Truth and Falsehood, Book · Chapter 19

Truth and Falsehood · Book · Chapter 19

Of Matrimonie, that it is not a Sacrament, and that it is lawfull for all. CHAP. 19

THE PROTESTANTS

MArriage wee confeſſe to be in it ſelfe an eſtate, holy and honourable, and for all ſortes of vsus moſt neceſſary, conſidering that men and women of all callings and conditions, are ſubiect to noyſom and filthy luſts, wee dare not therefore forbid it to any ſort of men or womē, leſt we ſhould ſeem to reiect that remedy that God prouided againſt ſinne, or to refuſe the helper that he made for vsus, or to lay a ſtumbling blocke before men or women whereat they might fall.

THE PAPISTS

THe Papiſtes not content with that accoūt of matrimoni… that the Scriptures doe make, will needes hauehave it to bee one of the fiue Sacraments, which they hauehave added to the two that were inſtituted by Chriſt: And yet ſtraitway, as if they had forgotten themſelues, they doe thinke it to bee too baſe an eſtate, too vnpure and vncleane for any man for to liue in, that is called to miniſter before the Lorde. And And therefore their prieſts muſt not bee married in any wiſe.

That matrimony is not a ſacrament, ſpeaking of a ſacrament properly, as when wee call baptiſme or the ſupper of the Lord ſacraments, it is moſt plaine: Firſt, becauſe the things that are required in a ſacrament, are not to bee found in it, namely, an outward ſigne, a promiſe of iuſtifying grace, Gods inſtitution or commandement. As for the commaundement, ſome woulde wring it out of theſe wordes,Matth. 19.6.Matt 19:6 That which God hath ioyned together, let no man put aſunder. But that is onelyonly a prohibition, that man ſhal not looſe that knot which God hath knit, there is no ſacrament commaunded. And maſter Bellarmine ſpying that fault, dareth not commend their indeuor therein, but taketh another courſe. For he thinketh his friends troubled themſelues more than they needed, to be too curious, in ſearching where it is commanded to be made a ſacrament. But if Gods commandement, or the inſtitution of the ſacrament be neceſſarily required in a ſacrament (as Maſter Bellarmine hath often ſhewed) the Papiſts (by his leaue) ſhall either ſhew,De ſacram. matrimon. lib. 1. cap. 2. when, and how, it was inſtituted to be a ſacrament, or elſe there is no cauſe that we ſhould truſt them, although they al had ſworne, that it is one. For in truth this their doctrine is ſo doubtful & vncertaine, that themſelues know not what to ſay of it. For, ſome thinke that it hath alwayes bin a ſacrament, euen from the beginning of the worlde:De ſacram. matrimon. lib. 1. cap. 5 Seſſ. 24. can. 2. but Bellarmine wil not in any wiſe agree to that. And the councel of Trent is flat of that mind, that it is a ſacrament inſtituted by Chriſt, and therfore not of the old law. If then it be true, that matrimony was not a ſacrament vntil Chriſt made it one, it is needful that they ſhould prooue, that Chriſt hath made it a ſacrament, before we can receiue it for one. And this reaſon is very ſtrong againſt maſter Bellarmine, who reaſoneth againſt them that think that matrimony was a ſacrament of the old law, becauſe, It is not read (ſaith he) that there was any inſtitution of marriage in al the olde teſtament: Ioh. 5.32.John 5:32he meaneth after mans fall. Therefore, if they prooue no inſtitution of it, they prooue no Sacrament. Nowe for the ſecond point. For to prooue it to be an outward ſigne they bring thoſe wordes of Saint Paule, This is a great ſacrament (for ſo the old tranſlation hath) but the word ſignifieth alſo a myſterie or ſecret. But wee will not contend of the worde. Will they imagine that this word can prooue matrimony to be a ſacrament? Wee ſee that Chriſt and his p. 66Apoſtles are more carefull of the true vſe of the Sacramentes, than of their names, as may appeare by thoſe two Sacramentes which we acknowledge, which are not ſo much as named ſacramentes. Secondly, to proue it to be a ſacrament, it is not enough to ſhew that it is a ſigne of a holy thing, but that it was inſtituted to bee ſuch a ſigne. And that can they neuer doe in this.Sacr. mat. li. 1. cap. 5. For it was inſtituted in paradiſe, where it was no ſuch ſigne as themſelues confeſſe, as is ſhewed, yea Bellarmine denieth that there is in matrimony any outward ſigne by the inſtitution of it. So that although it repreſent vntounto vsus (to our vnſpeakeable comfort) the vnion and coniunction, betweene Chriſt and his church, yet that it was not inſtituted to that end, & that it is not an outward ſigne by the inſtitution of it, it is moſt plaine. But how will they proue the third thing, namely the promiſe of ſaluation to be in this their ſacrament? For ſooth becauſe it repreſenteth vntounto vsus the ſpirituall louelove of Chriſt to his church, & hir obediēce to him againe. That is alſo performed in eueryevery body of mā or womā, if we marke the vnion betweene the members and the head. In eueryevery vine tree, yea in eueryevery plant, if wee conſider the coherence betweene the branches and the tree. Yea many ſuch things there are that hauehave as much in thē belonging to a ſacramēt as matrimony hath. And yet howſoeuer they may be vntounto vsus, if we cōſider of thē as we may do, I neuer heard or read that euer they were accōpted ſacramēts in the proper ſence. And why? becauſe God neuer appointed them to that end. for in the ſacramēts Chriſts inſtitutiō is the eſpecial thing, how little account ſo euer M. Bellar. make of it. The 2. argument whereby I proue matrimony not to be a ſacramēt is, bicauſe that many of the ſcholemen, who are the eſpecial friends to thoſe popiſh ſacraments, doubt whether matrimonie giueth grace, which the popiſh church doth attribute to all ſacraments. For as Canus reporteth:De locis Theol. li. 8. cap. 5. the Ma. of ſentences, Thomas of Aquine, Scot, Bonauenture, Rich. de S. victore, Paludanus, Durand & others do not define, whether it giuegive grace or not, but leaue it to eueryevery mans owne opinion. As for the matter or forme of this ſacrament (to vſe Canus his words) theſe ſchoolemen do ſhew themſelues ſo vnconſtant and wauering, ſo vncertaine and doubtfull, that he ſhoulde but prooue himſelfe a foole, that in ſuch difference and diſagreement, would ſet downe any thing for certaine or true. And for that cauſe the Councell of Florence (ſaith he) decreed nothing of the matter, forme, or miniſter of this ſacrament, becauſe it ſaw, that the Diuines in the ſchooles had concluded nothing of them. Seeing therfore themſelues within ſo few yeares doubted, yea and are not yet fully reſolued, whether that ſacrament giuegive grace, without the which it cannot bee a ſacrament in the Popiſh church: they giuegive vsus iuſt cauſe to ſuſpect, nay flatly to affirme, that it was not a ſacrament inſtituted by Chriſt. For if it had, before this time doubtleſſe themſelues at the leaſt woulde hauehave reſolued of ſuch principall points thereof. And if Chriſt did not inſtitute it a ſacrament, then alſo we may deny it at all to bee a ſacrament: For neither men nor angels may inſtitute any ſacraments (as Bellarmine hath truely noted.De ſacram. Matrim. lib. 1. cap. 2. Neither are they yet agreed, whether eueryevery marriage is this their ſacrament. For Canus in the place before alleaged, thinketh not any matrimony to be this ſacrament, but that onelyonly that is ſolemnized by the Prieſt. But Bellarmine with all the ſkill he hath oppoſeth himſelfe againſt him,De ſacram. Matrim. lib. 1. cap. 7 yea, it is high time he ſhould ſo do. For hee plainely confeſſeth, that if that opinion of Canus be true, then they ſhall neuer out of the ſcriptures or councels bee able to prooue the ſacrament of matrimony.

Then wee ſee it ſtandeth him vponupon to doe what he can: For, either muſt the marriages not ſolemnized by the Prieſts, bee this ſacrament (and ſo eueryevery man and woman is a miniſter in this ſacrament) which his own friends will in no wiſe graunt vntounto him: or elſe matrimony is not a ſacrament. And then they hauehave deceiued the world ſome p. 67hundreds of yeeres. Thirdly, matrimony can not be a ſacrament, becauſe the promiſe of grace is common vntounto all ſorts of men and women. And therfore the ſacraments and ſignes alſo of thoſe graces ſhoulde belong vntounto all ſortes. But in the Popiſh church matrimony is denied to ſome ſortes, as to their cleargie: Therefore, by their owne doctrine it can not be a Sacrament, eſpecially ſuch a Sacrament as baptiſme and the euchariſt, for they are common to all ſortes:Marriage lawfull for all men. but matrimony (they ſay) muſt not ſo be. And this is the ſecond point of their doctrine which muſt be examined. For it ſeemeth to mee very ſtrange, that they, who hauehave nowe ſo magnified this eſtate of life, that it muſt be no leſſe than a holy ſacrament, doe ſo ſodainely debaſe the ſame, that they thinke it not pure enough for their ſhorne and annointed creatures. But I looke that they ſhould come againſt mee with an anſwere out of maſter Bellarmine, De ſacram. matrim. ca. 5that their Prieſtes in deede are forbidden to marry, but not in that reſpect that it is a ſacrament, but becauſe of thoſe things that followe marriage, and are impediments and lets to them in their calling. And yet neither all the conſequents of marriage are denied to their clergie: For maſter Bellarmine telleth vsus there, that if a man and wife being married together will promiſe continencie, they may well enough take their orders, and are truely both married folkes and prieſts. So that not cares or troubles that are incident vntounto married folkes oftentimes, are any thing to bee reſpected in this caſe: For cleargy men may hauehave all theſe, but the eſpeciall duety of marriage they may not perfourme. Whereby the Papiſts to defend the credit of this their ſacrament, doe robbe the Cleargie of that thing which is the eſpeciall repreſentation of the coniunction of Chriſt and of his church, whileſt they would make theſe beleeue, that the performaunce of the duety betweene man and wife, is a thing not to be ſuffered in Cleargie men.

The very ground of this aſſertion of maſter Bellarmines, is that hee thinketh not the copulation of married folke to bee of the ſubſtaunce of Matrimonie. And this he prooueth by ſome teſtimonies out of the fathers in that fift Chapter. But yet himſelfe will not, that this his ſaying ſhould bee ſo vnderſtoode, as if that hee ſayd, that the vſe of marriage is not any way of the ſubſtaunce of marriage.Chap. 6 For afterwardes hee ſayeth, that this their ſacrament may hauehave two reſpects. As it is made, and as it is continued. As it made, that is, (if I be not deceyued) as the mutuall conſent of parties ioyneth them together by their promiſes, the conſent expreſſed by ſuch wordes, is the matter and forme of their ſacrament. And thus muſt wee vnderſtand that common rule in their lawe, that conſent maketh marriages. And thus doe the fathers vnderſtand that which they ſay concerning the ſubſtaunce of marriage to conſiſt in the mutuall conſent: partly, becauſe after ſuch conſent giuen, the parties are not free to chaunge the choyſe which they hauehave made:Deu. 22, 23 24Deut 22:23 And partly becauſe that euen by Gods lawe, if parties after ſuch conſent giuen, ſhoulde carnally knowe another, it was death for them ſo to doe: which could not bee, but becauſe this their conſent is after a ſort the marriage it ſelfe. This, if it repreſent any thing to vsus, doeth but repreſent that ioyning of Chriſt with vsus by ſpirituall louelove,Chap. 5 as Bellarmine himſelfe confeſſeth. But that is not any ſpeciall benefite, or ſingular: For hee loueth all his creatures, and wept for the deſtruction of his enemies: And one man may be ſo ioyned with another. But it is a ſpeciall grace, that marriage repreſenteth vntounto vsus: to vsus (I ſay) that after a peculiar manner belong to him. Namely, howe wee are made fleſh of his fleſh, and bone of his bones, howe our bodies are the members of Chriſts bodie, howe in deed hee is, as in name hee is called, God with vsus. This is repreſented vntounto vsus, but by that copulation that is betweene man and wife, whereby, as before by conſent they were of one minde, ſo nowe by it they are one bodie. For p. 68by copulation the wife is made one bodie with her huſbande. And this doe I take to bee confeſſed by maiſter Bellarmine himſelfe, when hee telleth vsus that in the ſeconde reſpect by Matrimonie, is meant that which continueth. And then muſt the bodyes of them that are marryed needes be the matter of this ſacrament, euen their copulation and dwelling togither. And therefore he alloweth well of the iudgement of Peter Soto, that thinketh euen this vſe of Matrimonie to bee the matter, not onelyonly about which this Sacrament is occupyed, but of which it is made or conſiſteth. If then it bee the matter of their Sacrament, which they denie to their Cleargie, it is not true that maiſter Bellarmine ſaide, that they denie not their Cleargie men to marrie, as marriage is a ſacrament. For they deny that to them which is the ſubſtance of their ſacrament.

This may alſo appeare by the definition of matrimonie, which we may finde in the fathers.Strom. 2. li. De Monog. Marriage (ſayeth Clemens of Alexandria) is the firſt lawfull ioyning together of man and woman, for the procreation of children. And Tertullian is inquiſitiue what is marriage before God, and findeth it to bee when God ioyneth together two into one fleſh. Then if we wil ſpeake properly of marriage, it is the ioyning together, not of minds, or heartes onelyonly, but of bodies alſo. Yea,li. 1. chap. 5 De Sacram. matrim. and it is confeſſed by maiſter Bellarmine, that ſuch marriages as hauehave not copulation, are but a maimed and vnperfect Sacrament, and that Prieſtes may ſo be married. And howe his fellowes will take this at his handes, I cannot tell: that they who count themſelues moſt perfect, ſhould not bee admitted but to that vnperfect Sacrament, whereas the common ſort, and knowne ſinners, might bee partakers of the perfect Sacrament. But let them order thoſe matters amongeſt themſelues. But ſaint Baſil perchance would admit them to the vſe of marriage, ſince maiſter Bellar. doth permit them to marry,De vera Virginitate. ſo that they abſtaine frō the vſe of it. For (ſaith he) ſince the reaſon of the minde directing, hath manifeſtly ioined their hearts in reſpect of ſome neceſsitie, worthily doth the vnitie of bodies, to which they are knit, folow thoſe hearts ſo vnited: wherin this lerned father ſeemeth to me to be of that mind, that there is no cauſe, but that whoſoeuer may in heart be ioined vntounto another as to his wife, may alſo in bodie bee ioyned with her. And ſo if it be lawfull for them to marry, and to continue married,Cap. 5. as Bellarmine confeſſeth, it is alſo lawfull for them to hauehave the vſe of marriage, as ſaint Baſill here ſaieth. But what is the reaſon why they ſtande ſo much in this matter? Are they not men? hauehave they not infirmities? Can they who this day finde themſelues to be voyde of ſuch aſſaults, as are the fruites of wanton luſts, promiſe to themſelues that they ſhall bee ſo to morrowe likewiſe, and ſo to continue alſo? Let no man deceyue himſelfe in that fooliſh imagination: no body can aſſure themſelues of anie ſuch thing, it is a rare gift of God. All men cannot receiue this thing, Mat. 19.11 1. Cor. 7, 7 17 De monac. li. 2. cap. 31Matt 19:111 Cor 7:7but they to whome it is giuen. If it be a gift of God, as Bellar. confeſſeth, it is too much preſumption for vsus to be ſo bold to promiſe it, as though it were within our owne reach. If it bee care, it is too much wickedneſſe, and too great occaſion of offence, for the church of Rome to require it, ſo as they doe of all their cleargie. Yea, but they teach this as a doctrine that needes muſt bee beleeued,De Cler. li. 1 cap. 21 and with a full conſent, and namely Bellarmine, That they hauehave the gift of continencie that will. And againe, That there is no man that cannot liue continently, if himſelfe will. Of this doctrine of free will. I ſhall God willing ſpeake more largely hereafter. But now for this bolde and groſſe affirmation, I am verily perſwaded, that it neuer could hauehave come from any man, vnleſſe either his minde were blinded with ignorance, that hee ſaw not the trueth of his owne eſtate, or his heart were either poſſeſſed with ſuch a ſenſeleſneſſe that it could feele no ſinne, or elſe ſo bent to reſiſt the p. 69truth, that he would not yeeld to it, although hee knewe it. For what can bee found in the ſcriptures more common, than the falles of the godly, the faults of Gods ſeruants, their complaints, their ſighes, yea, their teares, becauſe of their ſinnes? Shall we ſay, they ſinned willingly, or that they walked not carefully in their wayes? S. Paul then wil proue vsus to be liars, who for his part doth teſtifie, To will is preſent with me, Rom. 7.18 19Rom 7:18but I finde no way to performe that which is good. For I doe not the good thing which I would, but the euill which I would not, that doe I. Wee ſee, ſaint Paule would faine not hauehave done euill, but yet hee did it. Shall wee ſay, we are ſtronger than hee was? Then are wee fooles, and knowe nothing of our owne weakeneſſe. For this cauſe Paule willeth the yonger widowes, not to vowe chaſtitie, or ſtriue for it,1. Tim. 5.141 Tim 5:14 but to marrie, and doe ſuch dutyes. Yea, and if the ſcriptures ſhould not teach vsus this, let vsus but looke into our ſelues, and conſidering indifferently, and without partiality, how ſubiect we are to ſinne, we muſt confeſſe, that if the Apoſtle had cauſe to ſigh, wee may iuſtly tremble … d quake for feare. If hee complaine and mourne, wee may in bitterneſſe and anguiſh of ſoule crie out: for his weakneſſe ſhall bee founde ſtrength, if it bee compared with our readineſſe to faſt. And yet I confeſſe, that God will giuegive grace to them that aſke it, and let them that ſeek find, ſo that they aſke and ſeeke in ſuch ſort as they ought to doe, and ſuch things as are neceſſarie for them, to walke in their calling. But to aſke, that we ſhould not ſtand in need of that helpe and remedie agaynſt ſinne, that God hath prouided, or that wee ſhould liue a more angellicall life, than hee hath appoynted vsus to doe, is to tempt God in aſking without our warrant, and therefore without fayth, and to deſpiſe that meaſure of grace that God hath vouchedſafe to beſtowe vponupon vsus. The treaſure is great that wee who are Gods miniſters doe carrie, although in earthen veſſels, that the power might bee of God,2. Cor. 4.72 Cor 4:7 and not of vsus. It is inough for vsus if the Lord keepe vsus ſo … his great goodneſſe from falling, that we bee not daſhed in peeces, and bee a reproch to this excellent worde of life. So that wee honour him, and glorifie his name, in what eſtate of life ſo euer it be, whether ſingle life, or mariage, it maketh no matter. Gods will be done, and Gods name be prayſed for it. Well then we ſee beggers muſt be no chooſers, but looke what hee hath appointed vsus to hauehave, let vsus bee heartily thankefull for it, and craue Gods good ſpirite to direct vsus in that way.

Seeing then it appeareth, I truſt, that neither to liue vnmaried without burning in luſt, is in our power, neither yet it is needfull that anie ſhould ſtriue for that, vnleſſe hee ſee that God hath giuen him that gift, let vsus yet further conſider, what it is that they ſo much miſlike in mariage.Cenſ. col. diall. 3 Ad Himer. They ſay, that it doeth open a doore vntounto wantonneſſe, and putteth fire to all luſtes: And as Pope Sericius ſayeth: for ſuch to marrie is nothing elſe, but to liue in the fleſh, yea, in pollution, and that they cannot pleaſe God.Cenſur. col. dial. 3. Yea, blaſphemouſly doe the Ieſuites of Colen call it the life of Sardanapalus for a Prieſt to marrie. But more like to the ſaying of a plaine Atheiſt, is that ſaying of that man of Colen, that a man were better to hauehave a hundred harlots, one after another, than one wife. And our countrey man Doctour Smith, in his booke of vowes and ſingle life,D. Smith Obiection 8 is not aſhamed to affirme, that it is a leſſe ſinne for one that hath made a vow, to take to himſelfe a harlot, then to marrie, we heare his impudencie: let vsus heare what reaſon hee hath for him. If hee commit whoredome (ſayeth hee) hauing vowed chaſtitie, he is at his libertie when he will to reforme his life, and to change it into a chaſt life. What man can doe in ſuch caſe as I hauehave ſayde before. But if they bee married, can they not alſo abſtaine from the vſe of marriage vponupon iuſt cauſes? Hath not the Apoſtle giuen plaine order, what ſhall bee done in that caſe? Doeth the Apoſtle giuegive p. 70commaundement, yea or counſell eyther,1 Cor. 7.5.1 Cor 7:5 that men and women ſhoulde vowe, that they may bee the more free to ſerue God? No, but the contrarie rather. For although hee Suppoſe that it is good for the preſent neceſsitie, that a man ſhould continue a ſingle life, 1 Cor. 7.261 Cor 7:26whileſt afflictions and great daungers did oppreſſe thoſe firſt dayes of Chriſt his church, and they had no ſafetie to themſelues, ſo that care for their wiues and children, might withdrawe them from their holie obedience and patient profeſſion:1. Cor. 7.21 Cor 7:2 yet notwithſtanding hee woulde to auoyde fornication, that eueryevery man ſhoulde hauehave his wife, and euerie woman her owne husbande▪ marke euerie man, euerie woman, none excepted. And againe: But if they cannot abſtaine, let them marrie: for it is better to marrie than to burne. Doeth the Apoſtle open the doore vntounto wantonneſſe in permitting marriage to all, excepting none? Yea, and that men ſhould not be too raſh in making their vowes in this caſe, hee willeth that ſuch as are married, defraude not one another, no not to giuegive themſelues to faſting and prayer, but onelyonly for a time, and ſo to come together againe, leaſt Sathan ſhoulde tempt them for their incontinencie.

And for ſingle life it is commended by the Apoſtle no further, then whileſt a man ſtandeth firme in his owne heart that he hath no neede, but hath power ouer his owne will. And it is worth the marking, howe Smith here, and alſo all the Papiſts almoſt in this poynt, doe ſo directly oppoſe themſelues vntounto the Apoſtles doctrine, as if they had ſworne to giuegive him the lye in his throte. For whereas hee ſayeth of all, of all (I ſay) and not of laie men onelyonly, It is better to marrie than to burne, this doting doctour Smith ſayth, and ſo do his fellowes: it is better for a prieſt, not to burne onelyonly, but euen to commit whoredome, than to marrie. It is better to hauehave a hundred harlots, (ſayeth another) than only one lawfull wife. Lawfull (I ſay) becauſe that howſoeuer ſome filthy men, condemne in ſome, that holy inſtitution, yet Gods word doth not only ſuffer and alſo commend it, but euen command it to all that cannot liue without it, but that they muſt burne in luſt. And Ciprian doth plainelie permit it vntounto them whom we call Nunnes, ſaying, that If they will not, Epiſt. li. 1. ep. 11.or cannot continue (in virginity) it is better that they ſhould marry, than that by their wantonnes they ſhould fall into the fire. Which wordes, becauſe they are very flatte againſt the popiſh doctrine of vowes, the papiſts doe ſtriue to finde ſome plaiſter for that wound.de Monach. li. 2. cap. 34. And amongſt others, Bellarmine (liking nothing of that which Hoſius, and others hauehave ſaide before him of this place, of Ciprian) imagineth that he hath hit the naile vponupon the head. His anſwer is, that yet whilſt they are free, and hauehave made no vow, if they ſee they cannot continue, Ciprian faith, it is beſt for them to marry. But that maſter Bellarmine hath as far miſſed the cuſhion, as others before him hauehave done: and that his anſwere is moſt vntrue, I proue, firſt by the queſtion which was moued vntounto Ciprian. For Pomponius to whom he writeth, did aſke of Ciprian, what hee ſhould thinke of ſome women, who had profeſſed virginity, and yet were founde in bed with men. So that if he anſwere directly to Pomponius his queſtion he ſheweth what ſhould be done, with ſuch as had already vowed, and not of ſuch as were to make the vow. Secondly, in the very words next before, it doth moſt plainelie appeare, that he maketh two ſorts of ſuch as hauehave made the vow, the one ſort he would hauehave to continue, namely ſuch as through faith hauehave yeelded themſelues to Chriſt: the other of them that will not, or cannot. Thirdly, that which followeth, that to excuſe themſelues they would offer to bee tried by women, whether they were virgins, (for vntounto that their excuſe Ciprian maketh anſwere) is ſo ſtrong an argument, as maſter Bellarmine, and all his friends, will neuer be able to anſwere, to proue that thoſe words of Ciprians are not ment, neither can be vnderſtood, of ſuch as p. 71ſtood in doubt, whether they would vow or not, as maſter Bellarmine affirmeth, but of ſuch as after their vow, neither would, nor could perſeuere in their purpoſe. For if that only had beene their doubt, whether they could continue virgins, that matter the women could not iudge of. If whether they were virgins, it is directly againſt maſter Bellarmines anſwere to this place. It is not therefore to giuegive occaſion of wantonnes, to teach mariage to be lawfull for all men, as without ſhame they affirme, as by the holie Apoſtle and that learned father appeareth, but they that condemne it, doe let looſe the raines vntounto all vncleanenes, as ſaith Saint Bernard, Super cant, ſerm. 66.and they that forbid mariage vntounto ſome ſorts, doe ſow the bad ſeed of vngodly life, and wanton luſts, the fruit whereof hath defiled the whole worlde. But what? Is it forbidden by God himſelfe? They know not well how to anſwere to this queſtion. For the Maſter of Sentences, for ought that I ſee, hath ſaid nothing of that matter. And he is their very oracle, who, if he hold his peace, they know not what to thinke of the matter. But Iohn Maior, Clichtouaeus and ſome others, doe affirme that this ſingle life is commanded by God himſelfe. But Thomas, whom for the moſt part maſter Bellarmine is deuoted vntounto, and ſundry others doe plainlie ſaie, that God hath giuen no law concerning ſingle life.De clerici… . li. 1. cap. 28. And that maſter Bellarmine doth not only allow, but proueth it ſo to be, with whom we are alſo willing to ioine. For it is moſt true that there is not one ſuch commandement in all the ſcripture, neither yet is it neceſſarie that prieſtes ſhould liue a ſingle life, or vnmaried, both which things maſter Bellarmine hath in that place. If God then hauehave not commanded it, neither the thing is neceſſary, let maſter Bellarmine bring what els he can to proue it, he ſhall not much trouble vsus about his vnneceſſary precepts. But the Apoſtle (ſaith he) hath commanded it. A biſhop muſt be continent. De cler. li. 1. cap. 19. Tit. 1.8.Titus 1:8Although continent and chaſte is in truth all one thing, yet maſter Bellarmine wil not thinke it ſufficient that a biſhop ſhould be chaſte becauſe he knoweth that Saint Auguſtine and other of the fathers affirme that there is chaſtity in mariage, but he will doubtles ſpie ſome greater vertue in continency then in chaſtity, and therefore he will hauehave a biſhop not chaſt only, but alſo continent. But if we muſt ſeeke for a difference betweene theſe two wordes, I take this to be it, that continencie is of ſhorter continuance, that is to ſay, but an abſtinence for a time, and chaſtitie is a vertue that indureth. And the examples brought by maſter Bellarmine himſelfe approue this difference. But Chriſoſtome and Theophilact, doe take continencie to be an abſtinence not from luſts only, but from al vice, ſo that as Theophilact ſaith, he muſt rule his tongue, his handes, and his eies. Hierom vponupon theſe wordes ſaith plainelie, that the Apoſtle neuer ſpeaketh of continencie or incontinencie, but in reſpect of wanton luſtes, but yet he taketh continencie, to be ſuch a vertue, as may be in maried folke. And therefore the Apoſtle (ſaith he) hauing ſpoken of a biſhop, that hee may hauehave one wife, leaſt he ſhould ſeeme to permit incontinencie, to them addeth this: and with Hierom agreeth Primaſius. So that they make continent, and chaſte, all one.1. Cor. 7.3.4.5.1 Cor 7:31 Cor 7:41 Cor 7:5 For although married folke muſt performe the duties of mariage one to another, yet ſo, as they paſſe not the boundes of chaſtitie or continencie. This reaſon then is not good. Prieſts muſt by Saint Paules rule bee continent, therefore they muſt hauehave no wiues. But on the contrarie. Saint Paul in that verie place, where he requireth in a biſhop continencie, doth permit at the leaſt, that he ſhoulde be the huſband of one wife, therefore in mariage there may be continencie.Tit. 1.6.Titus 1:6 As for that which hee alleadgeth out of Councels, popes, fathers and reaſon, becauſe they proue not that which hee hath vndertaken to proue,Chap. 19. it is not worth an anſwere. For the title of that Chapter is, That ſingle life by the Apoſtolicke law is verie well tyed to the holie orders. And when hee hath ſnatched at one poore worde, and findeth no greate p. 72helpe in it, hee ſeeketh to prooue by Councels, popes, fathers and reaſon, that ſingle life hath beene commended of ſome, commaunded of others. But that the Apoſtles commaunded it, hee prooueth not, and that hee tooke in hande. But on the contrarie, the Canons that are called the Apoſtles, hauehave this Canon,Can. 6, Let not a biſhop or Prieſt put awaie his wife, vnderunder pretence of religion. If hee doe it, let him bee excommunicated, if hee ſtande in it, let him bee reiected. But what ſaith maſter Bellarmine to this? He anſwereth out of one Humbert a Cardinall, that to put away his wife,de cler. li. … . cap. 2… . is to hauehave no care of his wife. But if we marke the fiftieth Canon of the Apoſtles wherein there is a prouiſo, that none ſhoulde abſtaine from mariage becauſe hee thinketh it to bee euill, it will eaſilie appeare, that the ſixt Canon was made, to ouerthwart the fooliſh opinion of them, that condemned mariage as a thing more vncleane, then that it ſhould be fit for prieſtes or biſhops. And thus much to proue, that mariage of prieſtes is not euill of it ſelfe, or vnlawfull in reſpect of any commandement in Gods word. Now that it is alſo lawfull, I am perſwaded by theſe reaſons. Firſt, becauſe of the vncertainety of the contrarie doctrine: for ſome ſay, that ſole life is commanded by God, others denie it as you hauehave heard. Againe there are, and thoſe papiſts too, that ſay the lawe of abſtaining from mariage,Fab. Tract. 4. in Luth. de mat. clear. for the clergie was firſt made by pope Siricius, who liued almoſt four hundred yeares after Chriſt, although Iohn Faber report that Calixtus forbad it ſomewhat before. But Bellarmine and others thinke in no wiſe that it may be ſuffered, that this their doctrine ſhoulde bee thought ſo farre ſhorte of the times of Chriſt, and his Apoſtles.

Some holde it a neceſſarie lawe,Bellarm. li. 1. de clericis, cap. 18. others but conuenient. And ſuch diuerſitie of doctrine in theſe and ſuch like pointes is, if not an inuincible, yet a verie probable proofe that their doctrine hath no ſure grounde in Gods word, no great conſent of antiquitie, and that is the cauſe that there is no certaine doctrine of it amongeſt themſelues, and ſuch is their agreement alſo concerning that other point, whether matrimony be a ſacrament or not. Secondly, the weakenes of their proofe, doth euen proclaime vntounto the world, the weakenes of their cauſe. For the moſt and beſt learned of them doe confeſſe that God hath not commanded it. And the proofes that they bring out of the Apoſtle for it, as it ſeemeth, hauehave ſo little waight in them, that Bellarmine is aſhamed to alleadge them. As for that ſmall holde that he could get out of the Apoſtles words,Tit. 1.8.Titus 1:8 That a biſhop ſhould be continent, how little it can helpe his cauſe, you hauehave heard before. Seeing therfore that either they bring nothing worth hearing out of Gods word, or apply vntounto the clergy only, that which the Apoſtle ſpeaketh to all men and weomen indifferently, (ſuch is all that they alleadge out of the 7. Chapter of S. Paules firſt epiſtle to the Corinthes) we are the leſſe bound to beleeue, whatſoeuer they out of the fathers ſhall teach vsus concerning this matter. Who themſelues doe charge vsus to examine by the ſcriptures their writings, and not to beleeue any thing that they ſhall teach, vnleſſe they teach ſuch things as are agreeable vntounto Gods word. Yea, ſince their arguments are ſo weake, that euen Panormitane and other papiſts whom Iohn Faber in ſome reſpects ſpareth to name, becauſe they ſaw no neceſſary conſequence in them (although they liued in daies of greater darckenes than wee do (God be praiſed for our light) indeuoured to obtain, that mariage might be lawful for the clergy. as Faber reporteth: yea and pope Pius the ſecond,Cont. Luth. Tract. 4. was ſo little moued by thoſe arguments, that he had wont to ſay, that there was great cauſe that prieſts ſhould be forbiddē to marry,Pla… . in the life of Pius. 2. but greater, that mariage ſhould be permitted vntounto them: and the Ambaſſadours of catholicke princes were earneſt ſuiters, in the names of their princes to the councell of Trent, that mariage might be free for the clergy Since theſe arguments (I ſay) were not able to perſuade theſe men ſo deuoted to p. 73their doctrines, as it is knowen they were, how much more may we reiect this their lawe, as hurtfull to Gods church, and iniurious to our wiſe Law-maker, and ſuſpect it not to reſt vponupon good ground. Thirdly, the moſt blaſphemous commendation that they giuegive vntounto this eſtate of life, and the efficacie and vertue, that impudently and vntruely they do aſcribe vntounto the ſame, maketh me thinke it is but a bird of their owne clecking, and that therein they ſeeke rather their owne praiſe than Gods glory. Becauſe thereby they teach men to looke for remiſſion of ſinnes, and make it a thing meritorious: and ſo they robbe Chriſt of his honour, and take from him his office, to attribute the ſame to the obſeruation of their vngodly lawe. And vntounto this reaſon which is taken from the euil fruit of their wicked doctrine, I might alſo adde the ſower grape of vngodly life that followed the ſame. Which made not Papiſts onelyonly, but euen the Pope himſelfe to wiſh the aboliſhing of that cruel lawe, and the remoouing of that dangerous ſtumbling blocke, as before you hauehave heard of Pius, the ſecond pope of that name. Nowe beſides theſe wants that wee finde in the contrary doctrine which may induce vsus to ſee the vnlikelihoode of the ſame, wee hauehave alſo the firſt inſtitution wherein it was ſaide to all without exception,Geneſ. 1.28.Gen 1:28 Increaſe and multiplie. Then alſo wee hauehave that generall aduiſe and counſell wherein the apoſtle aduiſeth all men and women, that it is better to marry than to burne:1. Cor. 7.9.1 Cor 7:9 which aduiſe the apoſtle giueth in reſpect of that common experience wherein wee finde it to be true that eueryevery man can not attaine to the gift of chaſtitie in ſingle life. Thirdly, wee hauehave alſo particular direction for biſhops by name, ſo permitting marriage vntounto them,1. Tim. 3.2 Tit. 1.6.1 Tim 3:2Titus 1:6 that no man can doubt therof, vnleſſe hee wilfully winke for feare he ſhoulde ſee the light of the trueth. Fourthly, we hauehave the practiſe of the prieſts in the olde lawe, who were married, although they had the daily ſacrifice to offer morning and euening. Almoſt all the apoſtles, and many biſhops of the Primitiue church alſo, if they will truſt Vicelius their owne friend, were married men. Therefore we may conclude, that for the clergie, as for other it is lawfull, that eueryevery man hauehave his owne wife, and eueryevery woman her own huſband▪ Wherupon it alſo followeth, that not only the Montaniſts, Maniches, Eucratians. Martioniſts, or ſuch like, who did wholy condemne marriage, or at the leaſt much miſlike the ſame, but alſo the papiſts who doe accompt it too impure for their clergie men, are amongſt the number of them of whom the ſpirit ſpeaketh euidentlie,1. Tim. 4.1.2.3.1 Tim 4:11 Tim 4:21 Tim 4:3 that in the latter daies ſome ſhal departe from the faith and ſhall giuegive heede to the ſpirit … error, and doctrines of deuils, who hauehave their conſciences burned with a hote iron, forbidding to marry. For although others may perchaunce in that point be worſe, yet that proueth not that they cannot be euill. And although the fathers doe expound this place, of thoſe heretickes that were before or in their time, yet is that no barre to vsus, but that we may in like maner confute thereby all them, who doe in any ſort condemne matrimony. But they ſaie they condemne not matrimonie, neither force men to ſingle life. Whether they hauehave drawen men to their vowes or not,Bellarm. de cler. li. 1. cap. 20. let the world iudge. But it is but a ſhift to ſaie, they denie not mariage. They deny it to that whole eſtate, in ſo much as in Queene Maries time, we hauehave ſeene the clergy forced, either to leaue their function and miniſtery, or to forſake their wiues. So that although they ſay not to any man or woman particularly, thou ſhalt in no wiſe marry, yet they deny it to that eſtate of life, which needs muſt be in the worlde, as not holy enough for them, wherein if they were well examined, they would be found to conſpire with thoſe auncient heretickes.