The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 1 · Chapter 68
CHAP. 68. Of the Canon of the holy Scriptures defined by Pope Innocent the I. And of the Decretal Epiſtle of that Innocent to Exuperius.
THE Roman Church is like a ſick body labouring with complicated Symptomes, whereof one cannot be eaſed without irritating another. In the firſt Tome of the Councils there is a Decretal Epiſtle attributed to Innocent the I. directed to Exuperius Biſhop of Toloſa, in which that Pope makes a liſt or enumeration of the Canonical books, conformable unto that which is eſtabliſhed by the Council of Trent. Our Adverſaries producing that Epiſtle in this Cauſe, ſee not what a blow they give to the authority of the Biſhop of Rome; for thereby it appeareth that the Greek and Oriental Church was not ſubject unto the Roman, ſince that Church had another ſenſe then the Roman. If ſuch was the belief of the Roman Church, how comes it to paſs that the Council of Laodicea, Origen, Melito, Euſebius, Athanaſius, Cyrillus of Jeruſalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Epiphanius, and generally all the Greek Fathers, have held thoſe books for Apocrypha, which the Roman Church held for Canonical? Why did even the Occidental Church differ from the Sea of Rome in that important point; which we have ſhewed by teſtimonies, of Ruffinus, Hilarius, Philaſtrius and the Gallican Churches? Or if the belief of the Biſhops of Rome that went before, that Innocent was conformable unto that of Innocent, how cometh it to paſs that Hierom who was Secretary to Damaſus a Roman Biſhop, and out-lived that Innocent, was ſo bold as to depart from his Maſters opinion? Could that man, ſo eminent in learning, be ignorant of the belief of the Roman Church? Here is more. For Gregory the firſt Biſhop of Rome who writ well nigh two hundred years after that Innocent, is of contrary opinion, and holds that the Maccabees are not Canonical. And Pope(a)Can. Sancti Rom. Diſt. 15. Gelaſius holds Suſanna for Apocrypha. Theſe Gentlemen by producing that Epiſtle of Innocent, ſhew that the deciſions of the Biſhops of Rome were in thoſe dayes of very ſmall account among ſtrangers, and that thoſe that belonged to the Popes family, and his very ſucceſſors, did litle regard them.
But to come to that Epiſtle, who ſo ſhall but look upon it neer hand, will acknowledge that it is an abſurd and ridiculous piece, which abuſeth Scripture with a profane licentiouſneſs. It is that Decretal which proveth that married perſons muſt not be admitted to Eccleſiaſtical charges, becauſe it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy: and becauſe the Apoſtle ſaid, To the clean all things are clean, but to the defiled and the unbelievers nothing is clean. As though marriage were a pollution and infidelity. Alſo becauſe the ſame Apoſtle ſaid, They that are in the fleſh, cannot pleaſe God. Now you are not in the fleſh, but in the Spirit. As if the Apoſtle by them that are in the fleſh meant married perſons, and by them that are in the Spirit, the unmarried. Are theſe Apoſtolical Oracles? Nay, is it not a manifeſt impiety and profanation of the Word of God?
In the ſame Epiſtle it is ſaid that the Law of God prohibiteth the admitting of married perſons into Eccleſiaſtical honours; Of which nevertheleſs the word of God ſpeaks not, neither is there one word of that to be found in the whole Scripture. Wherefore alſo(b)Lib. de Clericis, c. 18. §: Ac Thomas. Nunc breviter probandum eſt non jure divino ſed humano duntaxat probibitum eſſe conjugium. Thomas 2.2. qu. 38. Art. 11. Bellarmin, after Thomas, acknowledgeth that the Celibat of Clerks is but of humane right.
The ſame Epiſtle ſaith that of all antiquity, and from the beginning, Prieſts were commanded to abide in the Temple during the year of their ſervice (ſuppoſing that there was no women in the houſes of the Temple) and that the Prieſts were forbidden to come near their wives all the year of their miniſtring. For (ſaith the Author of the Decretal) thoſe ought not to be admitted to the ſacrifices that uſe a carnal conjunction with their wives; becauſe it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy. How many untruths and ignorances in few words? It is falſe that the Prieſts did ſerve by years. For as for the High Prieſt there was never a year but he did officiate in his Prieſthood. But under him he had four and twenty courſes or diviſions of chief Prieſts that ſerved by turns, each one a fortnight every year. It is a great errour to think that each of theſe chief Prieſts was three and twenty years without officiating. It is falſe alſo that thoſe courſes or diviſions of Prieſts ſerving by turn were ſo from the beginning, as that Decretal ſaith. David inſtituted that order about four hundred and fifty years after the firſt inſtitution of the legal Prieſthood, as it may be ſeen, 1 Chron. 24. It is falſe alſo that the Prieſt was ſeparated from his wife during the time of his miniſtration, and that there was no woman dwelling in the Temple. We have an example of the contrary, 2 Kings 11. where it is ſaid that Jehoſheba daughter to King Joram kept Joaſh hid for the ſpace of ſix years, with his Nurſe in the Temple in the bedchamber. And of Anna, Luke ſaith in the firſt chapter, that ſhe departed not from the Temple. 1 Sam. 2. the Prieſts ſons of Eli lay with the women that aſſembled at the door of the Tabernacle. And the High Prieſt and his children having their ordinary dwelling in the lodgdings of the Court, which made part of the Temple, we muſt not doubt but that their wives dwelt in the ſame houſe.
By all theſe it appeareth what authority that Decretal can have which is attributed unto Innocent. For I can hardly believe that it is his, both becauſe of the abſurdity of the Epiſtle, and becauſe the firſt Tome of the Councils is full of falſe Epiſtles of Popes, as it is acknowledged by the moſt learned of our Adverſaries, of which we ſhall hereafter give evident proofs.
Yet if it be of Innocent, we are no more obliged to believe him then Hierom, and Ruffinus, and Gregory the firſt, ſucceſſor to that Innocent, or then the Churches both Oriental and Occidental of Innocents time, who held Judith, Wiſdom, Maccabees, &c. for Apocrypha, as we have proved.
It is no wonder if that Innocent was a man of little learning, for the Roman Sea was alwayes barren in learned men. In the three firſt ages that Sea had good Biſhops and faithfull Martyrs, whoſe power did not reach much beyond the walls of Rome. Since that time, ſome ages paſt in which we find in that Sea prudent Biſhops, induſtrious in their temporal buſineſſes, labouring to raiſe their authority which was but ſmall. But we find not one among them of exquiſite learning. And alwayes that Sea was inferiour in that point to the Churches of Greece, Aſia and Africa, which have had Biſhops of far higher learning.