Roman-Catholick doctrines no novelties, or, An answer to Dr. Pierce's court-sermon, miscall'd The primitive rule of Reformation by S.C. a Roman-Catholick.

CHAP. XVII. (Book 17)

Celibacy of Priests. Vowes of Cha∣stity: The Doctrine and Practice of the Church in both. Objecti∣ons Answered.

1. THe Doctors tenth pretended Noveltie, is the Roman Churches prohibition of Marriage to Priests and others in holy Orders:* 1.1 Which, saies he, is by some derived from the third Century, by others from the eighth; and in the ri∣gour that now it is,* 1.2 from Pope Gregory 7. and by Roman Catholics themselves, 'tis dated but from Pope Calixtus. But (saies he) both in the old and new Testament, Priests were permitted to have Wives: The Apostles were married: Besides marriage of Priests was asserted by Paphnutius in the Council of Nice: And by one of the Apo∣stolic Canons: And the forbidding of Marriage, with Saturninus and the Gnosticks, is worthily called by the Apostle the Doctrine of De∣vils.

2. Indeed if the prohibition of Mariage to some certain states of men or women be the Doctrin of Devils, the Preacher has reason rather to seperate himself from a Church that enjoyns such a Diabolical vertue as Continence, than from a wife that will not permit it, and who perhaps and therefore a great influence upon his zeal, more warm in this Novelty than any of the rest. Though it is not only per∣mitted him, but esteem'd meritorious to blas∣pheme the Church of God, yet let him take heed how he blasphemes the Apostle, who, in the same Epistle out of which the Doctor quotes his Doctrin of Devils, forbids marriage to Widows, who had consecrated themselves to our Lord's service: Younger Widows refuse (says he) for when they have begun to wax wanton a∣gainst Christ,* 1.3 they will mary: Having damna∣tion, because they have cast off their first Faith.* 1.4 What means this phrase [They have cast off their first Faith] (saith St. Augustin?) [Vo∣verunt & non red did e••unt.* 1.5] They vowed (per∣petual continence) but they kept not their vow:* 1.6 and therefore they have damnation.* 1.7 This is St. Augustin's constant Doctrin and interpre∣tation of that place of the Apostle,* 1.8 as may be seen by examining the quotations in the Mar∣gin.* 1.9 The same is taught by St. Epiphanius, St. Hierons, Fulgentius, the fourth Council of Carthage, (at which St. Augustin was present) &c. And it is not contradicted by any one Antient Doctor, nor any, except antient He∣reties,

Iovian, Vigilantius, &c. And this surely will suffice to demonstrate it, no Novelty in God's Church, much lesse that it was e∣steem'd a Doctrin of Devils, to forbid Mar∣riage to Persons consecrated to God's service. Forbid it; I say, not the Gnosticks, Mani∣chees, &c. forbad it, as an unlawful thing in it's self, but only as an impediment and distracti∣on in a spiritual Vocation. Now whether Wi∣dows are esteem'd by the Preacher to be more nearly and perfectly consecrated to the Divine service, by the Office of Deaconesses, then men by Priesthood, 'tis expected he should de∣clare.

3. But for better clearing of this Point, touching the prohibition of Mariage to persons in holy Orders, &c. in charity I must suppose the Doctor will not professe the Heresie of Iovinian, who taught that Virginity does not excel Matrimony. An Heresie so contrary to reason, that (as St. Augustin tell us) it was presently extinguished and never could attain to the deceiving so much as one Priest.* 1.10 This He∣resie formally contradicts St. Paul teaching thus,* 1.11 There is difference between a wife and a Virgin, The (Virgin) unmarried woman ca∣reth for the things of our Lord, that shew ay be holy both in body and spirit: But she that is ma∣ried careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. Which saying of the Apostle certainly at least declares a state of Vir∣ginity and continency much more advantagi∣ous

to promote the service of God and keep the mind fixed on spiritual and heavenly im∣ployments, than a Married state, encombred with worldly cares, and carnal appetites. Thus much I doubt not will by the Preacher be granted.

4. But now the Question must be, whether Eunuchism for the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, a perpetual abstinence from Marriage and all carnal lusts may lawfully be by Priests, &c. made the matter of a Vow? That it is a Council of Perfection is evident from our Savi∣ours speech, Qui potest capere, capiat. But upon supposition that Continency is a special gift of God, not bestow'd on all, and that it is infinitely difficult for any one certainly to know he has this Gift: for these and such like reasons the Roformed Churches, in opposition to the Roman Catholic, have generally con∣demned the practice of such Vows, at least con∣sider'd as extending it self generally to any whole Order or state of men, and especially an Obligation imposed on them to this pra∣ctice.

5. On the other side the Roman Catholic Church, though she acknowledges Continence to be a special Gift of God, and that there may be some difficulty to attain and preserve it, yet esteems not these to be grounds sufficient to relinquish the obligation of C••libacy in Priests, &c. which she submitted to from the Preach∣chers Beginning, that is in the primitive times

of the Church, at least within the four first General Councils.

6. It is granted then, that Continency, (that is an ability to abstain (not from all motions of Concupiscence but) from putting in execution all motions, either by a voluntary morose delectation in them, or much more by outward unclean practises of them) is a Gift of God, a fruit of his Holy Spirit, and cannot by natural means be obtained so as to be practised in obedience to him. But so are all Christian vertues: So is Faith, so is Repen∣tance, so is Charity, all which notwithstand∣ing, we vow in our Baptism. And why do we vow a practise of those vertues which are pure Gifts of God? Because we are assured the same God, who commands that Vow, will not be wanting to supply strength to perform it, in all those that sincerely beg those Gifts of him by earnest Prayers made in Faith, and by avoiding all known, and possible-to-be∣avoided impediments to the practise of those vertues.

7. But it will be said, that great difference is to be made between that Continence which is a Christian vertue necessary to all;* 1.12 viz. a Continence from all unlawful Lusts; and such a Continence as is now treated of, which is an Abstinence from Marriage, that is from the lawful Remedies of unlawful Lusts, which Abstinence is so far from being necessary to all, that it is no more than a Council to those that

aspire to perfection, which are but few, even in the opinion of the Roman-Church. This Abstinence certainly is a far more special Gift of God, say they, and not too easily and common∣ly to be presumed on.

8. All▪* 1.13 this likewise understood cum grano Salis, is acknowledged by us. Yet withall Protestants know that even this Abstinence from Marriage, or from exercising the law∣ful Acts in Marriage is a Gift bestowed on ve∣ry many, and in some cases necessary to almost every one. For otherwise it would be utter∣ly unlawful for Parents to keep their children unmarried after the time they are capable, and thereby to expose them to unlawful lusts, since it seems they are not sure they have such a Gift: it would be unlawful for Merchants and Travellers to make long voyages abroad, and leave their Wives at home deprived of the necessary lawful Remedies against Lust and Temptations to which they are exposed. All Statutes of Colledges ought to be repealed, which forbid Marriage still to all Fellows, and heretofore to all Presidents, upon penalty of forfeiting their whole subsistence. A long Sickness inflicted by God on either of the mar∣ried Couples, would be far more dangerous to their Souls than their Bodies, so as if such an Abstinence, as is now spoken of, were such an extraordinary Gift of Perfection, England would have more Saints, or more Adulterers, &c. than she is aware of. And here good Doctor

I desire you tell me a thing that perhaps you have not thought on, yet will easily perceive its meaning assoon as you think on't. What is the reason that the Ministers of England gene∣rally marry not till they are above thirty years of age? Can they abstain all that while, when their passions are stronger, and their reason weaker, and then, after so long a Continency begin to plead 'tis impossible for them to hold any longer, unlesse they had the gift of Cha∣stity, which God bestows not on every one? shall I give you my Conjecture? I doubt they force themselves to live single till they have a Benefice, and then, assoon as they can maintain a wife, they get one: is not this meer hypocrisie to talk of Marrying out of tenderness of Con∣science, to allay their Concupiscence, when the danger is almost all past; and make no provision to prevent the sins of the unrulyest part of their age? Methinks they should ei∣ther marry earlyer, when they may justly su∣spect their Chastity, before they have tryed themselves; or live longer Batchellors, when they may prudently hope by the grace of God to persevere after so much experience of their continency.

9. Catholicks therfore, though they confesse this continence to be a special Gift of God not be∣stow'd on all, because all do not use the means, yet resolve it is such a special gift as is denyed to none, who rightly seek it, and conceive, it also may be made the matter of a vow by

those, who have a steddy purpose to use the necessary means to attain and conserve it, and by those who by humble and due ex∣amining themselves, are perswaded that God calls them to a state of greater Perfection, and being in that state depend on his grace for performing their Vow, seeking his assistance by constant Prayers, watchfulnesse, and ne∣cessary penitential austerities. Now those may be confident they are called to such a state, either in a Monastical or Ecclesiastical Profession, who betake themselves thereto, not out of any worldly respects, for gaining a sub∣sistence or preferment, or other temporal in∣vitations, but purely to avoid the tentations, solicitudes and distractions of the world and flesh, and to devote themselves more to the service of God, and advancing their Souls in vertue and piety. In this state of Perfection, and in complying with this Council of Perfecti∣on, those, who duly undertake that state, may as undoubtedly promise to themseves Gods assistance whilst they use the means to obtain it, as generally all Christians may after the vow of Baptism. St. Augustin writes thus,* 1.14 David vow'd, as having the matter in his own power: And yet he beggs withall ••f God that he may perform what ••e vow'd. Here is the devotion of one that vows: here is the humi∣ty of one that prays. Let no man presume on his own strength, as if he were able of himself to perform what he shall vow. He that exhorts

thee to vow [saying Vovete & reddite] the same God helps thee to perform what thou hast vow'd.

10. If then it be lawfull for private persons to vow Celibacy, surely it is lawful for the Church to enjoyn it: her Doctrin being, That Goddenies not the gift of Chastity to them who ask it aright,* 1.15 nor suffers us to be tempted above what we are able. Which Doctrin is the ground why the Church enjoyns Celibacy to Priests: So that Chastity is called a special Gift, not in this sence, as it all men, though using what means ••oever, are not capable of it: But it is such a Gift as many men never actually receive from God, because they do not use the means: and such a Gift as few also will endeavour to use the means to attain, because these means are harder than those by which other Gifts may be attained. That the undertaking by Vow such a life of Chastity, and abstinence from Marriage, yea in Marriage it self, has been ap∣prov'd, commended, and practised in Gods Church from the very beginning, if the Preach∣er will not believe us, let him not suspect at least partiality in his own best Friends.* 1.16

We are not ignorant, says Chemnitius, that the Fathers did approve the vows of perpetual Celi∣bacy,* 1.17 and acknowledge them to be obligatory. Profession and Vows of Chastity (says Peter Martyr) were extant among Christians in the time of Clement of Alexandria [that is about the year 170.* 1.18] Again, I know, says he, that Epiphanius with many of the Fathers erred in

this, that they said it was a sin to violate such a Vow when it was requisite, and that he did ill in referring it to Apostolic Tradition.* 1.19 Da∣naeus says confidently, That St. Augustin and all the Bishops in the Council of Carthage a∣bused manifestly the word of God, saying, upon the Apostles words, If any widows how young soever have vowed themselves to God, &c. and afterwards shall go to secular Marri∣age, they shall according to the Apostle have damnation: because they dared to make void the vow of Chastity made to God. The Centurists affirm it to be manifest by the E∣pistles of Ignatius, that in those times men be∣gan to have too much liking of the Profession of Virginity: for he says, Let Virgins consi∣der to whom they have consecrated them∣selves.

11. And as for the Doctrin of Devils mentio∣ned by the Preacher, he may do well to sit him down and consider the words of the Apostle, and the comments of the Fathers on them a lit∣tle better. First he will find the Apostle, in his opposing those, who in the latter times should forbid to marry, and command to ab∣stain from meats, to argue against them thus: That every Creature and Ordinance of God is good (according to Gen. 1. 31. & 2. 23, 24.) and therefore, being sanctified first by the word of God and Prayer, may lawfully be used. (See 1 Tim. 4. 3, 4, 5.) which plainly shews, that St. Paul means such Apostates as abstain from, or prohibit Marriage and Meats as in them∣selves

unlawful and unclean and contamina∣ting. Which thing can neither be objected to the antient nor modern Church-practise, using abstinence from some meats for the chastise∣ment of the body, not for any uncleanesse in the food, and not forbidding Marriage to any single person absolutely, but only upon his vo∣luntary undertaking such an employment, with which they imagin a married condition not so well to sute. In which case, if necessary absti∣nence from Marriage be a fault, the Apostle himself may seem to comply with it in those ex∣pressions of his forementioned concerning the Widows, 1 Ti••. 5. 11, 12. 2ly. He will find it manifest by experience, that this prophecy of the Apostle was most eminently fulfilled in o∣ther persons of these latter times (whom these Fathers even in these points most vehemently resisted) they affirming downright all Marri∣age, especially with reference to procreation of children (therefore the married were advised by them in such manner to use their Wives, as to avoid this: See S. Aug. De Morib. Manich. c. 18.) to be unlawful, and the work or de∣design of the Devil, as likewise flesh-diet to be unclean and defiling. They forbid living Crea∣tures as detesting them,* 1.20 saith Epiphanius, not in respect of preserving continency, or a vertuous life, but out of fear and fancy, that they might be defi∣led by eating such living Creatures. Wine they use not at all, saying, 'tis Diabolical. And S.* 1.21 Austin, Contra Faust. l. 30. c. 5. Ye call the Creature unclean, because the Devil (ye say)

frames flesh out of the more feculent part of na∣tural matter. Such were some of the G••osticks, Eucratites, M••ntanists, Marcionites, and in the last place the Manichees, who, not holding all things to have been created by the same good God, but this lower world by an evil Principle, or by the Prince of Darkness, as they call him, affirmed in the begetting of a man, that the Soul, which they account to be a part of the substance of God himself, becomes fertered and imprisoned in the walls or handy-work of the Devil, i. e. the body, and therefore was marri∣age, as occasioning such imprisonment, for∣born by all their Elect; and though this was permitted to their Auditors, yet (saith S. Au∣stin) it was not by telling them it was no sin, but by shewing favour to the persons thus sinning, because they allowed them maintenance.

3.* 1.22 Again he will find, that when they were accused by the Fathers for such errors, it was ordinary with them to recriminate the Ortho∣dox with the same things, both for their fre∣quent abstinences from flesh, and some other Fruits, and for their (to some Persons at least) recommending Virginity, who in this matter were answered by them after the same manner, as the Protestants, objecting the same things, are now by the Church Catholic. See Chry∣sostom, Ambrose, and lastly Doctor Hamond on this place of Timothy, understanding it of the same Heretics. Lastly he will find that Fa••∣stus the Maniches made the very same Objecti∣on to prove profess'd Chastity to be the Do∣ctrin

of Devils. To whom St. Augustin thus answers,* 1.23 I am now afraid in the behalf even of the Apostle himself, lest he should seem to have in∣troduced the doctrin of Devils into Iconium, when by his Speeches be enflamed a young Maid already betrothed, to a love of perpetual Virginity, and when he pronounced damnation to Widows transgressing their Vow.

12. To come home to the Celibacy of Priests in particular, whereas the Doctor build much on the Authority of Paphnutius, and the mind of the famous first General Council of Nice thereupon, let him consider what an Author (not partial he may be sure for the Roman Church) has said of that Point,* 1.24 that is, The Patria••e of Presbyterians, Mr. Cartwright, The Council of Nice (says he) did affirm and teach that to those who are chosen to the Ministry un∣married, it was not lawful to take any wife after∣ward; only, being married before intrance into the Ministry, it was lawful for them to use the bene∣fit of that precedent Marriage. And Paphnu∣tius shews that not only this was before that Coun∣cil, but was an antient Tradition of the Church, in which both himself and the rest of the Council rested, for a motion being made by some in the Council, that the married Presbyters (such as were married before made Presbyters) should after their Ordination be separated from their Wives, this Paphnutius, a Reverend Bishop and a Confessor, though himself never marri∣ed, opposed, saying, Grave jug••m,—This was a heavy yoke, &c. and that perhaps such a strict

rule of Continency could not be observed by all Clergy-mens wives. [But now mark what fol∣lows]. That it was sufficient that those who had entred into the Clergy before they had married Wives secundum veterem Ecclesiae traditio∣nem, according to the Churches antient traditi∣on, 'should afterward forbear from marrying: But yet that none ought to be separated from his wife that he had married before, when yet a Laick. The story is in Socrates, l. 1. c. 8. & in Z••zomen, l. 1. c. 22. Thus the Preacher gets not much ad∣vantage from Paphnutius.

13. Now for as much as concerns the Con∣troversie touching Marriage of Priests, Bellar∣min will grant,* 1.25

That the vow of Continence was annexed to Holy Orders onely by the Churches Decree:* 1.26 and consequently that it may be dispensed with.* 1.27 Moreover that the Roman Church in several Cases hath permit∣ed the Grecian Priests the use of their wives to whom they were married before their Or∣dination.

And indeed, considering the tem∣per of the Eastern Countries, far more enclin'd to such passions, than that of the Europeans, we find the Eastern Churches gave themselves far greater liberty than the Western. Yet no antient Canon ••f either of the Churches can be ••ound that permitted Priests to contract Mar∣riage after Ordination: And even among the Grecians, a cohabitation with their Wives was forbidden to Priests, who attended the Altar.

14. But what the universal belief and pra∣ctise of the Western Churches was, our Preach∣er

may collect from the following Testimonies. Therefore not to insist upon the generally e∣steem'd and resolved unlawfulnesse for Bishops and Priests after their Ordination to contract Matrimony, (of a dispensation from which not one example can be given); It appears, that a Matrimonial use of wives to the formerly mar∣ried, was forbidden, 1. By the Second Council of Carthage, express in this Point: It was a∣greed unto by all the Bishops,* 1.28 that Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and such who dispense Sacraments, should be Observers of Chastity, and abstain even from their own wives, that so what the Apostles taught, and Antiquity observed, we likewise may keep.* 1.29 2. The Second African Council thus de∣creed, Whereas Relation was made of the Incon∣tinence of certain Ecclesiastics, though with their own Wives, this Council thought good that, ac∣cording to former Decrees, Bishops, Priests and Deacons should contain even from their Wives; which if they do not, let them be removed from their Ecclesiastical Office. As for other inferior Clarks, they are not compell'd hereto. But let every Church observe their own custom. 3. Saint Ambrose witnesseth the same, You, (says he) who with pure bodies,* 1.30 uncorrupted modesty, and being estranged even from Conjugal conversation, have received the grace of the holy Ministry, know well that we must exhibit the same Ministry without offence, without stain, neither must we suffer it to be violated with any Matrimonial Act. This I have not omitted to speak because in certain remote plates, some have pr••created

children, when they exercised Priesthood. And again, the Apostle speaking of a Bishop, sayes, having children, not getting them. 4. Saint Hierom writing against Vigilantius, sayes,

What shall the Churches of the East do?* 1.31 What shall the Churches of Egypt do? and of the See Apostolick? all which receive Clerks, either such as are Virgins or Conti∣nent, or if they have wives, such as cease to be husbands to them.

The like is said in the Conclusion of his book against Iovinian.* 1.32 And he writes to Pamachius thus, If married men like not this, let them not be angry with me, but with the holy Scriptures, with all Bishops, Priests and Deacons, who know they cannot offer Sacrifice,* 1.33 if they use the Act of marriage. 5. We are wont (says Saint Augustin) to propose to them the continence of Ecclesiasticks, who for the most part are compelled against their wills to undergo this burden, and yet having received it, they, by Gods assistance, bear it to their end. I will con∣clude with the Spanish Council of Eliberis, more ancient then St. Augustins time, nay, ancienter then the First General Council of Nice, The Council hath thought good,* 1.34 that it should be abso∣lutely commanded to Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Sub-Deacons, to abstain from their Wives, and not to beget children.

15. That the Eastern Churches took to them∣selves anciently a greater liberty, is to be un∣derstood not generally; for in many of them a•• great a strictness was observed: as, besides the forecited t••stimony of S. Hier••m, concern∣ing

the Churches of the East and of Egypt,* 1.35 ap∣pears from Origen, Eusebius, and Epiphanius, who all require continence in Priests, even from their wives, if they have any; And particu∣larly, S.* 1.36 Epiphanius says, That to do otherwise is not to observe the Canons, but to follow our natural inclinations, soon weary of such a burden. And ••ow the Doctor may do well to consider what a Novelty he has found out to entertain his Auditors with; especially, since all the fore∣cited Canons and Practices (Which are within the time of the four first Councils) were in force in England at the Reformation, as England was a Member of the Western Patriarchat, and therefore could not, without a transgression of all Ecclesiastical Order, be repealed by this single National Church: much less could this Church without a criminal, formal Schism, make such a generally received practice a pre∣tence for separation.

16. His Allegation out of Clemens of Alexan∣dria, that some of the Apostles had wives, is granted: But did they, after their executing their Office of Priesthood, lie with them? Did they leave any young Apostles behind them? As for the Apostolick Canon which forbids Priests, &c. to cast off their Wives: what would he infer from hence? Does he think married persons are husbands and wives only in the night? That which the Canon intended was, that Ecclesiastical persons should not make their office a pretence to cast off the care of provi∣ding for their wives, or to be divorced from them: that is, such as ••ere married, and had

wives before they entred into Orders, who af∣terwards must not refuse cohabitation with them, except when they officiate, unless with their wives consent, in the Eastern C••urches, That the Priests under the Law were married, cannot be denied: since Priesthood necessarily descending by generation, marriage was there∣ore necessary. But sure he does not think such a carnal, umbratick Priesthood, is fit to be a Pattern for our Christian Priesthood, wholly spi∣ritual, and withal Elective. Yet he may take notice, that even in that Legal Priesthood, at the times when they solemnly attended on the Altar, they had no Matrimonial Commerce with their wives: They came not reeking out of their beds into Gods Sanctuary, as may be ga∣thered from 1 Sam. 2. 4. and the prohibition in Exod. 19. 15, 22. Be ready the third day, and can∣not at your wives; On which place St. Ambrose discourses thus,* 1.37 Filios susceperunt & id tanquam usu veteri defendunt; There are Priests and Deacons in some secret places that defend their use of marriage by the Practice of old, when the duty of sacrificing had its in∣terval of dayes. And yet then even the peo∣ple were sanctified by abstaining from their wives two or three dayes before, and wash••d their garments, that they might approach pu•••• unto the Sacrifice, Si tanta in figura observanti•• quanta in veritate, If the observation [of ch••∣stity] were so strict in the figure what ought i•• to be in the truth, Disce sacerdos atque Levi•• quid sit lavare vestimenta tua ••t mund••m corpus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lebr and is exhibeas Sacramentis.

17. To conclude, Celibacy to the Clergy be∣ing only injoyn'd by an Ecclesiastical Law, as being a thing at the least no way repugnant to the Divine Law, nay, much recommended therein; it is certainly lawful enough, though from the beginning it had been otherwise: For the Church hath liberty of making Laws con∣cerning such things from time to time, as she sees fit, and her subjects are obliged to obey them.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Serm. pag. 27.
• * 1.2

  Ib. page 9.
• * 1.3

  1 Tim. 5. 11, 12.
• * 1.4

  Aug. in Ps. 95. Id. de bon. Vid c. 8.
• * 1.5

  Id. de Sanct. Virg. c. 33, 34.
• * 1.6

  Id. de ••••ult. Conjug. l. 1. c. 24, 2••.
• * 1.7

  Id. Epist. 70.
• * 1.8

  Epiph. hier. 43, & 61.
• * 1.9

  Hieron. l. 1. Cont. Iovin. Id. in Ep. ad Fu••ia••. Fulg. Ep. 1. c. 6. Conc. Carth••g. 4. c. 104.
• * 1.10

  Aug. in. Haeres. 82.
• * 1.11

  1 Cor. 7. 34.
• * 1.12

  Obj.
• * 1.13

  Sol.
• * 1.14

  Aug. in Psal. 131.
• * 1.15

  Conc. Trid, Sess. 24. Can.
• * 1.16

  Chemnit. ex∣am. part. 3. p. 41.
• * 1.17

  P. Mart. de vot. pag▪ 490.
• * 1.18

  Id. ib. p. 524.
• * 1.19

  Danaeus con••r. Bellarm. part▪ 1. part. a••••cra.
• * 1.20

  Haeres. 47.
• * 1.21

  Aug. con. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. l. 30. c. 5.
• * 1.22

  Conc. Faust. Man▪ lib. 30.
• * 1.23

  Aug. Cont. Faust. Man. l. 30. c 4.
• * 1.24

  Cartw in ••d. Reply, part. 1. p. 4••••.
• * 1.25

  Bellarm. l. 1.
• * 1.26

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Cleric. c••p. 18.
• * 1.27

  Ibid.
• * 1.28

  Conc. Car∣thag. Can. 2.
• * 1.29

  Conc. African. cap. 37.
• * 1.30

  Ambr. l. 1. de Offic. c. 1. ult.
• * 1.31

  Hieron. lib. cont. Vigilant.
• * 1.32

  Id. Epist. ad P••m••chius.
• * 1.33

  Aug. l. a. de A∣dult. conjug. cap. 20.
• * 1.34

  Concil. Elber. Can•• 33.
• * 1.35

  Orig. hom. 23•• in num. E••seb. de dem. Evang. lib. 1. cap. 8.
• * 1.36

  Eph. Haer. 59. & in fine operi••.
• * 1.37

  S. Ambr. Offic. l. 1. cap. 50. Zach. 7. 3. 1 Cor. 7. 5.