The Honouroftbe MariedClergie. LIB. I. c•n it beother then the partakingofan univerfall condemnationofit?This thenon· A ly he bath gained,thatfomeothershave been deeper in this evill then themfelves. Objefl. A~t[w. ~ye holy. All things are deaneto thc L.cane. .J/llliU. E. :rup,_ rs•Tt~lof. E.p![c. tptjlo}-t .I.Dtfl• Sa Prt~pofuJjli. •E.ul Dijl.t:, "PtMrimDJad R imtniiTAI"" rat.1,tp!fl.1, Si!ltUI1X1U/1JI]Ht dJffntNi.un ptronfinominij CmsNubii, un.J/1J t:Vtdtmqllt rtm r!foi[li A_dul~tril&tJ)llfll• Ll/lr.VaJl:;,cAtrME.ctlWJtr. l.J.dtVotupt. fhorumat quar11mcunque {ttmlti.AYIUIJ i~ mlltldrJftn:ittaU U'rxtcr:tbilit~ ugiontturpari. cw.Toi S.c.!· cit.;;:C.E. ~~;:ittift· tctf..W~ornitn· fiJ,poflr:~l-3• •EDtnMil m..- mmoni,Hnftato C.Jrn~~ pletdcdin the Councell ot Tr\!nt Hi~. r.nnl.p.66t.. ~ Aur,wfl. J~ H.rrt(• a& ~fJd'VMlt · Dru" ~ Rt[Nt.t·l9Rt[llt.p.ao. BHt our ApoftleJpeakesofthwt J1'hich condemn r.JUariage 11 willinil filfi. We take what he gives : Nomans mouthlhall condemn my Refuter but hisown. What was he that accufed mariage ofUnholineffe, outof S4n0i eflote; ofuncleanneffe, our ofomni• mNnd.,,ndi<; ofContamination with ea mall concupifcence? Was it not his own Pope P InnocentitH I Whowas he that inrerprel!ethofmarriage, the Text Rom. 8.8. Thofe th•tare in theflejh clntJJJt pleafeG•d,that called themaried Man, no leffe then theWhoremonger, Seil.torem iibirlin•m,Preceptortm'lliliorum; A followerofLNJI,a teacher ofVice; that faid Mariage was •loojing thereynet toLHxury, '" inhiatloll after •b(une I~<Jis /was itnot his Pope qSiriciw, the firll: Founder(ifwe may beleeve their now-defaced Glolfe) offorced Cominency? Whowas it that called mariage atkftlingJ1'ifh HllcleanfocieiJ, and execrohk contagion? Was it not his Councdl of' Tole.io? Whowas it that called mariage (spurcittM imm~<ndtH) ftlthJht•JIIinejfe? was it not his ' SaintDHnft•n andof,.•IJI Let himconfirue this, and then tell me, what it is (ifthisbe not) to conrkmD Marioge"' • nu/t.Y er more,hisown example!hall convince him: Hepleadsour ofSaint A•Jiin, that this text,amongfi others,intendsto firike at theManicbees;now,theManichees allowed mariage to theirAuditors , that is (Analogically ) their LoiiJ;forbad it to theirEleOi,tharis, their Clergy; Sp farre approving it in their laick-Clients, that no modefi Pen maywrite ' whence they fetched their Sacramental) Bread : Either then theManicheesmufi be excluded, or Papifismufibetaken in for company into C thisdochine ofDevils. Iris true, theymif-call manage aSacrament;Soas wemay well wonder at thefe two exrreams inone dotl:rine i and fiudy in vain how the fame thing !bould be Sacred inaCeremonious inchoation,and in the reallconfummation morally impure ; how a Sacrament !bouldbee incompatiblewith a facred Perfon: Thefe SphyngianRiddles are for betterHeads: with what Brow then can my Deteaor adde, • Tbat 'IPith Saint Chryfofiomeond Saint A ufiin,thej rlo hut t·omparemori•ge, theJrloe ~tot condemn it; Onely reachingmariage to begood, Virginity better; with FHigentiw not fo comparing virginity to Corn, that they counrMariage Cockle? In thiswhere lhould chey finde any adverfary? But ifLuxury, Filthinelfe, Uncleannelfe,Contagion, Beafrlineffe,Vi<e, Obfcenity, be the IHlesofgood, we OlD well allow themto the honour of c. Es. virginity, and are content our Mariages D lhould paf!Hor evi!J. SECT. V. My feconduntrutb(hefaith)is, Thatimake the (ingle Life ofPrie!lsthe brandofAmichrifiianifme. Shamelelfe mourh I Where did 1 ever fay fo? My words are ; Were it notf orthisopinion,theChHrchofl!ome ,...ld,.,lntoo< w itknt hr•ndof her A~ttichrijfianifme. T he life is one thing, the opinion another. Single life isgood ; theopinionofthe necellity offingle life, and the t!lllawfulnell'e oftheMaried, is Amichrifrian. What can bemoreplain? yet rhiswilfull llanderer tels theworld, that I make theprofeffionofContinency,Antichrifiian: whereas we doe willingly profeffe, that true profeffionofrrueContinency is truJy laudable; that the forc1bleimpofitionofit , asneceffary to fome fiare ofmen , favoms fuongly ~f that Man offin: Now let my Reader judge,whofe untruthsmyAdvertarybath bitheno deteaed. Neither can I eate that word ofmine , unletre I would renounce the Apo!lle; who feernes purpofely to decipher ourRomanifis by thefe lines: For, having i~ mediately before defcribed the condition of Bilhops , and Deacom , wirhtheJr wives and children ( allowing them indifferently with others, a maried efiate)hee prefently (as forefeeing that Point which would be mofi fuhjtlt to contradiCtion) forerels, thatthe feducing fpirirsofAnrichrillianifme would forbid mariage; a~d thiS
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=