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
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
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
us of loving what God commands if we hope to attain what God hath promised It requireth a sincere obedience of all doth not allow a wilful disobedience of any one of Gods Commands yet for all this if we will needs say That Doing or Obedience and Righteousness is the condition upon which Salvation is pomised to Christians we must take Sorrowing for Doing Repentance for Obedience and Faith for righteousness or we must teach a new Covenant of our own not of Gods making sure I am the Holy Church hath taught us both to say Deus qui conspicis quia ex nullâ nostrâ actione confidimus Lord God which seest that we put not our trust in any thing that we do And she hath taught us to say so at that Time when we are to prepare for our strictest Doings sc. those which accompany our Lenten Fast for this is the collect of Sexagesima Sunday So far is Holy Church which is much holier then the best of her members from placing the hope of life and Salvation in her Doings wherefore in this doctrine as in most others that we reject your late Church-men have sided against holy Church and consequently our Church-men can the better justifie their siding against them CAP. VIII The Conclusion 1. THe Doctrines and Practices of Papists as such are so grosly against the known word of God as to make all those of our Communion inexcusable who out of pretence of not having a flourishing Church chooâ—…e not to have a flourishing Religion 2. Their foretelling the mischiefs now befaln us was no more from the Spirit of Prophecy then their contriving or effecting them from the spirit of Piety THus have I gone through all your exceptions as plainly as I could but much more largely then I intended For the more I enquired into them the more I found cause to dislike them and could not but fully express my dislike for their sakes who by the effrantery of your late emissaries and by the impiety of our sad times are almost if not altogether perswaded to forsake the Church wherein they were made Christians under fond hopes of bettering their Christianity They are so beguiled with the pretence of your flourishing Church as to abate though I hope not to abandon the love of their own Saving Religion not considering that the same argument of a flourishing Church which is now used to make Protestants turn Papists would once have made all Orthodox Christians turn Arrians and may at this time make Papists turn Mahumetans and ere long if the sword proceed to cut and carve out Religion may chance make Protestants and Papists both turn Atheists Sure t is not just nor safe for Christians to go to Church as Dogs no more than to go to Hell as Devils for Company since they cannot hope to be saved for the greatness of their communion but for the goodness of their Religion And since the business of Religion is the love and the honour of God How can you seek the Patronage of the Creature as if he were more friendly and loving to you than the Creator and not sin against this love How can you religiously adore or invocate the Creature as if he were equally to be honoured with the Creator and not sin against this Honour The Angels see thou do it not is in this case most justly our Negative and though your men commonly say we are all for Negatives yet is the same Angels worship God as justly and as readily our Affirmative Do not then ask me where is my Church till you can answer me where is your Religion For 't is not in the adoration of Saints and Angels much less of their Pictures Reliques and Images because that 's against the second Commandement Nor in the invocation of Saints and Angels because that if mental is against the first if Vocal is also against the third Commandement and I hope you will not call that Religion which is directly against all Gods Commandements concerning the substance of Religion i. e. against all the three first Commandements Rather consider that by setting up your Church against Gods Word you do in truth pull down your Church since that can neither have Religion nor Communion nor Jurisdiction neither Verity nor Unity nor Authority but from Gods Word unless you will allow your Church to be a Society of your Own not of your Saviours making that is to be a Combination of sinners instead of being a Communion of Saints As for our parts we cannot but think it very impious and injurious for the Trustees of Gods Truth and mens souls to seek to baffle any private mans reason by inferring to him false conclusions much more to seek to baffle his Religion by imposing on him false Principles whether in doctrine against the Creed or in works against the Decalogue And such are the Conclusions the Principles of Religion you have obtruded in your exceptions and your Zealots would obtrude upon our belief and practice By which alone though I let pass all the rest it is evident to common sense that Protestants are not so faulty in receding from Papists as Papists are faulty in receding from Gods Truth Bring you Gods Truth and your Church together and blame us if we keep our Church and your Church asunder But till you do so though you more love to make Objections yet we can better justifie the making them For whiles you object against our Church we object against your Religion and doubtless those Objections more savour of Truth and are less in danger of blasphemy which are righteously made against a false Religion than those which are unrighteously made against a true Church because the one are made for God but the other against him This is plain that whiles we object against your doctrine and worship we dispute for the Decalogue for the Creed whereas you cannot object against any doctrine that we profess or any worship that we practise by the order of our Church but you must dispute against an Article of the Creed or a Commandement of the Decalogue And though I will not undertake to justifie all our opinions much less all our practices yet for these doctrines wherein our Church dissents from yours and for this worship for which our Church separates from yours I dare boldly say God is not angry with us though you be 2. And here I cannot but add one observation which though it concern not your exceptions yet it very much concerns our defence that the world may not think us forsaken of God because we are oppressed by men And that is this Your writers indeed heretofore designed us to this very same destruction we now groan under by their Predictions but t was whiles they plotted it by their contrivances that the common rout might repute them Prophets whiles they were no other than murderers Hence as soon as we had withdrawn from you I mean as to your corruptions though not as to your Communion
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
he never so glorious yet he is as far from God as my self for betwixt finite and infinite the distance is infinite whether the finite be glorious or inglorious for be he never so glorious yet he and his glory both are nothing in comparison of him to whom Cherubins and Seraphins continually do cry Heaven and earth are full of the majesty of thy Glory 7. Having vindicated mine own allegation against praying to Saints I come to oppose your Cardinals allegations for it which though they savour much more of learning authority yet not one jot less of impertinency And yet you and all yours swallow them as glib as once you swallowed the holy league and Covenant or as still you are desirous to swallow up all other Churches into your own pretended mother Church that is as that Behemoth swalloweth waters of whom it is said Behold he drinketh up a river and hasteth not he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth Job 4. 23. A large swallow you have to let down your own Camels whiles you strain at our gnats not considering the advice of the first Bishop of Hierusalem to his Clergy My Brethren have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of glory with respect of persons Jam. 2. 1. If you had not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons more then of causes you would rather be exceptious against your own writers for most shamefully misapplying the holy Scriptures to set up your false worship then with ours for rightly applying them to pull it down since it is so much to the dishonour of Christ our Redeemer and to the danger of those Christian souls which he hath redeemed And yet your late writers seeing the unwritten word so unequal a match to grapple with the written word for the Protestants have opened their eyes though God alone can open their hearts and we pray him to open them do labour to prove all your false adorations and false invocations out of the holy Scriptures notwithstanding they are so plainly and so directly against the express letter of the Law of Moses and therefore cannot be according to the letter of the Prophets which are no other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…aw But I will confine my self to your moâ—…â—…ed Dogmatist and desire you with me to consider the strange impertinency and if wilful the stranger imprety of his allegations out of the Text to maintain your invocation of Saints And amongst them all two only shall serve my turn 8. The first is that of Gen. 48. 16. The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the lads Hic apertè sanctus Jacob Aâ—…gelum invocavit saith Bellarm. Here holy Jacob did manifestly invocate an Angel If he did 't is manifest he took that Angel for the God of his Fathers Abraham and Isaac for the God which fed him all his life long and redeemed him from all evil for he invocateth none other to bless the lads but only that God so saith the Text God before whom my Fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk the God which â—…ed me all my life long to this day The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the â—…ads 'T is palpable all these particulars do concern but one and him Jacob desireth to bless the children If that one were an Angel he did not pray for Gods blessing upon them so the lads were little beholding to him If that one were God he did not pray to an Angel to blesâ—… them so 〈◊〉 â—…olding to your Carâ—… Nay indeed all that are concerned in this Text for the Angel though named yet is not concerned in it are litâ—…le beholding to him for all are losers by this interpretation 1º God loseth his honour of accepting feeding redeeming and blessing his servants 2º Abraham and Isaac lose their God For it was the Almighty God not an Angel that said to Abraham Walk before me and be thou perfect Gen. 17. 1. and God before whom my Fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk saith this Text. 3º The poor infants lose their blessing for t is clear an Angel could not bless them but only ministerially from God 4º Jacob loseth his Religion for he calleth upon a false God if upon an Angel instead of God All these cannot lose by this interpretation the Interpreter himself be no loser therefore though I will not say he lost his honesty by seeking to wrest a text yet I must say he hath lost his authority by seeking to oppose it For it is not an exposition but an opposition of the Text when words are taken Grammatically in their own sense that should be taken Theologically in Gods sense The Grammatical sense of a word is according to its own signification But the Theological sense of a word is according to Gods use of it or Gods application As Genesis 18. 2. The Lord appeared unto Abraham but v 2. Lo three men stood by him And again v. 16. The men rose up from thence yet v. 17. And the Lord said and 't is evident by all Abrahams prayer that it was the Lord appeared unto him for he calleth him the Judge of all the earth v. 25. and v. 33. 't is said The Lord went his way as soon as he had left communing with Abraham If you take this word men Grammatically as 't is in its own signification you must say Abraham prayed to a man But if you take it Theologically as 't is in Gods use or application 't is no less then the Lord appearing in the likeness of a Man and you must say That Abraham prayed only to the Lord So in this Text mis-interpreted by your great Doctor if you take the word Angel Grammatically as it signifies in it self 't is plain Iacob invocated an Angel but if you take it Theologically as God useth it 't is no less then the Lord in the likeness of an Angel and so 't is plain Iacob invocated none but God And truly the one Text might as well have been urged to prove that Abraham invocated a man as the other to prove that Iacob invocated an Angel Both good proofs Grammatically but neither a good proof Theologically For Grammarians look upon words as they signifie in themselves but Divines look upon words as they signifie in their use the reason is because the work of the one is to understand the Thing but the work of the other is to understand the Truth therefore as doubtful Propositions in the New Testament are to be expounded according to the Analogie of Faith in the Apostles Creed that we may have Truth in our Belief So doubtful Propositions in the Old Testament are to be expounded according to the analogie of righteousness in Moses his Decalogue that we may have Truth in our Obedience And as that Proposition This is my body must be taken Theologically that is in the sense of the speaker because taken Grammatically that is in the bare sense of the words it