to disclaime therefore the maintenance which he hath of the Church for the Leuites beside the allotment of the tythes had their proper houses which they might sell and redeeme agayne Leuitic 25.32 As also that place 1. Timot. 3.2 will beare it where the Apostle would haue a Bishop to be harberous and giuen to hospitalitie which he shall be much better able to performe hauing some helpe beside the Church liuing of his owne inheritance So then it is not to be doubted but that Ecclesiasticall persons may together with spirituall liuings retayne their owne proper inheritance referring them both to one and the selfe same end that is to countenance their Ministerie and to be the better able to performe the externall dueties thereof in releeuing the poore helping the needie and such like Thirdly as touching the proper maintenance and reuenew of the Church which is by tithes diuers poynts are agreed of and accorded betweene vs. First that tithes due onely to the Church and cannot be alienated to any other vse nor be turned to the maintenance of lay men for there must be where tithes are payed a matter of giuing and receiuing Philipp 4.15 We giue spirituall and receiue temporall which because lay men doe not performe they haue nothing to doe with the tithe for not keeping the condition they cannot claime the couenant 2 The people are bound in conscience to giue of their goods vnto their lawfull Pastors according to the determination of the Church and the positiue lawes of Princes made in that behalfe the which they are bound to obey and the tenth being the hire of the labourer and the wages of the Lords workeman Math. 10.10 it shall be as great a sinne to defraude the Minister of his portion as to keepe backe the meate or wages from the hireling and labourer Iam. 5.4 3 We vtterly denie also and herein consent with our aduersaries that tithes are not pure almes as some haue been of opinion in times past but are a plaine debt of the people to their Ministers First the wages or reward of the labourer is no almes but his due and of right belonging to him but tithes are so vnto Ministers who labour in the Lords haruest 1. Timoth. 5.16 Ergo no almes Secondly almes doe alway exceede the desert of the almesman they shewe the beneuolence and free heart of the giuer not any merite or worthines in the receiuer but tithes and all other temporall gifts are farre inferiour to the labours of Ministers for what are temporall things to spirituall 1. Cor. 9.11 Ergo no almes Thirdly the tenth is the Lords part and by him it is assigned to his faithfull Ministers which in Gods stead doe teach vs 2. Cor. 5.20 But almes cannot be giuen vnto God Agayne the tenth is as an inheritance to the Church and to bee counted as the corne of the barne or the abundance of the winepresse Numb 18. vers 26.27 It is vnto them as the fruite of the earth and encrease of the ground to the husbandman Therefore to be counted no almes from men but the blessing of God both vpon the pastor and the people 4 We also agree that it is not meete that the maintenance of Ministers should be voluntarie or left to the peoples choise but that it is conuenient iust equall requisite that both by lawes of Princes and constitutions of the Church prouision should be made as there is for the necessarie certayne and competent maintenance of the Church First the tenths in the lawe were established by a perpetuall ordinance Ergo the maintenance of Ministers ought now also to be confirmed by positiue lawes as then tithes were the argument followeth for if their Ministerie deserued such assurance of their maintenāce which did but serue at the Altar much more now doth the Ministerie of the Gospel deserue it And the Apostle also seemeth so to reason 1. Corint 9.14.15 that as they which wayted on the Altar were partakers of the Altar so God hath ordayned sayth he that they which preach the Gospell should liue of the Gospell That is as then the people did not onely giue tithes voluntarily but were bound by lawe to doe it euen so God hath ordayned that Ministers should liue of the people and by this ordinance of God the people may as well be bound vnto it now as they were then Secondly if Ministers bound in conscience to feed and instruct the people may also be enforced and vrged by the constitutions of the Church and lawes of Princes to do that which in conscience they are bound why may not the people likewise be constrayned by publike lawe to performe that dutie to their pastors which their owne conscience doth vrge them vnto Thirdly experience teacheth that men are hardly euen liuing vnder a law brought to pay their rights to the Church no not in those places where they can take no exception against their pastors how much more vnwilling would they be I speake of those which are not yet wonne to a through liking of the Gospel if they were left to their owne libertie 5 We also acknowledge as Bellarmine seemeth to grant cap. 25. that to pay precisely the tenth is not now commanded by the law of God as though that order could not be changed by any humane law as the Canonists hold but men necessarily were bound to pay tithes But thus farre forth we hold that it is groūded vpon Gods law first in respect of the equitie of the law in paying of tithes which is this that the Ministers ought to liue of the people and to haue sufficient competent maintenance by them which equitie and substance of the law is morall and ought alwaies to continue being grounded vpon the law of nature Thou shalt not musle the mouth of the oxe that treadeth out the corne Secondly in as much as the lawe of the land and of the Church doth confirme this ancient constitution of tithes which is left indifferent of itselfe we are bound to obey such lawes being agreeable to the word of God And in this sense also tithes may be sayd to be due by the lawe of God because Gods word commandeth obedience to our Magistrates in all lawfull ordinances 6 Though the lawe of tenths be not now necessarie as it was a ceremonious duetie but it is lawfull either to keepe that or any other constitution for the sufficient maintenance of the Church whether it bee more or lesse then the tenth part yet we doubt not to say that this prouision for the Church maintenance by paying of tithes is the most safe indifferent and surest way and no better can come in the place thereof First it is the most equall way to haue euery thing in the kinde according to the Apostles rule Let him that is taught make his teacher partaker of al his goods Galath 6.6 But this cannot be so conueniently done any other way as by erecting of a set stipend or such like as by
liuing single if he haue the gift he ought to doe it for hauing not the gift and yet presuming he burneth in lust and so is set further backe in the course of godlines Caluin argument 2 We are bound to loue God with all our heart with all our soule with all our strength Therefore whatsoeuer thing there is whereby wee may expresse the loue of God we are bound by commandement to doe it it is not left to our owne will for not to loue God more then thou doest if it be in thy power it is a grieuous sinne Martyris argument Bellarmine answereth thus Qui deum diligit super omnia etiamsi eum non tam ardenter amet quà m forte posset vel non faciat pro eo omnia quae posset ille habet deum pro summo bono cap. 13. He that loueth God aboue all things although he loue him not so entirely as perhaps he may neither doth all things for his sake that lie in his power yet for al this he esteemeth of God as his chief good I pray you see what contradictorie speeches these be The Iesuit sayth a man may loue God perfectly and aboue all and yet not loue him so much as he is able that is imperfectly so a man by his Monkish diuinitie may loue God aboue all and yet not loue him aboue all for if he did he would refuse to do nothing for Gods loue that is in his power 3 Luk. 17.10 When you haue done all those things which are commanded you say we are vnprofitable seruants and did nothing but that which was our duetie to doe Ergo we are bound to doe all things that are to be done and we cannot doe that which we ought much lesse more then wee ought to doe Martyris argument Bellarmine answereth First Christ sayth when you haue done all which I commanded you not which I counselled you Ans. As though the argument followeth not strongly you cannot doe the lesse that is keepe my commandements therefore you cannot doe the more that is speaking now as the Iesuite doth the Counsels of perfection which are more then the precepts It is a precept of necessitie to dispense our goods to the vse of the poore it is a counsell of perfection as they say to giue all away to the poore But if a man cannot performe the first that is keeping his goods to vse them aright much lesse is hee able with a resolute minde to giue them all away Secondly he answereth Christ biddeth them to say so as shewing their humilitie not that they were indeede vprofitable seruants A poore shift as though Christ enuied the good of his seruants or would obscure their wel-doing and doth not rather aduance it to the vttermost and make the most of the seruiceable workes of his children as wee see Matth. 25.34 And Christ being a faithfull Prophet would not surely deceiue his Disciples and tell theme one thing and himselfe knowe and thinke another But these Frierlike mists and smoake of Locusts is not able to dimme the cleere light of this scripture which sheweth that when we haue done all wee can doe wee come farre short of our duetie 4 Augustine though sometime he seeme to make some difference betweene a precept and a Counsel Praeceptum est saith he cui non obedire peccatum est Consilium quo si vti nolueris minus boni adipisceris non mali aliquid perpetrabis De virginit cap. 15. A precept is that which not to obey is sinne A Counsel is that which if thou wilt not followe thou doest not commit any euill yet thou hast the lesse good Though he seeme in words I say to make difference yet his meaning is this That a precept is of things necessarie as to followe vertue to eschue vice A Counsel is of things indifferent as to vse or not to vse as to eate or not to eate flesh But yet the occasion may so serue that euen this counsel is necessarie for we ought not to eate flesh to offend our brother Multa facienda sunt non iubente lege sed libera charitate Many things are to be done sayth he not by force of any lawe but by the rule of charitie that is we haue no particular law but the generall rule of charitie A Counsel then is seene in things indifferent which are alwaies lawfull but not alway expedient and it is nothing els but a particular application of the generall rule of charitie Charitie wisheth that nothing should be done to offend our brethen 1. Cor. 10.32 The scripture likewise giueth libertie to eate flesh there is no generall precept or prohibitione yet the Apostle giueth counsel that is according to the rule of charitie sayth that although all things are cleane Malum tamen est homini qui per offensionem manducat yet it is euill to the man that eateth with offence Roman 14.20 Here we see the transgression of an Apostolicall Counsel is sinne And though we be not bound by any particular precept at this time or that to abstaine from flesh yet qua facienda sunt libera charitate the things that are to be done in the dutie of loue doe as well binde vs as if we had a direct commandement for loue is the fulfilling of the commandements yea it is one of the great commandements to loue one another Yet the counsel or libertie concerning indifferent things remaineth in it owne nature free still as the Apostle counselleth to eate not asking any question in such a case it is neither euill not to eate nor good to eate but if any man be present that may take offence by our eating then is it euill to eate So Augustine cōcludeth Multa mihi videntur licere non expedire quae per iustitiā quae coram deo est permittuntur sed propter offensionē hominū vitanda sunt Many things are lawful but not expedient lawful before God but not expedient because of the offence of our brethen De adulter coniug lib. 1. cap. 14.17 Thus we see Augustine doth nothing fauour the popish distinction of precepts and counsels for by his sentence euen Counsels that is the libertie and freedome of things indifferent are restrained and made necessarie in the externall vse by the rule of charitie THE THIRD QVESTION CONCERNING vowes in generall THis question hath three parts first whether it bee lawfull for Christians to make vowes Secondly in what things lawfull vowes consist Thirdly whether voluntarie vowes be any part of the worship and seruice of God THE FIRST PART WHETHER VOWES PERtayned onely to the old law and are not now permitted vnto Christians The Papists THey hold it as lawfull and as free a thing for Christians to bind themselues by vowes vnto God as it was vsed and practised of the Iewes in the time of the error 85 lawe 1 Isay 19.21 They shall knowe the Lord in that day and doe sacrifice and oblation and vow vowes vnto God and performe them This
prophecie is concerning Christians which should in the time of the Gospell make vowes vnto God Bellarm. cap. 17. Ans. The Prophet doth by the externall seruice of God vsed in the Church at that time set foorth the spirituall worship of God in the Church of Christ for Iewish vowes shall be no more then in force then their sacrifices and oblations Also vers 19. the Prophet sayth that an Altar shall bee set vp in Aegypt and vers 18. They shall speake the language of Canaan But these things were not literally but mystically performed neither is it necessarie the other should 2 Psal. 76.11 Vow vnto God and performe Ergo vowes now are lawfull Bellarm. ibid. Ans. It appeareth by the text that it was a commandement vnto the Iewes and for that time for it followeth Al ye that are round about him that is the Leuites and Priests that dwelt round about the temple And bring presents to him that ought to be feared but now Christians bring no such externall presents and gifts therefore it cannot be properly vnderstood of them The Protestants WE do not condemne al vowes neither denye but that a Christian in some cases may vow as presently it followeth to be shewed But Iewish vowes are vtterly vnlawfull such as the vowes of the Nazarites were Numb 6. as to abstaine from wine and strong drinke not to shaue their haire and such like if we place religion in such vowes 1 Their vowes were ceremonious and consisted in externall rites which were shadowes and significations of spirituall things as not to cut their haire not to touch any dead thing to abstaine from wine and strong drinke But all shadowes are now gone and abolished and such externall vsages are vnprofitable as were those precepts of the false Apostles Touch not tast not handle not which all perish with the vsing and are the commandements of men as S. Paul sayth Coloss. 2.21.22 Such precepts notwithstanding Monkes Friers at this day doe binde themselues vnto for it is not lawfull for them to touch siluer nor to tast flesh according to the strict and superstitious rules of their Patrones 2 The Nazarites were by their vowes separated vnto God Numb 6.2 that is were counted as more holy during their vowes and better accepted of before God But now God is not pleased by any such externall rites or bodily seruices In Christ Iesu neither circumcision auaileth any thing nor vncircumcision but faith that worketh by loue Galath 5.6 3 S. Paul sayth He that is circumcised is bound to keepe the whole law Galath 5.3 He that keepeth any one ceremonie of the lawe doth make himselfe a seruant to the whole lawe for if after the profession of the Nazarites they will vow not to drinke wine not to shaue their heads hereby the better to please God why are they not also purified and bring an offering according to the law as Paul did who because of the infirmitie of the Iewes was agreed with foure other men which had a vow to bee purified according to the law But this S. Paul did being amongst the Iewes who cryed out against him as a breaker of the lawe lest he should be scandalous vnto them Augustine thus notably writeth concerning this matter Sicut defuncta corpora necessariorum officijs deducenda erant quodammodo ad sepulchrum non deserenda continuò vel sicut canibus proijcienda The ceremonies of the lawe sayth he were not presently to be cast off but as dead bodies must bee brought to the graue with some seemely pompe of their friends and not to be cast vnto dogs Thus he sayth that in the Apostles time all Iewish ceremonies were not in act abolished though they were alreadie as dead carkasses that is by right depriued of life yet they required some space to bee honourably layd downe and as it were buried But whosoeuer would now goe about to renew the Iewish ceremonies againe sayth he Tanquam sopitos cineres eruens non erit pius deductor vel baiulus corporis sed impius sepulturae violator He should as it were rake in dead mens ashes and not be a seemely bringer of the bodie to the ground but a wicked violator of Christian buriall Euen so Augustine maketh it as wicked a part to bring in vse any Iewish rites as to pull one honestly buried out of his graue THE SECOND PART WHAT THINGS MAY lawfully be vowed by Christians The Papists THey hold that the proper vowes of Christians are voluntarie not of such error 85 things which Christians are bound in duetie to doe but of such as they may leaue vndone if they will such as are their popish vowes of continencie and voluntarie or rather wilfull pouertie 1 Deuteron 23. When thou shalt vow a vow vnto God thou shalt not bee slack to pay it it should be sinne vnto thee but when thou abstainest from vowing it shall be no sinne vnto thee By this the Iesuite proueth that the vowes of Christians are voluntarie and not of necessarie dueties for it were sinne to leaue any thing vndone that we are in duetie bound vnto cap. 19. Ans. First We denie not but that the Iewes had voluntarie vowes and might binde themselues by vow to performe many things which being not vowed it was no sinne to leaue vndone As the Nazarites vowes concerning abstinence from wine and strong drinke which things other might lawfully vse without sinne if they were not professed Nazarites But these ceremoniall lawes doe nothing appertaine to Christians Secondly it may also be vnderstood of necessarie vowes which we are bound vnto of duetie and then the sense is this If you abstaine from vowing ye sinne not that is not so hainously as after the vowe made as Pagans and Infidels doe sinne in transgressing Gods law but a Christian sinneth more after publike profession and promise made of obedience vnto Gods commandements The Protestants WE hold that to vow is not a thing simply forbidden Christians but our vowes are limited and restrained for they are either such as directly or immediatly are referred to the worship of God whereby wee binde our selues more straightly to serue him and such vowes are onely of such things as are commanded and necessarily to be done and in this sense there is but one common vow of all Christians and that is our solemne promise made in baptisme which the Papists denie properly to be a vow Bellarmin cap 19. There is another kind of vowes that directly concerneth not the worship of God which may be of things not commanded of the which we will entreate in the next section Now wee are to proue that Baptisme is the onely proper vow of Christians which directly toucheth the seruice and worship of God 1 Circumcision was a generall vow of the Iewes for thereby they bound themselues to keepe the whole law Galath 5.3 Ergo Baptisme is the vowe of Christians which commeth in the place of circumcision And againe it appeareth by this that because Christians transgressing doe
from his whole ministerie But the power before spoken of hee hath at his first receiuing of orders We thus shew it Whatsoeuer belongeth to the office of a Minister set ouer a flocke or charge hee receiueth the power thereof when he is ordayned But to preach the word belongeth to the office of such for preaching is properly the feeding of the people But see the absurditie of the papists they say it is not proper to the priesthood to preach but onely to haue power to sacrifice the body of Christ But it is proper to the Bishop say they to preach We answere First then the Bishop is properly the pastor of euery flocke and congregation in his diocesse for hee that properly feedeth is properly the Pastor And hee that is properly the Pastor hath the charge of soules properly yea more then hath the particular Pastor for he is improperly their Pastor but as it were the Bishops substitute and Vicar But what Bishop in the worlde is able to beare so great a burthen to haue the especiall and proper charge of all the soules in his diocesse It is not to be denied but he hath a charge of their soules as a Christian Prince also hath in some respect of his subiects but to say hee is the proper Pastor and hath the proper principall charge of soules in teaching and feeding of them for the question is now of preaching not of gouerning who is able to abide it Secondly but our Rhemists tell vs another tale that many that are not able to preach are meete enough to bee Bishops 1. Timoth. 5. sect 13. Ergo it is not proper to Bishops neither to preach I pray you then for whom is it proper if neither for Bishops nor inferior Pastors then for none Thirdly they make but seuen orders of Ecclesiasticall Ministers and the priesthood is the chiefe for a Bishop and a priest make but one order as Bellarmin confesseth cap. 11. But to none of all these orders it is proper to preach for seeing it is not proper to the priest none of the inferior orders can challenge it See then what goodly orders these are which leaue the very chiefe parte of the ministery vndone which is the preaching of the word I thinke their meaning is that this preaching is not so necessary a dutie but may be well spared in the Church 2 That which a man is bound to doe vnder paine of the curse of GOD that he may lawfully performe in due order without the leaue of men but a woe is layd vpon them that preach not the Gospell where they are bound 1. Cor. 9.16 Ergo. Argum. Wicliffi 3 A man is bound to giue corporal almes to the poore the needie the hungry the thirstie neither is he to craue leaue of any Ergo much more to teach the ignorant to comfort the weake and doe other dueties appertayning to his charge Argum. Wicliffi Concerning the power of giuing orders As Saint Paul speaketh of the laying on of his handes 2. Timoth. 1.6 so he maketh mention of imposition of hands by the Eldership 1. Timoth 4.14 And the Rhemists vpō that place mislike not the practise of the Church that their Priests doe lay on their handes together with the Bishop vpon his head that is to be ordayned So that by this it is manifest that imposition of hands doth not wholly and folie belong vnto the Bishop seeing the rest of the Elders were wont to lay on their hands likewise or the Bishop in the name of the rest Fulk annot Tit. 1. sect 2. So that the Elders were not excluded THE THIRD PART CONCERNING THE office and title of Cardinals The Papists BEllarmine would faine haue the office of Cardinals as ancient as the Apostles error 72 times and the name to be worthilie appropriated to the See of Rome that as the Pope himselfe by his prudence and holines is tanquam cardo Ecclesiae to the Church as the hingell to the dore vpon the which it is turned and borne vp so his Counsellers and assistants should be called Cardinals hauing the care of the Vniuersall Church but the Iesuite beside some vaine shew of mothworne antiquitie hath not one good argument to proue the name and office of Cardinals to be either ancient or commendable Then especiall office as they are Cardinals is to elect and chuse the Pope and to be assistant vnto him in Counsell for the gouernement of the vniuersall Church Bellarm. cap. 16. The Protestants THat neither the name of Cardinals as proper to Rome is ancient nor their office or either of them lawfull or commendable but vsurped and Antichristian thus briefely it is shewed 1 In Augustines time it was a common name vsually applied both in the good and euill parte to chiefe and principall men of any place or sect as he calleth the ringleaders of the Donatists Cardinales Donatistas Cardinall or captaine Donatists de baptism lib. 1. cap. 6. Surely if it then had been onely due to the assistants of the Romane Bishop Augustine had been much to blame to applie the name to Heretikes 2 Augustine thus writeth to Hierome Quamues secundum honorum vocabula saith hee Episcopatus presbyterio maior sit tamen in multis rebus Augustin Hieronim minor est Though according to the custome of the Church a Bishop be greater then a Priest yet Augustine a Bishop in many things is inferior to Hierome a Priest Now Hierome was a Priest of Rome and a Cardinall as our aduersaries say and therefore they picture him commonly in a red gowne and habite of a Cardinall yet you see Augustine as a Bishop was before him though for his great learning he putteth himselfe behinde him 3 Augustine in another place complaineth of one Falcidius a Deacon of Rome qui duce stultitia saith hee diaconos presbyteris coaequare contendit who being led or carried away with follie did goe about to make Deacons equall vnto Priests Is not the same follie now generally practised in Rome or a greater for they doe not onely preferre Cardinall Deacons before Priests but euen before Bishops and Archbishops in Augustines time this was counted a great follie 4 Concerning the office of Cardinals in the electing of the Pope we haue shewed before quest 2. part 2. that it is of no great antiquitie and that it is iniurious to three estates to the Emperor who was wont to cōfirme the election to the Clergie of Rome who had in times past interest in the election and to the people whose consent was also in time past required But now all these are excluded and the matter is wholly referred to the Chapter of Cardinals THE FOVRTH QVESTION CONCERNING the Keyes of the Church committed for the execution to the pastors and gouernors thereof THis question hath foure partes First wherein the authoritie of the keyes consisteth secondly to whom they are committed thirdly whether there is absolute power of binding and loosing in the Church or ministerially onely fourthly
second marriage be then doe they disallow second marriage because a man is thereby disabled to be a Minister if not simply yet they make it lesse lawful nay more offensiue and subiect to obloquie and reproch But the scripture maketh no difference betweene first second marriage S. Paul saith For auoiding of fornication let euery man haue his own wife he saith not his first wife but generally so that it is lawfull for auoiding of fornication to marrie the second or the third wife as well as the first 2 If it be as lawfull to marrie the second wife as the first if it be for auoiding of fornication then secōd marriage doth no more hinder the receiuing of orders then the first but the antecedent is true for what should make the second marriage lesse lawful not any dutie that the wife or the husband oweth to the partie deceased for they are free in that respect set at libertie Rom. 7.3 Neither is the end of marriage made frustrate more now then before for hee that marrieth the second time may haue as good cause to doe it for auoiding of fornication as he had at the first 3 Second marriage make the worst of it you can is not so great a blot as fornication or adulterie or to haue a Concubine but these were no lets of priesthood in poperie Nay we reade that Augustine in the purer age of the Church that confesseth he had two Concubines yet afterward was made presbyter and at the last a Bishop for all that Wherefore there is no reason that exception should be taken against a twice married man seeing a fornicator is free Lastly of this opinion Augustine seemeth to be That it is as lawfull to marrie the second time the third as the first Ait Apostolus mulier alligata est viro quamdiu vir eius viuit non dixit primus secundus tertius aut quartus The woman is bound sayth the Apostle so long as her husband liueth he sayth not the first husband second third or fourth So the woman is as free after the first or second husbands death as when she was a virgin Yet if she can content her selfe with her widowes estate and haue the gift of continencie she shall do better not to marrie But if she haue not it is better to marrie S. Paul sayth not the first second or third time but so often as she hath neede rather then to burne THE THIRD PART WHETHER MINISTERS ought to refrayne the companie of their wiues being entered into orders The Papistes THey confesse that Peter and other of the Apostles were married but after their calling they had no companie with their wiues Rhemist Math. 8. sect 3 error 79 And so ought the Ministers of the Gospell sayth Bellarmine be kept from the vse of their wiues to whom they were married before their calling 1 The Priests of the lawe were bound to withdrawe themselues during the time of their seruice while they attended vpon the sacrifice and to forbeare the companie of their wiues much more the Priests of the lawe that must alwayes offer sacrifices must be alwayes free from matrimonie Rhemist Luk. 1. sect 10. Ans. 1. The Leuiticall priesthood did represent and shadowe forth the priesthood of Christ and their legall cleansings washings abstinence purifyings did shewe forth the holines and perfection of the priesthood of Christ wherefore the lawe of their abstinence doth no more binde vs then other of their legall purifications they haue their end in the priesthood of Christ. 2. We acknowledge no sacrificing priesthood in the newe testament nor any sacrifice in the Church for sinne but onely that sacrifice of atonement vpon the Crosse but our sacrifices are spirituall of praise and thanksgiuing therefore the argument followeth not from the priests of the law to those that are no priests Fox pag. 1166. 3. Purenes of life we grant is as much required now in Ministers of the Gospell as it was then in the priests of the lawe therefore they ought as well to haue libertie to marrie seeing matrimonie is the best remedie agaynst fornication and vncleannes of life 2 Another argument they picke out of S. Paules words 1. Corinth 7.5 Defraude you not one another vnlesse it bee by consent for a time that you may giue your selues to prayer If the lay man cannot pray vnlesse he abstaine from his wife the Priest that must alwaies pray must alwaies abstaine Rhemist Ans. 1. The lay man is bound to offer prayers alwaies as well as the Priest and so by this reason neither ought any lay man to performe his duetie to his wife if it were an hinderance to praier 2. S. Paul speaketh not here of all praier but of a speciall kind which to be made more feruent requireth fasting and abstinence which kind is not alway necessarie but vpon some certaine occasion 3. It is so farre off that a lay man cannot pray vnlesse he abstaine from his wife that many times he prayeth more quietly then he that is vnmarried or abstaineth if he haue not dominion ouer his lust Fulk annot 1. Cor. 7.5 The Protestants NEither the Apostles forsooke the companie of their wiues after they were called and chosen of Christ neither ought the Ministers of the Gospell to renounce abandon and forsweare the societie and fellowship of their wiues but rather to liue with them in all temperance and sobrietie for the good example of others 1 It is proued out of the 1. Cor. 9.5 that Peter the other Apostles did leade about their wiues in their companie and S. Paul there sayth that he also might vse the same libertie Likewise 1. Timoth. 3.5 S. Paul giueth rules concerning the house and familie of the Minister his children the behauiour of their wiues vers 11. But where I pray you is it fitter for the Ministers wife and children to be then with her husband By these places it is apparant that Ministers wiues were not excluded from their husbands companie as a thousand yeere after more it was decreed by Anselme that they should not dwell in house with their husbands nor talke with them without two or three witnesses Fox pag. 1167. 2 It is cleane contrarie to the scripture First our Sauiour sayth whosoeuer putteth away his wife except it be for fornication causeth her to commit adulterie Math. 5.32 By this rule therefore a Minister ought not for any other cause to put away and dismisse his wife but for fornication Ergo it is not lawfull because of his calling or vpon any other colour to send her away Secondly S. Paul sayth They ought not to defraud one another but for a time and that with consent 1. Corinth 7.5 Therefore if the wife will not consent her husband cannot goe from her nay though there be consent yet they must be asunder but for a time they cannot by consent altogether breake off and dissolue their marriage which was made before God though they would neuer
diuisions among Christians as the Monkes Friers haue done one sort persecuting another for their opinions euen to death Fulk annot 1. Thess. 1. sect 2. Fox pag. 798. The Protestants COntrariwise we affirme that it is a great derogation to Christ when the people shall say I follow the religion of Augustine the religon of Francis an other sayth I holde of Dominick another I hold of Iesus as the Iesuites doe Fulk Philip. 3. vers 17. 1 Saint Paul reproueth the Corinthians because they made the like sects amongst themselues one sayd I am Pauls another I am Apolloes and concludeth that therefore they were carnall 1. Cor. 3.4 And further he sayth they should not reioyce in men for all things were theirs whether Paul Apollos or Cephas ver 21.22 That is they were not masters of their fayth to institute new religions and sects but the Ministers and seruants of the Lords inheritance If therefore it was not lawful to say I hold of Paul I hold of Cephas neither is it lawfull to say I holde of Dominick I hold of Francis I hold of Iesus for seeing they make their sects and Iesus maketh his it is euident that they are not all referred to the imitation of Iesus for then they might all as well bee called Iesuites 2 The number of Monkes and Friers was almost infinite sects vpon sects and new orders daylie were deuised as Augustinians Bernardines Carmelites Carthusians Dominicanes Franciscanes and a great sort more to the number of an hundred sects as they are reckoned by Master Fox pag. 260. and Tilmane Heshus setteth downe 65 seueral sects or rather schismes of Monkes loc 25. error 10. This yrksome rabble therefore of Monkes is fitly shadowed foorth by the swarme of Locusts which came vp out of the bottomlesse pitte Apocal. 9.4 And verily as the Locusts and Grashoppers consume and deuoure the fruits of the earth so the begging-Friers and idle Monkes deuoured the goods of the people and corrupted the doctrine of the Church 3 Lastly this diuision of Monkery into sects and sundry orders is of no great antiquitie they were not knowen in Augustines time who knew no other name of them then Monkes for hee wrote a booke of purpose de opere Monachorum of the labour of Monkes But other names of Carmelites Carthusians Franciscanes or such like were not heard of in the Church in those dayes but came in long after in the time of Innocentius 3. about anno 1212. many yeeres after Augustine Fox pag. 259. THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERning the Counsels of perfection The Papists THis they say is the very foundation of the Monastical life which is the most error 84 perfect estate and calling of Christians for they performe more then Christ hath commaunded not onely his precepts but euen his Counsels also Which they say doe much differ for the precepts are inioyned to all Christians and to leaue a precept vndone is sinne but the Euangelicall Counsels are giuen only to those that are perfect which they are not bound to keepe neither doe they sinne in leauing them vndone yet if they obserue them they doe merite more and shall haue a greater rewarde Such Counsels of perfection are these to giue all we haue to the poore to abstaine from eating of flesh to vow chastitie and such like Bellarm. cap. 7. Rhemist annot Math. 19. sect 9. 1 Matth. 19. verse 21. Christ sayth goe and sell all thou hast if thou wilt bee perfect This was a Counsel of perfection not a precept giuen to all Christians Answ. First this was both a Counsel and precept though not to al yet to this one man to discouer his hypocrisie and vayne confidence which he had in himselfe as though he had kept the law when he was farre from it Fulk Matth. 19.9 Mark 10.3 Secondly it is a generall precept vnto all to loue the Lord with all the heart and to be content when the Lord requireth for Christs sake to leaue all we haue Caluin Institut 4. cap. 13. sect 13. 2 Act. 2.44 They had all things common This is not a rule or precept to all Christian men to liue in common but a life of perfection and counsell followed of the Religious Rhemist Answere This liuing in common among the brethren in the Apostles time is the same that ought alwayes to be among all Christians that no man account that to be his owne which the necessitie of his brother requireth to be bestowed vpon him this the rule of charitie requireth which is one of the great commandements Fulk in hunc locum 3 1. Corinth 7.25 Concerning Virgins I haue no commaundement of the Lord but I giue mine aduice A precept therefore is one thing a Counsel of perfection another Bellarm. cap. 9. Answere First Paul hath no generall commandement from God to impose the yoke of continencie vpon any because God had left marriage free and therefore no man is to be barred and kept from it But the Apostles particular aduice and sentence being moued by the spirit of God vers 40. is not onely a Counsel but a commandement that both they which haue the gift of continencie should glorifie God by that gift vers 7. and they which haue it not should marrie rather then burne and so dishonour God vers 9. Therefore the Apostle sayth Let euery man wherein he is called therein abide with God vers 24. If a man be called to liue single hee ought to obey his calling hauing receiued the gift if a man be called to the maried estate he must not presume beyond his strength to liue vnmaried Wherefore it is both Counsel a precept to those that haue receiued the gift of single life for otherwise they disobey Gods calling which is sinne And our Sauiour sayth he that is able to receiue it let him receiue it Matth. 19.12 He that hath the gift is commanded to vse it for in leesing it he sinneth And lastly euery man by commandement is bound to the vttermost of his power to set forth Gods glorie But God is most glorified by the single life of those which are able to conteine and therefore they ought in duetie so to doe The Protestants WE doe truely affirme and according to the scriptures that it is impossible for any man to performe the law and commaundements of GOD much lesse to fulfill more then is commaunded And therefore it is false that beside the precepts of Christ there are Counsels of perfection which are at a mans choyce to doe or not to doe for whatsoeuer is to the glorie of God wee are bound to doe We acknowledge then no such euangelical Counsels as they imagine Caluin 1 Math. 5.48 Our Sauiour sayth Ye shall be perfect as your heauenly father is perfect Therefore all Counsels tending to perfection are commandements If there be any thing whereby we may more neerely attaine vnto perfection that we are bound and commanded to doe As if a man can better obtaine this perfection of godlinesse by
deserue greater punishment then Iewes or Gentiles that they are more straightly obliged and bound by their couenant vnto God then the other and not onely as the Iesuite sayth because they haue tasted more of the goodnesse of God and so are more vnthankfull for there are two parts of the couenant betweene God and vs The Lord sayth Thou art my people and so enricheth them with knowledge and euery good thing The people say Thou art my God Hosh. 2.23 And thus as the Lord doth couenant with them so they doe binde themselues vnto God The breach of which couenant is that which stirreth vp principally the anger of God against vs. 2 Augustine vpon the 75 Psalme writeth thus Vouete reddite domino de◠vestro omnes communiter Quid debemus vouere credere in illum sperare ab illo vitam aeternam bene viuere secundum communem modum Make your vowes and pay them vnto God generally altogether What must we vow to beleeue in him to hope for eternall life to liue honestly not to steale not to commit adulterie These then are the common and generall dueties of Christians no other then we promised and vowed in baptisme THE THIRD PART CONCERNING VOLVNTArie vowes whether they be any part of the worship of God The Papists error 86 AL voluntarie vowes say they made by Christians as not to eate flesh not to drinke strong drinke or to liue vnmarried doe concerne the worship of God and thereby men are made more acceptable vnto him Bellar. cap. 16. 1 Iacob vowed to pay tithes Genes 28. Dauid to build a temple vnto God Psal. 131.2 But neither of these two were commanded them and yet they were properly referred to the seruice of God Ans. First we denye not as we haue sayd but that in the law and before there might be such voluntarie vowes yet it followeth not that there should bee any such now Secondly both those dueties were necessarie and commanded in generall though not in particular As first Iacobs vow was that the Lord should be his God vers 21. No man can denye but this was necessarie and a commandement Then seeing the Lord is his God it is also necessarie that he should acknowledge him by some externall worship as by appointing the Lord an house in that place and bringing oblations vnto his altars these are but particular duties that doe followe that generall commandement Secondly Dauid did vow that he was bound to doe being King of Israel namely to haue a care of the temple of God for thus he sayth to Nathan the Prophet I dwell in an house of Cedar trees but the Arke of God remaineth within the curtaines 2. Sam. 7.2 This belonged to the King of duetie as it was generally commanded all Israel Hagg. 1.4 but that Dauid was discharged of this care by the especiall warrant of God by the Prophet 2 Hebr. 13.16 To doe good and to destribute forget not for with such sacrifices God is pleased Intelligitur sayth Bellarmine de eleemosyna non praeceptae it must be vnderstood of almes which is not commanded Ans. As though all kind of almes and releeuing of the poore be not commanded for the works of charitie and to doe good are alwaies enioyned vs. Againe this place serueth nothing at al for vowes It seemeth he was hard bestead that had no better choise of places The Protestants WE grant that there are other kind of vowes then before we spake of which doe not directly concerne the worship of God neither are of things commanded vs nor yet is God thereby the better pleased but they serue onely as helps to make vs more fit vnto Christian dueties As a man that seeth he is by nature giuen to dronkennes doth vowe that he will take no strong drinke lest he should offend that way Another purposeth to fast thereby to tame his flesh and the more feruently to pray As Iob made a couenant with his eyes not to looke vpon a maide 31.1 But these things of themselues by the outward act are not the more acceptable vnto God neither is God by eating or not eating or looking or not looking the better worshipped as these things are considered in themselues Wherefore by the word of God we condemne all voluntary and superstitious vowes of men inuented to serue God by as vowes of chastitie of going in pilgrimage offering to Images and such like 1 S. Paul condēneth al voluntary worship of God which is inuented by man as vnprofitable though it haue a shew of wisedome in humblenes of mind and not sparing the bodie Coloss. 2.23 As such are the ordinances of the world in worshipping of Angels and in abstinence Touch not tast not handle not But such are all popish vowes a voluntary seruice of God euen in the same things which the Apostle taketh exception against for they make vowes to Angels to Saints vowes to keepe daies holy and to fast in them Ergo they are vnlawfull 2 Rom. 14.23 Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne that is grounded vpon knowledge out of the word Ergo all voluntarie vowes made to serue God by are to be abandoned because they haue no warrant out of Gods word Bellarmine answereth that the place is not so to be vnderstood but rather by faith is meant the conscience of man and so whatsoeuer is done against the conscience is sinne Ans. By faith is not vnderstood any conscience but the assurance of a right conscience which must needes be builded vpon the word for vers 22. S. Paul saith If thou hast faith haue it with God This cannot be spoken of a corrupt conscience which is not able to abide Gods trial but a right conscience established out of the word 3 Let vs heare Augustines iudgement Sunt multi qui vouent alius pallium alius oleum alius ceream ad luminaria noctis alius vt vinum non bibat per aliquot annos alius vt ieiunia certo tēpore faciat alius vt carnes non comedat Non est istud votum optimum neque perfectum adhuc melius volo non eligit Deus nec speciem tuam nec oleum tuum nec ieiunium tuum sed hoc quod hodie redemit ipsum offer hoc est animam tuam There are many that vow one a cloake another oyle another a waxe candle another that he will drinke no wine another that he will fast another that he will eate no flesh This is not the best kind of vowing God neither careth for thy comely apparell nor for thy oyle nor for thy fasting but offer that vnto him which he hath redeemed that is thy soule De tempor ser. 7. We see by this what account Augustine maketh of superstitious voluntarie vowes made with an intent to please God thereby THE FOVRTH QVESTION CONCERNING Monasticall vowes in particular THere are three kinds of vowes which belong vnto Monkerie the first is the vow of voluntarie pouertie the second the vow of obedience vnto the Monasticall presidents
bond of mariage which is called repudium First then they affirme that the very bond and knot may bee dissolued in the mariage of Infidels if one of them after mariage become a Christian his reason is because mariage contracted in infidelitie is no sacrament and therefore may be dissolued Bellarmin cap. 12. Argum. Saint Paul sayth If the Infidell partie will departe let him depart a brother or sister is not in subiection in such a case 1. Corinth 7.15 Answ. Saint Paul giueth not liberty to the one partie at their pleasure vtterly to renounce the other as though they were no longer man and wife for Saint Paul had sayd before that if the Infidell partie bee content to dwell with the other he or she is not to be put away But his meaning is that if one partie wilfully depart the other is no longer bound nor in subiection for the performance of the mutuall dueties of mariage The Papists error 30 SEcondly separation from bed and boorde may be admitted they say for diuers causes Concil Trident. sess 24. can 8. Bellarmine nameth three Fornication according to Christs rule Math. 5. Heresie Tit. 3. An heretike must be auoyded Thirdly when one is a continuall offence to another a prouocation to sinne If thine eye offend thee pull it out Math. 5.29 Bellarmin cap. 14. Answ. Fornication we admit is a iust cause of separation and diuorce but not heresie for Saint Paul would not haue a woman to forsake an Infidell 1. Corinth 7.13 therefore not an heretike Wee must auoyd such that is take heede of their poysoned opinions and shun their company also where we are not otherwise bound Neither is the eye to be cut off where there is any hope but who knoweth whether the offensiue partie may returne to grace And this place proueth as well a finall â—utting off of mariage as a separation or disiunction The Protestants FIrst that there is no cause of vtter dissolution of mariage by way of diuorce but onely adulterie and fornication it is plaine by our Sauiour Christes wordes Math. 5.32 19.9 where neither infidelitie nor any cause beside is excepted but onely fornication Secondly Saint Augustine sometime was of opinion that the wife might be dismissed for infidelitie but he reuoketh and retracteth that opinion Lib. retract 1. cap. 19. For elsewhere he flatly concludeth thus A viro non fornicante non licere omnino discedere that it is not lawfull for a woman at all to leaue her husband if he committe not fornication De adulter coniug 1.7 And yet further to make this matter more playne we acknowledge no other cause of lawful diuorse in mariage but that only which is prescribed in the Gospell namely for adultery or fornication Math. 5.32 19.9 There is notwithstanding another cause whereby the mariage knot may bee dissolued though not for fornication as when one of the parties doth wilfullie renounce leaue and forsake the other vpon no iust cause but either of lightnes or for diuers religion as when an Infidel forsaketh a Christian a Papist a Protestant an heretick a true professor or vpon any other vnlawfull or vniust cause for the Apostle sayth playnely A brother or sister is not in subiection in such things 1. Corinth 7.15 that is is freed from the yoke or bond of mariage First it is plaine that the Apostle is so to be vnderstoode in this place for the word which he vseth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no longer a seruant or in subiection which is to be taken in the same sense as if he should say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he or she is no longer bound or tyed which word the Apostle vseth vers 39. And agayne the Apostle hath relation here to the fourth verse where hee sayth the wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath no power of her own bodie the husband likewise But now saith he the infidel partie hauing wilfully separated himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the innocent partie is no longer in subiection that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath now power ouer his owne body and is now become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 free exempt from the mariage knot or bond in which sense the Apostle vseth the word verse 39. Secondly we must know what kinde of desertion it is that causeth a dissolution of mariage and in what manner First it must be malitiosa desertio a malicious departure without any iust cause But when as the husband is absent by consent about necessary affayres as the Merchant beyond the seas or is employed in some waightie busines as in warfare in ambassage or such like or is violeÌ„tly deteined in prison or captiuity amongst the Turks or elswhere In these the like cases the wife is bound to waite expect the returne of her husband vnles she be otherwise aduertised of his death SecoÌ„dly the innoceÌ„t partie must vse all meanes to reconcile reclaime and bring home agayne the wilfull and obstinate partie so departing if it be possible Thirdly if he continue in his obstinacie and departe hauing no purpose to returne the matter must be brought before the iudge or Magistrate in such cases who after publike citation of the obstinate partie and certaine knowledge that he refuseth wilfully to appeare being cited and is not otherwise letted to come may with mature deliberation pronounce the innocent partie free and at libertie to marrie according to Saint Pauls rule A brother or sister is not bound in such things Thirdly neither is Saint Paul contrary to our Sauiour Christ who alloweth no diuorce but onely for fornication for that is a diuers case from this whereof Saint Paul treateth And there is great difference betweene lawfull diuorse and vnlawfull and wilfull desertion for there the innocent partie first claymeth the priuiledge of separation here the guiltie partie first separateth himselfe there diuorse is sued and required here the innocent partie seeketh no diuorse but seeketh all meanes of reconciliation So that properly the setting free the innocent partie in this case cannot be called a diuorse Christ therefore speaketh of lawfull diuorce not of euery dissolution of mariage for then mention should haue beene made in that place of naturall death and departure which is confessed by all to be a dissolution and breaking off of mariage Thus haue I shewed mine opinion with Beza and others concerning thiâ— poynt Herein further as in all the rest referring my selfe to the determination of our Church and the iudgement of our learned brethren Beza 1. Corinth 7. vers 15. Amand. Polan Hemingius Tâ—leman Heshus THE SECOND PART WHETHER IT BE LAWfull to marrie after diuorsement for adulterie The Papists FOr adulterie one may dismisse another but neither partie can marrie again error 31 for any cause during life Rhemist Math. 19. sect 4. no not the innocent partie may marrie againe for the mariage knotte is not dissolued because of adulterie Concil Trident. sess 24. can 7. Argum. 1. Rom. 7.2 The woman