A Case for the Spectacles, Response to text · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. The summe of his Answer to my Sixth Section.
THe Knight (saith he) seemes to acknowledge that he cannot assigne the time and persons when and by whom the errors of the Roman Church came in. Good Physitians use to enquire of the causes, effects, and other circumstances, and upon the circumstance dependeth the knowledge of the disease. We pleade prescription for our doctrine from the beginning. The difference betwixt Heresie and Apostasie. The Church cannot fall away, without some speciall note and observation.
The Reply.
It is to be wondered what art and policie your Church doth use to put off the triall of her cause, when it should come to hearing. If we speake of a depravation of your Faith, you crie out it is blasphemie; If we shew your owne mens complaints for a reformation of your doctrine, you say they meant a reformation onelyonly of Discipline; If we plainly prove the noveltie of your Trent Articles, by comparing them with the Tenets of ancient Religion, you threaten to bring an action of the Case against us for slandering and defaming of your Church, except we can assigne the precise time and person when those errors came in. Let us use the words of your fellow Campian; Can I imagine any to be stuffed in the nose, Camp. Rat. 2.that being forewarned cannot quickly smell out this subtle juggling? Why doe you not rather complaine of the Noveltie of our doctrine, and bid us shew the time when, and the Authors who first broached our two Sacraments, our Communion in both kindes, our Praier in a knowne tongue, our spirituall presence, and the like; if I faile in these, then say, The Knight seemeth to acknowledge he cannot doe it.
The errors in your Church which wee complaine of, are negative Articles amongst us, and the proofe lies on your side: If you cannot shew Apostolicall Authors for your owne doctrine, must we be therefore condemned, because we doe not prove the Negative? Or otherwise it must needes follow by your Logick, that it is the same doctrine which was once delivered to the Saints, because we cannot shew the first Author of it.
You cannot denie that there are many particular errors in the Church, whose first Authors cannot be named by you nor us, and therefore will you conclude they are no errors? The custome of communicating little children in the Sacrament of the Lords bodie and bloud was an error, and continued long in the ancient Church, yet the first Author of it was not knowne. There were many did hold there was a mitigation and suspension of the punishment of the damned in hell, by the suffrages of the living; this error was anciently received, yet the first Author was not knowne. The opinion that all Catholike Christians, how wicked soever, shall in the end be saved, as by fire, was an ancient error, but the Author is not knowne. Againe,Alph. contr. haeres. verbo Indulgentia. p. (mihi) 354. there are many things (saith your Alphonsus) knowne to later writers, which the Ancients were altogether ignorant of. There is seldome any mention of Transubstantiation amongst the Ancients; almost none of Purgatorie; what marvell if it so fall out with Indulgences, that there should bee no mention of them by the Ancients? If therefore such errors crept into the Church in the first and best Ages, which are now condemned by your selves and us, without enquiring after the time, and Authors that first broached them. Nay more, if your points of Faith, as namely, Transubstantiation, Purgatorie, and Indulgences, were altogether unknowne to the Ancients (as your men confesse) why should you require us to shew the first Authors of your doctrines, which were utterlie unknowne to the ancient Fathers? Or rather, why do you not condemn them with us, as you do the errors which were received for true doctrines amongst the Ancients? If St. Peter were at Rome, no doubt the Church received & beleeved his Prophesies;2 Pet. 2.1. There shal be false Teachers among you, who (privily) shall bring in damnable heresie. If the Apostle both forewarned you and us, that errors and heresies must steale in privily, sensim sine sensu, secretly and by degrees into the true Church, and yet would not reveale the Authors of the heresies, what madnesse were it in you or us to passe by those damnable Heresies, or rather to pleade for them, because wee cannot learne the name of the false Teachers?
Vincent. Lyr. de haeres. c. 15.Vincentius Lyrinensis, who was living 400. yeeres after the Apostles time, complaines that certaine in his dayes did bring in errors secretly, which a man (saith he) cannot soone finde out, nor easily condemne. Tertull. advers. Valent. c. 3.The Serpent hides himselfe as much as hee can (saith Tertullian) and sheweth his chiefe skill in wreathing himselfe into folds, and in thrusting himselfe into dark and blinde holes: Such is the nature of false teachers, they seeke nothing more (saith the same Author) than to hide that which they preach, Idem c. 1.if yet they may be said to preach that they hide.
But good Physicians (say you) use to enquire of the causes, effects, and circumstances; Pag. 73.for upon these circumstances dependeth the knowledge whether it be a disease or no. It is most true that Physicians will enquire of the causes of the disease, but will they deny the Patient to be sicke, or refuse to minister Physicke to him, unlesse he tell them precisely how or when he first tooke his disease or infection? For this is our case, and the point in question touching a reformation. Neither doth the knowledge of the disease of the body depend upon the circumstances of time, place, and person. I thinke you never read such Aphorismes either in Gallen or Hyppocrates; neither doth your knowledge of errors and heresie in your Church depend on the circumstances of time, place, and persons: For some Authors, at the same time, and in the same place, might have broached truth, when another set his heresie abroach; as namely, Saint Austin precisely in the time and place, delivered the Orthodox Doctrine of grace, when and where Pelagius spread his heresie.
From your Rules of Physicke you returne to the Rules of Divinity, and tell us from Saint Austin, that*Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec Conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi authoritate Apostolicâ traditū rectissimè creditur. De Baptis contr. Donat. l. 5. c. 24. in initio. Tom. 7. p. mihi 433. whatsoever the Catholike Church doth generally beleeve or practise, so as there can be no time assigned when it began, it is to be taken for an Apostolicall tradition. This place of Austin you neither quoted in your Answer, neither have you recited his words faithfully, for hee speakes not of assigning the time when the Doctrine begins, but whatsoever the universall Church doth hold, not being ordained by Councels, but hath beene ever held, that is most rightly beleeved for an Apostolicall tradition. This is his Tenet, and this is ours: but you have put in the word (Catholike) in your sense for universall, you have added (generall beleefe and practise) you have thrust in these words (so as no time can be assigned when it began) and you have omitted the principall verb [that hath been ever held] which makes me suspect you omitted the citing of this place, lest your fraud should be descried: But I pardon you; let us heare the rest;P. 73. But such (say you) are all those things which you are pleased to call errors. If this were as easily proved as spoken, you should not neede to put us to the search of times and Authors for the first Founder of your Faith; For if your Popish Doctrines were alwayes held by the universall Church, and not ordained by Councels, we should not need to looke into your Councell of Lateran for your Doctrine of Transubstantiation, nor into your Councell of Constance for Communion in both kindes, nor into your Councell of Elorence for your seven Sacraments, nor into your second Councell of Nice for your worship of Images: for these and many such traditions were first ordained by Councels, and were not the generall beliefe and practice of the Church. Againe, if the universall Church had alwayes held your Doctrines from the Apostles times, why doe you your selfe confesse, that your prayer in an unknowne tongue,Pag. praecedenti. your private Masse, your halfe Communion, were taught otherwise in the primitive Churches? Nay, if they be Apostolicall, how comes it that they are flat contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles? And thus much of your two rules of Physicke and Divinity; let us heare the rest of your authorities.
Tertullian (say you) hath this Rule for discerning heresie from truth,Tertul. praescrip. 31. p. mihi 78. That which goeth before is truth, and that which commeth after is errour. This Rule is most true, but these words you cite by the halves; for hee saith expresly,Id autem extraneum & falsum quod sit posterius immissum. Id Dominicum & verum quod sit prius traditum: That was first delivered, which was true, and came from the God of truth; and this was the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles; for that which commeth after (saith he) is farre different: where hee shewes likewise in these words following, that after Christs time, and in the dayes of the Apostles, there might be heresies,Ut aliquem ex Apostolicis viris (qui tamen cum illis persevereverint) habent authorem. Ibid. for the mystery of iniquitie began then to worke; and therefore hee will not have it enough to derive a Doctrine from a man which lived with the Apostles, unlesse it can be proved that he continued with them: and the reason (as I conc…ive) was given by Nicephorus; After the sacred company of the Apostles was come to an end, Niceph. l. 3. c. 16.and that their generation was wholly spent, which had heare with their eares the heavenly wisdome of the Sonne of God, then that conspiracie of detestable errour, through the deceipt of such as delivered strange Doctrine, tooke rooting; and because that none of the Apostles survived, they published boldly with all might possible the doctrine of falshood, and impugned the manifest and knowne truth.
But wee plead (say you) prescription from the beginning.] It is not sufficient to plead it, you must prove it. The Mahometists at this day assume the name of Saracens (as your men doe the name of Catholikes) as if they came from Sara the free woman, Abrahams true and lawfull wife, when in truth they tooke their first beginning from Agar the bond-woman; neither can there be any prescription against the ancient Records and Evidences of the Word written by Christ and his Apostles. Indeed you have found a right and easie way to claime a prescription from the time of the Apostles; for you have razed many prime Evidences of the Fathers for the first 800. yeeres, which make for our Doctrine, and you have proscribed many learned Authors and their Records (as I have shewed before) for the last 800. yeeres, which testified against your errors: And now I come to your Churches apostacie or falling from the truth, which occasioned these errors.
Apostacie (say you) is a defection, or forsaking of the Name of Christ, and profession of Christianity, as all men understand it.
I shewed in this Section, that in the primitive Church, when any heresie did arise that indangered the foundation (such as was the heresie of the Arrians, of the Pelagians, and the like) the Authors were observed, the times were knowne, the place was pointed at, and forthwith letters of Premonition were sent to all the sound members of the Catholike Church; by which publike advertisement the steale-truth was discovered, and herein the Author, the time, and place was observed and knowne to all: but in the Church of Rome it was otherwise; there was first an Apostacie, a falling away from the truth, which was first caused by an error secretly stolne into the Church; and therefore it is sometimes called a mystery of iniquity, because mystically, covertly, secretly hee shall winde his abominations into the Church of God: and accordingly the Apostle gives Timothy to understand, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, 1 Tim. 4.1.giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of Devils, and such as speake falshood in Hypocrisie: which place plainely shewes (saith a learned Divine) that Antichrist himselfe shall not professedly renounce Christ, and his Baptisme;Mr. Bedel against Wadsworth. p. 40. that his kingdome is a revolt, not from the outward profession, but inward sinceritie and power of the Gospel. And therefore all doe not understand Apostacie, a forsaking of Christ and Christianity: Not all, no not the same Apostle, where hee useth the same word Apostacie to the Thessalonians: foreign, &c. 2 Thess. 2.3.Let no man deceive you by any meanes, for that day shall not come, except there come (an Apostacie) a falling away first: Hee speakes of the departing from the orthodox Faith, not from Christianitie. Not all, no not your Rhemists in their Annotations upon this place:Rhem. Annot. in 2 Thess. 2.3. For it is very like (say they) be it spoken under correction, that Gods Church, and all learned Catholikes, that this great defection and revolt shall not be onelyonly from the Roman Emperour, but especially from the Roman Church, and withall from most points of Christian Religion, or (as they interpret in their Margin) from most Articles of the Christian faith. Not all, no not Campian your fellow Jesuite, who termes Luther an Apostata, for falling from your Church, not from Christianity. Not all, no not your Decretals, who terme a Monke, for leaving his Order, or a Clarke forsaking his habit, an Apostata. Not all, no not Gregory the Great, Greg. l. 6. Ep. 24.who called John Bishop of Constantinople, an Apostata, for assuming the title of universall Bishop. Lastly, Not all, no not your Councell of Basil, where 900. condemned and deposed your Pope Eugenius for a Symonist, Concil. Basil. sess. 34.a forsworn man, a man incorrigible, a Schismaticke (an Apostata) a man fallen from the faith, and a wilfull Hereticke. I say therefore, not all, nor any of these did understand an Apostacie to be a forsaking of the name of Christ and Christianity; and therefore I hope you will confesse, that your assertion is neither Catholike nor universall.
When therfore we lay Apostacie to your Church, we doe not charge you with a totall falling from Christian Religion, like that of Julian the Apostata, with an obstinate pertinacie, in denying the principles of the faith necessarie to salvation, or a renouncing your Baptisme, and consequently the name of Christianitie: Wee charge you not with Apostacie in such a fearefull and horrible sense, unlesse you will assume it to your selves;Lyra in 2. Thess. 2. but wee thinke with Lyra, that as there was an Apostacie or revolt of many Kingdomes from the Roman Empire, and of many Churches from the Communion of the Roman Church; so there hath beene an Apostacie from the Catholike faith in the midst of the Church, not for that all at any time did forsake the true Faith, but for that many fell from the sinceritie of the Faith.
After your definition of Apostacie, you proceed in this manner; How then can we be Apostatas? in no wise certainely: but if wee erre, wee erre as heretikes, and if wee be heretikes, you confesse you must assigne the persons, time and place.
I have cleared you from the hainous title of Apostata in your owne sense, but not in ours;D. Potter p. 19. & 60. yet let me tell you (with griefe and pitty be it spoken) your profane and wicked application of the Apostles Creed, as you pretend, in jests, is a fearefull signe of falling from Christ and Christianitie it selfe: and therfore, although I may free your Church in generall of that name, and in that sense, yet it behoves you to acquit your selfe in that particular. But this by way of friendly admonition.
If we erre (say you) wee erre as heretikes] I shall easily condescend unto you in that: For the errors in the Roman Church caused an Apostacie at first, and was mysticall and secret; now after long practise and usage in the Church, is become an heresie; and so wee may truely assent unto you, that you erre as heretikes: And although I am not bound upon this acknowledgment, forthwith to assign you the Authors of your heresies, because they came in by degrees, and at severall times, privily, and insensibly; yet because you are so inquisitive after you predecessors, if you will have but patience, I will draw your pedigree in the next Section.Ecclesia sua definitione non facit talem assertionem esse haeresin, cum etiamsi ipsa non definivisset, esset haeresis; sed id efficit Ecclesia, ut nobis per suam censuram pateat illud esse heresin. Alph. à Castr. l. 1. c. 8. D. Potter sect. 4. p. 101. & 97. In the meane time let me tell you, it is another errour in you to say, They come to have the name of heresie, onelyonly by the condemnation of the Church. For the Church condemnes them, because they are heresies; contrariwise, they are not heresies, because the Church condemnes them. The Doctrines of Arrius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Eunomius, and Dioscurus, were themselves hereticall, even before they were solemnly condemned in the foure generall Councels: but woe to us and all the reformed Churches, if this Tenet were true and Catholike, for then are wee condemned already. But I pray, what if your Pope (whom you Jesuites now make the onelyonly Church) admit, I say, your Pope were an Heretike, such as was your Pope Eugenius, or your John the 23. or Pope Vigilius, or Pope Honorius, were they able to judge of heresies in others, that were tainted with them themselves? or must their definitive sentence in Cathedra stand for a Law,Si autem Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia vel prohibendo virtutes, &c. Bell. de Pont. l. 4. c. 5. Sand. de visibili Monarch. l. 7. An. 1541. p. mihi 595. and make that heresie which is no heresie? Indeed your Cardinall sayes, The Pope hath power to make that no sinne which is sinne, and accordingly he hath placed that Tenet amongst the Heretikes, and by the same Law he makes that to be heresie, which is no heresie. Your learned Sanders tells us, it is heresie to translate the Scriptures into the vulgar Tongue, and accordingly he hath placed that Tenet amongst the Heretikes. Your Chancellor of Paris and Director of the Councell of Constance tells us, it is heresie to communicate in both kindes; and accordingly he hath wrote a Tract, De haeresi communicandi sub utrâque specie. And to passe by all the Trent Articles (the deniall of all or any of which makes a man an Heretike) your infallible Pope Nicholas proclaimeth,Qui Romanae Ecclesiae privilegium auferre conatur, hic proculdubio labitur in haeresin. that whosoever goeth about to abrogate the priviledges of the Church of Rome, he is no doubt an Heretike.
If the deniall of all or any of these make an Heretike, there is no doubt, all the Reformed Churches stand guilty of that capitall crime, by the law of your Church, and your Popes doome. Yet let me tell you; the Scriptures were translated into all Languages in the Primitive times, and Christ and his Apostles did communicate in both kindes; and your first foure generall Councels did bound and limit those priviledges of the Church of Rome, which are now extended into all parts of the Christian world; and were all these Heretikes? If you call this Heresie, goe on, and fill up the measure of your wrath, untill the time come that Christ and his Saints acquit us, or condemne us of that imputation. In the meane time you shall doe well to reflect upon your selfe, and consider rather the case at this day betwixt the Sorbonists and the Jesuites, which meerely toucheth your owne particular.Aurel. in vindiciis, pag. 383. Idem in libro sine titulo. Hermannus Laemelius, that is to say, John Floyd, termes the propositions of the Parisians, destructive to the Church, and hereticall; on the other side, they accuse him of heresie, H…ulier in admonit. ad Lect. p. 8. 9. 16. 24.blasphemie, and impietie, and the like. Are you all members of one Church, under one head the Pope, and are your propositions different and hereticall on both sides, and must I say, that you and the rest have the name of heresie onelyonly by the condemnation of the Church? But you are sure the Pope will not condemne his owne members, and without his judgment they are but words of course, or at best but course phrases delivered in heate against an adversary: For (say you) The Fathers did forbeare absolutely to condemne things for heresies, till they had acquainted the Bishop of Rome, and had his judgement, as is cleere by St. Cyrill of Alexandria, in the case of Nestorius. Neither doe we denie, that in this and the like case the Bishop of Rome ought to be acquainted; For Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople, and therefore good reason the Bishop of Rome, as another Patriarch, should be acquainted with it, that hee might be judged by his Peeres; but in other cases they sent Letters without acquainting the Bishop of Rome: neither ought you to require or expect that we should produce any such letters of premonition against the points of Trent doctrine, for which we now condemne you, because those errors which then began to spring in the Church, by custome and pertinacies became heresies in many ages after. About that time, and in that very Age St. Austin condemned the superstition of some in worshipping Sepulchers and Images (which at this day is an Article of your Faith:) but you answer that he condemned the heathenish and superstitious worship of dead, perhaps wicked mens tombs and pictures: and for a solution of this place you referre me to Bellarmine. It seems you could give me no satisfactory answer of your own, and therefore you returne me to your Cardinal; but I wonder why you do not recite his answer to this place. I conceived that you were ashamed of it, or there was some misprision that made you conceale it; & thereupon I have perused it, and find that he hath falsified both the place and meaning of it. As for instance: whereas Austin saith,Aug. de moribus Eccles. Cathol. l. 1. c. 34. p. (mihi) 774. Tō. 1. Bell. de Reliquiis Sanct. l. 2. c. 4. I know many worshippers of tombes and pictures, your Cardinall leaves out the word pictures, and saith, I know many worshippers of tombes; and for his full solution he subjoyneth, Austin wrote this in the beginning of his first conversion. Again, he cites another place of S. Austin, as it were to illustrate the former, without any respect or mention of the worshippers of pictures, and tells us,Ibid. that the Emperour did pray at the Sepulcher of St. Peter, yet proves not the point in question, that he did worship the Sepulcher it selfe; for who doubts but that we also may worship God at St. Peters shrine, and yet not worship the shrine it selfe. Nay, hee goeth on further, and shewes that Austin did not reprehend Chrysostome, and Hierome, but the ignorant sort of people: for Chrysostome saith, Let us adore the Tombes of Martyrs; when as there are no such words in Chrysostome, but rather, Let us adorne them.Ut Tumulos Martyrum de center curari. Chrys. And whereas he saith further, that Hierome wisheth Marcella, a Ladie, to worship the ashes of the Prophets in Bethlem; so likewise I say, he doth wish her in the same place to lick their dust; and therefore it was not to be understood as a thing spoken properly, but figuratively. For elsewhere he saith expresly against Vigilantius, I say not, we worship not nor adore the reliques of Martyrs, but neither the Sunne, nor the Moone, nor Angels, nor Archangels, nor Cherubin, nor Seraphin. Neither did S.Andr. resp. ad Card. Bell. pag. (mihi) 49. Austin speak as you say of the heathenish and superstitious worshipping of wicked mens Tombes, but of them which in ipsa vera Religione, in true Religion were worshippers of pictures and shrines. For he shewes, that his owne mother Monica did usually bring to the shrines of Saints certaine Bread and Wine, August. Confes. l. 6. c. 2.and other provision; but because the celebrating after the manner of the memory of the dead, did very much resemble the superstition of the heathen, she was forbidden it by St. Ambrose; which forbidding (saith he) shee did so piously and obediently embrace, as that my selfe did wonder to see her made (with such ease) rather a condemner of her owne ancient custome, than a questioner of the present prohibition. For a conclusion; whereas you would excuse it, that St. Austin did condemne onelyonly the superstitious worship of wicked mens Tombes, your men are likewise guiltie of the same worship:Bell. de Sanct. Beat. l. 1. c. 7. For your owne Cardinall will tell you, that the people (of the Roman Church) did for a long time celebrate Sulpitius for a Mqrtyr, who afterwards did appeare and told them, that he had beene a theefe and was damned; Idem, ibid.And that Alexander the third reprehended certaine men for worshipping one as a Martyr, that was killed in his drunkennesse: and thus (to use your owne words) for these, I send you backe againe to Bellarmine for an answer.
I come to the rest of your answers. First I cited out of Ferus, that Masses, Monasteries, Ceremonies, Feasts, Images, are otherwise now used than they were in the beginning: I produced likewise Polydore Virgil, Erasmus, Scotus, Agrippa, Cassander, Gregorie de Valentia, in severall points against your new doctrine; now let us heare your severall answers to them. Touching Ferus, he is a Frier (say you) in your Bookes, but not in ours, save onelyonly in the Roman Index of forbidden Bookes. Touching Polydore, he saith as the Knight telleth us, and as much as any Heretike can say, but it booteth not, for his Booke is forbidden. Touching Erasmus, he is no Authour for us to answer, he is branded in the Roman Index. Touching Scotus, you neither condemne him, nor answer him: he tells you plainly, that Transubstantiation was not received for a point of Faith till the Councell of Lateran, above 1200. yeares after Christ; but of this passage Ne gry quidem: And yet you might have answered with Bellarmine, this opinion of his is no way to be allowed; or with Gregorie de Valentia, for this saying he ought to be corrected. As touching Agrippa and Cassander, you will not vouchsafe them an answere, but reject them inter damnatos authores, as men to be cast out of your Synagogue. Lastly, touching Gregorie de Valentia, you say his authoritie doth make against the Knight, why else should he corrupt and mangle it? But whether I or you have corrupted it, let the Reader judge; my words were these, The Communion in one kind, when it got first footing in the Church, minimè constat, it doth not appeare (saith Greg. de Valentia:) You to prove my corruption, cite the words in this manner; When that custome began in some Churches, it appeareth not; but that there hath been some use of one kind ever from the beginning, I shewed before; so Valentia; and thus you.
But in truth, this is none of Valentia's own period, but one of your owne making, who cunningly joyne the latter words which follow in Valentia, 4. or 5. lines after, to the former, with a But, which is none of Valentia's; & the former part of the period is notably mangled by you: For thus it stands, When that custome began in some Churches, Augustana Confessio.it appeares not, as is acknowledged by the Augustane Confession. Now in that Confession, the words are these, The custome of both kindes remained long in the Church, neither doth it appeare when, or by what Author it was changed; so that he plainly speaketh of the Church in general, & sheweth the corruption here pretended by M. Floyd to be but a cavill, viz. That Valentia saith this, not of the Church in generall, but of some particular Churches. Thus either you blot & prohibit all Authors that make for us, although they be members of your own Church, or else you vouchsafe them no answer, or else you quarrell without any just occasion offred; and this wil prove an easie way for the weakest scholar in your Church to answer all that can be produced against your faith and doctrine.
Now as the Reader hath heard your answer in the generall, so let him see your exceptions to the particulars: For whereas I said with St. Paul, Forbidding of marriage is a doctrine of Devils, you answer as if you were angrie with St. Paul, that he hath been answered more often than the Knight hath fingers and toes; and it seems, for that reason you will vouchsafe him no answer at all. This puts me in minde of the saying of Ludovicus Vives, a member of your owne Church, who assures us, If St. Lud. Vives de Civ. Dei. l. 13. c. 24.Paul were living in these dayes, he would be held either a mad man, or an heretike. And since you will not resolve me of St. Pauls meaning in that place, I will appeale to St. Bernard, an Abbot who was restrained from marriage by the law of your Church; who speaking of that restraint, gives us the true sense and exposition of St. Paul in these words: All heresies have an heretike for their founder; the Maniches had Manes,Bernard. in Cant. Serm. 66. the Sabellians had Sabellicus, the Arrians had Arrius, &c. so that we know the Authors of those plagues; but by what name will you terme the Author of those that forbid marriage? Surely it is not of man, or by man, and far be it from the spirit of God, but it is foretold (by the Apostle St. Paul) to be the fraud & doctrine of devils.
But marriage (say you) is not a thing evil in it selfe, but because it lesse agreeth with the holinesse which is required for the exercise of Priestly function. I pray then what thinke you of a concubine? Doth companie with her better agree for exercise of your function, than with a wife? Sure I am, this is the doctrine of your Church: nay more, your Pope Siricius would inferre by authoritie of Scripture, that marriage is unholy in it selfe, for he cites the Text for …t, They that live in the flesh cannot please God. Qui in carne sunt Deo placere non possunt.Now I pray you what difference is there betwixt the ancient heretikes, and the members of your Church? The Montanists, the Tatiani, the Eucratitae, did not prohibite marriage to all, no more than you doe, but onelyonly to their perfecti, as being a disparagement to their perfect estate; or as you interpret, not agreeing to the holines of Priesthood. Again, whereas I proved out of Polydore, that the marriage of Priests was not altogether forbidden till the time of Gregorie the 7. that is to say, above a thousand yeares after Christ; you answer, that which Polydore cites is most evidently false, as appeareth particularly by a Canon of the first Councell of Nice, and the second Councell of Carthage. Now if Polydore were mistaken, it concernes not me, for I cited him truly, and he is a member of your Church; but the truth is, you are much mistaken touching those two Councels. For the Councell of Nice (saith Sozomen) commended Paphnutius judgement, Sozom. l. 1. c. 22.and touching this matter of mariage, made to decree an all, but left it to each mans owne will, without any force of necessity; And the Councell of Carthage forbiddeth not marriage in Priests, but commandeth abstinence from marriage rites for a certaine time, as St. Paul doth, that they may more freely give themselves to prayer, and the offices of their sacred function. Which plainly shewes, that both Priests were married in those dayes, and consequently, that those two Councels make flatly against you. But Marius (say you) cannot find the beginning of this prohibition; Polydore findeth it, and yet both make for the Knights purpose. And without doubt they doe, for they contradict not one the other: Polydore speaketh of publike, absolute, and reall prohibition; Marius of the first condemning it in any Priest; and these confessions may well stand together.