A General View of Papistry, Book 1 · Controversy 6

A General View of Papistry · Book 1 · Controversy 6

p. 231THE SIXT GENERAL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE SVPERSTITIOVS ORDERS AND SECTS OF MONKES AND FRIERS.

MOnkes in Latine, called Monachi, deriued of the Greeke word, were such, as liued solitarilie, & thereupon had they their name: And they were at the beginning of three sortes: some were called Eremites that liued in woods and desarts by themselues: there were other which were mued vp and enclosed in cels and wals, which had not so much libertie as Eremites had: but kept alwayes in their cages and closets, and soe in miserie spent their dayes: and these were called Anchorites, that is, separated, set apart from all men and liuing by themselues: There was a third sorte called Coenobites, which liued in companies, as it were in Colledges by them selues, & had all things common: And these properly were called Monks, Bell. lib. 2. de monach. cap. 3. This controuersie hath many questiōs.

1 Concerning the beginning & original of Monks, & of their diuers sects, 2. partes.

2 Concerning Counsels of perfection, whether they differ from Euangelicall precepts.

3 Concerning vowes in generall, three partes: First, whether it be lawfull for Christians to make vowes. Secondly, in what things lawful vowes consist. Thirdly, whether voluntary vowes are any part of the worship of God.

p. 2324 Concerning Monasticall vowes in particular, three partes: First, of the vow of voluntary pouertie: Secondly, the vow of obedience: Thirdly, the vow of continencie.

5 Concerning Monasticall persons: First whether the younger sorte ought to be admitted to professe Monkerie. Secondly, whether children can professe without consent of their parents. Thirdly, whether maried persons may with mutuall consent. Fourthly, whether either of the parties, the mariage not consummate may enter into profession.

6 Concerning the rules and discipline of Monasticall life: First, of their solitarie and seuere kinde of life. Secondly, of their canonical houres. Thirdly, their habite and apparell. Fourthly, of their maintenance, whether they ought to liue by begging, or labour of their handes: of these in order.

THE FIRST QVESTION OF THE BEGINning and originall of Monkes, and of their diuers sects.

THis question hath tow partes: First of their originall. Secondly, of the diuersitie of their sects.

THE FIRST PART OF THE ORIGInall of Monkes.

The Papists.

error 82 THey make this profession to be as ancient as the time of our Sauiour Christ, and prooue the beginning thereof both out of the newe and olde Testament.

1 Helias and Helizaeus were Eremites, and liued without wiues, neither possessed any riches: Ergo, this profession of life is most ancient, Bellarm. cap. 5. Rhemist. annot. in Mark. 9.3.

Answere: First, the argument followeth not: they had no wiues, nor riches, Ergo, were Eremites: for euen amongst the papists themselues many were kept from wiues (as their priests) and yet were neither Monkes nor Eremites. Secondly, though we reade not that Helisaeus was married, yet the sonnes of the prophets were, that liued as it were in the same Colledge with him, 2. King. 4.1. which Bellarmine maketh a Colledge of Monkes and Eremites: and sayth very vntruely, that they all liued without wiues, cap. 5. Thirdly, though Elias and Elisaeus were sometime in the wildernes, yet they alwayes remained not, neither liued there, Fulk. annot. Mark. 9.3.

2 Iohn Baptist a perfect patterne of Eremitical life, for liuing in the desert and wildernes, for his rough apparell, for abstaining from all delicate meate, Rhemist. annot. Math. 3.1.

p. 233Answere: First, Iohn Baptists calling was singular and extraordinary, and therefore cannot be made an author of any ordinary profession. Secondly, wee denie not but his life was austere, and that he made his abode in a solitarie place, yet there were houses and villages not farre off: his apparell also was course cloth, made of the hard haires of Camels: his foode was of locusts and wilde honie, the vsuall and common meate of that countrey: he was an extraordinary preacher of repentance, and shewed in him selfe an example of austere life, as it became the forerunner of Christ: But being no minister of the Gospel, but the last prophet of the law, he cannot be a patterne of an ordinary profession vnderunder the Gospel, Fulk. annot. Matth. 3. sect. 1.

3 Nay Bellarm. fetcheth his monkish order from a more ancient beginning, thē from Elias, & Iohn Baptist: yea from before the flood: for Enos, saith he, seemeth to hauehave brought in some stricter kinde of life, and peculiar maner of worshipping God: whereas the text sayth, that he began to call vponupon the name of God: that is, after another manner: for Adam, Seth, Abel, before this time called vponupon the name of God. cap. 5.

Answere: First, who would hauehave thought, that there had been Monks and Eremites before the flood, if the Iesuite had not sayd it, or that this text, which he alleadgeth, could hauehave proued it? The argument followeth not: Enos brought in a peculiar worship of God, therefore was founder of the Eremiticall life: for he brought in the true worship of God: but the other is superstitious and erronious. Secondly, Tremellius readeth more agreeably to the Hebrue, Tum nomē Dei coeptum est inuocando profanari: then the name of God began to be prophaned in calling vponupon, that is, his worship began to be corrupted: for the Hebrue word signifieth, both to inuocate and call vponupon God, as also to corrupt, pollute, or prophane. Thirdly, if we read as they doe, The name of God beganne to be called vponupon: it onelyonly sheweth a restoring and renewing of the true worship of God, which was polluted by the posteritie of Cain, whose stocke and familie is set downe in that chapter, Gen. 4.

The Protestants.

WE see then that this Monasticall and solitarie kinde of life hath no proofe nor ground out of the scriptures, either by precept or example: Nay this kinde of profession was not knowen in the Church, for diuers hundred yeeres after Christ; how could then the Apostles be the founders of this order? And though the name of Monks be of some antiquitie in the Church, yet they were farre vnlike vntounto Popish Monkes, that for these many yeres hauehave pestered the Church.

1 It is certaine, as Hierome witnesseth, that Antonius, and his disciples Amathas and Macarius, were the first beginners of Monkish profession, three hundred yeere after Christ, Centur. 4. cap. 6. Fulk. annot. Mark. 9.3.

2 The beginning of Monkes, was not for the more merite, and to doe p. 234penance for their owne sinnes and the sinnes of the worlde, for Antonius the first Monk confessed, that Christ onelyonly suffered for the sinnes of the world: but the first occasion was giuen in the time of persecution, when as men were not suffered to worship God aright publikely:Fulk. Matt- …. sect. 3. and therefore they fled into the wildernes: Rhemist. Math. 3. sect. 3. But now seeing the Christian fayth is openly professed, they hauehave no such causes to seeke solitarie and secret places.

3 The popish Monkes are altogether vnlike theirs: First, they liued in solitarie places, farre from resorte of people: but the popish Mock-monkes liue in Cities and the frequencie of the people, Fulk. annot. Math. 3. sect. 3. Secondly, the Monkes in times past laboured with their hands: but the popish fatbellies pampered themselues in idlenes. Thirdly, they are altogether vnlike in life and doctrine as wee shall see more at large afterward. Fulk. ibid.

THE SECOND PART CONCERNING the diuers sects of Monkes and Friers.

The Papists.

error 83 THey say that imitation of diuers holy men, as of Saint Francis, Saint Benet, Saint Dominick, which hath brought in diuers sects and orders of Religious men, doe tend all to the imitation of Christ, Rhemist. annot. Philip. cap. 3. sect. 2.1. Thess. 1.2.

This their assertion they would ground vponupon the Apostles wordes, Philip. 3.17. Be ye followers of me brethren: Rhemist.

Answere: First, Saint Paul would hauehave them no otherwise to follow him, then he did Christ, 1. Cor. 11.1. Neither gaue any other rules to his followers, then he had learned of Christ, as the patrons of the Monkish sects hauehave done. Secondly, Neither did Saint Paul erect a new order of Paulians, as Franciscus did of Franciscanes, Dominick of Dominicans. Thirdly, Saint Paul was a perswader of vnitie, not a maker of diuisions among Christians: as the Monkes & Friers hauehave done, one sort persecuting another for their opinions euen to death. Fulk. annot. 1. Thess. 1. sect. 2. Fox. pag. 798.

The Protestants.

COntrariwise we affirme, that it is a great derogation to Christ when the people shall say, I follow the religion of Augustine, the religon of Francis, an other sayth, I holde of Dominick, another, I hold of Iesus, as the Iesuites doe: Fulk. Philip. 3. vers. 17.

1 Saint Paul reproueth the Corinthians, because they made the like sects amongst themselues: one sayd I am Pauls, another, I am Apolloes, and concludeth that therefore they were carnall, 1. Cor. 3.4. And further, he sayth, they should not reioyce in men, for all things were theirs, whether Paul, Apollos, or p. 230Cephas, ver. 21.22. That is, they were not masters of their fayth, to institute new religions and sects, but the Ministers and seruants of the Lords inheritance: If therefore it was not lawful to say, I hold of Paul, I hold of Cephas: neither is it lawfull to say, I holde of Dominick, I hold of Francis: I hold of Iesus: for seeing they make their sects, and Iesus maketh his, it is euident, that they are not all referred to the imitation of Iesus: for then they might all as well bee called Iesuites.

2 The number of Monkes and Friers was almost infinite, sects vponupon sects, and new orders daylie were deuised, as Augustinians, Bernardines, Carmelites, Carthusians, Dominicanes, Franciscanes, and a great sort more, to the number of an hundred sects, as they are reckoned by Master Fox. pag. 260. and Tilmane Heshus. setteth downe 65, seueral sects or rather schismes of Monkes, loc. 25. error 10. This yrksome rabble therefore of Monkes is fitly shadowed foorth by the swarme of Locusts, which came vp out of the bottomlesse pitte, Apocal. 9.4. And verily as the Locusts and Grashoppers consume and deuoure the fruits of the earth, so the begging-Friers, and idle Monkes deuoured the goods of the people, and corrupted the doctrine of the Church.

3 Lastly, this diuision of Monkery into sects and sundry orders, is of no great antiquitie: they were not knowen in Augustines time, who knew no other name of them, then Monkes: for hee wrote a booke of purpose, de opere Monachorum: of the labour of Monkes: But other names of Carmelites, Carthusians, Franciscanes, or such like were not heard of in the Church in those dayes: but came in long after in the time of Innocentius 3. about anno 1212. many yeeres after Augustine, Fox. pag. 259.

THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERning the Counsels of perfection.

The Papists.

THis they say is the very foundation of the Monastical life, which is the most error 84 perfect estate and calling of Christians: for they performe more then Christ hath commaunded, not onelyonly his precepts, but euen his Counsels also: Which, they say, doe much differ: for the precepts are inioyned to all Christians, and to leaue a precept vndone is sinne: but the Euangelicall Counsels are giuen only to those that are perfect, which they are not bound to keepe, neither doe they sinne in leauing them vndone, yet if they obserue them, they doe merite more and shall hauehave a greater rewarde: Such Counsels of perfection are these, to giuegive all we hauehave to the poore, to abstaine from eating of flesh, to vow chastitie and such like, Bellarm. cap. 7. Rhemist. annot. Math. 19. sect. 9.

1 Matth. 19. verse 21. Christ sayth, goe and sell all thou hast, if thou wilt bee perfect. This was a Counsel of perfection, not a precept giuen to all Christians.

Answ. First, this was both a Counsel and precept, though not to al, yet to p. 236this one man, to discouer his hypocrisie and vayne confidence which he had in himselfe, as though he had kept the law, when he was farre from it, Fulk. Matth. 19.9. Mark. 10.3. Secondly, it is a generall precept vntounto all, to louelove the Lord with all the heart, and to be content, when the Lord requireth, for Christs sake to leaue all we hauehave, Caluin. Institut. 4. cap. 13. sect. 13.

2 Act. 2.44. They had all things common. This is not a rule or precept to all Christian men to liue in common, but a life of perfection and counsell followed of the Religious, Rhemist.

Answere: This liuing in common among the brethren in the Apostles time, is the same that ought alwayes to be among all Christians, that no man account that to be his owne, which the necessitie of his brother requireth to be bestowed vponupon him: this the rule of charitie requireth, which is one of the great commandements. Fulk. in hunc locum.

3 1. Corinth. 7.25. Concerning Virgins I hauehave no commaundement of the Lord, but I giuegive mine aduice. A precept therefore is one thing, a Counsel of perfection another, Bellarm. cap. 9.

Answere: First, Paul hath no generall commandement from God to impose the yoke of continencie vponupon any, because God had left marriage free, and therefore no man is to be barred and kept from it: But the Apostles particular aduice and sentence (being moued by the spirit of God, vers. 40.) is not onelyonly a Counsel, but a commandement, that both they which hauehave the gift of continencie, should glorifie God by that gift, vers. 7. and they which hauehave it not, should marrie rather then burne, and so dishonour God, vers. 9. Therefore the Apostle sayth, Let eueryevery man wherein he is called therein abide with God. vers. 24. If a man be called to liue single, hee ought to obey his calling, hauing receiued the gift: if a man be called to the maried estate, he must not presume beyond his strength, to liue vnmaried. Wherefore it is both Counsel & a precept, to those that hauehave receiued the gift of single life: for otherwise they disobey Gods calling, which is sinne. And our Sauiour sayth, he that is able to receiue it, let him receiue it, Matth. 19.12. He that hath the gift, is commanded to vse it, for in leesing it he sinneth. And lastly, eueryevery man by commandement is bound to the vttermost of his power to set forth Gods glorie: But God is most glorified by the single life of those, which are able to conteine, and therefore they ought in duetie so to doe.

The Protestants.

WE doe truely affirme and according to the scriptures, that it is impossible for any man to performe the law and commaundements of GOD, much lesse to fulfill more then is commaunded: And therefore it is false, that beside the precepts of Christ there are Counsels of perfection, which are at a mans choyce to doe or not to doe: for whatsoeuer is to the glorie of God wee are bound to doe: We acknowledge then no such euangelical Counsels, as they imagine, Caluin.

p. 2371 Math. 5.48. Our Sauiour sayth: Ye shall be perfect, as your heauenly father is perfect. Therefore all Counsels tending to perfection, are commandements. If there be any thing whereby we may more neerely attaine vntounto perfection, that we are bound and commanded to doe: As if a man can better obtaine this perfection of godlinesse, by liuing single, if he hauehave the gift, he ought to doe it: for hauing not the gift, and yet presuming, he burneth in lust, and so is set further backe in the course of godlines, Caluin. argument.

2 We are bound to louelove God with all our heart, with all our soule, with all our strength: Therefore whatsoeuer thing there is, whereby wee may expresse the louelove of God, we are bound by commandement to doe it, it is not left to our owne will: for not to louelove God more then thou doest, if it be in thy power, it is a grieuous sinne, Martyris argument.

Bellarmine answereth thus: Qui deum diligit super omnia, etiamsi eum non tam ardenter amet, quàm forte posset, vel non faciat pro eo omnia, quae posset, ille habet deum pro summo bono, cap. 13. He that loueth God aboue all things, although he louelove him not so entirely, as perhaps he may, neither doth all things for his sake, that lie in his power, yet for al this, he esteemeth of God as his chief good: I pray you see what contradictorie speeches these be: The Iesuit sayth, a man may louelove God perfectly and aboue all, and yet not louelove him so much as he is able, that is, imperfectly: so a man, by his Monkish diuinitie, may louelove God aboue all, and yet not louelove him aboue all: for if he did, he would refuse to do nothing for Gods louelove that is in his power.

3 Luk. 17.10. When you hauehave done all those things which are commanded you, say, we are vnprofitable seruants, and did nothing but that which was our duetie to doe: Ergo, we are bound to doe all things that are to be done, and we cannot doe that which we ought, much lesse more then wee ought to doe, Martyris argument.

Bellarmine answereth: First, Christ sayth, when you hauehave done all which I commanded you, not which I counselled you.Cap. 13.

Ans. As though the argument followeth not strongly: you cannot doe the lesse, that is, keepe my commandements, therefore you cannot doe the more, that is, speaking now (as the Iesuite doth) the Counsels of perfection, which are more then the precepts: It is a precept of necessitie to dispense our goods to the vse of the poore, it is a counsell of perfection, as they say, to giuegive all away to the poore: But if a man cannot performe the first, that is, keeping his goods to vse them aright, much lesse is hee able with a resolute minde to giuegive them all away.

Secondly, he answereth: Christ biddeth them to say so, as shewing their humilitie, not that they were indeede vprofitable seruants. A poore shift, as though Christ enuied the good of his seruants, or would obscure their wel-doing, and doth not rather aduance it to the vttermost, and make the most of the seruiceable workes of his children, as wee see, Matth. 25.34. And Christ being a faithfull Prophet, would not surely deceiue his Disciples, and tell theme one p. 238thing, and himselfe knowe and thinke another. But these Frierlike mists and smoake of Locusts, is not able to dimme the cleere light of this scripture, which sheweth, that when we hauehave done all wee can doe, wee come farre short of our duetie.

4 Augustine, though sometime he seeme to make some difference betweene a precept and a Counsel: Praeceptum est, saith he, cui non obedire, peccatum est: Consilium, quo si vti nolueris, minus boni adipisceris, non mali aliquid perpetrabis. De virginit. cap. 15. A precept is that, which not to obey, is sinne: A Counsel is that, which if thou wilt not followe, thou doest not commit any euill, yet thou hast the lesse good. Though he seeme in words, I say, to make difference, yet his meaning is this, That a precept is of things necessarie, as to followe vertue, to eschue vice: A Counsel is of things indifferent, as to vse or not to vse, as to eate or not to eate flesh: But yet the occasion may so serue, that euen this counsel is necessarie: for we ought not to eate flesh to offend our brother. Multa facienda sunt non iubente lege, sed libera charitate: Many things are to be done (sayth he) not by force of any lawe, but by the rule of charitie: that is, we hauehave no particular law, but the generall rule of charitie. A Counsel then is seene in things indifferent, which are alwaies lawfull, but not alway expedient: and it is nothing els but a particular application of the generall rule of charitie: Charitie wisheth that nothing should be done to offend our brethen, 1. Cor. 10.32. The scripture likewise giueth libertie to eate flesh, there is no generall precept or prohibitione yet the Apostle giueth counsel, that is, according to the rule of charitie sayth, that although all things are cleane: Malum tamen est homini, qui per offensionem manducat: yet it is euill to the man that eateth with offence, Roman. 14.20. Here we see the transgression of an Apostolicall Counsel is sinne: And though we be not bound by any particular precept, at this time or that to abstaine from flesh, yet, qua facienda sunt libera charitate, the things that are to be done in the dutie of louelove, doe as well binde vsus, as if we had a direct commandement: for louelove is the fulfilling of the commandements, yea it is one of the great commandements to louelove one another. Yet the counsel or libertie concerning indifferent things, remaineth in it owne nature free still: as the Apostle counselleth to eate, not asking any question: in such a case it is neither euill not to eate, nor good to eate: but if any man be present that may take offence by our eating, then is it euill to eate. So Augustine cōcludeth: Multa mihi videntur licere & non expedire, quae per iustitiā, quae coram deo est, permittuntur, sed propter offensionē hominū vitanda sunt. Many things are lawful, but not expedient, lawful before God, but not expedient because of the offence of our brethen. De adulter. coniug. lib. 1. cap. 14.17. Thus we see Augustine doth nothing fauour the popish distinction of precepts and counsels: for by his sentence, euen Counsels, that is, the libertie and freedome of things indifferent, are restrained, and made necessarie in the externall vse, by the rule of charitie.

p. 239THE THIRD QVESTION CONCERNING vowes in generall.

THis question hath three parts: first, whether it bee lawfull for Christians to make vowes. Secondly, in what things lawfull vowes consist. Thirdly, whether voluntarie vowes be any part of the worship and seruice of God.

THE FIRST PART, WHETHER VOWES PERtayned onelyonly to the old law, and are not now permitted vntounto Christians.

The Papists.

THey hold it as lawfull, and as free a thing for Christians to bind themselues by vowes vntounto God, as it was vsed and practised of the Iewes in the time of the error 85 lawe.

1 Isay 19.21. They shall knowe the Lord in that day, and doe sacrifice and oblation, and vow vowes vntounto God and performe them. This prophecie is concerning Christians, which should in the time of the Gospell make vowes vntounto God, Bellarm. cap. 17.

Ans. The Prophet doth, by the externall seruice of God vsed in the Church at that time, set foorth the spirituall worship of God in the Church of Christ: for Iewish vowes shall be no more then in force, then their sacrifices and oblations. Also vers. 19. the Prophet sayth, that an Altar shall bee set vp in Aegypt, and vers. 18. They shall speake the language of Canaan: But these things were not literally, but mystically performed, neither is it necessarie the other should.

2 Psal. 76.11. Vow vntounto God and performe: Ergo, vowes now are lawfull, Bellarm. ibid.

Ans. It appeareth by the text, that it was a commandement vntounto the Iewes, and for that time: for it followeth, Al ye that are round about him: that is, the Leuites and Priests that dwelt round about the temple. And bring presents to him that ought to be feared: but now Christians bring no such externall presents and gifts, therefore it cannot be properly vnderstood of them.

The Protestants.

WE do not condemne al vowes, neither denye, but that a Christian in some cases may vow, as presently it followeth to be shewed: But Iewish vowes are vtterly vnlawfull, such as the vowes of the Nazarites were, Numb. 6. as to abstaine from wine and strong drinke, not to shaue their haire, and such like: if we place religion in such vowes.

p. 2401 Their vowes were ceremonious, and consisted in externall rites, which were shadowes and significations of spirituall things: as not to cut their haire, not to touch any dead thing, to abstaine from wine and strong drinke: But all shadowes are now gone and abolished: and such externall vsages are vnprofitable, as were those precepts of the false Apostles, Touch not, tast not, handle not: which all perish with the vsing, and are the commandements of men, as S. Paul sayth, Coloss. 2.21.22. Such precepts notwithstanding, Monkes & Friers at this day doe binde themselues vntounto: for it is not lawfull for them to touch siluer nor to tast flesh, according to the strict and superstitious rules of their Patrones.

2 The Nazarites were by their vowes separated vntounto God, Numb. 6.2. that is, were counted as more holy, during their vowes, and better accepted of before God. But now God is not pleased by any such externall rites, or bodily seruices: In Christ Iesu, neither circumcision auaileth any thing, nor vncircumcision, but faith that worketh by louelove, Galath. 5.6.

3 S. Paul sayth, He that is circumcised is bound to keepe the whole law, Galath. 5.3. He that keepeth any one ceremonie of the lawe, doth make himselfe a seruant to the whole lawe: for if after the profession of the Nazarites, they will vow not to drinke wine, not to shaue their heads, hereby the better to please God: why are they not also purified, and bring an offering according to the law, as Paul did, who because of the infirmitie of the Iewes, was agreed with foure other men which had a vow, to bee purified according to the law? But this S. Paul did being amongst the Iewes, who cryed out against him as a breaker of the lawe, lest he should be scandalous vntounto them.

Augustine thus notably writeth concerning this matter: Sicut defuncta corpora necessariorum officijs deducenda erant quodammodo ad sepulchrum, non deserenda continuò, vel sicut canibus proijcienda. The ceremonies of the lawe (sayth he) were not presently to be cast off, but as dead bodies must bee brought to the graue with some seemely pompe of their friends, and not to be cast vntounto dogs. Thus he sayth, that in the Apostles time all Iewish ceremonies were not in act abolished, though they were alreadie as dead carkasses, that is, by right depriued of life: yet they required some space to bee honourably layd downe, and as it were buried. But whosoeuer would now goe about to renew the Iewish ceremonies againe (sayth he) Tanquam sopitos cineres eruens, non erit pius deductor vel baiulus corporis, sed impius sepulturae violator: He should as it were rake in dead mens ashes, and not be a seemely bringer of the bodie to the ground, but a wicked violator of Christian buriall: Euen so Augustine maketh it as wicked a part, to bring in vse any Iewish rites, as to pull one, honestly buried, out of his graue.

p. 241THE SECOND PART, WHAT THINGS MAY lawfully be vowed by Christians.

The Papists.

THey hold that the proper vowes of Christians are voluntarie, not of such error 85 things which Christians are bound in duetie to doe, but of such as they may leaue vndone, if they will, such as are their popish vowes of continencie and voluntarie, or rather wilfull pouertie.

1 Deuteron. 23. When thou shalt vow a vow vntounto God, thou shalt not bee slack to pay it, it should be sinne vntounto thee, but when thou abstainest from vowing, it shall be no sinne vntounto thee. By this the Iesuite proueth, that the vowes of Christians are voluntarie, and not of necessarie dueties, for it were sinne to leaue any thing vndone, that we are in duetie bound vntounto, cap. 19.

Ans. First: We denie not but that the Iewes had voluntarie vowes, and might binde themselues by vow to performe many things, which being not vowed, it was no sinne to leaue vndone: As the Nazarites vowes concerning abstinence from wine and strong drinke: which things other might lawfully vse without sinne, if they were not professed Nazarites. But these ceremoniall lawes doe nothing appertaine to Christians.

Secondly, it may also be vnderstood of necessarie vowes, which we are bound vntounto of duetie, and then the sense is this: If you abstaine from vowing ye sinne not, that is, not so hainously as after the vowe made; as Pagans and Infidels doe sinne in transgressing Gods law: but a Christian sinneth more after publike profession and promise made of obedience vntounto Gods commandements.

The Protestants.

WE hold that to vow is not a thing simply forbidden Christians: but our vowes are limited and restrained: for they are either such, as directly or immediatly are referred to the worship of God, whereby wee binde our selues more straightly to serue him: and such vowes are onelyonly of such things as are commanded and necessarily to be done: and in this sense there is but one common vow of all Christians, and that is our solemne promise made in baptisme, which the Papists denie properly to be a vow, Bellarmin, cap 19. There is another kind of vowes, that directly concerneth not the worship of God, which may be of things not commanded, of the which we will entreate in the next section. Now wee are to proue, that Baptisme is the onelyonly proper vow of Christians, which directly toucheth the seruice and worship of God.

1 Circumcision was a generall vow of the Iewes, for thereby they bound themselues to keepe the whole law, Galath. 5.3. Ergo, Baptisme is the vowe of Christians, which commeth in the place of circumcision. And againe, it appeareth p. 242by this, that because Christians transgressing, doe deserue greater punishment, then Iewes or Gentiles, that they are more straightly obliged and bound by their couenant vntounto God then the other: and not onelyonly, as the Iesuite sayth, because they hauehave tasted more of the goodnesse of God, and so are more vnthankfull: for there are two parts of the couenant betweene God and vsus: The Lord sayth, Thou art my people, and so enricheth them with knowledge, and eueryevery good thing: The people say, Thou art my God, Hosh. 2.23. And thus as the Lord doth couenant with them, so they doe binde themselues vntounto God: The breach of which couenant, is that which stirreth vp principally the anger of God against vsus.

2 Augustine vponupon the 75 Psalme writeth thus: Vouete & reddite domino de… vestro omnes communiter: Quid debemus vouere? credere in illum, sperare ab illo vitam aeternam, bene viuere, secundum communem modum: Make your vowes and pay them vntounto God generally altogether. What must we vow? to beleeue in him, to hope for eternall life, to liue honestly, not to steale, not to commit adulterie. These then are the common and generall dueties of Christians: no other then we promised and vowed in baptisme.

THE THIRD PART, CONCERNING VOLVNTArie vowes, whether they be any part of the worship of God.

The Papists.

error 86 AL voluntarie vowes (say they) made by Christians, as not to eate flesh, not to drinke strong drinke, or to liue vnmarried; doe concerne the worship of God, and thereby men are made more acceptable vntounto him, Bellar. cap. 16.

1 Iacob vowed to pay tithes, Genes. 28. Dauid to build a temple vntounto God, Psal. 131.2. But neither of these two were commanded them, and yet they were properly referred to the seruice of God.

Ans. First, we denye not, as we hauehave sayd, but that in the law and before there might be such voluntarie vowes, yet it followeth not, that there should bee any such now. Secondly, both those dueties were necessarie, and commanded in generall, though not in particular. As first, Iacobs vow was that the Lord should be his God, vers. 21. No man can denye, but this was necessarie, and a commandement: Then seeing the Lord is his God, it is also necessarie that he should acknowledge him by some externall worship, as by appointing the Lord an house in that place, and bringing oblations vntounto his altars: these are but particular duties, that doe followe that generall commandement.

Secondly, Dauid did vow that, he was bound to doe being King of Israel, namely, to hauehave a care of the temple of God: for thus he sayth to Nathan the Prophet, I dwell in an house of Cedar trees: but the Arke of God remaineth within the curtaines, 2. Sam. 7.2. This belonged to the King of duetie, as it was generally commanded all Israel, Hagg. 1.4. but that Dauid was discharged of this care, by the especiall warrant of God by the Prophet.

p. 2432 Hebr. 13.16. To doe good and to destribute forget not, for with such sacrifices God is pleased. Intelligitur (sayth Bellarmine) de eleemosyna non praeceptae: it must be vnderstood of almes which is not commanded.

Ans. As though all kind of almes and releeuing of the poore be not commanded: for the works of charitie, and to doe good are alwaies enioyned vsus. Againe, this place serueth nothing at al for vowes: It seemeth he was hard bestead, that had no better choise of places.

The Protestants.

WE grant that there are other kind of vowes then before we spake of, which doe not directly concerne the worship of God, neither are of things commanded vsus, nor yet is God thereby the better pleased: but they serue onelyonly as helps, to make vsus more fit vntounto Christian dueties: As a man that seeth he is by nature giuen to dronkennes, doth vowe that he will take no strong drinke, lest he should offend that way: Another purposeth to fast, thereby to tame his flesh, and the more feruently to pray: As Iob made a couenant with his eyes not to looke vponupon a maide, 31.1. But these things of themselues, by the outward act, are not the more acceptable vntounto God, neither is God by eating or not eating, or looking or not looking, the better worshipped, as these things are considered in themselues. Wherefore by the word of God we condemne all voluntary and superstitious vowes of men, inuented to serue God by, as vowes of chastitie, of going in pilgrimage, offering to Images, and such like.

1 S. Paul condēneth al voluntary worship of God which is inuented by man, as vnprofitable, though it hauehave a shew of wisedome in humblenes of mind, and not sparing the bodie, Coloss. 2.23. As such are the ordinances of the world in worshipping of Angels, and in abstinence, Touch not, tast not, handle not. But such are all popish vowes, a voluntary seruice of God, euen in the same things which the Apostle taketh exception against, for they make vowes to Angels, to Saints, vowes to keepe daies holy, and to fast in them: Ergo, they are vnlawfull.

2 Rom. 14.23. Whatsoeuer is not of faith, is sinne, that is, grounded vponupon knowledge out of the word: Ergo, all voluntarie vowes made to serue God by are to be abandoned, because they hauehave no warrant out of Gods word. Bellarmine answereth, that the place is not so to be vnderstood, but rather, by faith, is meant the conscience of man, and so whatsoeuer is done against the conscience is sinne.

Ans. By faith, is not vnderstood any conscience, but the assurance of a right conscience, which must needes be builded vponupon the word: for vers. 22. S. Paul saith, If thou hast faith, hauehave it with God: This cannot be spoken of a corrupt conscience which is not able to abide Gods trial, but a right conscience established out of the word.

p. 2443 Let vsus heare Augustines iudgement: Sunt multi, qui vouent, alius pallium, alius oleum, alius ceream ad luminaria noctis, alius vt vinum non bibat per aliquot annos, alius vt ieiunia certo tēpore faciat, alius vt carnes non comedat. Non est istud votum optimum neque perfectum, adhuc melius volo: non eligit Deus nec speciem tuam, nec oleum tuum, nec ieiunium tuum, sed hoc, quod hodie redemit, ipsum offer, hoc est, animam tuam. There are many that vow, one a cloake, another oyle, another a waxe candle, another that he will drinke no wine, another that he will fast, another that he will eate no flesh. This is not the best kind of vowing: God neither careth for thy comely apparell, nor for thy oyle, nor for thy fasting: but offer that vntounto him, which he hath redeemed, that is, thy soule, De tempor. ser. 7. We see by this, what account Augustine maketh of superstitious voluntarie vowes, made with an intent to please God thereby.

THE FOVRTH QVESTION CONCERNING Monasticall vowes in particular.

THere are three kinds of vowes which belong vntounto Monkerie: the first is the vow of voluntarie pouertie: the second, the vow of obedience vntounto the Monasticall presidents and gouernours: the third is the vow of continencie: of these three in order.

THE FIRST PART CONCERNING THE vow of voluntarie pouertie.

The Papists.

THey say it is an acceptable seruice vntounto GOD, for a man to giuegive all he hath error 87 to the poore, and by vow to consecrate and addict himselfe to voluntarie pouertie.

1 Math. 18.21. Christ faith, If thou wilt be perfect, goe and sell all thou hast, and giuegive it to the poore, and come and followe me. This is properly to followe Christ, to lacke proprietie and liue in common: and thus the Apostles followed Christ, Rhemist. ibid.

Ans. First, This is a precept not generall to all, but giuen to this one man to discouer his hypocrisie, and vaine confidence that he had in himselfe, as though he had kept the law, which he came farre short of. Secondly, the Apostles themselues had proprietie: Peter had a house: Iohn had to prouide for the virgin Marie, whom Christ commended vntounto him: Matthew made a feast of his owne goods, Fulk. ibid.

2 Act. 2.44. They had all things common: and Act. 5. Ananias and Sapphira, after their profession of commō life, deteining some part proper to themselues, were reproued and iudged of the Apostles: Ergo, it is acceptable to God to liue in common, Rhemist. ibid. Bellarm. cap. 20.

p. 245Answere: First, that communitie, vsed then amongst the brethren, ought alwayes to be among Christians, no man to count that his owne which the necessitie of his brother requireth to be bestowed vponupon him: eueryevery man was not then bound to giuegive vp the proprietie of their goods: for they distributed to eueryevery man as they had need, Act. 4.35. But if they had giuen vp all the proprietie of their goods, then all should hauehave needed alike: And Peter sayth not the contrary, but that Ananias might hauehave kept the proprietie of his goods, if he had not made publike profession to the contrarie, Act. 5.4.

2 Concerning Ananias, we doe not read that he made any vowe to giuegive his goods to the Church: nay the contrary appeareth, in that Saint Peter saith, While it remayned with thee, appertained it not to thee? But if his vowe were past before, the goods, though not yet solde, could not appertaine vntounto him. Agayne, the principall and chiefe cause, why Peter proceeded agaynst him, was his lying and hypocrisie, not for breaking his vow: for it cannot bee proued that he promised all, but that he affirmed that hee brought all, whereas hee withdrew part.

The Protestants.

VOluntarie, or rather wilfull pouertie, for a man, hauing no vrgent cause, to leaue all he hath, and bequeath himselfe to a poore and needie life, onelyonly for opinion of greater merite, and hope thereby better to please God, is neither a thing acceptable nor commendable before God, nor any where commanded in the scriptures.

1 1. Timoth. 6.17. Saint Paul giuing Counsel to rich men, biddeth them not to cast away their riches: but Charge them, sayth he, that they be not high minded, nor put their trust in vncertain riches: Surely it had been a more compēdious way to wish them at once to leaue their riches, so they should not be in danger, either of pride, or vaine confidence: But the Apostle saith no such thing. Againe, God giueth vsus abundantly al things to enioy: riches are the gift of God, we ought not to be weary of Gods blessing. And as Iob sayth, The Lord giueth, the Lord taketh: therefore a man ought not to make himselfe poore, because he made not himselfe rich, but to waite vponupon God.

Further it followeth, vers. 18. that they do good, and be rich in good works: he that can vse riches well, may bee rich in good workes; but he that is poore wanteth occasion and meanes to doe good, as the rich man indued with grace may: Wherefore he is an enemie to the glorie of God, that changeth his rich estate, wherein he may more glorifie God, for a poore.

Agayne, if it were so acceptable a thing to God, and so meritorious to liue in pouertie, what made the Prophet to pray agaynst it? GiueGive mee not pouertie nor riches, but feede me with foode conuenient, Prouer. 30. vers. 8.

2 What better argument can we hauehave against them, then their own practise? for, though in words they much commend voluntarie pouertie, yet it is p. 246a rare thing, to finde it amongst them: for not one among a thousand of them, if they hauehave landes, doe giuegive them to the poore, but to their owne kinsfolkes, or else to the Abbeyes, where they know they shalbe wealthily maintained. The Pope also is good to many, and granteth them capacities to possesse temporall goods contrary to their former vowe. Fulk. annot. Mark. 10. sect. 3.

3 Augustine sayth, Diuitiae seculares si desint, non per opera mala quarantur in mundo: Si autem adsunt, per opera bona seruentur in coelo: Epist. 1. posteriorum. If secular riches be wanting, let not a man seeke to get them by euill doing in the world: but if he hauehave them, labour, by well doing, to store them vp in heauen. He counselleth not men to cast away their riches: It was the heresie of the Pelagians to perswade rich men to cast away their goods, August. epistol. 106. and of the Manichees likewise, August. cont. Faustum. lib. 5. cap. 10.

THE SECOND PART CONCERNING the vowe of obedience.

The Papists.

error 88 THey that doe enter into the monkish profession, do vow in all things to become obedient to their gouernour, & to follow his rules & iniunctions: As the Franciscanes follow Saint Francis rule, who in stead of a girdle, put a corde about him, went bare-foote, in winter season couered his flesh with yce and snow.Fox. p. 259. It is acceptable, and gratefull seruice, say they, vntounto God, to be thus obedient to their fathers and gouernours.

1 Ierem. 35. The sonnes of Ionadab are commended, for being obedient to their father, who enioyned them to drink no wine, nor to sow their fields, nor builde houses but dwell in tents: See, they obeyed their father in thinges not commanded of God: Ergo, so ought religious Monkes to doe. Bellarm. cap. 21.

Answer. First you cannot shew, that your monkish Abbots hauehave such authoritie ouer their Monkes, as the father hath ouer his children: for Coloss. 3. and in many other places, children are commanded to be obedient to their parents: But they hauehave neither authoritie nor calling out of the word. Secondly, Ionadab inioyned nothing contrarie to the law of the Nazarites, Numb. 6. and if you say, that it was not the custome of the Nazarites to dwell in tents: you shall finde that the Rechabites did not so straightly obserue this, as the other, namely not to drinke wine: for Ierem. 35.11. they came vp for feare of the Caldeans that were in the land, and dwelt at Ierusalem: they dispensed with the voluntarie iniunction of their father, for dwelling in their tents, but kept the other vow of abstaining from wine still, because it was after the law. Wherefore this example maketh not for monkish obedience, seing they are inioyned things not commanded by God, nay contrary to his commandements.

p. 247The Protestants.

NO obedience to any ruler either spirituall or temporall is to be yelded vntounto, but for the Lords sake, and in such matters, wherein we hauehave the warrant of Gods word for our obedience.

1 Coloss. 3.23. Seruants be obedient to your masters, and whatsoeuer you do, doe it heartily as to the Lord: But if any thing be inioyned vsus which is not warranted by the word of God, we cannot with a good conscience obey as before the Lord. Agayne, Saint Paul saith, Coloss. 2.18. Let no man at his pleasure beare rule ouer you, or beguile you, or as the Rhemists translate, seduce you wilfully: Ergo, no man must impose rules of life beside the Gospel, for this were to rule ouer men at their pleasure.

2 Augustine sayth, Cum homo conster anima & corpore, oportet nos ex ea parte, quae ad hanc vitam pertinet, subditos esse potestatibu…: ex illa parte, qua credimus deo, & ad eius regnum vocamur, non oportet nos cuiqua… esse subditos: Seeing a man doth consist both of bodie and soule; in regard of that parte, which the affayres of this life concerne, we ought to be subiect to the higher powers: but in respect of that part whereby we beleeue, and are called to the kingdome of God, we must be obedient to none, August. in 13. ad Rom. Therefore no man may impose any new religion vponupon vsus, which altogether toucheth the conscience.

THE THIRD PART CONCERNING THE vow of continencie or chastitie.

The Papistes.

THe vow of chast and continent life is commendable and meritorious, they say, in all that doe take it vponupon them, and after the vow made, they are sure error 89 to receiue that high gift of continencie, if they duely labour for it, Rhemist. annot. 1. Corinth. 7. ver. 7. But whosoeuer marrieth after the vow made, sinneth damnably, and turneth back after Sathan. Rhemist. annot. 1. Tim. 5. sect. 12.

1 Math. 19.12. Some hauehave made themselues chaste, or as the Rhemists doe very homely translate it, hauehave gelded themselues for the kingdome of heauen: this proueth the vowes of chastitie to be both lawfull and meritorious, Rhemist. in hunc locum.

Ans. This is meant onelyonly of those that hauehave the gift of continencie, who, if they be sure they hauehave receiued it, may vow and purpose single life: but without such assurance no man can vow continencie lawfully. Secondly, but as for meriting, it commeth neither by being maried or vnmaried, but is the free gift of God through Christ. Fulk. ibid.

2 1. Timoth. 5.12. Hauing damnation because they hauehave cast away their first fayth: that is, the vow of continencie, which they made to Christ: it cannot p. 248be meant of the first fayth in baptisme, for that is not lost by mariage, Rhemist. And againe, vers. 15. They are turned back after sathan: we may here learne, for those to marrie which are professed, is to turne back after Sathan. Rhemist. in eum locum.

Answer: First, Saint Paul speaketh not here of widowes alreadie chosen, but to be chosen: hee would hauehave younger widdowes to bee chosen, because they woulde waxe wanton, and marrie: and therefore it is not like, that by the first fayth heere is meant the vowe of chastitie, seeing there is no cause that these younger widdowes shoulde make any vowe, beeing excluded by the Apostle from Church seruices. Secondly, vers. 14. Saint Paul himselfe Counselleth the younger widdowes to marrie, therefore it is not like they were votaries. Thirdly, by the first fayth is vnderstood the Christian fayth, which the younger widowes waxing wanton, and lasciuious, nor carying to match with Infidels, were in danger to breake, as the Apostle telleth them of some that had done so already, and were turned backe after Sathan. Fourthly, we say not that the fayth of baptisme is broken by all mariage, but with ioyning with Infidels. Fiftly, it appeareth what breach of faith Paul meaneth, when he sayth, They waxe wanton, and idle, and are busie-bodies, goe from house to house, and speake things vncomely, verse 13. Which is a sliding back from the Christian fayth, when our life iarreth with our profession: not a breach of any vow of continencie, Fulk. 1. Timoth. 5. sect. 10.12.

The Protestants.

OVr sentence then appeareth to be this: that the vow of continencie cannot lawfully be made of all, neither is indifferently to be required of them, seeing all are not indued with that gift, Fulk. Math. 19.6. And that it is better euen for vowed persons, hauing rashly presumed beyond their strength, to marrie, rather then to burne. Fulk. 1. Cor. 7. sect. 8.

1 The scripture eueryevery where commaundeth such to vse the benefite of mariage,Argum. that hauehave not the gift to liue single, 1. Cor. 7.2. For auoyding of fornication let eueryevery man hauehave his wife: and ver. 9. If they cannot abstaine let them marrie. Wherefore they transgresse the commandement of God, and presume rashly, that hauing not this gift, doe vow virginitie.

Bellarmin. Answer. First, Saint Paul wisheth men to marrie, not for eueryevery temptation of lust, but when they are ready to fall into externall workes of vncleannes, as into fornication: and therefore hee sayth, For auoyding of fornication let eueryevery one hauehave his wife: For Saint Paul felt the pricke of the flesh, that is, the lust of concupiscence, and was buffeted of it, yet maried not for all that cap. 30. Rhemist. annot. 1. Corinth. 7. sect. 8.

Answere: First, we say not that for eueryevery light temptation, which by resisting may be ouercome, in those that hauehave the gift of continencie, a man is to desire mariage, but when he is continually enflamed with lust, so that the will doth consent: though he be not yet so ouercome, that he fall in outward p. 249vncleannes: and this is the Apostles meaning, when hee sayth, It is better to marrie then to burne, that is, with inward lust when his minde is disquieted: And such a man as doth burne with secret concupiscence, still wrastling with that fire, and not being able to quench it, if he refuse to vse the lawfull remedie of mariage, is in danger also to fall into outward fornication.

2 Concerning Pauls example: First, the place is not so to be vnderstoode of the lust of concupiscence: for it is not like, that the Apostle being kept vnderunder, with hunger, colde, imprisonment, should bee so greatly tempted that way. But either it may be vnderstood of the particular temptation to pride and vainglorie, as he him selfe expoundeth it, vers. 7. lest I should be exalted out of measure through the abundance of reuelations: Or else generally Saint Paul vnderstandeth by flesh, the whole masse of corruption and whatsoeuer was in him that resisted the spirite: In this sense he crieth out, Roman. 7. Who shall deliuer me from this body of death! Caluin.

2 Though we yeeld that Saint Paul was tempted of his concupiscence, yet he ouercame and subdued it, obtayning from God, after some striuing, grace and power to quench the secret fire: And so we denie not, but that men ought by fasting and prayer to labour for that precious gift. But if they feele the fire to burne within them still, then are they to vse the remedie prescribed by Saint Paul, that is, to marrie.

Secondly, sayth Bellarmine, Saint Paul giueth libertie of mariage onelyonly to those which were free and had not vowed continencie, cap. 31.

Answere: First, the Apostles words are generall: Let eueryevery man hauehave his wife: I, say the Rhemists, he speaketh of those that were maried before their conuersion, that they might still vse and keepe their wiues. Yea but Saint Paul speaketh of all vnmaried, in the verse next before, It is good not to touch a woman: I trow he meaneth not, it is good for a man that is maried not to touch his wife. Secondly, it is a generall libertie, which he granteth to all, ver. 9. If they cannot conteine, let them marry: but many votaries cannot contayne, as it may appeare by the vnchast liues of your Monkish rabble: therefore hauing the disease, they may vse the remedie, that is, marrie.

Argum. 2. Virginitie, and continent life is onelyonly to be required of those which hauehave the gift of continencie: But all hauehave not that gift: Ergo, the vow of Virginitie is not indifferently to be made by any. That the gift of continencie cannot be had or obtayned of all, neither resteth in our free wil, it is plaine by scripture.

1 Math. 19.12. He that is able to receiue this gift, let him receiue it: Ergo, all are notable to receiue it.

Bellarmin. First, though they are not able to receiue it yet, yet they may if they will, and aske for it by prayer: for the text is, Some hauehave made themselues chaste for the kingdome of God: whereby it appeareth that it is in the will of man, cap. 31. Answer. Hee speaketh cleane contrary to the text: for Christ sayth, None receiue it but to whom it is giuen, and the wordes are, p. 250qui capere potest, not, qui velit, hee that can receiue, not hee that will receiue. And they are sayd to make themselues chaste, not because it is in their owne choyce, but being enabled of God, and hauing receiued power ouer their will, they are sayd to make themselues chaste, hauing receiued power by the spirit of God: So our Sauiour sayth, Come vntounto me all ye that are laden, Math. 11. & yet no man commeth to Christ, but his father first draweth him, Iohn 6.44. Wherefore it being a peculiar gift of God, all cannot hauehave it, neither are sure to obtaine it, though they aske it by prayer, because wee hauehave no promise to bee heard.

Rhemist. When a man is bound to abstaine by vow, or other necessarie occasion, as imprisonment, banishment, sicknes, no doubt, if he labour for the gifte of continencie, he may hauehave it. Ans. They that binde themselues to a rash vowe, hauehave no promise to be heard praying for continencie. Secondly, they that are driuen vntounto any such necessitie as you speak of, which they are not a cause of themselues, neither can auoide, as in long and perpetual sicknes, it is certaine that God will giuegive the gift being sought by lawful meanes: But as for banishment and imprisonment, they are not of such necessitie, but that the husband is bound to follow the wife, and the wife her husband, Fulk. 1. Cor. 7.6.

Neither are many of those meanes commendable, which were vsed in Monkerie: for some of them were superstitious and vnlawfull, as they vsed Phisick and medicine to correct or slake, and extinguish nature in them: Francis was wont to couer his bodie with yce and snow, others did whip themselues: This was not to subdue and tame the bodie, but to destroy and kill the bodie, and make it vnfit for other dueties. The scripture prescribeth no other meanes but prayer and fasting, and labour in our vocation. Some of them againe vsed externall exercise of their bodie, as by fasting, by lying harde, by watching, which in themselues were not amisse: but they leaue the chiefe and principall, which is the spirituall meanes: for the outward ex…rcise of the flesh without this, is little worth, Coloss. 2.23.

Bellarmin. To beleeue is no lesse the gift of God, then to liue chaste, yet we exhorte all men to beleeue, and they doe vowe and promise it in baptisme: why may they not as well vowe continencie, although it be a peculiar gift? cap. 31.

Ans. They are both indeed the giftes of God, but one is necessarie to saluation, namely, to beleeue, and is promised to all that will seeke for it: But the other gift is not necessary, neither hath any such promise.

Secondly, Saint Paul calleth this a proper gift: But if all men were capable of it, how could it be called a proper gift? One after this manner, another after that, sayth the Apostle. But if eueryevery man might attaine to that one gift of continencie, they should not all hauehave their proper gift, but all one gifte, and after the same manner. And though Saint Paul should meane, that to liue chastely in wedlock be also a proper gift of God, as Bellarmine vrgeth, and we denie not: yet it remaineth still, that the other is a more singular and proper p. 251gift, and is not therefore commonly, and indifferently bestowed vponupon all.

Thirdly, Saint Paul sayth, that a man may marrie his Virgin if neede so require, 1. Corinth. 7.37. But if eueryevery one, labouring for the gift of continencie, might obtayne it, there should then be no necessitie of mariage: which the Apostle here affirmeth.

Lastly, the Rhemists say, that the marriage of those that hauehave vowed, is the worst sorte of incontinencie and fornication, 1. Corinth. 7. sect. 8.

Augustine saith cleane contrarie: Non ipsae nuptiae talium damnandae iudicantur, sed damnatur propositi fraus, damnatur fracta votifides: postremò damnantur tales, non quia coniugalem fidem posterius inierunt, sed quia continentiaa primam fidē irritam fecerunt: de bono viduitat. cap. 9. The mariages of such are not condemned, but the violating of their vow is condemned, not because they afterward entred into the league of mariage, but because they did break the first fayth of continencie: Augustine sayth not, that such mariages are no mariages, but plaine adultery & fornication: But maketh the mariage lawful, & reproueth their rashnes before in making, and their vnstedfastnes nowe in breaking their vowes.

THE FIFT QVESTION CONCERNING Monasticall persons, which do enter into that profession.

THere are foure sortes of people which the papists do offer great wrong vntounto, in drawing them to the profession of monkery: First, vntounto the yonger sort, which hauehave libertie to marrie. Secondly, to the children and sonnes, whom they make Monks without consent of their parents. Thirdly, they say, maried persons, by mutual consent, may betake themselues to a Monks habite. Fourthly, if mariage be contracted, not consummate or finished, they may one leaue another without consent first had.

THE FIRST PART, WHETHER THE younger sorte are to bee admitted to professe Monkerie.

The Papists.

IF they be come to the yeares of discretion, they may, men or women at any error 90 age, take vponupon them the vow of Monkerie, Bellarm. cap. 35.

1 Math. 19.14. Suffer little children to come vntounto me: Ergo, young men and mayds may become Monkes. Bellarm.

Answ. First, the text speaketh of little children: but by your confession, they must be of yeeres of discretion that should enter into your profession: so are not little children. 2. As though none could come to Christ, but through a Monks cowle: Nay, I would, they of all men, did not goe furthest off from Christ. It followeth also in the texte, Of such is the kingdome of heauen: p. 252so by this reason, heauen gates should be open onelyonly to Monkes and Friers: and this is the right heresie of the Pelagians, and Manichees, that promised the kingdome of God not one, but those that cast a way their riches.

2 Iohn Baptist liued from a childe in the wildernesse: Ergo, lawfull for young ones to professe Monkerie.

Answere: First, Iohns example is extraordinarie, as his office and calling was singular, & therefore is no more to be imitated and followed in his solitarie life, then in his diet of Locusts and wilde honie: He sprang also in his mothers womb: so, I think, all Monkes and Eremites doe not. Secondly, it is not certaine at what yeeres Iohn entred into the Wildernesse: for hee was thirtie yeere olde when hee came and preached in the Wildernesse, as Matthew writeth, 3.1.

The Protestants.

THough we should grant, that a Monastical life were in some persons, and at some times tolerable among Christians, yet of all other the yonger sorte, in whom lust doth raigne, were most vnfit, and not to be admitted vntounto that kinde of life.

1 Saint Paul would hauehave no widow to be chosen vnderunder 60. yeeres, 1. Timoth. 5.9. and I will the younger to marry, vers. 16. Ergo, it is contrarie to Saint Pauls rule, to suffer any such to make vowes of continencie.

Rhemist. answere. First, it was but a rule for that time, when as yet there were no Monasteries nor discipline, but young widowes, wandred vp & down idly. Answ. First, the same cause that young women had to marrie then, they hauehave now, and therefore the rule is generall. Secondly, as though the wals of Monasteries were able to keepe in Virginitie: no, it is notoriously knowne, that vnchast life hath scaled the wals of Nunneries, crept in at windowes, and found muses in the ground.

2 Saint Paul, say they, counselleth young widowes to marrie, not young Virgins, which hauing not experience of lust, are not so greatly tempted. Ans. How chaste your cloyster women hauehave been, and free from these tentations, the stories of former times make mention: and the examples of so many vnchaste milch-Nunnes, and filthie Monkes and Friers, are a sufficient proofe, Fulk. 1. Timoth. 5. sect. 11. But all these shifts notwithstanding Saint Pauls rule must stand, that no widowes must be admitted vnderunder 60. yeere olde.

2 The Manichees tooke occasion hereby to insult against the Catholiks, because they admitted so many Virgins to the profession of single life: Certatim ad hanc professionem …asincitatis suasionibu…vestris, vt iam penè maior in Ecclesijs omnibus virginum apud vos, quam mulierum numerositas habeatur, August. cor. Faustum. 30.4. Ye labour (say the Manichees) to drawe women of eueryevery hand to this profession by your perswasions, that now in your Churches, the number of professed virgins exceedeth the number of women. And hereby p. 253the Manichees that extolled virginitie, and condemned mariage, were induced to think that the Catholike Bishops also were of their opinion.

Likewise Augustine, epistol. 169. maketh mention of one Priuius, that because while he liued among the Catholikes, he could not enioy the speech and companie of two young Nuns, he ran away with them to the Donatists. Thus we see what good commeth to shut young men and women into cloysters.

THE SECOND PART, WHETHER CHILdren may enter into profession of Monkerie without their Parents consent.

The Papists.

IF they be of sufficient age, as the men of 14. yeere at the least, the women error 91 of 12. and their Parents be not driuen to any such necessitie, that they neede their childrens helpe, they may without Parents consent enter into Monkery.

1 God sayd to Abraham, get thee out of thy countrey and from thy fathers house: Genes. 12. and Christ Math. 10. whosoeuer loueth father or mother more then me, is not worthy of me. Ergo, children may become Monkes, without their fathers leaue, Bellarm. cap. 36.

Answ. First, who would hauehave thought that Abraham was a Monk, but that the Iesuite saith it? Secōdly, by the same reason a man may not leaue his parēts only, but go out of his countrey. Thirdly, Abraham was 75. yere old at that time, when he went out of Haran, verse 4. Ergo, wee will conclude that none ought to be made Monks before those yeares. Fourthly, When God calleth any man to a Monkish life, as Abraham had an especial calling of God, wee will giuegive him good leaue to goe.

Concerning the other saying of our Sauiour, it maketh nothing for you. First, Christ speaketh of persecution, when a man ought not for louelove of his friends to denie Christ: but, I trowe you will not grant, that your Monkish life is persecution: and yet it is after a sorte▪ for the Locusts, which are none other but Monkes and Friers, Apocal. 9. doe bite and sting like serpents, that is, do secretly wound mens consciences. Secondly, a man may leaue his parents, as Christ commandeth, though he dwell in the same house with them: that is, by setting his louelove and affection on heauenly things. Thirdly, doe all goe to Christ that come into your Monasteries? nay, I would they went not from Christ: for they liue after another rule, then Christs: Francis your great founder erected a new sect of Monkerie, and found out a new rule for them, which he called regulam Euangelicam, the rule of the Gospell: as though Christes rule were not sufficient▪

The Protestants.

CHildren ought not by the law of God to make any vow of single and continent p. 254life without the consent and liking of their parents. Luther. Pet. Martyr, Lib. de caelibat. et votis.

1. By the law of Moyses the father had power to disallow the vowes which the daughter made being in his house, Numb. 30.6. Which law was not ceremonious: for it was grounded vponupon the Morall law, which commanded all obedience and duetie of the children to the Parents: And that it is not abrogate, it appeareth, because the same law is renewed by S. Paul. 1. Corinth. 7. ver. 36.37. Where the Apostle referreth the whole matter of keeping a virgin, or placing of her in mariage to the will of the father, yet so, that he must hauehave regard vntounto the necessitie, the estate and condition of his virgine. Both these places do apertly proue, that neither the childe can be bestowed in marriage, nor vowed to virginitie, without the consent and determination of the parents.

2. Let vsus heare what authoritie Augustine yeeldeth to the father ouer his children: Agite vicem nostram in domibus vestris: Episcopus inde appellatus est quia superintendit: vnusquisque ergo in domosua, si caput est domui suae, debet ad eum pertinere episcopatus officiū. de Sanct. Ser. 51. You (saith Augustine their Bishop) must supplye our stead in your houses: a Bishop or Superintendent, is so called because he ouerseeth: therefore eueryevery housholder, being the head of his house, ought to playe the Bishop in his house. The father then is a Bishop ouer his children: shall any man then dare to take any out of his house, that is his Bishoprike, or any sheepe out of his folde, without the Bishop and sheepheardes consent?

THE THIRD PART, WHETHER Married persons may with mutuall consent become votaries.

The Papists.

WIth mutuall consent the man & the wife may separate thē selues and vow error 92 and promise single life for euer, so long as they both shall liue. Bellarm. Cap. 37.

Marie and Ioseph were perfitely man and wife, yet by mutuall consent they liued continently all their daies: Ergo, it is lawfull for married couples to separate themselues for euer, both agreeing therunto. Bellarm. cap. 37.

Answ. 1. It appeareth by the text, that there was no such thing purposed by Ioseph, before he was admonished by the Angell in a dreame, but that, as she was already betrothed: so there was an intent on Iosephs parte, that they should come together. Math. 1.18. But that in the meane time Marie was found with childe by the holy ghost: and so from that time Ioseph being a iust man neuer knew his wife: there was no such purpose or vowe before.

2. That this was an extraordinary exāple, who seeth it not? When any man p. 255shall be admonished by an Angell as Ioseph was, and shall hauehave the like cause as Ioseph had to abstaine, which shall neuer bee, hee may be bould to doe as Ioseph did.

The Protestants.

THey that are once ioyned together in marriage, and hauehave made a couenaunt each to other before God, can not separate them selues though they both consent, there being no other cause, but a purpose of single life for more holines sake.

1. It is flat contrary to S. Pauls rule. 1. Corinth. 7.5. Defraud not your selues, except it be with cōsent for a time, that you may giuegive your selues to fasting and prayer, and againe come together, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinencie. First the Apostle saith directly: they should but separate themselues for a time. Secondly, we doe thus reason out of his wordes: there is no cause of separation, but to be giuen to fasting and prayer: but this may be done by a separation for a time: neither is it necessary we should alwaies be giuen to fasting and prayer, but vponupon speciall occasion: therefore perpetuall separation is not needfull. 3. They that are long separated, are subiect to fall into tentation: the same cause therefore that moued them first to marrie, for auoiding of incontinencie, ought to moue them to come together againe: Therefore it is not good nor lawful they should separat them selues for euer.

2. That which God hath coupled, no man ought to put asunder: but they that are married hauehave made a couenant to God. Pro. 2.17. as well as to themselues, and are ioyned by Gods law together: Ergo, they can not dissolue their mariage by their owne power and will, the Lord hauing an interest therein.

Augustine Thus writeth, Non licet excepta causa fornicationis coniugem a coniuge dirimi, nec sterilem coniugem fas est relinquere, vt faecunda ducatur, de nupt. & concupiscen. Lib. 1. Cap. 10. It is not lawfull for married couples, one to be separat frō another, vnlesse it be for fornication: nor to leaue a barren wyfe to marrie a frutefull. Therefore if fornication onelyonly be a iust cause of finall separation, there can be no other: If there were any other, it is most like it should be for procreation of children: But neither for that cause is a man to leaue his wife, Ergo for no other. Therefore, not for any vow of continencie is marriage to be dissolued, or any separation to be admitted. Bellarm. saith, that by their separation, Marriage is not dissolued. Auns. It is asmuch dissolued, as by your law in cases of diuorse. 1. For these are your words: for aduoutrie one may dismisse another, but neither party can marry againe, for any cause during life. Rhemist. Math. 19. Sect. 4. So ye allowe onelyonly a kinde of dismission in the case of adultery, and so you do in the vowing of continencie: And thus you make this cause as forceable as the other, to break off the Matrimonial duety, which is contrary to the gospell.

p. 256THE FOVRTH PART, WHETHER MARIage contracted not consummate, may without consent be broken for the vow of continencie.

The Papists.

error 93 THeir opinion is, that if the mariage be contracted onelyonly and ratified, but not yet consummate, by the parties comming together, it is lawful for either of them without the others consent to vowe chastitie, cap. 38. Bellarm.

His reason is, because it is lawfull for a man to passe from a lesse perfect state of life to a more perfect, if it may be done without detriment, as this may be: for yet they hauehave no children, and the partie may as well bee maried to another. Bellarm.

Answ. First, a single life is not alwayes the perfecter state, nor to all, as it is not to them that hauehave not the gift to containe, as it is most like hee hath not, that is contracted, and hath made promise of mariage: for then all this needed not. Secondly, though there be none of those impediments named, yet there is a greater: namely, their fayth & promise made each to other before God, which they ought not to violate. Thirdly, Saint Paul saith, If thou be bound to a wife, seeke not to be loosed, 1. Corinth. 7.27. But they that are espoused one to the other, are bound, vnlesse you will say, that the couenant made by them vntounto God Prouer. 2.17. bindeth not.

The Protestants.

MAtrimonie whether ratified onelyonly by lawfull contract or espousals, or consummate, ought not any way to be broken with consent or without, for Monasticall profession.

1 Our reason is, because it is perfect mariage already in substance and before God, which is ratified by contract onelyonly and solemne vowe and couenant made each to other: And being thus betrothed, the one giueth power of their body to the other, and now they are no more free. That this mariage is perfect before God, and in substance, it appeareth by the law of Moses, by the which a man defiling a mayd betrothed, was to suffer death, as well, as if hee had committed vncleannes with a woman already maried. Deuteron. 22. verse 22.23. And Math. 1.18. Marie that was but betrothed to Ioseph, is by the Angel called his wife, vers. 20.

2 August. saith, Coninges fidem sibi pariter debent: Cui fidei tantum iuristribuit Apostolus, vt eam potestatem appellaret dicens, Mulier non habet potestatē sui corporis sed vir, &c. Maried couples doe owe fayth & troth one to the other: which mutual troth the Apos. maketh such accoūt of, that he giueth it y^e name of p. 257power: saying, The woman hath not power of her owne bodie, but the man, and likewise the man, &c. Augustine sayth, that by the very plighting of their troth each to other, they receiue mutuall power and interest one of anothers bodie. But this troth was plighted before the consummation of their mariage, Ergo, they had one interest in another then, and can do nothing one without the consent of the other: de bon. coniugal. cap. 3.

THE SIXT QVESTION CONCERNING the rules and discipline of Monasticall life.

THis question hath foure partes. First, of the solitarie and seuere kind of life in Monkes and Eremites. Secondly, of their canonicall houres appoynted for prayer. Thirdly, of their habite and apparell. Fourthly, of their maintenance, whether it ought to come by their labour.

THE FIRST PART CONCERNING THE solitarie and austere life of Monkes.

The Papists.

TO liue in solitarie places, to weare sack-cloth, to be giuen continually to error 94 fasting, to lie hard, to fare meanely, and by other such wayes to punish and afflict the bodie, they say, are notable meanes to bring the soule to the contemplation of heauenly things.

1 John Baptist liued in the desart, fared coursely, and was barely apparelled, he ate Locusts and wilde honie, and ware a garment of Camels haire: he was a right paterne of true Eremites, Bellarm. cap. 39. lib. 2. de Monach.

Answer. First, Johns life was not so austere, as they make it: for the place where he liued was not so solitarie, but that there were villages and houses not far off, as it may appeare by the peoples resort vntounto him: his apparel was of Camels hayre, and was somewhat course, yet no such thing as sack-cloth,Fulk Matt. 3. sect. 1.Matt 3 or haire-cloth, for of the finest of the Camels haire Chamblets and Grograines are made that are had in price amongst vsus: his diet also in eating Locusts & wilde honie was vsual in that coūtrey. Secondly, we denie not but Iohn liued an austere life, because he was a preacher of repentance, & had a singular office to prepare men for the cōming of Christ: Therfore his calling being extraordinary, he cannot be an author of an ordinary calling among Christians. Thirdly, seeing Christ came eating and drinking, liued amongst men, and was apparelled as others were, why should Christians rather choose to imitate the Baptist, who had no office or ministerie in the Gospel, Math. 11.11. then our Sauiour Christ, whose life and doctrine is for our imitation?

p. 258The Protestants.

THat the solitarie life of Eremites, in flying the comfortable societie of men, and their rigorous manner in the vnnatural chastising of their bodies, is contrarie to the rule of the Gospell, thus we shew it.

1 Heb. 10.24.25. Let vsus consider one another, and prouoke one another to good workes, not forsaking the assemblies of our selues together, as the maner of some is, but exhorting one another: here the Apostle speaketh manifestly against those that shunne the societie and companie of their brethren, because they must needes fayle in the dueties of charitie, as in exhorting one another, and prouoking to good works: these dueties Eremites can not performe, therefore their life is vnlawfull: and Math. 24, it is a note of false prophets and false Christs to liue in the desarts. Againe, they that louelove solitarie places, doe offer themselues to tentation, and fall into the snares of the diuel: God saw it was not good for Adam, no not in Paradise, to liue alone: but I think their desarts are farre vnlike to Paradise: Christ to be tempted of the diuell was lead into the Wildernes: Therfore such places are fit for Sathans working. The preacher sayth, Two are better then one, for if one ouercome him, two shal stand against him, Eccles. 4.12. We are better able being ayded by our brethren to resist Sathan then being alone: We ought not then to tempt God, and not knowing our own strength, to goe forth into solitarie places, and as it were prouoke Sathan to the Combat.

2 That cruel and inhumane kind of chastising their bodies by fasting & other discipline vtterly is vnlawful. The Monks called Grandimōtenses, did weare shirts of maile next their bodies, the Charter Monkes, haire-cloth: the Monks Flagellants went bare-foote in linnen shirts, leauing an open place in the backe where they did daylie whip themselues before the people, till the blood followed. Moses a certaine Abbot did so afflict his bodie with fasting and watching, that for 2. or 3. daies together many times he had no appetite at all to his meat, neither could sleepe. An other Eremite (as Cassianus writeth) did purpose with himselfe not to eate meate, vnlesse he had some guest or stranger with him, and so was constrayned to abstaine somtime fiue dayes together: two other Monasticall brethren, trauayling in the desart of Thebaide, did vow not to take any sustenance, but such as God should send them: and as they went, a certaine wilde people,Fox. p. 154. contrarie to their custome, offered them meat, the one tooke it as sent of God, the other refused it, because he thought it to be sent rather of man then of God, and so died.

Basilius magnus, and Gregor. Nazianzene, did so pluck downe themselues by immoderate fasting, that when they were called to bee Bishops they were not able to sustaine the labour thereof.

Where in all the scriptures learned these men, thus to punish their bodies? this is not with Saint Paul to subdue and bring vnderunder the flesh: but to kill and destroy it: contrary to that saying of Saint Paul ▪ No man euer yet hated his own flesh,Ephe. 5.29.Eph 5:29 but loueth & cherisheth it: see I pray you, how these men loued and cherished their bodies?

p. 259Let vsus heare what Aug. sayth, Tudeseris res humanas, & segregas te, vt nemo te videat: Cui proderis? tu ad hoc peruenisses, si nemo tibi profuisset? In Psal. 49.Ps 49An quia veloces pedes tibi videris habuisse ad transeundum, praecisurus es pontem? Thou leauest the care of humane things, and separatest thy selfe that no man should see thee: to whom doest thou good in so doe doing? Hadst thou come to this perfection thy selfe if no man had done thee good? because thou hast quickly passed ouer, wilt thou cut off the bridge, that no man else should passe? See then Augustine maketh the heremiticall life altogether vnprofitable to men.

THE SECOND PART CONCERNING the habite and shauing of Monkes.

The Papists.

BOth these superstitious customes, for Monks to be knowne by their coules & error 95 shauen crowns, they receiue and allow as cōmendable and fit for them to be knowen by. Beside some shew of antiquitie, scripture they hauehave none: but their best reason is this: that as Senators & souldiers, Noble mē & rustikes are knowē by their apparel, so it is meet that Monks should bee discerned from others by their habite, Bellarm. cap. 40. Our Rhem. vse the same reason for shauen crowns, that it is a note of distinction between the Clergie and lay-men, annot. 1. Pet. 5. sect. 2. And for priestlike garnents, they alleadge out of Apocal. 1. vers. 13. how Christ appeared to Iohn vested in a priestlike garment.

Ans. 1. We deny not, but that it is conuenient for Ministers to be discerned from others euen in their apparel: which may be done by the grauity & modestie therof in colour, in plainnes, not necessary to bring in strange and ridiculous fashions of attire, such as Monks coules are: yet Ministers are better discerned by other things, then their apparel, as they are described by S. Paul, 1. Tim. 3. But as for any such distinction of monks we allow not: for the very calling it selfe ought to be abolished. As for shauen crownes and beards, they are but tokens of Baals priests, make the best of them you can.

2 Christ appeared in a long garment down to the feete: which they translate a priestlike garment, as though Christ were then going to Masse: The word is, podéres, which signifieth a long vesture, downe to the feete, which was one of the high priests garments, and hereby is signified the priesthood of Christ: but what is this to the attire of Monks or priests? We denie not but long garments for their comlines are fit for Ministers, according to the fashiō of the countrie, but not as necessarie, representing more holinesse: for in the East countreyes, short garments were graue and comely enough: as the prophets had their mantles: and S. Paul maketh mention of his cloke. 2. Tim. 4.13.

The Protestants.

WE condemne both the habite and shauing of the Monkes as superstitious, euen as their whole life and profession is.

p. 2601 There is no one precept in the new testament concerning formes and fashions of apparell to be vsed by Clergie men, but onelyonly in generall termes, that they should be modest and sober, and graue in their behauiour, 1. Tim. 3. The Leuites and priests indeede in the law, had rules and precepts set them both for their vestures in the temple, and their ordinary apparell, Numb. 15.39. that it should be made with fringes in remembrance of the commandements. But who seeth not that such significations of apparel were Leuitical, and meerly ceremonious? such is the habite of Monkes: for their coules, sayth the Iesuite, signifie their innocencie, like vntounto children that are couered with vailes like vntounto coules. But to place any religion or holines in apparell, as they did, (for it was thought a great priuiledge to be buried in a Monks coule) is abominable superstition: for such Monkish superstition our Sauiour rebuked the Pharisies, Math. 23.5. All their works they do, to be seene of men: for they make their Phylacteries broad, and make long the fringes of their garments. If the Pharisies did abuse to vain-glorie and superstition, that kinde of apparell which the law commaunded: there can be no good vse of Monkish habites, which the Gospel neither commendeth nor commandeth.

As for shauen crownes: they were directly forbiddē by the law of Moses, not only to round the tufts of their beard, as the Gentiles did, Leu. 19.27. but not to shaue their beard, or make bald their head, Leuit. 21.5. And then it was a signe of holines not to cut the haire, as in the Nazarites it appeareth, Num. 6. It was then the custom of the heathen and of their Idolatrous priestes to shaue themselues: How then dare the papists make that a signe of holines now, which was a signe of prophanenes, and heathennes then? And is their religion so beggarly, that they must needs borrow their ceremonies of the heathen?

2 The great variety of their habits, & foolish significations of their shauings, doe shew what beginning they had. The Monks of Basiles order went in white, of Benets rule in black, the Cistercians had white rotchets vponupon a black coate: the Grandimōtenses a coate of mailes,Fox. p. 154. with a black cloke vponupon. Some starred Monks: some Iesuites, with a white girdle, & a russet coule: some Celestines all in blew, both cloke, coule and cap. The Franciscanes did weare ropes for girdles & treen shooes.

They render also diuers reasons of their shauen crownes: some say, it resembleth Christs crowne of thornes: some by shauing the haire, do signifie the mortifiyng of the affections, as cutting of things that are superfluous: some by baring of the head, the simplicitie and plainnes of life. Bellarm. saith, it is a signe of repentance and conuersion. Is not here good stuffe, thinke you? Such rites, such ceremonies, such significations, such humane traditions, I think the Pharisies would hauehave abhorred. For these are worse then their washing of tables, brasen vessels, pots, cups, and such like: And yet our Sauiour saith of them, that they did lay the commandement of God apart, to establish their owne traditions, Mark. 7.8.

Lastly, let August. speak: Cōcerning the habite of ecclesiastical persons, thus p. 261he writeth: Aequè laicis patet coeli palatium dei mandata seruantibus quàm sanctimoniali▪ habitu praeditis sacerdotibus. De salutar. docum. cap. 8. The heauenly palace is as well open for Lay men, keeping the commandements of God, as for Priests in their holy attire. What profiteth it then, I pray you, to be buried in a Monkes coule? Againe, Augustine found fault with certaine dissolute Monkes in that time, that suffered their haire to growe long: Against whom he vrgeth the saying of S. Paul, 1. Corinth. 11.14. Doth not nature it selfe teach you, that it is a shame for a man to hauehave long haire? And so he concludeth: Hoc quò pertinet, quaeso, tam apertè contra Apostoli praecepta comari? What meaning hauehave you in this, to suffer your haire to growe, contrary to the precept of the Apostle? But this precept did no more belong to Monkes, then all other Christians. Concerning the shauing of Monkes, Augustine hath not one word at all, but of polling, and clipping the haire: he speaketh onelyonly against certaine crinitos fratres, that nourished their haire and suffered it to grow of length.

Nay, our Rhemists louelove shauing so well, that they defend the shauing of Nunnes, and would proue it out of Hierome, who indeede speaketh of the cutting of their haire, not for any religion, but to auoyd certaine little beasts that bred betweene the skinne and the haire, (you knowe what beasts they are) because they vsed not the bathes, nor oyle, as other women did, Fulk. 2. Thessal. 3. sect. 2. But whatsoeuer Hierome saith, it is flat contrarie to Saint Paules rule, who saith, It is a shame for a woman to be shorne or shauen, 1. Cor. 14.6.

THE THIRD PART OF THE MONKES Canonical houres.

The Papists.

THe 3.6.9. houres, they say, are consecrated and deuoted to praier, which they call their Canonical houres: at the 3. houre the holy Ghost descended: at error 96 the 6. houre Peter went vp to the top of the house: and at the 9. houre Peter and Iohn went vp to pray in the temple, Act. 3.1. And Daniel vsed to pray thrice in the day, Dan. 6.10. Ergo, those times ought to be consecrate to prayer, Rhemist. Act. 10. sect. 6.

Ans. First, we denye that it can be gathered by any of those places, that these houres onelyonly ought to be set apart for prayer. Peter and Iohn went vp at the 9. houre, which was the time of the euening sacrifice, when the religious Iewes went vp to pray. Secondly, Daniel praied three times a day, but at what houres the text speaketh not: yet by this example, and by the other proofes alleadged, we doe gather, that at the 3.6.9. houre, that is not precisely at any of these times, but in the morning, when men rise vp to their labours, at noone before their repast, and at night when they goe to rest, it is meete and conuenient that men should make their praiers vntounto God, and at other times also when they finde themselues fit. Thirdly, the popish seruice hath nothing but the names of these p. 262houres: for they are all finished in the forenoone, they hauehave their Nocturnes at midnight, their Prime early in the morning, whereas the sixt houre is at high noone, the ninth houre is the third houre before the Sunnes set, Fulk. ibid.

The Protestants.

WE denye not but that set times of publike prayer are commendable, as we hauehave our forenoone, and afternoone seruice: But at vnseasonable houres, as at midnight, or the rising of the Sunne, to call the people together, when they cannot cōueniently be assembled, is but a superstitious custome. Again, it is profitable for men in the morning, noone, euening, though not precisely at any set houres, to direct their prayers vntounto God: but so to stint mens prayers, as that they ought of necessitie to keepe their houres, as though their prayers were then more auaileable, it hath no ground out of scripture.

1 S. Paul saith, Pray continually, 1. Thessal. 5.17. Ergo, it is lawfull to pray at all times, and one time as fit for prayer as another, if a man be prepared. Agayne, the same Apostle saith: I will that the men eueryevery where lift vp pure hands without wrath and doubting, 1. Timoth. 2.8. Out of these words we gather two arguments: First, prayers are no more bound to times, then to places: a man may pray eueryevery where, Ergo, at eueryevery time. Secondly, a man ought not to pray but when he is voyd of wrath, and is otherwise prepared: but it may be that at the stinted houres, of the 3.6.9. a man may bee in wrath, and otherwise not fit, therefore he is not necessarily to be tyed to those houres.

2 Augustine thus writeth: Cum quisque orationem quaerit, collocat membra sicut ei occurrerit. Cum autem non quaeritur, sed infertur appetitus orandi: hoc est, cum repente aliquid venit in mentem, quocum que modo inuenerit hominem, non est vtique differenda oratio. Lib. 2. ad Simplician. quaest. 4. When any man desireth to pray, let him dispose his bodie as he thinketh best: But when as it commeth not of his desire and seeking, but suddenly his affection is stirred vp to pray, howsoeuer prayer findeth him (that is, whether standing or sitting) he must not in any case deferre it and put it off to another time. This then is Augustines minde, that a man should pray so oft as he hath a disposition thereunto, and not deferre his prayer, as they doe, which bind themselues to Canonicall houres.

THE FOVRTH PART, CONCERNING THE maintenance of Monkes.

The Papists.

error 97 THey neither denie that it is vnlawfull for Monkes to labour with their hands, where necessitie, bodily strength, the order of the Church doth require thē, neither doe they confesse, that it is necessary for them to worke: And so are not ashamed to maintaine their idle, slothfull, and Epicures life, Bellarm. cap. 41.42. Rhemists, Thessal. 2.3. sect. 2. But they may either liue of the lands giuen to their houses, or els by their religious begging, cap. 44.

p. 2631 Monkes are not now bound to worke, hauing wherewithall to liue beside of lands giuen vntounto them, because most of them are Priests, and doe serue at the Altar, Rhemist. ibid.

Ans. First, we grant that Ministers of the Gospell labouring in the word and Sacraments, ought to be maintained by the Gospell: But such are fewe or none of your Monkes, who being fit for no other seruice either in the Church or commonwealth, are thrust into Monasteries by their friends: they are idolatrous Priests, and serue little better then at Baals altar. If any of them be fit for the Ministerie, as we denye not but some hauehave come out of your Cloysters, as Luther, Bucer, P. Martyr, by whom the Church of God hath receiued much good: but they must come first out of your Dennes, and relinquish their Monkish life, and labour amongst the people: so shal they be no more regular, but secular priests, as you terme them. Secondly, the lands which were bestowed vponupon them, were first giuen vponupon an euill intent, that by their prayers they should redeeme the soules of their founders, who most of them had cōmitted some notable sinne, & so pro remedio animarū, to helpe their soules, they built Monasteries: So King Ethelstane for killing his brother Edwin, built two Monasteries, Middleton and Michelney for his soule, Fox. pag. 152. King Offa for killing Ethelbert a good Prince, who came peaceably for the despousage of Atheldred his daughter, being pricked in conscience, gaue the first Peter pence to Rome, pag. 114. Those lands therefore being giuen first for vngodly purposes, and continued by them for idolatrous vses, ought cleane to bee taken from them, and to be bestowed vponupon better vses, neither is it lawfull for them in that sort to enioy them.

2 They proue the impudent begging of Friers, which they call religious begging, to be lawfull and commendable, by the example of Christ, who had not a place where to put his head, Luk. 9. and of his Apostles, that were charged not to possesse gold or siluer in their purses, Math. 10. Bellarm. cap. 45.

Ans. First, I pray you where euer did you reade that Christ went a begging? he liued not of almes, but gaue almes, and Iudas was the almesman, though he playd his part but euill. Augustine flatly denyeth that you auouch: He saith that Christs bagge was as Fiscus regis, euen as the Kings Exchequer: and that what was giuen him, was as due as tribute money to the Prince: But the King, I trow, is not a begger. Nisi putetis, (sayth he) quia dominus petebat & indigebat, cui seruiebant angeli, qui de quinque panibus tot millia pauit. Vnlesse you thinke (sayth he) that Christ begged, and wanted, whom the Angels serued, and who fed with fiue loaues not a fewe thousands, in Psal. 146. Secondly, if the Apostles were beggers, then they liued of almes, but that is vntrue: for Christ saith, The labourer is worthie of his hire: but the labourers wages is earned and deserued, it is no almes.

The Protestants.

FIrst we say, that no idle persons ought to be maintained in a Christian commonwealth, but they that hauehave not any other necessary calling, should labour p. 264with their hands, and therefore Monkes that are fit for no other seruice in the Church, ought to labour and worke.

1 Saint Paul giueth a general rule: He that will not worke, let him not eate, 2. Thessal. 3.10. speaking of those that hauehave no necessarie calling in the Church: Ergo, Monkes must worke, or els by S. Paules rule, not eate. The Rhemists answere, that this is but a naturall admonition or counsel. Nay, it is a precept and commandement, that all in their seuerall places and callings should labour, none liue idlely: for S. Paul saith not, this I counselled you, but this I warned you of, or denounced vntounto you, and he calleth those that followed not this rule, inordinate walkers.

2 Againe, if you will needes hauehave Monks, let them be as they were in times past: for then they were lay men and laboured with their hands, till anno. 606. when Boniface made a decree that Monkes might vse the office of preaching and Christening: but before that, Monks were forbidden by the generall Councel of Chalcedon, not to entermeddle with matters Ecclesiasticall, Fox. pag. 154. But perhaps they will say, as they doe, that some of them work, as their Nunnes: And I pray you, why not their Monkes too? I thinke their great bellies hinder them. Neither are their Monkes altogether idle; for some of them in painting, caruing, grauing, and garnishing their Idols, are very cunning. But, according to the saying, they might better be idle then ill occupied, and as good neuer a whit, as neuer the better.

3. Neither is it to be permitted, that Friers should get their liuing by begging: for what are they els but valiant beggers? First, there ought to be no beggers in the common-wealth: as Deuteron. 15. Though the Lord say, that they should neuer be without poore or beggers, which should want their helpe, vers. 11. Yet vers. 5. this charge is giuen, that by them, that is, their default, there should not be a begger in Israel: they should so prouide for the poore, that they neede not go a begging. There are also positiue lawes, to restraine the number of beggers, and therefore there is no reason, that by a number of idle vagrant persons, belli-god Friers, that begging order should be enlarged. Secondly, but seeing it can not bee chosen, but there must needes be some beggers: they ought not to bee young sturdie lubbers, that are able to worke, as most of the Friers were, but such as are described, Luk. 14.21. where the King saith to his seruants, Goe out quickly, and bring hither the poore, the maimed, the halt, the blinde: Ergo, such lusty fellowes ought to liue by the sweate of their browes, not to eate vp the bread of the poore. Lastly, in the sermons, Ad fratres in eremo, which are ascribed to Augustine, thus we reade: Eia fratres mei, semper boni aliquid facite, quem tadet orare, Serm. 16.vel psallere non desistat, quem taedet orare, vel psallere, manibus laborare non desistat. My brethren, alwaies bee ye doing of some good; if you bee wearie of praying, sing, if of singing, then labour with your hands. And in the same place, old men onelyonly of 80. yeere old are exempted from working. And in another place Augustine sheweth, that the Monkes in his time did so plye their worke, Vsque adeo, vt etiam naues oneratas in ea loca mittant, qua inopes incolunt: that p. 265they sent shippes laden with necessaries, vntounto those places where the poore inhabited. De morib. eccles. cap. 32. Ergo, in Augustines time Monkes liued not by begging, but with labour of their hands.

Thus by Gods goodnes we hauehave finished this question, and this whole Controuersie: One other question remaineth: whether the Monasticall life be meritorious or not: which we hauehave referred to another place, when we shall come to the question of Virginitie in generall and the priuiledges thereof.