These men therefore make 2. sorts of vowes naming some simple and other solemne and affirme that the latter do debarre men from mariage and voyd their mariages if they do marry but that the former do so debarre them from marrying that they cannot marry without some offence and yet if they do their mariage is good and not to be voyded The Diuines of the Church of Rome as Caietane rightly noteth differ much in opinion about the difference of these vowes For some of them thinke that they differ in such sort as that one of them is a promise onely and the other a reall and actuall exhibition that the solemnity of a mans vow consisteth in a reall and actuall exhibition of himselfe and putting himselfe into such an estate as cannot stand with marriage But this opinion as hee rightly noteth cannot bee true seeing there is no such repugnance simply and in the nature of the thinges betweene the Order of the holy Ministery and Marriage as appeareth in that the Ministers of the Greeke Church as tyed by noe vowe are judged by all to liue in lawfull Mariage notwithstanding their Ministery and also in that the entering into noe religious Order voydeth mariage vnlesse it be approued by the Church There is therefore as he sheweth another opinion that it is not from different nature of the vowes that the one voydeth mariage contracted and the other doth not but from the authority of the Church that will haue mariage after a vowe made in one sort to bee voyd and not in another The latter of these two opinions Bellarmine sayth Scotus Paludanus and Caietane follow and as Panormitan reporteth the whole schoole of Canonistes And these do answere to the authorities of the Fathers denying mariages to bee voyde after a solemne vowe that they are to bee vnderstood to deny them to be voyde by Gods Law and that there was no Law of man then passed to make them voyde when they liued that they knew of and that therefore they might rightly bee of opinion in those times that no vowes made insuing marriages to be voyde seeing no vowes doe voyde marriages by GODS Law and there was no law of man in their time making marriage voyde in respect of a vowe made to the contrary Soe that euen in the judgment of many of the best learned of our Aduersaries themselues Mariage after a vow is not voyd by Gods law but only by the positiue Constitution of the Church which will haue it so to bee But against this positiue Constitution two things may be alleaged first that it began from that erroneous conceipt which Anstine refuteth in his booke do bono viduitatis as it appeareth by the Epistle of Innocentius grounding his resolution for voyding of mariages in this kinde vpon that verie reason of their beeing espoused to Christ which haue vowed vnto GOD that they will liue continently Secondly that the Church hath no power simply to forbidde any man to marry whom Gods Law leaueth free seeing single life is one of the things that men may be counselled and advised vnto but cannot be prescribed and imposed by commandement that the Church may keepe men from mariage if they will inioy some fauours as wee see in Colledges and Societies or that She may by her Censures punish such as vnaduisedly and without just cause shall breake their vow and promise wee make no question but that She may simply forbid any one to marry how faulty and punishable soeuer otherwise wee vtterly deny Neyther is the reason that is brought to proue this power to bee in the Church of any force For though it were graunted that the Church by her authority for respectes best knowne to her selfe may forbid a man to marry with some of those with whom God permitteth him to marry yet wil it not follow that she may absolutely forbid any one to cōtract mariage seeing parents to whom it pertaineth to direct the choyce of their children may forbid them to marry with such as they iustly dislike and yet they may not simplie restraine them from marying So that though it were yeelded that the Church for causes best known to her selfe may forbid mariage with moe then the Law of God doth and that in such sort as to void it hauing greater power in this behalfe then naturall parents yet would it not follow that shee may simplie forbid any one to marry and voide his mariage if he do whereas the Law of God voideth it not And so vvee see that as mariage after a solemne vow is not void by the Lavv of God so the Church hath no power to make any law to make it voyd But because though it be so yet it may seeme that no man that had vowed the cōtrary can marry without sinne it remaineth that wee proceede to consider and see whether there be any cases wherein a man that vowed the contrary may marry without offence to God First touching this poynt the Schoole-men generally resolue that the Pope may dispence with a Priest Deacon or Sub-deacon to marry though he haue sollemnely vowed the contrary by entring into holy Orders because the duty and bond of containing is not essentially annexed vnto holy Orders but by the Canon of the Church onely Aquinas and they of that time thought hee might not dispense with a Monke to marry For that single life is essentially implyed in the profession of a Monke and cannot be seperated from the same as it may from the office and calling of a Priest But since that time the generall opinion is that he may because though single life cannot be separated from the profession of a Monke yet he that is a Monke may be freed from that profession that he hath made and cease to be a Monke Neither is this onely the opinion of the Schooles but the practise of Popes hath concurred with the same For as Petrus Paludanus reporteth a Pope reviued a Monke who was next in blood and to succeed in the Kingdome of Arragon and dispensed with him to marry a wife for the good of that Kingdome Caietan sayth the like is reported in the stories of Constantia daughter and heire of Roger King of Sicily who was a religious woman and of fifty yeares of age and yet by the dispensation of Caelestinus was called out of the Cloyster and permitted to marry with the Emperour Henry the Sixth who begatte of her Fredericke the Second And Andreas Frisius reporteth out of the Histories of Polonia that Casimirus sonne of Mersistaus King of Polonia was a Monke and ordayned a Deacon and yet when after the death of Mersistaus his father there was none to sway the Scepter of that Kingdome whence many mischiefes followed Benedict the Ninth gaue him leaue to marry a wife making him to leaue his Cloyster his Vowes and Deaconship that so there might bee a succession in that Kingdome So that there is no question but that for a
thinke will easily discerne for whereas the Apostle and after him Paphnutius in the Councel of Nice pronounce that mariage is honourable among all and the bed vndefiled and Chrysostome affirmeth that it is so honourable that men may be lifted vp into the Bishops chaires with it with what face can these men say that to liue in mariage is to liue in the flesh in such sort as not to please God Bellarmines evasion that they speak not of mariage simply but of forbidden mariage such as that of Priests is when they say to liue in mariage is to liue in the flesh that therefore they say only they who liue in vnlawfull forbidden mariage liue in the flesh cannot please God will not serue the turne For they speak not of vnlawfull forbidden mariage but goe about to proue that mariage is to be forbiddē denied to Presbyters by a reason taken frō the nature of it something in it or consequent of it in respect whereof it cannot stand with the holinesse of the degree and calling of Presbyters and Ministers So that they say simply to liue in mariage is to liue in the flesh and that therefore the holy Ministers of the Church who may not liue in the flesh must bee forbidden to marry their words being a reason mouing them to prohibite mariage and not taken from the prohibition as it will easily appeare to any one that will take the paines to view the Epistles of the Romane Bishops if yet they haue not beene corrupted as many other things of like nature haue But how-so-euer wee censure these sayings of the Popes it is most certaine that those particular Bishops of the West who vpon misconce it sought to restraine Presbyters from liuing with their wiues yet neuer proceeded so far as either to pronounce their mariages vnlawful or to dissolue them till of late And therefore they were most contrary in their judgments to the lewde assertions of Papists who thinke and teach that the mariages of Church-men are adulteries and feare not to say that it is worse for a man to take a wife to liue with continuallie then to joine himselfe vnto harlots which prodigious assertion all men in former times euen they who were most averse from the mariage of Cleargy-men would haue detested If a Presbyter saith the councell of Neocaesarea will marry a wife let him be put from his order but if hee commit fornication or adultery let him bee driuen further and put to pennance Whereunto the councell of Helliberis before-mentioned agreeth prescribing that such as commit adulterie shall be put from the communion of the Church for euer and likewise the councell of Arverne Some other indeede there were that proceeded a little further and put them from the communion of the Church that would liue in Matrimoniall society but the Bishops in the Councell of Turon thought good to moderate that extremity and onely to keepe them from further promotion and sacred imployment and with them the Bishops in the fifth Councell of Orleans agree So that these Bishops though inconsiderately restraining marriage yet durst not pronounce the marriages of Church-men voyde as our Aduersaries now do neyther did they for ought I can read force men to make any vow of continence For though some of them required a promise of liuing single yet was it no vow seeing a promise made to men is farre different from a vowe which is a promise made to God And many of them as it may seeme vrged such as they admitted into the Ministery to no such promise at all but receiued them in such sort that they should so lōg be imployed as they would refraine that if they pleased to marry they should still injoy the Communion of the Church but should not be imployed in sacred function any longer Touching the promise which some required the second Councell of Toledo prescribeth that at eighteene yeares of age they of the Cleargy shall resolue to marry or promise to containe that at twenty they shall be made Subdeacons The Councell of Ancyra prouideth that if Deacons shallprotest when they are ordained that they will not liue single but will haue wiues they shall be permitted to marry and yet keepe their places But if professing that they will containe they betake themselues to former or new marriages they shall inioy the Lay-communion but shall be put out of the Ministery and Cleargy Whereby it appeareth that there was no vniforme obseruation in the promise of continencie that was required seeing the one of these two Councels requireth it at eighteene yeares of age of such as were not yet Subdeacons and the other leaueth such as were to bee Deacons to their owne choyce at the time of their ordination nor that this promise was thought to make voyd the ensuing mariage seeing such as contrary to promise returned to the state of mariage were permitted to enioy the communion of the Church as Lay-men though in some places they were put out of the Ministery and Cleargy I say in some places because it appeareth by the Councell of Toledo appointing that such shall haue but the places of Lectors only that they were not wholy depriued of the honour of Cleargy-men in all places Afterwards indeed in the Ninth Councell of Toledo the Bishops finding that all their former indeauours preuailed not though they voyded not the mariages of Cleargy-men nor iudged them to be adulteries as our Aduersaries do yet they adjudged such as should be borne of such marriages to a kind of bondage and depriued them of that possibility of inheritance which formerly they might haue had But this was but the particular Decree of that prouinciall Councell and soe could binde none but those fewe Churches in those partes Neyther did it For long after heere in England as I haue shewed the Ministers of the church were publikely maried without any such wrong done eyther to them or their children And long after the restraint of Gregory the seauenth when this Decree of single life had in some sort preuailed they did still secretly marry and when they saw cause for the good of their children made proofe of their mariages Neither is it to be maruailed at that some particular Synodes in the west set on by the Bishops of Rome went about in some sort to restraine the lawfull Mariages of church-men lawfull I say both by the lawe of God and the resolution allowance practice of the greater part of the Christian Churches seeing they forbade those which euen in the iudgement of our aduersauersaries themselues I thinke cannot bee denied to haue beene lawfull If the widdowe or relicte of a Presbyter or Deacon shall ioyne herselfe to any man in mariage sayth the first Councell of Orleans let them after chastisement bee seperated or if they persist in the intention of such a crime let them be excommunicated Wherewith the
faith only doth not iustifie that good works are meritorious he endeauoureth to proue because I confesse that men iustified freely by grace are crowned in the world to come for that new obediēce that is foūd in thē after iustificatiō But this cōsequence I suppose wil not be thought good seeing as Cassander rightly notethout of Bucer God in respect of good works or hauing an eye to thē or for good works giueth not onely temporall but eternall rewardes not for the worthinesse of the workes in themselues but out of his owne grace for the merit of Christ first working such good workes in them that are his and then crowning his owne workes in them as Augustine long since aptly obserued Let vs see therefore if he can proue any better that fayth onely doth not justifie this hee vndertaketh to doe out of that which I haue written that justification implieth in it faith hope and charity But for the clearing of this poynt let him be pleased to obserue that by the name of justification sometimes nothing is meant but an adiudging of eternall life vnto vs sometimes the whole translation of a man out of the state of sinne and wrath into a state of righteousnesse and acceptation with God which implyeth in it sundry things concurring in very different sort without any preiudice to the singular prerogatiue of fayth For first it implyeth in it a worke of almighty God as the supreame and highest cause Secondly the merits of Christ as the meanes whereby God is reconciled and induced to take vs into his fauour Thirdly in him that is to be justified a certaine perswasion of the trueth of such thinges as are contayned in the holy word of God Fourthly motions of feare contrition hope of mercy and the like workes of preparing grace as causes disposing and fitting him that is to be justified that hee may be capable of Gods fauour Fifthly as the susceptiue cause an act of faith by which a man truely repenting of former euils and seeking deliuerance without all doubting firmely beleeueth that all his sinnes are remitted him for Christs sake Lastly an infusion of the habite of diuine and heauenly vertues as a beginning of that life of God to which he doth adiudge them whom he receiueth to fauour So that my saying that justification thus taken implyeth in it Faith Hope and Charitie contrarieth not our position that fayth onely justifieth in sort before expressed which the Treatiser knowing right well insisteth no longer vpon this cauill but passeth to an vntruth charging Mee that I say of S. Augustine whom yet I pronounce to haue been the greatest of all the Fathers and the worthiest Diuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times that his manner of deliuering the Article of Iustification is not full perfect exact as if I imputed some fault to him in not deliuering the poynt of justification as it became him whereas I haue no such thing but say onely that his manner of deliuering that Article was not so full perfect and exact as we are forced to require in these times against the errours of the Romanists in which saying I no way blame that worthy Father but shew that new errours require a more exact manner of handling of thinges then was necessary before such errours sprung vppe which I thinke no wise man will deny and am well assured this Treatiser cannot deny vnlesse hee will bee contrary to himselfe For hee sayth expressely that Saint Augustine before some articles of Christian Religion were so throughly discussed and defined in the Church as afterwards vpon the rising of new heresies spake not so aptly and properly as was needfull in succeeding times and therefore retracted some things which hee had formerly vttered So that the Reader will easily finde that in this passage hee hath sayd lesse then nothing neither will his next discourse be found any better wherein he laboreth to shew a contrariety between Me Luther Caluine others in that I make that acte of fayth which obtayneth and procureth our justification to bee an acte by way of petition humbly intreating for acceptation and fauour and not of comfortable assurance consisting in a full perswasion that through Christs merits wee are the children of God Whereas Luther Caluine and the rest make iustifying faith to be an assured perswasion that through Christs merits wee are the sonnes of God But the Treatiser might easily know if hee were disposed that according to our opinion iustifying faith hath some actes as a cause disposing preparing and fitting vs to the receipt of that gracious fauour whereby God doth iustifie vs and other as a susceptiue cause receiuing embracing and enioying the same in the former respect neyther they nor I make faith to consist in a perswasion that wee are the sonnes of God in the latter wee both do and so agree well enough though the Treatiser it seemeth could wish it were otherwise §. 4. WHerefore let vs goe forward and take a view of that which followeth The next thing which hee hath that concerneth Mee is that it may bee gathered out of my assertions in my Third Booke of the Church that I thinke as hee saith some other also do that it is no fundamentall point of doctrine but a thing indifferent to beleeue or not to beleeue the reall that is the locall presence of CHRISTS Body in the Sacrament But I am well assured there can no such thing be gathered out of any of the places cited by him vnlesse it be lawfull for him to reason à baculo ad angulum as often as he doth For in the pages 120 and 121 of his second part because I confesse that in the Primitiue Church the manner of some was to receiue the Sacrament in the publique assembly and not bee partakers of it presently but to carry it home that the Sacrament was carried by the Deacons to the sicke that in places where they communicated euery day there was a reseruation of some parts of the sanctified Elements and that the sanctified Elements thus reserued in reference to an ensuing receiuing of them were the bodie of Christ to wit in mysterie and exhibitiue signification hee goeth about to conclude that I must needes confesse the reall that is the locall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament which consequence is no better then if a man should goe about to conclude that this Treatiser hath written a good and profitable booke because hee hath troubled the world with one such as it is full of vaine idle and emptie discourses whereof if any man make doubt let him consider but the very next words For whereas I confessed Calvines dislike of the reseruation aunciently vsed and yet saide it cannot bee proued that hee denied the Sacramentall elements consecrated and reserued for a time in reference to an ensuing receiuing of them to bee Sacramentally the body of Christ hee saith I labour in vaine because