The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity

CHAP. 1. Of Prayer for the dead, and of Purgatory. What Scripture saith of it. And of the Purgatory of the Primitive Church.

WHosoever is a little versed in Antiquity, knows that prayer for the dead hath been many ages used in the Christian Church, therefore the great labor of Cardinal du Perron to gather testimonies to prove that, is more then needed, and a superfluous diligence about a vulgar thing. (b) Tertullian who writ in the end of the second age, is the ancientest Author that speaks of it; We make (saith he) anniversary offerings for the dead, and for the natalitia, that is, for the commemoration of the sufferings of Martyrs.

But upon that we say two things, The one, that this custom sprung from the unwritten tradition, and that in God's word there is neither command nor example for it: But rather that in the Scripture there are many testimonies that the souls of the godly after this life, are presently transported into the heavenly rest. Blessed are they which die in the Lord; from henceforth [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from this very time, if they die now] saith the Spirit they rest from their labors, and their works follow them, Rev. 14.13. Christ tells us Luke 16.9. Make to yourselves friends of the Mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations: that is, that when you die, they may receive you into heaven. He tells us also John 5.24. Verily, verily I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that s • nt me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life. How should that man be sent into a burning flame, who in this very life hath eternal life, and is past from death to life? Isa. 57.1. & 2. saith, that the righteous dying, is taken away from the evil to come, and enters into peace. Wherefore Simeon being near his death, was saying, Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace. And Christ said to the repenting thief crucified with him, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise. Yet that thief according to the doctrine of the Roman Church stood in great need of purgation. And the Apostle Paul preparing himself for death, and laying his hand already upon the crown, was saying 2 Tim. 4.7. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness. For there is no condemnation for them that are in Christ Jesus. Rom. 8.1. If no condemnation, then neither eternal in Hell, nor temporal in Purgatory. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin, 1 John 1.7. And of other purgation there is no need; for Christ having fully satisfied for us unto God's justice, there is no need of any other satisfaction. God will not take two payments for one debt, when the first payment is sufficient. By Christ God hath forgiven us [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , freely and gratis] all our trespasses, Col. 2.13. God being our Father and having given his Son for us, would he delight to burn his children in a vehement fire, for sins already pardoned? Should not that Father be altogether wicked and unnatural that would torment his children with punishments of no use for their amendment; only to content himself, and to satisfy his own wrath and revenge? Now such is the punishment of Purgatory, where they hold that the souls amend not, and are never the better for their sufferings.

It is very considerable that in the Law of Moses there are sacrifices and propitiations for all kinds of sin and pollution, even for leprosy, and for the touching of a dead body; but that the Law prescribes no sacrifice or propitiation for the dead, nor any service for their ease or release. Which M. du Perron freely acknowledgeth, in the eighth chapter of the third instance of the fourth book, where he groundeth the prayer for the dead upon the unwritten word only.

The other point is, that our Adversaries cannot accuse us of despising the custom received in the ancient Church, since themselves also in this point oppose themselves to the ancient Church, and reject that praying for the dead, practiced by the old Christians: For it was of another nature, and for another end then that which is used in these days. And if one would now pray for the dead after the manner of the ancients, he should no less be accounted an heretic then Arius who did absolutely reject all prayers for the dead.

All the prayers which the Roman Church makes for the dead, are intended for the ease of the souls which are thought to be in Purgatory. For although in the public forms of prayers, in the Masses for the dead, no mention is made of Purgatory, because those prayers are more ancient then the invention of Purgatory, yet the intention of all that pray for the dead, is to release their souls from Purgatory, according to the instruction which the people receive from their Pastors.

That then the Cardinal may not here object Antiquity to us, it is expedient to show how the Roman Church in this point is departed from the opinion of the Ancients, and hath forsaken the ancient customs, forging a new sort of prayer for the dead, which all Antiquity never thought on, making the prayers for the dead which then were used, not only useless, but also wicked and erroneous.

I say then that the Church of the third and fourth ages after Christ prayed for the Saints departed, even for the Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs, which is no more done in our days. The form of those Prayers is found in the eighth book of the Apostolical Constitutions of Clement, chap. 18. We offer unto thee for all the Saints that have been pleasant unto thee from the beginning of the world, for the Patriarchs, the Prophets, the Righteous, the Apostles, the Martyrs, &c. The like prayers are found in the Liturgies attributed to St. James, to Basil, and to Chrysostom.

Epiphanius in the heresy of Arius, which is the seventy fifth, puts this among his errors that he approved not the commemoration of the dead, which was done in the celebration of the Eucharist. Against that Arius, Epiphanius disputeth thus, As for relating the names of the departed, what is to better purpose or more seasonable and admirable then to make them that are present to believe that they that are gone, are alive still, and are not brought to nothing, but that they are and live with the Lord? Observe, that Epiphanius believed that the dead, of which commemoration was made in the Eucharist, enjoyed life and were with God. He addeth, Also that the venerable preaching be expounded, that there is hope for them that pray for their brethren as being in a pilgrimage. In all this there is nothing whence one may gather, that they prayed in those days for the dead to ease them of their torment in the fire of Purgatory. Those whom he saith to be in a pilgrimage are not the dead, but the living that pray for the dead. Epiphanius goeth on, The prayer thus made for them profiteth, though it do not cut off all the sins, but to signify a greater perfection, because often while we are in this world, we offend both willingly and unwillingly. He holds that prayer made for the dead, serveth to show that in their life time they did not attain unto perfection, and that having many times offended in their lives, they had need to attain after this life to a greater perfection. His next words are these, For we make mention both of righteous and of sinners: For sinners looking to the mercy of God; And for the righteous, Fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, &c. that we may separate Christ from the rank of men by the honor that is deferred unto him, and that we may defer veneration unto him, meditating in ourselves that the Lord is not equalled unto any of men. In all that discourse is there anything favorable unto Purgatory? For as for the Saints, Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs for whom they prayed, Epiphanius saith not, that they prayed to fetch them out of Purgatory, but to put Christ out of their rank, because he is the only one for whom, &c. they prayed not. As for others, he saith that they prayed for them looking to the mercy of God, that is, either to the mercy which God had shown to them, or to the mercy which God would show them in the day of judgment, as St. Paul speaketh, 2 Tim. 1.16. & 18. The Lord grant to Onesiphorus, that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day.

To the same purpose we have such another discourse of Dionysius the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, in the third chapter, where he giveth a reason why in the sacred mysteries, the Church made commemoration of the dead. These are his words After the kiss of peace comes the reading of the holy [Ecclesiastical] tables, wherein the names of those that have led a holy life, and are gone to the perfection of a virtuous immutable life, are pronounced with a loud voice, exhorting and conducting us to the beatifical habit which is acquired by resembling them, and to an end growing to a divine likeness; and celebrating those as living, not as dead, as Theology saith, but as past from death to a most divine life, &c. For as Scripture saith, God knoweth them that are his, and the death of Saints is precious before him, [In which text] the death of Saints is put for the perfection which is in holiness. Also consider holily, that when the venerable signs whereby Christ is signified and communicated, have been laid upon the sacred Altar, immediately after comes the description of the Saints, whereby the inseparable bond of their supernatural and sacred union with him is declared. This Author though he entangle his style with terms borrowed out of Plato's school, yet is ancient, and may be read with profit. His description of the public service of his time, showeth that the Christian Church did then live in peace, and had Temples and public ornaments with splendor. It is like enough that he lived about the year 400. of Christ. All this discourse showeth that the prayer which was then made for the dead, was only for persons whom they held to be happy and holy; not to draw them out of the fire of Purgatory.

Austin who writ about the year 420. was the first that said that Martyrs must not be prayed for; That he doth injury to a Martyr, that prayeth for a Martyr. And that the usual prayers when they are named at the Altar, are rather thanksgivings.

The same appears, in that the Ancients prayed for the souls that rested in a quiet sleep, and that consequently were held not to be in torment. Which form of prayer remaineth in the Canon of the Mass, where the Priest saith every day, Lord remember the souls of thy servants and haindmaids which went before us in the sign of the faith, and now are steeping in the sleep of peace. Whilest that prayer is said by the Priest, the names of the deceased for whom his friends have paid, are said with a low voice, requesting that their souls tormented in Purgatory may be relieved by that Mass. But that old clause by God's permission remaineth in the Mass to condemn Purgatory: For there is no reason why one should give money to awake his friends soul which is sleeping quietly, or why we should believe that souls tormented in a burning fire, which they say to be seven times hotter then our ordinary fire, can sleep in the sleep of peace whilst they are thus tormented.

The Cardinal in the second chapter of the fore-alleged instance is sore troubled to make that prayer agree with Purgatory, and saith things so unreasonable, that it is not like that he had any hope to be believed. First he saith, that the souls of the dead which are in that torment are said to rest in peace, because they departed in the peace of the communion of the Church. It is true, that such as are received into the communion of the Church, are said to be in the peace of the Church; But that peace of the Church is not called a sleep; Now the Mass prayeth for those that sleep in peace. The intention of the Church receiving a man into her communion, is not to lay him asleep, and that peace of the Church may happen and be given to many who are damned nevertheless.

This shift not contenting him, he brings another, saying that these souls tormented in Purgatory are said to be resting and sleeping in peace, not in respect of themselves, but of the Church. This conceit is somewhat extravagant. For it is hard to comprehend, how a man who is burnt and tormented in a fire can sleep in peace, not in respect of himself, but of another; For everyone that sleepeth, sleepeth for himself, not in respect of another. If they that are burning in the fire of Purgatory sleep peaceably in respect of the Church, the Church hath a sense contrary to the truth, and to God's will. And truly when the Church prayeth for one that is tormented, she considereth him as being in torment, not as sleeping in peace. Would it not be a jolly reasoning, if one said, that Philip is dead or blind in respect of himself, but living and clear sighted in respect of his friends? Truly in that conceit of the Cardinal there is either jesting, or want of common sense.

All that was said before, showeth sufficiently that the Antient Christians prayed for the dead, whom they believed not to be in any place of torment. This is confirmed by the prayer of Ambrose for the soul of Theodosius. For he speaks of Theodosius as certain that he was enjoying heavenly felicity. Being free from the doubtful combat, he enjoyeth the heavenly light. Again, He was received into Christ's tabernacles because of his piety, and into Jerusalem which is above. Again, Theodosius dwelleth in light, and glorieth in the brightness of the Saints: And for all that he prayeth for him.

But upon that it may be demanded, What good then did the ancient Christians hope to procure unto their departed friends by their prayers for them? I answer that their prayers ended to these ends. First, they prayed to God that the departed might one day rise again to salvation; Such was the prayer of Judas Maccabee, 2 Mac. 12.42. For (saith the Author) Judas did very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection. For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.

To that prayer many prayers are conformable which are said in the Mass, for the dead; As this, We beseech thee, Lord, that thou absolve the souls of thy servants from every bond of sin, that being risen in the glory of the resurrection, they may breath among thy Saints and elect.

Also that was a constant belief among many of the Ancients, that the dead should not all rise again at the same hour, but some sooner, some later; and that sins were expiated by the delay of the resurrection; Modicum quodque delictum mora resurrectionis luendo, suffering the pains, even of the least sins by the delay of their resurrection, as Tertullian saith, who will have a wife to pray for her departed husband, and to beg refreshing for him, and that she may bear him company in the first resurrection. Which is Ambroses prayer for Gratian and Valentinian; I beseech thee, Sovereign God, that thou raise and bring up again these most dear young men with a timely resurrection. They prayed then for the hastening of their resurrection.

Then the solicitous care which the ancient Christians had for their dead friends was increased by a belief received among many, that the Saints were not received into the heavenly glory presently after their death, but remained in underground receptacles, which they called Abraham's bosom, unto the day of the resurrection: Which Cardinal du Perron acknowledgeth pag. 994. saying, that then some persons believed that the souls of the godly enjoyed not the sight of God before the final judgment, and that in Austin's time the Church had not yet pronounced any decision upon that. For that reason then the old Christians thought it to be their duty to pray for the dead. That such was the opinion of most part of the Ancients concerning the state of departed souls, we have shown it in the third chapter of our Treatise of the Invocation of Saints.

We find also in the writings of the Fathers, that they stood in fear of the fire of the day of judgment, through which they believed that all must pass and be burnt more or less, according as everyone had more or less sinned, not excepting the Prophets, and Apostles, nor the Virgin Mary. Ambrose in the twentieth Sermon upon Psal. 118. All must pass through the flames, though it be John the Evangelist whom the Lord loved, though it be Peter, &c. And in the third Sermon upon Psal. 36. The sons of Levi shall be purged by fire; Ezekiel, Daniel, and these having been tried by the fire, shall say, We have past through fire and through water. Hilary upon Psal. 118. in the letter Gimel, That purification which is reserved to us after the Baptism of water, may sanctify us by the coming of the Holy Ghost, and perfect us by the fire of the judgment. In the same place Do we desire (saith he) that day of judgment in which we must go through the unwearied fire? in which we must undergo those grievous pains to expiate the souls from their sins? And a little after If that Virgin that conceived God must undergo the severity of that judgment, who is so bold as to desire to be judged by God? And in the second Canon upon Matthew, To them that are baptized by the Holy Ghost it remaineth yet to be perfected by the fire of the judgment. Irenaeus saith the same in the fourth book chap. 9. And Lactantius in the seventh book chap. 21. When God shall have judged the righteous, he will examine them by fire. Then they whose sins shall prevail, either in weight or number, shall be singed and lightly burnt. Origen in the third Homily upon Psalm 36. I think that we must all come to that fire, though it were a Paul or a Peter, yet shall he come to that fire. And in the fourteenth Homily upon Luke, I think that after the resurrection we shall have need of a washing and purging Sacrament, for none can rise again without pollution.

Of that fire speaks Gregory Nazianzen, in the 42. Sermon, where he saith, Who can warrant that the judgment shall not overtake us, as being yet indebted, and needing the fire that shall be there? And Ambrose in the book of widows saith, that God requireth of us gold, which the fire of the judgment is not able to burn. And Basil, in chap. 26. of the book of the Holy Ghost, speaks of one Arthenogenes, who tended to that perfection which shall be made by fire; and in chap. 15. he interpreteth that Baptism of fire of which John the Baptist speaks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the trial that shall be made in the judgment.

That fire is meant in the Texts which M. du Perron allegeth, not the fire of Purgatory, which the Roman Church believeth. He allegeth Gregory of Nyssa, who saith in the book of the sleepers, that man is purged after this life by the furnace of purging fire. And Jerome upon Isa. 66. saying, Of those whose works must be purged by fire, we hold the Judges sentence to be moderate, and mingled with clemency. And Austin saying, that the fire whereby they shall be saved, shall be more grievous, then anything we can suffer in this life.

I answer, that these Fathers speak not of a fire where the souls be burnt when they come out of the body, but of the fire of the day of judgment, which must (after the opinion of the Fathers) purge the elect after the Resurrection. Austin is express to that purpose, in chap. 34. of Book 16. of the City God. By this fire is meant the day of judgment, which shall separate the carnal that must be saved by fire, and those that must be damned by fire. And in chap. 25. of book 20. Out of the things that were said, it seemeth evidently to appear, that in that judgment, some pains of some persons shall be purging pains. The title of the Chapter declareth that he speaks of the fire of the last judgment. So the fear of that fire was a reason why they prayed for the dead. Neither doth Austin contradict this, in Book 21. of the City of God, chap. 16. when he saith, that none is of opinion that there shall be any purging pains, but before that last and fearful judgment: For by the judgment, he understands only the pronouncing of the last sentence, before which he holds that the purgation shall be made by fire. By these words he condemneth Origen's purgation, who extended it till after the last judgment.

I could also bring places out of ancient Authors, to show that in their time the damned souls also were prayed for, at least to ease their torments; and of late Authors, which say that the Emperor Trajan was fetched out of Hell at Saint Gregory's prayer. The answer to the 34 ^th Question to Adriochus, which is put among the works of Athanasius, saith, that sinners (so he calls the damned) receive some benefit and ease by the prayers of the Church. And we shall see hereafter, that Chrysostom in the third Homily upon the Epistle to the Philippians, is of the same opinion.

Note by the way, that M. du Perron showeth sufficiently, that he believeth not the fire of Purgatory, when he doubteth whether it be a real or a metaphorical fire. I think not that he durst speak so at Rome.

Out of all that was said, it is made manifest, that the prayers of the Ancients for the dead, were not to fetch souls out of Purgatory, but that they might rise to salvation, or that they might rise soon, or that in their peaceable sleep they might receive some greater refreshing, or that they might be but lightly burnt by the fire of the last judgment, or that the damned might receive some diminution of their pains in hell. And that the Cardinal doth wrongfully challenge the protection of Antiquity, since the Roman Church hath long since rejected these ancient prayers, and altogether changed their use and their end.

Of that imaginary fire, into which the Roman Church sends the souls presently after death, and whence the Pope fetcheth them by indulgence, loosing under the earth, where he cannot bind, and extending the power of the Keys, even to the dead, which are none of his flock, we may affirm that there is nothing more remote from the belief of the Ancients. For many of them hold, that the souls while they are out of the body, can suffer nothing. Tertullian in chap. 48. of his Apologetic, The soul alone cannot suffer anything without a solid matter, that is, without the flesh. The same he saith in chap. 4. of the book of the testimony of the soul. Gregory of Nyssa is of the same mind, in the III. Oration of the Resurrection of Christ. That fire can never touch the separated soul; neither can darkness be troublesome to her, seeing that she wanteth eyes: By these probable reasons, we are moved to believe the Resurrection of the dead. And so Ambrose in the book of Penitence, chap. 17. The soul without the body, and the body without the soul, cannot be partakers of punishment and reward. And Chrysostom in the 39. Homily upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians, The soul without the flesh, shall not receive these hidden goods, as also it shall not be punished. And Arnobius, in the second book, speaking of the soul separated from the body, maintaineth, That a simple [substance] cannot feel pain, and that all that can feel pain, cannot be immortal.

It would be an endless labor to gather all the places of Fathers, contrary to the Purgatory of the Roman Church: We have produced a great number of them in another place, Read Cyprians book against Demetrian, and his book of Mortality. And Ambrose, in the book of the good of death. This sentence of Austin, in the 232. Sermon, which is the second against drunkenness, may serve instead of all. Let none deceive himself, Brethren, for there are two places, and there is no third. He that shall not merit to reign with Christ, shall without doubt perish with the Devil. Observe by the way, that meriting in Austin's style; signifieth only acquiring. For that Father denieth merits in many places, attributing all the merit of our salvation to God's grace.

In the Dialogues of Gregory the I. who writ in the end of the sixth age, it is evident, that the Purgatory which is believed by the Roman Church, was not yet forged. For that Pope puts the purgation of souls in bathes, in the wind, and in rivers. And yet the same Pope in his thirteenth book upon Job, chap. 20. speaks thus, Because we are redeemed by the grace of our Creator, so much we have of heavenly gift, that when we are withdrawn from the habitation of our flesh, we are presently brought to the heavenly recompense.

The Greek Churches of our time, pray for the dead, but deny Purgatory; herein conforming themselves to the example of the Ancients.

Here I must not forgive a notorious falsification of the Cardinal. He allegeth a place of Chrysostom, but quoteth not the Book or the Homily whence he takes it, lest that his false dealing should be perceived. That place is found in the third Homily of the Epistle to the Philippians. The words are these, It is not in vain that the Apostles have constituted, that in the dreadful mysteries commemoration be made of the departed, for they knew that much benefit ariseth unto them from that. The Cardinal corrupteth that place, putting offering sacrifice for the dead, instead of making commemoration of them. For he translateth thus, It is not in vain that the Apostles have given by tradition, the offering of a sacrifice for the dead; They knew how much profit they get by it. Note that Chrysostom had said a little before, that the help that can be given to the dead is very small, and that the dead for whom we should weep and give alms, are the infidels, and they that are dead without Baptism. So that the Cardinal corrupteth this place, both in the sense and the words.

Observe also, that Gregory the I. in the 63. Epistle of the seventh book, contradicteth Chrysostom. For, he saith that the Apostles consecrated with the Lord's Prayer only, and that the other prayers were added since at several times. Besides, Chrysostom in this place speaks only of the commemoration of the dead, not of praying for them.

The same Father did not believe that one can repent after death, or that after this life one may satisfy for his sins. For so he speaks in the second Sermon upon Lazarus, Pay all here, that thou may without trouble see that judicial seat; For while we are here we have good hopes, but when we are gone thither, it is no more in our power to repent, or to be purged from sins committed. Cyprian speaks the same language towards the end of his Book to Demetrian. When one is gone hence, penitence hath no more place, and satisfaction is without effect. Here life is either had or obtained. And a little after, When one is yet in this world, no penitence is too late: The access to God's mercy is open, and the access is easy to them that seek and understand the truth. If thou pray for thy sins, though upon the point of thy departing, and of the end of temporal life, and implore the only true God by confession, and with an acknowledging faith, the pardon is given to the confessing [sinner] and the saving indulgence is granted to the Believer by the divine compassion, and in death itself, one passeth to immortality. Of a third place, where penance is made after death, the Fathers speak not, There is no middle place (saith Austin) for any person; so that he that is not in Christ, could not be anywhere else but with the Devil. And in another place, We are totally ignorant of a third place, and find none at all in the holy Scriptures.

The Fathers indeed speak often of a purging fire, both in this life and after. But by the purging fire in this life, they understand the afflictions, of this present life, or the length of the penance, which Penitents make publicly in the Church. We confess (saith Austin) that in this mortal life there are purgatory pains. And a little after, he reckons among the pains of that purgative fire, the loss of friends, and the calamities of this life. Thus Cyprian Epist. 52. comparing Martyrdom, with the public penance which sinners do in the Church, calls that penance a purgation by fire.

The same Fathers speak also of a purging fire after this life, through which they make all Saints, and even the Virgin Mary to pass. By which fire they understand that of the last day of judgment, and in that fire, they believed that both bodies and souls must be purged, according as they have more or less sinned, as we proved before. They commonly call that purging fire of the day of Judgment, the Baptism by fire, and the flaming sword at the entry of Paradise. But as for a fire, into which the souls of the faithful enter immediately after death, and the way to deliver those souls out of that fire by Indulgences or Masses, no trace of that is found in Antiquity.

Pope Gregory the I. in his Dialogues, about the year 595. began to speak of the purgation of souls in bathes, in rivers, and in the wind. Whence by degrees that Purgatory was formed, which is now believed, and which feeds so many idle bellies, who as far as in them lieth, diminish the benefit of Christ's merit for their temporal increase.

I will add here, the prayers used for the soul of a Cardinal, in his Obsequies and Funeral, as they are set down in the first Book of the Sacred Ceremonies, in the XV. Section, chap. 1. that the Reader may judge, whether those prayers may help to fetch their souls out of Purgatory.

O God to whom all things live, and to whom our bodies perish not when they die, but are changed to a better condition, we humbly beseech thee to command that thy servants soul be led by the hands of thy holy Angels into the bosom of the Patriarch Abraham thy friend, to be raised up in the last day of the great judgment; and that thou who art meek and merciful blot out all the vices which he had got by the Devils deceit. And a little after, Lord, when thou comest to judge the earth, where shall I hide myself from the face of thy wrath? For I have offended thee very much in my life. I am frighted with mine offenses, and am confounded before thee. When thou comest to judge, do not condemn me. And a little after, We beseech thee, Lord, absolve the soul of thy servants from every bond of sins, that being risen again in the glory of the resurrection, he may be refreshed among thy Saints and Elect. Then the quire singing, answereth, Deliver, Lord, from eternal death, in that dreadful day, when heaven and earth shall be moved, when thou wilt come to judge the world by fire. I am become trembling, and dread the coming of the examination, and of the wrath to come. When the heavens shall be shaken, that day, that day of calamity and misery, that great and very bitter day.

All these prayers are but words of a soul frighted with the fear of hell and eternal death, and they are requests that the departed person may not be eternally damned, and that he may rise to salvation. Of release from Purgatory, not one word. For these prayers are more ancient then the invention of Purgatory. Indeed as the Cardinal doubteth whether the fire of Purgatory be real or metaphorical, which is as much as doubting whether it be true or imaginary; so I believe not that half the people of the Roman Church believe it. No doubt but most of them laugh at it in their heart.

CHAP. 2. Of Indulgences given unto the dead, and generally of Indulgences.

IF the Fathers of the first ages of the Church had made any mention of the Popes power to fetch souls out of Purgatory, and of the Indulgences, which the Pope scattereth abroad, not ony upon the living, but upon the dead, we may be sure that the Cardinal would not have omitted it in his Treatise of the prayer for the dead: For the principal end of his book is, to exalt the Popes power. But he durst not stir that matter, knowing that it is a sink, which the more it is stirred, the more it stinks; and that no mention of the Roman Indulgences is found in all Antiquity. It is a noli me tangere, a sore fistula, which they dare not touch. This was it that gave occasion to Luther's preaching. It was the first means that God used to discover the abuse, the tyranny, and the shameful traffick of the Roman Prelat. Whereupon it will be to good purpose to hear that famous President Thuanus in the first book of his history. Pope Leo, a man of himself given to all licentiousness, by the instigation of Cardinal Laurentio Puccio, a turbulent man, to whom he deferred too much; that he might scrape up from all parts money to maintain his infinite expenses, sent Bulls over all the Kingdoms of Christendom, promising the expiation of all sins and eternal life, and taxing the rate which everyone was to pay, according to the grievousness of the sin. To which end he sent receivers of money, and established places of receipt in all Provinces. And to the receivers Preachers were joined, which recommended the greatness of that high benefit unto the people, and by Sermons composed with much art, and by the publishing of certain Pamphlets excessively exalted the efficacy of these Bulls. Which was executed too licentiously in many places by the Popes Ministers, especially in Germany, where those that had taken the farm of those profits from the Pope did lavish out the benefit of that power they had from the Pope to fetch souls out of Purgatory, spending it every day without shame, in bawdy-houses, and Taverns, upon dycing and most filthy uses. Then arose Martin Luther. Pollydorius Virgilius in the eighth book of the inventours of things giveth the same account of that business.

To know out of what stock the Popes bring forth that spiritual liberality, we must know that the Pope boasteth that he keeps the keys of the Churches treasure, wherein are laid up the supererogatory satisfactions of Christ, of the Saints, and of the Monks. By that account Christ suffered more then needed for our redemption. And the Saints and Monks have suffered and done more then was requisite for satisfaction for their own sins. Pope Clement the sixth saith, the dispensation of that treasure is committed unto him, and that the merits of the blessed Mother of God, and of all the elect from the first to the last, serve to heap up that treasure, and that one must not fear that ever it be consumed or diminished.

That Pope makes Christ's merit to serve to make up a stricken measure, and the merits of the Saints to make it a heaped measure, which is not a small augmentation of the treasure, and addition to Christ's benefit. Christ then is very much in debt. Is he not?

In that treasure the Pope turns his hand, and dispenseth these superabounding satisfactions of Christ and his Saints, when, and to whom, and in what measure he thinks fit. And this is called pardons and indulgences, which are very lucrative to his Holiness, and to the Clergy. Of which pardons the Pope takes what part he pleaseth for himself, as the Jesuit Immanuel Sa saith after Soto, Navarrus, and Bellarmine, so that the Pope pardoneth himself. And whether these indulgences be given upon just or unjust cause, one must not inquire, as the same Jesuit saith, Some say that the indulgence given without cause is valid. Others say that the cause must be just and proportionate to the indulgence. For my part, I hold that one must not at all doubt of the Indulgence given by the Pope. And these indulgences are of such force, that he that commits a reserved sin (which sort of sin is held to be most horrible) in hope that the Jubilee will come, may be absolved by the Jubilee; as the same Jesuit saith after Navarrus and Bellarmine, That is, a man that hath set a Church on fire, or killed a Priest, trusting upon the approaching Jubilee, in which he shall have plenary indulgence, shall not be disappointed of his expectation, and shall be absolved, so that he may be wicked without danger. Cardinal Tolet a Jesuit defineth thus a plenary indulgence. It is that which remitteth all the pain and all the fault.

To proceed with order, every five and twentieth year the Pope celebrates a Jubilee, in which he opens that treasure, and nameth certain Churches of the City of Rome, where he placeth those pardons and plenary indulgences, upon condition of making certain devotions upon certain days in the said Churches. He that should do the same devotions in other Churches nearer to him, or lying more conveniently for him, yea though he should do ten times more devotions, yet should have no part in those indulgences, for being so simple as to seek the remission of sins in a place where it is not to be found. That year the inhabitants of Rome have two great advantages; The one, that they have the remission of sins at their door and near home, whereas those that live in Poland, in Ireland, or in Portugal, come from very far to seek it. The other, that they grow fat by receiving pilgrims, whose blood and marrow they suck, and that the Churches of Rome are inrinched with the offerings of strangers.

The next year, if it be his Holinesses pleasure, he transports the Jubilee into the remote Provinces, and puts it in one or two Cities of France for the conveniency of the French. They that live near, or that have good legs or good horses, and money to travel, get that plenary pardon at an easy rate, but the poor, and the lame, and they that want horses are deprived of that spiritual liberality.

The Pope doth more, for he giveth indulgences to the dead, and appoints certain Altars, upon which whosoever gets a Mass sung on certain days, draws a soul out of Purgatory, such as he will choose; which is not done without paying.

And that one may not doubt of the certainty of the pardon, the Pope gives pardons to several Churches, with an exact reckoning of years and days, as if they had cast account with God. For example, the book of Roman indulgences saith, that at the Church of St. Eusebius of Rome there is for every day seventy eight thousand years of free pardon, and as many forties. Here is another out of the same book, of singular virtue for recreation. In the month of February upon Septuagesima Sunday, there is a station at St. Laurence out of the walls, and plenary indulgence, and eleven thousand years of indulgence, and forty eight forties, and the remission of the third part of all sins: and there a soul is delivered from the pains of Purgatory. I cannot comprehend what good it doth to a man who hath got full pardon of all sins, to grant him over and above the pardon of the third part of his sins.

There is a book well known of the Indulgences of St. Francis his cord, to which the indulgences of Rome are added. There among many the like absurdities, this is found page 251. Every day (of the month of August, until the Nativity of our Lady) there are eight hundred threescore thousand two hundred threescore and two years, and a hundred days of indulgence, and the remission of the third part of sins, granted in many Churches; He that needs but a hundred thousand years of pardon, what shall he do with the seven hundred thousand that remain to him? And to what purpose those hundred days added to the eight hundred thousand years?

Here is worse, for the Pope distributes indulgences at random, throwing them among the multitude, as if one cast a handful of farthings among a company of beggars. The Pope doth this on the day of his coronation, sitting upon throne a set upon the top of the stairs of St. Peters Church; There he scattereth upon the people standing in the place of St. Peter, a plenary indulgence, that is, a full and whole pardon, as it is written in the first book of the sacred ceremonies, in the last chapter of the last Section, in these words, The Deacon that stands on the right hand, sets upon the Popes head the tiaera, which is called the reign, adorned with a triple crown; And the people crying, Kyrie eleison, the Deacon which stands at the right hand, in Latin, and the Deacon standing at the left, in the vulgar tongue, publish full indulgences. That being done, a banket is brought for the refection of his Holiness. That spreading of Indulgences, is an imitation of Kings, who in the day of their coronation scatter some handful • s of money upon the multitude. As Kings take that liberality out of their temporal treasure, so doth the Pope take that gift of indulgences out of his spiritual treasure. And that scramble of Indulgences being thrown upon the crowd, everyone catcheth what he can.

Observe what advantage the Pope giveth to himself over other Bishops in the power of Indulgences. For whereas the Pope distributes Indulgences, by hundred thousands, Bishops cannot give above forty days pardon ordinarily, and one years pardon in the dedication of a Church. Then there are many sins, of which the absolution is reserved unto the Pope, although Christ said unto all the Apostles, and consequently unto all their successors, Whatsoever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven, reserving no particular advantage unto St. Peter.

The Lord Cardinal du Perron hath been employed for the distribution of that kind of wares. For when he was yet but Bishop of Eureux, being Ambassador at Rome to Clement the VIII. and having born the penance and satisfactions enjoined unto his King by the Pope, as representing the Kings person; the Pope to appease the King (who might have taken that usage unkindly, as one who had never yet learned that lesson to be beaten by Attorney) gave to M. du Perron some bags full of little crosses, and blessed grains to bestow among the people of France, with this indulgence, that every Frenchman that should have some of these grains in his beads, should get a hundred years of pardon every time that he should kiss them.

At the same time that M. du Perron was venting abroad those light wares▪ and that these Indulgences were set in the streets, and public places of Paris, I was Chapplain in Ordinary to Madam the Kings sister, who being then at Fontainebleau, I had some speech with M. du Perron about that subject, and told him, that it was not credible that a man of such an excellent wit as he, should believe that by kissing those grains, he might get a hundred years of pardon, and that he had little care of his • eputation, when he brought such wares out of Italy. Upon this he grew angry, saying that I accused him of Atheism: Then he alleged the example of Christ, who sent the leprous to the pool of Siloam to make them clean, although he could have cleansed them without that; That the Pope also without these means could forgive sins, but it pleased him to make use of these means. But upon further conference, I could not get from him any command of God, for that practice, nor any example of the Apostles, nor of their Disciples, nor of any ancient Doctor. It is not found, that the High Priests of the Old Testament laid up in their treasure the merits or satisfactions of Noah, or Abraham, or Moses; or that they gave any Indulgences. Yea, the Pope exerciseth a power, which Christ did never exercise. Neither the Apostles nor their Disciples gave any indulgence. There was no speech then of pardons of a hundred thousand years, nor of privileged Altars to deliver souls out of Purgatory. Neither is it like, that the Apostles having taught the Church, that the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin, believed that the Bishop of Rome ought or might gather the overplus of the merits or satisfactions of the Saints, thereby to purchase the remission of sins. For who gave him commission to gather that overplus of their satisfactions, and lay it up in his treasure? Who hath instituted that treasure? Who hath entrusted him with the dispensation of the same? When did that dispensation begin?

Let us hear, what the most famous of our Adversaries say of this point.

Cardinal Cajetan chap. 2. of the Treatise of Indulgences, If one might have some certainty of the origin of Indulgences, it would help us to the search of the truth; but we have not any written authority, either of the holy Scripture, or of the Antient Greek or Latin Authors, that bring us the knowledge of it. Only, since these three hundred years it was written concerning the ancient Fathers, that St. Gregory instituted the Indulgences of the stations. He saith, that some, as Thomas have written that of Gregory, yet in Gregory's writings no such thing is found. And for many ages after that Gregory, who writ in the year 595. no mention of it is found.

Navarrus in the Comment of the year of the Jubilee pag. 545. speaks thus, That most holy man John of Rochester, reverend for his dignity of Bishop and Cardinal, taught us why the Ancients speak so seldom of Indulgences, and the modern Authors so often. And these are his reasons Many things of the Gospels and other Scriptures are now more splendidly printed, and more clearly understood then they were in old time. No Orthodox man doubteth now whether there be a Purgatory, of which yet the Ancients speak not at all or very seldom, &c. For when they made no mention of Purgatory, nobody sought for indulgences.

Biel speaks to the same purpose, It must be confessed, that before Gregory's time the use of Indulgences was very little or none at all. But now the use of them grows frequent, because without doubt the Church hath the Spirit of her Bridegroom and therefore erreth not. Upon this the Cardinal of Rochester is very express, whose words are alleged by Polydorus Virgilius chap. 1. of the eighth book of the Inventors of things, Perhaps that which moveth many persons not to put much trust in Indulgences, is that the use of them in the Church seems to be new, and very lately found among Christians. To which I answer, that it is not very certainly known by whom they began first to be given. Then he addeth, No Orthodox man makes a doubt whether there be a Purgatory, of which yet there is either no mention or very little among the Ancients: And to this day the Grecians do not believe it. For as long as no man cared for Purgatory, no man also cared for Indulgences: For hence depends all the value put upon Indulgences. Take away Purgatory, what need of Indulgences? At that time then began Indulgences when men began to be afraid of the torments of Purgatory.

Bellarmine doth not contradict this, but saith If we had nothing certain about the treasure of Indulgences (which yet we do not grant) before Clements constitution: Yet we might be certain enough of the truth of that treasure, by the declaration of the High Priest Clement: For we know that God gave him to be a Master, and a Doctor. Now that Clement lived but three hundred years ago.

Navarrus goeth further, for although he was the Popes Penitentiary, yet when he writ for Indulgences he could not abstain from speaking ill of them, saying that the grant of them is odious, because the Collectors seek not the good of the souls, but the profit of money, as the Gloss of the rules of Chancery observeth in the fifty sixth rule. He saith also that by Indulgences the penitential satisfaction is much enervated. Yea, he snibs the Pope his Master very smartly, saying that he that giveth Indulgences payeth the debts of the one with the estate of another, according to the Provorb; It is cutting large thongs out of another man's leather. Which he saith, because the Pope by his Indulgences turneth the merits and satisfactions of Saints and Monks into a payment for others.

It is true that the word Indulgence is often found in the Fathers, but taken in another sense, for the remission of sins, and for the ease from penances imposed upon penitents by the Ecclesiastical Canons.

Especially of Indulgences given to the dead, we have seen above, that Pope Gelasius who lived towards the end of the fifth age doth formally condemn them, and denieth that the Bishop of Rome can give any absolution to the dead, because it is written, All that thou shalt loose upon earth, not under the earth. And how can the Pope pretend to be the Pastor of them that are no more in the world, seeing that they are no more of his flock, and that no charge of them is committed unto him? For the power of binding and the power of loosing were given together unto the Apostles, and these two things are inseparable. Yet the Pope useth not the power of binding towards the dead. Of which the reason is evident. Even that none would give money to bind the souls of his departed friends, and to increase their torment, or condemnation. The Pope then hath reserved that which is lucratiVe unto himself, for he gets an incredible revenue that way. Observe, that this is the most important point of religion, namely the remission of sins. Wherefore Satan was most busy about it, and into such a holy matter, brought such an horrible corruption.

About this point there is a dissent among the Doctors, some say that the Pope draws souls out of Purgatory by a power of jurisdiction. Others say, that he doth it by way of suffrage; But all agree, that souls come out of Purgatory by virtue of the Indulgence. The first sort hath reason to mock the second. For he that intercedes for a sinner, doth not forgive him. To pardon by intercession is an expression that contradicts itself. Now every indulgence is a pardon.

Observe also that the Pope being able (if we may believe him) to deliver as many souls as he pleaseth out of Purgatory, yet leaveth them by millions, and for so many ages in that burning torture, which is an unmerciful and most cruel part.

I will add for a corollary some expressions of Bellarmine, which will show how Indulgences derogate from the merit of Christ, and clip the benefit of the same. That Cardinal Jesuit speaks thus, Christ's merits are partly necessary to all, partly not necessary, but useful; and in that second respect they belong to the ground of Indulgences. Now to show how the merits of Christ are only useful, not necessary, he addeth, If any after he hath obtained the grace of reconciliation is yet in guilt and debt, as for the temporal pain, that person hath no need of the merits of Christ, that by them that obligation to the pain be absolutely remitted. Not that without the merits of Christ that obligation to the pain can be absolutely remitted, but because he may perhaps not ask of God so great a liberality, and be content to make himself the satisfaction by his own labors and pains, either in this life, or in Purgatory, the merit of Christ always working together. Of which he giveth the reason in the third chapter, because it is a thing more honorable to us, and more useful, that the second causes be not idle, but contributing with the first cause. That Jesuit seems to personate a sinner speaking thus unto God, It pleaseth thee to give me an absolute pardon by Christ, and remit the whole pain, both the eternal and the spiritual: But I will not accept such a great liberality. I choose rather to be burnt for some hundredths of years, and to satisfy thee myself. For it is honorable for me to satisfy in person. Is not that a magnanimous part, to send back unto God his gift, and refuse to be too much obliged unto him? Upon that account the Devils who make the whole satisfaction unto God by their punishment, are the most honorable. And it is not credible that a man who hath taken that generous resolution, will desire the Popes indulgences to shorten his sufferings, unless he choose rather to be obliged to the Pope, then to God.

CHAP. 1. A comparison of continent Virginity with Matrimony. That many Prophets and Apostles were married. That the high Priests under the Law were married. Examination of the Cardinals shifts.

ALthough chaste and holy matrimony hath God for the Author, who did institute it in Paradise, even before man's Fall: And though Christ himself did honor it with his presence, and the woman was given to man for the propagation of mankind, for help and mutual comfort, and for a remedy against incontinence: Yet it must be acknowledged, that continent Virginity, not tempted with any carnal desires, but possessing integrity of mind, no less then of body, hath many advantages above matrimony. For a continent man who leads a single life, is not distracted with the care of his family: He hath fewer bonds to tie him unto the world; He hath more time to employ in study and meditation, and being less loaden with other burdens, he is the fitter to bear the Cross. When it is put on any to take a forced or voluntary exile for the Gospel, a single man will fly with more ease, then he that is clogged with wife and children.

But that gift of continence untempted with concupiscences, is given but unto few persons. And God giveth it not sooner to a Pastor of the Church, then to one of the people, and they that ask it of God by prayers, have no promise to be heard in that point: For God hath promised to hear us in things necessary to salvation; but that gift, to be able to be without a woman, and without any temptation in that kind, is not necessary for that end. Yea many that made that vow of a single life, before they had well measured their strength, have cast themselves into ruin, and entangled themselves in the Devils nets. In that, as in all other things, God showeth his wisdom: For having created man for society, not for solitude, and taking care of the preservation of mankind, he hath bestowed that gift upon few persons, and hath planted in man a natural desire of marriage. Which desire, whosoever out of an affectation of greater perfection will resist with obstinacy, or with a rash vow, shall find in the end, that he hath drawn a great deal of sorrow upon himself, and ensnared himself into many sins, and that to his own harm he would make himself wiser then God. For this cause the Apostle Paul, to whom God by an especial privilege had given the gift of continence, said to the Corinthians, I would that all men were, even as I myself: But acknowledging that it is beyond human strength, and that it is a gift which God bestoweth upon few persons, he addeth, but every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. Next, he chargeth all to whom God hath not imparted that gift, to marry. If they cannot contain (saith he) let them marry, for it is better to marry then to burn. It is to be noted, that in all that Chapter in which he speaks at large, both of marriage and virginity, and of the conveniencies of a single life, especially in time of persecution; he speaks not of the Pastors of the Church, but of all the godly in general: Knowing that God giveth the gift of continence, not accoording to the charges that a man hath in the Church, but according to his own will, and distributeth his gifts as he thinks best: And that where that gift of continence is wanting, he will have all persons to marry, making no exception either of Ecclesiastical charges, or of a Monastical vow, which then was not in use.

In this point, as in all others, we must consult the Lord's mouth, and take his Word for our rule. In that Word, we fi • d that the most excellent servants of God were married: That Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, &c. had wives: In Isaiah especially it is observable, that even when he had those excellent revelations, and when God had filled him with the Prophetical Spirit, he begot a son on his wife by God's command, as is to be seen in the eighth chapter of his Prophecy, ver. 3.

Thus the high Priests and other Priests under the Old Testament, who continually attended the service of the Temple, yet were married, and that in a time when God tied his people unto many outward purifications, and to a bodily cleanness, far more strictly then under the Gospel. Sure, if there had been some pollution in matrimony, or something derogating unto the holiness of the sacred Ministry, God would have provided for the Priesthood by some other means, then by the lineal succession.

Mark 1.30. Christ healeth Peters wives mother. Our Adversaries deny it not, but they say, that such as were married among the Apostles, abstained from their wives, since the time that they were called unto the Apostleship. But that is said without proof, and against the sentence of the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 7.34. The husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. And in the same place, Defraud not one another, except it be for a time. And against Christ's prohibition, Matth. 19.6. A man shall cleave to his wife, and both shall be one flesh, so they are no more two, but one flesh: What therefore God hath put together, let no man put asunder. Now Christ speaks there of the separation of the bed, and of the conjunction which makes husband and wife to be one body and one flesh. Had Christ taken from his Disciples the use of their wives, the Pharisees that spied his life and actions narrowly, would have been sure to defame him for it, and make his doctrine odious.

It must not be omitted, that the Roman Church puts Saint Peters daughter among the Saints, and calls her Petronilla, by her Fathers name. Whence it follows, that Peter begot her in the time of his Apostleship, for before he was an Apostle, his name was not Peter.

The text of the same chap. Matth. 19. where the Apostle Peter saith to Christ, behold we have left all things and followed thee. Whence our Adversaries infer, that he had left his wife, shall be examined hereafter.

Not only St. Peter was married, but many others among the Apostles, if we believe Ignatius in the Epistle to the Philadelphians, Peter and Paul, and the other Apostles did marry. And Clemens Alexandrinus, speaking against those that despised matrimony, Do they reject the Apostles? for Peter and Philip got children: Philip married his daughters to husbands. Ambrose upon 2 Cor. 11. All the Apostles, John and Paul only excepted, had wives.

Acts 21.9. it is written, that Philip the Evangelist had four daughters.

Platina in the life of Cletus, saith that St. Luke had his wife in Bithynia.

Wherefore also the Apostle Paul, who was not married, declareth that he had power to carry along with him a sister that should be his wife, as well as the other Apostles, 1 Cor. 9.5. Have we not power to lead about 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a sister, a wife, as well as other Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas? It is true, that the Greek word for a wife, signifieth also any other woman. But in vain to the word sister, had he added the word woman, seeing that every sister is a woman, if by the word woman, he had not understood a wife. That this might not be perceived, the Cardinal alleging this text, saith, a woman sister, instead of a sister, woman or wife, making that word sister, added to the word woman, to distinguish her (saith he) from a married woman, whereas in Greek, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , woman or wife, is added to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sister, to distingush her from all other Christian women, which generally were called sisters. Tertullian in the book of Pudicity, chap. 8. confirmeth that explication, saying, It was lawful for the Apostles to marry, and to lead their wives along with them. And Clemens Alexandrinus, Paul makes no difficulty in a certain Epistle to name his wife, which which he led not along with him, that he might be served with less trouble. He saith then in a certain Epistle, Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, &c. Which I allege not because I believe that St. Paul was married, but to show how Clemens understood that sister woman, and that he took it, as we do, for a wife. I am content to presuppose, that these Apostles who led their wives about, used them only for household businesses, not out of any vow, or any prohibition from Christ, or because they held that contrary to their Ministry; but because minds transported unto divine things, will easily forget human things. Pope Leo the IX. though an adversary to the marriage of the Clergy, understood that text of women married with the Apostles.

I am not ignorant that some of the Ancients, as Jerome and Austin, understand these Texts of some women that followed the Apostles for their household service, like those women that followed Christ, ministering unto him of their substance, Luk. 8.2, 3. not considering that in the Greek there is not a woman sister, that is a Christian wife, as St. Austin saith, but a sister woman, or wife. Truly it would have been unbeseeming for an Apostle, that bad a lawful wife, to leave her at home, and carry another about to use her about household businesses; or if he had been a single man, to carry a woman about, especially in journeys of a thousand or twelve hundred leagues. For although the Apostles had virtue enough to overcome that temptation, yet they could not tie the tongues of the people, or avoid distraction. Certainly such a service had been performed with more decency by a man then by a woman, and by many women, more decently then by one. The example of Christ, whom many women followed, is nothing to this purpose: For these women that St. Luke speaks of, followed him in great number, and their farthest journey was twenty five or thirty leagues, which is the distance from Galilee to Jerusalem. But here St. Paul speaks of a woman that followeth an Apostle travelling from East to West, and making journeys of above two thousand leagues.

CHAP. 2. That the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 7. obligeth incontinent Clerks to marry. Confutation of the Cardinals reasons.

THis advantage we have in this point, that our Adversaries confess that the Celibate of Priests and other Ecclesiastical men, is not commanded in the Word of God. It is then a tradition, and a Law taken from the unwritten Word. I would charitably believe, that the Pope and his Clergy maintain that doctrine and practice with so much eagerness, because they will tend God's service with less distraction, but that I see the great profits which the Pope reaps by it, the Celibate being very fit for the preservation of the Patrimony of the Church, and for keeping the Clergy in subjection under the power of his Holiness: Also that I see how the same that forbids marriage, permits fornication, and that by barring the Clergy from marriage, both natural and unnatural vices have overflown the Clergy. Thomas the Angelical Doctor acknowledgeth, that the Celibate of Clerks is but of human right, not of divine institution. Bellarmine doth the like after him.

Since then marriage is of divine institution, but the Celibate of human institution, it is a wonder that human institution prevails over the commandment of God; and that the fornication of a Priest, is held to be a far lighter sin, then if he had taken a lawful wife. But let us hear what the Word of God saith of this.

1 Cor. 7.2. To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Note, that the Apostle saith every man, that one may not except Priests and Friars; and that he saith, to avoid fornication; Then a Priest subject to fornication is obliged to marry.

The same Apostle in the ninth verse of the same Chapter, saith, If they cannot contain, let them marry, for it is better to marry then to burn. Then if a Priest cannot contain, he is obliged by the Apostles command to marry. Cyprian practiced that rule. For in his time, about the year 250. of Christ, when Monasteries were not yet, some Virgins living in their Fathers house, made a vow of perpetual Virginity, which afterwards were found in bed with men, yet protesting that they did no harm with them. Of those women, Cyprian makes this judgment, in the 62. Epistle to Pomponius, If they have dedicated themselves unto Christ, let them continue to live chastely and honestly, without raising tales about themselves; and being thus strong and firm, let them expect the reward of Virginity. But if they will not, or cannot persevere, it is better for them to marry, then to fall into the fire by their voluptuousness. He will have such women, that will not or cannot contain, to break their vow and marry. Now I cannot conceive, why a vow made unto God by a young woman, in her fathers house, by her parents consent, must be less binding, then if she had been veiled by a Bishop. For the strength of the vow lieth not in that Ceremony, but in the obligation not to lie unto God.

To this Cardinal du Perron gives three answers.

First he affirmeth, that when the Apostle saith, If they contain not, let them marry, for it is better to marry then to burn; he giveth that order by way of counsel, not by way of precept. Sure, when the Cardinal writ this, his mind was somewhere else, for he considered not that counsel, when it is distinguished from precept, is not an order, so that by saying that St. Paul gave an order by way of counsel, he speaks things contradictory. Besides, one might that way elude all the Commandments of God, and dispense himself from them; saying, God commands me not to believe in Christ, or to obey my father, or not to be a murderer, only he counselleth me so. When the words of God are imperative, as in this place, If they contain not, let them marry; then to take his words for counsels, is a manifest impiety. Also this Prelate ought not to have been ignorant, that God's counsels ought to be taken for commands by those that fear him. Thus Prov. 1. Heavenly Wisdom denounceth God's judgments to the profane, that set at naught his counsel. And Luk. 7.30. the Pharisees are condemned for rejecting the counsel of God. Rev. 3.18. Christ saith to the Church of Laodicea, I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried by the fire. A counsel which the Church of Laodicea could not reject, but to their perdition.

The Cardinal useth another shift: He saith that this counsel is given only to those that had made no vow of Celibate, and that were free. Of which vow he produceth an example (and repeats it often) of the widows that had dedicated themselves to the service of the Church in the Office of Deaconesses, and then married, breaking their vow. Of these widows St. Paul saith, 1 Tim. 5.12. that they had damnation, because they had cast off their first faith. But the Cardinal is much mistaken, if he think that the faith mentioned in this place, is the vow of a single life; for the Apostle speaks of the vow given by those women to consecrate their whole life to the service of the Church, in the Office of Deaconesses. It is so far then, that the Apostle would oblige them never to marry after that promise, that on the contrary he commands them, if they be yet young, to marry notwithstanding their promise: For speaking of the same widows, he saith, v. 14. I will that the younger women marry, bear children, &c. But that for the time to come, they should not be constrained to abandon their Church-service for marrying, and to violate their faith and service, he forbids that any woman be received into that charge, or (as our Adversaries speak) to make that vow, before she be threescore years old. Let us suppose then, that these widows Deaconesses, had made a vow never to marry, how comes it that the Apostle will have those of their number that were young to marry, and not to keep their vow? Why doth he forbid that any be admitted to make that vow, if she be under threescore years of age? Why doth the Roman Church go directly against that command, admitting young Girls to make that vow, before they can know the desires of nature? Why do they condemn the Apostle, who forbids young widows to keep that pretended vow? But the plain truth is, that the Apostle speaks not here of the vow of a single life, for at threescore years of age that vow would be ridiculous.

Here the Cardinal pronounceth a sentence both severe and rash, absolutely affirming that those widows, that had violated their faith, were damned. Saint Paul saith not that he saith only, that they had [that] condemnation, that they had cast off their first faith. He condemneth them as guilty, but pronounceth not an absolute sentence of eternal damnation against them. He takes not the hope of pardon from them that repent.

What then, may one say? do you teach men to break their vows? are you preachers of disloyalty? Before I answer, I would wish our Adversaries to answer their own Canons, which say, In ill promises break thy faith. Perform not what thou hast imprudently vowed. That promise is impious, which is fulfilled by sin. For things ill, to vow, are worse yet to perform. He that vowed to be unfaithful, must he keep his vow that he may be faithful? He that vowed to kill his father, must he be a Parricide for fear of offending God? Or if one promiseth that which is not in his power, as to take the Moon; or a thing ridiculous, as never to walk abroad, but with a green cap and a mealy face, or a thing to him unknown, as they that from their childhood vow things which they know not; or that make a vow grounded upon a persuasion, that God will give them that which he hath promised to none: Must all such vows be performed?

Then especially the vow is evil, when one cannot fulfill it, without breaking another vow which was good, necessary to salvation, and to which all are naturally bound. Then vows must be kept, when they are of good and righteous things, not dishonest, not absurd, not harmful to others, not hurtful to our salvation, and such as are within the compass of our power.

If the vow of single life be examined upon these rules, it will appear that it is a vow which ought not to be made, and to which those that consecrate themselves to the holy Ministry, ought not to be tied. Also that many who have made that vow, are obliged by God's commandment to break it. For they that wanting the gift of continence, make a vow not to marry, go against God's command by his Apostle, If they contain not, let them marry; and to avoid fornication, let everyone have his wife. That vow also is contrary to a precedent vow, to which we are bound by our birth, by our Baptism, and by our ordinary prayers; even to the vow which every Christian makes to obey God.

Then it is a rash part to vow that which is not in our power. Now the continence, not only of body, but of spirit, free from all desires and carnal concupiscences, is a gift which is not in our power, and which God giveth but to few persons: Neither hath he promised to give it to those that ask it, because it is not necessary to salvation. Whosoever voweth continence, doth rashly presuppose, that God will give it him, and will bestow a grace upon him, which he did not bestow upon many Saints, Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs. He doth, as if he vowed never to be sick, and never to have the desires which are natural unto all men. A man burning with incontinence, who voweth unto God never to marry, is like a sick man that voweth never to use the remedies which God presents unto him. He saith to God silently, Lord I promise thee to disobey thy Word. And yet he will have that disobedience allowed him as a work of superarragation, and a greater perfection then to fulfill the Law of God. If then he hath made that vow without knowledge, as those that are cast into Monasteries, before they be acquainted with the stings of concupiscence, when he comes by age to see himself engaged in a dangerous vow, which kindleth his lust, and barreth him from the means to quench it, he must break that vow which he made ignorantly, and get out of Satan's snares. Jerome, the great enemy of marriage, found it so; for in his Epistle to Eustochium, he confesseth, that among the austerities and fasts, he had his heart among fair maids, and burnt with incontinence. Bernard confesseth the same, in the Book of the inward house, chap. 29. & 36. In Cassian, in Collation 12. chap. 9. and in Collation 2. chap. 23. and in Collation 22. chap. 2. the Monks, Moses, German, and Theonas confess, that after their fasts and prayers they had nocturnal pollutions: And to allay their heat, they permit in their rules things dishonest to relate.

The Cardinals third answer is, that the gift of continence which the Apostle Paul speaks of, is not the possibility of containing, belonging to the general grace, which the School-men call sufficient. Otherwise the acts of incontinence should not be so inexcusable, and should not be sins, being committed by persons that had not the power not to commit them. But he understands by the gift of continence, the act of containing, belonging to the efficacious grace, which not only enableth to do, but causeth to do. What a deal of dark gibrish in a clear matter? But it is this Prelates custom, when truth presseth him, to hide himself in darkness. I let alone for the present that School distinction, truly ridiculous, which forgeth a grace to be able to do without doing; a grace to be able to contain, but not to contain, which is an useless grace. Then a sufficient grace, which yet hath no efficacy; for therefore it is insufficient, because it hath no efficacy. And that false maxim which he sets down, that sins are no sins, when they are committed by persons that have not the power not to commit them. Upon that score the Devil should never sin, for he is altogether uncapable and unable to do any good. And drunkards, who by a long habit cannot leave their intemperance, should not sin by their excess in drinking. In him that by his fault hath brought himself to the unableness of doing good, and to the necessity of sinning, that very necessity increaseth the sin, as Aristotle teacheth, That those persons are damnable, and willfully vicious, who by custom have brought upon themselves the necessity of doing ill.

But to fetch M. du Perron out of his dark hiding place, the sum of his discourse is, that when Paul saith, If they contain not, let them marry; by not containing, he understands, not being incontinent in their desire and lust, but committing the act of fornication. And to the same purpose when Paul saith, It is better to marry then to burn; by burning, he understands not being tempted with fervent concupiscence, but bringing that temptation to act. This man cuts his throat with his own sword; for if not containing, signifieth here fornicating: And if the Apostle commandeth them that contain not, to marry, all fornicating Priests and Friars are of necessity bound to marry, and (as the same Apostle saith) to avoid fornication, everyone ought to have his wife. By the way, how can burning be interpreted fornicating, seeing that by fornicating, men seek to quench their burning? Who knows not that in all languages, unchaste love is called burning, especially when one cannot compass the end of his desire.

To conclude, If he to whom God hath given continence, makes a vow not to marry, as long as he hath that gift, and is not tempted with carnal desires, he doth wisely and righteously to keep his vow, and not to marry. But if he fall into ill desires, and see himself in danger of falling; that man not being able to quench his lust without marriage, ought to marry to obey God's command. Wherefore it is more expedient not to make that vow. A wise man will mistrust his strength, and not put himself in danger to break his vow. And they that will oblige all those to that vow, that will consecrate themselves unto the service of the Church, are the causes of many evils, and oppose God's Ordinance.

I pass by the abuse of the Franciscans and other Monks, who when they enter into the Monastical life, make the vow of perpetual continence, not to God alone, but also to the Patron of their Order, as Saint Francis and Saint Dominick, When a Dominican Novice becomes Profess, he makes the vow in these words, I make a vow to God, and to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and to all the Saints, to yield obedience to such or such a Prelate, &c. Against the Word of God, Psalm 50.14. Offer unto God thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the most High. For vowing is an action of latria, and of the highest Religious service, as Thomas teacheth. And Cajetan after him; who to excuse those vows made unto the Saints, saith, that the Saints are God's by participation. Bellarmine saith the same; and freely acknowledgeth, that when holy Scriptures were written, it was not yet the custom to make vows unto the Saints. For the Apostles had not attained yet that measure of instruction.

CHAP. 3. Another text of the Apostle Paul, 1 Tim. 4. against the prohibition of marrying. Examination of the Cardinals answers.

THe Apostle Paul speaks thus, 1 Tim. 4.1. The Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter days some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of Devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron: Forbidding to marry. That holy Apostle saith, that forbidding to marry is a doctrine of Devils.

Cardinal du Perron answers, that Saint Paul speaks there historically of the Legalists, that would have the Law observed with the Gospel, and forbad the use of meats forbidden by the Law, and the use of marriages forbidden by the Law, that is of marriages contracted with other persons, but such as were descended from Abraham's family.

Those Legalists, who were also called Nazarenes, of whom the Cardinal speaks, were in the Apostles time. Against them, Saint Paul writ the Epistle to the Galatians, and part of that to the Colossians. That sect did vanish a little after the Apostles time. Whence it is evident, that it is not of them that Saint Paul speaks in this text. For he speaks of some seducing spirits that should come in the latter days, and that were not yet come when he was writing. In the latter days (saith he) some shall depart from the faith, &c. speaking in the future. He that saith that some persons are to come thereby, signifieth that they are not yet come. Wherefore the Cardinal mistrusting that answer, hath recourse to the ordinary shift, that Paul speaks of those that condemned marriage in itself, as the Eneratites and Manicheans, who dogmatized that marriage was an institution of the Devil.

It is true, that they that maintain marriage to be evil of its nature, do wickedly, and are condemned by the Apostle. But therefore they that condemn marriage out of scruple or superstition, or out of an opinion of superarrogation, are not excusable, but have part in the same condemnation. For Paul calls generally and without distinction, all that forbid marriage, seducing spirits, teaching doctrines of Devils. Whosoever brings exceptions to the general rules of God's Word, must draw them out of the same Word of God, not forge them in his brains. Did the Word of God except the Clergy from that rule, or those that forbid marriage for exercise, or out of affectation of greater holiness, or to make works of superarrogation; it were well done to allege that exception. But these men bring nothing out of the Word of God, and themselves confess that their Celibate is not of divine institution. So, as by divers ways, several persons may come to the same precipice, likewise by divers ways and for divers ends and considerations, several persons may transgress the same Commandment, and come to the same condemnation.

The Cardinal is mistaken, when he saith that the Manicheans did absolutely condemn marriage in itself, as evil by its nature, and an institution of the Devil. Austin freeth them of that blame, They that are called Auditors, among the Manicheans, eat flesh, plow the land, and have wives if they list; of which things nothing is done by those that are called Elect. Those Auditors were the people; and those Elect were a few persons, who among the Manicheans, by austerity of life, affected a greater holiness. Themselves complained, that they were wronged in the report and opinion of men, as Austin saith, Here I make no doubt (speaking to them) that you will exclaim, to make us odious, that you greatly commend and praise perfect chastity, but yet forbid not marriage, seeing that your Auditors, which are in a second degree amongst you, are not forbidden to marry, and to have wives. That is very far from believing, that marriage was of the Devils institution. Thus in the Council of Gangra, Eustach Bishop of Sebastia was condemned, because he prohibited eating of flesh, and contemned married Priests; although he protested that he did it, not out of disdain, but out of a pious exercise, according to God, as we learn of Sozomenus.

I will say more. That whoso will take the pains to read the Decrees of the Popes Syricius and Innocent, shall find that the Heretics that condemned matrimony, as evil and polluted by its nature, have not spoken of it in such odious terms as the Popes have done: For they not only forbid the habitation of Clergymen with their wives, as a thing contrary to their vow; but also forbid to admit unto holy Offices, those that dwell with their wives, because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy, as though there were no holiness in marriage, and because it is written, unto the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; and they that are in the flesh cannot please God; as if married persons were impure, unbelieving, and debarred from the possibility to please God; wickedly wresting that which in the Word of God, is said against the profane in general, to use it against the marriage of Clergy-men. And the same Pope Syricius calls the habitation of a Clark with his wife a crime, & turpem coitum: And married Priests, sectatores libidinum & praeceptores vitiorum, followers of whoredom and teachers of vices. To these expressions the practice is suitable. For why do they exact of a man the vow of perpetual Celibate, before they admit him into the Clergy? Why is a married man excluded from all Orders of the Church, but that they hold the marriage of a Clark unlawful of its nature, and incompatible with the holiness of Ecclesiastical ministry? They are the very words of Pope Innocent, That it is not lawful to receive into the sacred Offices those that use carnal acquaintance with their wives, because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy, saith the Lord. This sentence is of the Old Testament, when Priests were married by God's commandment, and is not said to the Priests only; but to all the people.

The Cardinal giveth a third answer, that the Roman Church doth not forbid marriage, because it is in every man's liberty to choose celibat or matrimony, and that nobody is constrained to the ministry of the Church or to monastical profession.

I answer, that in the Roman Church there is a constraint to the celibat three ways, 1. He that finding not himself fit for civil businesses, nor capable of a great labor, sees no other way to pass his life with some honor and commodity then by serving the Church, is constrained to make that vow, which he takes half willing, and half unwilling, and he will do it because necessity lieth upon him to have that will. 2. Then many are cast into Monasteries, not by their choice, but by the will of their parents, or from their infancy have mitres set on their head, and great Church-livings bestowed upon them, so that they have not their free choice when they come to the age of choosing, and when nature is most prone to corruption. 3. But the greatest constraint is in them, that have vowed and acknowledging themselves incapable to keep their vow, and being unable to contain, yet are kept against their will under the yoke of that vow against the Apostles command, if they do not contain, let them marry; For human institution hath prevailed over God's commandment.

CHAP. 4. Another text of the same Epistle, chap. 3.

ONe text more remains, which more then any puts our Adversaries to the rack. The Apostle Paul, 1 Tim. 3.1. speaks thus, A Bishop must be blameless the husband of one wife; &c. one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity, for if a man knows not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God. And the like order he giveth for the choosing of a Bishop, Tit. 1.6. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly, For a Bishop must be blameless, &c. Observe that the Apostle saith that the Bishop must be (not that he hath been) the husband of one wife. For if the Apostle said, the Bishop must have been blameless the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, &c. he should make Episcopacy a cessation of virtues, and a dispensation from doing good. And when the Apostle will have the wives of Bishops and Deacons to be grave, not slanderers, sober, &c. it is evident that he instructeth them that are wives of Bishops and Deacons, not them that are their wives no more.

Pope Leo the first understands it so, saying, The Apostle bids that such a man be made a Bishop, which is known to have been or to be the husband of one wife.

And Chrysostom upon Tit. 1. St. Paul showeth that marriage is so honorable, that with it one may get up into the holy See, so he calls Episcopacy. He saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with it, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after it, as all that have some little skill in Greek understand well. Here admire the Cardinals ignorance in Greek; For whereas he reads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) he joins 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the neuter with the masculin, as if one said negotium ill pro illud, which is a gross incongruity.

To know how and in what sense the Apostle will have the Bishop to be the husband of one wife, it must be known that a man may have two wives together, two several ways, Either having two wives together in one house, Or one at home, another divorced without cause of adultery. In this manner a woman may have two husbands, for it was in fashion then, both among Jews, and Pagans, that wives would give the b • ll of divorce to their husbands. Of which we might bring a great number of examples. The same custom was practiced of old among the Christians. Justin Mar • yr in the beginning of the first Apology speaketh of a Christian woman that put away her husband giving him the bill of divorce. Which is condemned by the Eliberin Council in the eighth and ninth Canon; And in a Council of Carthage, which is the one hundred and second Canon in the Code of the Canons of the Church of Africa. Jerome in the eighty fourth chapter to Oceanus, saith, that Fabiola put away her husband. And in the Epitaph of Marcella he saith, that it was the custom of the rich women to marry poor husbands to put them away. For which cause the Apostle giveth order, that the widows that had been wives of more then one husband, should not be admitted into the office of Deaconesses, that is, if at the same time they had a husband at home, and another divorced. Chrysostom understands it so, and saith that the Apostle forbids the Bishop to have two wives at the same time, saying that the Apostle forbiddeth the excess, because among the Jews the association of a second marriage was lawful, and to have two wives together. Here the truth is so evident that Cardinal du Perron, and with him Cardinal Baronius, and Salmeron, and Estius, acknowledge that in St. Paul's time married men were received to be Bishops. But they say it was only for a time, by reason of the variety of unmarried persons in the time of the birth of the Church, when the Jews cursed the Ministers, and the Pagans punished them; But that after the Emperor Constantine had given privileges to them that did lead a single life, the Church began to make use only of persons that lived in celibat.

This is a remarkable confession, that in the Apostles time Bishops were married. For God would not have permitted in the Apostles time a thing evil of its nature in a matter of so high importance as the Ministry of his Gospel. Also it is a great concession, that the celibat of Clerks began in Constantins time, that is, above three hundred years after Christ's birth: As in effect all the Canons and testimonies of Antiquity, which Cardinal du Perron brings upon that subject are since that time. We have then for us in this cause by the confession of our Adversaries the whole Church of the Old Testament, and the three first ages of the Christian Church. We may safely believe that the Apostles were at the least, as wise as the Bishop of Rome, when they commanded that the Bishop should be blameless, the husband of one wife, without declaring that it was a commandment only for a time, or saying how long it must be observed in the Church.

For indeed St. Paul spake not of toleration, but gave a rule without exception. Else we should say, that as the command of being husband of one wife was given to the Bishop by toleration and for a time, so the command which obligeth the Bishop to be blameless, sober and vigilant, is but a command for a time. And it will follow, that the Apostle suffers ad tempus, and provisionally, that the Bishop be of a holy and blameless life, for these things are tied together by the Apostle, and equally recommended to the Bishop. But who seeth not that when St. Paul saith, Let the Bishop be blameless, the husband of one wife, he gives us to understand, that the Bishop must be the husband of one wife, that is, he must not have two together, that he may be blameless. For that was an ordinary thing in those days to have two wives, the one at home, the other divorced. Yea, wives would put away their husbands to take other husbands, as we have proved. Jerome in the Epistle to Oceanus confuteth those, that by one wife understand the Church.

CHAP. 5. Vindication of the assertion of his Majesty of Great Britain, that the Canonists teach, that fornication is more tolerable in the Ministers of the Church, then lawful Matrimony.

THis doctrine of the Canonists and other Doctors of the Church of Rome, who hold that whoredom is more tolerable in Priests, then lawful marriage, seemed very harsh and profane to his Majesty. To which the Cardinal answereth, I have read no such thing in the Latin Canonists, as having little applied myself to turn over their writings. This Prelat makes himself an ignorant when he pleaseth, and will not take notice of a thing known to all. Who knows not that at Rome marriage is forbidden to the Clerks, but that Brothel-houses are there publicly licensed? Who knows not, that if a Priest keeps a concubine, or commits whoredom, it is made a laughing matter, but if he had a wife lawfully married, he should be held a monster, and should by no means be suffered? Doth not Cardinal du Perron call the marriage of one that hath vowed continence a sacrilege? Who ever gave that odious name unto whoredom? Hath not Pope Innocent the third pronounced his judgment upon that? For this being a rule without exception in the Roman Church, that a bigame that is, one that was married the second time is irregular, that is, incapable to atttain unto the order of Priesthood, as being in a condition incompatible with the holiness of the Order; yet he that keeps many concubines may be admitted to that Order, and is capable of the Priesthood; and that by the judgment of Pope Innocent the second in these words Thou hast desired to be taught by the Apostolic See, whether Priests that have many concubines ought to be accounted bigames. To which we have thought good to answer, that since they have not incurred the irregularity of bigamy, thou mayest dispense with them, as for the exercise of the Office of Priesthood, as with persons that are noted but with simple fornication. That Pope held, that a second marriage leaveth a stain which is forever incompatible with the Order of Priesthood: but as for whoredom with a multitude of harlots, he holds it compatible with the holiness of the Order, and saith that it is but a simple fornication. To that Decree of Pope Innocent the Gloss of the Canon Maximianus is consonant, which speaks thus, It is commonly said, that a Priest ought not to be deposed for simple fornication, seeing that very few persons are found without that vice.

Cardinal du Perron himself joins with them in that opinion, calling (with Bellarmine ) the marriage after the vow of continence, a manifest sacrilege, speaking thus, Besides that the infraction of the vow is against the precepts of the first Table, and imports a manifest sacrilege; other sins are but acts of sin, not resolutions and habits of sin, Whereas the violation of the vow by marrying, is not a simple act of sin, but a continuance, an habit, a perpetual resolution of sin, and a breach of the vow made, not by a simple contrary action as fornication, but by a contract, and as it were by a vow of persevering in the breach of the vow. This Prelat casteth dust into the eyes of the ignorant, speaking against his conscience. For he knew that a great multitude of Priests and Bishops commit whoredom, not by one only action, but by a continued habit. He knew that by so doing, they sin against the vow which they have made unto God to obey his law, which vow every man is obliged to fulfill. He knew also that a Priest having a concubine, or many, goeth against the vow which he made, when he took upon him the order of Priesthood, that he would live honestly and continently. He knew also that a vow made against God, and against his word, ought not to be kept; and by consequent that a Clark subject unto whoredom ought to marry, because God saith by his Apostle, If they contain not, let them marry, for it is better to marry then to burn. So that whereas Holy Scripture saith, If they contain not, let them marry; the Roman Church saith, If Clerks contain not, let them not marry for that. And whereas St. Paul saith, It is better to marry then to burn, the Roman Church saith, It is better for Priests and Monks to burn then to marry. And whereas St. Paul saith, To avoid fornication let every man have his wife, the Roman Church saith, Let not Priests given to whoredom have any lawful wife. And whereas St. Paul saith, Let the Bishop and the Deacon be husbands of one wife, and let them instruct their children in all gravity, The Roman Church saith, Let neither Bishop, nor Priest, nor Deacon have a wife, and let them not beget children.

So many texts of Scripture are so many thunderbolts, which the Cardinal thinks to turn away with blowing, bringing testimonies of Fathers against them, that is, men against God. To those testimonies of Fathers we will give a chapter apart.

But how can the marriage of Clerks be but odious in the Roman Church, and held worse then fornication, since Sodomy is held among them more tolerable then marriage? For whereas marriage is judged altogether incompatible with sacred Orders, the like judgment is not made of Sodomy. For by the rules of the Roman Church, a Sodomist may exercise the Priesthood, and by that abominable vice doth not run into irregularity. Navarrus the Popes Penitentiary teacheth that, saying, The crime of Sodomy is not comprehended among the crimes that bring irregularity. First, because a man incurreth not irregularity but by the cases expressed by the Law, in which number that crime is not. Secondly, because such are the words of Pope Innocent. Thirdly, because it matters not if that crime be foul and detestable, seeing that mental heresy is worse, as Thomas saith; which yet brings no irregularity.

CHAP. 6. Answer to the reasons and testimonies which the Cardinal brings against the marriage of Clerks.

THE Cardinal having confessed that the action of matrimony, which hath no other end but to get issue, is free from sin, saith nevertheless, that in that action there is much imperfection, and that it works a total subversion and sinking down of reason. To which I answer, that how great soever man's imperfection be in that point, yet God's institution, and his especial command covers that defect; God regarding more his ordinance, then our imperfection. If he that drinks in his burning thirst hath all his senses so diverted from all other thoughts, that it is impossible for him to pray to God at that time, or to attend any holy meditation, it followeth not that such a diversion is vicious, or that Clerks must be forbidden to drink when they are dry.

The Cardinal addeth, that by that action original sin is communicated. It is true, that without that action original sin would not pass to posterity, for mankind should perish, and there would be no posterity. But that doth nothing against matrimony, which is more ancient then sin; And by the same reason they that attend God's service ought not to eat, because by meat the life of the wicked, and the sin which is in the world, is maintained.

He saith next, that God did always put off those that exercised the act of matrimony from dealing and partaking with his mysteries, unless they were purified before.

That is altogether false, and no such thing is to be found in God's word. If it were true, God would have commanded the Pastors of the Christian Church to abstain altogether from their wives, because they ought continually to attend God's service. And God would have forbidden those that are married among his people to be partakers of the Lord's holy table, unless they had purified themselves before by some especial ceremonies; For as for the purity of the conscience, it ought to be continual. Of purification after the marriage bed Christ and his Apostle spake not a word. Wherefore the Cardinal allegeth no examples but out of the ceremonial Law, though he knew it to be abolished by the preaching of the Gospel. He ought by the same reason to have spoken of the touching of a dead man, and of the like pollutions which by the Law of Moses hindered a man from administering holy things. Yet let us see what examples he brings.

All the time (saith he) that the Priests of the Law attended the service of the Temple, they abstained from the use of their own wives. This is altogether false.

Of such a constitution there is not one word in the Old Testament. Yea, the contrary is clearly proved by several texts. The High Priest every day burnt the incense, and ordered the lamps in the Holy place, as it is commanded, Exod. 27.21. & 30.7. The same High Priest made the continual morning and evening sacrifice in the Temple. And the ordinary food of the Priests was the shoulder and the breast of the sacred victims, and the offerings of the people, and the show bread. By the Cardinals rule Aaron and his successors till David ought not, and could not be married. It is true, that David instituted four and twenty courses of Priests serving by turns, everyone a fortnight in a year. Of that order was Zachariah father to John the Baptist, who, because he lived far from Jerusalem was constrained to leave his family all the time of his service. But the High Priest with his wife and children were lodged in the very Temple (as it may be seen 2 Chron. 22.11, 12.) and absented not himself from his wife.

The Cardinals next allegation is, that when God would give his Law to his people of Israel, he commanded them to abstain from their wives. But is the abstinence of three days to any purpose to prove the perpetual Celibate? By the same reason if God had commanded in his Law to abstain from eating, certain days, one might infer that the Clergy must not eat all. Legal abstinences are no rules under the Gospel. Note also, that the alleged abstinence for three days from the use of women, was not for the Priests only, but for all the people. Wherefore we might with more probability infer, that God requireth no greater abstinence in that point from the Clergy, then from the people.

The Cardinal allegeth also that when David and his followers desired to eat the show-bread, Abimelech the Priest asked them whether they were pure from women, that is (as the Cardinal expounds it) from touching their lawful wives.

The absurdity of this exposition is evident. For if for lying with his own wife a man was made uncapable or unworthy of eating the show-bread, the Priests were to abstain forever from their wives, seeing that the show-bread was their ordinary bread. Either then by those women, other women then lawful wives are understood, or the Priest Abimelech asking David whether his men had kept themselves at least from women, meant the abstinence from the marriage bed in the time of their separation, in which women were declared polluted according to the Law: and so may Jerome be understood, who upon the twelfth chapter of Matthew, understands that question of the Priest to David's men of the use of their lawful wives.

But in this point Jerome's authority is of no weight, seeing that he was a mortal enemy to matrimony. For if we must be ruled by him, we must say, that marriage is ashame, that married persons are vessels to dishonor, and that the fruit of marriage is death, but that the fruit of virginity is eternal life, and that they that are in the flesh, that is, the married persons (for so he expounds it) cannot please God. Yet let us receive the Cardinals interpretation; For what strength can there be in that argument? The show-bread was not to be given to those who a day or two before had lien with their wives: Ergo, Monks, Deacons, and Priests must never marry. Will any man that is in his right sense approve that consequence?

This is all that the Cardinal could find in the Old Testament for the perpetual celibat. For he was ashamed to use Bellarmins proofs, who proveth that the Clerks of the Christian Church must never marry, because the Priests of the Old Testament had a girdle about their loins, and wore drawers.

The Cardinal having alleged texts of Scripture with so little reason, to amend the matter, he allegeth fables and Pagan histories, saying, that Hippolitus saluted Venus afar off, and that Alexander in that act acknowledged that he was no God but man, and that the Kings of Taprobana were deposed whensoever they married. If thence it may be gathered that God in his word prohibited the Clerks to marry, let any man judge. May it not rather be hence gathered, that a man's cause is weak, when he is brought to use fables, and Pagan stories.

From the Old Testament the Cardinal passeth to the New, and saith, that marriage turneth away the affection of Ministers from the love which they owe unto the Church, and divides and transfers it to the love of their children and family, as St. Paul saith, 1 Cor. 7.32. He that is unmarried, careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord, But he that is married, careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife, and is divided.

I answer, that if the care of children distracteth the care which a Pastor ought to have of the Church, the burning lust of those that live in an incontinent Celibate doth far more distract them. If in the one there be distraction, in the other there is profanatian of the Ministry, and rebellion against God. That distraction did not hinder the Apostle Paul from commanding a Bishop to instruct and breed his children in the fear of God. The Prophet Isaiah who begot children in the time of his prophesy and divine revelations, was no less careful of the Church for that. The same I say of Moses, of Samuel, of St. Peter, and of so many faithful Pastors of whom we will speak hereafter. This also will serve for an answer to the Cardinals allegation of Rom. 12.8. where the Apostle commandeth, that he that ruleth, should do it with diligence. Note also, that Paul speaking of the distraction from God's service through the care of wife and children, speaks not of Pastors only, but of the people in general.

To that reason he addeth an evident untruth: That St. Peter, Matth. 19. saith to Christ upon a discourse about women, Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee, thereby inferring, that Peter had forsaken his wife to follow Christ. But it is most false, that Peter said that unto Christ upon a discourse about women. These words of Peter are in verse 27. now from verse 13, to ver. 27. there is not a word of women and marriage. It is true, that in ver. 29. Christ addeth Everyone that hath forsaken Houses, or Brethren, or Sisters, or Father, or Mother, or Wife, or Children, or Lands, for my names sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life. Christ took occasion of saying that upon Peters words, Behold we have forsaken all, and followed thee: But Peter did not say that upon the subject of women. Besides, it is wresting Christ's words, to limit to the Clergy only that which Christ said unto all; for all without exception are obliged to forsake Houses, Lands, Wives, Children, Fathers, Mothers, yea, and their own life, when they cannot keep it without breaking their faith unto Christ, and renouncing the profession of the Gospel. Wherefore Houses, Lands, Fathers, Mothers, Wives, and Children are here put in the same rank. Whence it is made plain, that as Pastors are not obliged by their charge to forsake their fields, their houses, and their children, no more are they obliged to forake their wives. Only in case of persecution, and when a man must either lose these things, or forsake Christ, he must lose all these things to follow Christ. So doth Austin expound it in the Epistle to Hilary, which is the eighty ninth, Sometimes there happens a point of necessity, that one must leave either his wife or Christ. And Basil in the eighth interrogation of the more general rules, expounding that text, saith, that God commandeth to leave these things, when they oppose his commandments.

The Cardinal shuts up his proof by a text out of Matth. 19. where Christ speaks of those that made themselves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of heaven. But he abuseth the Readers, going about to persuade them, that these words are said only of Monks and Clerks who have vowed virginity or perpetual celibat, seeing that Christ speaks of every godly man that leads a chaste life, and abstains from the lust of women, to serve God with more liberty. But everyone that makes the vow of celibat is not of those Eunuchs, seeing that many with that vow lead an unchaste life. And Christ speaks not there of a vow, but of a separation from bodily pleasures, which is commendable in Lay-men that have the gift of continence, as well as in Clergy-men.

In vain doth he go about to second that text with another, Isa. 56.4. Thus saith the Lord, unto the Eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, &c. Even unto them will I give in my house, and within my walls a place and a name better then of sons and of daughters. Our Adversaries, and Cardinal du Perron after others, wrest this text to an Allegory. These Eunuchs (if we may believe them) are those that have vowed never to marry. And that name better then of sons and daughters, is the glory given in Paradise unto works of superarrogation, that is, a degree above the vulgar souls, and the plebeian Saints. But there is no need of an Allegory, where the literal sense is plain. The strangers and the Eunuchs by the Law of Moses were excluded from entering into the house of God. The Prophet Isaiah foretells, that these distinctions shall be taken away by the vocation of the Gentiles, and by the preaching of the Gospel; and that neither Nation, nor bodily imperfection shall be a hindrance to any man from entering into God's Church. And the Spirit of God declareth, that by that reception into the Church, their condition shall be better then of those that are sons and daughters, and natural children, that is, then the Israelites.

Of the Canon of Neocesarea which the Cardinal addeth out of order, as if it were a text of Scripture, we shall speak hereafter.

CHAP. 7. What was the belief of the Antient Church about the marriage of the Ministers of the Church. The reasons and allegations of Cardinal du Perron are examined, and some of his falsifications observed.

THE question about the Celibate of Ecclesiastical men is the point about which the Fathers dissent most, not only the one from the other, but each one from himself. Canons of Councils are found pointed one against another; and the same Fathers that commend the Celibate, yet acknowledge that it was not practiced by many. Then the customs of Countries were diverse; The Greek and Oriental Churches commonly receiving married persons into the sacred Orders, and not separating them from their wives after their Ordination. And as human Laws brought in without authority of God's word, will get strength and take root by the length of time; So we find that in the end of the fourth age, and in the fifth, the Laws of the celibat were strengthened in some places, and that from other places also God raised oppositions against them. And that as the Popes power increased, that yoke grew heavier upon the Clergy of the West, whence great troubles and tumults arose in Christendom.

We deny not, that in the writings of the Fathers virginity is much exalted, and that they exhort them that have vowed virginity to keep their vow. But in the three first ages, and very far within the fourth, none was constrained to make that vow before he was received to the sacred Orders, and commonly Priests were married and dwelt with their wives, although they that lived in celibat were held by many to go beyond others in holiness. We find also that other Churches condemned the example and the Laws of the Roman Church, when they began to take wives from Priests, and to impose the yoke of celibat upon them. Of this it is easy to bring a multitude of instances. I will bring but some of the most pregnant.

Among the Canons of the Apostles, or those that are so called, The fifth is this, Let not the Bishop or the Priest put away his wife under pretence of piety. If he put her away, let him be excommunicated; If he persist, let him be deposed.

The Council of Ancyra assembled about the year of the Lord 308. speaks thus in the tenth Canon, All Deacons that are established in their charges, if they have declared in their reception, and said that they have need to marry, and cannot remain as they are, Let them continue in their service after they are married, because they had permission from the Bishop; But they that have said nothing of that [intent] and have undertaken in their ordination to remain so, (that is, unmarried) if they come after that to marry, let them be deprived of their Deaconship. The Cardinal hath translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 having been received, not knowing that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath an active signification, and hath no other active but the verbum medium. The Canon saith not, that they were received upon condition of not marrying, but that themselves undertook it, and bound themselves to it. Observe, that this Council believed, that a Deacon after his ordination could marry, so that he had permission from the Bishop.

In the Council of Nice held in the year 325. some made a motion, that wives should be taken from Priests and Bishops; and that they should not be allowed to lie together. To which Paphnutius Bishop of Thebaid in Egypt, who had one eye put out, and the ham-strings of one of his legs cut off, for the testimony of the Gospel, did vigorously oppose himself, as Sozomenus relates, Others (saith he) thought that Laws ought to be brought in to forbid Bishops and Priests, Deacons, and Sub-deacons to lie with their wives, whom they had married before they were consecrated. But Paphnutius the Confessor arose and opposed it, calling marriage precious, and habitation with their own wives chastity. And gave counsel to the Synod not to establish that Law, because it was a thing hard to bear, which might cause both them and their wives to live incontinently. Socrates saith the like; that when the motion was made of removing wives from Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Paphnutius rising in the midst of the Assembly, cried out that they should not lay a heavy burden upon sacred men, saying that the very bed is honorable, and the unpolluted marriage, lest that by an excess of rigor they should rather do harm to the Church, for all cannot bear that discipline, and be untouched from all desires. Only he was of that opinion, that he that had taken the sacred Orders being unmarried, should remain as he was according to the ancient tradition, and that he said being not married. His advice was followed by the Council.

Soudas in the word Paphnutius relates the same history in the same words, and addeth with Socrates, that the whole Assembly of Bishops believed the words of Paphnutius, and left it to every ones liberty to do what he would in that point.

Gelasius Cyzicenus who writ the Acts of the Council of Nice makes a relation altogether conformable to that of the alleged Authors, and addeth in chap. 33. None I think shall be saved in chastity (said Paphnutius) if every husband be deprived of his wife: for I say that the habitation of husbands with their wives is an excellent continence, and that a woman which God hath conjoined [with a husband] cannot be separated, when a man hath married her when he was a Reader, a Chaunter, or a Lay-man. Wherefore he saith that the Council left it to the will of the Clerks to abstain if they would from their wives by mutual consent.

See also Cassiodorus and Nicephorus Calistus who observeth that Paphnutius said, that if sacred persons were forbidden the use of their wives, that Law should cause both the Priests and their wives to lead an unchaste life. But because then some Bishops and Priests to get the reputation of a more exact holiness were not married, but instead of a lawful wife, kept at home a woman whom they called a well beloved, or Associate, which was covered with the title of holy love, or of some alliance (a thing subject to obloquy and sinister interpretation) the Synod made a Canon whereby it was forbidden to Ecclesiastical persons to keep those Associates in their houses, and command to have no other women about them, but such as were unsuspected, as a Mother, a Sister, and an Aunt. The words of the Canon are, The great Synod hath wholly forbidden, that it be permitted to any Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, or any of the Clergy, to have an associate; but only his Mother, or Sister, or Aunt, or those only persons that are out of all suspicion.

To answer that history of Paphnutius, and fence himself against the authority of the Council of Nice, the Cardinal laboreth and sweateth hard. He accuseth that history of untruth, as invented by Socrates, not considering that so he accuseth the Roman Decree of falsehood wherein the same history is inserted, and that he giveth the lie to so many witnesses, which we have produced. He saith then that there are six recusations against that History, but he brings but five.

The first is, that Socrates was a Novatian, and by consequent not to be believed. Which I have shown to be a calumny, and brought diverse testimonies of Socrates, whereby he accuseth the Novatians of schism, and reckons them among heretics. That objection of the Cardinal is against him, for the Novatians professed a preciser holiness then the Orthodox, and therefore would rather have been contrary to Paphnutius who disallowed the rigor of that yoke. Yet let us suppose that Sacrates was an heretic, for since in the point of the Celibate of Clerks the Novatians dissented not from the Orthodox, a Novatian historian cannot be suspected in this history. Besides, it is with little reason that he falls out with Socrates and meddleth not with so many other witnesses which we have brought, who say the same as Socrates. It seems that the Cardinal had read none but Socrates upon that question.

He saith in the second place, that the Grecians unanimously hold the relation of Socrates to be false as for Episcopacy; but he allegeth no Author for that but Cedrenus a new Writer, who saith that Paphnutius hindered the Council of Nice who would forbid to the Clerks the conjugal acquaintance with their wives, and decreed that Bishops only should observe it. But we shall hereafter see an Author of far greater authority then Cedrenus even Balsamon, of all the Grecians the most versed in Councils, and Ecclesiastical Canons, who saith that before the Council of Trull held in the year 692. Bishops also might keep their wives. Justinian and the Council of Trull, which du Perron allegeth after to invalid the relation of Socrates, are to no purpose, for they speak not of Paphnutius, nor of the Council of Nice.

In the third place, the Cardinal saith that Socrates is manifestly convinced of falseshood by the act of the Council of Nice which (designing what sort of women the Council alloweth to lodge in the Bishops house, as the Mother, the Sister, the Aunt) excludeth the wife from that number; and thereby will persuade us that the Council forbids the Bishop to have his wife at home. This is an extreme ignorance to have so ill understood the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifieth an Associate. This Cardinal believed, that when the Canon of the Council of Nice, which I have here produced, forbids the Bishop to keep an Associate at his house, by that Associate the Bishops wife must be understood. One must be very little versed in Antiquity to be ignorant, that these women which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were strangers not wives. Ruffinus in the first book of his history chap. 6. so translateth this Canon of the Council of Nice, Let none of the Bishops or other Clerks dwell with strange women, saving only his Mother, his Sister, or his Aunt, which are very near persons, where he termeth strangers those which in Greek are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Associates. The first Council of Carthage speaketh the same language in chap. 3. Let it not be lawful [to them that have a pastoral charge] who abstain from carnal affection, to dwell with strange women; For the occasions of sin must be cut off. And the fourth Council of Toledo, Can. 42. Some Clerks being not married, seek the company of strange women, or of their maids, which is forbidden unto them. Jerome in Epist. 22. to Eustocheum shows plainly enough that those women were no wives. Which way (saith he) is that plague of Agapets [or well beloved women] crept into the Church? Whence came that other new name of wives without marriage? Yea, whence came that new kind of concubines? And Epiphanius in the sixty third heresy, We call Agapets the Associate women. Eusebius in the seventh book of his history chap. 22. puts that among the crimes of Paulus Samosatenus, that he had about him a company of unmarried women, not without suspicion of lying with them. The Law of the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius is formal to this purpose, All that are promoted to any degree of Priesthood, or honored with Ecclesiastical Office must know, that the association of strange women is interdicted unto them, being only permitted to have their Mothers, Daughters and Sisters within their houses. Wherefore Justinian in the 123. Novell chap. 29. alleging the words of that Canon of Nice, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and in the Latin superinductam, hath put 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, brought in, or crept in from abroad. Among the verses of Gregory Nazianzen there is an Epigram against these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Associates, where he saith that he knows not whether the persons so associated be married or not married. In a word, who so will believe that those Agapets or associate women were married women, showeth himself very ignorant in Antiquity.

Out of all this it is made evident, that this Canon of the Council of Nice, is made only against unmarried Bishops who kept Associates instead of Wives. Photios teacheth that very expressly in his Nomocanon, setting down this Canon in these words. Let no Clark that hath no wife, keep an associate at home, saving only his Mother, his Sister. &c. The second Council of Tours hath the like Canon, Let no troop of women follow a Bishop that hath not a Bishoppess.

Also the Cardinal goeth about to convince Socrates of untruth for saying, that the Council of Nice being persuaded by Paphnutius made no new order about that point. If (saith he) that dissuasion had been true, the Council neither could nor ought to abstain from it: For that Law which he saith to have been opposed by Paphnutius had been made already by many particular Councils, as by the Eliberin Council where the same Osius, that presided in the Council of Nice, had been present. Nay, the clean contrary followeth. For since Socrates, Sozomenus, Gelasius, Cassiodorus, Nicephorus, and Soudas, of whom the first four are ancient witnesses that Paphnutius spake of that Law of Celibate as of a new Law and a yoke which had not been before, we may certainly affirm that as yet there was no such Law. Neither could the Cardinal produce any Council more ancient then that of Nice for that Law: for the Eliberin Council which he allegeth prescribes the contrary. The words of the Canon are, We thought it good to forbid altogether Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons established in the Ministry to abstain from their wives and from begetting children. Can more express terms be devised to condemn Clerks that make conscience to come near their wives, and to beget children? Truly, if that Canon ought to be taken in a quite contrary sense, as the Cardinal will have it, and if thereby the marriage of Clerks had been forbidden, Hosius who was both present and President in the Council of Nice, and who had been before one of the Eliberin Council would have contradicted Paphnutius. Would he not have told him, You err saying that this Law of Celibate is a new Law, and not established before, seeing that it was established in the Eliberin Council, where I was present? This is then the difference: The Eliberin Council saith, It is ordained that prohibition be made to Bishops to abstain from their wives, but Cardinal du Perron maintains that prohibere signifieth commanding or enjoining to abstain, which is an horrible licentiousness. Yet he defends himself with a text of St. Paul, 1 Tim. 4.3. prohibentes abstinere à cibis, which (saith he) signifieth commanding to abstain from meats: But that's false. For there is in the text prohibentium nubere, abstinere à cibis: The word prohibentium, belongs to the precedent clause. And better it is, in the second clause, abstinere a cibis, to supply a convenient word to the Apostles intention, and translate commanding to abstain from meats, as also the Doctors of Lovain have done in their French version. Thus when Virgil saith, that Evander sat clad with a short robe, and with a crookod staff, he means not that Evander was clad with a staff.

Note also, that this Eliberin Council was held in Spain, and that in Spain since that Council Bishops were married, and begot children in the time of their Episcopacy, as we shall see hereafter by the example of Carterius.

The Cardinals fourth answer whereby he labors to weaken the authority of that history of Paphnutius, is, that the constitution made in the Eliberin Council, before the Council of Nice was repeated again after the Council of Nice in many subsequent Councils. This Cardinal having said, That the Law of the Celibate had been already made by many particular Councils before the Council of Nice, could not bring any Council but that of Eliberis which commands the clean contrary, as we have shown. Now he brings Councils much later then that of Nice, wherein he saith that this Law was confirmed, which against truth he pretends to have been constituted in the Eliberin Council; But what doth that for the weakening of the relation of Socrates about the dissuasion of Paphnutius? Who knows not, that in points of discipline and Ecclesiastical order ages will alter, and customs will vary? He allegeth then the second Council of Carthage, held about the year of our Lord 390. that is, sixty five years after the Council of Nice, and but a particular Council of some Provinces of Africa. But in the same time, both in Greece, and in all the East, Priests were married, and kept their wives which they had married before their ordination. The same I say of the first Council of Toledo, and of the second Council of Arles, if the Acts that are extant be true: For we have them only in the Latin Tomes of the Councils, the first of which hath almost nothing certain but the Canons which the Greek Church hath preserved for us. Neither is it like that those petty Councils which are put a little after the Council of Nice, would have opposed themselves unto that venerable Universal Council which had rejected those that would bring in that Law of the Celibate, and had left that to every man's liberty.

In the Roman Decree Dist. 28. a Canon of the third Council of Arles is alleged, saying that a married Priest must not be admitted, unless he promise conversion. Which is not found in that Council of Arles in the Tomes of Collen of the year 1567. But in the elder Editions of the year 1538. at Collen, and of 1551. and in that of Bartholomew Caranza, there is the clean contrary. For the Canon speaks thus, Assumi aliquem ad sacerdotium non posse in conjugii vinculo constitutum non oportet, nisi fuerit promissa conversio. That is, It is a thing that must not be, that a man being in the bond of matrimony should not be received to the Priesthood, unless he promise conversion before. So little trust there is to be put in those Latin Canons of Councils which are not found in the Greek.

It is very considerable, that a few years after the Council of Nice a Council was held at Gangra, whose Canons (though but of a provincial Council) were of so much authority that they were inserted in the Code of the Universal Church, and approved by the Universal Councils that followed, especially by the sixth Council assembled again in the Palace of Trull to make Canons. For such is the second Canon, We ratify all the sacred Canons of the holy Fathers, &c. those of Neocesarea, as also those of Gangra. Now of that Council this is the fourth Canon, If any make a difference of a married Priest, as if none ought to partake of the oblation when he doth the service, let him be anathema. There is in the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth a married Priest, not one that hath been married. So doth the Apostle speak 1 Cor. 7.10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to them that are married, not to them that have been, as our Cardinal (after Bellarmine ) would persuade us pag. 708. And Theodoret saith, that St. Peter was called to the Apostleship 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of the company of married persons, not of those that had been married.

The Roman Decree translateth this Canon, presbyterum conjugatum, a married Priest. And Socrates in book 2. cap. 33. speaking of the condemnation of this Eustathius by the same Council saith, He commanded that the communion of a Priest, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that had a wife, should be avoided like a crime. Truly although the Greek tongue should suffer that interpretation, yet the occasion upon which that Canon was made, doth not admit it. For the Preface of that Council showeth, that this Council was assembled against Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, who among many errors taught wives to forsake their husbands, and to shave themselves, and commanded fasting upon the Lord's day, and forbad eating of flesh, and dissuaded Christians from praying in the houses of married persons, despising married Priests, and teaching men not to be partakers of the holy mysteries touched by their hand. Which errors the Council condemning, addeth in the end, We admire virginity when it is with humility, and honor the honest cohabitation of matrimony. Where it is clear, that persons that live in matrimony, are understood, not they that sometimes lived in that state.

The Cardinal adds places of Eusebius, and Epiphanius which he hath falsified as we shall hereafter see. And those places speak neither of the Council of Nice, nor of Paphnutius, of whom it is in question in this place; We shall see what authority those Fathers may have whom he allegeth.

About the time of the same Council the Emperor Constantine made a Law which is the second in the title de Episcopis & Clericis, and speaks thus Let not Clerks be obliged to the expenses of public messengers or posts, nor their goods and estates. Let this prerogative serve for all the Clerks that their wives and children, both sons and daughters be exempted from such charges.

The eighth Canon of the Council of Neocesarea commands a Clark to send his wife away, if she hath committed adultery after his ordination. For that Council which forbids Priests to marry after their ordination, permits them to keep their wives which they had married before their ordination. Which custom the Greek Church hath always observed, and observeth to this day.

The Council of Chalcedon in the fourteenth Canon forbiddeth Readers and Singers to marry with wives of diverse religion. And in the sixteenth Canon power is given to the Bishop to give permission to marry to persons that have vowed virginity.

Pope Syricius Can. Quisquis, in the eighty fourth Distinction speaks thus, Let any Clark that shall marry a widow or a second wife be immediately deprived of all privileges of Ecclesiastical dignity. That Canon permits not only married persons to be Clerks, but the Clerks also to marry. This agreeth with the Council of Tela or Tellene, where there is a Decretal Epistle of that Syricius, containing nine Canons, of which this is the fourth, Let not a Clark marry a widow. The twelfth Canon of the third Council of Carthage saith, Let not the sons or daughters of Bishops, or other Clerks whatsoever, be joined in matrimony with Pagans, or Heretics, or Schismatics. And in the Epistle of Innocent the I. to Victricius, Let not the Clark marry a widow.

Socrates in the fifth book, chap. 22. speaks thus, I have observed another custom in Thessalia, That one that is made a Clark is degraded, if after he was made Clark, he lie with the wife which he had married before he was a Clark. Whereas in the East, they that are famous and the Bishops themselves, abstain altogether [from their wives] if they will, but they do it not being constrained by any Law: For many among them in the time of their Episcopacy have begot children of their lawful wives. He addeth that Theodorus or Heliodorus, Clark of Triba or Trixa, the same that writ the love-book called Ethiopica, brought that custom into Thessalia.

The Cardinal in the same twentieth Chapter, brings many Texts of Jerome against marriage. Which is not fair dealing, for he knoweth how much Jerome was blamed for that, as himself confesseth in his Apology to Pammachius. We need not repeat the slanderous and reviling words of that Father against marriage, of which we brought some before: Wherefore his words in this question are of no weight. But that which is most observable, is, that himself in the first Book against Jovinian, where he dealeth so unworthily with matrimony, acknowledgeth nevertheless that in his time Bishops were married. If (saith he) Samuel brought up in the Tabernacle did marry, what doth that to the prejudice of Virginity? As though many Bishops in our days were not married. Seeing that the Apostle describes the Bishop, the husband of one wife, having children with all chastity. And in the same place, Married men are chosen, I deny it not. Again, Many times in the Ordination of a Priest, a Virgin is neglected, a married man is taken.

Yea the same Jerome in the Epistle to Oceanus praiseth Carterius a Bishop in Spain, that being a Bishop, he begot children of a second wife. Carterius (saith he) desired to have children by his wife, but thou applying thyself to an harlot, hast lost thy race. He was hid in the secret of his chamber, whilst he served nature and the blessing of God, who saith, Increase and multiply, and fill the earth: But thou in thy libidinous heat wast detested by the looks of the people. He did cover with an ingenuous shamefac'tness that which was lawful, but thou hast impudently exposed unto the eyes of all, that which was unlawful. For him it is written, that marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled: But for thee it is said, that Whoremongers and Adulterers God shall judge.

In the same place speaking of married Bishops, If I would name all the Bishops one by one, I might assemble so great a number, that it would go beyond the number of the Synod of Ariminum. In which Council there was above six hundred Bishops.

The same Doctor in the same Epistle, expounding the Text of Saint Paul, Let the Bishop be the husband of one wife; saith, the Apostle commands that the Bishops of the Church take that license no more, and forbids them to have two or three marriages together, but will have them to keep but one wife at once.

Epiphanius, in the Heresy of the Novatians, which is the 59. saith, that where the Ecclesiastical Canons are exact and strict, a man begetting children, is not received into Ecclesiastical Orders. But in the same place he acknowledgeth that these Orders were not practiced everywhere. Thou wilt tell me (saith he) that yet in some places, Priests, Deacons, and sub-Deacons beget children. To which he answereth, that this is done, not by the rules, but by the looseness of men; and because they found not persons enough that might fill up the charges, because of the great number. The Cardinal allegeth this place according to his wonted faithfulness, for he falsifies it, and clips from it what displeaseth him. He translateth for his own conveniency 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sincere, whereas it signifieth exact and strict, and clips this clause, Thou wilt tell me, that yet in some places Priests and Deacons, &c. beget children; Also that which Epiphanius saith, that for want of others, Priests that beget children are chosen.

The same Epiphanius in the Heresy of the Apostolicks, which is the 61. praiseth those that vow perpetual Virginity, yet acknowledging that such a vow hath no ground in Scripture, but in tradition. He saith that a Virgin that breaks her vow, sinneth grievously: Yet he declareth, that it is better for her to break that vow, and to marry, then to fall into fornication. It is better (saith he) to have one sin then many. It is better if a man be fallen off from his course, to take a wife openly, according to the Law, and being decayed from Virginity, after a long penance, be brought in again into the Church, &c. then every day to be wounded with secret arrows, and by the vice suggested by the Devil.

And now since we speak of falsifications, the Cardinal in the same twentieth Chapter, bringing his fifth recusation against the History of Paphnutius, quoteth a Text of Eusebius, which is found in the seventh Chapter of the first Book of Evangelical demonstration. There is according to the Greek, The Heralds of the word of piety, for the present, necessarily study to keep themselves retired from matrimony, because they tend better things, employing themselves to the divine, and not carnal generation of children. The Cardinal contented not himself to omit these words, for the present, whereby Eusebius signifies, that they that abstained from matrimony, did it in consideration of the present time: But he hath translated also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , dissolution, to persuade that they that consecrated themselves to the holy Ministry, forsook their wives, and made a dissolution of Matrimony: A thing forbidden by Christ, Matth. 19.6. & 9. And by Paul, 1 Cor. 7.11. Indeed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , signifies not dissolution, but retirement from society, in the same sense as the Hermits are called in Greek Anachorets, that is, living a retired life far from society, but that word signifieth not makers of dissolution; in the same sense as in the first Book of Herodian, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , signifieth, a place of retirement, far from communication; but that doth not import any dissolution. Eusebius then saith, that in his time many Christians, the Pastors of the Church especially, did not marry, that they might tend their office with more liberty. Which is very commendable in them that have the gift of continence. And it is credible, that God at that time gave it to more persons then he doth now. But they did it by a voluntary abstinence, without any binding Law: For of that Law or Rule, Eusebius speaks not. If there had been such a Law, Paphnutius would not have spoken in full Council against that Law (that some would have brought in) as new and intolerable. And the Synod would not have followed his advice.

But in the same time lived Athanasius, who in the Epistle to Dracontius hath these words, Many Bishops never were married, but there are Monks that are Fathers of children. As on the other side, we have known Bishops that were Fathers of children, and Monks altogether without issue, and Clerks that fasted, and Monks that drunk. For it is permitted so to do, and it is not forbidden to do otherwise.

Theodoret speaks thus, The Lord God made no Laws about Virginity, for he knew that to be above nature. And in the same place, The divine Apostle saith of Virginity, I have no commandment of the Lord, for the Lord gave no Law about Virginity. And in the following Chapter, The first of the Apostles was called out of the company of married persons.

Austin in the book of Heresies, in the Heresy of the Apostolicks, They receive not into their communion, those that make use of wives, and that have propriety of goods: Of which sort of men the Catholic Church hath many, both Monks and Clerks. We have heard before Chrysostom saying, in his second Homily upon the Epistle to Titus, that marriage is so honorable, that with it men may rise even to the Episcopal See.

In the twenty eighth Distinction of the Roman Decree, Can. De Syracusana, Pope Pelagius, though he followed the course of his predecessors, Syricius and Innocent, sworn enemies to the marriage of Clerks, yet the people of Saragossa, being desirous of a certain Bishop that had a wife and children, granted him unto them, upon condition that he should not bestow the goods of the Church upon his wife and children. For (saith he) wife and children are they, by whom the Church goods use to be endangered. Thereby showing two things; the one, that then there were Priests married, and that the marriage of a Bishop was not held a thing of its nature unlawful, since it was permitted to some. The other, that the true reason which moved the Popes to make that constitution in the Roman Church (for the Greek Church never received it) was the preservation of Ecclesiastical goods.

Isidorus in the beginning of the second Book of Ecclesiastical Offices, brings this rule of the ancient Fathers, Let not Clerks desire to keep strange women at home. Let them study to keep the perpetual chastity of an inviolate body; or let them, at least be allied with the bond of one marriage. It is evident, that by those strange women, those Agapets or Associates are understood, which the Council of Nice prohibited. And note, that this rule permits not only to make married men Clerks, but Clerks to marry, as Tertullian, told us before, that it was lawful for the Apostles to marry.

Baronius an. 453. brings a Synod of Anjou, which saith among other things, Let none be ordained Priests or Deacons, but such as are husbands of one only wife, and that have married Virgins. That constitution was still kept in Gauls, in the ninth age. For Hinckman in his Epistle to the Clergy, and the people of Tournay, speaks thus, Let him not presume to make unlawful Ordinations. Let him not receive a bigame to Orders, nor him that married a woman that was not a Virgin; if it be in question of married persons. And in the Epistle to the Clergy and people of Beauvais, That man is not received into the Clergy that marrieth a widow.

Du Haillan in the life of Charles the Simple, saith, that in that Kings reign a Council was held in France, in which it was permitted unto Priests to marry Virgin wives.

This is the 43. Canon of the Council of Toledo, The Clerks that have married without the Bishops counsel, or taken widows, or divorced women, or whores for their wives, must be separated by their own Bishop.

Pope Innocent the first, in the fourth Epistle to Felix Bishop of Nocera, speaks thus, It is forbidden in the Law unto the Priest, to have a woman that was a widow; or one of a sordid condition. The same in the Epistle to Victricius, chap. 4. Ut viduam Clericus non ducat uxorem. Let not a Clark marry one that was a widow.

Above all, the thirteenth Canon of the Council of Constantinople, reassembled at Trull, is express to this purpose, Whereas we have heard, that in the Roman Church this is given for a rule, that such as are to be honored with the Order of Deacon or Priest, must openly promise that they shall join no more with their wives; We according to the ancient rule of the exact Discipline and Order of the Apostles, will that hereafter the co-habitation of sacred men, made according to the Laws, remain firm, not separating them in any wise from touching their wives, nor depriving them of their mutual company in convenient time; so that if any be found worthy to be Ordained sub-Deacon, or Deacon, or Priest, he shall not be kept off from that degree upon pretence of his cohabitation with his lawful wife: And at the time of his Ordination, no promise shall be required from him, that he shall abstain from the lawful habitation with his own wife, for fear that by that means we be constrained to wrong and disgrace matrimony, which God hath instituted, and blest with his presence, seeing that the Gospel crieth up, That which God hath joined, let not man separate. The thing most to be observed in that Canon, is that the Church of Rome is by name condemned in it. Pope Adrian approveth the Canons of that Council, as doth also the second Council of Nice.

It is true, that in the same Council marriage is forbidden to Bishops. But Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch, upon the fifth Canon of the Apostles, speaks thus, Before the VI. Council, which was held in the Palace of Trull, Bishops were permitted to keep their wives, even after they had the Episcopal dignity bestowed upon them. And he addeth, that in Africa, Libya, and other places, they are allowed to cohabit with their wives.

That I may not amplify this matter further, I will shut up this discourse with a place of Gregory the I. who writ in the year 595. when the Law of the Celibate of the Clergy was strengthened in those places, where the Bishop of Rome had power. In the IV. Book of his Dialogues, chap. I. he speaks of the wives of Priests, which he calls Presbyteras, Priestesses; and saith that a Priest of Nursia abstained from touching his wife. For (saith he) holy men have this property, to cut off themselves from lawful things, that they may always be far from the unlawful.

The same Pope in the twenty fourth Epistle of the third Book, forbids to receive money for the Ordination, or for the marriage of Clerks. These Popes, though fully bent upon planting the Law of Celibate with all their power, yet were often forced to give place unto nature; and conscience did many times put them to the rack, and made them confess the truth: So far that Pius the II. was saying, that for great reasons marriage had been taken from Priests, but that for greater reasons it should be restored to them, as Platina saith.

The words of Polydorus Virgilius, are notable in the fifth Book of the Inventors of things, chap. 4. The Apostle Saint Paul hath prescribed to our Priests the manner how they ought to contract matrimony, writing thus unto Timothy, The Bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife; And a little after, Let the Deacons be the husbands of one wife only. That which is permitted to Bishops, is also granted to Priests, seeing that upon Jerome's testimony we have said in another place, that Priests in old time were called Bishops. Of sub-Deacons he saith nothing, who in those days were not a sacred Order.

CHAP. 8. Examples of Clerks married, both Antient and Modern.

WE heard before Ignatius, and Clemens Alexandrinus, and Ambrose, saying, that most part of the Apostles had wives: And Athanasius saying, that he had known married Bishops, and others living single: And Jerome praising Bishop Carterius for begetting children on his second wife, in the time of his Episcopacy. I will bring here a few more examples.

Dionysius Alexandrinus, a man of holy life, who writ about the year 260. speaks of his children in an Epistle which is in the sixth Book, chap. 40. of Eusebius.

Sozomenus, book 1. chap. 11. speaks thus of Spiridion Bishop of Cyprus, That rustic man, having a wife and children, yet never the unfitter for that, for divine things. The Cardinal, who to wrest the Fathers finds nothing too hard, saith that Sozomenus understands, that Spiridion for being a rustic man, was not the unfitter for divine things; but the Greek construction is repugnant to that, for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , relates necessarily to that which is next, and the Authors meaning is that Spiridion was not unfitter for God's service, for having a wife and children. Also the Cardinal would persuade the Reader, that Spiridion's wife was dead when he was made a Bishop. Which Sozomenus contradicteth, saying, That rustic man having a wife and children, not that sometimes had a wife. The Menology of the Grecians alleged by the Cardinal, that is the Lunar Calendar which the Greek Churches use now, is of no more authority, then if he alleged a new Almanac printed at Venice.

He is ridiculous, when he will prove that Spiridions wife was dead because his daughter served him, as though a daugher did owe no service to her Father during her mothers life.

In the ninth Epistle of the seventh book of Sidonius Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, Sidonius puts this among the praises of Simplicius Bishop of Bourges, He hath a wife of the race of the Palladians, and two sons well and prudently instructed.

Sidonius himself had married a wife named Papianilla daughter to the Emperor Avitus, who distributed her plate unto the poor.

Gregory Nazianzen was son to Gregory Bishop of Nazianza, who during his Episcopacy lived with his wife Nonna to an extreme old age in the same house; as it is seen in the said Gregory's life set before his works; And in the Oration which the said Gregory made upon his father, and in the oration about his sister Gorgonia, and in that about his brother Caesarius.

The Cardinal pretends to prove, that he did not touch his wife since he was a Bishop, because he died being a hundred years old, and was forty years Bishop. He meaneth that a man hath lost his vigor at the age of threescore years. Which cannot be true in a man that liveth a hundred years. Yet suppose that it is so: But who knoweth not that a man then jumped not into Episcopacy with one leap, and that this Gregory had past many years in the other Orders of the Church, before he was a Bishop.

St. Gregory of Nyssa brother to St. Basil was married. Nicephorus speaks thus of him book. 11. chap. 19. Although he had a wife, in other things he was not inferior to his brother.

Liberatus in his Breviary, chap. 10. observeth in Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria as a thing not ordinary, that he had neithet wife nor children.

Synesius Bishop of Cyrene being desired to take upon him the office of Bishop would not accept of it, but upon condition that he might be allowed to keep his wife, and have her with him, and beget on her as many children as he could, as himself saith, Epist. 105. As for me, I will not separate myself from her in any wise, and will not lie with her by stealth like an adulterer, but I will endeavor and wish to have by her many fine children.

This example showeth indeed that in Africa the Law was more rigid then in other places, and that they made difficulty to admit a married Bishop. But this shows also that this rule was not generally observed. In vain the Cardinal allegeth, that this Synesius did not believe the resurrection: For that is nothing to this question. It is enough that he was a Bishop dwelling with his wife, and was very much honored.

In the fifty sixth Distinction of the Roman Decree in the Canon Osius, there is a long list of Bishops, children of Clerks.

Pope Osius was son of Stephen Subdeacon, Pope Boniface was son of the Priest Jocundus. And that one may not think that they were begotten by fornication, or before their fathers were Clerks, The Canon Cenomanensem, in the same Distinction hath these words, When then we read before, that persons born of Priests were promoted to the charge of High Priests, we must not understand, that they were begotten by fornication, but in lawful matrimony, which before the prohibition were allowed everywhere; and yet to this day they are permitted in the Oriental Church. In Armenia the marriage of Clerks was in such honor, that none was received to the sacred Orders unless he was of sacerdotal race. For which the Armenians are condemned by the Council of Trull Can. 33. which forbids to regard the extraction in the ordination.

Yea in the West, for all that the Bishops of Rome could do, Priests were commonly married. In Germany especially, where Pope Gregory the VII. surnamed Hildebrand stirred up many troubles and scandals about that, as it is related by Schafnaburgensis, and Sigebertus, who speaks thus upon the year 1074. Pope Gregory having called a Synod, excommunicated the Simoniacks, and expelled married Priests from the divine Office, and forbad Lay-men to hear their Mass, by a new example, as many hold, and by an inconsiderate prejudice against the opinion of the Holy Fathers, &c. And so Schafnaburgensis on the same year; Against that Decree [of Gregory the VII.] whereby it was constituted that none should be admitted to holy Orders, but such as would profess perpetual continence and single life, the whole faction of the Clergy began to inveigh vehemently, crying out that the man was an heretic, who having forgotten the words of the Lord, All men cannot receive this saying [Matth. 19.11.] and those of theApostle, If they do not contain, let them marry, by a violent constraint imposed upon men an Angelical life.

In the year 1225. Innocent the third, and after him Innocent the fourth sent Legates into England, to dissolve the marriages of Priests. One of these Legates called John de Cremona laboring for that separation was found in a Bawdy-house.

Theodoricus a Niem Secretary to three Popes who writ about the year one thousand four hundred and ten affirmeth, that in his time in Norway, Ireland, Gascony, and Portugal, Priests were married, and that it was a shame for Priests not to be married.

CHAP. 9. Confession of the Adversaries.

AENeas Sylvius who since was Pope, and was called Pius the II. in the end of second Book of the history of the Council of Basil, saith that when it was in question of electing Felix Pope instead of Eugenius, some alleged that it could not be because he had been married, and had children. Upon which the same Aeneas relateth the reasons propounded by others against it in a full Council, to which the Council adhered. These are the words, As for that which is said of his wife, I make nothing of it, seeing that not only he that had a wife, but he that hath one, maybe elected. For to what purpose do the Doctors dispute, whether a Pope that is married be bound to pay the due [benevolence] unto his wife, if a married man may not be admitted? And there have been married Popes, as you know; and St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles, was not without a wife. But why do we object these things? Perhaps it were never the worse if many Priests were married, because many should be saved in matrimony who are damned in a barren Priesthood. In the margent of that discourse, there is this annotation, Read the fifth Epistle of Ignatius the Martyr, and you shall see that all the Apostles had wives. Read also Baptista Mantuanus in Fastis, and you shall find that Hilary Bishop of Poitiers had a lawful wife. This is the same Pope Pius the second who told us before, that for great reasons women were taken from Priests, but that for better reasons, they ought to be restored unto them.

The Roman Decree in the twenty third Distinction Can. His igitur, speaks thus of Clerks, Let them study to keep always the holiness of an inviolate body, or at least let them be allied with the bond of one marriage only.

In the one and thirtieth Distinction Can Aliter. The tradition of the Oriental Church is diverse from that of this holy Roman Church. For their Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons are married, &c.

In Cause 26. Quest. 22. Can. Sors non est. The marriage of Priests is not forbidden, neither by the authority of the Law, nor by that of the Gospel; yet by the Ecclesiastical Law it is altogether forbidden.

Pope Leo, the first in the eighty seventh Epistle, Let him marry a Virgin, and let that woman that must be a Bishops wife, be altogether ignorant of another husbandsbed.

Polydorus Virgilius in the fifth book of the inventors of things, chap. 4. Syricius began to sit in the year 363. He was the first that forbad Priests to marry. And a little after, Before Gregory the seventh in the year of the Lord 1074. marriage could not be taken away from the Occidental Priests. Then he addeth, that this constrained chastity was so far from overcoming the conjugal chastity, that rather the fornication of Priests was thereby so much increased, that it defamed religion more then any other evil. Wherefore he wisheth that marriage were restored unto them.

Cassander a Canon of Collen in the chapter of the Celibate of Priests, It remaineth that hereafter this statute may be relaxed for those that shall be admitted into Orders; and that according to the custom of the ancient Church, and of the Eastern Churches until now, honest married men be also admitted to the Ministry of the Church, and that they be permitted to use familiarity with their wives according to the Canon of the sixth general Council, whereby it is determined that the marriages of Priests and Deacons ought by no means to be dissolved, and that before their ordination they ought not to be constrained to profess chastity.

CHAP. 10. Of the disorders happened by the Celibate: Also of the Charthusians, and of S ^t . Francis and his rule.

CArdinal du Perron seeing that he could not deny the great disorders and the unchaste life of most of them that live in celibat, saith that the celibat is no cause of those disorders: That in Austin's time the chastity of Clerks was exemplary, even of those that had been constrained to be Clerks, and that the cause of that disorder must be attributed to the lust and corruption of men. He propounds the Carthusians and Capuchins as examples of chastity; and saith that the most predigious examples of lust are found in married persons: Not only in such as Nero and Heliogabalus, but even in David, who had ten or twelve wives, and in Solomon, who had three hundred: Which hindered not David from defiling his bed with murder and adultery, nor Solomon from prostituting himself to seven hundred concubines.

One syllable only of God's word is better then all that artificial discourse, which is directly contary to the Apostle, who saith To avoid fornication let every man have his wife and every woman her own husband, plainly teaching that marriage serveth to avoid fornication, whereas M. du Perron saith that married men are most given to lust. St. Paul saith, If they contain not, let them marry: but M. du Perron opposeth him, saying that married persons are the most incontinent.

It is true, that as there are persons that keep their health in a contagious air, and some that are sick in a pure air; And some that are warm in Winter, though they come not near the fire, and some that are cold in Summer because of the ill disposition of their bodies: Likewise some live chastely in celibat, some live unchastly in matrimony, breaking all obstacles with their unbridled lust, and being sick in the midst of remedies. But thence it follows not, that it is more easy to live chastely unmarried, or that the Apostle was mistaken when he taught that marriage is the right remedy against fornication. Only it may be thence inferred: that he that liveth unchastely in matrimony, would do worse in that kind if he were not married, and that vices are so strong in some men, that they cannot be overcome by any remedy.

In vain he allegeth the Carthusians for examples of chastity. For to keep a man prisoner all his life and then praise his chastity, it is as if one put out a man's eyes, and then commended him for never looking upon women. Then continence is to be commended, when one hath the means to please his incontinence. Yet whosoever hath read the books of Cassian, knoweth that Monks suffer great inflammations of lust, and are disquieted with strange desires in their solitariness. St. Benedicts life, the Author of the order of the Benedictines, of whom the Carthusians are a branch, saith that he would tumble his naked body upon a sharp thornbush to allay his unchaste heat: It had been better done for him to marry, and to follow the Apostles counsel.

As for the Capuchins whom the Cardinal propoundeth as examples of chastity, the world speaks of them diversely, and they are not free from blame no more then others. Besides, it is no wonder if their habit frights women. And such women may be found, who being but too free otherwise would make conscience to pollute the habit of St. Francis, which many will put on when they die, because it is held worth a second Baptism. M. du Perron saith that the Capuchins are restituted to their ancient Discipline, that is, that they keep the whole rule of St. Francis. Of which rule it will not be amiss to produce some clauses to know whether there be much perfection in the observation of them. That rule prescribes that None after the year of probation have leave to come out of that religion according to the command of the Lord Pope, because according to the holy Gospel none that puts his hand to the plough and looketh behind is fitted for the kingdom of God. And a little after, They that are forced with necessity may wear shoes. And let all the brethren be clothed with vile garments, which they may piece with sacks and other pieces, with the blessing of God. The same rule commands the Lay Monks of the Order of St. Francis to say twenty four Paternosters at Matins, besides the other Paters of the rest of the day, which amount to forty seven, so that they make seventy one Paters every day. To fast from All-Saints day to Christmas. To receive no money neither by themselves, nor by interposed persons. To have no proper goods, but to beg alms confidently; For (saith the rule) their deep poverty makes them heirs of the kingdom of heaven. That they be short in their Sermons, because the Lord hath shortened the word upon earth. That the brethren that cannot read, take no care to learn to read, but that they desire above all things to have the Spirit of the Lord.

Whether the Capuchins keep that whole rule, and whether these precepts to which Monks are bound by an oath without any mention of Holy Scripture or of the word of God (which in that rule is alleged in derision) and whether such works ought to be reckoned among the works of superarrogation more perfect and more excellent then the Law of God, I leave it to the consideration of all that have some freedom of judgment, and some knowledge in the word of God. For the close of that rule, that goodly Saint speaks thus, Let it not be lawful for any man to transgress this page, or to contradict it by an audacious rashness. And if any presume to attempt it, let him know that he shall incur the indignation of Almighty God, and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. It was not enough to incur God's indignation, unless he had added that of Peter and Paul: and why not also that of John and James? And what certainty have we, that for breaking the rule of brother Francis, that is, for touching money with his hands, or for wearing shoes without necessity, or for saying fewer then twenty four Paters at Matins, or for possessing some proper goods, a poor Monk must incur God's indignation? and that by observing these things, not commanded by God, but invented by men, he shall obtain a degree of glory in heaven, above those that have done no more, but to fulfill the Law of God? Here indeed one may doubt, which must be most wondered at, either the blindness of men, or the audaciousness of these Authors of rules, or the patience of God? I refer this to the judgment of the Capuchins, who affirm that they wear a garment of three pieces in memory of the Trinity. In which garment they make holes purposely to set pieces to it, although the garment be new, whether they feel much virtue in that habit, and that it serveth them instead of a second Baptism.

The life of St. Francis Patron of the Capuchins is such, that it seems that they that writ it intended to defame him, or to abuse him. I leave a thousand ridiculous passages, as that he would be wallowing naked in the snow to beat down his libidinous heat. That he preached unto Birds and Crickets, calling them Brothers and Sisters. That he took up the lice fallen from his garment, and set them upon his garment again. That to obey Pope Honorius he wallowed in the mire among hogs. But there are three things in his life, which seem to me very worthy of observation. 1. That he was cruelly beaten by Devils. 2. That being one day full of joy, and being asked what was the subject of his joy, he answered, Know ye that I rejoice, because being Saint, I shall be adored over all the world. 3. This is observable above the rest, that one time having a great longing to hear ill words, he commanded a Monk to rate him with injurious words. The Monk not daring to disobey him, told him, Thou art a clown, a mercenary man, an ungodly, and an idle fellow. To whom St. Francis answered, The Lord bless thee, for thou speakest most true. That was a sincere confession. But in my opinion all these passages are little resembling the life of the Apostles.

To shut up this question of the celibat, it is easy to discern by what spirit they that lay that yoke upon the Clergy are acted. For the Popes that made that Law, are the same that license Bawdy-houses, even at Rome, and near the See of his holiness. Then the celibat of Clerks and Monks conduceth very much to the preservation and augmentation of the patrimony of the Church. And the Decrees of the Roman Church, as also the glosses adjoined unto them, are interlarded with dishonest and jeering clauses, which show that those very men that preach single life delight in bawdery, and laugh at their own rules. Such is the Canon Is qui, in the thirty fourth Distinction, which hath this inscription, He that hath no wife, instead of her must have a concubine. And the Canon Dilectissimis in Cause 12. Qu. 1. which approveth Plato's opinion, and calleth him, The wisest of the Grecians, who said that all things ought to be common among friends. Now (saith the Canon) in that word, all things, no doubt but wives also are comprehended. Of the same stuff is the Gloss of the Canon Absit, in Cause 11. Qu. 3. which saith, that if a Clark embrace a woman, it must be interpreted, that he doth it to give her his blessing. And the gloss of the Canon Vidua, Distinction 34. giveth the definition of a whore, namely, that it is quae admiserit plures quam 23. mille homines, she that prostituted herself to more then three and twenty thousand men.

Out of the same spring proceed the interrogations of the 19. book of the Decrees of Burchard, and of the book of Confessions of Benedicti, and the Canons of the Roman Penitential, published by Austin Bishop of Tarragona, and the horrible speculations of the Jesuit Sanchez about matrimony, and all the foul stuff of the Casuists, who under a color of searching the consciences, or imposing penances according to the circumstances of sins, or describing the nature of sins to dissuade men from it, teach in effect so much ribaldry, and so many abominations, that all the Pagan Authors now extant that have stretched their wits upon lasciviousness, are modest in comparison of them. And I believe that the Devil himself might be their Disciple. Any one may see that these men took great delight in such meditations. Is not this a jolly Decretal of Pope Alexander the third, As for adulteries and other lesser crimes, the Bishop can dispense from them after the penance ended? Where note, that he speaks of the dispensation which may be given to Clerks. And this Decretal of Clement the third. We decree that to them that take public whores out of the Bawdy-house, and marry them, that action shall be profitable for the remission of their sins? Note that word We decree, for a decree of that nature can be made by none but God who is offended, and to whom it belongs to pardon. Truly that Decree shows a way to get the remission of sins at an easy rate.

CHAP. II. Of affected austerity, Reasons whereby the Cardinal maintaineth professed slovenliness. The Original of Monks.

HIs Majesty of Great Britain had commended modesty in clothes, and sobriety of diet, in those especially that teach others, and show them the way to live well. But he believed not that a man is holy, because he is slovenly, or that if lice get up into the Pulpit with the Preacher, his Preaching is the more effectual for that. He believed not that Scab and Vermin are meritorious before God, or that a man is the more acceptable unto God for going barefoot. He condemned those that whip themselves for themselves, and more yet, such as whip themselves for others. Only, he held that by whipping themselves they do justly, for being so senseless, as to think to satisfy God with outward gestures, not knowing that God requires not that we tear our bodies with cruel handling, but that we turn our hearts with repentance; and not considering that it is the part of a mad Judge, to release a Felon, because his neighbor hath whipt himself for him. Such Penitents are seen at Rome in great troops, the week before Easter, whipping themselves in public, with their face hid, and their back bare; others bearing a Cross of great weight in the streets, crying, Fate ben per voi; that is, Do good for yourselves. Beatus Rhenanus, in his Comment upon the Book of Tertullian, Ad Martyrs, saith that in Italy in the Litanies, some resemblance or trace was seen of the old custom of the Lacedemonians to whip themselves. Of this, Polydorus Virgilius speaks in this manner. In public they march in order, having most of them their face covered with linen sacks, chastening themselves with a whip, having their back bare and torn, as it is convenient unto true penitents. Then he addeth, This showeth that this custom proceeded from the Luperci of the old Rome: For when they celebrated the Lupercal games, they went naked and masked through the town, and smote with whips such as they met in their way.

I am not ignorant that such an austere life, that horror, those stripes, that slovenliness and sordid habit, bears some show of humility, and study to mortify the flesh. But the Apostle, Col. 2.23. warneth us against that show. For condemning the exterior abstinences and austerities, he saith, Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body, not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh. For pride will nestle even in dunghills, and many will bring themselves low, that they may exalt themselves. The world honors them, because they despise themselves, and by humility they get glory and reputation among men. Some out of an affected humility, wear a torn garment, but their pride is seen through the holes of their Cloak. Had they lived a life like other men, nobody had spoken of them, and they had not been discerned in the multitude. But a man that leaveth the crowd, to take a way by himself, is sooner taken notice of.

Truly it is a great mistake of holiness, to place it in things which God hath not commanded, and the Apostles have not practiced, and which may be done out of hypocrisy, and wherein the Pagans have always out-done the Christians. For the most austere among the Christians, come not near the Priests of Baal that launched their flesh with knives, for the service of the Idol. The Dervis of the Mohammedans, and the Bramenies of the East-Indies, go far beyond the austerity of Friars.

Sure they that will pay God in such light coin, fancy to themselves a blind God, and offer an high wrong unto Christ, when they present other satisfactions for sins unto God, then the passion of his only Son.

To these things, of which the Cardinal was not ignorant, he giveth a very superficial answer. He saith that Elijah and other holy men were clad with sheepskins. That John the Baptist was clad with Camels hair. That Ambrose and Tertullian speak of the dirt arid nastiness of the penitent. That Saint Simeon Stelites suffered his legs to be eaten with puneses, when he could take them away. That Saint Jerome clad himself with a sack, and that his skin was of the color of a tawney-Moore. That he would smite his breast with a stone till the blood came. That he saith upon the 35. Psalm, that sackcloth and ashes are the weapons of penitence, and that Epiphanius saith the same. As for the madness of those that whip themselves for others, after he hath praised the Kings gallant wit, and what a grace he hath to make the Reader laugh, and having compared him, uncivilly enough, to a Stage-player, to whom it is more easy to make the beholders laugh, then to make them weep; he answereth, that he knoweth not those that thus cause themselves to be whipt, and that as they gave him no proxie to imitate them, neither did they give him any to defend them. He denieth not that there are such men, but he saith that he knows them not, and that he would not follow their example.

For answer, I say, that we condemn not vermin and dirt, as things contrary to God's command. Many Martyrs shut up in Dungeons, have been brought to that condition: Or if Penitence and the contempt of the world, make a man so far to neglect his body, as to forget cleanliness and decency, God forbid that we should therefore condemn him. Only we condemn those that do these things, that they may be seen, not remembering the Lord's command, When thou fastest, wash thy face, that it may not appear unto men that thou fastest, but to thy Father that seeth thee in secret. We condemn also those, that put merit in these austerities, and presume thereby to satisfy God, either for theirs, or for their neighbors sins. Wherefore we can hardly be persuaded to praise Saint Batheus, who was of such a mortified holiness, that he suffered worms to run between his teeth, as Sozomenus relateth. Or Saint Francis, who to obey Pope Honorius, wallowed in the mire. Or that Simeon Stelites, of whom the Cardinal saith, that he suffered vermin to eat his legs.

Antiquity hath much admired two Simeon Stelites, so called from stele, a pillar, because they stood upon pillars. The first of them lived under the Emperor Theodosius the II. who died in the year of the Lord, 449. Of that Simeon the Historian, Evagrius saith, in his first Book, chap. 13. that for the space of thirty years, he stood on the top of a pillar forty cubits high, with an iron chain about his neck. The other Simeon, who came soon after, went beyond the other, for he lived 68. years at roost upon a pillar, and counterfeited himself to be mad for the love of Christ, and shut up himself many hours with a whore, as the same Evagrius relates. That is the Saint whom the Cardinal propounds for an example, who suffered his legs to be eaten by vermin, when he could hinder it. The Cardinals legs were little better, but that came not to him by austerity.

The history of that age affords many the like examples. Socrates in the fourth Book, chap. 18. saith that Saint Macarius commanded a Monk in his sore thirst to content himself with the shadow of a tree, and that he would sleep standing, leaning against a wall. His Legend saith, that he did strict penance for six Moneths for killing a Gnat. Sozomen in the sixth Book, chap. 28. saith the Monk Theonas was thirty years without speaking. And in chap. 29. he saith, that the Monk Pior kept his eyes shut continually, and would see nobody, and could not be persuaded to open them to see his sister, which he had not seen in fifty years. The austerity of the Apostles, never came near those examples.

The first Author of those abstinences and austerities, was Anthony the Hermit, who died in the year of Christ, 358. For Paul the Hermit, dead a little before him, made no Disciples. Austin in the first Book of the Christian Doctrine, saith of that Anthony, that he had learned the Holy Scriptures only by hearing, for he could not read. Yet at Saint Anthony 's Church near Paris, his image stands with a Book in his hand, and a hogg by his side. We have his life among the works of Athanasius, which saith that he was cruelly whipt by a troop of Devils. That he made grave and mild admonitions unto Asses and other beasts, that ate the herbs of his Garden: And that this holy man fore-told that the Heresy of Arius should be the last, and that after it there would be no more in the world. In the same life there are many express Declarations against Invocation of Saints, and Adoration of relics.

That Anthony left Disciples, who built with their own hands everyone his own Cottage. In less then fifty years their number did so increase, that the Desarts of Syria and Egypt were full of Cottages, where those Hermits or Moncks lived, who got their living by their labor, came not to Towns but to sell their work, begged not, were not bound by any necessity of vow, asked no approbation of the Bishop of Rome of their Order, and received no Indulgences from him.

Their garment was black and course, their fasts were austere, yet unequal, and according to every man's strength. They held it a great crime to fast upon a Saturday, or upon the Lord's day. They wore a hood like a child's beggin, because (saith Cassian, in the first book, chap. 4.) it is written in the Psalm, I was as a child that is weaned of his Mother; and because Christ said, Unless you be like little children, you shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven. They carried a staff in imitation of Elisha, to beat dogs away, that is, vices. They wore stockins, but no shoes, for fear of touching dead things. Entring into the place of Prayer, they put off their stockins, because it is written, Put off thy shoes, for the place where thou standest is holy ground. In some places they wore long hair, as in Mesopotamia, in other places they wore it short, but not shaven round, because of the prohibition, Levite. 19.27. They celebrated Christ's Nativity upon the day of Epiphany, which is the sixth of January. Which was also the custom of the whole Patriarchat of Alexandria, a certain proof that they were not subject to the Bishop of Rome. Breaking an earthen pot, was held a great crime among them, or touching any man's hand. Cassian in the fourth book chap. 10. saith that they observed such a rigor of discipline, that they durst not so much as piss without leave, not take up a fruit fallen from a tree, and that for letting fall three seeds of Lentills, they did public penance. That the Monk Mucius being commanded by his Abbot to drown his son, carried him immediately to the River, and would have drowned him, had he not been hindered, as Cassian relateth.

That Cassian, who writ about the year 440. and lived long among them, saith, that commonly they were beaten by Devils most horribly: And that among them, the Abbot Moses was eminent in holiness, into whose mouth the Devil would thrust human excrements. Also, that Satan by contrectation, would cause unto them nocturnal pollutions, after which they did not forbear receiving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, because it was the Devils doing, not theirs.

The same Moncks were generally Anthropomorphites, as Sozomenus and Cassian witness. See also about their errors, the first book of the history of Theodoret, chap. 9. Cyrillus of Alexandria made use of them as of soldiers. He sent for five hundred of them out of the Desert of Nittia, into the City of Alexandria, to stand against the Emperors Lieutenant Orestes, whom they charged with stones, and wounded him in the face. Thus, scarce was that profession come into the world, but presently many errors and excesses crept into it.

About the year 380. at the instigation of Saint Jerome, a woman named Marcella, and at her imitation some noble women and virgins of Rome began to embrace the Monastical vow, not living in a Monastery, for there was none yet at Rome, but living at home, and wearing a course black habit; Which new way displeased very much the Christian people of Rome, as Jerome saith in the Epitaph of Marcella,