be erected to Angels because they may not be worshipped And what do Papists say less but that there is a God above the Angels although they worship them so that if the acknowledgement of a God above the Angels be a good proof that the Cherinthians did not 't is as good a proof that the Papists do not or at least should not worship Angels and in this particular we may all joyn hands and hearts together as fellow Protestants and our poor ejected Ministers may say to your great Triumphant Doctors We would to God that not only you but also all that hear you and us this day were both almost and altogether such as we are except these Bondâ—… For if you would turn Protestants with us in the True worship we should not need turn Papists with you in the Publick worship of Almighty God But till you have a True worship according to the three first Commandements we cannot envy your publick worship according to the fourth Thus you see Baronius his Proof is not so great as his clamor against Theodoret yet upon this proof alone doth he infer this Conclusion Angelos venerari non Haereticorum sed Catholicae Ecclesiae mos fuit The worshipping of Angels was a Custom not of Haereticks but of the Catholick Church Sure if it had been so the Greek and Latine Interpreters upon St. Paul to the Colossians would not so unanimously have condemned it For if this false worship had gotten generally into their practice it would also have gotten into their Doctrine as it hath since into yours which makes all your late writers so zealous for it and so copious in it particularly Baronius who had not the patience to stay longer then the sixtyeth year after our blessed Saviours Incarnation to find out this Custome and had the confidence as soon as he had found it to foist it upon the Catholick Church because he saw it was practised in his own And the like favour hath he shewed to all your other present corruptions whether in Doctrine or in Practice bringing them all into the first century of years after Christ that what their own grosseness diminished from their native Verity his wit and learning might add to their pretended Antiquity But concerning this your present corruption in Practice I mean the worshipping of Angels he concludes thus Id verò quà m purè Sanctè religiosè c. How purely how holily how religiously it hath been alwayes practised in the Church I have shewed in my annotations upon the Roman Martyrologie on the 8. of May I was big with expectation of some invincible arguments in his Martyrology till I had consulted it but there I found only some several Apparitions of St. Michael the Archangel no proof at all that the Church had worshipped him save only Baronius his own word authentical enough perchance with some of you as it was with Binius to bear down poor Theodorete but I hope not authentical enough with any to bear down St. Paul Therefore in vain doth your Goliah speak of Purity in that which St. Paul imputes to a fleshly mind then which nothing is more impure and of Holiness in that which St. Paul saith beguils us of our reward for unholiness it all can do â—…o more And of Religion in that of which St. Paul saith And holding not the Head for we cannot well say more of the greatest Irreligion And as vainly doth he impute that to the Catholick Church which is so full of Impurity Unholiness and Irreligion And this manner of arguing is without doubt good in it self for it makes humane reason subordinate to Divine Authority as to an Infinitly higher Reason labouring to prove what God hath commanded us to believe even that his Catholick Church is pure and Holy and because it is so admits not any such gross practice of Impurity unholiness For what is made sin in it self by Gods Word cannot by the wit oâ—… men be made holiness in Gods Church But if this manner of arguing were not good in its own nature yet it were good against Baronius who useth no other argument to confute Theodorets Authority but only his own deductions confounding those two Topicks which are so distinct in themselves even Humane Reason and Humane Authority proving the Cherinthian Haereticks did not worship Angels because he had found a reason why they should not whereas if he would indeed have acted the part of a true Historâ—…an or of a good Divine he should have conâ—…uted Theodorets Authority by some greater and better Authority But that he saw was impossible for him to do for the whole stream of Ecclesiastical writers run with a full torrent and tide against him and we may well guess he was very much put to his shifts when he was forced to put so strange a gloss as he did upon the Council of Laodicea for whereas the Fathers there said Can. 35. It becomes not Christians to leave the Church of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And to name the Angels sc. in their prayers as calling upon them instead of calling upon God for that were to be guilty of a secret Idolatry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to forsake the Lord Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in St. Pauls language was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not holding the Head Baronius is pleased to say That the Canon is to be interpreted of those false Angels which the Heathen worshipped falsorum Angelorum eorum nimirum quos venerarentur idololatrae venerationem prohibuit alludens fortasse ad Genii cultuÌ„ c. Bar. an 60. nu 23. He might as well have said that the Council made Canons for Heathens and not for Christians though they expresly say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It becomes not Christians to leave the Church of God And that they had forbid such men to leave the Church who were never of the Chuch had called them secret Idolaters who were most open Idolaters had required them not to forsake Christ who had never come near Christ and in one word had called that worshipping of Angels which was indeed worshipping of Divels Such dangerous Rocks are skillfull Pilots cast upon who will not stear by the Card of Gods Word but let their own phansie fill their Sailes for that is little better then a tempestuous wind called Euroclidon which will drive them up and down either in Adria or in Tiber till they have made Shipwrack of the Truth And if you think me overlavish in thâ—…s expression pray consider its a less immodesty in me to put a fancy upon your Baronius then t was in him to put a frenzy upon the Council Is not this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be a slave to a received opinion why should that man think to overmaster anothers judgement who can be contented to enslave his own 18. I now come to your last argument for praying to Angels which is this least we should ungratefully slight them contrary to Gods command Exod.
Accordingly Binius is forced to confess That the second Council of Carthage though it was so in Title yet was not so in Truth but was such a second as had at least five before it Post quinque saltem anteriora hoc quod secundum appellatur habitum fuisse oportet Which he proves first from the Bishops names recited in the Acts of this Council Genedius Alypius Faustinus who were not Bishops till long after the year that Valentinian was the fourth time Consul Secondly from the very words of this very second Canon which you have alledged For that begins thus Quùm in praeterito consilio de continentiae castitatis moderamine tractaretur relating to a fore-past Council which fore-past Council saith Binius was that Africane Council celebrated the first year of Pope Coelestine which was the year 424. after Christ according to Helvicus A great distance sure from 390. And the 37. Canon of that Africane Council saith Binius is that which is here related to The like he affirms concerning Fortunatus his words in the third Canon Memini praeterito consilio fuisse statutum I remember in a fore-past Council it was ordained where saith the same Binius That fore-past Council was the forenamed Africane and Fortunatus reflected back to the tenth Canon of that Council But if this Council in which were so few Bishops and concerning which are so many uncertainties may deserve the credit and authority of the particular Africane Church yet sure it will be hard to prove That the words alledged by you deserve to have the credit or Authority of a Canon of this Council to that purpose for which and according to that sense in which you have alledged them 3. Wherefore thirdly I make bold to assert That this your Canon as you have applyed and urged it was no Canon of the Africane Council called the second of Carthage for the Fathers in Trullo Can. 13. do upon this very occasion of Priests continency cite that yery numerical Canon of Carthage with an addition of other words and in another sense saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We know that those who met at Carthage and took care of the grave and sober behaviour of Priests did say That at some proper and set times they should abstain from their wives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Propriis terminis à consortibus abstineant So that this and no other but this is the doctrine which the second Council of Carthage did say The Apostles had taught and antiquity had practised And this is no more then what we find in Saint Pauls writings Except it be with consent for a time that you may give your selves unto fasting and prayer 1 Cor. 7. 5. which though spoken generally of all married men yet may without any violence to the Text and with great zeal of and advantage to godliness be appropriated à fortiori to the married Clergy But for Priests total abstaining from wives you must find it in some other Canon or say the Trullane Fathers did either want Honesty in mis-citing this Canon or Learning in mis-understanding it or Iudgement in mis-applying it Whereas on the contrary they were so far from wanting any of these that they had moreover power and authority to have reversed it and would have used that power had they indeed found it a Canon of the Africane Church For they are so bold as plainly to reverse a Canon near of kin to it delivered in the Roman Church requiring married men if they were made Priests to promise they would after that time not co-habite with their wives And to assure us and all the world That these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning which in truth is all the controversie came not either by surreption or by mistake into their Canon The reason of this restriction is thus given in the ensuing words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oportet enim eos qui altari afsident quum sacra manibus tractant in omnibus continentes esse not bidding Priests contain from marriage at all times but only at such times as they were to administer the holy Sacrament This was certainly the sense of your second Canon of the second Council of Carthage or not only Greece did not understand carthage but also Carthage did not understand it self Whence Balsamon is so bold as to assert in plain terms That they of Rome and their accomplices were much mistaken who inferred from this or any other Canon of the Councils of carthage That Priests and Deacons might not have their own wives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But were bound to keep themselves single and unmarried vid. Bals. in Can. 3. 4. Concil 3. Carth. And he proves his assertion from the 70. Canon of the third Council of Carthage meaning the 73. as we commonly say the 70. when we mean the 72. interpreters where the injunction is plain That they ought to abstain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secundum proprios terminos At their proper or peculiar times viz. At the times of their Administration Nay yet more Aurelius who is said to have propounded this your Canon doth himself thus alledge or at least thus interpret it in the Greek Canons of the third Council of Carthage as they are entred and received in the Code of the Africane Church your own Binius being my witness For there Can. 25. he requires Priests to abstain from wives only at some proper times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Propriis terminis ab uxoribus abstineant v. Bin. Concil Tom. 1. edit Colon. p. 580. in alterâ editione quorundam Canonum Concilii tertii Carth. ex codice Africano But the Latine interpreter in Binius rendring these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secundum priora statuta priora instead of propria and Binius foâ—…lowing that reading in the 37. Canon concil Africani sub Coelestino Benifacio and preferring it as the better of the two in his notes upon Concil Carth. 5. sub Anastasio cap. 3. even contrary to the reading of that same Canon as it is in its own edition makes me suspect that the Africane Canons have not been derived to us so entire and incorrupt in the Latine copies as in the Greek wherein if I am mistaken you may well pardon my mistake because your own new Glossator upon Gratian hath presumed to correct the Latine Copy of this very Canon as he had found it in the Books then commonly received by the Greek Copy leaving out exemplo after Apostoli docuerunt as I shewed before for this one reason amongst others That he found it not in the Greek Copies I know Binius is of another mind so impossible is it there should be Unity where there is not Verity and saith concerning the carthage Canons That the Latine Edition is of a greater authority then the Greek translation But confessing two various editions of the Latine Canons Secundum propria statuta and priora statuta and not being able to shew any more then one translation
in doing or in suffering because there is no proportion betwixt an infinite Justice and a finite satisfaction This considered may I not be as gross an Ebionite or Cherinthian by saying there is a necessity of penal satisfaction as if I say there is a necessity of legal observations for the expiation of sin do not both alike diminish and disparage the efficacy of Christs death Or may I think that the Church of Christ by using the power of the Keyes in retaining sins intends to retain where Christ remits to wiâ—… in the true Penitent to the undervaluing of Christs merit in purchasing remission of sins and Gods free grace and mercy in granting it and Gods holy Spirit in testifying it Therefore I must let the satisfaction enjoyned by the Church die with the Penitent and not be required of him after death unless I will suppose the Church both able and willing to bind where Christ hath loosed For if Christ loose not the sinner here I do not find upon what grounds to believe That he will loose him hereafter So that we see if satisfaction is to be made by the sinner All must go to Purgatory and for ought we can prove tarry there eternally And so Purgatory will in truth be Hell If satisfaction hath been made by Christ then none at all can justly go thither And so Purgatory will in truth be Nothing certain it is no other satisfaction was given for all the offences of the good Thief though he were not a Penitent till the hour of his death and with what colour of Truth can any Divine teach that God will not take this satisfaction and this alone for all other Penitents And yet this in Bellarmines acount is one of the two supporters of Purgatory the other is Venial sins which may also be shaken in good time In a word The Place the Time the Quality of Torment the manner of tormenting the Tormentor and the cause or end for which souls are said to be tormented in Purgatory are all uncertain and how can the torment it self be taken for a certainty For it is not any mans confidence can make that certain which is invested with so many intrinsecal doubts and ambiguities nor any mans arguments can make that credible which is not certain But besides the uncertainty wâ—… meet with in this temporary Tormentâ—… which will not suffer us to believe it wâ—… find it casts an uncertainty upon that eternal Torment which we confess our selveâ—… bound to believe For as you rightly sayâ—… Nothing is more certain amongst Christiaâ—… then what is de fide of Divine Faith So crave leave to inferr from that sayinâ—… Nothing is to be affirmed de fide of diviâ—… faith among Christians which is not ceâ—…tain unless we will labour to overthroâ—… the Certainty of the Christian faith Fâ—… to require men to believe an uncertaiâ—… equally with a certainty is to invite theâ—… to disbelieve a certainty since it is not possible they should have one and the same Divine Faith for uncertainties and for certainties And therefore to teach men to believe Purgatory which is uncertain is the ready way to make them not believe Hell which is most certain Nor is it to be wondered That Bellarmines certainties concerning this doctrine should be so much enfeebled by his own uncertainties concerning the same no more then it is to be wondered that the certainty of our Christian saith should depend not upon the wit of man but upon the word of God 7. For this doctrine of Purgatory is so far from being taught in the Word of God that if you should ask those Disciples who have been most and best instructed in the Word Have ye received the doctrine of Purgatory since ye believed They must answer you We have not so much as heard whether there be any Purgatory and yet the same men will plainly tell you They have heard there is an holy Ghost and have received him though your over-bold Peltanus would perswade the world That Purgatory is as expresly taught in the holy Scriptures as the Unity of God and yet that is a little more expresly taught then the Deity of the Holy Ghost though blessed be God the Scripture is very express in both these Doctrines But in the whole Book of God there is neither in words nor in sense neither explicitly nor implicitly any such thing as your Purgatory which we cannot say concerning any Article of the Christian Faith That the thing we are bound to believe is not so much as really or virtually named in all the Holy Bible For an sit is as truly a precognition in the object of faith as in the subject of any question by that Rule of the Apostle if reason will not serve How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard and how shall they hear without a Preacher Rom. 10. 14. We cannot believe what we have heard we cannot hear any supernatural truth unless God preach it and if he hath been the Preacher we may find the doctrine in his written Word which the most zealous defenders of this your doctrine durst not assert in former times For a very eminent Schoolman of our own Couâ—…rey Iohannis Bachâ—…nus lib. 4. dist 45. quâ—…unica answers all the Texts that were in his daies commonly alledged out of the Bible to prove Purgatory which were then but three though since they have swelled into a far greater number The first Text was that of 2 Mac. 12. To which his answer is Libri Macchabaeorum non sunt de Canone Bibliae ut dicit Hieronymus The Books of the Macchabees are not of the Canon of the Bible as saith Saint Hierom Nor doth your Cardinals new subtilty invalidate this answer Dico librum Maccha non esse Canonicum apud Judaeos sed apud Christianos esse I say the Books of the Macchabees were not Canonical among the Jews but they are among the Christians For the Christian Church had the Canon of the Old Testament from the Church of the Jews who not daring to make themselves a Canon took that which God gave them and therefore left out the Macchabees because they were not in the Ark that is to say not in that Canon which God had given them Nor hath God given the Christian Church power and authority to make that or any other Book Canonical which himself hath not made so for the Text is plain which saith To them were committed the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 2. Which words only shew a Trust of keeping not a power of making the Oracles of God either in Jew or Christian. The second Text then alledged to prove Purgatory was that of 1 Cor. 3. To which his answer is That the Apostle there speaketh of that fire which shall burn the world at the day of Judgement therefore that place will not prove such a a purging by fire as the Doctors suppose before the day of Judgement Benè probatur Purgatio ista conflagrationis in
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
a matter of right that is by his orderly power according to the Laws when the Law according to which a man is to act righteously is not in the power of the Agent then by acting according to his absolute power he acts disorderly and not righteously for being subject to a Law he is bound to act according to that Law But when the Law and the Righteousness of the Law is in the power of the Agent such an Agent may act orderly and righteously and yet act otherwise then according to the dictate of that Law because he is not subject to that Law and so his absolute power is not disorderly To apply this to our present case The Church is this free Agent in the exercise of Religion and having a Law given her to act by she may not act therein by an absolute power either besides or against that Law given her but by an orderly power according to it For being subject to the Law of Religion she is bound in the exercise of Religion to act according to that Law For there only the Agent may act orderly and righteously not according to the dictate of Law where the Law and the righteousness of the Law is in his own power So that either we must say That the Law and the righteousness of Religion is under the Power and Authority of the Church or we must confine the Church in the exercise of Religion to act according to the Law of God And therefore though your wit learning and numbers may invite you to that unsufferable insolency of seeking to domineer over other mens reasons yet pray let your own hearts and consciences deter you from that unpardonable impiety of seeking to domineer over Gods Commandements For what his Law hath made sin your practice cannot make righteousness what he hath made irreligion you cannot make Religion though you were as you say you are but shew you are not his Catholick Church For the Church is to depend upon God much more then the People are to depend upon the Church not only for the substance but also for the exercise of Religion Gods commands must be obyed for the substance of Religion according to the three first Commandements for the order and exercise of Religion according to the fourth Invocations Adorations Confessions Consecrations all must be for the honour of God for he only is named in the Commandements that require them that the Church may not make a Schism from God in the substance and in the exercise of Religion And then we must all with one heart and mouth unanimously and magnanimously joyn together in the defence and obedience of such Invocations Adorations Confessions and Consecrations That the people may not make a Schism from the Church in the outward Profession and Practice of Religion The Laws of the first Table are not only in the order of place or situation but also in the very order of nature and of Justice before the Laws of the second Table God must first have his right before the Church can lay claim to hers As in the Creed we are first taught to believe in God and after that to believe the holy Catholick Church so in the Decalogue it is first said Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve and after that Honour thy Father and thy Mother This Protestation was under Moses his hand before it was in the Apostles mouthes We ought to obey God rather then man Acts 5. 29. And this Protestation alone will justifie all Protestants to the worlds end that shall depart from your Church in those points of Religion wherein you have plainly and palpably departed from the Law of God For God first requires Verity iâ—… the Religion before he requires Unity in the Communion of his Church and after these and for these he requireth obedience to her Authority She is first holy by her Verity then Catholick by her Unity That Church that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sub 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our mother in the Lord by her Authority This we believe in believing the holy Catholick Church And according to the method of our faith must be the method of our obedience First obeying the Churches Verity then her Unity then her Authority For God founded the Religion before he founded the Communion as he founded the Communion before he founded the Authority of his Church at least according to the Priority of nature though not of time For he founded the Religion of his Church in the three first Commandements The Communion of his Church in the fourth and the Authority of his Church in the fifth Commandement So that Gods Church hath in truth a threefold foundation one in respect of her Religion another in respect of her Communion a third in respect of her Authority The first concerneth the Being the second the well-Being the third the splendid Being of the Church In regard of the first The Church is the pillar and ground of True worship in regard of the second she is the Pillar and ground of solemn or of publick worship in regard of the third she is the Pillar and ground of orderly or uniform worship First we have Truth in the service of God from her Religion Then solemnity from her Communion Then Uniformity from her Command These are the inestimable blessings God hath conveyed unto this wicked world by his Catholick Church and by every particular member thereof if we consider the goodness of God in offering these blessings rather then the wickedness of men in rejecting his offers or in abusing his goodness For by Gods holy appointment and institution his Church in every Nation is intrinsically Catholick from her Religion extrinsecally Catholick from her Communion and potentially Catholick from her Authority and 't is only by mens perversness and undutifulness That she loseth her Potential whiles she retaineth her intrinsecal and extrinsâ—…cal Catholicism For having her Religion according to the three first and having her Communion according to the fourth she ought also to have her Authority according to the fift Commandement But if she forsake her Religion or corrupt her Communion she cannot justly claim her authority if it be denied and doth unjustly use it if it be granted for she useth it against the honour and glory of Gods and for the distraction and the destruction of men whereas St. Paul saith expresly concerning his own and the Authority of all the other Apostles for he saith our authority which the Lord hath given us that it was only for edification not for destruction 2 Cor. 10. 8. and having said this for the Apostles themselves He hath much more said it for their successors Let it be granted which cannot reasonably be denied That every Christian Priest-hood or Ministry is the grand Apostle of that Nation wherein is an Apostolical Church I hope you will say the Apostle ought to be true to his God no less then the People ought to be true to
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
have not strained this Canon in my interpretations I assure you they are not mine but your own Authors The first is Gratians Par. 1. Dist. 28. c. 15. Si quis discernit Presbyterum conjugatum tanquam occasione â—…ptiarum quod offerre non debeat ab ejus oblatione ideo se abstinet Anathema sit The latter is the new Glossators upon Gratian in the edition authorized by Greg. 13. Si quis secernat se à Presbytero qui uxorem duxit tanquam non oporteat illo liturgiam peragente de oblatione percipere Anathema sit And he tells us That Dionysius exiguus had in effect so interpreted it before him 7. And this one single Canon might I alledge not only as the Jugement and Decree of the Catholick Church from the Code of her Canons but also as the Judgement of your own particular Roman Church from Dionysius and as the Decree of the same Church from Gratian But that both the antient Judgement and Decree of your Church are more clearly proved by the practice of it For in your very Church of Rome have heretofore been no less then nine Popes which were the sons of married Priests and Deacons whereas if Priests and Deacons marriage had been forbid by the Apostles or by the Catholick Church I might say They were the sins of Priests not sons and you might say They were very unfit Popes because very unfit successors for Saint Peter but more unfit Vicars for his master But so saith Gratian Par. 1. Dist. 56. cap. 2. Osius Papa fuit filius Stephani subdiaconi Bonifacius Papa fuit filius Jucundi Presbyteri Felix Papa filius Felicis Presbyteri de titulo Fasciolae Agapetus Papa filius Gordiani Presbyteri Theodorus Papa filius Theodori Episcopi de civitate Hierosolymâ Silverius Papa filius Silverii Episcopi Romae Deus dedit Papa filius Stephani subdiaconi Felix etiam tertius natione Romanus ex Patre Felice Presbytero fuit Item Gelasius natione Afer ex Episcopo Valerio natus est Item Agapetus natione Romanus ex Patre Gordiano Presbytero originem duxit complures etiam alii inveniuntur qui de sacerdotibus nati Apostolicae sedi praefuerunt See here are nine Popes named which were all the sons of married Clergy-men and yet Gratian concludes this Chapter saying These were not All divers more might be found if he had a mind to look after them yet these are enough to prove the practice of the Church of Rome for having married Priests till the year of our Lord 158 when Anastasius flourished who writ the lives of the Popes saith Bellarm. de script Eccles. with this emphatical asseveration Ut notum est denying Damasus cited by Gratian to have been the author of of that Book as well he might For Damasus lived in the year 367. So that very few of these men not above three at most had been Popes before his time for it is evident That Agapetus who is reckoned fourth in this Catalogue lived in the time of Justinian that is above 500. years after Christ For by his couragious answer he kept Justinian from embracing Eutychianism saying He thought he 〈◊〉 come to a Christian Emperour but he had found a Pagan persecutor the reason was The Emperour had laboured to perswade him to be an Eutychian And that Silverius who was this Agapetus his next successor may by the way be added to Gratians list for he was the son of Hormisdae not of Silverius Bishop of Rome I have no mind nor leisure to make any special enquiry after the rest and I need not For if you will consider this testimony seriously you will find in this one Catalogue not only Priests and Bishops of Rome to have been Fathers of Popes which is enough to prove the marriage of Priests allowed in that particular Church but also Theodorus Bishop of Hierusalem in Asia and Valerius Bishop of Hippo in Africa to have been Fathers of two of your antient Popes which is enough to prove the marriage of Priests then allowed in the Catholick Church that is to say not only in Europe but also in Asia and in Africa But I do intreate you to take special notice of Valerius Bishop of Hippo for he alone may very well make you misdoubt if not the truth yet the authority of your own alledged Canon since it is incredible that such a married Bishop should live at Hippo at the very same time in which such a Canon was made at Carthage against Priests marriages and neither confute the Canon having such a Learned Priest under him as Saint Augustine nor be confuted by it having so many enemies about him as the Donatists but however in that so many Fathers of your own Church have been the sons of married Priests it will be discretion in some of your Zealots hereafter to bestow better language upon the children of married Priests for fear they be constrained to reproach not only many of their own Popes but even the whole Church of Christ For so far doth your own Gratian justifie this Truth as to assure us That the marriage of Priests was lawful at that time in every Countrey over all the Christian world Dist. 56. c. 13. Quum ergo ex sacerdotibus natiin summos Pontifices supra leguntur esse promoti non sunt intelligendi de fornicatione sed de legitimis conjugiis nati quae sacerdotibus ante Prohibitionem Ubique licita erant in orientali Ecclesia usque hodie eis licere probatur When as therefore the sons of Priests as we we read before viz. cap. 2. which I alledged have been promoted to be Popes we may not think they were born to those Priests in fornication but in lawfull marriage for it was lawfull everywhere that is in all the Christian world for Priests to marry before the Prohibition and in the Eastern Church it is at this day proved to be lawfull So we see that the Clergy both of Eastern and Western Church did plainly shew by their Practice That the marriage of Priests was not prohibited by the Apostles or the Catholick Church and therefore generally used their liberty till some after-prohibition denyed the same to the Clergy of the Western Church And the new Glossator himself who confidently saith that Gratian was mistaken as to the Latine Church sheweth little reason for his own confidence because no pretence or proof for the others mistake till this Decree of Siricius which was not made till almost 400. and not generally ratified or received in his own Diocess till above a 1000. years after Christ For so Baronius himself hath recorded that in the year 1074. this Decree of prohibiting Priests marriage was forced upon the Bishops of Italy Germany and France by Pope Gregory the seventh after they had unanimously gainsayed and most earnestly deprecated and opposed it v. Bar. An. 1074. nu 37 38 39. Now if this Decree were not generally received in the Latine Church till then though it were made
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
him by making either frivolous objections or fond cavils or false calumnies against his Doctrine which in truth is to be the Messengers of Satan And for ought we can see Saint Pauls truest Disciples are most like to have such Messengers to buffet them to the worlds end For this is one of those requests which according to Saint Chrysostom is most like to come under that Text For we know not what we should pray for as we ought Rom. 8. 26. When men who are persecuted and troubled for Religion pray for deliverance from their persecutions or for rest and relaxation from their labours and troubles But yet the Scholars saith he need not be so much ashamed or dismayed for even the great Master of Israel was himself in the same condition Saint Paul saying of himself as well as of others For we know not what we should pray for as we ought and that not out of modesty or humility as appears in that he uncessantly made request to see Rome which was not then granted him when he requested it and that he prayed earnestly and frequently for deliverance from his thorn in the flesh that is from his manifold dangers and afflictions which was never granted him at all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. in Rom. cap. 8. v. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 14. You have here a second place out of Saint Chrysostom to confute your new interpretation take yet a third for upon those words of Saint Paul to the Galathians which are next of kin with these to the Corinthians My temptation which was in the flesh ye despised not Gal. 4. 14. the same Saint Chrysostom thus glosseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I was tumbled and tossed I was beaten with rods I was under a thousand deaths whiles I preached to you and yet though I was in that contemptible condition you contemned me not Me thinks I hear my despised and distressed mother the Church of England at this time saying the same to all that still embrace her doctrine and continue in her Communion For this he meaneth when he saith My Temptation which was in the flesh ye despised not Whereas if Saint Paul had been under such Temptations of the flesh as you imagine these supercilious pretenders who sought to be justified by their own righteousness must needs have condemned him for more then an ordinary sinner They who boasted of their own circumcision in the flesh would certainly have despised him as uncircumcised who had such temptations in the flesh For what is it in the world that to this day makes any man more despicable nor could Saint Paul well have given such proud Justiciaries a greater advantage against him or his doctrine then such an open profession as this which you have made for him That he had great Temptations of the flesh But indeed the whole context speaks with Saint Chrysostom and against you That the Thorn in Saint Pauls flesh was not his great Temptations but his great Tribulations in the flesh For they are particularly mentioned in the ensuing discourse wherein is not one word concerning any impure motions Therefore saith he I take pleasure in infirmities in reproaches in necessities in persecutions in distresses for Christs sake And he particularly asserteth the Grace or strength he had obtained by prayer as given him to encounter with these Tribulations and I ask you seriously would not these words Most gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities be very ill paraphrased after this manner Most gladly therefore will I glory in my concupiscence and I would fain know how it is possible for that which is naught in the Paraphrase to be good in the Exposition since a Paraphrase is no other but a verbal Exposition 14. Lastly you say 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 Castigo corpus meum 1 Cor. 9. 27. Good Sir how do you know that the married Clergy with us do not so or that the unmatried Clergy with you do so Did not Saint Peter do this as well as Saint Paul and yet he was doubtless a married man But I answer I do find that men are bid abstain from marriage to fast and pray not that they are bid fast and pray to abstain from marriage nor have Priests any particular promise more then other men that they shall be enabled to live perpetual Virgins by fasting and praying that so they may fast and pray in faith of that promise nor have they any particular command more then other men to fast and pray to enable them to live perpetual Virgins that so they may fast and pray in obedience to that command And why should any man place Religion in that which neither is in faith as to Gods promise nor from obedience as to Gods command And whereas you speak of your millions of good men I heartily wish it may be more then speech but I have a fear a suspition nay a proof that hitherto it hath been no more For first your own Panormitane as I find him quoted by my late Reverend and Learned Diocesan Bishop Davenant makes me fear otherwise for he saith expreslly Credo pro bono salute esset animarum ut volentes possent contrahere I believe it would be for the good and salvation of souls if they that will might marry He means sure the Priests souls and therefore thought many of them deeply plunged in sin for want of marriage Secondly the Testimony of your own Agrippa makes me think otherwise for he saith plainly of your Priests Monks Clanculum confluunt ad lupanaria stuprant sacras virgines vitiant viduas And puts his Quod ego scio vidi to their clancular yet prodigious abominations and at last thus concludes Et quarum animas lucrari debent Deo Illarum corpora sacrificant Diabolo Agrip. de van scientiarum cap. 64. Thirdly the authority of your own Espencaeus makes me say otherwise for these are his words in his exposition upon Titus 1. Turpissimum est quod Clericos cum concubinis pellicibus meretricibus cohabitare liberosque procreare sinunt accepto ab eis atque adeo alicubi a continentibus certo quotannis cansu Habeat concubinam sive non habeat aureum solvat habeat si velit I should have been ashamed of quoting these three Testimonies had not your great boast constrained it but I am ashamed to English these quotations though by so doing I should go near to overthrow your boasting Indeed your own Cassander hath overthrown it for this is his ingenuous profession and confession in this kind That the want of able Ministers idoneorum Ministrorum inopia is one cause amongst others why the constitution which forbids the marriage of Priests in your Church should be recalled for that had kept many
Minus dicit plus significat vult enim quod non solum in futuro sed etiam hic punitur tale peccatum He speaks little but he signifies much for his meaning is That such a sin is punished not only in the next world but also in this 10. Your late Jesuites tell us of a remission of the sin with a reservation of the punishment but your old Divines take remitting for not punishing without which in truth it cannot be remission For God doth not afford us a less forgiveness then he doth require us to afford one another and that is so to forgive the sin as not once to think of punishing or of revenging it For indeed to forgive sin is nothing else in its own nature but not to reserve it to be punished and because God punished our Saviour for our sins it is said He made him sin for us 2 Cor. 5. 21. For so Christ took our sin upon him that is to say not our Guilt but our Punishment and he took it upon himself that he might not leave it upon us For he was wounded for our transgressions Isa. 53. 5. He was bruised for our iniquities that is He was punished that we might be acquitted The chastisement of our peace was upon him that is His chastisement was our Peace and with his stripes we are healed And blessed be God we are so for sure it is we could never be healed with our own stripes it is his wounds work our cure and not our own yet I will not follow Scotus who to confute them that denyed contingency did say It is pitty but such men should be under torments till they should confess it were possible for them not to be tormented I will not say in like manner It is pitty but they who deny our souls to be healed with our Saviours stripes should themselves be beaten with many stripes till they should confess that their own stripes could not heal them for then I know they would be under the lash for ever But I must say That it were just with God to put them under such a confutation For they are under a gross denyal not of a Metaphysical but of a Theological Truth and that of such a Truth as hath joyned Gods Mercy and Justice both together in mans salvation and therefore such a Truth as may not be denyed without great uncharitableness to man and greater unthankfulness to God I think few of those men who now most stand upon this new Divinity of remission in the next world to be obtained by our own stripes and others suffrages because it brings them so good a market would be willing at their deaths to venture their souls upon it for fear it should bring them as bad a remedy And I cannot but wonder at your Cardinal who hath said concerning this Text Hinc colligunt Sancti Patres quaedam peccata remitti in futuro seculo per orationes suffragia Ecclesiae Bellar. lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 4. Hence the holy Fathers do gather that some sins are forgiven in the next world by the prayers and the suff ages of the Church for he could not say this if Saint Thomas said true without putting Saint Augustine and Saint Chrysostom out of the Catalogue of the Fathers 11. I know our Country-man Backet was swayed by Saint Augustine to conclude for Purgatory but I fear either he mis-applyed or mis-understood Saint Augustine or Saint Augustine mis-understood himself For Saint Augustine hath most dogmatically determined against it lib. 13. de Civit. Dei cap. 8. In requie sunt animae piorum à corpore separatae Impiorum autem poenas luunt donec istarum ad aeternam vitam illarum vero ad aeternam mortem corpora reviviscant The souls of the righteous are in rest of the unrighteous in torment after they are separated from the flesh till the bodies of the one shall be raised again to eternal life the bodies of the other to eternal death 12. But he that will not teach Fancy instead of Faith must take God for the Author and Gods Church for the Pillar and ground of that Truth which he teacheth else he may chance rove in uncertainties to the worlds end especially if he shall take Metaphorical allusions for dogmatical conclusions and florid declâ—…mations for solid determinations as Divines now usually are on all sides in their citations out of â—…he Fathers upon any argument making some of them speak against their own doctrine to speak for new devices and in effect to write contradictions rather then not write for the great Diana of these clamorous Ephesians Therefore I will not here examine the citations of the Fathers for surely A Christian Divine is bound to teach no other Faith for Christian then such as hath been manifestly declared in the Word of Christ and generally and constantly professed by the Catholick Church of Christ And your Cardinal finds not so muth as the word Purgatory in all the Scriptures nor in any one general Council till the fourth of Laterane under nnocent the third above twelve hundred years after Christ which was as far from being Oecumenical as Rome is from being all the Christian world and if it had been so yet hath only furnished us with Consultations not with Canons or Constitutions your own Platina being my witness who saith thus in the life of Innocent the third Venere multa in consultationem nec decerni tamen quicquam apertè potuit Many things were debated but nothing was openly decreed in this Council and I hope you will not say that they passed their decrees in private or by any underhand dealing An observation that may weaken some of your other Tenents no less then Purgatory which you obtrude upon the consciences of men as established by the Canons of this Council which in truth made no Canons at all if your own Platina be worth belief 13. Next I meet with your Cardinals Reasons whereof some do rather put then prove this new Article of Faith contrary to Aquinas who allows not of Ratio ponens but only of Ratio probans radicem fidei par 1. qu. 32. art 1. ad 2. arguing not so much from the authority of Gods Word as against it As particularly that reason lib. 1. cap. 11. Intelligibile non est quomodo verbum ociosum ex naturâ suâ dignum sit perpetuo odio Dei maneat igitur quaedam esse peccata venialia solâ temporaâ—…i poenâ digna No man can understand how an idle word is in its own nature worthy of Gods eternal hatred therefore let it stand for a Truth that some sins are venial and only worthy of temporal punishment A strange way of arguing for a Divine who should not exercise his Readers curiosity but establish his conscience Christ saith That for every idle word men shall give account in the day of Judgement to make men repent before hand even of their least sins that judging themselves they may not be
that your Priests are convinced of their Idolatry in worshipping of Images because they are so willing to shuffle off the second Commandement which forbids it least that should also convince the common people wherein a late German Bishop and Clergy of yours shewed too much fraud to be accounted men of conscience and too little Art to be accounted men of cunning for commanding that the Lords Prayer the Angelical salutation the Creed and Ten Commandements should be distinctly and leisurably repeated in the German tongue every Lords day by the Parish Priests that the people might be able to repeat understand and learn them Distinctè ac tractatim ut populus legentem repetitione subsequi ea discere memoriae mandare possit Synod Augustensis cap. 25. yet left not so much as any blind footsteps of the second Commandement in their German translation which they appointed the Priests to read There was little conscience in leaving out one of Gods Commandements and as little cunning in commanding the Parish Priests to read them All when they themselves had left out One for they could not think by their false copy which quite left out the second Commandement and called the third the second to blind their Priests though they did think by it to blind the people They would be thought very zealous in teaching those committed to their charge all the Fundamentals of salvation yet purposely concealed one main practical fundamental because they had formerly mis-taught or at least mispractised the same finding it more agreeable with their honour though less with their honesty to let the people continue still in ignorance then to recall their own errour The like was the tender care and conscience of your Trent Fathers to instruct the people in their prayers Sess. 22. cap. 8. Etsi Missa magnam contineat populi fidelis eruditionem non tamen expedire visum est Patribus ut vulgari linguâ passim celebraretur Ne tamen oves Christi esuriant Pastores frequenter aliquid in Missâ exponant Though the Mass contain in it very great and necessary instructions for faithful people yet we do not think fit to put it in a language they can understand notwithstanding least Christs sheep should be bunger-starved the Pastors are required often to expound some parts of it A great seeming Fatherly care of souls to fear they might perish for want of food but no Fatherly kindness nor resolution rather to let them perish then make them able to feed themselves But the cause was the same in both The peoples ignorance was to keep them in their sinful obedience For the less they knew the more they would obey in things so plainly against the Law of God Therefore these two Synods had rather the common people should worship God without their Reason then with their Conscience though they could not worship as men without their Reason nor as Christians but with their Conscience But so it is Reason and Conscience must both be laid aside or lulled asleep when men are to act upon false Principles as in this particular The Commandment was to be thrown down that the Images might be kâ—…pt up For that is so plain in its Prohibition and so powerful in its Commination that if the people had understood it they would not have committed so gross Idolatry or would full soon have become very penitent Idolators And good reason for Images are but a relick of Paganism Ex Gentili consuetudine as saith Eusibius Hist. Eccles. lib. 7. cap. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of a Paganish custom and therefore long kept out of the Churches of Christians and longer kept out of their Religion though now they so abound in your Churches and Religion as if you meant that even in your most populous Cities these your new Gods should exceed and out-vie the number of their worshippers so that I might justly hint at your pictures and Images all my fault was I did only hint at them I will now make some part of amends and down-right strike at them though by other mens hands not mine own For in this case I have the primest Champions of Christendom to prove that Images were long kept out of the Churches of Christians and longer kept out of their Religion and either of these is enough to break them in pieces 16. First that Images were long kept out of the Churches of Christians and for this we have the testimony of Epiphanius for the Greek and of Saint Hierom for the Latine Church both in one Epistle to John of Hierusalem which was indicted or composed by Epiphanius translated and approved by Saint Hierom. The testimony is in these words Cùm ergo hoc vidissem in Ecclesiâ Christi contra authoritatem Scripturarum hominis pendere Imaginem scidi illud magis dedi consilum custodibus ejusdem loci ut pauperem mortuum eo obvolverent efferent Precor ut jubeas Presbyteros ejusdem loci deinceps praecipere in Ecclesiâ Christi ejusmodi vela quae contra Religionem nostram veniunt non appendi The story is this Epiphanius going to say his prayers in a Church at Anabaltha there spied a vail or curtain which had in it the picture of Christ or of some Saint at which he was so offended That he cut down the said veil or curtain and wished the Keepers of the Church to bury a dead man therewith alledging it was against the authority of the holy Scriptures and the purity of Christian Religion that such Images should be set up in Churches and desiring the Bishop of Hierusalem in whose Diocess it was to require the Clergy there to admit no more such pictures or images into that Church Contra authoritatem Scripturarum contra Religionem nostram No Christian Bishop can have stronger arguments or rather adjurations either for the casting out or the keeping out of Images from his Church then that the retaining or the receiving of them is against the authority of the Scriptures the custom of the Church and the conscience of Religion All which are here alledged by Epiphanius For he that saith Contra Religionem nostram against our Religion doth appeal to the custom of Christians as well as to the conscience of Christianity And this quotation is such a Gordian not to your Cardinal that after all his pains to loosen and untie it at last Alexander like he cuts it off saying Verior solutio haec verba esse supposititia Bell. lib. 2. de sanct cap. 9. The truest answer is The words are supposititious But words entailed upon the Church for so many hundred years together are not so easily cut off The same Authority had before troubled Waldensis yet he denies not the truth of the story only saith That Epiphanius did this thing in hatred of the Anthropomorphites and out of zeal not according to knowledge Wald. de Sacramental Tit. 19. c. 157. So likewise Alphonsus a Castro lib. de Haer. voce Imago denies not the
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
the one it is a personal in the other it is a doctrinal sin and therefore is rather to be confessed by your Clergy then by your Laity rather by your Ministers then by your People â—…or whereas your People are but single your Priests are double Idolaters that is to say not only in their practice but also in their doctrine in that they have set up the Inventions of men instead of the Commandement of God and magnified the authority of men not only against but also above the authority of God in Gods own worship So that your Priests had need doubly ask God forgiveness concerning this second Commandement first for the Idoloatry of their Images and next for the Idolatry of their Imaginations CAP. V. Of Praying to Saints and Angels 1. CHrist our only Sanctuary in the day of Judgement should be so now 2. Praying to Saints is asking both in vain and in sin 3. Angels not trusted with themselves or with others but in part God found no stedfastness or Put no trust in the Angels are both one 4. That literal sense most proper in doubtful Texts which is most agreeable with the comparative and illative sense of the same is a rule which keeps the unlearned from being interpreters of the holy Scripture and the learned from quarrelling with sound or judicious interpretations 5. Gods putting no trust in his best servants whether Saints or Angels a sufficient reason that men should not pray to them 6. His finding no steadfastness in them proves the same concerning those confirmed in Grace and Glory 7. Papists swallow the mis-allegations of their own writers but quarrel at the true and proper allegations of the text by Protestants 8. Bellarmines allegation for the Invocation of Angels from sacobs practice Gen. 48. 16. refuted by the context because it is interpreted in such a Grammatical as is against the Theological and Logical sense of the words that is in such a sense as is against the analogy of Religion in the Decalogue which is as necessarily observed in the interpretation of doubtful propositions in the Old as the analogy of faith is in the New Testament and against the anaolgie of Reason both in the proposition and in the connexion and in the deduction And generally all the texts alledged for this false invocation are so mis-interpreted particularly this in the judgement both of Greek and Latine Church 9. The Latine translation of Job 5. 1. intemperately defended by Bellarmine against Chemnitius Spirituael drunkenness worse then Carnal and makes the more scandalous Minister in Gods account 10. The words of Job not to be interpreted of the Invocation of Saint by Bellarmines own professiâ—…n both as a Critick and as a Divine though not as a Disputant and much more by Text. 11. Invocation of Saints is against the analogie of saith in the Câ—…ed and of righteousness in the Decalogue and against all the devotions taught us in the holy Bible and consequently doth leave Christs Communion and must lose Christs interâ—…ssion as being a piece of Religion not of Gods but of mans making 12. The Invocation of the blessed Virgin used by the Romanists faulty in the object of worship and the manner of worshipping and consequently falsly imputed to the Catholick Church which is a Communion of Saints not of sinners 13. Protestantism in Popery against this false worship 14. The Catholick Church falsly alledged for this false worship which yet could not make it true worship since it is against Gods Commandements The Church not having an absolute power in the exercise of Religion to act against Gods Law but only an orderly power to act according to it The Churches threefold foundation 1º In her Religion 2º In her Communion 3º In her authority admits not her authority before much less against her Religion and her Communion 15. Prayers to Saints as to the authors of the blessings prayed for unlawful by Bellarmines own Confession who labours to excuse his Church for using such prayers but unsuccessfully The â—…esuites maintain such prayers both by their doctrine and by their Practice 16. Gods trusting the holy Angels with his Elect is no sufficient ground for their praying to Angels 17. Baronius unjustly quarreling with Theodoret about the worshipping of Angels and falsly interpreting the Canon of Laodicea 18. No ungratefulness in our not praying to Angels because ungâ—…dliness in praying to them 19. The Papâ—…sts invocation of their Guardian Angel not to be justified The fifth Exception IBidem sect 5. p. 219. Against Praying to Saints you alledge Behold he put no trust in his Servants and his Angels he charged with folly Job 4. 18. Our Latine Vulgar reads thus Ecce qui serviunt ei non sunt stabiles in Angelis suis reperit pravitatem Conformably whereto your old translation reads Behold be found not stedfastness in his Servants and laid folly upon his Angels And Job 15. 15. your old repeats He found no stedfastness in his Saints though your new He putteth no trust in his Saints Now according to our Latine and your old English translation this place must needs be understood of the bad Angels that fell as is evident by those words 2 Pet. 2. 4. If God spared not the Angels that sinned where both your old and Mr. Beza also quotes in the margent this very place Job 4. 18. Here is nothing then against praying to Angels and Saints confirmed in grace and glory If your new then be to be understood of them as you understand it and urge it too That 〈◊〉 paâ—…teth no trust in his servants nor Saints it is contrary to it self and to all Divine Scripture For to omit a thousand â—…stances thus saith Saint Paul though yet alive upon earth 1 Thes. 2. 4. we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the Gospel and 1 Tim. 1. 11. the glorious Gospel of the blessed God was committed to my Trust And doth God put no trust in him now being a glorified Saint in heaven think you you cannot deny but in blessed Angels at least Otherwise why do you so earnestly beg of God to put them in trust with your self both body and soul praying in your ejaculation 34 O God let them compass me about whâ—…st I am living and carry my soul into Abrahams bosom when I shall die Let them in in my sickness succour and defend me and in my death convey my soul to the everlaâ—…ing mansions Now since God puts this great trust in them with us oughâ—… 〈◊〉 we to put them in trust by reverently â—…mmending our selves â—…nto them and by humbly praying them to do those good offers for us which you very piously here mention least we should ungratefully slight them contrary to Gods command Ex. 23. 21. Observa eum audi vocem ejus nec contemnendum putes The Answer 1. I Will not spend words with you like a Sophister but sense like a Divine nor will I wonder with what face you made this Exception but see
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
their Apostle I will instance in St. Paul who was not a whit behind the chiefest Apostles 2 Cor. 11. 5. though you now attribute all to Saint Peter we read that certain of the Jews banded together and bound themselves under a curse saying That they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul Act. 23. 12. This banding against an Apostle was fighting against God in the judgement of a Jew Act. 15. 39. how much more should it be in the judgement of Christians For we cannot but look upon St. Paul in this case as upon Godâ—… Trustee both for the Christian Religion and for the Christian Communion anâ—… accordingly invested with authority froâ—… God for the discharge of that Trust an doubt not but He looked upon himself aâ—… one that ought to be more zealous foâ—… Christs Religion and for Christs Communion than for his own Authority And so doubtless ought the Priest-hoodâ—… all Churches after him and why not all in your Church For the Churches fouâ—…dation or being is much more excelleâ—… and glorious in regard of her Religioâ—… and of her Communion then in regardâ—… her Authority 15. This I fear comes neerer your 〈◊〉 then I am willing to urge it sure I am comes very neer my position That formaliâ—… vocation of Saints such as is now coâ—…monly used in your Devotions being pâ—…vately used is against the three first Coâ—…mandements which concern the Religioâ—… and being publickly used is against 〈◊〉 fourth Commandement which conceâ—… the Communion of Gods Church aâ—… therefore in vain do you pretend in sin do you imploy the Authority of your Church to uphold either the private or the publicke use of it And this difference I cannot but observe betwixt your Trent Catechist and your Rome dogmatist The one goes to prove that Invocation of Saints is not against the Commandement because it is according to the use of the Church The other goes to prove that t is not according to the use of the Church because it is against the Commandement For so Bellarmine proves that the Saints are not to be invocated as the Authors of any blessing appertaining either to grace or glory but only as the impetrators or procurers of it and his two proofs are one from the Command of the Holy Scriptures probatur primo ex Scriptura The other from the Custome of the Church Secundo probatur ex usu Ecclesiae Bell. l. 1. de Sanct. beat cap. 17. though to make good his second proof He maintains this Unlogical and Untheological position That t is no matter for the words so as it be the sense of our Prayers which is Unlogical because it is against the very nature and institution of speech and Untheological because it is against that very Commandement which ordereth our Speech in our Prayers and therefore ordereth our Prayers only as they are Vocal and may be spoken not as they are Mental and may be thought and that is the third Commandement whereby God hath set a watch only before the doores of our Lips not of our Hearts He had ordered our Hearts in the first Commandement and ordereth our mouths only in the third when he saith Thou shalt not take the Name of thy Lord thy God in vain And in this respect the Psalmist prayeth Accept I beseech thee the free-wil offering 〈◊〉 my mouth O Lord Psal. 119. 10. Here is then very much in the Judgement of your own Cardinal though you say Here is nothing against Praying to Saintâ—… and Angels confirmed in grace and glory For to let pass that their bless in Heaven doth not make them God for Neighbour we may not pray to them for any blessing that tends either to Grace or Glory and all good Prayers are for blessings that do tend to one of these And t is a poor shift to talk of sense not oâ—… words when the question is only oâ—… words and to say you mean the Saintâ—… but as Procurers when you speak to then as Authors of the blessings you pray for For He that hath bid his Church daily to pray And lead us not into temptation hath above all forbid his Church daily to lead his people committed to her charge into Temptation by their very Prayers Therefore in vain did some of your Zelots seek to corrupt the Hebrew Text in Montanus his interlineary Bible of 1572. putting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though by Gods special providence the Press strangly miscarried for it is printed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all that edition which word is a meer Tragelaphus in the Hebrew That since you were not contented with Gods Text you should be ashamed of your own And this discovery we owe to your own L. Bâ—…ogensis in his notations upon Genesis where he saith Gu. Fabritius Pici Mirandulani Principis autoritate nixus in Hebraicis illis Bibliis Regio operi adjunctis quibus Latina interpretatio inter contextus lineas inserta est excudi curavit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quanquam errore positum sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say in vain did some of your Zelots seek to corrupt the Hebrew Text putting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 3. 15. Ipsa for Ipse to make good your Vulgar Translation Ipsa conteret caput Tuum For if it had been said See shall bruise thy head yet you had not found a sufficient warrant to Invocate the blessed Virgin because you cannot possibly bring Her into the first Table of the Decalogue to make Her a God or the Object of Religion Let my Prayer be set forth in thy sight as the Incense saith the Prophet Psal. 141. 2. Prayer is the Incense of the Soul and must be set forth only in his sight who seeth the secret recesses and sighs of the heart When the Jews went to burn incense and to serve other Gods whom they knew not where Note Burning incense is put for serving of God the Lord said to them O do not this abominable thing which I hate Jer. 44. 3 4. And doth he not still say the same to Christians is it less hateful now then it was then for any man to perform vâ—…ws or to burn incense to the Queen of Heaven may not God as justly swear against us if we do so as he did against them That his Name shall be no more named in our mouths v. 26. Are not all but himself as well to us as to them Gods whom we know not Is not this intruding into those things which we have not seen Col. 2. 18. Surely none but God alone is to be known or seen throughout the whole Bible in all the precepts and precedents of Religious worship Therefore Invocation being an elicite and proper act of Religion cannot be applied to any that is not the proper object of Religion The Jews might as well have offered their corporal Sacrifice to Abraham as the Christians can offer this spiritual Sacrifice to
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
have made my heart clean I am pure from my sin He that hath made the best use thereof is most concerned in it and comprehended under it therefore he cannot say I have made my heart clean I am pure from my sins but he must lye to the Holy Ghost and be so far from cleansing his heart as immediatly to let in many unclean spirits the more to defile it For those two which God hath joyned together all the wit and power of man cannot put asunder even Satans filling the heart and lying to the Holy Ghost why hath Satan filled thy heart to lye to the Holy Ghost Acts 5. 3. And if Satan filleth the heart of those who make this lye then sure he also filleth the mouth of those who tell it And therefore the Church of God which is the pillar and ground of the Truth very much abhorreth this lye making this confession of her natural corruptions But we are all as an unclean thing Facti sumus ut Immundus omnes nos so the Hebrew and Chaldee in the singular number we are all but as one unclean man to shew the Uncleanness was from nature which was as equally derived to All as if all had been but one and making this confession of her personal corruptions which proceeded from the natural and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags Isa. 64. 6. Wherefore since Protestants and Papists both agree together in the former part of this confession as a Principle of Divinity 't is irrational in the Papists to disagree from Protestants in the latter part of it which is but a conclusion proceeding from this Principle For the natural corruption is the cause of the personal and therefore all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags because we are all as an unclean thing This being the full argumentation All who are unclean have an unclean righteousnesse but we all are unclean therefore we all have an unclean righteousnesse Quia opus justitiae immundatur inquinamento as saith Aquinas because our righteousnesse is defiled by our unrighteousnesse and by this we may fully understand that other text If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us 1 Joh. 1. 8. For we are clearly guilty of a double lye one against our own souls we deceive our selves another against the Holy Ghost the Spirit of truth and the truth is not in us Both are such pernicious lyes as to bring upon us inevitable destruction for he that willingly deceives his own soul cares not for knowing the truth he that strives to deceive the Holy Ghost cannot come to know it For as he hath not the truth in him in that he deceiveth himself so he keepeth the Spirit of truth away from him that he may deceive himself for ever Nor can we possibly use any evasion upon this text as if some men might say they have no sin though others cannot for he must think himselfe better than the best of Saints the Disciple whom Jesus loved and questionlesse he had a very good reason of his love who will needs say he hath no sin though by saying so he is sure to prove himself worse than the worst of sinners for he maketh him a lyar who hath promised forgiveness of sins and he maketh his Word a lye which hath shewed our need or want of that forgiveness for in many things we offend all Jam. 3. 2. and he putteth himself out of their communion who alone obtain forgiveness even the communion of true penitents of whom it is said If we confesse our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins 1 Joh. 1. 9. he that denyes himself to be one of this number denyes himself to be one of the communion of Saints unless St. John and St. James were no Saints and consequently makes himself uncapable of the forgiveness of sins Thus doth the second Milevitane Council gloss the words of St. John that they were not spoken out of humility but out of necessity and that the greatest the necessity of Truth Satis apparet hoc non tantum humiliter sed etiam veraciter dici Poterat enim Apostolus dicere Si dixerimus quia non habemus peccatum nos ipsos extollimus humilitas in nobis non est sed quùm ait nos ipsos decipimus veritas in nobis non est satis ostendit eum qui se dixerit non habere peccatum non verum loqui sed falsum It is evident that this was spoken not only out of modesty but also out of truth for the Apostle might have said If we say that we have no sin we extol our selves and there is no humility in us But when he saith we deceive our selves and there is no truth in us he sufficiently sheweth that whosoever saith there is no sin in him doth not speak truly but falsly And thus also doth the same Council gloss the words of St. James saying The Apostle was holy and just when he said in many things we offend All for why did he add this particle All but to shew that he agreed with the Psalmist who had said Enter not into judgement with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal. 142. 2. and with Solomon who had said There is no man that sinneth not 1 King 8. 46. And with Daniel who had said We have sinned and have committed iniquity Dan. 9. 5. and afterwards added ver 20. whiles I was confessing my sins and the sins of my people he would not say Our sins but My sins and the sins of my people because he did foresee by the Spirit of Prophecy that some in after ages would be ready to put him and such as he nay indeed much worse transgressours out of the catalogue or number of sinners Quia futuros istos qui tam malè intelligerent tanquam Propheta praevidit And at last upon these and the like proofes the same Council denounceth a terrible curse against those who should dare affirme that forgive us our trespasses was said by the Saints rather humbly than truly quis enim ferat orantem non hominibus sed ipsi Domino mentientem qui labiis sibi dicit dimitti velle corde dicit quae sibi dimittantur se debita non habere For say those Fathers who can endure that a man in his prayers should tell a lye not to man but to God saying with his mouth Forgive us our trespasses and saying in his heart he had no trespasses to be forgiven him Thus we have the authority of the Scripture and the authority of the Church both agreeing together in this doctrine That all men are sinners And though this was but a particular National Council in it self yet was it Universal and Oecumenical in its authority as consisting of Catholick Bishops amongst the rest Alipius and St. Augustine as appeares by the Synodical Epistle to Innocent the first and having been approved by the Catholick
may justly be who seem to make it all one with the Old yet I ought not to be afraid of Jesus the only Author Preserver and Redeemer of my life the only joy and blessing and comfort of my death You say I am not afraid of the Covenant I know I am not afraid of Jesus nor do I say I am desirous to come to Mount Sinai where the Covenant properly so called was repeated but to Mount Sion where the Testament properly so called is really fulfilled and the inheritance conveyed thereby is actually possessed And the words that I quoted import no lesse I am desirous to come to Jesus the Mediatour of the New Covenant For the reason of my desire is because He is the Mediatour of the New Covenant the Covenant of Grace not of the Old Covenant the Covenant of Justice or of works for Moses was the Mediatour of that at least as it was renewed on Mount Sinai but of the New Covenant the Covenant of Grace whereof Jesus was the Maker to put Mercy in it and is the Mediatour to put me into that Mercy Thus you see it is a threefold Cord twisted with Custome Conscience and Truth as with three twists which labours to pull down this your Objection the Custome of speech the Comfort of conscience and the Truth of the Gospel all three concurring together to make me say I am desirous to come to Jesus the Mediatour of the New Covenant and seeing this I suppose you will no longer seek to maintain such an Objection for 't is not ingenuous to stand against Custome not Religious to stand against Conscience not Honest to stand against Truth 7. And thus much in answer to the Verbal part of your exception whereby you have made me some new Work I now come to the real part of it whereby you seem very willing to make some new Divinity for if it be not True it must be called New by that infallible Rule Id verum quod primum That is Trust which is Oldest as coming immediately from the Ancient of dayes or from the first Truth For in very deed say you Christs New Testament is no other than a new conditional Covenant with us by which we are bound cooperating with his Grace to do very many things our selves for the obtaining of the promised inheritance wherein if we fail we shall never attain thereto which seems to me a very strange Assertion for so you have vented it and yet a more strange definition for so you seem to intend it The Assertion is strange because it is Authentical and yet withal Ambiguous such as may be much admired but little approved For he that will speak positively ought not to speak doubtfully as you are positive in denouncing the irrecoverable losse of Heaven but doubtful in declaring by what means we may prevent that losse you speak with authority enough to terrifie us but not with perspicuity enough to instruct us You say plainly We are bound to do very many things for the obtaining of the promised inheritance wherein if we fail we shall never attain thereto But you say not one word concerning any of those things wherein we are bound not to faile So you put our Salvation upon unknown conditions which is the way to fill our souls with perplexity instead of piety and since what is not known cannot be done you may also put our Salvation upon impossible conditions which is the way to turne our perplexity into desperation our desperation into damnation 8. And I think this is enough to prove it a strange Assertion for it doth not explaine but rather obscure the thing defined as agreeing more with the Old than with the New Covenant For put Moses his Old Testament instead of Christs New Testament and you shall not need change any one particle of the whole definition but it will all agree with the one as well as with the other and so it may go after this manner For in very deed Moses his Old Testament is no other than an old conditional Covenant with us by which we are bound cooperating with Gods Grace to do very many things our selves for the obtaining of the promised inheritance wherein if we fail we shall never attain thereto So that you have given us a Definition that will fit the Old Covenant as well as the New and therefore truly fit neither since it cannot fit both which must needs be a very strange definition confounding that Covenant it should explaine for which cause it is Unlogical very strange to reason and making that one Covenant which God hath made two Covenants for which cause it is Untheological very strange to Religion For he which hath said Those things which God hath joyned together let not man put asunder Mat. 19. 6. hath thereby said according to the rule of Contraries Those things which God hath put a sunder let not man joyne together And God hath put the Old and the New Covenant as farre asunder as he hath put Heaven and Hell as he hath put Salvation and Damnation For by the Old Covenant Do this and live all mankind after the Fall must have perished there 's the Damnation But by the new Covenant Believe and thou shalt live none that lay hold on Christ and keep with him and stick to him shall perish there 's the salvation For S. Paul hath told us expressely that God will judge the World not by the Law which will condemn the most innocent and the most righteous since the losse of our first innocen'cy and righteousness but by the Gospel which will condemn only the unrepenting and unbelieving sinner In the day that God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel Rom. 2. 16. never any yet though he had a most innocent hand had so innocent an heart that he durst say his secret thoughts were innocent wherefore he must needs be condemned in the Judgement if God should Judge him according to the Law and not according to the Gospel Nor yet will the Gospel acquit him if he be not innocent any more than the Law will acquit him because it hath the same precepts of innocency with the Moral Law according to which precepts the last Judgement will be given and pronounced only it will accept of his innocency by Faith and Repentance whereas the Law will accept only of his innocency by perfect Obedience The Judgement is not like to be the lesse righteous for being according to the Gospel but the more merciful because though Jesus Christ in Judging us will proceed according to the Rule of the Law which is the same with the Rule of the Gospel yet he will not proceed according to the Covenant of the Law Do this and live but according to the Covenant of the Gospel Believe and thou shalt be saved 10. For the Moral Law is to be considered as a Rule of Righteousness Do this and as a Covenant of Life Do this and live as
of the Greek he hath unawares granted that the Latine Canons are not of so great certainty and should not be of so great authority as the Greek For one of Two cannot be so certain as One by it self Again profâ—…ssing that secundum priora statuta in the Latine is the better edition of the two Quaedam alia lectio melior habet secundum priora statuta he hath unawares granted it is the worse for that could not have been quaedam alia lectio if the other of propria statuta had not been before it and surely of two various readings the first must needs be the best because that was the Original according to the rules Id verum quod primum Id bonum quod verum Thirdly confessing secundum priora statuta to be the Original in that it was the better for else the Original was falfe and the variation from it was the true reading he hath as unadvisedly taxed the Greeks for mistaken Interpreters Graeci haec verba malè intelligentes vertêrunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if he mean these for the words ill translated secundum propria statuta the Greeks did not ill translate them for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth fairly and fully express those words But if he mean for the words ill translated secundum priora statuta then it is not credible the Greeks intended to translate them for they must have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they had read secundum priora statuta in the Latine copies and meaned to translate what they had read T is much more probable that the Greeks found secundum propria statuta in the Original Africane Canon which sure was penned in Latine for the Africane Fathers writ in Latine and Valerius Bishop of Hippo in Africa did therefore take Saint Augustine while he was yet but a Priest to officiate for him in the Pulpit contrary to the custom of that Church because himself being a Greek and not expert in the use of the Latine tongue could not Preach so well to the edifying of the Africane people as saith Possidius in the life of Saint Augustine And it is as probable That the Latines did at first read that same Canon secundum propria statuta as did the Greeks till some of later years sc. after the Prohibition of Priests marriage in that Church thinking priora statuta would better serve their turn then propria statuta not only because it took off the specification of time but also because it put on the face of antiquity ventured to shuffle that in for the other For it is evident that Gratian did read that very Canon secundum propria statuta concerning which Binius avoweth secundum priora statuta to be the better reading v. Grat. Dist. 84. cap. 3. But indeed Binius in this assertion is confuted not only by his own Latine interpreter in his own Councils in this very particular Canon upon which he hath passed this unwarrantable sentence but also in Balsamons Councils by Gentianus Hervetus if that marginal note be his upon the 13. Canon of Trullo Legerat interpres Graecus in Canone Carthaginensi secundum propria statuta And if that note be not his we have gotten a new author to confute Binius but we have not lost our old confutation For in the Latine translation which without doubt belongs to Hervetus we see not only that he so read but also that he so understood those words for he there thus interprets them Propriis terminis à consortibus abstineant Let them abstain from wives at proper and peculiar seasons or times that is At the times of their administration as saith Balsamon So that Binius sheweth more his animositie then his ingenuitie in his ensuing words Hac translatione nostri temporis haeretici caelibatum Clericorum impugnant quasi hujus Canonis authoritate Clerici ab uxoribus in ordine tantùm Vicis suae abstinere deberent reliquis verò temporibus iisdem maritali consortio cohabitare liceret For we say no more in this then Balsamon had said four hundred years before us your own Hervetus being his interpreter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vicis suae tempore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eo sc. tempore quo sacrificant Bals. Concil Trul. cap. 13. Nay we say no more in this then the whole Council in Trullo had said 600. years before Balsamon as hath been proved already in most express words yet in truth we have no reason to be angry with Binius for though he hath given us bad language he hath given us a good advantage for having said that secundum priora statuta was the better and therefore the antienter and truer reading of this Canon he hath not only justified our appeal to former Canons concerning this matter but hath also confuted his own new exposition of the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is this secundum proprias regulas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enim non tantùm significat terminum sed etiam regulam ac praeceptum For though we may admit that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie Regula yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have been an improper translation in Greek for secundum proprias regulas in Latine in which language the Canon was first penned because it would have been equivocal and therefore unexprâ—…ssive and uncertain But it must have been an impossible translation of these Latine words secundum priores regulas for all the world cannot make priores signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more then priority signifie property And yet he confidently avoweth that secundum priora statuta was the better reading of the two The upshot of all is this whether we look to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to the Latine secundum propria statuta for priora was a meer device I will not say a forgerie If we will look upon certainties not upon conjectures the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth import terminum temporis not terminum orationis a determination of time not of law and so likewise the Latine word statutum or the whole Greek Church did not rightly understand their own tongue and the Africane Church did not intend their Canon should be rightly understood wherefore I hope you will pardon this my Descant upon Binius because you see I have done it not to shew my self a Grammarian but a Divine not a bold Critick but an honest Church-man For I have followed that sense of the Africane Canon which I find given it not only by the Greek but also by the Latine Church And therefore this your Canon may not bear that sense which you have given it because it may not contradict all other Canons of the same Africane Church according to the judgement of all Greek and Latine Interpreters And yet this seems to me the best defence you have made for Siricius whereby you have taught us Protestants very ingenuously though very Covertly to believe That a Pope may need
the authority of a particular Church to defend his Decrees notwithstanding that some others of your profession would fain perswade the world That the Popes Decrees ought to be received and embraced as the infallible rules of the whole Catholick Church 9. Having done my weak endeavour to vindicate the Church I now come to vindicate my self and to make good my decarded instances As for that of Abraham if it reach not Siricius it must content me For if my salvation shall go no further then to be in Abrahams bosom my Religion may seek no further then for Abrahams righteousness And he must be to me a bold Dogmatist who would make me more righteous then my Father who am not righteous but for being his Son And if Saint Paul hath thought fit to argue from Abrahams faith to our faith sure I am not mistaken in my Topicks for arguing from Abrahams righteousness to our righteousness And yet I will give you a better precedent then Saint Paul for I find our blessed Saviour himself so arguing This did not Abraham John 8. 40. 10. As for my instance out of Saint Paul It is better to marry then to burn I think it doth prove Siricius a false Dogmatist for he saith It is not better to marry then to burn and I am sure that both parts of the contradiction cannot be true and dare not imagine That Siricius hath taken the true Saint Paul the false part For if for Priests to marry is to be in the flesh Then clearly it is better for Priests to burn then to marry notwithstanding Saint Paul hath said generally concerning all men It is better to marry then to burn And neither good Reason nor good Religion nor good Manners will allow any man to give an exception upon Gods general Rule or to distinguish where his Law doth not distinguish or to set up an Hypothesis against his Thesis by saying That is unlawfull for some particular men which he hath declared to be lawful for All men or to say That puts a man in the state of sin which God hath said is consistent with the state of righteousness For this is to give earth a Dominion over heaven to allow men a legislative power over God for he that in this manner judgeth the Law doth indeed condemn the Law-giver according to that assertion of the irrefragable Doctor Si enim aliquis effecit aliquid quod non sit determinatum in sacra Scriptura mortaliter peccat quia se constituit supra Deum Halensis Par. 1. qu. 68. num 1. art 2. Therefore I dare not say The Church hath determined that to be unlawful in Any which God hath determined to be lawfull in All For I am in love with that Rule in the Angelical Doctor which he hath improved out of Aristotle as he hath indeed all other Ethicks In his quae arbitrio Judicis relinquuntur viri boni est ut sit Diminitivus Poenarum 22. qu. 67. art 4. ad 1. In those things which the Law hath left to the Judges arbitrement it is the part of a good man to Diminish Punishments and if so Then much more to diminish not to encrease sins What an Heathen hath allowed to be the part of a good man pray let a Christian allow to be the part of his best Mother and not suppose the Church 10 cruel as to be willing to encrease sins when he may not suppose a good man so cruel as to be willing to encrease Punishment 11. This makes me follow the Trullane Fathers who thought it fitter Can. 13. to tax the Roman Church for making a Canon to keep married Priests from cohabiting with their wives then by consenting to such a Canon to bring themselves under the suspition of disparaging or disgracing marriage which God had instituted by his Law and both honoured and blessed by his presence For the whole Gospel say they cryeth aloud What God hath joyned let not man put asunder but if Priests that are married be in the state of damnation let us say not God but the Devil hath joyned them and their wives together and therefore man ought to put them asunder and so call marriage in them not Gods but the Devils institution The same Fathers urge further that of Saint Paul Heb. 13. 3. Marriage is honourable in all to prove it honourable in Priests for that was the whole matter then in debate And I desire you to shew me How in this enuntiation marriage is honourable in All the universal particle All doth signifie All but Priests And yet in another enuntiation Drink ye All of this the same particle All doth signifie none but Priests me thinks by this extraordinary kind of subtilty All is come to signifie None For All is none of the Clergy in one place and none of the Laity in another and in my dull sense the whole company of Christians are either Clergy or Laity I will yet further add the testimony of Adrian that I may oppose a Pope against a Pope both for the credit of this Council and for the truth of this cause For I find him in Gratian speaking these words Sextam Sanctam Synodum recipio cum omnibus Canonibus suis I receive the sixt holy Synod with all her Canons Gr. de consec dist 3. c. 29. He saith I receive the sixt holy Synod so the Council is good as to you who are so zealous for the Pope whatever it be to others He saith with all her Canons so the cause is good against you for this Canon is received among the rest And he that said all this lived above 800. years after Christ so your assertion is not good That the Apostles themselves were the first that taught and decreed that Priests ought to abstain from wives For if Pope Adrian could have alledged the least particle of an Apostolical decree against Priests marriage no doubt he would not have said He received all the Canons meerly for this one Canons sake which had been made of purpose to confute his own Church and Chair of both which he was not a little zealous meerly for following Siricius in being addicted to the contrary opinion chuse you which of the two Popes to follow Siricius or Adrian for both you cannot 12. But you say To burn doth not here signifie to be tempted but to fornicate I cannot think Saint Paul was so zealous to determine that which no man was yet so impudent as to doubt viz. It is better to marry then to fornicate for that is no more in effect then this It is better to be a man then to be a beast which surely was not the doubt concerning which the Corinthians had desired to be resolved Therefore I think this cannot be Saint Pauls meaning It is better to marry then to fornicate and I suppose you will think so too when you shall consider that from this interpretation I can justly make this inference That if Priests do fornicate first they may marry afterwards
Church as appeares in that these words which are the 6 7 8. Canons of the second Milevitane Council in Binnius for the Western are the 115 116 117. Canons of the Council of Carthage in Balsamon for the Eastern Churches 17. Wherefore this being an undoubted Principle among all Christians for who can doubt that which comes to us Originally from the Scriptures and derivatively from the Catholick Church That all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God Rom. 3. 23. we cannot reasonably but only perversely deny this conclusion That no man can be justified by his own righteousnesse For having sinned he must needs be under the condemnation of sin and coming short of the glory of God in his duty or obligation he must also come short of his own glory in his merit of justification for his sin which makes him come short of righteousness must needs also make him come short of being reputed righteous For shall not the Judge of all the earth do right how then shall he acquit that man for righteous whom he knows to be a sinner we find he hath in effect given a contrary judgment already Hag. 2. 12 13. where this is the summe of his determination concerning two questions which neerly concerne this case 1. Whether a man that is unclean may contract purity from the touch of hâ—…ly things which he denies 2. Whether Holy things do not contract impurity from the touch of a man that is unclean which he affirmes and then makes this inference ver 14. So is this People and so is this Nation before me saith the Lord and so is every work of their hands and that which they offer there is unclean The same reason holds in us as in them The Jew was unclean by the touch of a dead body and so is the Christian. O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from this body of death Rom. 7. 24. The Jew by his uncleanness did pollute the holy things so doth the Christian even those holy works that proceed from Gods Holy Spirit and Grace The holy things by their Purity did not make him pure among the Jews who was unclean in himself so is it also among the Christians The best inherent righteousness we have from Gods Grace doth not purge away the impurity of that sin which we have from our selves therefore we must confesse that because of our Original and actual uncleanness every work of our hands and that which we offer to our God is unclean and consequently our works cannot justifie themselves much less can they justifie us And we find the same judgment of God confirmed likewise in the New Testament Luk. 17. where the Lepers pray heartily Jesus Master have mercy on us there 's one good work of piety and devotion they obey readily in going to shew themselves to the Priests as they had been commanded there 's another good work better than the former for obedience is better than sacrifice And one of them when he saw that he was cleansed turned back and with a loud voyce glorified God and fell down on his face at our Saviours feet and gave him thanks there 's many good works together one of devotion he glorified God another of zeal with a loud voyce a third of reverence he fell down on his face a fourth of humility at our Saviours feet a fifth of praise and thanksgiving he gave him thanks here is soul and body and all the powers and faculties of both wholly set upon good works yet our Saviour saith Arise go thy way thy Faith hath made thee whole v. 19. So is it also in the leprosie of our souls we are bound to pray heartily Jesus Master have mercy on us and to shew our selves to the Priests that is to use all the means of salvation which God hath appointed in the communion and by the Ministers of his Church yet when all is done if we will speak with our Saviour we must say to the Leper thy Faith hath made thee whole The good works may be acknowledged as adjunctâ—… but not as causes of the cure that must be attributed only to Faith in him who is the Physician of our souls For without doubt that holy ejaculation The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God though he be not clean according to the purification of the sanctuary is a prayer as needful now as it was in the dayes of Hezekiah or it would not have been left upon record for us 2 Câ—…ron 30. 19 It is the Lords Pardon not the mans preparation that makes him clean according to the purification of the Sanctuary and so Kimchi confesseth in his gloss upon those words ver 20. And the Lord healed the people that is saith he The Lord forgave their sin according to that of the Psalmist heal my soul for I have sinned against thee The Lord pardoned their sins that he might accept them and why should not we say that pardon and forgivenesse of our sins is the best ground and means of our acceptance with God For this is the only way to be clean according to the purification of the Sanctuary that is to be clean from all sin even to be made clean of which it is said The blood of Jesus Christ his Son 〈◊〉 us from all sin 1 Joh. 1. 7. If I haâ—… but one sin left upon my soul not washed away by Faith in his blood and the tears of my own repentance I shall not be clean enough to appear before the Throne of his Grace much lesse to appear at the bar of his justice I shall not be innocent enough to serve him much lesse to be judged by him I shall not be able to stand comfortably before his mercy and much less to stand confidently against his Judgement Therefore can I not hope to be saved by the first innocency that of obedience or of righteousness but only by the second innocency that of Faith and repentance And if any other man hath a better hope I pray God he may not find a worse salvation But surely God himself in his consultation how to save the Israelites concludes to do it not by their obedience but by their Faith and repentance Jer. 3. 19. But I said How shall I put thee among the children and give thee a pleasant land a goodly heritage There 's his consultation how to save them And I said thou shalt call me My Father and shalt not turn away from me there 's his conclusion to save them by their Faith and by their repentance By their Faith Thou shalt call me My Father and by their repeâ—…tance Thou shalt noâ—… tuâ—…n away from me that is not so turn away but thou shalt return again and therefore this promise is not to be interpreted of their obedience but of their repentance he that is most obedient in some cases cannot say he doth not turn away from God in other but he that is truly penitent can