Province which was not of old and from the begiÌ„niÌ„ng under his power If any have entred anothers Province have by force subjected it unto himself let him restore it that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed nor the pride of worldly Authority under pretence of the Hierarchy enter into the Church and by little and little before we are aware we loose that Liberty which the Lord Jesus Christ the deliverer of all men by his blood hath procured Therefore it bath pleased the Holy and Oecumenicall Synod that the rights belonging to every Province be preserved inviolated and the customes which were from the beginning No marvell if some have gone about by sleight of hand to shuffle this Canon out of the Acts of this Councell and Binius having recited only six Canons of it pretend that in the Vatican and some other Copies there be no more Indeed any man observing the latter practices of the Church of Rome may easily think that the Vatican can scarce brook a CanoÌ„n so directly crossing the present claimes of that See But however he thought meet not to give it the place proper for it among the Canons yet I suppose the truth of the case of the Cyprian Bishops and the judgement of the Councell thereupon were so evident that he could not but relà te it and give it the Authority of a Decree of the said Councell referring his Reader thereuntoin the close of the six Canons set by him together From this Canon the most Reverend Primate of Ireland doth duely inferre Vindic. p. 96. that sith this councell doth determine that no Bishop should occupy any Province which before that Councell and from the beginning had not been under him or his Predecessors and that if any Patriarch Usurped any jurisdiction over a free Province he should quit it and that it may be made to appear that the Bishops of Rome from not so much as any time before the celebration of that Synod no nor for yeares after Christ much lesse from the beginning exercis'd over the Britâ—nick Churches therefore Rome can pretend no right over BritaÌ„nie without their own consents nor any further nor for any longer time then they are pleased to oblige themselves This priviledge of our Brittish-Church upon the proceedings of the fore-named Councell of Ephesus will appear the lesse disputable from our Antiquity of receiving the Christian faith Armachan de primord Eccles Brittan p. 23. for if Joseph of Arimathea presently after the passion of our Lord as the Legats of the English Nation at the Councell of Constance contend pleading it as a just reason for the super excellency of their Country above France and Spaine as having received the faith before them preached in England the gospel of Christ before Tiberius's death and Peter came not to lay the foundation of the Roman-Church at that City â—ay not into Italy till the second year of Claudius the Brittanick-Church in its first originall was free from Rome and by the authority of the Councell of Ephesus ought to continue so as having its beginning afore there was at Rome either Bishop or Court or ecclesiastical jurisdiction Moreover the learned Primate doth demonstrate the continuance of the freedome of our Church from Rome by its adhaesion unto the Eastern-Churches in the controversie that arose about the celebration of Easter and the administration of Baptisme for 't is not credible that the whole Brittish Scottish Church too should even in Augustin's time have dissented from Rome if they had been Subject unto the Roman Bishop as their lawfull Patriarch see the Primates vindication p. 100. c When I say that the guilt of Schisme may be incurred by forcing others to leave us he reply's as he useth when he hath nothing to say that this is no Answer to which I thinke I need say no more but that this is no reply Clemens according to the title of the 4 ch of his 6 booke of Constitut might have taught him (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he that forsaketh the wicked is no Schismatique but hâ— that forsaketh the godly He will not yield that we were forced to forsake Rome But is it not notoriously evident They that make Termes of Comunion inconsistant with the integrity of our Catholique faith are clearly the Schismatiques but so have the Romanists done as is evident by the Trent Decrees Ergo Moreover if it be Schisme as it is for a particular church to withdraw her selfe from communicating with a sound part of the Catholique-church Rome as long as she refuseth communion with the Protestants maintaining no doctrines contrary to the Catholick faith nor infringing the fair claimes of any of the ancient Patriarch's must needs be Schismaticall He pretends that we are impatient under the spirituall punishments of Rome whilest she seeks to reduce us to our former faith and herein we are like Rebells that storme at their King that seeks to reduce them We are not so fond in espousing opinions but that we shall judg it a favour to be undeceived from them assoon as we shall be taught that they are not agreeable to the Catholique faith * Psal 141.5 If the righteâ—us smite us it shall be a Kindnesse and if they reprove us it shal be an excellent oyle which shall not break our head But till we can be farther convinced of Rom's Authority over us we professe our selves not at all engaged to submit to her unrighteous censures which the Roplyer may indeed justly call spirituall punishments forasmuch as they reach when the Pope hath power our very souls and spirits so far as to expell them from our Bodies by fire sword Gun-powder and all the instruments of cruelty that wit and malice can contrive they fight against us with arguments borrowed out of the Butchers-shops rather then the sacred Scriptures though St. Augustine (t) Nullis bonis in Catholicâ hâ—c placet si usque ad mortem in quemquam licèt haereticuÌ„ saeviatur Aug cont Cresc Iram l. 3. c. 5. was more mild in the punishment of such as were truely Heretiques affirming it to be a thing that liked no good men that Heretiques should be put to death and though he saw good reason to change his opinion and that the Imperiall Lawes were by their severity advantagious unto Christianity yet it was in cases of manifest opposition against the Catholique Church which the Papists shall then prove the Protestants to be guilty of when they shall prove their own new doctrine to be Catholicke and that will be when they shall convince us that the Church alway's held what for severall hundreds of years it never heard of That resemblance of a King reducing his Subjects by force will never concerne us till the Popes Authority over us be made evident and therefore it will be our crime not to be obedient when it shall be his Prerogative to give us Commands When I say the Church of Rome hath
and that but of 19 Bishops Hence the Replyer conceiveth it not pertinently urged because the Quaries demand the censure of a Generall Councell I know the Cardinall doth upon this account deminish the Authority of the Fathers there asseÌ„bled but yet it plainly hence appears that restore the Canon to its genuine sence and it declares the present practice of the Roman-Church not to have been universally received nay to have receiv'd a check by Men though fewer in number then have met in following Synods yet reverenced for their antiquity being assembled 20 years before the Generall Councell at Nice and therefore to be had in estimation for their age And though Baronius in passion had accused this Councell of seeming vicinity to Novatianisme yet considering that (o) Cùm quae ab illÃs de eâ resunt statuta ab innocentio Rom Pontifice excutentur nemo sit qui accusare praesumat Pope Innocent had acquitted them that met there he would have none to presume to accuse them upon which words Binius concludeth that Baroniues though * Eam synodum legitimaÌ„ esse ab omni ecrote liberam that this Synod was lawfull and free from error As for the impertinency of alledging a Provinciall when an Oecummenicall councell was demanded let not the Replyer forget what the Quaeries propound and the answer will be proper enough for it was not only required by what General Councell hath Rome been condemned but also by what Authority was she otherwise reproved a Provinciall Synod hath authority inferior indeed to that of a Generall Councell but yet ample enough to checke the pretences of any new Doctrine that is defended as Catholique for what hath been censured though but by a provinciall Assembly so early in the Church cannot lay claime to that known Character of Chatholicisme in Vincentius Lyrinensis who admits not that to be such (p) In ipsà Catholicâ Ecclesiâ magnovere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ad emnibus reditum est advers haeres c. 3. which was not taught in all places at all times and by all Christians and therefore that must needs be destitute of Universality Antiquity and Consent that was disapproved by the Fathers of the Councel of Eliberis which may be esteemed the more for Hosius's sake a constant man against Idolatry who sate afterwards in the first Councel of Nice and was as devout in his conversation as his (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. Ep. p. 3. name importeth as Phosius observeth keeping his confession undefiled from Idol-worship moreover what veneration Pope Innocent's approbation gave this Assembly the Replyer I suppose will not think that any censure of his can take away The Replyer complaineth that proof is not made that the secoÌ„d Nicene Councell was not universally received what proof more Authentique then the Authority of the Synods of Eliberis and Frankford alledged by me I have given an accompt of the first already and for that of Frankford this puisne Replyer presumes I suppose without the Lycense of his Superiors to say that it neither rejects nor refutes the Nicent Canons but concurrs with the Nicent Councel that gives though not Latriam yet honorariam adorationem an honorary adoration to Pictures Two things are to be rejoyn'd tâ— this reply 1. That the Replyer's mistaken in saying that the Frankford Fathers rejected not the Nicene Canonâ— concerning Image-worship and secondly that the Nicene Canons establishing an Inferiour adoration to be given to pictures were not Cathelique Sanctions As to the First it is evident that the Replyer opposeth the judgment alwell of Bellarmine as of Baronius when he saith That the Fathers at Frankford rejected not the Canons of Nice Let him turne to his Binius and there he shall find that they both were mistaken in thinking that these Councels clashed but yet that they thought so What strength the Reasons of Binius carry against these two Cardinals I shall not enquire Sure I am that if Baronius be mistaken in his Opinion in this case he deserves little credit in other of his assertions For he affirmeth himself so farre from doubting of it (r) Tantum abest ne negemus Nicaenam secundam Synodum eandemque septi 〈…〉 Oecnmenicam dictam damnatam dici in Franâ— of urdienci Concilio ut etiam augeamus numerum testium id profitentium quidem haud dubiae fidei aut autoritatis Baron Tom. 9. p. 539 An. Chr. 794. n. 27. That he solemnly professeth by undeniable testmonies to put it beyond all question and so he doth as hath been lately observed by reverend and learned Dr. Hammond out of Walafridus Strabo Amalarius Finimarus Aâ—astatius and many others If these two learned Romanists have not in this case reputation enough to satisfie the Replyer I could send him to better witnesses to the Annalls set forth by Pythaus (s) Synodus habitu in Franconofuâ—t in quâ haeresis foeliciana coram Episcopis Germanorum Germaniarum Gal liarum Italorumque praesente magno Principe Carolo missis Adriani Apostolini Thcophylacto Stephano Episcopis tertio danata est Pseudo Synodus Graecorum pro adorandis imaginibus habita falso septima vocata ab Episcopis daÌ„natur Chamler de imag To 2. lib. 21. c. 14. p. 855. where it is said that in the year 594 there was a Synod called at FraÌ„kford where Foelix was condemned and the Pseudo Synod of the Greeks that established Image-worship being falsely called the seventh is cersured by the Bishops So the life of Charles the Great published by the same Pythaeus so Ado and others G. Cassander in his 29 Epistle to John Molinaeuâ— gives him an ample account of the 4 Books written by the authority and under the name of Charles the French King the whole Councell of Frankford consenting to the contents of them which were sent to the Pope against the decrees of the Councell of Nice It were the best course for the Replyer to do as the rest of his Masters doe in this dispute I mean not to say that the Assemby of Frankforde did not oppose the Fathers of Nice but to under-value the Authority of that Councell as confronting without just Authority the Canons of the second Nicene which they say was a Generall whereas this of Frankford was but a Nationall Synod I come therefore to the second thing that I propounded above to prove I mean that the Canons of the 2d Nicene Councell were not Catholique Sanctions that is the Canons that give religious worship to images were not rules of sound and wholesome doctrine In this enquiry I question neither the number nor the power of such as either called this Assembly or came to it though there lye a great prejudice against Councell opposed by not a few of the Greeks and by almost all the West the Councell of Ariminum was subscribed by all the Patriarchs yea by the Pope himselfe yet was of no
these doctrines Let the Replyer deny them if he please we shall congratulate his abrenunciation of such dangerous errors but as long as we see them taught and practised by all the Romish-communion we need not prove what they deny not being indeed so farre obliged not to deny it as they are obliged to professe the Trent-Canons To assert a partiall apostacy is not to confound it with heresie the word implyes a ecesse or departure from what a Church or Person hath sometimes professed which heresie doth not he that never acknowledged the truth cannot apostatize from it but he that heretically maintains opihions destructive to the christian faith may be call'd an heretique though he were never Orthodox Rome is Apostaticall in all the errors which she now holdeth against the truth which she once professed 't is not her mistake only in the truth but her dereliction of it when she affirms men to be justified not by faith alone but by workes also for this she believed not but the contrary when St. Paul wrote to her and taught her the right belief Rom 3.28 And when St. Clemens governed her as appears by his Epistle to the Corinthians where he thus writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 41. The next thing the Replyer conceiveth him selfe concerned in is to prove that thâ—s Enthymem or argument The Pope have fallen by heresie therefore the Church of Rome is no valid way of reasoning and withall an extravagant controversie leading to a new dispute coÌ„cerning the Popes infalibility ex Cathedrá the Replyer here is much mistaken so if it be demanded whether the Church of Rome ever fell by heresy is it not pertinent to prove that she hath so fallen if she be concludeed in the faith of her Bishops that have so fallen else sure t is no sin not to believe as the Pope believes except he first justifie his faith to the Christian world by some better authority then his own Profession Let not therefore this Advocate of the Trent-faith think that he replies when he trifles and that when he saith that he denieth my consequence he hath answer'd my argument my reason is clear and I must not permit him to fly into his obscure corners to shun the evidence of it Thus then I argue is it lawfull to dissent from the Pope or not if it be lawfull why are they censured that obey not his decrees if unlawfull why are they excused that erre not with him nor are involved in his judgement when he teacheth errors opposite to the Christian faith may not a Protestant as lawfully dissent from the Pope as a Papist but sure the Replyer upon better consideration will change his mind and as Hart did in his coÌ„ference with Reynolds rather in despite of all evidence to to the contrary say the Pope cannot erre then plead that though he doth yet the Church is not bound to obey him and truly if it be obliged to obey him how it can stand when he falls I see not 'T is pretended also by the Replyer that the Church of Rome in ascribing universall jurisdiction to the Bishop of that See is not obnoxious to the fixt Canon of the Councell of Nice and so not condemâ—ad by a Generall Councell to prove this he interprets the Canon with a glosse that I think destroyes the Text. I confesse he hath (c) De Roman Pontifice lib 2. c. 13. Bellarmine for his Author in this exposition who having cited four opinions concerning those words in the Canon because this is customary to the Bishop of Rome (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quia et Episcope Romano parilis 〈◊〉 would make the Bishop of Rome the efficient and not the example of the Authority granted to the rest of the Patriarchs in this Canon so that if Bellarmine please the words in the Canon because this is the custome to the Bishop of Rome shall import because it is the Bishop of Romes custome to have it so id est as the Canon before speaketh that Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis should be under the Patriarch of Alexandria because the Pope did use to be so liberall in his Concessions to that Bishop as to grant him Authority over those Provinces But why must the sence of Ruffinus be rejected who Lib. 1. C. 6. of his Ecclesiasticall History saith that it was decreed by the Councell in this Canon that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the Charge of Aegypt (g) suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum as the Bishop of Rome had the charge of the Citties of his Neighbourhood why must the Authority of Zonaras and Balsamon be despised who give the same interpretation of the Canon The Replyer therefore is very bold when he saith that this sence of the Canon which I give is against the intention of it seeing I give no other then what these and many other men of Iudgment and Learning have given of it before Moreover what a goodly account is given why this cannot be the Genuine sence of the Canon A Bishop governing Churches in the West saith the Replyer is no reason why the Bishop of Alexandria should govern the Churches mentioned in the Canon No reason I Confesse efficient but yet a Morall reason it might be moving the Fathers assembled in the Councell to provide for the Unity of the Church by like expedient in the East as they saw it furnished with in the West Take the meaning of the Canon in this sense and the discourse hath nothing in it against the Laws of a legitimate Argumentation which may out of the Canon thus be framed The ancient Customes are to be retained but that the Patriarch of Alexandria should govern Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis is an Ancient Custome therefore the Major is manifest from the example of the Bishop of Rome who by the right of custome kept his Authority over the West the minor is evident by experience The Replyer I know likes not the major for he saith that the Popes Supremacy was alwayes held by the Church of Rome and her adhaerents to be of Divine-right Alwayes held 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how did this word escape him I appeal to a competent Judge the Author of the Apostolick Constitutions whether Clemens Romanus or no I dispute not but I suppose of authority enough to give his verdict in point of Fact for the age wherein he wrote doth not he in that forme of Supplication extant lib 8. cap 10. of the Constitutions sufficiently declare that the Bishop of of Rome had his limits aswell as other Bishops (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Co. sâ—it lib. 8. c. 10. Let us pray saith he for the Episcopacy of the whole world and for our Bishop James of Jerusalem and his Diocesse and for our Bishap Clement of Rome and his Diocesse and for Luod us of Antâ—och and his Diocess Let the Replyer heâ—e obseâ—ve that Clemens is not prayed for as Bishop of all the World but as a Pastor over his own
first and chief efficient cause of the holy and spirituall building of his Church Peter by his endeavours whil'st he lâ—ved and by his doctrine since his death together with the rest of the Apostles though chief among them in the sense of the Ancients but not Moderne church of Rome a secondary or subord note efficient faith the instrumentall cause of this Glorious Edifice and the faithfull the materiall of the Temple of God When therefore this Replyer would play the Critick upon Peters name in the Syriack language which imports a rock he follows indeed his Masters Baronius and Bellarmine but to little purpose Peter (m) non est à Petra Petrus sed ipse est Petra is not saith Baronius derived from Petra a rock but he himselfe is a rock But what would the Replyer get hereby first he would fecretly disparage the Greek copies of the Gospel as if they did not conveniently expresse the importance of Christs words secondly directly oppose the Authority of St. Augustine (n) Petrus a Petrâl quemadmodum a Christo Christianes vocatur Aug deverb Dom. Ser. 13. lib. Retract 1. c. 21. who saith Peter was called from a rocke as a Christian is called from Christ and thirdly teach us what small skil he hath in the Analogy of Grammar for grant Christ and Peter too to be called a Rock the word rock shall be praedicated of them both univocally equivocally or denominativel as the Logicians speak The first kind of praedication cannot be admitted true of Christ and Peter without blasphemy for if Christ and Peter be named a roek un vocally then the same definition must agree to the rock Christ the Son of God and to the rock Simon son of Jonas Now Christ is a rock because he giveth life comfort and protection to his Church against all dangers ghostly and bodily which none can do but God If Simon be such a rock it follows he must be God also which is such a blasphemy that I hope this Replyer trembleth to be guilty off It follows therefore that Peter be a rock equivocally or by denomination from the true rock and let him take which sense he will the same definition by the Lawes of Logick shal not be assign'd to Christ and Simon because there will be a vast difference between the Rock Christ and the rock Simon By reason of the severall Genius's of the Syriack and Greek tongues as Causaubon hath noted Simon may in the one language be called a Rock equivocally and in the other a rock by denomination because in Syriack the name of Peter is written with the same letters that the word is that signifies a rock Cepha denoteth both but in Greek with others which is required in denominations as (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Simplicius in Categ apud Casaub Smiplicius hath observed out of Aristotle Whether therefore in Syriack from Cepha Peter be also called Cepha or from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the difference will consist only in the form of words but not in the importance of the sense we are not afraid to call Peter a rock or a foundation the Scripture giveth this Appellation to all the Apostles Ephe 2.20 Rev 21.14 and why should we deny it unto him whose name challengeth it by particular praerogative The question is in what sense he is so called We see evidently by the Testimony of the Fathers that Antiquity thought him not a Foundation or Rock in the sense that the Patrons of the Popes omnipotency assert as if the whole Church were bottomed upon him and his Successors and the whole world become his Diocesse as Hart affirmed in his conference with Reynolds pag. 459 neither did they think that by these Titles given to Peter the Pope might lay claime not only to a Primacy of Order amongst the rest of the Patriarchs but a Lordly Soveraignty over all Christian people throughout the whole world Whereas now it is too manifest that all this contention is raised not so much for Peters honour as the Popes ambitious designes whom it would better become to imitate Peters true humility who would not endure Cornelius a Centurion to lye prostrate before him Acts 10.26 then assume his false titles false I say in respect of the sense now imposed on them whereby he may tread on the necks of Princes But what though the Pope succeeded St. Peter at Rome did not a Bishop succeed him also at Antioch might not this Successor clayme as much priviledge at the one See as the Roman Usurper doth at the other T is evident enough that Peter had no Successor in the Apostolicall dignity and (p) Contrvers 2. q. 3. a. 3. Stapleton teacheth that the Apostleship ceased when the Apostles dyed and yet though this were something currant doctrine at Rome (q) Annotat in Cyor. excus Rom. 1563. Bellarmine took courage to affirme that because some have given the name of Apostleship to the Popes office therefore the Pope succeedeth after a sort in the Apostleship viz in the charge of the whole world But Eusebius lib. 3. c. 17. mentioneth St. John after St. Peters decease to have discharged his Apostolick Office by constituting Churches and ordaining Bishops whereas he assigneth no imployment to the Bishop of Rome but the administration of his own Diocesse Certainly if the first Bishops of Rome had succeeded St. Peter in such a Superiority as the Romanists now contend for not only all other Bishops but St. John himself also must have acknowledged the Pope to have been his Diocesan which were to submit the supream dignity of the Apostolick Authority instituted imediatly by Christ to the limited jurisdiction of a particular See for such was the Bishop of Romes circumscription as we have shewn afore out of Clemens his constitutions That the purer ages of the Church had no such opinion of the Popes universall jurisdiction is manifest by the eight Canon of the famous Councell of Ephesus framed for the vindicating of the Bishops of Cyprus their exemption from the incroachment of the Patriarch of Antioch who claimed Authority over them in the consecration of their Metropolitan For when Reginus Bishop of Constantia Zenon Bishop of Curiun and Euagrius Bishop of Sela all within the limits of Cyprus made their complaint that the Patriarch of Antioch would subject their Island to himselfe attempting to draw to him the power of Ordinations amongst them contrary to the ancient Customes the Canons of the Apostles the decrees of the Nicene Councell upon the hearing of their cause they framed a Canon the last of the eight recited by Justellus wherein they exempt the Cypriots from the usurpation they complained of and moreover without the least reservation oâ— priviledge to the Bishop of Rome iâ— in this behalfe adde (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let the same course be observed in other Diocesses in all Provinces every where that none of the boly Bishops seize upon another
Authority but of perpetuall infamy through all ages after in the Church because it established Arianisme What therefore St. Augustine said in his dispute with Maximinus the Arrian Bishop when the first Nicene Councell might be pleaded for the Catholiques as the Councell of Ariminum was for the Arrians that may I say in the present controversy as to the second Nicene and the Councell of Frankford (t) Nec ego Nicenum nec tu debes Ariminense tanquam praedicaturus proferre Concilium nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illius detineris scripturarum authoritatibus non quorūque propriis sed utrique communibus testibus resi cum re causa cum caulâ ratio cum ratione concerter Aug. con Maxim Arian Episc lib. 3. p. 733. neither am I concluded with the Authority of this nor thou with that let matter with matter cause with cause reason with reason contest by the Authority of the Scriptures which are witnesses proper to neither parties but common to both If then we appeale to the Scriptures what more clear then the voice of God on Mount Sinai Exo 28.48 Thou shalt not make unto thy selfe any graven image or any thing that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth thou shalt not bow down thy selfe to them nor serve them c. This service God reserves to himselfe as we are taught Deut 6.13 exclusively to all creatures as we are informed by Christs recitation and weighty interpretation of the place Math 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve and Exo 34.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou shalt worship no other God The Papists here betake themselves to the distinction of Latria and Dulia none but God must be worshipped by the first but the second may be imparted to Saints and Angells The Replyer may learn if he know not that the chief words used by the Greek writers in the Scripture aswell the septuagint in the Old as the Evangelists and the Apostles in the new Testāent are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that these words are all us'd promiscuously as well for religious and divine as for civill worship even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for civill worship to man De 28.48 the septuagint read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Acts 20.19 St. Paul is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the same St. Paul maketh it the unhappinesse of the Galathians that they did sometimes give Dulia to what were not Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby we may see that Dulia if it be religious worship ought not to be given to such as partake not of divine nature but Divines should not contend about words the Catholiques agree and I think the Papists cannot deny it that the worship of God is distinguished from the worship of men in this that the one is religious and the other civill The first an Elicite Act of religion as the Schools speak the second an imperate flowing from it as the effect from the cause both of them species of Justice as Lactantius hath excellently observed (u) Primum justicize officiū est conjungi cum Deo secundum cum homine sed illud primum religio dicitur hoc secundum miscricordia vel humanitas dicitur Lactlib 6. c. 10. The first Office of Justice is to be joyned with God the second with man That first is called Religion this second Mercy or Humanity Well then admit the distinction of worship according to the difference first innocently assigned by St. Augustine into Dulia and Latria we scruple it not as long as those words are granted to be names of worship differing not only in degree but in kind or nature for seeing the Honour that we pay unto any Object ought to be proportionable to the excellency of that Object there must of necessity be the same distance between Divine Worship and Humane or Civil that there is between God and Man But in truth there is no Proportion between God and man and therefore neither ought there to be between Divine and Civill Worship (w) Colimus Martyres eo cultus dilectionis societatis quo in hâc vita coluntur sancti Homines Dei quorum Corad talem pro Evangelicâ veritate passionem paratum esse sentimus sed illos tanto devotius quantò securius postincerta ōnia superata quanto etiam fidentiore laude praedicamus jam in vita faeliciore victores quám in ista adhuc pugnantes at illo cultu quae Gracè latria dicitur latinè un◠verbo dici non potest cum fic quaedam proprie divinitati debita servitus nec colimus nec colendum docemus nisi unu◠Deum August contr Faust Manich. Lib. 20. C. 21. Et mox longè minoris est peccati ebrium redire à martyribus quà m vel je junum sacrificare martiribus dixi non sacrificare Deo in memoriis martyrum quod frequentissimè facimus illo duntaxat ritu quo sibi sacrificari novi Testamenti manifestatione praecepit quod pertinet ad illum cultum quae Latria dicitur uni Deo debetur St. August therefore that gave the first rise to the distinction of Latria from Dulia did not admit Dulia to be a religious Worship above civill worship such as is given to living men though he acknowledgd it an higher degree of Dulia that we give to the dead then what we give to the living because we honour them after their victory more securely But the Papists conceive thēselves under the notion of Dulia priviledg'd to consecrate Altars Temples Chappell 's to Saints all which St. August judged to appertaine to Latria and speaking of the excesse of Christians that were intemperate in the celebration of the Festivalls of the Martyrs he blames the Luxurie of such as were guilty but yet acknowledgeth it a crime far lesse then the Idolatry of such as with fasting sacrificed though even to the Martyrs themselves This devout Father would have detested the abuse of his own destinction into Latria and Dulia and much more abhor'd the doctrine of (x) Aquin p. 3. quest 25 Art 3.4 Aquinas and other moderne Romanists Who teach that the Image and the Grosse of Christ are to be adored with the same worship that Christ is adored with himselfe id est with Latria in its full extent had he lived to to see it (y) Greg. de Valent. lib. 3. de Idolat c. 5. apud Reynold de Idolat Ecclesiae Rom. lib. 1. c. 1. which veneration when Greg. de Valentia observed could not be attributed to a Creature without Idolatry he spake plainly that some kind of Idolatry was lawfull The Replyer grants that the Church of Rome were sufficiently condemned though not by a Generall Councell if the diffusive body of the Church did condemne her and this were easy to demonstrate from the first Ages of the Church which owned none of those doctrines that the Papists