The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 1 · Chapter 10 – Chapter 11
CHAP. 10. Reaſons why Hierom ſaid that the Fathers writing againſt the Pagans, often writ againſt their own ſenſe.
HIerom among many vertues, had this defect, that when he writ againſt one that diſpleaſed him, the vehemency of choller would often carry him away beyond limits, and made him come out with things that got him blame, which afterwards he ſought to mollifie and dawb with ſome interpretation. This Doctor who in ſome places(a)Hier. Apol. ad Pammachium, Tom. 2. Virginitatem in coelum fero non quia habeam, ſed quia magis miror quod non habeo. confeſſeth that he had not kept his virginity,(b)Epiſt. ad Euſtochium de cuſtodia virginitatis. Pallebant ora jejuniis & mens deſideriis aeſtuabat, in frigido corpore & ante hominem ſuum jam c…rne praemortua ſola libidinum incendia bulliebant, &c. and freely acknowledgeth that in the midſt of his faſts and auſterities, he burnt with incontinence, yet hath been ſo exceſſive in commending virginity, as to blame marriage as an evil thing, diſpleaſing unto God, and a hinderance to ſalvation. Upon ſuch diſcourſes the moſt part of the two books againſt Jovinian is ſpent. Theſe are ſome of his expreſſions, in the firſt book, It is good for a man (ſaith St. Paul) not to touch a woman; (c)Si bonum eſt mulierem non tangere, malum e…go eſt tangere.If it be good not to touch a woman, it is then evil to touch a woman; For nothing is contrary to good but evil. Now St. Paul ſpeaks of marriage. And a little after(d)Jubet idem Apoſtolus ut ſemper oremus. Si ſemper orandum nunquam ergo conjugio ſerviendum. The Apoſtle will have us to pray continually: If we muſt pray continually, we muſt never ſerve marriage. In the ſame book he perſonates Chriſt ſpeaking that to his Apoſtles,(e)Rectè ſentitis quod non expediat homini ad coelorum regna tendenti accipere uxorem. You do well to believe that it is not expedient for a man tending towards the kingdom of heaven, to marry. In the ſame place, by them that made themſelves Eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven, he underſtands thoſe that abſtain from marriage. Then he addeth,(f)Si caſtrati mercedem habent regni coelorum, ergo qui non ſe caſtraverunt, locum▪ non poſſunt accipere caſtratorum. If they that made themſelves Eunuchs, have the ſalary of the kingdom of heaven, they that made not themſelves Eunuchs, cannot take place among the Eunuchs. Again(g)Nuptiae replent terram, Virginitas Paradiſum. Marriage repleniſheth the earth, Virginity repleniſheth Paradiſe. In the ſame place he obſerveth, that upon every day of the creation God ſaw that all that he had done was very good, but only upon the ſecond day, becauſe that number of two repreſented marriage. And that all the unclean beaſts entred into the Ark by couples. And that Moſes before he drew near God, untyed his ſhoe-ſtrings, that is, the bond of marriage. And that when Joſhua came to Jordan, the waters of marriage, which had been flowing under the Law, were drained. And that the Angel, Prince of the Militia, came to meet Joſhua, holding a ſword to cut the bond of marriage. And that Moſes who was married, was buried near Phegor, which ſignifies ignominy: But that Joſhua who was not married, was buried in the mountain of Ephraim: Whence he concludes thus againſt marriage,(h)Contemnimus Phegor & omnem ignominiam ejus, ſcintes quod qui in carne▪ ſunt Deo placere non poſſunt. We deſpiſe Phegor and all his ignominy, knowing that they that are in the fleſh cannot pleaſe God. He addeth, that Moſes was lamented in his death: But Joſhua was not lamented, as he that was to attain unto life:(i)Nuptiae enim finiuntur in morte, virginitas poſt mortem incipil coronari. For (ſaith he) marriage endeth in death, but virginity begins to be crowned after death. If one believeth him, Moſes, becauſe he was married, could not attain unto life. He ſaith that the Apoſtle John was a Virgin, and therefore that his Goſpel goeth far above other Goſpels, and that he flyeth aloft like an Eagle:(k)Expoſuit virginitas quod nuptiae ſcire non poterant. Virginity (ſaith he) hath expounded that which married perſons could not know: acknowledging by the way, that St. Matthew, Saint Mark, and St. Luke were married, and therefore he hath a lower eſteem of them. He adds, that St. Paul ſaith indeed, that a woman ſhall be ſaved by bearing of children, yet upon condition that her children ſhall perſevere in virginity: But Paul ſaith, If ſhe abide in the faith, and in charity, and ſanctification, with modeſty, not if her children abide in virginity. Thus that Father playeth with Scripture, and corrupts it with great licentiouſneſs. And a little after he ſaith, that(l)Puto quod & nuptiarum finis mors ſit, fructus autem ſanctificationis qui vel ad virginitatem vel ad continentiam pertinet vita penſatur aeterna. The fruit of matrimony is death, but the fruit of ſanctification which belongeth to virginity, or continence, is rewarded with eternal life. In the ſame place, he turneth theſe ſentences of Scripture againſt Matrimony, Walk not after the fleſh, but after the spirit, And the carnal mind is enmity againſt God. And(m)Qui in carne ſunt Deo placere non poſſunt, arbitror eos qui ſerviunt officio conjugali quod prudentiam carnis diligunt & in carne ſunt. they that are in the fleſh cannot pleaſe God. For (ſaith he) I believe that they that ſerve to the duty of marriage, love the carnal mind, and that they are in the fleſh. Wherefore alſo he calls married perſons Vaſa in contumeliam, Veſſels to diſhonour or ſhame. And ſaith, that a woman that marrieth the ſecond time, muſt have no part in the alms of the Church, and muſt be deprived of the Communion of the body of Chriſt.
Theſe books being publiſhed, were but ill received by many, as made to the diſgrace of marriage inſtituted by God, and in ſo many places commended in his word. Of which being advertiſed by Pammachius, he directed an Apology to him to mollifie the hardneſs of thoſe expreſſions, ſaying that he never intended to diſgrace marriage nor married perſons, which nevertheleſs in that very Apology he continueth to call veſſels to diſhonour, and maintains that it is ill done to touch a woman.
Among the excuſes which he brings for the harſh language which he had given to matrimony, he ſaith there are two wayes of writing, the one gymnaſtical the other dogmatical; that is, the one that is done for exerciſe only, the other doctrinal, and plainly ſetting forth the true doctrine, without conteſtation. He ſaith that he had written againſt Jovinian in the firſt way; and that ſuch a manner of diſputing is looſe, acknowledging that his cuſtom is to ſay one thing and do another, to ſhew bread and hold a ſtone, that is, to uſe ſlie tricks and diſſembling. Then he adds the words alledged by the Cardinal, Origen, Methodius, Euſebius, Apollinaris, have written many thouſands of lines againſt Celſus and Porphyry. Conſider what their arguments are, and how ſlippery the queſtions, whereby they go about to overthrow that which the spirit of the Devil hath woven. (n)Et quia interdum coguntur loqui non quod ſentiunt ſed quod neceſſe eſt.And becauſe ſometimes they are forced to ſay, not what they believe, but that which is neceſſary; they contradict that which the Gentiles ſay. By theſe words Cardinal du Perron would perſwade us that Origen when he ſaid ſo many times that none but God ought to be invocated, ſpake againſt his own ſenſe.
But all that we have ſaid before of Hierom, and what ſhift he was put to when he ſaid this, ſheweth, that he is not to be believed, and that he doth unjuſtly put that diſgrace upon the Antients, that they ſpake againſt their belief. Hierom having reviled matrimony, and wreſted Scripture by a licentiouſneſs hardly to be paralelled, and ſeeing himſelf juſtly blamed for it, he ſaith for excuſe, that he uſed legerdemain, and diſſembling in his words. Then to hide himſelf in the crowd, he covereth himſelf with the examples of Origen and others, who (ſaith he) in their books againſt the Pagans are conſtrained to diſguiſe their belief, and ſpeak againſt their ſenſe. A thing which a good man ſhould never do, chooſing rather to dye, then to uſe hypocriſie in ſuch a ſacred thing, and to defend the truth with lying. As Job was ſaying chap. 13. v. 7. Will you ſpeak wickedly for God, and talk deceitfully for him? God having no need of our true words to maintain his glory, ſhould he ſtand in need of our lyes to defend his cauſe? Muſt the heavenly truth borrow the Devils weapons? Muſt we lye to pleaſe the God of truth?
But here is worſe, for Hierom did not content himſelf to involve the Fathers more antient then himſelf in his fault, but he draweth the Apoſtle Paul into the ſame crime, ſpeaking of him as of a crafty companion, and a diſſembler.(o)Paulum Apoſtolum proſeram quem quotieſcunque lego, videor mihi non audire verba ſed tonitrua. Legite epiſtolas ejus, & maximè ad Romanos, ad Galatas, ad Epheſius in quibus totus in certamine poſitus eſt, & vide…itis cum in teſtimoniis quae ſum…t de veteri Teſtamento, quam artifex, quam prudens quam diſſimulator ſit ejus quod agit Videntur quidem verba ſimplicia & quaſi innocentis hominis & ruſticani, & qui nec facere nec declinare noverit inſidias; ſed quocun que reſpexeris fulmina: ſunt. Haeret in cauſa, capit omne quod tetigerit, tergum vertit ut ſuperet, fugam ſimulat ut occidat. I will bring (ſaith he) the Apoſtle Paul for an example, whom whenſoever I hear, it ſeems to me, that I hear not words, but thunders. Read his Epiſtles, eſpecially thoſe that are written to the Romans, to the Galatians, and to the Epheſians, in which he is altogether imployed in diſputing; and you ſhall ſee how artificial he is, how crafty in the texts which he brings out of the Old Teſtament: how prudent, how diſſembling of thoſe things which he tends to. They ſeem to be plain words, and of an innocent and rude man, that knows neither how to lay wiles, nor how to avoid them. But which way ſoever you look, they are thunderbolts. He ſtands ſtiff to the cauſe: He layeth hold of all that he toucheth. He turns his back to overcome. He maketh a ſhew to flye, that he may kill. Can a godly admirer of this holy Apoſtle, that excellent organ of Gods ſpirit, hear him ſo fouly abuſed, and not be moved with a juſt anger? Was it not enough for Hierom to profeſs openly, that in his books againſt Jovinian he had ſpoken otherwiſe then he thought, and to cover himſelf with the example of other Fathers, whom he makes fellows of his diſembling, without inwraping Paul alſo in the ſame guilt? Muſt he under a ſhadow of praiſes, charge him with craft and diſſembling, ſaying that he is a counterfeit, that turns his back that he may overcome, and flyeth that he may kill? Shall we wonder now if the Cardinal who defends himſelf with ſuch examples, and covers himſelf with Hieroms authority, makes no conſcience to uſe fraud, and ſpeak againſt his ſenſe? Auſtin before us complained of Hierom about this. For in his Epiſtles to Hierom he reproveth him, becauſe in his Comment upon the Epiſtle to the Galatians he undertook the defenſe of untruth, and would make the Apoſtle Paul a lyar, as if the Apoſtle had uſed diſſembling and officious lyes in that Epiſtle. I have read (ſaith he) ſome writings which go for yours, upon the Epiſtles of the Apoſtles. When I would have expounded one of them, which is to the Galatians, that place came to my hands, where you ſay that the Apoſtle St. Peter was converted [by St. Paul] from his pernicious diſſembling. I confeſs unto you that I am very ſorry that ſuch a man as your ſelf, or any other (if another hath writ it) ſhould undertake the defenſe of untruth, till the reaſons that move me, be confuted, if yet they may be confuted. For this ſeems to me a moſt pernicious belief, that any untruth can be found in the holy Scriptures; That is, that thoſe men by whom that Scripture was delivered and written unto us, spake lyes in their writings, &c. For if in a book of ſuch eminent authority, an officious lye be acknowledged, no part of thoſe books ſhall remain, that may not be turned which way ſoever every man will, &c. Hierom was offended at this, and taking Auſtins reprehenſion in ill part, anſwered him, that he [Auſtin] would take upon him to be wiſe; and that being yonger, he ought not to provoke an old man, as Dares did Entellus: And that bos laſſus fortiùs figit pedem, that is, a weary Ox ſets his foot more ſteadily. Auſtins mildneſs put an end to that difference, neither of them altering his opinion. Yet Auſtin had the truth on his ſide. I wonder why he did not call upon Hierom about many other expreſſions of his, that ſpeak of the Apoſtle with contempt, and blame him openly. As in the Epiſtle to Salvina, where he ſaith, that the Apoſtle giving leave to wanton Widows to marry, had given them, praecepta non bona & juſtificationes peſſimas, Ill precepts and moſt wicked juſtifications. And in the queſtions to Algaſia, qu. 10. where expounding the ninth chapter to the Romans, in which it is ſpoken of election and reprobation, he ſath, that St. Paul going about to clear that matter, had rather intangled it. Is it with modeſty, that in the firſt book againſt Jovinian he asketh the Apoſtle, O Paule cur veretrum geſtas? How falſly and unjuſtly doth he rebuke Paul, as if he had made a falſe relation, Act. 17. of the Inſcription to the unknown God: ſaying in his Comment upon the Epiſtle to Titus, that the inſcription of the Altar was not ſuch as Paul affirmeth, to the unknown God, but to the Gods of Aſia, Africk, and Europe, Gods unknown and ſtrangers. And upon the Epiſtle to the Epheſians, This man that ſpeaks incongruities, and cannot clear an intangled ſpeech. And upon the Epiſtle to Titus, It was not humbly, but truly that St. Paul ſaid, that he was ignorant in words. The ſame he ſaith in the fore-alleadged queſtion to Algaſia. And upon the Epiſtle to the Galatians, Apoſtolus Galatis, quos ſtultos dixerat, factus eſt ſtultus. The Apoſtle having called the Galatians, fools, himſelf was made a fool unto them.
All this will ſhew that the Cardinal is like thoſe flyes that ſit only upon ſcabs and ulcers, for he ſeeks that which is vicious in the Fathers, and adorneth himſelf with their ordure.
CHAP. 11. Of the opinion of thoſe that condemn not invocation of Saints, but think it unneceſſary.
THere are ſome who ſeeing that God in his word commands not the invocation of Saints, and that under the Old Teſtament, and many Ages after the Apoſtles, neither example nor trace is found of any adoration or invocation of religious ſervice deferred unto the creatures, take a middle way; ſaying, that one may content himſelf to pray to God alone by Jeſus Chriſt, and let the invocation of Saints alone, ſo that he condemn not them that call upon them, but joyn with the publick order of the Church meekly, and without conteſtation, every one doing in private what ſeemeth him good.
They that ſpeak thus, forge to themſelves a religion apart, and directly oppoſe the Roman Church, which obligeth every particular perſon to call upon Saints. It is the deciſion of Pope Innocent the third in the ninth chapter of the third book of the myſteries of the Maſs,(a)Neceeſſarium nobis eſt in via ſanctorum ſuffragium ut meritis eorum & precibus divinae protectionis muniamur auxilio. The ſuffrage of Saints is neceſſary to us while we are in the way, that by their merits and prayers we may be fenced with the divine protection.
We have ſhewed before how that after the Pope hath canonized a Saint, he gives a command to all people to invocate him, and addreſs their prayers unto him. From which command, who ſo will exempt himſelf, diſobeyeth him that calls himſelf Head of the Church, and boaſteth that he cannot err in the faith. Beſides, the invocation of Saints is inſerted in the publick ſervice of the Roman Church, and makes a part of the moſt ſolemn Maſſes, as the Maſs of Eaſter Eve where the Letanies of Saints are ſaid; Which prayers oblige the people to ſay Amen, either with the mouth or with the heart, unto all that the Prieſt ſaith.
Should the Prieſts or Biſhops be obliged to pray to the Saints, and the people exempted from that obligation? Or ſhould the people be obliged to pray to the Saints in publick, not in private?
Truly if it be lawfull for one to diſpenſe himſelf from joining with the Prieſt when he prayeth to the Saints in the Maſs, it will be lawfull for him alſo to reject that prayer in the Canon of the Maſs, whereby the Prieſt asketh the grace of God by the merits of the Saints, and to deſpiſe the ſatisfactions of the Saints, which the Pope diſtributeth by his Indulgences.
And whereas the firſt ground of the Roman Church is not the Holy Scripture, but the authority of the Roman Church; who ſo profeſſeth the Roman Religion, and yet diſpenſeth himſelf in a point ruled and eſtabliſhed by the Roman Church; believeth that the Roman Church can err, and makes himſelf Judge of that Church, and having no more the authority of the Church for a foundation, and for an infallible rule, and together not grounding himſelf upon Scripture, he hath no more ground for his religion but his fancy and his own will.