is the word of God that is the ground of their strange belief and that Hoc est Corpus meum This is my body is the very word that doth convince them as some of them do pretend I would here be bold to aske them that say so a Question or two 1. What if the Ancient Church had intecpreted this Text as we do against your Transubstantiation would you then have believed it upon the bare Authority of this Text What need I ask this Your own Oaths and Profession saith No It is not then any evidence in this Text that compelleth your belief And let me adde that if I prove not in a fair debate upon a just call that the ancient Church for many hundred years after Christ was against Transubstantiation I will give all the Papists in England leave to spit in my face for all the high expressions of the Eucharist that some fathers have 2. What is there in those words This is my body that can perswade any sober Christian to their strange belief What is it because that they are properly and not figuratively to be understood And how is that proved Is it because we must not force the Scripture but take it in the plainest obvious sence I easily grant it But who knows not that both in Scripture and in all our common speech the figurative sence is oft the most plain and obvious and the literal the most improbable What three sentences do we use to speak together without some figurative expression I will appeal to any unprejudiced man of reason whether a Christian that should newly read those words of Christ and had never heard them or read them before would not sooner take them in our sence then in the Papists They may easily try this upon a new convert if they please and I dare make their own consciences judge if they have any left to befriend a common truth What is there more in This is my Body being a Sacramental business then for a man that is in a room among many Images to say This is Peter or Paul or this is Augustine or Hierom or Chrysostome And would not any unprejudiced stander by suppose that the most obvious sence of those words is This is the picture of Peter Paul c. Or would a man easily believe that it was the meaning of the speaker that this Picture was the very real flesh and blood of Peter and Paul and all other Pictures that ever should be made after the same exemplar should be so transubstantiated So what is the obvious signification of those words This is my body but This is the Sacrament or Representation of my Body Especially when his real body was distinctly there present and he expresly biddeth them Do this in remembrance of me
necessary before the Pope dedeclare them so and he therefore declares them so because they are so or else he declares them de fide and necessary before they are so that by declaring them so he may make them so If the first 1. then the Papists have lost their cause for that 's it which they deny at least quoad nos though not in se as they use to distinguish 2. And then its plain that no Pope hath been positively infallible in necessariis or all points de fide for no one hath declared all nor are they yet all say they declared by them but every Pope may still add more and who knows when we shall have all But if they take the later way then 1. They suppose that Gods word how express soever doth not make a point to be de fide and necessary till the Pope declare it so at least quoad nos and how it can be de fide and necessary any other way then quoad nos they should do well to declare For that which is credendum est ab aliquo credendum that which is to be believed must be believed by some body and that which is necessary is necessary to some one So that the Gospel shall be no Gospel with them nor the Law of God any Law though we read it and hear it a thousand times till the Pope tell us by parcels the meaning of its particular words and sentences 2. They make the Popes acts to go before their objects which is against the nature of actions while they make him to declare a point to be de fide that it may become de fide For to declare that it is so supposeth that it is so and not onely that it will or shall be so de futuro 3. And so they make all the Popes infallible Declarations Expositions and Determinations de fide to be Lyes for if he Declare a thing to be necessary before it is necessary or declare this or that to be the sence of Scripture before it is the sence of Scripture or to be de fide before it be so what is this but plaine lying But if they say that he declareth it to be de fide and necessary onely for the future and not to have been so before this Declaration then the forementioned Absurdities fall upon them And also 1. The Pope is then a Gospel-maker and the Law giver of the Church and that in spirituals and internals and consequently it is he that is the King of the Church who hath the Legislative power and without whom nothing that Christ hath said shall bind us 2. Then the Churches faith is mutable and in a continual change by new additions For the Decrees or Expositions of every Pope do make more Articles of faith then were before 3. Then the present Papists are not of the same Religion as their fore-fathers or their fore-fathers not of the same with them nor do they go to Heaven by the same way For according to their own doctrine if the present age of the Church did not believe as de fide many things more then the former ages were bound to believe they cannot be saved 4. And then it is evident unmercifulness in the Popes of Rome to make more Expositions Decrees or Determinations and so to make us of this Age so much work to do before we can get to heaven and scape damnation which our forefathers never had to do I know one of them replyeth to this that these Additions are no cruelty because they make not salvation more difficult but facilitate that which was necessary before or to that sence But 1. It seems then that somewhat was necessary and de fide before the Pope defined determined or declared them so By that time we are plainly told which those points be the Papist that undertakes and performeth it will finde himself at a sad loss 2. But is this man serious Doth he think indeed that it is not easier to believe the Apostles Creed than to believe all that is in the Councils of Trent Basil Constance Laterane with all the rest and all the Decretals both the Popes and Isidore Meccator's alias Peccator For instance before the Pope determined the other day for the Molinists against some part of the Dominican Jansenian doctrine both parties might have gone to heaven But now the poor Dominicans must change part of their doctrine or go to hell fire I demand now whether the Popes determination have not made salvation harder to many then before I appeal to all the Thomists Dominicans Jansenians whether the Pope hath facilitated their salvation by this determination I appeal to Tho. Whites friendly combate with Francisc Macedo to the late Animadversions of the French Doctors on the Popes determinations Further I adde that if all the Popes infallibility Positive be onely in points of absolute necessity to salvation then many a private Doctor nay every Christian man or woman is at present as infallible as the Pope for it implyes a contradiction to be a true Christian and not to believe all that is essential to Christianity or absolutely necessary to salvation And if it be not de praesenti in sensu composito but de futuro in sensu diviso that they mean it that is that another man may fall from the faith but the Pope cannot 1. Clean contrary we maintain and the Papists confess that no elect person shall fall quite from the faith 2. But a reprobate Pope may witness John 23. and many another So much for that Argument Argu. 12. If every Pope be infallible Positively in all matters of faith or in expounding all Scripture then all Popes are of equal understanding and fidelity in matters of faith and Scriptures For the most learned wise and pious can go no higher but to be able infallibly to interpret all Scripture and declare all Gods will concerning our faith and duty But sure all Popes are not equal None of those children or dunces that Alphonsus a Castro saith understood not the Grammar are equal to Pius 2. or Adrian the 6. Argu. 13. If every Pope be infallible then study learning consultations yea and Councils are needless for the most unlearned Pope is as infallible as the most learned and after all the study in the world consultation and advice of General Councils he can he but infallible and so say they he was before If they say still that before he was but negatively infallible I say again so is a block an infant or an ideot But that studies learning consultations and Councils are not needless I suppose all Papists will grant therefore they must grant that all Popes are not infallible Argu. 14. Notorious ungodly men that live in murder fornication incest Sodomy blasphemy c. have no promise from God nor any other assurance of infallibility but such were many Popes Therefore c. The Major I prove from many Scriptures 2 Thess 2.10 11.
superstition and wil-worship yea meer hypoâ—â—isie or a form of godliness resting in external works and observations 31. They worship God after the commandments of men 32. they defend the ceremonies invented by themselves or taken from Jews or Heathens to be a part of worship pleasing to God 33. And to be observed as the Law of God 34 That their observation deserves remission of sin 35 That no ceremonies appointed by the Church can be omitted without mortal sin nor without scandal 36. That things consecrated by themselves as holy Water Dei's c. have spiritual effects to drive away divels to blot out sins c. 37. They conjure salt yea and herbs and consecrate it that it may be healthful to the mind and body of those that take it 38. They Baptize and consecrate the Bels making them Godfathers to fright away divels and drive away Tempests 39. That their ringing does profit the dead 40. The Chrism being consecrated the Bishop and Presbyters salute it in these words God save St. Chrisma Ave S. Chrisma 41. They give it a power to confer upon the anointed health to the body and holiness to the soul and so the Holy Ghost himself 42. That every Church solemnely consecrated is indued with a divine vertue 43. The many abuses of fasting and prayer I touched before 44. They teach men to swear by the creatures 45. They deny oaths to be fit for the perfect 46. Vows made to the Saints they defend 47. That the Pope can absolve from the bond of vows and oaths 48. They consecrate feast dayes to the worship of Saints 49. And some they consecrate to patronize their own errors as the feast of Conception the feast of Assumption of the Blessed Virgin the feast of Christs body and of Peters chair and of all souls c. 50. That feast dayes are in truth more holy then others 51. They exempt the Clergy from the secular yoke i.e. they exempt Ecclesiasticks both persons and goods from the obedience of Temporal Lords and from their jurisdiction in personals and reals in civil things and criminal and therefore that the civil judge cannot punish Clergy-men 52. That the Clergy is not bound to pay tribute to Princes 53. That the Rebellion of a Clergy-man against the King is not Treason 54. That the Pope can forbid subjects to keep the oath of fidelity to Christian Kings if they be such as acknowledge not the Roman sea 55. That the Pope can absolve subjects from the oath of fidelity 56. That the Pope has power to depose Princes 57. That the subjects of such Princes are bound to obey such a sentence if it be published 58. That if grave and learned men such as the Jesuites especially are shall judge any Prince to be a Tyrant it is lawful for their subjects to overthrow them and if they want power to poison them 59 That the subjects of the most Christian Kings whom they call Lutherans and Sacramentarians are free from all bonds and that they may lawfully destroy their Kings 60. That 't is not lawful for Christians to tolerate a King that is an Infidel or a heretick indeavoring to draw men to his Sect but they are bound to depose him 61. That the ancient Christians did not depose such because they wanted power 62. That the Pope may give the Kingdoms and Principalities and Lordships of all those whom he judges hereticks unto his Roman Catholikes or may adjudge them to those that can lay hold of them 63. That 't is not onely lawful but meritorious to kill Princes that are excommunicated by the Pope 64. They suffer Stews and stoutly defend their toleration 65. They forbid the Clergy to mary 66. That Priest does better say they that keeps a Concubine then he that marries a wife 67. That marriage after the vow of Chastity is worse then Adultery 68. That single life even as it is vowed and practised in the Roman Church is a worship most acceptable to God and satisfactory for sin and meritorious of eternal life 69. That the Pope with a whorish intention makes gain as Leno did by the prostitution of Whores 70. That all faults are sold at a certain price in the Popes Taxe 71. An officious lye they allow of 72. They approve and teach the Mistery of equivocation 73. The act of counterfeiting and dissembling with great men they commend as good and profitable 74. They say Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks 75. That the desires of the will going before assent are not sins 76. Neither is concupiscence a sin in the Baptized 77. That in concupiscence there is onely the evil of punishment not of sin 78. By that command thou shalt not covet it is not forbidden that we have no evil desires I have recited a huge Catalogue of errors to which I doubt not but many more may be heaped up As those which we are refuting in this book about Antichrist By all which it appears that the opposition of the Pope to Christs truth is not a particular opposition as in some hereticks but universal such as we may look for from Antichrist Thus far Bishop G. Downame FINIS * The abominable wickedness of your party even the Romane Cardinals themselves is proclaimed by many that have been your Priests and turned from you as Copley Sheldon Boxhorne and many more saith Sheldon in his Survey of Rome Miracles p. 18. having spoken of the Cardinals Sodomy Believe it Reader the abominations which are committed by these purpured Fathers and the Supream Fathers of that Synagogue are so detestable that they pass all narration either of modest or immodest pen. And it 's long since Petrarch Dante 's Aventine Parisiens Clemangis Sabellicus Grosthead Ferus and more of your own Writers have said enough to satisfie us of your sanctity Many a one that hath been â—iced to Popery in England have been cured by a journey to Rome seeing the abominations of that place Veniale culpa non est sed dispositio ad culpam Reinerius Cont. Waldens ubi infra Armeniorum Ecclesiae Ethiopum jndorum caeterae quas Apostoli converterunt non subsunt Romanae Ecclesiae Reinerius cont VValdens Catal. in Biblotheâ— Par. T. 4. p. 773. * Much contrary to Damascene who saith that the Rebaptized do crucifie Christ again Orthod fid li. 4. c. 5. p. mihi 296. Though I suppose he is as far on the other side * Religion in the first sence seems to be as Martinius propriè actio ejus qui res divinas studiose Relegit pictatis ergo though the word be thence variously used 2 Lactantius saith Instit li. 4. c. 28. Hac conditione gignimur ut generanti nos Deo justa debita obsequia prebcamus hunc sâ—lum noverimus hunc sequamur Hoc vinculo pietatis obstricti Deo Religati sumus unâ—e ipsa Religio nâ—men accepit non ut Cicero interpretatus est a Relegendo Melius id nomen Lucretius