Work More Work and a Little More Work for a Mass-Priest, Correspondence
Here followeth the Letter of an vnknowne Priest, remaining in London, ſent to the Authour, excepting againſt fiue points in this booke.
To Mr. Alexander Cooke at Leeds in York-ſhire.
MAſter COOKE, with the like deſire of your ſpirituall good, as of mine owne, I addreſſe this briefe letter vntounto you, in ſtead of larger anſwere to your booke now twice augmented: which in the firſt Impreſsion you call: Worke for a Maſſe-prieſt: in the ſecond, More Worke for a Maſſe-prieſt: and in the third, Yet more Worke for a Maſſe-prieſt. All which ſheweth your zeale againſt the Romane Church, againſt the Sacrifice of Maſſe, and all the Romane Catholicke religion: but neither diſproueth the ſame which you ſo hate, nor proveth your contrary opinions to bee grounded in truth. Neither doe you herein obſerue any forme or good method of doctrine, whereby to diſcuſſe which is the true Church of Chriſt, what aſſurance of truth it hath, nor how neceſſarie it is, that every one, which deſireth to bee ſaved, muſt bee a living member thereof: and therefore no marvell that no Catholike hath hitherto beſtowed labour and coſt to anſwere in print your confuſed triviall obiections. Which of how little importance they are, and vponupon how ſilly ſurmiſes, you impute errours to the Catholike Religion, may ſufficiently be conceived by examination of a few of them: For example, all proceeding from one ſpirit. See then, deare Sir, your faults committed in your firſt obiections; and ſo I ſhall ſuppoſe you will be as loath to hauehave the reſt diſcuſſed, as I hold it ſuperfluous to proceede further in confuting them.
Firſt, our noble King reporteth (ſay you) that his mother ſent word to the Archbiſhop who did baptize him, to forbeare to vſe ſpittle in his baptiſme; for ſhe would not hauehave a pockie Prieſt to ſpit in her childes mouth. Marke, I pray you, foure manifeſt vntruths in theſe words. For His Maieſtie could not, at the time of his baptiſme, know what meſſage his mother ſent to any man, but onelyonly hath heard ſince what ſome other hath reported: therefore it is a manifeſt vntruth to ſay, His Maieſtie reporteth that, which he cannot, and therefore doth not report.
Secondly, it is incredible that the Catholicke Queene would forbid the ceremonie of ſpittle, which holy Church vſeth.
Thirdly, it is doubtleſse a wicked lie, to ſay, that ſhe called the Archbiſhop a pockie Prieſt.
Fourthly, ſhe could not ſay, and conſequently would not ſay, that the Prieſt ſpitteth into the childes mouth. For the ſpittle is not ſpit into the childs mouth, but is gently put to his mouth with the Prieſts finger; which ceremonie holy Church vſeth, amongſt others, by imitation of Chriſts example, putting ſpittle and duſt vponupon a blind mans eyes, and putting his finger into the eares, and touching the tongue of a deafe and dumbe man whom hee cured.
To theſe foure, you adde three more vntruths in your firſt obiection, againſt the worthy Cardinall Bellarmine: firſt, you vntruly tranſlate his wordes, where hee ſaith: Non eſt verum, eâ ceremoniâ ſalivam Presbyteri in os infantuli inſpui: which words in true Engliſh are theſe: It is not true, that by that ceremonie the Prieſts ſpittle is ſpit into the childes mouth: for which you would make him to ſay thus: It is not true, that the Prieſts ſpittle vſed in Baptiſme is put into the childes mouth.
Secondly, you vntruly charge him to denie that ſpittle is put into a childes mouth, for he denieth it not to be put, but to be ſpit into the mouth of the baptized.
Thirdly, you vntruly conclude that the Cardinall calleth his Maieſties report into queſtion, which he doth not, but their report that told his Maieſtie ſo incredible a thing.
In your next obiection you vntruly charge the ſame renowned Cardinall Bellarmine to contradict both our noble King, and Pope Pius Quintus. For neither doth hee name our King in thoſe words which…your ſelfe here cite, ſaying onelyonly in generall: Non eſt verum, nomen Cardinalis ademptum alijs, & ſolis Romanis reſervatum: It is not true that the name of Cardinall is taken from others, and reſerved onelyonly to Romanes. Neither doth he contradict the Popes decree, the tenure whereof declareth, that the eminent and proper title of Cardinall belongeth to the onelyonly Cardinalls Colledge of Rome, and not to any other Church. Nevertheleſſe, the name Cardinall in a leſſe dignitie, and leſſe autoritie, is given to other Eccleſiaſticall perſons in the Church of Toledo: whoſe Archbiſhop, & alſo the Archbiſhop of Compoſtella, are ordinarily Cardinalls of Rome.
In your third obiection you charge the ſame gracious Cardinall with a lie, for ſaying: Nefas eſt apud Proteſtantes quenquam creari Epiſcopum, niſi vnius ſaltem vxoris virum: which hee reporteth as their generall practiſe according to their common doctrine, not allowing the vow and obligation of ſingle life. And albeit ſome of your Biſhops doe not marrie, yet they doe not binde themſelues from marrying. And the farre greater part hauehave taken wiues, the reſt hold it vnlawfull to vow perpetuall chaſtitie.
In your fourth, you charge all Catholickes with vntruth, for ſaying, that all the Apoſtles were continent from their wiues, after they followed Chriſt; which is clearely gathered by our Saviours wordes, naming wiues amongſt other things, which his Apoſtles had left for his ſake. Againſt which cleare teſtimonie you oppoſe improbabilitie, as you imagine, that Saint Peters daughter could not bee beautifull at the age of ſixty eight yeares, to wit, in the ninety eight yeare of Christ. But perhaps there is an errour in the number, and for ninety eight ſhould hauehave beene written the ſixty eighth yeare of our Lord: and then ſhee was but thirie eight yeares of age. Alſo ſhe might be faire and beautifull at ſixty eight yeares of age, which is more reaſonable to be ſuppoſed then to denie the plaine aſſertion of the Goſpell,Mat. 19. 27▪ that the Apoſtles left all things for Chriſts ſervice, and namely their wiues. By the way alſo obſerue, that Saint Peters daughter dwelt & died in Rome, where Count Flaccus a Roman deſired to marry her; which is a ſigne of Saint Peters reſiding there ſometimes, beſides many more euident proofes and monuments teſtifying the ſame.
In your fifth obiection you would proue that all notable Biſhops did not liue continent from their wiues whom they had married before Prieſthood, by the words of Saint Gregorie Nazianzen, bringing in his father in a verſe, ſaying thus vntounto him: Nondum tot anni ſunt tui, quotiam in ſacris mihi peracti ſunt victimis; Thou haſt not yet ſo many yeares as are paſſed with me in holy ſacrifices. Which muſt either bee vnderſtood in ſome other ſenſe, then of the yeares of Saint Gregories age, or elſe it ſhould be contrary to his cleare affirmation, ſaying in his funerall oration, that himſelfe was borne before his father was either Prieſt or baptized. And ſo being reaſonable to interprete his verſe by his proofe, this inſtance will not ſerue your turne. But it ſheweth evidently, that his father was a ſacrificing Priest. And ſuch are Maſſe-prieſts whom you ſo contemne, becauſe we offer the holie ſacrifice of Maſse.
And this may ſuffice to ſhew by example of your fiue firſt obiections how feeble and frivolous the reſt alſo are. And therefore Maſſe prieſts are imployed in better workes then to loſe good time in anſwering your idle queſtions: And your ſelfe may be better occupied in ſeeking the true Church, and the infallible authoritie thereof, and ſo returning into the ſame, may ſaue your ſoule, which I wiſh you to doe with all my hears. From London this Feaſt of Corpus Chriſti. 1623.
Yours to ſerue you in Ieſus Chriſt, Th. Bl. a Maſſe-prieſt.
Now come wee to the anſwere of the ſaid letter, returned vntounto the Prieſt within twelue dayes after the receipt thereof.
SIR Maſſe-prieſt, I received the letter which you (as you phraſe it) addreſſed vntounto mee, in ſtead o… larger anſwere vntounto a booke of mine, intitled: Yet more Worke for a Maſſe-prieſt. In which letter you taxe me in generall, with confuſion of matter, with want of forme and good Method; with propoſing feeble, and frivolous, and triviall obiections, and idle queſtions; with imputing errours to your Catholike Religion vponupon ſilly ſurmiſes; with failing in proofe of my owne opinions, and diſprooving yours: All which I paſſe over as words of Courſe, holding opinion; That generall and naked accuſations of adverſaries, deſerue not ſo much as generall and naked denialls: the rather, for that you ſhow a great deale of ſimplicitie, and ignorance, in the particulars, wherein you vndertake to let me ſee my faults committed: for I take it no breach of charitie, to thinke, that he hath nothing to ſay for proofe of his generall aſſertions, who ſaith nothing to purpoſe for proofe o… his ſpeciall.
Now that you hauehave nothing to ſay to purpoſe for proofe of your ſpeciall accuſations againſt mee, I doubt not to make it plaine to your owne ſelfe, though foreſtalled with preiudice. For thus at the firſt ruſh you bring me in ſaying: Our Noble King reports, that his mother ſent word to the Archbiſhop who did baptize him, to forbeare to vſe ſpittle in his Baptiſme, for ſhe would not hauehave a pockie Prieſt to ſpit in her childes mouth. And preſently you crie: Marke, I pray you, foure mainfeſt vntruthes in theſe wordes: yet the proofes you make thereof are ridiculous: for in way of proving the firſt, thus you argue; His Maieſtie could not at the time of his Baptiſme know what Meſſage his Mother ſent to any man, but onelyonly hath heard ſince what ſome other hath reported. Therefore it is a manifeſt vntruth to ſay, His Maieſtie reporteth, His mother ſent word to the Archbiſhop, &c.
Which Argument of yours is braineleſſe; for it preſuppoſeth, that no man can report any thing from the report of another. No man can report any thing which was done about the time of his Birth, and Baptiſme; much leſſe before he was baptized, and borne. If this Argument of yours bee good, I cannot report what laſcivious talke paſſed betweene an Engliſh woman, and Aeneas Sylvius (who not long after was poped, and called by the name of Pius 2.) in an Inne at Strawsburgh, where they caſually met: I cannot report, how he wiſhed her, when ſhee went to bed, to leaue her chamber doore vnbolted, promiſing hee would come and lie with her, as indeede he did: ſhe proving with childe vponupon that nights meeting: I cannot report, that this Aeneas Sylvius committed the bringing vp of that child thus begotten, to his father, wondring that his father was not glad, that by it (though got in whoring) he was made a grandfather: for at the time of my Baptiſme, I knew no more of this, then his Maieſtie at the time of his Baptiſme knew what Meſſage his Mother ſent to any man. Only I hauehave heard ſince, what ſome other, or rather, what Aeneas Sylvius himſelfe hathaEpiſt. 15 Genitori de ſuo filio, inter opera Sylvij, impreſſ. Baſil. pag. 510, 511. written hereof.
At the time of my Baptiſme, I knew not that any man had written,bIoh. Raulins ſer. 31. de poeni. tentia, impreſſ. Pariſ. 1514. Qui ſunt Romae, et prope loca in quibus habentur magnae Indulgentiae, & vbi ſunt mag…a peregrinagia, quia prope remedia habent, communiter ſunt peſsimi: That they who dwell at Rome, and neere vntounto ſuch places where large Indulgences are granted, & whereunto there is greateſt reſort of Pilgrims, are commonly the worſt people, becauſe they hauehave ſo preſent remedies. I knew not at the time of my Baptiſme, that any man had written,cMolinaeus teſte Gregorio Capuccino in Enchirid. Eccleſ. impreſſ. Venetij▪ 1588. Quàm periculoſum Principi habere Conſiliarios Papiſticos: It is very dangerous for Princes, to hauehave popiſh Counſellours. I knew not then that any was ſo evill conceited of the Romanes, that they ſhould write,dSalvianus Maſſil. Epiſcopus de gubernat. Dei lib. 6. Vbi Romani, ibi vitia: where Romanes come, there is roguerie enough. OnelyOnly ſince I hauehave heard, or rather read ſo much in others. And therefore if your Logicke be good, I cannot report theſe things: hee, who (though I told them) ſhould ſay, I did report them, ſhould ſay a manifeſt vntruth. But if this be a groſſe conceit (as doubtleſſe it is) you muſt acknowledge you did me wrong, yea your ſelfe wrong, in charging me with vntruth: for ſaying, Our Noble King reporteth, &c. though he knew not at the time of his Baptiſme what Meſſage ſhe ſent to any man, &c. for therin you belied me, and bewrayed much weakneſſe in arguing.
But perhaps you hauehave quit your ſelfe better in proving the ſecond vntruth wherwithall you charge me.
Truly never a whit: for you gather the vntruth wherewith you charge me, from thoſe words, wherin I report from our Noble King, That his Mother forbad the vſe of ſpittle in Baptiſme: and your onelyonly reaſon to convince me of vntruth therein is, for that (as you ſay) it is incredible the Catholicke Queen would forbid the Ceremonie of ſpittle which holy Church vſeth. Which anſwer firſt preſuppoſeth, that he is chargeable with vntruth, who reports any vntruth from another: elſe how can I bee charged with vntruth, who am the reporter onelyonly from another man what was ſaid? Secondly, this preſuppoſeth, that holy Church vſeth to put ſpittle into their mouthes who are baptized: elſe, why ſhould the practiſe of holy Church bee mentioned to proue that a Catholicke Queene would not forbid ſuch a Ceremonie? But theſe are falſe ſuppoſitions; for which concerns the firſt: That every man is not chargeable with vntruth who reports an vntruth, it is plaine by Scripture, wherein many vntruths are truly reported. As for example, Gen. 37. 33, Moſes truly reports that Iacob ſaid, A wicked beaſt had devoured his ſonne Ioſeph: though indeed it was vntrue that a wicked beaſt had devoured Ioſeph. Secondly, that holy Church, your holy Church, vſeth not to put ſpittle into their mouthes who are to bee baptized, all your bookes, which ſpeake of the Ceremonies vſed in Baptiſme at this day, generally doe witneſſe: but eſpecially your Cardinall Bellarmine; for he ſaith expreſſely,Apolog. pro … ſua ad magnae … Brit. Regē, cap. 7… ▪ that ſolùm aures & nares ſalivâ tanguntur: the eares and noſtrills onelyonly are touched with ſpittle in Baptiſme. Neither hee, nor any other writer in this age, knew of any ſpittle, which was put into the mouthes of ſuch as were to be baptized. And therefore the ſecond vntruth, which you would faſten on me, returnes vponupon your ſelfe, accompanied with Arguments proceeding from a little head.
And ſo will the third vntruth wherewithall you charge me, returne likewiſe: for it conſiſts in this, that I ſay, Our noble King reports, his Mother ſaid ſhee would not hauehave a pockie Prieſt to ſpit in her childes mouth. Which, as you ſay, (but proue not) is doubtleſſe a wicked lie. For to ſuppoſe it were a wicked lie (which I beleeue not) what is that to me? It is true I ſay, Our noble King reports it. If there were an vntruth in it, yet I ſhould be innocent of it. But why Sir Maſſe-prieſt, are you ſo confident, that it is doubtleſſe a wicked lie, ſhe called him a pockie Prieſt? I hope you doubt not, but that your Church, notwithſtanding her holineſſe, hath had many pockie Prieſts: and perhaps ſhe knew more by him then either you or I: Sure I am, that his Maieſties grandfather (who as ſome of you ſay was a Catholike) hanged him within a few yeares after for an arrant Traytor: And if an arrant Traytor, why not a pockie Prieſt? And if hee being a Catholike hanged him; why might not ſhe (though a Catholike) call him pockie Prieſt?
The fourth vntruth wherewithall you charge me is, That I ſay our noble King reports, his Mother ſaid, the Prieſt ſpitteth in the childes mouth; for ſhee could not ſay ſo, and con…equently would not ſay ſo, ſay you: whereof you giuegive this reaſon, viz. That the ſpittle is not ſpit into the childes mouth, but is gently put into the childes mouth with the Prieſts finger.
In this, Sir Prieſt, you ſhew your ſelfe a young Prieſt, and one of little skill in your Pontificalls, and of ſmall practiſe in your profeſſion: for at this day, and in thoſe Countreys, there is no ſpittle put into any childs mouth by any manner of way, as before I noted: though if it vvere as you ſay, my credit is no vvay tainted by this, for I onelyonly relate it as from our King, in vvhoſe booke you may finde it.
Here by the way you take occaſion to tell, how your holie Church vſeth this Ceremonie by Imitation of Chriſts example, putting ſpittle and duſt vponupon a blind mans eyes, and putting his finger into the eares, and touching the tongue of a deafe and dumbe man whom he cured.
Which note you might more honeſtly hauehave paſſed by, then made, conſidering it bewrayeth a great deale of foolerie in your holy Church. For is it not foolerie to vſe your ſpittle in baptizing, becauſe our Saviour Chriſt with his ſpittle made a kind of clay, by which hee miraculouſly cured a man that was blind? Is it not foolerie, to touch with your ſpittle the eares and noſtrills of ſuch as are to bee baptized; becauſe our Saviour Chriſt touched the eares and the tongue of one whom he cured of deafneſſe and dumbneſſe with his ſpittle? Is your ſpittle anſwerable to his ſpittle? Is there any wiſdome, in applying that to ſpirituall vſes, which he applyed onelyonly to corporall? to doe that ordinarily, which he did onelyonly once extraordinarily? to doe that to every one, which he did to one onelie? To omit, that notwithſtanding your ſhew of imitating him, you neither vſe Clay in Baptiſme, nor touch the tongue of the baptized, as he touched the tongue of the dumbe. Methinkes this your imitation is Apiſh: certainlie you hauehave no warrant for it from antiquitie: the holie primitiue Church knew no ſuch Ceremonie in Baptiſme. Wherefore I ſubſcribe to him who ſaid, Your ſpittle is fitter for the Spittle, then for the Church. And let this ſerue for anſwere vntounto the firſt fower vntruthes which you thought you did ſee, but did not ſee, in the firſt words of my firſt obiection as you call it.
To the foure former vntruthes, you ſay, I hauehave added three more againſt Bellarmine. The firſt whereof is, that I vntrulie tranſlate his wordes, making him ſay thus: It is not true, that the Prieſts ſpittle vſed in Baptiſme is put into the childes mouth: Whereas he ſaith no more in true Engliſh then: It is not true, the Prieſts ſpittle is ſpit into the Childes mouth.
But this is one of your fooleries, and no vntruth of mine: My tranſlation of his wordes is anſwerable to his meaning; for he fanſied no difference betweene ſpitting in, and putting in of ſpittle: Hee knew no vſe of ſpittle for any part, but for eares and Noſtrills. Solùm aures & nares ſalivâ tanguntur, ſaith your Cardinall.
And the anſwere which I make to this ſuppoſed vntruth, may ſeeme to cleere me from the next vntruth, wherewithall you charge me: If ſo be there be any difference betweene the one, and the other, which my wit ſerues me not to ſee. For, ſecondly you ſay, you vntruely charge him to deny, that the ſpittle is put into a childs mouth, for he denyeth it not to be put▪ but to be ſpit into the mouth of the baptized. For, if ſolùm aures et nares tanguntur ſalivâ, then ſpittle is neither ſpit in, or put in.
The third vntruth againſt Bellarmine wherewithall you charge me is, I vntruely conclude, the Cardinal calleth his Maieſties report into queſtion, which he doth not, but their report who told his Maieſtie ſo incredible a thing.
To which I anſwere, That his Maieſtie reporting all that I report from him, without any intimation, that he had it by information of others, (though no doubt hee had it from others) your Cardinall anſwering thereto ſaith, Non eſt verum &c. Its not true &c. Which argueth your Cardinall calleth his Maieſties report into queſtion, and no other perſons: for there is no mention in your Cardinals words of any third perſon. And ſo of the ſeven vntruthes wherewithall you charge me, you hauehave not proved one.
In my ſecond obiection, as you call it, you ſay: I vntruely charge your Cardinal with contradicting both our Noble King & Pope Pius Quintus. And firſt in way of proving, that your Cardinall did not contradict our Noble King, you tell me: that he names not our King in the words I cite, ſaying only in generall: Non eſt verum, nomen Cardinalis alijs ademptum, ac ſolis Romanis reſeruatum. It is not true that the name of Cardinal is taken from others, and reſerued only to Romaines.
In rendring which reaſon you ſhew your ſelfe a ſtrange man, in that you require to the contradiction of one another a particular naming of the perſon contradicted. You affirme I made ſeven vntruthes in my firſt inſtance; I ſay, not naming you, but ſpeaking in generall, yet anſwering you: Non eſt verū, &c. It is not true, that I made ſeven vntruths. Do not I▪ for all the generality of my ſpeech, contradict you? Now ſuch is the caſe of our King, and your Cardinall; our King ſaith, that the title of Cardinall, Prieſts and Deacons, is reſtrained onelyonly to the Pariſh Prieſts and Deacons of Rome: your Cardinall anſwering thereto ſaith, Non eſt verum, &c. Doth not your Cardinall contradict his Maieſty, though he name him not? I am ſure hee denies that to bee true, which his Maieſtie affirmes to bee true, and is not that to contradict him?
In way of proving that I vntruly charge your Cardinall with contradicting the Popes decree, you tell me: That the tenure of your Popes decree declareth that the eminent and proper title of Cardinall belongeth to the onelyonly Cardinalls Colledge of Rome, and not to any other Church: Neuertheleſſe the name Cardinall in a leſſe dignitie, and leſſe authoritie, is given to other Eccleſiaſticall perſons in the Church of Toled….
But the words cited in my booke, are too pregnant to bee avoided with ſuch a watriſh diſtinction, of eminent, and leſſe eminent Cardinalls. For the Author having noted that ſome Churches, beſides the Romane, had certaine Prebends which were called Cardinalls, as namely, Compoſtella, Ravenna, Millan, and Naples: and there were two ſorts of Cardinalls, viz. Papae, & Epiſcoporum; ſome made by the Pope, ſome by Biſhops; doth thereupon take occaſion to make mention how Pius quintus in ſu… diplomate hoc nomē in omnibus alijs Eccleſiis praeterquā in Ro. extinxit, & ſolū Cardinalis nomē cōpetere voluit Cardinalibus S. R. E. à Papa creatis. By which is plaine, Pius 5. cried downe all Cardinals which were not of the Popes making, and by conſequent which were not Cardinalls of the Church of Rome; He decreed that none but Cardinals of the Church of Rome, ſhould be called ſo in proper, or improper ſenſe.
In the next inſtance, which you call my third obiection, you ſay I charge your Cardinall with a lie, for ſaying: Nefas eſt, &c. The Proteſtants hold it an heynous offenſe to make any man a Biſhop, who is not at leaſt the husband of one wife. But you cleere him not from lying. OnelyOnly you tell me, that he reporteth that, as the Proteſtants generall practiſe; according to their common doctrin, not allowing the vow and obligation of ſingle life: meaning, he ſo ſaid of Proteſtants, becauſe they generally teach, that it is not ſafe to vow to liue vnmarried.
Which is a poore defence of him, for it is one thing to teach, that it is not ſafe to vow to liue vnmarried: and another thing to ſay, that of neceſſitie a man muſt marrie. We teach, Clergie men may marry, they need not vow againſt marrying: but we teach not, that Clergie men muſt marrie. This was Vigilantius errour, if Ierom miſreport him not: from which wee are cleered by your Maſters of Rhemes, Annot. in 1 Tim. 3. 2. and by our practiſe, for, as I hauehave noted in my booke, we hauehave at this preſent, and had heretofore, many wiue-les Biſhops.
Neither makes it any thing to your purpoſe, that the farre greater part hauehave taken wiues; and that all hold it vnlawfull to vow perpetuall chaſtitie, for that is not the poynt wherewithall Bellarmin chargeth vsus, and for which his charging of vsus, I thinke he deſerues the Whetſtone.
In my fourth Inſtance, you ſay, I charge all Catholikes with vntruth, for ſaying, That all the Apoſtles were continent from their wiues after they followed Christ. Wherein you ſay truly, for indeed I charge them ſo. But you cannot anſwere my Argument, whereby I convince them of vntruth. OnelyOnly you ſay, that perhaps Petronilla (vponupon whoſe age my Argument is grounded) was but thirtie eight yeares of age, and not ſixtie eight, as I ſay, when Count Flaccus, doted on her for her beautie, there being an errour in the number: but to proue an errour in the number, you neither giuegive reaſon, nor cite Authour, which argues your Anſwer is conceited.
Oh, but if I may beleeue you, your Catholicke aſſertion is clearely gathered by our Saviours words, naming wiues among other things which his Apoſtles had left for his ſake. And therfore my Argument though probable is not to be beleeved.
The Apoſtles left their houſes, as wel as their wiues; for they left all, ſaith Saint Peter, Mat. 19. 27. yet they kept their property in their houſes ſtill: elſe how is it written Math. 8. 14. That Ieſus came to Peters houſe: and Ioh. 19. 27. That Iohn tooke the virgin Mary home vntounto him: and that Mathew Luke 5. 29. made our Saviour a great feaſt in his owne houſe, even after it is written of him, that he left all and followed Chriſt▪ Now, if they might keepe their houſes, notwithſtanding their leaving all, why not their wiues alſo? vnleſſe you can ſhew they were more ſtrictly tyed to their houſes, then to their wiues.
Againe, the forſaking of all, and in ſpeciall of wiues, whereof our Saviour ſpeakes Math. 19. 29, is ſuch a forſaking, as is required of all Chriſtians: for our Saviour having told his Apoſtles what reward they ſhould hauehave for forſaking all: hee goeth on, ſhewing that not onelyonly they, but all ſuch as leaue their wiues for his names ſake, ſhould bee bountifully rewarded. But you dare not ſay, that all Chriſtians are ſo to forſake al, as that ever after they muſt liue continent from their wiues.
Thirdly, the forſaking of all, commended by our Saviour, implies forſaking of brethren, and children, as well as of wiues, Math. 19. 29. And yet it bindes not men to refuſe (when occaſion ſerveth) performance of Offices and kindneſſe to their brethren, and children. And why then ſhould it reſtraine men from performance of husbandly Offices and kindneſſe to their wiues, in time and place?
The truth is, men are not bound to forſake all, except they cannot keepe them with performance of their dutie to God: they are not to forſake the lawfull vſe of ſuch things as they hauehave, vnleſſe the enioyment of them may hinder them in Gods ſervice. Now what can living with a mans wife, hinder a man in Gods ſervice, ſeeing the bed is vndefiled? Heb. 13. 7.
In my fifth obiection (as you call it) I would proue, you ſay, That all Biſhops did not liue continent from their wiues whom they had marryed before▪ Prieſthood. And in this you ſpeake truely. But to my Argument fetched out of Gregory Nazianzens diſcourſe in verſe of his owne life, to proue my aſſertion, you anſwer weakely. For to the words which I alledge, importing plainely: that Gregorie Nazianzen had not liued ſo many yeares (much leſſe Caeſarius his younger brother) as his father Gregory had lived a Biſhop: you anſwer only, That he cleerely affirmes in his funerall Oration, That himſelfe was borne before his father was either Prieſt or baptized, which you can never proue. He made one Oration, at the funerall of his father: an other, at the funerall of his brother Caeſarius: a third, at the funerall of his ſiſter Gorgonia: a fourth, at the funerall of his friend Saint Baſil. Doe me the favour to write me out the words, wherein he ſo cleerely affirmes that which you ſay, and let me know in which of theſe funerall Orations I may find them. In the meane, I reſt perſwaded there is no ſuch thing. In which perſwaſion I am the more confident,To. 6. de ha…re. Ca. 40. becauſe S. Auſtin witneſſeth, that even in his time, the Catholicke Church had many both Clergie men, and Monkes, who lived with their wiues like married men. And wee reade,Socrat. Hiſt. lib. … Cap. 8. it was agreed vponupon in the firſt Nicen Councel, That it ſhould be left to every Clergie mans choiſe, whether hee would forbeare, or keepe company with his wife to whom he was married.
And thus, Sir Prieſt, you hauehave my Reply to your Prieſtly Anſwer: which I deſire you to weigh with indifferency, if you hauehave any fa…lty in this kinde of Controverſiall …, whereof I finde no ſhew in this your Anſwer. Elſe▪ you may thinke your owne thoughts, and follow your owne courſes; and doe well to leaue theſe diſputes to quicker wits, and to ſuch as hauehave beene trained vp in theſe ſtudies: for doubtleſſe, by ſuch ſcribblements as this you ſent me, you vvill never giuegive anie of your ovvne friends, nor anie of my opinion, any reaſonable ſatisfaction. And ſo vviſhing the ſalvation of your ſoule, vvith like affection you ſeeme to vviſh mine, I reſt,
Yours, ſo farre forth as you are Gods and the Kings: ALEXANDER COOKE.
FINIS.
End of the text · Alexander Cooke, Work More Work and a Little More Work for a Mass-Priest (1628)